St William of York [Illustrated] 1903153174, 9781903153178

Citation preview

St William of York

YORK MEDIEVAL PRESS

York Medieval Press is published by the University of York’s Centre for Medieval Studies in association with Boydell & Brewer Limited. Our objective is the promotion of innovative scholarship and fresh criticism on medieval culture. We have a special commitment to interdisciplinary study, in line with the Centre’s belief that the future of Medieval Studies lies in those areas in which its major constituent disciplines at once inform and challenge each other.

Editorial Board (2005–2008): Professor J. G. Wogan-Browne (Dept of English and Related Literature) Dr T. Ayers (Dept of History of Art) Professor P. P. A. Biller (Dept of History) Dr J. W. Binns (Emeritus, Dept of English and Related Literature) Dr Gabriella Corona (Dept of English and Related Literature) Professor W. M. Ormrod (Chair, Dept of History) Professor J. D. Richards (Dept of Archaeology). All enquiries of an editorial kind, including suggestions for monographs and essay collections, should be addressed to: The Director, University of York, Centre for Medieval Studies, The King’s Manor, York, YO1 7EP (E-mail: [email protected]). Publications of York Medieval Press are listed at the back of this volume.

St William of York

Christopher Norton

YORK MEDIEVAL PRESS

© Christopher Norton 2006 All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner The right of Christopher Norton to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

First published 2006

A York Medieval Press publication in association with The Boydell Press an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9 Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 3DF UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue Rochester NY 14620 USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com and with the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of York ISBN 1 903153 17 4 A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Typeset by Word and Page, Chester

Disclaimer: Printed in Great Britain by Cromwell Trowbridge, Some images in the printed version ofPress, this book are notWiltshire available for inclusion in the eBook. To view these images please refer to the printed version of this book.

CONTENTS List of Illustrations List of Tables List of Genealogical Tables Preface Abbreviations

vi viii viii ix xi

Introduction

1

1

William fitzHerbert

5

2

William the Treasurer

27

3

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate

76

4

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate

124

5

Saint William

149

Epilogue

202

Appendix A. The Family and Estates of Herbert the Chamberlain

203

Appendix B. Paulinus of Leeds and the Family of Ralph Nowell

229

Appendix C. An Itinerary of William fitzHerbert

239

Bibliography Index

243 257

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view these images please refer to the printed version of this book.

ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1. Map showing Herbert the Chamberlain’s estates in Southern England.

10

Drawing: Pat Gibbs

Fig. 2. Map showing the Archdeaconry of the East Riding and the Yorkshire estates of Herbert the Chamberlain.

13

Drawing: Pat Gibbs

Fig. 3. Map of Winchester c. 1110.

18

Drawing: Pat Gibbs, based on Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, ed. M. Biddle (Oxford, 1976), fig. 26.

Fig. 4. Map of York in the early twelfth century.

21

Drawing: Pat Gibbs, based on C. Norton, ‘The York Fire of 1137: Conflagration or Consecration?’, Northern History 34 (1998), 194–204, map 1.

Fig. 5. Map of the Minster area in York in the early twelfth century.

22

Drawing: Pat Gibbs, based on C. Norton, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Cathedral at York and the Topography of the Anglian City’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association 151 (1998), 1–42, fig. 2.

Fig. 6. Anglo-Saxon wall-paintings on the chancel arch of the church of Nether Wallop, Hants.

52

Photograph: © Crown copyright. NMR.

Fig. 7. Drawing of the inscribed sun-dial at Weaverthorpe Church.

53

Drawing: W. G. Collingwood, reproduced from J. Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe Church and Its Builder’, Archaeologia 72 (1922), 51–70, fig. 3.

Fig. 8. Plan of Weaverthorpe Church.

55

Drawing: John Bilson, reproduced from J. Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe Church and Its Builder’, Archaeologia 72 (1922), 51–70, fig. 1.

Fig. 9. Weaverthorpe Church from the south-west.

56

Photograph: reproduced by permission of English Heritage. NMR.

Fig. 10. Weaverthorpe Church, interior looking east.

56

Photograph: reproduced by permission of English Heritage. NMR.

Fig. 11. Map of Weaverthorpe village. Drawing: Pat Gibbs, based on T. C. H. Brewster, ‘An Excavation at Weaverthorpe Manor, East Riding, 1960’, YAJ 44 (1972), 114–33, fig. 2.

59

Fig. 12. Map of Yorkshire in the mid-twelfth century.

101

Drawing: Pat Gibbs.

Fig. 13. The tomb of Archbishop Godfrey de Ludham.

108

Photograph: © Crown copyright. NMR. Reproduced by kind permission of the Dean and Chapter of York.

Fig. 14. Seal of Archbishop William fitzHerbert (Durham Cathedral Muniments 4.1 Archiep. 7).

110

Photograph: reproduced by kind permission of the Dean and Chapter of Durham.

Fig. 15. Siculo-Arabic casket at York Minster.

119

Photograph: reproduced by kind permission of the Dean and Chapter of York.

Fig. 16. Map of Winchester c. 1148.

126

Drawing: Pat Gibbs, based on Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, ed. M. Biddle (Oxford, 1976), fig. 27.

Fig. 17. The St Cuthbert or Stonyhurst Gospel Book.

141

Photograph: British Library, reproduced by kind permission of The Society of Jesus (British Province).

Fig. 18. Plan of York Minster in William fitzHerbert’s time.

145

Drawing: Stuart Harrison.

Fig. 19. Map showing the origins of individuals cured at the tomb of St William in 1177.

157

Drawing: Pat Gibbs.

Fig. 20. Engraving by Henry Cave of the west wall of St William’s Chapel on Ouse bridge during demolition.

167

Photograph: Gordon Smith, from H. Cave, Antiquities of York (London, 1813), pl. 27.

Fig. 21. The opening page of the Vita Sancti Willelmi, from Thornton Abbey (British Library, MS Harley 2, f. 76r).

182

Photograph: by permission of the British Library.

Fig. 22. Engraving by Joseph Halfpenny of St William’s Chapel on Ouse bridge. Photograph: Gordon Smith from J. Halfpenny, Fragmenta Vetusta, or the Remains of Ancient Buildings in York (York, 1807), pl. 22.

196

TABLES 1

The 1177 miracles

154

2

Posthumous miracles in the Vita

189

3

Herbert the Chamberlain’s estates

228

GENEALOGICAL TABLES 1

The family connections of Herbert the Chamberlain and his wife Emma xiii

2

The FitzHerbert family in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries

xiv

3

The FitzHerbert family in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries

xv

4

The family of Ralph Nowell and Paulinus of Leeds

xvi

PREFACE This book was researched and written during my tenure of a British Academy Research Readership between October 2002 and September 2004. My first and greatest debt is to the British Academy for making it possible to immerse myself in the complexities of the twelfth century free from the routine distractions of university life. I am equally indebted to my colleagues in the History of Art Department of the University of York for making it possible for me to take leave of absence from the usual obligations of teaching and administration during this period. Special thanks are due to the staff of York Minster Library, particularly Mrs Deirdre Mortimer and Mr John Powell, who, together with the Minster Archivist, Mr Peter Young, provided a service of unfailing courtesy and efficiency, even during circumstances of the greatest difficulty. The excellent resources of the Minster Library and Archives provided convenient access to most of the materials required for the research. Additional resources were provided by the University of York Library, to whose staff I am equally indebted. I have benefited enormously over the years from discussions with and help from many colleagues at the Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of York. In particular, Dr Sarah Rees Jones, Professor David Smith, Dr James Binns and Chris Daniell have assisted on a number of points of detail, and Mrs Louise Harrison has provided unfailing and ever-cheerful service on the word-processor. Professor David Palliser has also advised on a number of issues. My scholarly debt to previous labourers in the field of twelfth-century ecclesiastical history will be apparent on every page that follows. Any tares that remain are my own responsibility. This project was originally undertaken as essential background research for a study of the early fifteenth-century stained glass window in York Minster illustrating the life and miracles of St William of York. It rapidly became apparent, however, that much of the historical spadework on William fitzHerbert and such key sources as the Vita of St William had yet to be done, and that it required far more extensive treatment than could possibly be fitted into a preliminary chapter in a book on the St William Window. The result will, I hope, stand on its own merits. I also hope that time will permit a detailed examination of the St William Window on another occasion. In the meantime, the opportunity to study the stained-glass panels as they pass through the workshop during the current programme of conservation and restoration has been a constant inspiration, and I am most grateful to the staff of the York Glaziers Trust for providing access to the glass ix

and for many stimulating discussions. By a happy coincidence, this book is due to appear about the time that the completed window is unveiled. Last but not least, this book would never have been completed without the constant support of my wife, Sue.

x

ABBREVIATIONS AY BAACT Chronica Pontificum CRR CS

DB EEA EEA V EEA XX EEA XXVII EHD II

EHR EYC I–III

EYC IV–XII Gervase

HCY I–III

Historia Abbendonensis

The Archaeology of York British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions Chronica Pontificum Ecclesiae Eboracensis in HCY II, 312–445 Curia Regis Rolls, I–VIII (London, 1922–38) Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, I, AD 871–1204, Part II, 1066–1204, ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C. N. L. Brooke (Oxford, 1981) Domesday Book English Episcopal Acta English Episcopal Acta, V, York 1070–1154, ed. J. Burton (Oxford, 1988) English Episcopal Acta, XX, York 1154–1181, ed. M. Lovatt (Oxford, 2000) English Episcopal Acta, XXVII, York 1189–1212, ed. M. Lovatt (Oxford, 2004) English Historical Documents II, 1042–1189, ed. D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenaway, 2nd edn (London, 1981) English Historical Review Early Yorkshire Charters, vols 1–3, ed. W. Farrer (Edinburgh, 1914–16), with Consolidated Index, ed. C. T. Clay and E. M. Clay, YASRS Extra Series 4 (1942) Early Yorkshire Charters, vols 4–12, ed. C. T. Clay, YASRS Extra Series 1–3 and 5–10 (1935–65) Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica, in The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, I, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 73 (London, 1879) The Historians of the Church of York and Its Archbishops, 3 vols, ed. J. Raine, RS 71 (London, 1879–94) Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis: The History of the Church of Abingdon, II, ed. J. Hudson, OMT (Oxford, 2002)

xi

Abbreviations Hugh the Chanter

John of Hexham

Miracula OMT PR 1130

PR 1159–

PUE II–III RCHM Red Book Roger of Howden RRAN I–III

RS SS TRHS VCH Vita William of Newburgh

YAJ YASRS

Hugh the Chanter, The History of the Church of York 1066–1127, ed. C. Johnson, M. Brett, C. N. L. Brooke and M. Winterbottom, revised edn, OMT (Oxford, 1990) John of Hexham, Historia in Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, ed. T. Arnold, II, RS 75 (London, 1885) Miracula Quaedam Sancti Willelmi, in HCY III, 531–43 Oxford Medieval Texts Magnum Rotulum Scaccarii, vel Magnum Rotulum Pipae de Anno Tricesimo-Primo Regni Henrici Primi, ed. J. Hunter (London, 1833) The Great Roll of the Pipe AD 1158–1159, Publications of the Pipe Roll Society, I (1884), and subsequent volumes for subsequent years Papsturkunden in England, II–III, ed. W. Holtzmann (Berlin, 1935 and Göttingen, 1952) Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England Red Book of the Exchequer, 3 vols, ed. H. Hall, RS 99 (London, 1896) Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene, 4 vols, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 51 (London, 1868–71) Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066–1154, Volume I, ed. H. W. C. Davis (Oxford, 1913); Volume II, Regesta Henrici Primi 1100–1135, ed. C. Johnson and H. A. Cronne (Oxford, 1956); Volume III, Regesta Regis Stephani ac Mathildis Imperatricis ac Gaufridi et Henrici Ducum Normannorum, 1135–54, ed. H. A. Cronne and R. H. C. Davis (Oxford, 1968) Rolls Series Surtees Society Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Victoria County History Vita Sancti Willelmi Auctore Anonymo, in HCY II, 270–91 William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, I, ed. R. Howlett, RS 82 (London, 1884) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series

xii

Emma alive 1130

=

Adela/ Sibyl (mistress of Henry I) alive 1157

Herbert the Chamberlain d. c. 1120

Herbert = fitzHerbert d. 1148 x 1155

William other children fitzHerbert archbishop of York d. 1154

Margaret (betrothed to Robert of Normandy) d. c. 1062

Herbert II count of Maine d. c. 1062

Hugh II count of Maine d. 1051

Herbert Wake-Dog count of Maine d. 1036

=

Elizabeth

Theobald IV count of Blois d. 1152

Stephen = Adela count of Blois d. 1102

Theobald III count of Blois d. 1089/90

Stephen king of England d. 1154

Robert Guiscard d. 1085

=

Henry of Blois bishop of Winchester d. 1171

Sibyl

Henry de Sully abbot of Fécamp

William

Robert = duke of Normandy d. 1134

Hugh = Heria

Azzo marquess of Liguria

William the Conqueror d. 1087

Gersendis =

Geoffrey of Conversano

daughter

Tancred of Hauteville

Genealogical Table 1. The family connections of Herbert the Chamberlain and his wife Emma

Roger duke of Apulia d. 1149

Roger II king of Sicily d. 1154

Roger I count of Sicily d. 1101

Sibyl Corbet alive 1157

=

Reginald fitzHerbert d.s.p. 1192

Alice daughter of Robert fitzRoger

Cont’d

1 =

Emma alive 1130

Isabel de Ferrers widow of Roger Mortimer I d. 1252

Herbert fitzMatthew d.s.p. 1245

2 Peter fitzHerbert = d. 1235

Peter fitzMatthew d.s.p. 1255

Matthew fitzHerbert = d. 1231

William de Mandeville

Joan

Matthew fitzJohn = d.s.p. 1309

John fitzMatthew alive 1282

Eleanor alive 1316

Gervase

Osbert

Hunger son of Odin of Broad Windsor

Arnulf = ? daughter d.s.p.?

= Mabel Patric

Herbert fitzGeoffrey alive 1148

Gilbert Geoffrey fitzHerbert fitzHerbert alive alive 1111 1109 x 1114

Henry fitzHerbert occurs 1158-65

daughter = Robert de Venuiz

Lucy daughter and co-heir of Milo, earl of Hereford d. 1219 x 1220

daughter = William Croc

Herbert fitzHerbert II = d. winter 1203-4

Herbert William fitzHerbert I fitzHerbert d. 1148 x 55 archbishop of York d. 1154

Robert fitzHerbert d.s.p. 1165

Reginald, earl of Cornwall d.1175 William alive 1187 Gundred Rohese Alexander I = Sibyl d.1122 of Scotland d.s.p. 1124

Henry I d. 1135

Robert Corbet of Alcester

Herbert the Chamberlain = d. c. 1120

Genealogical Table 2. The FitzHerbert family in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries

=

=

William de Ros d. 1264

Margaret d. 1356

daughter

2 = Isabel de Ferrers widow of Roger Mortimer I d. 1252

daughter

Walter fitzReginald portioner of Pontesbury alive 1277-8

Roger fitzPeter

Peter fitzReginald of Chewton d. 1322

Isabel = Reginald fitzPeter = Joan de Vivonne daughter of d. 1286 d. 1314 William de Braose heiress of Blenlevny

Peter fitzHerbert d. 1235

Reginald fitzHerbert

Herbert fitzJohn d. 1321

John fitzReginald of Blenlevny alive 1308

Herbert fitzPeter d.s.p. 1248

Matthew fitzHerbert d.s.p. 1356

Lucy alive 1266

1 Alice = daughter of Robert fitzRoger

Cont’d

Edmund fitzReginald

Reginald fitzHerbert d. 1347

Robert earl of Derby deprived 1266

= Maud de Ferrers d. 1299

Herbert fitzReginald

William de Vivonne d. 1259

1 2 Sibyl = William = daughter of de Ferrers William earl of Derby Marshall earl d. 1254 of Pembroke

Genealogical Table 3. The FitzHerbert family in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries

William, lord Ferrers of Groby d. 1371

Henry, lord Ferrers of Groby d. 1343

William Ferrers d. 1325

William Ferrers of Groby d. 1287

Margaret daughter and coheiress of Roger de Quincy earl of Winchester

Gilbert canon of Ripon

Peter priest of Wakefield

Adam the priest

Thomas

Ralph Nowell bishop of the Orkneys alive 1154

2 =

1 ? = Ralph Nowell alive 1227

Agnes daughter and heiress alive 1278

Peter

?

=

Paulinus of Leeds d. c. 1202

Hugh

Robert of Wilstrop

Richard

1 Helen = Wilstrop

daughter

Gerard parson of Stokesley

Lefwin = Juliana le Gras de Marisco

Thurwif

Genealogical Table 4. The family of Ralph Nowell and Paulinus of Leeds

John (Nowell) chaplain de Marisco

Walter chaplain de Marisco

Introduction

St William of York is one of the more obscure saints of medieval England. Even in the city whose name he bears he is less well known than his younger contemporaries Aelred of Rievaulx and Thomas Becket. If he is remembered at all, it is as likely as not for the miracle of Ouse bridge – surely one of the least remarkable miracles in the annals of hagiography – or for the unedifying mystery surrounding his death. Outside York, few people have ever heard of St William – unless they be twelfth-century ecclesiastical historians, among whom he has achieved a certain notoriety as the man at the centre of one of the most protracted and convoluted election disputes ever to have afflicted the English church. For cognoscenti of ecclesiastical rows, the ‘case of St William of York’, as it has come to be known from the title of a famous article by Dom David Knowles,1 has assumed the status of a classic. And not without reason. The election of a new archbishop of York developed from being a little local difficulty into an international cause célèbre involving kings, cardinals, popes and several men who were subsequently to be reckoned as saints, all divided between the different factions. Yet the intense spot-light which has been shone on the election dispute has tended to leave in the shadows other aspects of William fitzHerbert’s career. For thirty-five years prior to his consecration as archbishop of York, William held the twin offices of treasurer of York Minster and archdeacon of the East Riding. These decades have generally been passed over more or less in silence, on the grounds that the details of his early career are few;2 yet his family connections and lengthy ecclesiastical apprenticeship are by no means as poorly documented as has been supposed, and are essential for understanding the troubled, final years of his life. The procedural twists and turns surrounding William’s election and consecration, his deposition, and his eventual return as archbishop inevitably constitute a dominant theme in the last decade and a half of his life, but there are other aspects of this period which equally merit attention. As for William’s canonisation and the early 1

2

D. Knowles, ‘The Case of St William of York’, Cambridge Historical Journal, 5.2 (1936), 162–77 and 212–14, reprinted with additional notes in his collected essays, The Historian and Character and Other Essays (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 76–97. D. Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi and the York Election Dispute’, in Councils and Assemblies, ed. G. J. Cuming and D. Baker, Studies in Church History 7 (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 82–100, at p. 98.

1

St William of York development of his cult as a saint, the considerable body of evidence which survives has never received the critical attention which it deserves. Modern assessments of William’s personal qualities have generally been at best disparaging, if not overtly negative. Wealthy, indolent and immoral is the not untypical view of one modern scholar.3 Derek Baker has been in a minority in suggesting that it was precisely William’s experience and competence which aroused the opposition at the start of the election dispute of ambitious clergy less well qualified than himself.4 The final years of William’s life were blighted by the opposition of the Cistercians and their allies, and his modern reputation has also suffered from what might be called a Cistercian tendency. William left no letters or other writings to counter-balance the contemporary effusions of his enemy, St Bernard. Even Bernard’s modern admirers have conceded that some of his letters on the subject of the York election dispute, and some of the aspersions cast on William fitzHerbert, are among the most forceful and extreme ever to have come from his pen. Yet such has been the power of Bernard’s rhetoric and the force of his reputation that William’s character has been blackened,5 in spite of the fact that his opponents failed repeatedly to prove any of the charges proferred against him in the ecclesiastical courts appointed to determine the case, until eventually the day arrived when the final arbiter (the pope) happened to be a Cistercian pupil of St Bernard. The general feeling that William was something of a worthless or unsavoury character is summed up by the opinion, attributed recently to a canon of York Minster, that he was ‘not the kind of saint we would wish to commemorate’. His name is surrounded by a faint but unmistakable aura of embarrassment and disapprobation. Certainly, William fitzHerbert divided his contemporaries, and he continues to divide opinion to this day. It has been no part of my purpose to rehabilitate him. If, however, the picture of him which emerges from these pages seems unexpectedly sympathetic, it is because I have been led to the conclusion that the judgements which have been passed on him have been very partial. Partial, firstly, in the sense that the extant sources relating to the election dispute are heavily biased in favour of his opponents’ point of view; and partial also in the sense that the election dispute, however significant in its own right, occupied only a small part of his life. William’s career spanned nearly five decades, during which he moved in the highest circles of politics and administration, both ecclesiastical and secular. The election dispute was the last but not necessarily the most difficult or harrowing of the intrigues and dramas through which he lived. William was not someone, like Bernard or Thomas Becket, who forced 3 4 5

G. V. Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, Bishop of Durham (Cambridge, 1956), p. 10. Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi’. See for example the comments in The Letters of St Bernard of Clairvaux, ed. B. S. James, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1998), p. 271.

2

Introduction himself upon the attention of his contemporaries by the strength of his character and his convictions. On the contrary, he seems, from the few hints that we have about his personality, at least towards the end of his life, to have been a mild-mannered and probably cautious man. Yet he had the knack of being at the right place at the right time and of meeting the people who mattered. William was a cleric of unexceptional abilities but privileged background and fortune. To what extent he actively affected the course of events in his lifetime is debatable; but, to borrow a metaphor beloved of medieval authors, he can be seen as a mirror of his world, in life and in death. His career and his canonisation both reflect and illuminate the aspirations, the struggles, the disappointments and the surprises of life in the upper echelons of the church in the twelfth century. Almost all of the sources cited in this study are available in printed editions. The majority of the narrative and chronicle sources were published in the nineteenth century, often in the volumes of the Rolls Series or the Surtees Society. In some cases these have now been superseded by modern editions. Even when recent editions do not exist, there are generally modern critical studies in print. It has therefore seldom been necessary to discuss the sources per se. As regards the specifically York or Yorkshire sources, however, the situation is less satisfactory. The majority of the relevant texts were printed by James Raine in the three volumes of The Historians of the Church of York in the Rolls Series between 1879 and 1894.6 His text of Hugh the Chanter’s History of the Church of York has now been superseded by the valuable critical edition and translation in the Oxford Medieval Texts series,7 but for other sources we are still dependent on Raine. The York Chronica Pontificum, for instance, would benefit from a critical edition and might be better known if it had been translated. I suspect that it would emerge as a more interesting source than it is usually thought to be. As for the early thirteenth-century Vita of St William and the collection of early miracles which pass under the name of the Miracula, they have never received any critical examination in print, and I have therefore devoted some space in Chapter Five to an analysis of these two key texts. For Alured of Beverley’s Annales we are still dependent on the 1716 edition by Thomas Hearne.8 For the years of the election dispute, the narrative sources are complemented by an important dossier of letters preserved among the correspondence of St Bernard, and by a handful of papal letters. This is the only phase of William’s life for which there exists a coherent historiography. The fundamental chronology of the years 1140 to 1147 was established by David 6 7 8

HCY. Hugh the Chanter. Aluredi Beverlacensis, Annales sive Historia de Gestis Regum, ed. T. Hearne (Oxford, 1716).

3

St William of York Knowles,9 and the relevant sources were discussed at length by Derek Baker.10 My analysis of the dispute in Chapter Three is deeply indebted to their fundamental studies, though my conclusions differ from theirs in important respects. Historians of twelfth-century Yorkshire are fortunate in the availability of charter evidence. As well as a significant number of published monastic cartularies, the magnificent series of volumes of Early Yorkshire Charters edited by Farrer and Clay is unsurpassed.11 However, the essential process of identifying individuals and refining dates still continues. For twelfth-century royal charters, the more recent volumes of the Regesta Regum AngloNormannorum are essential,12 and the on-going series of English Episcopal Acta has enormously facilitated analysis of episcopal charters. In particular, the York volume for the years 1070–1154 edited by Janet Burton, which covers the whole of William’s career and not just his archiepiscopate, has been invaluable for the present study.13 Whenever I have been able to suggest new identifications of grantees or witnesses, or to propose revised dates for the charters, I have presented the evidence in the footnotes. Likewise for revised identifications or dates for early Minster clergy and archdeacons, for which the published volumes of Fasti by Clay and by Diana Greenway remain fundamental.14 All of these works have been constantly by my side. One particularly laborious task has been the unravelling of the FitzHerbert family tree and the identification of the family estates. This has shed much new light on William’s family connections throughout his life; his links with the Nowell family, both in his lifetime and subsequently, have also proved illuminating. Those who wish to know the detailed evidence relating to the two families will find it set out in the Appendices.

9 10

11 12 13 14

Knowles, ‘St William’. D. Baker, ‘San Bernardo e l’elezione di York’, in Studi su S. Bernardo di Chiaravalle, Convegno Internazionale, Firenze 1974 (Rome, 1975), pp. 115–80. EYC I–III and EYC IV–XII. RRAN II–III. EEA V. C. T. Clay, comp., York Minster Fasti, 2 vols, YASRS 123–4 (1958–9), and D. E. Greenway, comp., Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066–1300, VI, York (London, 1999).

4

CHAPTER ONE

William fitzHerbert

William’s life revolved around the ancient cathedral cities of Winchester and York. He was brought up at Winchester, he was consecrated archbishop there, and it was to Winchester that he retreated for a number of years towards the end of his life. As a young man he moved to York, where he held the post of treasurer of the Minster for many years until he became archbishop, and it was to York that he ultimately returned to vindication and to death. Buried within the walls of the Minster, he was raised in due course to the ranks of the saints, and came to bear the name of his adopted city as St William of York. The move from Winchester to York was engineered by his father, who secured for him his initial appointment, and his family connections continued to affect the progress of his career almost until the end. It is therefore appropriate to begin in the traditional manner with some account of his family and background.

Family background William was the son of Herbert the Chamberlain and his wife, Emma. There has been no scholarly unanimity about their antecedents, but both Herbert and Emma, it appears, were illegitimate offspring of leading French comital families (Genealogical Table 1).1 Herbert’s father was probably Count Herbert II of Maine, the last of the ruling counts of Maine. The son of Count Hugh II (†1051) and grandson of Herbert Wake-Dog (†1036), Herbert II succeeded to the title as a boy. In 1061, following his mother’s advice, he came to an arrangement with Duke William of Normandy whereby, in the event of his dying without an heir, the county of Maine would pass to the Norman dukes. Shortly afterwards, Count Herbert conveniently died without having married. Herbert the Chamberlain is believed to have been a young illegitimate son of his, who would have fallen into the hands of Duke William along with the county of Maine. Brought up apparently under William’s tutelage, he made a career for himself in the royal administration in England, rising to become a senior treasury official and intimate advisor of Henry I. William fitzHerbert owed his appointment to York to his father’s influence at court. 1

The evidence for what follows is set out in Appendix A.

5

St William of York Herbert the Chamberlain’s wife, Emma, was seemingly an illegitimate daughter of Count Theobald III of Blois, who died in 1089 x 1090. She was therefore a half-sister of Stephen, count of Blois (†1102), who married William the Conqueror’s daughter, Adela; their son was the future King Stephen. William fitzHerbert was consequently a cousin of King Stephen and of his brother, Henry of Blois, the bishop of Winchester and sometime papal legate. The rise to power of the family of Blois in the 1130s was to have a decisive impact on the final phase of William fitzHerbert’s career: without it, his election to the archbishopric of York is unthinkable. But this is to anticipate. At the time of their marriage, probably in the early 1080s, Herbert and Emma, for all their family associations, would have had no prospect of inheriting either titles or lands. However, Herbert’s upbringing under the guardianship of William the Conqueror would have familiarised him with the workings of one of the most powerful régimes in eleventhcentury Europe. His appointment as royal chamberlain in the final years of the Conqueror’s reign provided him with the opportunity to make both his name and his fortune.2 The title ‘chamberlain’ implied a connection with the king’s camera or chamber, but in practice it could signify a variety of things.3 Some chamberlains held the title by right of inheritance, and probably had no more than occasional or symbolic duties consonant with a particular status at court. Other chamberlains held substantive offices in the royal administration. Furthermore, some men of the former category might for a while hold an office of the second type, and then revert to an honorific position on relinquishing that office. Herbert the Chamberlain held an administrative office of chamberlain attached to the royal treasury, and the title was subsequently passed to his descendants, without in their case implying any official administrative position. The association of the treasury with the chamber went back to the days 2

3

In two of the four mentions of Herbert in Domesday Book, the word ‘chamberlain’ is an addition, which may suggest that he was appointed to the post around the time the survey was being compiled (R. L. Poole, ‘The Appointment and Deprivation of St William, Archbishop of York’, EHR 45 (1930), 273–81). Herbert witnessed a charter in favour of Westminster Abbey dated 1095–6 x ante 1098 as Herbertus camerarius regis de Winton, according to J. A. Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster (Cambridge, 1911), p. 146 no. 27. However, Westminster Abbey Charters 1066–c. 1214, ed. E. Mason, London Record Society 25 (1988), p. 318 no. 488, reads this as Herbertus camerarius. Reg[inaldus] de Winton. See Chapter Two for the inscription at Weaverthorpe where Herbert is described as Herebertus Wintonie. On what follows, see G. H. White, ‘Financial Administration under Henry I’, TRHS 4th s., 8 (1925), 56–78; H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, The Governance of Medieval England from the Conquest to Magna Carta (Edinburgh, 1963), pp. 216–28; C. W. Hollister, ‘The Origins of the English Treasury’, EHR 93 (1978), 262–75, reprinted in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London, 1986), pp. 209–22; J. A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 30–5.

6

William fitzHerbert when the royal treasure was physically located in proximity to the king’s chamber. In time, however, it became no longer possible for the treasury to follow the royal person on his constant travels from one place to another, and throughout this period the royal treasury was based at Winchester. The association with the royal chamber or household was gradually broken, but the title of chamberlain continued to be used for the senior officials attached to the treasury. Herbert the Chamberlain was such a one, and spent much of his official life at Winchester, rather than following the monarchs on their incessant itinerations. By the end of Henry I’s reign, it appears that the treasury was administered by an official with the title of treasurer, supported by two chamberlains of the treasury. Whether this formal arrangement was an innovation of Henry I’s, or whether it was the continuation of a system which went back to the time of William the Conqueror or even earlier, has been a matter of intense debate. It is also partly one of terminology, and there has been much discussion as to whether Herbert the Chamberlain held the title of treasurer or not.4 What is certain is that he was a long-serving treasury official, who was in charge of the royal treasury at Winchester for much of Henry I’s reign, until he fell from grace in 1118. He died a year or two later.5 We catch glimpses of some of Herbert’s activities in the later years of William Rufus and under Henry I.6 He witnessed various royal and other charters and from his position in the witness-lists among the clergy we learn that he was in clerical orders.7 He was the recipient of a number of royal charters and writs, one of which dates from the start of Henry I’s reign (perhaps issued at the time of his coronation). Addressed to Eudes the steward and Herbert the Chamberlain, it orders them to ensure that the convents of Westminster, Winchester and Gloucester be issued with full livery from the king on those festivals (i.e. Christmas, Easter and Pentecost) when the king wore his crown in their churches. Their precentors were also to 4

5 6

7

White, ‘Financial Administration’, Richardson and Sayle, Governance of Medieval England, pp. 216–28, and Hollister, ‘Origins of the English Treasury’, take different views on Herbert the Chamberlain’s title. John of Hexham, p. 317, says that William was filius Herberti Wintoniensis, thesaurarii Henrici Regis, but it is not clear if the title as such was applied to Herbert the Chamberlain in his lifetime. See below, Chapter Two and Appendix A. J. Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe Church and Its Builder’, Archaeologia 72 (1922), 51–70, and references cited in n. 3. Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. W. Dugdale, revised edn ed. J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel, 6 vols in 8 (London, 1817–30), IV, 16a, no. III = EEA VI, Norwich 1070– 1214, ed. C. Harper-Bill (Oxford, 1990), no. 12, dated 3 September 1101, and 17a, no. V = RRAN II, no. 547 given on the same day; see also Winchester in the Early Middle Ages: An Edition and Discussion of the Winton Domesday, ed. M. Biddle, Winchester Studies 1 (Oxford, 1976), p. 33. Other charters witnessed by Herbert the Chamberlain are RRAN II, nos 544, 548 and 1291. Also RRAN II, no. 550 = Historia Abbendonensis, pp. 76–9 (only the latter version including Herbert among the witnesses). See also the reference in n. 2.

7

St William of York have an ounce of gold.8 The crown-wearing ceremonies were major events in the political calendar, and Herbert’s role in organising them is one indication of his importance in the royal administrative hierarchy. He was one of the commissioners appointed by the king to carry out a survey of royal properties in Winchester c. 1110, the resulting document being the so-called Winton Domesday.9 Also in 1110 he was the recipient of a writ from the king relating to the establishment of the New Minster community at their new site to the north of the city at Hyde Abbey.10 On a famous occasion in 1111, Herbert was a member of a court held in the treasury at Winchester in the presence of the queen (the king being absent), which voted in favour of Abbot Faricius of Abingdon in a dispute about the lands of the abbey. It is the first recorded occasion on which, it appears, Domesday Book was cited in evidence. Geoffrey fitzHerbert, who was also present at this session, was probably one of his sons.11 Herbert’s position provided him with opportunities for personal profit and family advancement. For example, following the death of the previous abbot of Abingdon in 1097, the estates of the abbey were held by the king until the election of Faricius in 1100. Faricius discovered that Herbert the Chamberlain had taken the opportunity to stake a claim to some lands which the monastery held at Leckhampstead in Berkshire and elsewhere. Herbert eventually relinquished the other lands, but managed to retain possession of 10 hides at Leckhampstead for the consideration of the paltry sum of one mark of silver. The Abingdon chronicler made a point of emphasising the difficulties that Faricius had in dealing with Herbert.12 Herbert seems to have developed the art of extracting properties from ecclesiastical institutions and offices whose estates passed temporarily into the king’s hands, or who suffered from temporary financial difficulties.13 In London, the canons of St Paul’s alleged that he had acquired one of their 8

9 10

11

12

13

RRAN II, no. 490. Other royal charters addressed to Herbert the Chamberlain are RRAN II, nos 946–8, 959 (= Historia Abbendonensis, pp. 166–7), 1379 and 1380. Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 10 and 33. RRAN II, no. 947; Property and Piety in Early Medieval Winchester. Documents relating to the Topography of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman City and Its Minsters, ed. A. R. Rumble, Winchester Studies 4.iii (Oxford, 2002), pp. 163–5. RRAN II, no. 1000, and Historia Abbendonensis, pp. 170–1. It may have been also at this time that Herbert the Chamberlain was one of a panel, including most of the same people, which advised the bishop of Winchester in adjudicating a claim relating to land at Alton and at Patney (Wiltshire) (EEA VIII, Winchester 1070–1204, ed. M. J. Franklin (Oxford, 1993), no. 18). On Geoffrey fitzHerbert, see also Appendix A. Historia Abbendonensis, pp. 62–3, 126–7 = RRAN II, no. 521, 196–9. K. L. Shirley, ‘Faricius of Abingdon and the King’s Court’, Haskins Society Journal 9 (1997) (published 2001), 175–84, emphasises Faricius’s frequent recourse to the king’s court to achieve his ends, but overlooks the fact that, in this case, he was outmanoeuvred by Herbert the Chamberlain. A full analysis of Herbert the Chamberlain’s estates is given in Appendix A.

8

William fitzHerbert properties improperly. He apparently got his hands on some estates belonging to Westminster Abbey, which were subsequently the subject of much dispute. He seems to have come to the help of the New Minster/Hyde Abbey community in Winchester during their complex change of site in such a way that he was inscribed (along with his wife Emma and another son called Arnulf) in a list of benefactors in their Liber Vitae,14 as well as ending up in possession of estates in Hampshire which had previously belonged to the abbey. Archbishop Thomas II of York, as we shall shortly see, found himself forced into making over substantial estates in Yorkshire to Herbert the Chamberlain in return for financial support at a difficult time. Herbert also acquired land from the king, presumably in return for his good service in the treasury. The Winton Domesday of c. 1110 also reveals Herbert the Chamberlain in possession of a significant portfolio of houses in prime locations in Winchester and its suburbs. In total these provided him with a rental income of £27 10s 9d from land on the royal demesne. All in all, Herbert the Chamberlain provides an interesting case study of the way in which one of Henry I’s ‘new men’ could amass a fortune for himself and an inheritance for his heirs. At the time of Domesday Book he had been a minor Hampshire landowner, holding two manors as tenant-inchief and two more as a sub-tenant. But by the time of his death he had accumulated extensive estates in Hampshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Yorkshire and probably Sussex (Table 3 and Figs 1–2). Some of the Berkshire and Hampshire estates had been settled on two of Herbert’s daughters, who had married into families established by two of William the Conqueror’s officials, Croc the huntsman and Geoffrey the marshal. Three of Herbert’s sons, Gilbert, Geoffrey and Arnulf disappear from the record, and may already have been dead. At any rate, the bulk of the estates passed to Herbert’s son and heir, Herbert fitzHerbert, and to his descendants, who can be traced in the male line to the middle of the fourteenth century.15 They all owed their inheritance to Herbert the Chamberlain, and many of them their name, since the name Herbert recurs frequently in the family tree. The later generations are of little direct concern to us here, though they are not without interest in themselves. They seem not to have adopted a surname, but for ease of reference the family will be referred to subsequently as the FitzHerberts with a capital F, the patronymic fitzHerbert with a lower case f being retained for the various children of the various Herberts. As for William fitzHerbert, he seems to have inherited some of his father’s

14

15

London, British Library, MS Stowe 944, f. 24v; see Liber Vitae: Register and Martyrology of New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester, ed. W. de Gray Birch, Hampshire Record Society (London, 1892), p. 50, and The Liber Vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey Winchester, ed. S. Keynes, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 26 (Copenhagen, 1996), f. 24v; and see Appendix A, n. 19. See Appendix A and Genealogical Tables 2 and 3.

9

St William of York estates in Wiltshire; but his principal inheritance was his ecclesiastical preferment. For it was Herbert the Chamberlain who secured for his son a lucrative appointment at York, namely the joint office of treasurer of the Minster and archdeacon of the East Riding.

Fig. 1

Map showing Herbert the Chamberlain’s estates in Southern England.

Appointment as treasurer and archdeacon Among the handful of extant acta of Archbishop Thomas II of York addressed to individuals is a grant of property in Yorkshire and Gloucestershire to Herbert the Chamberlain and his son. The significance of this charter for William fitzHerbert has been widely overlooked on account of a misidentification of the principal grantee in the standard editions of the charter. Farrer, followed recently by the editor of Thomas’s acta, identified the recipient as one of the witnesses to the charter called Herbert son of Aubry, who was a

10

William fitzHerbert tenant of the archbishop of York.16 However, it was correctly pointed out long ago by John Bilson, in an article better known to architectural historians than historians, that the grantees were in fact Herbert the Chamberlain and his son Herbert fitzHerbert (brother of William), to whose descendants the Yorkshire properties in question descended. The charter has been dated to 1109 x 1112, but Bilson plausibly suggested that it relates to the period at the very beginning of Thomas’s archiepiscopate.17 Thomas was elected on 27 May 1108. Shortly afterwards Archbishop Anselm invited him to come to Canterbury to be consecrated on 6 September. Thomas, however, requested a postponement, explaining that he had been delayed for longer than he had desired at Winchester, where he had used up all the money which he had allocated towards the costs of his consecration. He was finding it very hard to raise further funds, except by borrowing on unfavourable terms, because his predecessor, Archbishop Gerard (1100–8), had left the church of York in an impoverished state.18 This was merely the opening exchange in a renewed bout in the long-running tussle between Canterbury and York over the primacy. Thomas succeeded in procrastinating until the following spring, when Anselm died. He eventually accepted consecration at the hands of the bishop of London on 27 June 1109, and on Sunday 1 August he was invested with the archiepiscopal pallium at York by the papal emissary Cardinal Odalric.19 Archbishop Thomas’s lack of funds during the summer of 1108 was a pretext; it was not therefore untrue. An archbishop-elect was faced with very 16

17

18

19

EYC I, 35–6 (dated 1108 x 1114) = EEA V, 17 no. 15 (dated 27 June 1109 x 1112). Herbert the Chamberlain is, however, correctly identified in J. Burton, ‘William of York’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and B. Harrison (Oxford, 2004), LIX, 123–5. The confusion is perpetuated in other sources, including K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents 1066–1166, I, Domesday Book (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 249–50. Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe’, p. 60 n. 3 and p. 65 n. 9. Thomas’s charter was issued as archbishop, not archbishop elect, and it was witnessed by a number of Yorkshiremen. A likely date for its issue would be late summer or autumn 1109, following his consecration on 27 June, when he spent some time in York (EEA V, p. 113). Robert, provost of St John, one of the witnesses, must be Archbishop Thomas’s replacement for himself as provost of Beverley, and needs to be added to the list of provosts given in R. T. W. McDermid, comp., Beverley Minster Fasti, YASRS 149 for 1990 (1993), pp. 3–4. CS, pp. 694–704; Eadmer, Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule, RS 81 (London, 1884), p. 200; Sancti Anselmi Opera Omnia, ed. F. S. Schmitt, 6 vols (Edinburgh, 1938– 61), V, no. 444, see also nos 443, 445 and 453–6. CS, pp. 705–7. Eadmer, Historia Novorum, pp. 198–211, gives the Canterbury version of events; see also R. W. Southern, Saint Anselm and His Biographer: A Study of Monastic Life and Thought 1059–c. 1130 (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 127–42. For the York version, see Hugh the Chanter, pp. 24–57. For a modern account, see R. M. Haines, ‘Canterbury versus York; Fluctuating Fortunes in a Perennial Conflict’, in his Ecclesia Anglicana: Studies in the English Church of the Later Middle Ages (Toronto, 1989), pp. 69–105; also D. Nicholl, Thurstan, Archbishop of York (1114–40) (York, 1964), p. 42.

11

St William of York considerable expenditure: at court, at Canterbury in connection with his consecration, and in negotiations with Rome over his pallium, not to mention, in some cases, an actual visit to Rome to collect it from the pope in person. All this had to be funded before he had had a chance to accumulate sufficient revenue from the archiepiscopal estates. Already a century before, Archbishop Wulfstan had complained about the cost of going to Rome to collect his pallium; and Thomas’s successor, Archbishop Thurstan, was sufficiently sensitive to the problem that he made a point of building up a surplus at the end of his reign for his successor to draw on.20 So we need not doubt that Archbishop Thomas did have financial problems; and at Winchester, an obvious potential source of funds was the man in charge of the king’s treasury, Herbert the Chamberlain, whom Thomas would already have known from his time as a royal chaplain. As Bilson put it, there can be little doubt that the two would meet at Winchester – the impecunious archbishop, trying to raise money, and the wealthy chamberlain, ready to acquire property on advantageous terms. It is a tempting conjecture that the feoffment of the Yorkshire lands, which was a very considerable grant, was arranged during this visit of the archbishop to Winchester in the summer of 1108. And it is something more than a conjecture that it was this transaction which first introduced Herbert’s son William to the church of York, of which he became the treasurer.

Bilson cautiously avoided the conclusion that William’s appointment as treasurer was part of the accommodation reached between the chamberlain and the archbishop.21 However, if we examine more closely the Yorkshire properties which were made over to Herbert the Chamberlain (Fig. 2), it cannot escape notice that they are remarkably well adapted to support the office of someone who was at one and the same time treasurer of York Minster and archdeacon of the East Riding. The list of properties is headed by Londesborough with the adjacent village of Towthorpe, situated in the Wolds between Pocklington and Beverley.22 In Domesday Book they are listed, along with Goodmanham, as berewicks of Everingham, and they were in the possession of the archbishop. Much more substantial is the estate of Weaverthorpe with Helperthorpe and West and East Lutton, a group of four adjacent villages in the heart of the Wolds about nine miles north-west of Driffield. Associated with this second estate are 1 carucate in Thirkleby, 3 carucates in Sherburn, 5 carucates in Mowthorpe, 1 carucate in Ulkilthorpe by West Lutton, 4 carucates in Croom, and the church with ½ carucate in Cowlam, these all being settlements 20

21 22

J. M. Cooper, The Last Four Anglo-Saxon Archbishops of York, Borthwick Paper 38 (York, 1970), p. 16; Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 236. Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe’, pp. 64 and 67. EYC I, 35–6 = EEA V, 17 no. 15.

12

William fitzHerbert adjacent to the Weaverthorpe estate. There are also 3 carucates in nearby Birdsall. In Domesday Book all of these holdings are described as berewicks or soke of Weaverthorpe, and the extent of the two estates together totals 66 carucates, all in the possession of the archbishop. Domesday Book records the archbishop as holding about 950 carucates in the county of Yorkshire as tenant-in-chief, so the grant to Herbert the Chamberlain constituted a significant proportion of the archiepiscopal estates, and about half of his holdings in the East Riding.23 Finally, the grant includes a house in Beverley,

Fig. 2 Map showing the Archdeaconry of the East Riding and the Yorkshire estates of Herbert the Chamberlain.

and the church of St John Ogleforth in York (also known as St John del Pyke), together with the land between the church and a gateway which is evidently Monk Bar. A house in Beverley would be of little value on its own to an absentee landlord from Hampshire, but it would be extremely useful for an archdeacon of the East Riding. Beverley was the principal ecclesiastical centre

23

DB Yorks, ff. 302v and 303; VCH Yorkshire, III (London, 1913), 10–11; Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe’, pp. 59–60; M. Brett, The English Church under Henry I (Oxford, 1975), pp. 66–72, gives the value of the archiepiscopal estates in Domesday Book as £235 or £370, depending on the calculations.

13

St William of York in the archdeaconry, and one of the main residences of the archbishop of York (upon whom the archdeacon would be expected to attend regularly), not far from the main Humber crossing leading south to Lincoln.24 And of all the numerous properties in and around the city of York in the possession of the archbishop, it is striking that it is the church (with adjacent property) nearest to the Treasurer’s House, hard by the Minster, which is granted to Herbert the Chamberlain (Fig. 5). This would have been of obvious value to William the treasurer. No more than a stone’s throw from his official residence at York, possession of the church would enable him to appoint a cleric of his own choosing who could act both as William’s agent and factor while he was in residence, and as his deputy or vicar for his ecclesiastical duties while he was away from York. And not just during his absences. William was probably only a clerk in minor orders, and would therefore require a vicar to celebrate at the altar in his place even when he was in York. This very problem of unordained Minster clergy had formed part of a litany of complaints about the York canons and archdeacons addressed to Anselm by Archbishop Gerard only a few years before.25 It is hard to imagine Archbishop Thomas relinquishing a church and adjacent property so close to the core of the Minster estate in York to an absentee landlord who was likely seldom, if ever, to leave Winchester for York; it is equally hard to imagine that it would have had much value for Herbert the Chamberlain. But as part of a package which also involved giving the treasurership to Herbert’s son William the whole transaction makes perfect sense. William could act as family representative and steward for the Yorkshire estates, and would presumably benefit from them to some extent financially. The family estates, the house in Beverley and the provision for a vicar at York would provide valuable assistance for the performance of his duties as treasurer and archdeacon. For the archbishop, who found himself obliged to alienate a significant portion of the cathedral’s estates, there was at least the consolation that the church of York would continue to derive some benefit from them for as long as William remained in office. Given his age, this must have been a reasonable long-term prospect. Archbishop Thomas cannot, however, have been unaware of what he was signing away. He was the nephew of the first Norman archbishop of York, Thomas I of Bayeux, and had been the favourite at York to succeed his uncle on the latter’s death in 1100. Thomas of Bayeux had reorganised the chapter at Beverley Minster in 1092, and had appointed his nephew as provost. Like a York canonry, the Beverley provostship did not

24

25

VCH Yorkshire East Riding, VI (Oxford, 1989), 11–14, on the archbishop’s rights and residences at Beverley. HCY III, 23–6, and Sancti Anselmi Opera Omnia, IV, no. 255, dated 1103; see Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 43–4. EYC II, 93, no. 749, records a priest of the church of St John Ogleforth called Robert in a charter of c. 1160–5. He could have been an appointee of William. On William’s status, see below.

14

William fitzHerbert require residence, but it did involve financial oversight of the Minster’s affairs and the collection of thraves from the East Riding, including both the Londesborough and Weaverthorpe estates.26 The archbishop’s pecuniary embarrassment may have been caused not just by a lack of cash in hand left by his predecessor Gerard, but also by something which he could not publicly complain about to Anselm – royal control of the archiepiscopal revenues. The temporalities of the see of York would have passed into the hands of the king on Archbishop Gerard’s death, and may have been retained by Henry I as a means of exerting pressure on Thomas to make a profession of obedience to Canterbury.27 Thomas could therefore have been forced to negotiate with Herbert the Chamberlain as controller of the archiepiscopal revenues, and not merely as a promising source for a loan. Herbert had learnt from the case of Abbot Faricius of Abingdon (and doubtless others) how such a situation could be turned to personal advantage, while at the same time boosting the revenues of his royal master. And there could have been other motives closer to Henry I’s heart which would have united the interests of the king and his treasury official. Herbert the Chamberlain’s son and heir, Herbert fitzHerbert, married Sibyl (alias Adela or Lucy), daughter of Robert Corbet. She was one of Henry I’s numerous mistresses, and she bore him no fewer than five illegitimate children. These included Reginald, who was created earl of Cornwall in 1141, and Sibyl, who married Alexander I of Scotland soon after his accession to the throne in 1107. The younger Sibyl must have been born in the 1090s, and another of her brothers no later than 1105.28 Not all of Sibyl Corbet’s children by Henry I had necessarily been born by then, and their relationship may have continued over many years. As Herbert fitzHerbert was probably well into his twenties by 1108, it is a reasonable presumption that he and Sibyl Corbet were married by that date. The archbishop’s settlement of lands upon 26

27

28

EEA V, xxv–xxvi; Hugh the Chanter, pp. 26–7. On the provosts of Beverley, see McDermid, Beverley Minster Fasti, pp. xviii and 3, and VCH Yorks East Riding, VI, 16–17. Henry I’s notification to Anselm of Thomas’s election to the archbishopric of York, issued at Pentecost 1108 (RRAN II, no. 885 = HCY III, no. XV, wrongly dated Pentecost 1109) grants him the archbishopric with the sac and soc, toll and team, and infangthief, as held by Archbishop Thomas I at his death, plus any subsequent additions to the archiepiscopal demesne. However, a subsequent writ to Osbert the Sheriff, Nigel de Albini and the barons of Yorkshire granting to Archbishop Thomas all the rights enjoyed by his predecessors, dated by the editors to October 1109 (RRAN II, no. 917), suggests that the royal administration was not quick to make over all the rights pertaining to the archbishopric. A decade later, during the next phase of the primacy dispute at the start of Thurstan’s archiepiscopate, Henry I did not hesitate to disseize Thurstan of the archiepiscopal estates (which he had held as archbishop elect) even after he had been consecrated by the pope (Hugh the Chanter, pp. 67–8, and see Chapter Two). See Appendix A.

15

St William of York Herbert the Chamberlain and his son would therefore have been one way of the king providing for his mistress at no expense to himself. At the same time it would enhance the standing of the mother of the new queen of Scotland. The provision of estates in Yorkshire would have been most welcome to the family at a time when they could look forward to the further advancement of their interests in the north. And their new and potentially significant Scottish connections could hardly have been overlooked by Archbishop Thomas, in a period when the church of York was hoping to establish its primatial authority over the Scottish church. In the summer of 1108, playing for time in the dispute with Canterbury, Thomas claimed in his letter to Anselm that he was acting with the support of the king. By the early summer of 1109 Anselm was dead, but Thomas found himself under intense pressure from Henry I to be consecrated. It is not difficult to imagine that Herbert the Chamberlain could have found ways of increasing the pressure on the hapless archbishop and making him an offer which he was unable to refuse. Everything therefore points to the conclusion that the appointment of William fitzHerbert to the office of treasurer of York Minster and archdeacon of the East Riding was part of a complex set of negotiations which took place between the summer of 1108 and the summer of 1109 involving his father, Herbert the Chamberlain, Archbishops Thomas and Anselm, and Henry I. A not unfitting way, one may feel, for William fitzHerbert to make his first appearance on the public stage, in view of the long-drawn-out finale of his own archiepiscopate. In fact, the very first mention of William fitzHerbert can perhaps be found in a letter of Anselm written to Archbishop Thomas in the summer of 1108. Anselm states that he had received from the hands of a cleric called William a letter from Thomas, in which he had said that he was not sure if he would be able to make it to Canterbury for consecration on the date which Anselm had proposed. Anselm continues that William the messenger had then gone further and requested that the consecration be postponed.29 Of course, there were numerous clerics called William. But it is impossible not to wonder whether Herbert the Chamberlain had not supplied a messenger for the unfortunate Archbishop Thomas in the form of his son. It is a memorable image: the ambitious young cleric, and the ailing monk, author of some of the most profound theological meditations of the Middle Ages, both of whom, in the fullness of time, were to take their place among the archbishops in the communion of saints. If this was William fitzHerbert, what impression may the venerable archbishop have made on him?

29

Eadmer, Historia Novorum, p. 201; Sancti Anselmi Opera Omnia, V, no. 445.

16

William fitzHerbert

From Winchester to York There was nothing exceptional about William’s appointment to the church of York. Youth was no bar to ecclesiastical preferment. There are contemporary examples of men who were appointed to archdeaconries at an early age and remained in office for thirty-five or forty years. Some, like William, had no known connections with the diocese to which they were appointed. It was not unusual for the king to be involved in the choice of archdeacons.30 Henry I must have known William through his father, and he presumably approved the nomination, if he did not actively press it upon Archbishop Thomas. William had not necessarily progressed far through the ranks of the clergy. The office of archdeacon still carried with it connotations derived from the early church, where the office of deacon was primarily concerned with the church’s charitable functions and the administration of church property. An archdeacon was, at heart, a senior deacon, and those archdeacons whose orders can be established in this period were indeed deacons, not priests. A number of William’s archidiaconal contemporaries were only consecrated priest when they were elected to fill episcopal vacancies, and this was the case with William himself, even though as treasurer and a canon of the Minster, one of whose duties was to celebrate at the altar, he should have been in priestly orders.31 Whether William had risen even as far as deacon is open to question. The repeated insistence in ecclesiastical councils in 1102, 1125 and again in 1127 that archdeacons should have attained diaconal orders merely serves to indicate that this was not always the case, and in his 1103 letter of complaint to Anselm, Archbishop Gerard specifically referred to York archdeacons who were not even of diaconal rank. He also complained that some of the canons were refusing to proceed to major orders for fear that they would be required to adopt a life of celibacy, which they abhorred. A number of them had wives or concubines.32 Unlike his father, William was not, so far as we know, a married cleric, but there is nothing in his subsequent career to suggest that he took a strict view of the matter.33 Of William’s prior career we know nothing. In fact, he was too young to 30

31

32 33

For archdeacons in this period, see C. Brooke, ‘The Archdeacon and the Norman Conquest’, in Tradition and Change: Essays in Honour of Marjorie Chibnall Presented by Her Friends on the Occasion of Her Seventieth Birthday, ed. D. Greenway, C. Holdsworth and J. Sayers (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 1–19, and Brett, English Church, pp. 199–211. The Annales de Wintonia, in Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard, II, RS 36 (London, 1865), p. 54, report that William was both ordained priest and consecrated archbishop by Henry of Blois in 1143; see Chapter Three. See reference above, n. 25. A William, son of the archbishop, who witnessed a number of Durham charters, was thought to be a son of William fitzHerbert by Scammel, Puiset, p. 237. Lovatt, however, in EEA XX, xxx n. 7, suggests that he was the son of Archbishop Roger of Pont l’Évêque, which is more likely, since he only appears in the latter part of Roger’s archiepiscopate or later.

17

St William of York

Site of Hyde Abbey

Fig. 3 Map of Winchester c. 1110, showing principal sites and parish churches known to have been in existence at the time.

18

William fitzHerbert have had much of a career, being probably no older than his early to midtwenties at the time of his appointment.34 However, his upbringing at Winchester would have provided excellent opportunities for a young and aspiring member of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The ancient capital of the kings of Wessex, Winchester could still lay claim, as much as any city in the realm, to the title of capital, and it was dominated, both institutionally and physically, by those twin pillars of the Norman establishment, the church and the crown (Fig. 3).35 The low-lying south-eastern quarter of the city, bounded by defences on the line of the ancient Roman walls, was occupied by an ecclesiastical enclave which included not merely the cathedral, the cathedral priory and the bishop’s palace, but also the tenth-century monastic foundation of New Minster and the nunnery of St Mary, or Nunnaminster. These institutions were a tangible link with the great flowering of ecclesiastical culture associated with the so-called tenth-century reform and its continuation into the final decades of the Anglo-Saxon era. William may just have been old enough to remember the venerable Anglo-Saxon cathedral, the Old Minster, which was demolished in 1093–4. He would certainly have known the Anglo-Saxon church of the New Minster, situated hard by the north side of the ancient cathedral. But he would have been forcefully aware of the substitution of the old order by the new. New Minster was moved to its new, extra-mural site to the north of the city at Hyde in about 1110, and preparations for the move must have been in hand by the summer of 1108. More significant still was the construction of the vast new Norman cathedral on the south side of the Old Minster. It had been started by Bishop Walkelin in 1079, and William’s childhood passed against the background of the vast building site from which the new cathedral emerged – the eastern arm by the time of the consecration ceremony in 1093, the huge nave rising bay by bay through the early years of the twelfth century. In the summer of 1108, the cathedral was still grappling with the consequences of the catastrophic collapse of the central tower the year before. At the same time, the intellectual, literary and cultural inheritance of late Saxon Winchester, exemplified by the magnificent illuminated manuscripts of the so-called Winchester School, was being preserved, adapted and expanded in the libraries and schools of the ancient monastic institutions, now controlled by Norman churchmen. It was presumably at these schools that William fitzHerbert received his education, an education which, in principle, provided 34

35

The early-thirteenth-century Vita implies as much, borrowing the well-known words of St Paul to record that it was on his appointment as treasurer that he put away childish things (Vita, p. 271). The best account of Winchester in this period is in Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, supplemented by Property and Piety in Early Medieval Winchester. On the Old Minster and the Norman cathedral, see the essays in J. Crook, ed., Winchester Cathedral, Nine Hundred Years, 1093–1993 (Chichester, 1993), and references there cited, pending the definitive publication of the Old Minster excavations.

19

St William of York opportunities unsurpassed anywhere in the realm. William learned enough for a career in the higher ranks of the ecclesiastical administration, but he was no scholar. The Vita declares that the young boy did not blush to give his noble hand to the rod in the noble pursuit of knowledge. If this is anything more than a rhetorical flourish, it reveals more than it conceals. John of Hexham, in more lapidary style, reports that ‘he was nurtured always in luxury and riches, and was but little inured to toil’.36 All the same, William could have learned lessons which no school could teach from observing his father at work in the royal treasury. The precise location of the treasury at this period is open to debate. It may have been in the royal palace in the heart of Winchester, close by the west end of the New Minster and the cathedral. Or it may have been in the castle constructed by William the Conqueror on the high ground in the north-west corner of the city, from where it dominated Winchester both physically and symbolically. This was certainly the location of the treasury from about 1135 onwards.37 Herbert the Chamberlain may have started his career in the palace, and moved up the hill to the castle later on. His properties in the city, appropriately enough, were concentrated around West Gate, adjacent to the Conqueror’s castle, and in the High Street, which ran down from West Gate to the royal palace in the centre of the city.38 It was presumably in one of these houses that William fitzHerbert grew up, in daily proximity both to the monastic communities around the cathedral, and to the staff who manned the royal treasury. The numbers of royal administrators and courtiers would have been swelled significantly on those occasions when the king was in residence. Both William Rufus and Henry I in the first decade of his reign regularly spent time at Winchester. William fitzHerbert would have been old enough to remember the shock of William Rufus’s death in the New Forest in August 1100, and his burial in Winchester Cathedral, and he would have heard the gossip which attributed the collapse of the cathedral tower to the sins of the monarch who had been buried beneath it. He would also have witnessed at close quarters the ceremonial crown-wearing by the king at Eastertide. This ceremony, which his father helped to organise, took place at Winchester on a number of occasions over these years, including Easter 1108, shortly before Archbishop Thomas II was nominated to the see of York.39 Growing up in a city which housed some of the premier ecclesiastical establishments in the land, in a household which was closely involved with the highest levels of royal administration, and in a family which was

36 37 38 39

Vita, pp. 270–1; John of Hexham, p. 317, translation by Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe’, p. 66. Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 290–2, 295 and 304–5. Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 17–18; see also Appendix A. See above, n. 8; M. Biddle, ‘Seasonal Festivals and Residence: Winchester, Westminster and Gloucester in the Tenth to Twelfth Centuries’, Anglo-Norman Studies 8 (1986), 52–72; Green, Government of England, pp. 20–2.

20

William fitzHerbert intimately associated with the king – all this gave the young William, if he had eyes to see, a privileged insight into the world which he was about to enter. It was probably no coincidence that the post of treasurer to which he was appointed at York was the same (mutatis mutandis) as the office held by his father in the royal administration at Winchester. It was from Herbert the Chamberlain that he derived not just the appointment, but also, perhaps, the financial and political acumen to go with it.

Fig. 4 Map of York in the early twelfth century, showing churches known or believed to have been in existence at the time.

Superficially, at least, York had much in common with Winchester. The largest town in northern England, seat of the metropolitan of the northern province, and centre of royal power in the north, York could claim to be the regional capital (Fig. 4). As at Winchester, the topography was dominated by the cathedral and the royal castles, though at York the Conqueror’s twin motte-and-bailey castles stood on low-lying land to either side of the River Ouse, while it was the Minster which occupied the high ground. Begun by Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux probably a few years before Walkelin’s cathedral at Winchester, the Minster had been completed by the time of Thomas’s death in 1100. A vast aisleless barn of a building (Fig. 18), it may already have seemed rather old-fashioned to William fitzHerbert on his 21

St William of York arrival at York, compared to the far more sophisticated design of the cathedral at Winchester and other Norman churches in the south. All the same, Thomas of Bayeux’s cathedral was the largest stone building constructed in the north since the Roman period, and it could be seen for miles across the Vale of York, a far more visible symbol of the power of the new régime than the cathedral at Winchester, which nestles at the bottom of the valley.40

Fig. 5

Map of the Minster area in York in the early twelfth century.

The cathedral stood at the heart of an ecclesiastical quarter bounded on the north-west and north-east sides by the city defences, which followed the unbroken line of the Roman walls, in much the same way as at Winchester

40

D. Phillips, The Cathedral of Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux: Excavations at York Minster, II, RCHM (London, 1985); C. Norton, Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux and the Norman Cathedral at York, Borthwick Paper 100 (York, 2001), pp. 14–33. A further study of Thomas of Bayeux’s cathedral in the light of new evidence is currently in progress.

22

William fitzHerbert (Fig. 5). The close was divided between the archbishop on the one hand and the dean and chapter on the other, a topographical separation which reflected the division of responsibilities consequent upon the establishment of the new constitution at the Minster about 1090. The archbishop’s palace occupied an area to the north of the cathedral, running up to the northern corner of the city walls. The rest of the close, including the Minster itself, was under the control of the dean and chapter, and it contained a number of canons’ residences. The deanery lay to the south-east of the south transept, while the treasurer’s house, William’s official York residence, was situated on a large plot on the north side of the Minster. In keeping with the wealth and status of his office, the treasurer’s house became in due course the grandest of the canonical houses, though its appearance in the early twelfth century remains a matter of conjecture. Along one side, it was bounded by Chapter House Street, which turns at a right angle into Ogleforth. At the far end of Ogleforth stood St John del Pyke, the church which was given to Herbert the Chamberlain by Archbishop Thomas for William’s use. Between St John del Pyke and Monk Bar were the properties which formed part of the same donation. William must have become very familiar with this little corner of the close.41 The old Anglo-Saxon cathedral of St Peter had probably been demolished by the time of William’s arrival at York. So thorough was its destruction that even its location remains a matter of controversy. It most likely stood to the north of the nave of the Norman cathedral, on a different alignment, within an ancient square enclosure which had been incorporated into the archbishop’s palace. But some pre-Conquest buildings were probably still to be seen: the church of St Mary, for one, on the Anglo-Saxon alignment immediately to the north of the nave of the new cathedral, and perhaps an ancient church of St Andrew in the opposite corner of the old cathedral enclosure. Just outside the eastern corner of the square enclosure, between the north transept of the Norman cathedral and the treasurer’s house, there may have been the remains of an ancient Anglo-Saxon centrally planned stone building. Originally, perhaps, the eighth-century church of Agia Sophia, this may have been restored for use as a chapter house in the twelfth century.42 Another building of probably pre-Conquest origin stood to the south of the nave of the Norman cathedral, where the late-medieval parish church of St Michael-leBelfrey now stands. This appears to have been a wooden belfry with a chapel 41

42

This and the following paragraph resume the arguments in C. Norton, ‘The AngloSaxon Cathedral at York and the Topography of the Anglian City’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association 151 (1998), 1–42. See also C. Norton, ‘York Minster in the Time of Wulfstan’, in Wulfstan, Archbishop of York. The Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, ed. M. Townend (Turnhout, 2004), pp. 207–34, and Norton, Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux, pp. 4–14. I have developed the argument about the Agia Sophia more fully in ‘Alcuin’s York’, in Alcuin, ed. M. Garrison (forthcoming).

23

St William of York of St Michael associated with it – or a church of St Michael with a large belfry attached. From here, the cathedral bells rang out across the town to summon people to prayer – and to mark their passage from this life. For nearby, adjacent to the Minster south transept, were the remains of an AngloScandinavian cemetery, which eventually contracted to form the cemetery of St Michael-le-Belfrey.43 On the opposite side of Petergate stood the hospital of St Peter (later known as St Leonard’s Hospital). This occupied a plot of land in the angle within the city defences running south-west from Bootham Bar to the Multangular Tower at the corner and thence for some distance along the river-bank. The hospital was an ancient foundation whose pre-Conquest origins are largely obscure, but which became in time one of the richest hospitals in the country. It was closely connected to the Minster, and one of the subsequent masters of the hospital emerges as an enthusiastic proponent of the cult of St William.44 As a secular cathedral, the Minster had neither monastic community nor claustral buildings. However, the great Benedictine foundation of St Mary’s Abbey stood just outside Bootham Bar, facing the hospital across the city defences (Fig. 4).45 Its extra-mural location was comparable to that of Hyde Abbey at Winchester, to which the Benedictine monks of New Minster were in the process of transferring around 1110. Founded in 1088 in the presence of William Rufus, in fulfilment of his father’s intentions, St Mary’s Abbey became one of the wealthiest monasteries in northern England. The abbey church, still under construction when William came to York, was of a standard Norman design with aisled nave and an eastern arm with chapels en échelon. Completed in the 1120s, it was to be the setting for one of the most dramatic incidents in William’s life.46 The abbot of St Mary’s was a considerable figure on the local scene, regularly involved in business on behalf of the archbishop and the king. In the 1140s the abbot was to play a crucial part in smoothing the way for William’s consecration as archbishop.47 The ecclesiastical domination of an entire quarter of the city would not have seemed strange to William when he arrived at York. And York, like Winchester, was also studded with dozens of small parish churches, one of

43

44 45

46 47

D. Phillips and B. Heywood, ed. M. O. H. Carver, Excavations at York Minster, Volume I, From Roman Fortress to Norman Cathedral, RCHM (London, 1995). See below, Chapter Five. RCHM, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York, Volume IV, Outside the City Walls East of the Ouse (London, 1975), pp. xl–xliv and 3–24; C. Wilson and J. Burton, St Mary’s Abbey, York (York, 1988); C. Norton, ‘The Buildings of St Mary’s Abbey, York and Their Destruction’, Antiquaries Journal 74 (1994), 256–88; C. Norton, ‘The Design and Construction of the Romanesque Church of St Mary’s Abbey, York’, YAJ 71 (1999), 73–88; J. Burton, The Monastic Order in Yorkshire, 1069–1215 (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 32–43. See below, Chapter Two. See below, Chapter Three.

24

William fitzHerbert the most impressive of which (then as now) was St Mary Bishophill Junior, whose late-eleventh-century tower was one of the first buildings to come into view on the main road from the south. Just next to it, on entering through Micklegate Bar, the traveller passed the recent Benedictine foundation of Holy Trinity Priory. A dependency of the abbey of Marmoutier just outside Tours, its church was probably still under construction at this time.48 But outside York, the ecclesiastical, and particularly the monastic presence was much sparser than that to which William would have been accustomed. There was not a single nunnery anywhere in Yorkshire. Monastic houses generally were still very few and far between, and not one of the Yorkshire monasteries could boast a continuous history stretching back before the Norman Conquest. The topography of Yorkshire monasticism had, it is true, been completely transformed by the time of William’s death.49 This, indeed, was one of the most far-reaching and visible changes to the institutional church during his lifetime, but it should not blind us to the poverty of church institutions outside York when William first settled in Yorkshire. The only major ecclesiastical communities in Yorkshire with a distinguished preConquest history were the two archiepiscopal minsters at Ripon and Beverley. Of Ripon, very little is known at this date, and it impinged rather less on William’s career.50 Beverley, by contrast, was at the heart of his jurisdictional area as archdeacon of the East Riding. There he would have found a community of canons who had been reorganised by Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux in 1092 but who were still using the pre-Conquest church. The last two Anglo-Saxon archbishops, Kynesige (1051–60) and Ealdred (1060–9), had significantly enlarged the church, and had adorned it with a painted and gilded ceiling and with a new pulpitum screen supporting a crucifix of bronze, silver and gold. The architectural form of Beverley Minster at this time remains a matter of conjecture, but if the new work was on a par with some of the contemporary buildings in southern England, it could have been of some scale and sophistication. So far as is known, the eleventh-century church and its splendid fittings remained in use throughout William’s life.51 48

49 50

51

L. P. Wenham et al., St Mary Bishophill Junior and St Mary Castlegate, AY 8.2 (York, 1987); RCHM, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York, Volume III, South-West of the Ouse (London, 1972), pp. 10–16; D. A. Stocker, ‘The Priory of Holy Trinity, York: Antiquarians and Architectural History’, in Yorkshire Monasticism: Archaeology, Art and Architecture, from the 7th to 16th centuries, ed. L. R. Hoey, BAACT 16 (1995), pp. 79–96; Burton, Monastic Order, pp. 45–51. Burton, Monastic Order, passim. Memorials of the Church of SS Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon, I, ed. J. T. Fowler, SS 74 (Durham, 1882), and see below, Chapter Three. McDermid, Beverley Minster Fasti; R. Morris and E. Cambridge, ‘Beverley Minster before the Early Thirteenth Century’, in Medieval Art and Architecture in the East Riding of Yorkshire, ed. C. Wilson, BAACT 9 (1989), pp. 9–32; R. Horrox, ed., Beverley Minster, An Illustrated History (Beverley, 2000), esp. pp. 13–36. The nave of Beverley may have been rebuilt in the mid-twelfth century, perhaps in William’s lifetime, if some re-used

25

St William of York Beverley was a small town dominated by the Minster and the archbishop. At York, the ecclesiastical interests, for all their importance, were balanced by those of the crown and the citizens. But the kings were rarely seen in York, and their occasional visits evoked very different memories from their regular appearances and crown-wearings at Winchester. Henry I, a regular visitor to Winchester in the early years of his reign, is recorded at York only once in thirty-five years, in 1122. Earlier royal visits were associated with tense, if not catastrophic, political or military developments. William Rufus came to York just once, at the very start of his reign. Almost immediately afterwards, the rebellion broke out which nearly cost him his throne and the bishop of Durham his see.52 And William fitzHerbert would have met elderly citizens who still remembered William the Conqueror’s ferocious campaign of retribution through Yorkshire in the dreadful winter of 1069–70, tales of which were still circulating decades later. York was in some respects a frontier town. The borders of the realm of England, of the diocese of York and of the northern province were still to be fixed. Political, military and ecclesiastical challenges to Norman control from Scotland recurred throughout the twelfth century and were to loom large at various points in William’s life. Even apart from the Scottish threat, some of the remoter areas of Yorkshire had been subject to lawlessness and violence for long years after the Norman Conquest. Any weakening of control threatened to unleash the forces of disorder. Rural Yorkshire must have seemed an unfamiliar and dangerous world to someone used to the settled communities of Hampshire. The existence of a large population of Scandinavian extraction, speaking a Scandinavian tongue, would also have been something new to William. In York itself, with its substantial population and extensive maritime links across the North Sea, the Scandinavian presence was a constant feature of daily life.53 Among others, there was an Orcadian community at York, one of whose families was prominent over three generations in supporting William’s consecration as archbishop and in promoting his cause for canonisation.54 Nowhere in northern England was more reminiscent of Winchester than York, but Yorkshire would have seemed very different from Hampshire.

52

53

54

chevron mouldings in the thirteenth-century nave galleries come from there, but this remains to be proved. On medieval Beverley generally, see VCH Yorks East Riding, VI, 2–62. RRAN II, xxx for Henry I; Rufus’s visit to York, overlooked in the standard works, is discussed in Norton, ‘The Buildings of St Mary’s Abbey’, pp. 280–2. On York in this period, see Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 14–40; VCH York (Oxford, 1961), pp. 8–54; D. Palliser, Domesday York, Borthwick Paper 78 (York, 1990); W. E. Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and Its Transformation 1000–1135 (London, 1979). See Chapters Two to Five, passim, and Appendix B.

26

CHAPTER TWO

William the Treasurer

William fitzHerbert’s early career has received little attention. Archdeacons and canons were seldom considered worthy of individual mention in contemporary accounts of ecclesiastical affairs. It was not until the election dispute propelled William onto the international arena that he came to prominence in twelfth-century chronicles, and modern historians, understandably enough, have focused almost exclusively on the bitter and longdrawn-out controversies which surrounded his election to the archiepiscopate. However, the three decades which he spent as treasurer of York Minster and archdeacon of the East Riding, though sparsely documented, are by no means as obscure as has been supposed. Nor are they lacking in controversies, incidents and dramas replete with interest in their own right. But there is more than that: these years constitute not merely a prelude to, but also a means to understanding William’s final, controversial period as archbishop. Many of the issues and personalities which were so prominent during his archiepiscopate had already appeared, in one guise or another, at earlier stages in his life. A study of William the treasurer is an essential introduction to William the archbishop. The office of treasurer of York Minster was established by the first Norman archbishop, Thomas of Bayeux (1070–1100). In the years around 1090 he reorganised the Minster clergy and instituted the dean and chapter as the corporate body responsible for the running of the cathedral.1 The constitution (if it is not anachronistic to talk in such precise terms) was similar to that established at other secular cathedrals at about the same time. Along with the dean, the precentor and the master of the schools (later known as the chancellor), the treasurer was one of the four dignitaries of the Minster. All four had certainly come into existence by 1093, and Ranulph, the first treasurer, possibly occurs as early as 1091. Thomas of Bayeux also introduced archdeacons to the diocese of York. The archdeacons were not members of the cathedral chapter ex officio, but it was customary for them to hold one of the Minster prebends, and this gave them a seat in chapter. The archdeaconry of the East Riding, uniquely, was held in tandem with the office of Minster treasurer. Thus Ranulph the treasurer was also archdeacon of the East Riding, as were William fitzHerbert and all of his successors as treasurer down to 1

See, most recently, Norton, Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux, pp. 4–9 and Greenway, Fasti.

27

St William of York 1218, when Archbishop Walter de Gray separated the two offices. In the fullness of time, the treasurership of York Minster became one of the richest and most desirable benefices in England. In the twelfth century it was a stepping-stone to the highest ecclesiastical preferments. Ranulph is presumed to have died in office, but William and the four treasurers who followed him all went on to episcopal appointments. Hugh du Puiset, his immediate successor, was elected bishop of Durham in 1153. John of Canterbury, also known as John Bellesmains, went on to be bishop of Poitiers and archbishop of Lyons before retiring to Clairvaux in 1193. Ralph de Warneville was appointed chancellor to Henry II in 1173 and bishop of Lisieux in 1181. And Geoffrey Plantagenet, illegitimate son of Henry II, was elevated from treasurer to archbishop of York in 1189, following the example of William fitzHerbert.2 William’s predecessor, Ranulph, is last attested in a charter of Henry I dated 1101 x 1108. William is first documented at York in the time of Archbishop Thomas II (1108–14). He witnessed a charter of the archbishop in favour of Selby Abbey, dated 27 June 1109 x 1114, and, along with the archbishop, he witnessed another charter in favour of Selby dated 1113 x 1114.3 He is recorded as archdeacon of the East Riding in a charter of c. 1125 x 1133,4 and a later charter dating to the period between his election and consecration as archbishop (January 1141 x 26 September 1143) refers to him as both archbishop-elect and archdeacon of the East Riding.5 It therefore appears that he retained the archdeaconry, and presumably the treasurership as well, until the summer of 1143. As we have seen, William was probably appointed to both offices at the start of Archbishop Thomas II’s reign.6 This means that he held the joint appointment for about thirty-five years, longer than anyone else.

Just William? Part of the problem with William’s early career arises from the difficulty of identifying him in the contemporary sources. The putative visit to Archbishop Anselm in 1108 is a case in point.7 Given the general paucity of sources, it is crucial not to miss any references. From the time of his election to the archbishopric, there is usually little difficulty in tracing William through 2

3 4 5 6 7

On the dates of the treasurers and archdeacons of the East Riding, see C. T. Clay, ‘The Early Treasurers of York’, YAJ 35 (1940–3), 7–34; Clay, Fasti, I, 22–30; EEA V, 122–5; Greenway, Fasti, pp. 20–6, 40–3, and references there cited. EYC I, no. 45 and no. 46 = EEA V, no. 21. EYC II, no. 1151. EYC II, no. 1153, a charter of the dean and chapter in favour of Bridlington Priory. See above, Chapter One. See above, Chapter One.

28

William the Treasurer the sources. But what of the obscure decades prior to his election, and the years of his exile between 1147 and 1153? Is it possible that he has been overlooked, as a result of being referred to in ways which are not immediately recognisable? There are only two contemporary sources which refer to him as William fitzHerbert. The first is the Pipe Roll of 1130, where William appears with other members of his family who owed money to the king for lands inherited from Herbert the Chamberlain.8 Given the context, it is appropriate that he and his brother Herbert should both be identified by their patronymic. In any case, this would be a natural method of identification for the clerks in the royal administration, some of whom no doubt still remembered Herbert the Chamberlain. Similarly, the 1148 survey of Winchester initiated by Henry of Blois names both William fitzHerbert and Herbert fitzHerbert.9 At the time, William was living in exile at Winchester following his deposition from the archbishopric of York, and the patronymic was again an obvious name to use in the city where William himself had been educated and where his brother was still a familiar figure. It does not appear to have been used in any of the northern sources. On two occasions William is called after his adopted home. A charter of 1121 x 1122 issued by his brother, Herbert fitzHerbert, in confirmation of a grant by William to the canons of Nostell describes him as Willelmus frater meus, Eboracensis thesaurarius (‘William, my brother, treasurer of York’). Likewise, an 1136 charter of King Stephen, confirming William’s right of tenure of some churches which he had been granted by his brother Herbert, describes him as Willelmus thesaurarius Eboracensis, capellanus meus (‘William, treasurer of York, my chaplain’).10 This is the only reference to William as a royal chaplain. In a charter of Henry I of three years earlier he is called simply Willelmus thesaurarius (‘William the treasurer’),11 and this is his most frequent appellation. He is described thus in charters of Archbishop Thurstan, in Thurstan’s Letter of 1132, and by his fellow archdeacon Henry of Huntingdon;12 he referred to himself as treasurer in charters of his own;13 and he 8 9

10

11

12

PR 1130, pp. 22–3. Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, p. 80, no. 121 for William, and passim for Herbert. EYC II, no. 1012 has William attesting a charter as Willelmus filius Herberti, Eboracensis ecclesie thesaurarius, but the witness-list has been tampered with. EYC I, no. 26; see below, n. 55, for the date. EYC I, no. 31, pp. 39–40 (dated 1136 x 1139) = RRAN III, no. 979 (dated February 1136, following R. W. Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, 12 vols (London, 1854–60), VII, 147). The circumstances of the donation to Nostell are discussed below. See also the reference cited in n. 9. EYC I, no. 132 = The Cartulary of the Treasurer of York Minster, ed. J. Burton, Borthwick Texts and Calendars (York, 1978), no. 1, = RRAN II, no. 1759. Compare also EYC III, no. 1439 = RRAN II, no. 1626, a confirmation by Henry I of donations to Nostell dated 1126 x 1129. EEA V, nos 53–5. Epistola Turstini in Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, I, ed. J. R. Walbran, SS 42 (Durham, 1863), 24; Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon,

29

St William of York signed himself as treasurer on a number of archiepiscopal charters which he witnessed.14 The majority of these date to the latter part of William’s treasurership, when for the first time we have a significant number of surviving archiepiscopal charters with extensive lists of clerical witnesses. These exhibit a consistent hierarchy of signatures: bishops first; then the dean of York and the other dignitaries of the Minster (with the treasurer taking precedence over the precentor); then the remaining archdeacons (apparently in order of appointment); then the Minster canons; and finally any lesser clergy.15 So it appears that by signing himself as treasurer rather than archdeacon, William fitzHerbert consistently ensured for himself the highest possible position in the witness lists, in this period at least. Only once as treasurer did he refer to the fact that he was also an archdeacon. When witnessing a charter of Archbishop Thurstan in favour of Bridlington Priory, dated c. 1125 x 1133, he signed himself as Willelmus thesaurarius in cuius archidiaconatu ipsa est ecclesia (‘William the treasurer, in whose archdeaconry that church is situated’).16 This formula is consistent with the hypothesis that

13 14 15

16

De Contemptu Mundi, ch. 15, in Historia Anglorum, ed. D. Greenway, OMT (Oxford, 1996), pp. 612–13. EYC I, no. 28 = EEA V, no. 97. EEA V, nos 21, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 74 and 79. See EEA V, nos, 43, 44, 74, 79 and 81. At Lincoln, too, from the 1130s the dignitaries of the cathedral took precedence over the archdeacons (see charters cited in Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, pp. l–li). At London, however, it was the other way round (see n. 25). For the York archdeacons, see C. T. Clay, ‘Notes on the Early Archdeacons in the Church of York’, YAJ 36 (1944–7), 269–87; EEA V, 120–7; Greenway, Fasti, pp. 31–52, 117–18 and 130–3. The hypothesis that the archdeacons (after the treasurer/archdeacon of the East Riding) signed in order of appointment is consistent with all of the above, at least from the 1120s. If so, the order of seniority was Geoffrey I (occurs only c. 1121 x 1128); Hugh I (first occurs as archdeacon 1108); then William himself; Osbert, archdeacon of Richmond (first occurs 1121 x 1128); Walter, archdeacon of York (first occurs c. 1121 x 1128); William son of Tole (first occurs c. 1125 x 1133); Thurstan, archdeacon of Nottingham (first occurs 1121 x 1128 and c. 1125 x 1133); Hugh II the Chanter, archdeacon of Cleveland (first occurs before 1133); Geoffrey II Turcople, archdeacon of Nottingham (first occurs 1137 x 1140); and Ralph de Baro, archdeacon of Cleveland (first occurs 1139 x 1140). This would mean that Geoffrey I and Hugh I were both in office before William fitzHerbert’s appointment c. 1108–9 and were his colleagues for over two decades; that Geoffrey and Hugh must have been archdeacons of Nottingham and Cleveland (though which was which cannot yet be determined) since they witnessed EEA V, no. 43 together with Osbert (of Richmond) and Walter (of York); and that William son of Tole was probably archdeacon of Cleveland in succession to Geoffrey or Hugh and before Hugh the Chanter. The only archiepiscopal charter of this period which does not conform to this pattern is EEA V, no. 61, dated 1137 x 1140, where Walter precedes Osbert. The lost charter is known only from a transcript (itself now lost), and it is possible that Gualterus is entered by error through dittography after Gualterus abbas de Salebe. For later practice among the archdeacons when attesting charters, see EEA XX, xl–xlii and EEA XXVII, cxii–cxiv. EEA V, no. 40. Compare a similar formulation referring to William as archbishop-elect

30

William the Treasurer the treasurership was considered more important than the office of archdeacon, which, however, was specifically mentioned in this case as being relevant to the charter in question. But did William sometimes sign his name in other ways, particularly in the earlier part of his career? The diocese of York was divided into five archdeaconries. The York Minster Fasti record potentially no fewer than five other archdeacons called William between c. 1100 and c. 1140. This compares to one each by the name of Durand, Gerard, Osbert, Ralph, Ranulph, Thurstan and Walter, and no more than two called Geoffrey and Hugh.17 Such a luxuriant growth of archdeacon Williams needs to be treated with Ockham’s razor. The individuals concerned are as follows, in approximately chronological order of first appearance: 1. William the archdeacon, who witnessed an early twelfth-century charter and was dead by 1114. 2. William the treasurer, i.e. William fitzHerbert, from c. 1108–9 onwards. 3. William of Beverley, first recorded between 1109 and 1114. 4. William the archdeacon, who witnessed a charter of c. 1120 x 1135. 5. William son of Tole, who occurs once without title 1121 x c. 1128, and twice as archdeacon c. 1125–35. 6. William filio Durandi archidiac’ (William, ‘son of Durand, archdeacon’), canon, who witnessed a charter of c. 1125 x 1133. No. 6 can probably be discounted as an archdeacon. The Latin archidiac’ should probably be expanded to the genitive archidiaconi, referring to Durand, since Durand is a known archdeacon, whose son William was definitely a canon, but is not otherwise recorded as an archdeacon.18 The reference should therefore not be translated as ‘William the archdeacon, son of Durand’, but as ‘William, son of Durand the archdeacon’. No. 1 is not in doubt, and is too early to be confused with the others. No. 4 is presumably the same as one of the three remaining figures, viz. William the treasurer, William of Beverley or William son of Tole. William the treasurer (William fitzHerbert) and William son of Tole are certainly different, and on one occasion they appear together as witnesses to the same charter dated c. 1125 x 1133 (along with William son of Durand).19 The question that remains, therefore, is whether archdeacon William of Beverley can be identified with either archdeacon William son of Tole or archdeacon William fitzHerbert.

17 18

19

et ipsius provincie archidiaconus in a charter in favour of Bridlington printed in EYC II, no. 1153. See references in n. 15. See EEA V, 61 and 125. Durand is probably the unnamed archdeacon to whom Archbishop Gerard sold a canonry for his son before 1103 (HCY III, 23–6). As well as William, he had another son called Nicholas, also a canon of York (Greenway, Fasti, p. 126). EEA V, no. 74.

31

St William of York William of Beverley witnessed three archiepiscopal charters. He appears without title on a charter of 1112 x 1114; he is described as a canon on a charter which has been dated within the broad limits 1109 x 1135, but arguably belongs to the time of Archbishop Thomas II (1109 x 1114); and he is called archdeacon on a charter dated c. 1121 x 1135.20 We also learn from Hugh the Chanter that William of Beverley went to Rome during the primacy dispute at the start of Thurstan’s archiepiscopate, probably in 1117.21 William son of Tole was apparently not even a canon when he witnessed a charter dated 1121 x c. 1128. He was not yet an archdeacon when a charter for Durham dated between c. 1121 and 1128 was witnessed by all five archdeacons, including William the treasurer. He was archdeacon by the time he witnessed a charter (together with William the treasurer) c. 1125 x 1133.22 These facts are compatible with William son of Tole being the same as William of Beverley, but only if the second William of Beverley charter (where he is a canon) long post-dates the reign of Archbishop Thomas. Furthermore, William son of Tole has no known links with Beverley; and the earliest mention of William of Beverley is a decade or so earlier than the first appearance of William son of Tole. A far more convincing case can be made for identifying William of Beverley with William fitzHerbert. William of Beverley appears on the scene at about the same time as William fitzHerbert, and their chronologies fit neatly. William fitzHerbert had definite links with Beverley. It was the principal church in his archdeaconry; he had the use of a family house there, and later on he publicly acknowledged the support he had received from Beverley during the election dispute.23 The important family estate at Londesborough was conveniently situated half-way between York and Beverley, and William must often have set off from York along the road to Beverley. In a York context, the name William of Beverley would have been a convenient means of distinguishing him, when he first arrived, from the older archdeacon William (who died before 1114). And William of Beverley seems to have been a man of some standing already in the second decade of the twelfth century (unlike William son of Tole). In his first certain charter appearance in 1112 x 1114 his name follows those of the abbot of Tewkesbury, two archdeacons from the diocese of Worcester, and archdeacon Hugh of the diocese of York; he precedes all the other clerics.24 The charter was witnessed by senior figures from both dioceses because it concerns an archiepiscopal grant of land previously held by the bishop of Worcester. Given the line-up of Worcester witnesses, William of 20

21 22

23 24

EEA V, nos 19, 27 and 73, the last of which is also printed in EYC VI, no. 9. For the date of no. 27, see below, n. 25. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 86–7 and n. See EEA V, nos 31, 43, and 74; see also no. 70, dated c. 1125 x 1135 which he witnessed as archdeacon. See Chapter Three. EEA V, no. 19.

32

William the Treasurer Beverley should be a senior figure from the York diocese, and if he were an archdeacon, the witnesses would include two archdeacons from each diocese. In a second charter for St Oswald’s, Gloucester, dated 1109 x 1135, but arguably attributable to Archbishop Thomas II (1109 x 1114), he is third in line after the dean of York and archdeacon Hugh again. Both the archdeacon and William of Beverley are described as canonici, so this does not exclude the possibility that William of Beverley was also an archdeacon at this time.25 At this early date there is no systematic use of names to distinguish the different territorial archdeaconries, and the toponymic could in effect be functioning as a label for his archdeaconry, naming it after its principal church rather than (as subsequently) the region of the East Riding. A further indication of William of Beverley’s status is his mission to Rome to further Archbishop Thurstan’s case in the primacy dispute at the papal curia. A task of this kind would generally have been entrusted to a senior cleric, rather than a minor figure like William son of Tole, who, at the time, was apparently not yet even a canon. And there is one further clue to support the identification of William of Beverley with William fitzHerbert. The charter for St Oswald’s, Gloucester, which William of Beverley attested, was also witnessed by Gilbert fitzHerbert, probably one of William’s brothers.26 The evidence strongly suggests that William of Beverley and William fitzHerbert were one and the same. If so, there were only three archdeacons called William in this period: William the archdeacon, who was dead by 1114, William fitzHerbert, c. 1108/9–1143, and William son of Tole, in the years 25

26

EEA V, no. 27 and references there cited. This charter was attributed to Archbishop Thomas I of Bayeux (†1100) or Thomas II (1108–14) by Hamilton Thompson, and to 1109 x 1135, i.e. to the time of Thomas II or Thurstan (1114–40) by Janet Burton. Thomas of Bayeux is too early. If my hypothesis about the archdeacons is correct (n. 15), the witnesses to this charter include archdeacon Hugh I and William fitzHerbert (= William of Beverley) (in that order), the same pair as appear (in the same order) in EEA V, no. 19, dated 1112 x 1114. Archdeacon Hugh I had been succeeded by the mid to late 1120s (see n. 15), which gives a terminus ante quem for the charter (EEA V, no. 27). However, since Thurstan’s charters are not usually dated to the period prior to his consecration in October 1119, the date brackets are 1109 x 1114 or 1119 x c. 1125. Although I have argued (n. 15) that normal practice from the 1120s was for the dignitaries of the Minster to take precedence over the archdeacons in witness-lists, the few pre-Thurstan charters which throw any light on the matter suggest that the order of precedence was initially different, viz, dean, then archdeacons in order of appointment (with no precedence given to the treasurer over the others); in this case EEA V, no. 27, like no. 19, should belong to Thomas II, not Thurstan. This could reflect a down-grading of the archdeacons vis-à-vis the dignitaries of the Minster. At London, the archdeacons took precedence over the dignitaries (see Brooke, ‘The Archdeacon and the Norman Conquest’, p. 10), and this could initially have been the case at York. On Gilbert fitzHerbert, see Appendix A. Herbert the Chamberlain had property in Gloucestershire which he had been granted by Archbishop Thomas II (EEA V, no. 15 and see above, Chapter One), so there was a family interest in the area.

33

St William of York around 1130. The identification of William of Beverley transforms our understanding of William fitzHerbert’s early career, as will shortly become apparent, but it also highlights one of the frustrations of the narrative sources for the period. Hugh the Chanter and other ecclesiastical chroniclers usually name any bishops involved in the events which they are narrating; they tend to mention archdeacons but not to identify them, while more junior clergy are seldom mentioned at all. Consequently, we know that archdeacons of the diocese of York were closely involved in the events of this period; but seldom can we be certain that William fitzHerbert was among their number. The fact that William of Beverley is once mentioned in Hugh the Chanter’s history is only an apparent exception to the rule, since he is referred to in a letter which Hugh decided to quote in extenso.27 For Hugh, the mysterious William of Beverley apparently required no explanation. For us, he is a key to understanding William fitzHerbert.

The primacy dispute William’s background and his influential contacts at court, in Scotland as well as in England, would have fitted him for ecclesiastical administration and diplomatic missions on behalf of the archbishop, at home or abroad. His early appearance – if it was he – on a delicate mission to Anselm indicates his potential. Whether Archbishop Thomas II employed him on such duties it is hard to say. William witnessed two or three of Thomas’s charters, none of which is precisely dated. One may perhaps have been issued at or near Worcester, the second more probably in Yorkshire. The third, which belongs probably but not certainly to Thomas’s archiepiscopate, is the charter in favour of St Oswald’s, Gloucester, witnessed by his brother Gilbert fitzHerbert.28 However, the identification of William fitzHerbert as the William of Beverley who went on a diplomatic mission to Rome during the primacy dispute in the early years of Thurstan’s archiepiscopate shows that William was indeed active in the national and international arena, and it prompts a reconsideration of the narrative of events as committed to paper in the late 1120s by Hugh the Chanter. Archbishop Thomas died in February 1114. Thurstan was appointed to succeed him by the king in August of that year, and was granted control of the archiepiscopal revenues at an early stage. Perhaps the fact that the king’s treasurer was the father of the York treasurer eased the way to the grant of 27 28

Hugh the Chanter, pp. 86–7. EEA V, no. 19 (confirmation of a grant of land near Worcester made by Sampson, bishop of Worcester, witnessed by senior Worcestershire clergy before the senior York clergy), no. 21 (a confirmation of a grant of land to Selby Abbey) and no. 27 (see n. 25 for dating).

34

William the Treasurer temporalities? But very soon Thurstan found himself faced with the unwavering insistence of Henry I that he make a profession of obedience to the archbishop of Canterbury, Ralph d’Escures, at the time of his consecration. The struggle over the primacy was about to enter its most difficult phase. Thurstan persisted in his refusal for five years. He was eventually consecrated in France by the pope in October 1119; but it was not until early in the year 1121 that he was finally able to take his rightful place in his cathedral church.29 As a dignitary of the cathedral and an archdeacon of the diocese, William cannot have been unaffected by Thurstan’s travails, nor indifferent to the turn of events. That is to put it at its most negative. Quite apart from his official positions, his proximity through his father to the inner circle of the royal administration, and his experience of Archbishop Thomas’s travails during the previous round of the primacy dispute in 1108–9 were potentially of great value to the York camp. The anonymity with which Hugh the Chanter cloaks the protagonists of his narrative below the rank of bishop is frustratingly hard to penetrate. However, there were never more than five archdeacons at any one time in the diocese of York, and an attentive reading of Hugh’s text does provide some clues as to William’s movements. The parts played by the four principals – the king, the pope and the two archbishops – have often been analysed:30 here we can focus our attention on the walk-on parts. Thurstan’s nomination took place on 15 August 1114 at Winchester, and it was at Winchester that he was ordained deacon by a close friend of his, William Giffard, the bishop of Winchester. Three years earlier Giffard had been a member of the court which met at Winchester in September 1111 to adjudicate on the case brought by Abbot Faricius of Abingdon – the court which had been attended by Herbert the Chamberlain and his son Geoffrey.31 Herbert was presumably in attendance on the king during his stay at Winchester in 1114, and the FitzHerberts, severally or in concert, would have been ideally placed to offer their services to the archbishop elect. William himself could have been there. Before the end of December Thurstan had time to visit his diocese, consult his chapter at York, and proceed as far north as Durham and Hexham, before crossing to Normandy on 25 December. The York chapter received him with warmth, and sent him on his way with the 29

30

31

Hugh the Chanter, passim for all that follows, for which I do not provide detailed page references. Note that in discussing these events, Nicholl, Thurstan, and EEA V, xxvii– xxviii and 113–16 both cited the first edition (Hugh the Chanter, The History of the Church of York, 1066–1127, ed. C. Johnson (Edinburgh, 1961)) which has completely different pagination. A full account of the struggle from Thurstan’s perspective is given in Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 4–9 and 41–74; R. M. T. Hill and C. N. L. Brooke, ‘From 627 until the Early Thirteenth Century’, in A History of York Minster, ed. G. E. Aylmer and R. Cant (Oxford, 1977), pp. 1–43 (pp. 31–5); Brett, English Church, passim. Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 10–11, and see above, Chapter One.

35

St William of York first of a number of letters which are cited by Hugh the Chanter. As a senior member of the chapter, William was a party to the various chapter letters of this period. Whether he had any active role in formulating chapter policy we do not know. It is also an open question whether William may have accompanied Thurstan into exile. Was he one of those who travelled south with the archbishop in December 1114 as he left for Normandy with the intention of travelling on to Rome? In the event, Thurstan was refused permission by the king to visit the pope, and spent a largely fruitless year in Normandy and England. He was, however, ordained priest at Pentecost 1115 by the bishop of Durham, Ranulf Flambard, at Bayeux. The choice of venue was not fortuitous. Thurstan’s family originated in Bayeux, and he had probably been educated there. There were also close connections between Bayeux and York. Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux, as his name implies, came from there and had begun his career there under Bishop Odo before the Norman Conquest. Thomas’s brother Sampson, bishop of Worcester, was the father both of Archbishop Thomas II of York, Thurstan’s predecessor, and of the bishop of Bayeux at the time of his visit, Richard fitzSamson. Ranulf Flambard, who consecrated Thurstan, was another Bayeux man who had made a career for himself in England.32 So Thurstan was among allies at Bayeux. Bayeux was also a fitting place to contemplate the dangers inherent in dealing with the Norman kings. Odo of Bayeux, who is pictured in intimate association with William of Normandy in the Bayeux Tapestry, subsequently fell foul of the Conqueror and spent the last years of his reign in prison. Released at the start of William Rufus’s reign, he had visited York at the time of the ceremony for the foundation of St Mary’s Abbey early in 1088. Within weeks or even days he joined the rebellion which resulted in his final banishment from England.33 And Bayeux cathedral had itself suffered at the hands of Henry I. In 1105 he besieged the town during his campaign against his brother Robert. A fire ravaged the city and spread to the cathedral, which is said to have been destroyed.34 Although Thurstan himself had not been able to travel to Rome, at Christmas 1115 letters from the York chapter which had been written a year earlier were finally delivered to the pope. The messenger bearing the pope’s reply met some of the York clergy in early March 1116 on their way to join Thurstan at the king’s council at Salisbury. This was the occasion when Thurstan astonished everyone by resigning as archbishop. The king, however, 32 33

34

Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 1–11 and 51; Hill and Brooke, ‘From 627', pp. 19–20. Odo’s attendance at this little-known ceremony is recounted in Stephen of Whitby, De Fundatione Abbatiae Sanctae Mariae Virginis Eboraci in Monasticon Anglicanum III, 544–6, whose reliability is defended in Norton, ‘The Buildings of St Mary’s Abbey’, pp. 280–2. There has been much discussion of the impact of this fire, since the documentary sources for Bayeux cathedral are difficult to reconcile with the physical evidence. See, e.g., J. Thirion, ‘La Cathédrale de Bayeux’, Congrès Archéologique 132 (1978), 240–85.

36

William the Treasurer kept him with him when he crossed to Normandy, again refusing him permission to travel to Rome. The York contingent returned home. Three months later, in high summer 1116, the chapter composed another letter in support of Thurstan. At this point in the narrative Hugh the Chanter becomes much more specific about the envoys sent by the chapter to Thurstan. They consisted of two archdeacons, a canon of Beverley and a monk of St Mary’s Abbey, York. The then abbot of St Mary’s, called Richard, had been a monk of the royal abbey of St Etienne at Caen prior to his appointment by Henry I in 1113.35 By including a representative of the premier abbey in the diocese the chapter was both strengthening the authority of the delegation and, presumably, hoping to benefit from the abbot’s contacts in Normandy. Was William one of the party? Of the five archdeacons, he would have been the one best acquainted with the canons of Beverley, and he was the only archdeacon who was also a dignitary of the York chapter. On arrival in Normandy, the party were questioned by royal officials as to their authority for leaving England. They replied that they had not believed themselves sufficiently important to have required permission from the king. It was not till the autumn that the envoys were finally granted an audience with the king, accompanied by Ranulf Flambard, bishop of Durham, and other sympathisers who had arrived at court. The king continued to prevaricate, and kept Thurstan in Normandy while allowing the archbishop of Canterbury to travel to Rome. At the end of March 1117 the pope wrote a non-committal letter for Ralph of Canterbury, who returned with it to the king in Normandy. But within a fortnight, on 5 April 1117, the pope wrote a much more explicit letter to Henry I in support of Thurstan, demanding his reinstatement. Around this time Thurstan wrote to the York chapter asking for their advice, and their response contains the reference to William’s visit to Rome. Part of it is worth quoting:36 If you can do so and go to Rome, you may send for one or more of us as you please. But if not, act on your own judgement, which you have used in this business, more wisely and profitably than anyone else’s. We say this to you, because, if you and some of us with you depart under the king’s displeasure, it will be easier for those who go than for those who stay, unless they can protest that they did not send them. We know very well that when William of Beverley went to Rome, the king made a strict enquiry whether he had gone as our envoy or on our advice.

Hugh the Chanter’s chronology at this point is inconsistent.37 It is possible that William’s visit to Rome had taken place in the winter of 1115–16, and that 35 36 37

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, H, s.a. 1114 in EHD II, 192. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 86–7. Hugh the Chanter, p. 87 n. and p. 91 n. 2.

37

St William of York it was he who delivered the chapter’s first, long-delayed letter to the pope at Christmas 1115. The urgent tone of the chapter’s letter to Thurstan, however, would better fit the tenser situation of the summer of 1117, which is where Hugh the Chanter places it. This suggests that William was the envoy who returned from Rome bearing the pope’s letter in support of Thurstan. William’s movements could then be reconstructed as follows. He was one of the two archdeacons sent by the York chapter to Thurstan in high summer 1116, along with the monk of St Mary’s and the canon of Beverley. He stayed with Thurstan while they followed the royal court around Normandy in the early autumn of 1116, until finally being granted an audience with the king. When Thurstan was still refused permission to travel to Rome, even though Ralph of Canterbury had been allowed to go, it was decided that William should follow him to Rome to present the York case. Ralph both arrived at Rome first and left first. William followed a few weeks later, carrying with him the pope’s letter of 5 April 1117, plus another letter to Ralph of Canterbury which must have been written after Ralph left Rome. This latter letter was delivered to Thurstan in Normandy, which William could have reached in May or June 1117. It is interesting to note that Eadmer, referring to this embassy to the pope, says that it was entrusted by the church of York to prudentiores de suis (‘the more prudent from among their own people’), in grudging recognition, perhaps, of their success.38 If this is right, William played a key role in a crucial embassy to Rome. In view of the prevailing circumstances, Thurstan decided to hold on to the pope’s letter to Ralph for a while. Thurstan was still not allowed to leave for Rome. William could have remained with him in Normandy, or could have returned to York. In either event, the ‘William of Beverley’ letter seems to have been sent by the chapter in the summer or early autumn of 1117, at which time they were still hoping that Thurstan would be allowed to leave for Rome. They also wrote another letter to the pope, again asking for his support. Over the winter of 1117–18 Thurstan, it appears, received back from Henry I the archbishopric which he had resigned in 1116, and was allowed to return to York, accompanied, one may suppose, by his household, which may have included William. But the issue of his consecration was still unresolved. From 1118, Hugh the Chanter’s narrative resumes a clear chronology, but he passes over events between Thurstan’s return to York early in the year, and his next visit to Normandy in autumn 1118. Henry I had been in Normandy continuously since April 1116 fighting to retain the duchy. Some time in 1118 an attempt was made on the king’s life by members of his household. It is only fairly recently that the ringleader has been identified by Warren Hollister. It was none other than William’s father, Herbert the Chamberlain. The episode is alluded to in passing by William of Malmesbury, but

38

Eadmer, Historia Novorum, p. 244.

38

William the Treasurer our principal source is Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis.39 In a few terse sentences in his Life of Louis the Fat, Suger describes the febrile atmosphere that enveloped Henry I at this critical time in his campaign in Normandy, and provides a thumb-nail sketch of Herbert the Chamberlain: To crown his misfortune, he [Henry] was even troubled by a piece of wickedness inside his very own household. Frightened thoroughly by a clandestine conspiracy of stewards and chamberlains, he changed beds often and, dreading night’s terrors, regularly increased his armed guards. He also ordered that a shield and sword be placed before him every night while he slept. One member of the cabal, named H., was an intimate counsellor who had been enriched by the king’s generosity; but having become powerful and renowned, he became even more renowned as a traitor. Caught taking part in this terrible plot, he was mercifully condemned to losing his eyes and genitals when he deserved to be choked to death by a noose. Living under conditions like these, the king never felt safe; and despite his reputation for valor and greatness of spirit, he took the precaution of wearing his sword even in his own house. And he also punished those whom he considered his most faithful men if they went out of their homes without swords at their sides, making them pay a large sum as if it were a trifle.

What prompted the conspiracy, we can only conjecture. Perhaps Herbert the Chamberlain hoped that Louis VI would reward his treachery by restoring to him the county of Maine which William the Conqueror had seized on his father’s death? Whatever the cause, an attempt on the king’s life merited the severest punishment, not excluding death and seizure of the traitor’s estates.40 But in this case both mercy and self-interest pointed in the same direction. To dispossess Herbert the Chamberlain and his heirs would have entailed consequences for Henry I’s own children; for Herbert the Chamberlain’s 39

40

Hollister, ‘Origins of the English Treasury’, pp. 214–15 and reprised in C. W. Hollister, Henry I (New Haven, 2001), pp. 256–7; see William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. R. A. B. Mynors, R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, OMT (Oxford, 1998), I, 744–5, commenting that the perpetrator was a man of low birth who rose to fame in the royal treasury. Suger, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, ed. H. Waquet (Paris, 1929), pp. 190–1; translation in Suger, The Deeds of Louis the Fat, trans. R. Cusimano and J. Moorhead (Washington, 1992), p. 114. Eadmer, Historia Novorum, p. 248, referring to the same period and perhaps the same episode, relates that in summer 1118 some Normans who had sworn allegiance to Henry I changed sides and gave their support to the king of France, adding that it is hard to think upon, still less relate, the evils which resulted from this betrayal. C. W. Hollister, ‘Royal Acts of Mutilation: The Case against Henry I’, Albion 10 (1978), 330–40, reprinted in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London, 1986), pp. 291–301, explores the wider context in which death or mutilation were the accepted penalties for treason and remarks, inter alia, that such penalties could properly be applied to men in holy orders ‘so long as it is done as a legitimate exercise of political authority’ (pp. 295–6).

39

St William of York daughter-in-law, as we have seen, was Henry’s former (and still perhaps current) mistress Sibyl Corbet.41 There were potential political ramifications as well, since Henry and Sibyl’s daughter, the younger Sibyl, was the queen of Scotland. To reduce the queen’s mother to destitution could not but be seen as a slight to the Scottish crown. Blinding and mutilation exacted a terrible punishment on Herbert the Chamberlain, who died not long after, without destroying the rest of his family. But Henry kept a close watch on them. The single surviving Pipe Roll from Henry’s reign, that of 1130, lists Herbert the Chamberlain’s widow, his heir Herbert fitzHerbert and William fitzHerbert as owing debts to the king in respect of the family estates which they had inherited.42 Debts of this kind could be held over from year to year in the royal accounts as a guarantee of good behaviour on the part of individuals whose loyalty the king wished to ensure. The debts could be called in at any moment of the king’s choosing.43 There is no way of knowing how this sensational incident may have affected William, though by a curious irony it strangely prefigures one of the miracle stories in the later cult of St William.44 Publicly, it cast a long shadow of suspicion over him at the royal court, and effectively ended any hopes of further preferment while Henry I was alive. For Thurstan, his treasurer’s discomfiture and suspect loyalties can only have worsened his own situation. Throughout these difficult years, he had behaved with impeccable propriety towards the king, and it is inconceivable that he was involved in the attempted coup. But it would not have helped his cause. In the light of these events, the phrase with which Hugh the Chanter picks up the story in the autumn of 1118 takes on a new significance: Secundum rerum mutaciones et consilia mutare oportet (‘a change of circumstances involves a change of plan’).45 Hugh is not generally given to such sententious remarks, and it may be that he was referring not just to a change of pope at Rome (the ostensible pretext for the remark), but also to a worsening of Thurstan’s position at court following the attempted coup. Next, we learn that Thurstan was advised to return to Normandy, but secretly, lest the king forbid it. He left York with his entourage under the pretence of other business. At London the party divided into two, half travelling to Hastings, the other, including Thurstan in disguise, crossing from Dover. A York sympathiser travelled to Italy to see the new pope, whose letters to the king and the two archbishops arrived shortly before Christmas. The stalemate dragged on through the first half of 1119. It was finally broken when Pope Calixtus II issued summonses to 41 42 43

44 45

See above, Chapter One. PR 1130, pp. 22–3, 25, 37, and 125. On the use of debt relief as an instrument of political control, see C. W. Hollister, ‘The Misfortunes of the Mandevilles’, History 58 (1973), 18–28, reprinted in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 117–27 (pp. 121–2). See below, Chapter Five. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 94–5.

40

William the Treasurer the General Council which was to take place at Reims in October. Henry I realised that he could detain Thurstan no longer, and the archbishop joined the papal curia at Tours in September. His party included, we are told, two archdeacons and the master of the schools, who both wrote to and spoke to the pope on Thurstan’s behalf. On Saturday 18 October they all arrived at Reims, where they were joined by another archdeacon and by Ralph Nowell, the bishop of the Orkneys, who were introduced to the pope by Thurstan. On Sunday 19 October, Thurstan was at last consecrated archbishop of York in Reims cathedral by Pope Calixtus, and on 1 November he was vested with the pallium. So three archdeacons were present at Reims to witness Thurstan’s consecration. As it happens, the York Fasti for this date yield the names of just three archdeacons in the diocese of York, William himself and his senior colleagues Geoffrey and Hugh. It would be unwise to place too much weight on this fact, which may be no more than a coincidence arising from a paucity of evidence. On the other hand, vacancies may have arisen in the five years since Thurstan’s election,46 and the internal evidence of Hugh’s narrative does suggest that William was in fact the third archdeacon, who arrived at Reims the day before the consecration in the company of Ralph Nowell, the bishop of the Orkneys. Ralph Nowell is an interesting character whose name will recur at important moments in William’s career. The genealogical problems posed by his family are best relegated to an Appendix.47 Ralph was a York priest who is said to have been elected bishop by the Orcadian community in York and who was consecrated by Archbishop Thomas between 1109 and 1114. He thus emerges on the scene at about the same time as William. If he ever succeeded in establishing himself in his titular diocese, it was only for a short time, and he spent most of the succeeding years in exile in the York diocese, where he acted on occasion as a kind of suffragan or assistant bishop. He was an early supporter of Thurstan in the primacy dispute, and following the latter’s consecration, he was the only bishop who dared to sit with Thurstan in the papal curia, even the bishop of Durham keeping his distance for fear of

46

47

On the Reims council, CS, pp. 718–21. For the archdeacons in the 1120s and 1130s, see n. 15. For the earlier period the evidence is sparser. Apart from Ranulph and William, the first two archdeacons of the East Riding and treasurers of York Minster, we know of one other archdeacon William (see above), together with Gerard and Durand, all of whom were deceased by 1114 (see references cited in n. 15). Geoffrey and Hugh were apparently appointed before William and were still alive in the 1120s (see n. 15). Otherwise, we know no other names in the period 1114–19, but it must be remembered that archiepiscopal charters, our principal source for the early archdeacons, are lacking during these very years prior to Thurstan’s consecration. For what follows, all the evidence (if not noted here) will be found in Appendix B. See Genealogical Table 4 for Ralph Nowell’s family tree.

41

St William of York the king.48 Ralph and William appear together on various occasions subsequently, and Ralph was a key witness to the legitimacy of William’s election as archbishop in 1143, thereby clearing the way for William’s consecration at the hands of Henry of Blois. He was still alive when William finally returned to York in 1154, so their careers together spanned forty years or more, and his family subsequently promoted William’s cult with enthusiasm. The first two archdeacons had travelled from Normandy with Thurstan in the party which Henry I had allowed to travel to the council. William is unlikely to have been among them. Already deep in the king’s disfavour following his unapproved embassy to Rome on behalf of the York chapter in 1117, he would have incurred further suspicion following his father’s attempt on the king’s life in Normandy in 1118. Thurstan would merely have complicated relations with the king even further if he had requested permission to include William in his party. Ralph Nowell, however, although in effect a member of the church of York, was de iure bishop of a Scottish diocese, and the pope treated him as such in a letter which he addressed to the Scottish bishops just a few weeks after Thurstan’s consecration.49 He was therefore in a position to travel to Reims without Henry’s authorisation, and he had in fact reached the papal curia independently.50 By travelling with Ralph Nowell, William could have passed the borders of Henry I’s domains unmolested. Henry had been outwitted, but refused to accept the fait accompli. In spite of the best endeavours of the pope, the king and the archbishop were unreconciled. At the end of November, Henry sent orders to England to disseize Thurstan, who was thus forced to postpone his return to his diocese yet again. For a further four months he and his retinue travelled with the papal curia. Thurstan was honoured with every sign of papal favour, and during those months visited some of the principal ecclesiastical centres in France, including Saint-Denis, Sens, Cluny and Lyons. In early March he finally parted from the pope at Gap and travelled back through France. On 30 May 1120 he met Henry I again, and the king agreed to restore the temporalities of the see; but it was not finally until 31 January 1121 that Thurstan finally returned to England, reaching York on 20 February.51 During this period, Hugh the Chanter makes several references to the clergy of Thurstan’s household who accompanied him during his stay at the curia and his subsequent wanderings, but he does not actually identify 48 49 50

51

Hugh the Chanter, pp. 118–19 and 122–3. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 124–7. This can be deduced from Hugh the Chanter’s comment that Ralph Nowell sat with Thurstan at the Council of Reims, unlike the bishop of Durham, ‘who had come with the Normans’ (Hugh the Chanter, pp. 122–3). Chronology set out in Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 67–74, and EEA V, 114–16, based largely on Hugh the Chanter. See also CS, pp. 721–3.

42

William the Treasurer them.52 We may, however, suspect William’s presence among them. Between March and May 1120, when Thurstan was in close communication with the French ecclesiastical hierarchy and the French royal court, seeking support for his cause, he ‘turned aside’ (Hugh’s words) to visit Adela, Countess of Blois, and her son, Count Theobald of Blois, and he was present when the countess took the veil at Marcigny on 20 April. Adela, the daughter of William the Conqueror, was the widow of Count Stephen of Blois (†1102), the half-brother of William’s mother, Emma. Theobald of Blois was therefore William’s cousin, like his brother Stephen, who later became king of England. During these uncertain months, William would have been an enormous asset to Thurstan, for his family associations, for the ecclesiastical connections which he would have formed at the papal curia during his visit to Rome in 1117, and as a financial support in the months when he was cut off from all his normal diocesan income. One further clue to William’s involvement is to be found in a comment of Hugh the Chanter referring to the events of November 1119, when Henry I refused to receive Thurstan and disseized him of the archbishopric.53 He interjects an unusual prospective comment: He [Henry] was noble and kingly enough not to deprive the clerks who were with the archbishop [i.e. the two archdeacons who had travelled to Reims with Thurstan], angry as he was with them, for he saw that they were acting lawfully and canonically. The others who were at home [i.e. at York] were very sad and frightened. The bishop of Orkney [Ralph Nowell] and the archdeacon already mentioned [i.e. the third archdeacon at Reims] found it hard to make their peace with the king, because they had assisted at the consecration, although they were willing to swear, as they clearly could, that they had not come to the council for that purpose.

The implication is that the third archdeacon, like Thurstan, was forced to remain in exile. The obvious place for an archdeacon of the diocese of York to be was with his archbishop. That this was indeed William is further corroborated by the one certain fact that we know about his activities in this period: his gift of the church of Weaverthorpe to Nostell Priory. Weaverthorpe was the principal settlement of the more remote of the two Wolds estates which had been granted to Herbert the Chamberlain by Archbishop Thomas II. Herbert built a new church there, and before he died in 1118 x 1120 he granted the church to his son William.54 William’s grant of the church to Nostell Priory can be dated soon after Thurstan’s return from exile, probably in the spring of 1121.55 The history of the foundation of Nostell 52 53 54 55

Hugh the Chanter, pp. 142–3, 150–1 and 152–5. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 132–3. See above, Chapter One, and below for the building of Weaverthorpe church. The dating evidence is as follows. Herbert the Chamberlain’s grant of the church to William was confirmed by Henry I, as is known from an extant confirmation charter issued by King Stephen probably in February 1136 (Monasticon Anglicanum, VIII, 1196,

43

St William of York Priory, as with many of the Yorkshire monastic houses, is not without its problems of chronology, and there is some dispute as to the extent of Archbishop Thurstan’s involvement in the early years of the community. He certainly gave the canons a prebend of York Minster within a few years of their foundation. What is not disputed is the close involvement of Henry I.56 The key moment in the emergence of the new community is about 1120, shortly before William’s gift of Weaverthorpe church. This is the only occasion when William the treasurer exhibited any special interest in the new monastic foundations which were springing up around Yorkshire during Thurstan’s archiepiscopate. It was not followed up with any further donations. The fact that William’s donation was confirmed in short order by charters issued by his brother Herbert fitzHerbert, by Archbishop Thurstan and by Henry I, suggests that it was of more than personal interest.57 In fact, it can be seen as part of a settlement between the king, the archbishop and his

56 57

no. CX = EYC I, 39–40, no. 31 = RRAN III, no. 979; for the dating, see above, n. 10). The fact that the grant of the church to William was made jointly by Herbert the Chamberlain and his son Herbert fitzHerbert reflects the fact that the original grant of Weaverthorpe by Archbishop Thomas II in c. 1109 was to Herbert père et fils (EEA V, no. 15, and see above, Chapter One). William’s grant of the church to Nostell was confirmed by his brother Herbert fitzHerbert (now the head of the family) in a charter dated by Farrer to 1114 x 1121 (EYC I, 36–7, no. 26), but this can now be dated to after Herbert the Chamberlain’s death in 1118 x 1120. This in its turn was confirmed by Thurstan in a charter whose date-brackets are the same (EYC I, 37, no. 27 = EEA V, no. 53, there wrongly dated to 1128 x 1140); and Thurstan’s approval was subsequently recorded in a solemn diploma by Henry I. This belongs to the period 1121 x 1127, and was probably issued on 10 January 1122 (EYC III, 126–36, no. 1428 = RRAN II, no. 1312). A subsequent confirmation was issued by the king in 1126 x 1129 (EYC III, no. 1439 = RRAN II, no. 1626). Thus William’s gift of the church to Nostell, Herbert fitzHerbert’s confirmation charter, Thurstan’s confirmation and Henry I’s confirmation must all belong to the years between Herbert the Chamberlain’s death (not before 1118) and the royal confirmation charter of January 1122. But the date of all of these charters can be further refined to 1121 x 1122. For in the final months of his life, William fitzHerbert, as archbishop, issued a charter in favour of Nostell confirming inter alia his original grant of Weaverthorpe church, which, he says, had been given to the canons of Nostell in the presence of Archbishop Thurstan and the whole chapter of York (EYC I, 37–8, no. 28 = EEA V, 76, no. 97), i.e. it must have been given in York or Yorkshire. Since Herbert the Chamberlain was in deep disgrace (but alive) after his assassination attempt in 1118, and since Thurstan was out of the country continuously from Christmas 1118 to the end of January 1121, William’s original charter must have been granted at some time between Thurstan’s return and the royal confirmation charter a year later. We know that Thurstan was in York in late February and early April 1121 (EEA V, 116) and he must have had an enormous backlog of diocesan business to attend to. Assuming that William’s grant of Weaverthorpe church to Nostell was part of an agreement with the king allowing his return from exile, it would probably have been issued soon after Thurstan’s and his return from exile in spring 1121, or at any rate between February 1121 and January 1122. Burton, Monastic Order, pp. 71–7 and references there cited. See n. 55.

44

William the Treasurer treasurer. Not only was William’s gift of the church built by his father to the new community at Nostell a way of ingratiating himself with the king and easing the way to his return from exile with Thurstan; it was also a gesture of amends for Herbert the Chamberlain’s betrayal of the king, and a means of associating the family with the prayers of the nascent community. Herbert the Chamberlain may have been considered particularly in need of them. In summary, the early years of Thurstan’s archiepiscopate were tumultuous and difficult times for William. His movements cannot be traced for the first two years of the primacy dispute, but there seems little doubt that he was a prominent advocate of the York case. He was probably one of the York party which travelled to Normandy to see the king in the summer of 1116. Over the winter of 1116–17 he apparently travelled to Rome, returning in summer 1117 with an important letter of support from the pope. A year later ensued the traumatic episode of Herbert the Chamberlain’s assassination attempt. William’s movements the following year cannot be discerned, but he must have lain low for many months. He finally re-emerges at the papal court on the eve of Thurstan’s consecration in October 1119, and then seemingly accompanied Thurstan in exile around France for the next fifteen months. Eventually peace was made between the king and Thurstan, and William finally returned to York in early 1121. Over these years William experienced the atmosphere of a hostile royal court, the grandeur and the bureaucracy of Rome, the bitterest taste of family tragedy, the extraordinary assemblies and ecclesiastical intrigues of a papal council, the pomp and splendour of a papal progress through France, the life of an exile in the courts of foreign princes, delicate negotiations all round and a final, thankful return to York. The memories of those years can never have left him. And it may be that a memoir of those years has been preserved for us at second hand. Hugh the Chanter wrote his History of the Church of York in 1127–8. It has often been noted that a change in both style and content occurs in Hugh’s History when he reaches the year 1108. It is in 1108 that Hugh starts regularly employing the formula nos for recounting his narrative, which is thereafter very much fuller than before. This has been taken as evidence that Hugh was a canon of York from that time and had first-hand experience of events.58 However, Hugh is not otherwise attested earlier than the 1120s and was certainly not an archdeacon much before 1130;59 the editors of the second 58 59

See Hugh the Chanter, pp. xvi–xxiii. EEA V, 121–2; Greenway, Fasti, pp. 13–14, 36 and 112–13; see also Hugh the Chanter, p. xix, where the editors cite the assertion of the Chronica Pontificum (HCY II, 355) that Hugh the Chanter had known and worked closely with all the archbishops from Thomas of Bayeux onwards. This could be true, but may be no more than a misreading of Hugh’s History. Hugh died probably on 4 July 1139. The earliest recension of the Chronica Pontificum concludes with the death of Archbishop Thurstan in 1140. It therefore post-dates Hugh the Chanter’s death. If Hugh really had worked

45

St William of York edition of Hugh’s History have, moreover, pointed out that the first-person plural formula can be found in other ecclesiastical narratives where it is quite certain that the author was not a first-hand witness of events.60 The coincidence of the introduction of the nos formula in 1108 with William fitzHerbert’s first association with the church of York therefore takes on a new significance. All the more so when we realise that by the time Hugh the Chanter was writing, William was probably the only archdeacon left who had been appointed prior to Thurstan’s return from exile in 1121.61 The only other senior member of the York chapter who had been continuously in office since 1108 was the dean, Hugh. He was involved in the negotiations over Archbishop Thomas II’s election and consecration in 1108–9, but he took no part in the seven years of complex negotiations at the start of Thurstan’s reign.62 His role perhaps was to stay at York and run the cathedral. Hugh, in any case, had been dean since the early 1090s, so, while his memory should have been long, there is no reason why it should have induced a change in style in Hugh the Chanter’s narrative in 1108. Thurstan, of course, was still active when Hugh the Chanter was writing his History, and could have provided a unique account of the later phases of the story. But this is not what Hugh’s History provides. It is to a large extent a narrative of events from the chapter’s point of view, and contains nothing in the way of personal insights or indiscretions that obviously derive from Thurstan himself. Nor can the change in style in the year 1108 be ascribed to Thurstan’s recollections, any more than they can to Dean Hugh’s, since Thurstan did not arrive on the scene until 1114. Some of the most strikingly first-hand episodes in Hugh the Chanter’s History occur at the point when he recounts Thurstan’s wanderings in France following his consecration in late 1119.63 This is the very period when Thurstan, as I have argued, was accompanied in his exile by William. At the very least, William fitzHerbert would have been an obvious person for Hugh the Chanter to turn to for information about the disputes in the time of Thomas II and Thurstan. He may have been one of the principal witnesses for the History of the Church of York.

60 61

62

63

with Thomas of Bayeux (1070–1100) and Archbishop Gerard (1100–8), there is no obvious reason why the nos formula should start only in 1108. The editors assume that Hugh was not a canon till c. 1108, citing the change in the tone of the History in that year. But that begs the question. On Hugh’s dates as archdeacon, see above, n. 15. Hugh the Chanter, p. xxi. See above, nn. 15 and 46. Archdeacons Geoffrey and Hugh are last recorded witnessing a charter of 1121 x 1128 (EEA V, no. 43). EEA V, 121; Greenway, Fasti, p. 8; Hugh the Chanter, pp. 26–7 and 46–7. I assume that there was only one Dean Hugh between 1093 and 1135, though it is possible that the office was filled twice in a row by men with the same name. Hugh the Chanter, pp. xxi–xxii.

46

William the Treasurer

Property and estates The early years of Thurstan’s archiepiscopate show the extent to which William’s life continued to be influenced, indeed dominated, by a complex web of relationships involving the king, the archbishop and his family. The grant of the church on the family estate at Weaverthorpe to Henry I’s protégés at Nostell Priory with the approval of Archbishop Thurstan exemplifies this nexus. It can be further explored through an examination of William’s property transactions, which are better documented than most of his other activities. During a visit to York early in 1136, as we have seen, King Stephen issued a charter confirming a now lost charter of Henry I recording the grant of Weaverthorpe church to William fitzHerbert by his father, Herbert the Chamberlain, and his brother, Herbert fitzHerbert. The mention of Herbert the Chamberlain shows that Henry I’s charter must have been issued before Herbert’s death in 1118 x 1120. As well as Weaverthorpe, the grant included the churches at Londesborough, Clere (with the chapels attached to it) and Stanton.64 Londesborough and Weaverthorpe had both been given to Herbert the Chamberlain and Herbert fitzHerbert c. 1109 by Archbishop Thomas II.65 It is not known precisely when the churches of Stanton and Clere came into the possession of the FitzHerberts. Two other churches owned by William were gifts of the king. A charter of Henry I issued in 1133 records that the king has granted in perpetuity to the church of St Peter at York for the purpose of making a prebend there two churches and a chapel of William the treasurer, which he will hold during his lifetime. The churches are Market Weighton in Yorkshire and Nether Wallop with the chapel of Grateley in Hampshire. The wording of the charter indicates that these churches were already in William’s possession in 1133.66 The FitzHerbert family held estates at Market Weighton and at Nether Wallop with Grateley which had almost certainly been granted to Herbert the Chamberlain by Henry I. This must have been at some date prior to Herbert the Chamberlain’s treason and disgrace in 1118, and it may be supposed that the churches in question had been transferred to William, like the four mentioned in King Stephen’s charter, before Herbert the Chamberlain’s death. William’s tenure of these six churches can be illuminated by an analysis of Herbert the Chamberlain’s property acquisitions, the evidence for which is both elusive and complex. It is best dealt with in an Appendix.67 64

65 66 67

EYC I, no. 31 = RRAN III, no. 979; see n. 55. The wording of the grant, specifying the assent of both Herbert the Chamberlain and Herbert fitzHerbert, would fit the period after Herbert the Chamberlain’s punishment, when it must have been clear that Herbert fitzHerbert would succeed before long. EEA V, no. 15; see Chapter One. EYC I, no. 132 = RRAN II, no. 1759 = Cartulary of the Treasurer, no. 1. Full documentation for the following section on William’s churches and the family

47

St William of York The six churches fall into two geographical groups, one in the East Riding of Yorkshire, the other in Hampshire and Wiltshire. Weaverthorpe and Londesborough were the chief settlements of the two Wolds estates made over to Herbert the Chamberlain by Archbishop Thomas, and they have been discussed above.68 Market Weighton is a few miles from Londesborough, at the foot of the Wolds where the main road to Beverley rises out of the Vale of York (Fig. 2). William must have passed through it frequently. Herbert the Chamberlain seems to have been granted half of an estate in the king’s fee at Market Weighton by Henry I. The other half went to Geoffrey son of Pain, a favourite of the king’s who was given the nearby Warter estate early in Henry’s reign. Market Weighton, therefore, was divided between two royal favourites with adjacent estates. Herbert evidently managed to acquire the church and pass it on to William. A similar history can be discerned behind the grant of Nether Wallop with Grateley. Nether Wallop lies just north of the main road between Winchester and Salisbury, on the Hampshire side of the county border (Fig. 1). Grateley is a few miles further north, towards Andover. An important estate belonging to Earl Godwin before the Conquest, Nether Wallop was held by the king at the time of Domesday, and seems subsequently to have passed to Herbert the Chamberlain. Clere can be identified as Kingsclere, a large parish in northwestern Hampshire comprising a parish church and dependent chapels at North Oakley, Ecchinswell and Sydmonton. Kingsclere church was endowed with a distinct manor of its own (later known as Parsonage Tithing) which had been granted by William the Conqueror to New Minster at Winchester prior to 1086. Henry I confirmed Hyde Abbey in its possession of the church at Kingsclere in 1116.69 Herbert the Chamberlain figures prominently in the New Minster/Hyde Abbey Liber Vitae, just below the king, and he was involved in the arrangements for the transfer of the community to its new site c. 1110.70 It seems likely that Herbert used his leverage over the Winchester community to acquire the estate at Kingsclere between 1116 and his disgrace in 1118. About thirty miles north-west of Kingsclere, in northern Wiltshire, just off the main road to Cirencester and Gloucester, lies the village of Stanton FitzWarren. Here too the FitzHerberts had an estate. In each of these cases, William was granted the church on an estate belonging to his father, in some cases with attached chapels. One other church, perhaps more, came into his hands in the same way. The church at Cowlam with ½ carucate of land is itemised in Archbishop Thomas II’s grant

68 69

70

estates will be found in Appendix A. See Chapter One. The Conqueror’s grant is Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: The Acta of William I (1066–87), ed. D. Bates (Oxford, 1998), no. 344 = Property and Piety in Early Medieval Winchester, no. X. Henry I’s confirmation is RRAN II, no. 1126 = Property and Piety in Early Medieval Winchester, no. XIV. See above, Chapter One.

48

William the Treasurer of Yorkshire lands to Herbert the Chamberlain c. 1109.71 Cowlam is a tiny settlement towards the southern edge of the Weaverthorpe estate. It is not known whether the church was considered a dependency of Weaverthorpe and may therefore have been included in the grant of Weaverthorpe church to William. If so, it does not seem to have been part of William’s 1121 grant of Weaverthorpe church to Nostell Priory. It subsequently passed out of the control of the family. More significant is the case of St John Ogleforth or St John del Pyke in York (Fig. 5). This too, along with some adjacent properties, formed part of Archbishop Thomas II’s grant to Herbert the Chamberlain. The church, as I have previously suggested, was intended to support William’s work in the office of treasurer, and it was probably transferred to him like the other churches on the family estates. Although poorly documented, the church had definitely been separated from the adjacent properties held by the FitzHerberts by the later twelfth century; in subsequent centuries it was held by the dean and chapter and was appropriated to the office of treasurer. Most likely the church was given to William at an early date, and was subsequently granted by him to the Minster for the support of his successors in the office of treasurer. A consistent pattern therefore emerges. The churches on the family estates were separated off from the rest of the estates and were transferred to William. Only in the case of Stanton in Wiltshire is it possible that he acquired the whole estate. The 1130 Pipe Roll, which records money owing to the king in respect of property formerly held by Herbert the Chamberlain, but then in the hands of his heirs, indicates that William held property in Wiltshire.72 This could refer to the Stanton estate, which may have passed to him in its entirety after his father’s death. If so, it reverted in due course to the senior line, as it was held by the descendants of Herbert fitzHerbert in subsequent generations. But during Herbert the Chamberlain’s lifetime, the policy was evidently to grant to the clerical son the ecclesiastical assets on the family estates. This can be seen as a modest response, at family level, to a broad movement in the western church. In their attempts to free the church from secular control, the papal reformers were increasingly emphasising the inappropriateness of lay ownership of churches. Monastic houses, in particular, were major beneficiaries of this movement and were the recipients of large numbers of parish churches.73 Herbert the Chamberlain’s response was outwardly to follow the prevailing fashion while ensuring that the income from the churches continued to accrue to the benefit of his family. One would expect no less from a man of his talents. The church of St John Ogleforth in York was presumably transferred to William soon after his appointment as treasurer. Whether the transfer of the remaining churches took place before or 71 72 73

See n. 65. PR 1130, pp. 22–3. See, for example, Burton, Monastic Order, pp. 235–43.

49

St William of York after Herbert’s disgrace, we do not know. If the latter, the transfer of the ecclesiastical portions of the estates to the one member of the family who held a senior appointment in the church may have been a defensive measure. After 1118 the family estates were held very much at the king’s pleasure. Should he have decided to move against the family, the archbishop of York could perhaps have provided some defence for his archdeacon and treasurer, particularly since some of the churches had originally come from the archbishop’s fee. In the event, the estates were not confiscated, and it was William who further antagonised the king by supporting Thurstan at his consecration and remaining with him in exile. So the placatory grant of Weaverthorpe church to the canons of Nostell in 1121 deprived William of one of his possessions at an early date. The churches of Market Weighton and of Nether Wallop with the chapel of Grateley he retained until he had been consecrated archbishop. Then, in accordance with the intentions expressed in Henry I’s charter of 1133, William gave them to the chapter of York for a prebend. The gift was confirmed by Pope Lucius II in 1144 x 1145.74 Nether Wallop remained as part of the endowments of the treasurer until 1459, when it was transferred to the Vicars Choral.75 The descent of Market Weighton was more complicated. William’s successor as Minster treasurer was Hugh du Puiset, who was subsequently elevated to the see of Durham (1153–95). He seems to have retained the church of Market Weighton for his own use, for it turns up subsequently in the possession of Hugh’s son, Henry du Puiset. After lengthy disputes in the early thirteenth century, Archbishop de Gray finally took possession of the church and restored it as a separate prebend of York, thus finally fulfilling the will of Henry I.76 It was perhaps also around the time of his consecration as archbishop that William established the church of St John Ogleforth in York as part of the endowments of the office of treasurer. The descent of the Wiltshire church of Stanton is not recorded. The remaining two churches from William’s portfolio, Kingsclere in Hampshire and Londesborough in Yorkshire, reverted to the ownership of the FitzHerbert family. The choice is not without significance. Over the years, Herbert the Chamberlain succeeded in acquiring estates in various parts of the country, but the major concentration was to be found in an arc of properties stretching from north-west Hampshire to the adjacent part of Berkshire (Fig. 1). These included Nether Wallop with Grateley, a cluster of manors around Kingsclere and the estate at Leckhampstead in Berkshire which Herbert had extracted from Abingdon Abbey. 74

75 76

See n. 11, and for Pope Lucius’s confirmation, Cartulary of the Treasurer, no. 9 = PUE II, no. 41. Cartulary of the Treasurer, pp. viii and 78–9, nos 65–6. Details are given in Appendix A.

50

William the Treasurer The heart of the land-holdings was in and around Kingsclere,77 so the reversion of the church at Kingsclere and its dependent chapels to the family can be interpreted as a deliberate choice by William to ensure their control of the churches at the centre of the family estates. Something similar seems to have happened with Londesborough. The Pipe Roll for 1130 records Herbert fitzHerbert as answering for debts owed on the majority of the estates formerly held by Herbert the Chamberlain, but the Yorkshire estates are listed in the name of Herbert the Chamberlain’s widow, Emma.78 Following Herbert’s death, Emma, it appears, retreated to the family estates furthest distant from the painful memories associated with the court of Henry I, namely the Yorkshire estates. The Weaverthorpe estate was the larger of the two, but it was also much the more remote and the more physically exposed. Londesborough, by contrast, nestles comfortably in a sheltered valley on the western edge of the Wolds, isolated from but conveniently close to the main roads from York to Beverley and to the Humber crossing, which ran past the family’s lands at Market Weighton. In subsequent generations Londesborough was considered worthy of housing such eminent families as the Cliffords and the Boyles, including the Apollo of his age, Lord Burlington, who is buried in the church. Londesborough would have been the obvious choice of retreat for the widowed Emma, the more so since William would pass that way far more frequently than Weaverthorpe. Weaverthorpe, as the centre of the larger of the two Yorkshire estates, made a better peace-offering for Henry I and the canons of Nostell; Londesborough made a better residence for the family, and retention of the church in family ownership was accordingly the more desirable. Ownership of a church brought with it financial benefits, and the right to appoint the priest. It also entailed responsibilities towards the fabric of the building. The mid-eleventh to the mid-twelfth centuries were the years of what has been called the Great Rebuilding of parish churches, when thousands of churches up and down the land were constructed or rebuilt in stone.79 The churches on the FitzHerbert estates were not exempt from this process. Londesborough, Market Weighton, Kingsclere and the chapel at Grateley all contain fabric which belongs to the Great Rebuilding, incorporated into later rebuildings.80 The dating of parish churches in this period is 77 78 79

80

The evidence is set out in Appendix A. PR 1130, p. 25, and see Appendix A for details. R. Gem, ‘The English Parish Church in the 11th and 12th Centuries: A Great Rebuilding?’, in Minsters and Parish Churches: The Local Church in Transition 950–1200, ed. J. Blair (Oxford, 1988), pp. 21–30; R. K. Morris, ‘Churches in York and Its Hinterland, Building Patterns and Stone Sources in the 11th and 12th Centuries’, ibid., pp. 191–9. N. Pevsner and D. Neave, Yorkshire: York and the East Riding, 2nd edn, Buildings of England (London, 1995), pp. 601–2 and 609–10; VCH Hampshire, IV (London, 1911), 261–4 and 370–1; J. Lang, Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture III, York and East

51

St William of York a delicate matter, but the south nave doorway at Londesborough is likely to date to William’s time. A single shaft on either jamb topped by a simple capital supports a moulded semi-circular arch enclosing a tympanum, in the middle of which is set a sun-dial. Above the doorway is a re-set AngloScandinavian cross-head with interlace carving. This may have been an original element of the early-twelfth-century ensemble, since the lintel of the doorway is a monolith in the same distinctive stone as the cross-head. It looks like the shaft of the Anglo-Scandinavian cross, and although it sits rather uneasily on its supports, it appears to be an original part of the Romanesque doorway. The quality of the masonry is fairly indifferent, but the deliberate incorporation of the earlier cross-shaft fragments reflects a conscious decision to emphasise the antiquity and continuity of the site. At Kingsclere there survives a twelfth-century north doorway of far more elaborate design, with zig-zag and saltire crosses in the main arch, which is supported on a single order of columns on either side. This could be of the second quarter of the century.

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view the image on this page please refer to the printed version of this book.

Fig. 6 Anglo-Saxon wall-paintings on the chancel arch of the church of Nether Wallop, Hants.

By a remarkable chance, however, the FitzHerberts are also associated with two churches which have come to be recognised as among the most important survivals in the country – Nether Wallop and Weaverthorpe. Yorkshire (Oxford, 1991), pp. 179–80.

52

William the Treasurer Nether Wallop is the site of one of the most extraordinary discoveries of recent years: the realisation that the painted angels over the medieval chancel arch, which had long been known, are part of a late-Saxon monumental painting of Christ in Majesty (Fig. 6).81 These are the most important surviving pre-Conquest wall-paintings in the country, and they reflect the high status of the church and the estate even before the Conquest. They also reflect the kind of monumental wall-painting which must have existed in the great late-Saxon churches at nearby Winchester. William must have known the Nether Wallop paintings, assuming he ever went there. Even if he did not, they are a precious reminder of the kinds of painting that William and his family would have been familiar with at Winchester.

Fig. 7

Drawing of the inscribed sundial at Weaverthorpe Church.

Weaverthorpe, by contrast, contains nothing of pre-Conquest date, but it has come down to us largely intact in the form in which William would have known it.82 It contains an inscribed sundial recording that the church was built by Herbert the Chamberlain, who is here described as Herbert of Winchester (Fig. 7). The inscription is laid out in four lines, above which are the remains of the letters of an additional line of text which cannot now be read. The text reads as follows: + IN · HONORE · SCI · ANDREÆ · APOSTOLI · HEREBERTUS WINTONIE · HOC · MONASTERI VM · FECIT · IN · TEMPORE · RE

In honour of St Andrew the Apostle Herbert of Winchester built this minster in the time of ki... 81

82

R. Gem and P. Tudor-Craig, ‘A “Winchester School” Wall-Painting at Nether Wallop, Hampshire’, Anglo-Saxon England 9 (1981), 115–36. There is an excellent account of the church in Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe’, and see references in n. 79.

53

St William of York The sundial stone, which is built into the tympanum of the south nave doorway, belongs to a regional tradition of inscribed sundials, a number of which incorporate inscriptions giving the name of the builder of the church concerned. Examples are to be found at Aldborough, Great Edstone and Old Byland. The closest parallel to the Weaverthorpe sundial is provided by the famous example at Kirkdale, where the inscription (in Old English) includes the name of the builder, the dedication of the church, and a chronological reference to the days of King Edward the Confessor and Earl Tostig, i.e. 1055– 65. From this we may deduce that the Weaverthorpe inscription was intended to conclude with the words RE[GIS · HENRICI] (‘ki[ng Henry]’).83 The other examples in the group show that the lettering was not always very carefully laid out; and at Great Edstone the brief inscription fills only a small part of the space apparently provided for it. Assuming the inscriptions were originally painted, the texts could have been completed with letters which were painted onto, but not carved into, the stone. It is possible that the sundial at Londesborough was also originally accompanied by a painted inscription. The mention of Herbert of Winchester, i.e. Herbert the Chamberlain, enables the building to be dated with unusual precision. It must have been built between c. 1109 (date of the grant of the church by Archbishop Thomas II to Herbert) and 1121 (date of the gift of Weaverthorpe church to Nostell Priory by William fitzHerbert). More precisely, it can probably be assigned to the decade between c. 1109 and Herbert the Chamberlain’s disgrace in 1118.84 The church consists of a rectangular chancel, an aisleless nave with a south doorway incorporating the sundial (and a later porch), and a square western tower whose upper parts are reached by a spiral staircase which partly projects as a semi-circular turret on the exterior (Fig. 8). Apart from this, the plan of the church is strictly rectilinear, and its external elevation is a no-nonsense straight-up-and-down design, eschewing buttresses, off-sets, string-courses or any other features to interrupt the plain walls, which rise from the simplest of chamfered plinths. Only at the top of the tower are there two very simple horizontal string-courses. These are positioned above and below two-light openings (one on each face of the tower), which are divided by shafts supporting plain cushion capitals and are set beneath semi-circular overarches (Fig. 9). The interior is equally plain. The tower arch is of the most severe type, of a single unmoulded square-edged order set above the plainest of imposts. The much larger chancel arch is of two orders, also square-edged and rising from equally simple imposts. There 83

84

See Lang, Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture III, pp. 46–7, 123–4, 133–5, 163–6 and 195, J. Wall, ‘Anglo-Saxon Sundials in Ryedale’, YAJ 69 (1997), 93–117, at pp. 108–12, and S. A. J. Bradley, Orm Gamalson’s Sundial: The Lily’s Blossom and the Roses’ Fragrance (Kirkdale, 2002). Is it possible that the king’s name was removed following his punishment of Herbert the Chamberlain in 1118? For a possible charter attestation by Herbert as camerarius regis de Winton’, see Chapter One, n. 2. For these dates, see Chapter One and above.

54

William the Treasurer are no shafts, capitals, decorated voussoirs or other ornamental carvings of any kind (Fig. 10). Only the font, a simple drum-shaped bowl, has ornamentation in the form of a pattern of circles and octagons. The font makes an interesting contrast with the one at nearby Cowlam, which is carved with large figures including Adam and Eve, a female figure (? Mary), two men wrestling (? Jacob and the angel: or local men engaging in ‘Westmorland’ wrestling?), a bishop with a crozier, and the Adoration of the Magi.85 Cowlam church with ½ carucate of land was included in Archbishop Thomas II’s grant of lands around Weaverthorpe to Herbert the Chamberlain. The presence of the bishop, if he is to be identified as the archbishop of York, could indicate a date prior to the c. 1109 grant, and thus a few years earlier than the Weaverthorpe font.

Fig. 8

Plan of Weaverthorpe Church.

Plain it may be, but Weaverthorpe church is emphatically not the product of poor design or careless workmanship. The walls are faced throughout, both inside and out, with squared ashlar in carefully laid courses. This is a precocious example of a parish church employing the Norman technique of coursed ashlar blocks of moderate size, and contrasts strikingly with the huge, irregularly coursed blocks or the rubble walling characteristic of churches of equivalent status in Yorkshire in the eleventh century and into the early decades of the twelfth. The similar church at nearby Wharram-leStreet points up the distinctiveness of the masonry at Weaverthorpe.

85

F. Mann, Early Medieval Church Sculpture: A Study of 12th-Century Fragments in East Yorkshire (Beverley, 1985), pp. 28–32; C. S. Drake, The Romanesque Fonts of Northern Europe and Scandinavia (Woodbridge, 2002), pp. 20–1 and pl. 32.

55

St William of York

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view the image on this page please refer to the printed version of this book.

Fig. 9

Weaverthorpe Church from the south-west.

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view the image on this page please refer to the printed version of this book.

Fig. 10

Weaverthorpe Church, interior looking east.

56

William the Treasurer Wharram-le-Street has more elaborate architectural detailing, but distinctly inferior masonry, in spite of the fact that it is believed to date to the 1120s.86 The quality of the work at Weaverthorpe can be ascribed to the influence of the patrons, and it points to the involvement not just of Herbert the Chamberlain, but also of William fitzHerbert. Even if the work was paid for by his father before the church was granted to William, the latter would surely have been involved. Not only was he the family representative in Yorkshire, he had the contacts necessary for ensuring an appropriate quality of work. The new ‘Norman’ style of masonry was introduced into Yorkshire at a few major post-Conquest ecclesiastical building projects. York Minster itself was probably the earliest, begun apparently in the mid to late 1070s, followed by the early phases of the work at Lastingham, which was begun c. 1080 and abandoned a few years later when the community moved to St Mary’s Abbey in York. Work on the new abbey church of St Mary’s began in 1088,87 and the new style of masonry employed there makes an interesting contrast with the tower of the parish church of St Mary Bishophill Junior in York. This is constructed in the traditional manner out of coursed rubble and was perhaps under construction as late as the last decade of the eleventh century.88 The different masonry techniques reflect the difference in status and ambition of the churches concerned. By the second decade of the twelfth century the ‘Norman’ masonry technique was being employed at an increasing number of major sites in the north-east – Selby, Whitby and Durham among others – but was still scarcely to be found among the parish churches, as far as we can tell. The obvious place to look for the origin of the Weaverthorpe masons is York itself, through the intermediary of William fitzHerbert. The Norman Minster had been completed by the time of Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux’s death in 1100, but work would have been continuing on other buildings around the close, such as the archbishop’s palace and the residences of the newly established canons of the Minster. William may well have been carrying out work on his own residence, the Treasurer’s House.89 St Mary’s Abbey was also still under construction in the second decade of the twelfth century. The precocious appearance of the new 86

87

88

89

J. Bilson, ‘Wharram-le-Street Church, Yorkshire, and St Rule’s Church, St Andrews’, Archaeologia 73 (1923), 55–72; articles by Gem and Morris cited in n. 79; S. Heywood, ‘The Church of St Rule, St Andrews’, in Medieval Art and Architecture in the Diocese of St Andrews, ed. J. Higgitt , BAACT 14 (1994), pp. 38–46. Phillips, The Cathedral of Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux; Norton, Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux, pp. 14–33; R. Gem and M. Thurlby, ‘The Early Monastic Church of Lastingham’, in Yorkshire Monasticism, ed. Hoey, pp. 31–9; Norton, ‘The Buildings of St Mary’s Abbey’, esp. pp. 257–64; Norton, ‘The Design of St Mary’s Abbey, York’. Wenham et al., St Mary Bishophill Junior. Estimates of date range from c. 1050 to c. 1100; towards the end of that period is preferable. Description of the Treasurer’s House, including some twelfth-century masonry, in RCHM, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York, V, The Central Area (London, 1981), pp. 68–76.

57

St William of York masonry technique at Weaverthorpe can be seen as an example of the transference of large-scale Norman building methods to the parish church level through the influence of a well-connected Norman cleric. The case is closely paralleled a century later at the parish church of Skelton, near York. The small but architecturally distinguished church has been ascribed to some of the masons who worked on the south transept of York Minster in the second quarter of the thirteenth century; their involvement can be attributed to the patronage of William’s successor as treasurer of York Minster, Robert Haget.90 The architectural simplicity of the church at Weaverthorpe may be deceptive. With Nether Wallop in mind, we have to keep open the possibility that it was decorated with monumental wall-paintings. The Romanesque Minster at York had large areas of plain walling ideal for monumental painting cycles. Following the structural completion of the Minster, resources (for which William as treasurer would presumably have had some responsibility) are likely to have been allocated to its ornamentation. Sadly, the destruction of Thomas of Bayeux’s cathedral makes it impossible to know what may have been there. All that survives is a single painted stone of twelfth-century date bearing rich polychrome geometric decoration, which could date to William’s time.91 There could also have been painters working on St Mary’s Abbey. William could have employed wall-painters from York along with some metropolitan masons at Weaverthorpe. If so, the inhabitants of Weaverthorpe could have boasted that their new lords and masters had given them something unrivalled in the neighbouring villages of the Yorkshire Wolds.92 Constructed on a rise above the village of Weaverthorpe, the church dominates the valley which formed the heart of the Weaverthorpe estate. Just to the east of it stood the manor house (Fig. 11). Excavations of part of the site in 1960 uncovered the base of the walls of a rectangular hall of probably twelfth-century date with interior dimensions of about 20ft by 49ft. The hall stood within a substantial enclosure bounded by earthworks. These run most of the way down the hill towards the modern village, which is laid out along the main east–west road along the valley. The church stands at the north-west corner of the enclosure. The disappearance of the manor-house complex has left the church standing on its own above the rest of the village, but it would not originally have seemed so isolated. It is a reasonable presumption that the 90

91

92

C. Wilson, D. E. O’Connor and M. A. J. Thompson, St Giles, Skelton: A Brief Guide (York, 1978). The chapel at Skelton belonged to the treasurer by 1247 (Greenway, Fasti, p. 21). Discovered during the restoration campaign of the 1960s and 1970s, this stone is currently kept in the stoneyard. Compare, for instance, the fine monumental painting cycles of c. 1080–1120 in the group of modest churches in Sussex known as the ‘Lewes Group’, discussed in D. Park, ‘The “Lewes Group” of Wall-Paintings in Sussex’, Anglo-Norman Studies 6 (1984), 200–37.

58

William the Treasurer

Fig. 11. Map of Weaverthorpe village.

early rectangular hall was constructed by the FitzHerberts along with the church, not long after they acquired the estate. It is interesting to note that the bottom of the footings of the hall (which are all that survived) were constructed of chalk slabs laid at about 30° to the horizontal, having apparently formed the lowest course of a section of herring-bone masonry. The excavator commented that the mason responsible for laying the wall was obviously totally unaware of the technique required in building in the local chalk and committed the gross error of placing the slabs at an angle. This indicates clearly that the builders did not originate on the Wolds or adjacent areas, and must have worked in limestone, sandstone and similar materials and been unfamiliar with the use of chalk as a building material.

In spite of their very different designs and building techniques, it therefore appears that both the church and the hall were constructed by builders from further afield. Herring-bone masonry is a characteristic of the stone walling in the lowest courses of the walls of Thomas of Bayeux’s cathedral at York; so it may be that the hall, as I have suggested for the church, was constructed by metropolitan masons, who were used to working with proper building stone rather than chalk.93 93

T. C. H. Brewster, ‘An Excavation at Weaverthorpe Manor, East Riding, 1960’, YAJ 44 (1972), 114–33. For herring-bone masonry in Thomas of Bayeux’s cathedral, see Phillips, The Cathedral of Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux, pl. 93.

59

St William of York As well as the family properties, William administered the estates which formed the endowments of the office of Minster treasurer. By the thirteenth century these were extremely substantial. Most derived from lands held at the time of Domesday by the archbishop or the church of St Peter at York. The process by which they came into the hands of the treasurers is largely obscure. Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux began the process of endowing the individual prebends and dignitaries, and the treasurers had certainly acquired many of their principal endowments by the later twelfth century.94 The question of William’s part in the process naturally arises. Here it is only necessary to point towards one particular estate. One of the richest of the endowments of the treasurer was the so-called Mottisfont Treasury, which included a manor and the church of Mottisfont in Hampshire together with a string of dependent chapels. It was in the hands of the treasurer by 1179 x 1181, having previously belonged to the archbishop in 1086.95 Archbishop Roger of Pont l’Évêque (1154–81), William’s eventual successor, had a reputation for careful, if not miserly administration of the archiepiscopal estates,96 and is therefore not the most likely candidate to have disposed of such a valuable endowment. William’s rival, Archbishop Henry Murdac (1147–53), was at loggerheads with his treasurer, Hugh du Puiset, an appointee and supporter of William. At one point Murdac excommunicated Hugh du Puiset, and it is most unlikely that he enriched the treasurership so munificently.97 Before Hugh du Puiset, the only treasurers were William himself and his predecessor Ranulph. It seems therefore more than a coincidence that Mottisfont and its dependent chapelries are adjacent to the FitzHerbert estate at Nether Wallop, whose church, as we have seen, was held by William. There is even some evidence of a connection between the churches of Nether Wallop and Mottisfont in pre-Conquest days.98 The administrative convenience of William holding both Nether Wallop and Mottisfont, with all their associated chapels, is evident. Furthermore, there would have been a happy symmetry and an obvious utility in a situation whereby William could supervise the FitzHerbert family estates in Yorkshire, while his family could supervise his estates in Hampshire. The acquisition of the Mottisfont Treasury seems therefore most likely to belong to William’s period in office. If early on, one suspects the hand of Herbert the Chamberlain in all this, and perhaps also the king (in whose hands the principal manor of Mottisfont apparently lay at the time of Domesday, like that of Nether Wallop).99 Was the unfortunate Archbishop Thomas II forced to transfer the Mottisfont 94 95

96 97 98 99

Cartulary of the Treasurer, pp. v–ix. VCH Hants, IV, 506–9; Cartulary of the Treasurer, pp. viii–ix, 10–18, 78–9. See also Regesta William I, no. 852. William of Newburgh III, v = EHD II, 388–9; see EEA XX, xxix–xxxi. See below, Chapter Four. Gem and Tudor-Craig, ‘A “Winchester School” Wall-Painting’, pp. 115–16. VCH Hants, IV, 503.

60

William the Treasurer Treasury to the Minster treasurer as part of the negotiations of 1108–9? Or did Archbishop Thurstan succumb to similar pressures early in his reign, in the period, for instance, after 1116 when he was still attached to the king’s court but deprived of the archiepiscopal revenues? Or again, Thurstan could have granted the Mottisfont estate to William later on, as a thank-offering for the latter’s support at the time of his consecration and during his subsequent exile in 1119–21. An alternative possibility is that William himself could have transferred the estate to the treasurership when he appointed Hugh du Puiset as his successor in that post c. 1143. Puiset was a nephew of Henry of Blois, without whose support William would never have been consecrated archbishop.100 Whatever the occasion, the long-term beneficiaries, in this case, were not the FitzHerbert family, but successive treasurers of York Minster. The fragmented and discouraging scraps of evidence for William’s property and estate transactions do ultimately reveal something of his wider concerns. The mix of royal, ecclesiastical and familial influences which originally procured William his post at York continues to characterise much of what we can perceive of his subsequent career. The manner in which estates and churches were transferred from royal and ecclesiastical control to the FitzHerbert family or to William himself, and then in some cases back again, epitomises the fluidity of the relationships. It is a reflection of the nature of the surviving documentation that so much of it relates to landholdings. William’s other activities as treasurer and archdeacon during the 1120s and 1130s can only be tentatively pieced together from occasional hints and snippets of information.

Ecclesiastical affairs Thurstan’s return to England in 1121 marked the end of any challenge to his personal status as lawfully elected and consecrated archbishop of York. It was not, however, the end of the dispute between York and Canterbury on the issue of the primacy. This rumbled on until 1127, when the papal verdict definitively vindicated York’s stand against Canterbury. Hugh the Chanter’s narrative continues up to this point. William must have continued to be involved, but his movements can seldom be discerned. On 29 September 1121 Thurstan attended a royal council to which he had been summoned with his dignitaries and older and wiser clerks. As one of the Minster dignitaries, William should have been in attendance; it could have been he who provided the council with an eye-witness account of the issuing of a papal privilege on behalf of Thurstan by Calixtus II at Gap in March 1120.101 He may also have accompanied Thurstan to the royal council at Gloucester on 2 February 1123, 100 101

See Chapter Three. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 178–81; Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 82.

61

St William of York on which occasion William of Corbeil was elected to the vacant see of Canterbury. Thurstan’s party included the abbot of St Mary’s, York, Athelwold, prior of Nostell, and some archdeacons and canons, who negotiated on Thurstan’s behalf with William of Corbeil about arrangements for his consecration.102 Memories of 1108–9 for William, if he was involved! Soon after this, Thurstan set off for Rome, accompanied by some of ‘our clerks’, as Hugh the Chanter describes them.103 He travelled to Rome again over the winter of 1125–6,104 as the primacy dispute dragged on to its conclusion. It is doubtful that William would have accompanied Thurstan on these visits. Hugh makes no mention of archdeacons or canons on either occasion, Thurstan himself had by now plenty of experience of dealing with the papal curia in person, and it is perhaps unlikely that Henry I would have granted William permission to leave the realm, after the events of 1118–21. He probably stayed behind. When not travelling with or for Thurstan, William is likely to have stayed within the diocese. Although his family still retained their Hampshire estates and their Winchester properties, they are unlikely to have shown their faces at court more often than they had to after Herbert the Chamberlain’s disgrace. As for William, any hopes which he might have entertained of advancement to the episcopacy were presumably to be abandoned, at least while Henry I was on the throne. In Yorkshire, William had his official duties at the Minster and in his archdeaconry, and his residences at York and Beverley to fall back on. The family estates at Weaverthorpe and Londesborough provided a refuge if necessary. Of William’s duties as treasurer of York Minster we can say nothing of substance. The organisation of the Minster finances at this early date and the role of the treasurer within it are lost in impenetrable obscurity.105 We scarcely know the names of the other members of the chapter; even their number eludes us. Archbishop Gerard’s 1103 letter to Anselm makes plain that the liturgical duties of the canons were frequently carried out by vicars, that nonresidence was already a serious problem and that even when resident at York, the behaviour of the canons often left much to be desired.106 It is the first of many such complaints over the centuries. If William was much in residence from 1121 onwards, he would probably have been in a minority, 102 103 104 105

106

Hugh the Chanter, pp. 184–7; Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 84–7. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 188–201; Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 87–91. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 204–17; Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 95–9. A charter of William de Percy mentions customary obligations on the part of the treasurer towards the fabric, sacred vessels and ornaments of the Minster. These very likely went back to William’s time. The charter (printed in EYC XI, 39–40 no. 30) was confirmed in a charter of Archbishop Roger of Pont l’Évêque dated 1164 x c. 1173–4 (EYC XI, 332–3 no. 264 = EEA XX, no. 137). See above, Chapter One, n. 25. Identifiable chapter members are listed in Clay, Fasti; Greenway, Fasti, pp. xxiii–xxiv and passim.

62

William the Treasurer and should have been in a position to take a significant role in the affairs of the Minster. Regular residence implies the maintenance of suitable residential accommodation, and some of the twelfth-century masonry still to be seen in the former Treasurer’s House could be of William’s time.107 It would not be surprising if he devoted some of his energies and income to providing a residence concordant with his status, both at York and at Beverley. As archdeacon of the East Riding, William would have had a number of additional duties and responsibilities. These included the collection of revenues and dues in his archdeaconry, both on behalf of the archbishop and on his own account;108 the holding of courts and synods in his archdeaconry, and the maintenance of clerical discipline; and representing the archbishop in his absence, and assisting him when present.109 Between 1121 and 1135 William witnessed five charters of Archbishop Thurstan – two in favour of Bridlington Priory, which lay within his archdeaconry, and one each in favour of Durham, Holy Trinity Priory, York, and St Clement’s Nunnery, York.110 The date and place of issue is in each case uncertain, and the charters reveal nothing of consequence about William’s activities. But the 1120s and 1130s were busy years for Thurstan, and fundamental for the subsequent development of the diocese and the northern province. William cannot have been ignorant of events, and two issues stand out as being of particular relevance for understanding the troubled years of his archiepiscopate. In 1127 York had finally vindicated its claim not to make a profession of obedience to Canterbury. But victory over Canterbury was not matched on York’s northern front. The archbishops of York claimed metropolitan authority over the church in Scotland, including the right to consecrate the Scottish bishops and exact from them an oath of allegiance.111 York’s claims were not easily enforced, and matters were complicated by the fact that most of the province over which the church of York purported to rule fell within the boundaries of the kingdom of Scotland. And therein lay another persistent difficulty: the boundaries between the realms of the English and Scottish crowns were far from settled. Northumberland and the counties west of the Pennines were still disputed territory, and even Durham was poten-

107 108

109

110 111

See above, n. 89. See, for example, EYC I, 127 no. 144 = EEA V, no. 77, where Thurstan grants 100s annually for the upkeep of the Minster school, of which 40s are to come from the synodalia of the archdeaconry of the East Riding, compared to 30s from the archdeaconry of Nottingham. See also on this C. T. Clay, ‘The Early Precentors and Chancellors of York’, YAJ 35 (1943), 116–38 (at pp. 129–30). Brett, English Church, pp. 199–211, and Twelfth-Century English Archidiaconal and ViceArchidiaconal Acta, ed. B. R. Kemp, Canterbury and York Society 92 (Woodbridge, 2001), pp. xliii–lii. See also the account of Henry of Huntingdon’s activities as archdeacon at just this period in Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, pp. xl–liii. EEA V, nos 39–40, 43 and 73–4. Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 75–100; Brett, English Church, pp. 14–28.

63

St William of York tially uncertain, given the close links between the church of Durham and the Scottish royal family. This potent mix of ecclesiastical and secular power politics threatened continual eruptions throughout the century.112 A living manifestation of the problem was Ralph Nowell, whom we have already met. Consecrated bishop of the Orkneys at York by Archbishop Thomas II, he was an active supporter of Thurstan during the primacy dispute, and a conspicuous ally at Thurstan’s consecration in 1119.113 He was a potential weapon in York’s Scottish campaign, but his failure to establish himself in his diocese was a symptom of the defeat of the Scottish policy. In 1127 Ralph was at York for the consecration by Thurstan of Robert, bishop of St Andrews. Prior of the community at Scone, Robert had previously been a canon of the Augustinian foundation at Nostell. Among those present at the consecration were the priors of Scone and Nostell; so too, probably, was William.114 The occasion provided William with an opportunity to renew his Augustinian and Scottish connections. Scone had been founded prior to 1120 with canons from Nostell by King Alexander, whose wife, Queen Sybil, was the step-daughter of William’s brother Herbert.115 She died in 1122, and was followed to the grave by Alexander in April 1124. One of his last acts had been to procure the election of Robert as bishop of St Andrews, and one of Robert’s earliest initiatives was to construct a new cathedral church. The church of St Rule at St Andrews has been the object of much debate among architectural historians. It is now usually ascribed to the patronage of Bishop Robert in the 1120s, and there is general agreement that its unusual architectural design is most closely paralleled in the parish churches of the Yorkshire Wolds. As originally conceived, it consisted of a very tall, thin western tower, a modest, aisleless rectangular nave, and a short, rectangular chancel. Design and details can be compared to the church of Wharram-leStreet. This apparently improbable comparison makes sense in the light of the fact that Wharram-le-Street church was given to Nostell Priory, Bishop Robert’s former home, by Robert Fossard between 1120 and 1122. But the quality of the masonry in the two buildings is not at all comparable: St Rule’s 112

113 114

115

On the Scottish dimension, see e.g. J. Green, ‘Aristocratic Loyalties on the Northern Frontier of England, c. 1100–74’, in England in the Twelfth Century: Proceedings of the 1988 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. D. Williams (Woodbridge, 1990), pp. 83–100; G. W. S. Barrow, ‘The Scots and the North of England’, in E. King, ed., The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign (Oxford, 1994), pp. 231–53; P. Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship – Yorkshire, 1066–1154 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 196–230; and several of the essays in Government, Religion and Society in Northern England 1000–1700, ed. J. C. Appleby and P. Dalton (Stroud, 1997). See above. The Chronicle of John of Worcester, III, The Annals from 1067 to 1140, ed. P. McGurk, OMT (Oxford, 1998), pp. 174–5. Thurstan’s charter recording Robert’s consecration was witnessed by a prestigious assembly of Scottish and English notables, including Dean Hugh and ‘all the chapter of St Peter’ (HCY III, 51–2, no. XXXV = EEA V, no. 63). See above, Chapter One, and Appendix A.

64

William the Treasurer is constructed out of excellent coursed ashlar far superior to the work at Wharram-le-Street.116 For a similar quality of masonry, however, one need look no further than Weaverthorpe (Figs. 9 and 10). Weaverthorpe church is similar in scale and design to Wharram-le-Street and St Rule’s, though plainer in detail than either, but its masonry stands comparison with the Scottish cathedral, although St Rule’s is constructed out of larger blocks of stone. The FitzHerbert church at Weaverthorpe, which is just a few miles from Wharram-le-Street, was given to Nostell Priory by William in 1121, as we have seen,117 and William was a witness to Robert Fossard’s 1120 x 1122 charter granting Wharram-le-Street to Nostell. Fossard’s grant was made with the intention of establishing a prebend at York Minster, the first holder of which was Prior Athelwold.118 Athelwold and William were therefore colleagues on the chapter from the early 1120s. And both of them, it seems, employed York masons on their building projects. William, as I have suggested, was probably instrumental in procuring metropolitan masons for the family estate church at Weaverthorpe. At Nostell, nothing is known of the earliest buildings of the Augustinian community, but a mason by the name of Peter, who gave a property in York to Nostell Priory in the time of Henry I, was presumably employed by Nostell.119 York, in fact, as much as Nostell, is the missing architectural link between Weaverthorpe, Wharram-le-Street, and St Rule’s church at St Andrews; the personal and institutional links between Bishop Robert, the Scottish church and the Scottish royal family on the one hand, and the church of York, Nostell Priory and William fitzHerbert on the other mean that there is nothing improbable in the notion that Bishop Robert could have taken the inspiration for his new cathedral at St Andrews from a Yorkshire tradition of small-scale but high-quality churches of a type known to us from the examples at rural Weaverthorpe and Wharram-le-

116

117 118

119

See references cited in n. 86. Opinions differ as to the date of the building at Wharramle-Street. Bilson suggested a date in the opening decades of the twelfth century, prior to the donation to Nostell; Gem suggests shortly after the donation, and thus contemporary with St Rule’s; Heywood seems not to commit himself. For my present argument, the precise date of the fabric is not crucial. See above, n. 55. EYC II, 337–9, no. 1012, there dated c. 1126–9, and see Greenway, Fasti, pp. 59–60; the dating can, however, now be refined to 1120 x 1122 (Gem, ‘English Parish Church’, p..29). Bramham church, which was given to Nostell by Robert Fossard along with Wharram church, is already mentioned in a confirmation charter of Henry I dated c. 1126–9 (EYC II, no. 1013 = RRAN II, no. 1627, see also no. 1630), and previously in another dated January 1122 (EYC III, 129–36, no. 1428 = RRAN II, no. 1312). See also Burton, Monastic Order, pp. 71–7. This is recorded in a mortmain inquest of c. 1230 printed in ‘An Early Mortmain Inquest’, ed. D. H. Palliser, in The Church in Medieval York – Records edited in Honour of Professor Barrie Dobson, Borthwick Texts and Calendars 24 (York, 1999), pp. 1–15, no. 80. This Petrus cementarius does not appear in J. Harvey, English Mediaeval Architects – A Biographical Dictionary down to 1550, rev. edn (Gloucester, 1987).

65

St William of York Street. William may have been an unsuspected presence in the complex process of the transmission of architectural ideas from the Yorkshire Wolds to the premier Scottish see. So strong were Bishop Robert’s Yorkshire connections that some feared that he would swear obedience to Thurstan during his consecration. In fact Thurstan and King David of Scotland (Alexander’s brother and successor) had agreed that no profession of obedience would be demanded, thereby leaving open the question of the relationship of the Scottish sees to the archbishopric of York.120 Among those present at Robert’s consecration was John, bishop of Glasgow. He was to be a thorn in the flesh of Archbishop Thurstan, refusing to perform obedience to the archbishop of York, in spite of repeated papal demands. It was partly in consequence of his inability to assert his control over Glasgow that in 1133 Thurstan established a new see at Carlisle. His choice as first bishop was Athelwold, prior of Nostell, whom he consecrated at York at the same time as the new bishop of Durham, Geoffrey Rufus, in August 1133.121 The dignitaries of the Minster and the archdeacons of the diocese would normally have been expected to be present. Like Bishop Robert at St Andrews, Athelwold established a community of Augustinian canons at Carlisle cathedral, but he also continued to act as prior of Nostell for the next twenty years. He died two or three years after William, whereupon the see fell vacant for decades. At one point Henry II offered it to the son of Ralph Nowell, the bishop of the Orkneys, a man who was to play a significant role in the early development of the cult of St William, but he turned it down.122 The early history of the see of Carlisle was inextricably bound up with the on-going territorial claims of the kingdoms of England and Scotland, and it was not until the early thirteenth century that the succession of bishops of Carlisle was finally established. Ecclesiastical skirmishing over the northern frontier gave way to physical conflict after Henry I died in December 1135.123 King David of Scotland, a firm supporter of the Empress Matilda (who was his niece) seized the opportunity to take control of Carlisle, Newcastle and other towns in the area. The newly crowned Stephen moved rapidly northwards, and, after agreeing a treaty with King David, fell back on York with many of the leading northern prelates and barons. William presumably witnessed the gathering. As senior archdeacon in the diocese, he would have been expected to be present to greet the new king. As Stephen’s cousin, he had every incentive to be there. And it was on this occasion that Stephen issued him with the charter confirming him

120

121 122 123

Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 102. See the very similar notifications issued by Thurstan (EEA V, no. 63) and King David (The Charters of King David I, ed. G. W. S. Barrow (Woodbridge, 1999), no. 29). Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 102 and 140–50. See below, Chapter Five, and Appendix B for Paulinus of Leeds. Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 213–18.

66

William the Treasurer in possession of the churches which he had gained from his father Herbert and his brother. The charter also reveals that he had been appointed a royal chaplain.124 But it was not long before the church of York found itself in the front line. In 1137 Thurstan assumed responsibility for defending the northern borders of the realm during Stephen’s absence abroad. Another incursion by the Scots led the archbishop to negotiate another truce, but the peace was short-lived. King David returned to the attack in early 1138. By July a substantial army was moving south into Yorkshire. Thurstan, by then so enfeebled that he had to be carried around in a litter, was left with the task of marshalling an English force from among the fractious and reluctant barons. In August, he proposed to move north with the army himself, but was persuaded to stay put. In his place, he sent Ralph Nowell, bishop of the Orkneys, with other clerics, bearing the archiepiscopal cross and the banner of St Peter of York. Not far from Northallerton, Ralph addressed the troops on the morning of the battle. So too did Walter Espec, the elderly baron whose caput was at nearby Helmsley; and it was the English who carried the field at the Battle of the Standard. It was Thurstan’s last great victory, but it was also a bitter foretaste of the miseries of the English civil war to come, as many of the men who faced each other across the field of battle were well known to each other, men of similar backgrounds, temperaments, interests and connections. William may have been present at the battle. Along with Ralph Nowell and the Minster contingent, Thurstan sent one of his archdeacons.125 Was this William? It is not improbable. He was the most experienced of the archdeacons, and the one with the closest Scottish connections. He had known Ralph Nowell from his earliest days at York, and had apparently braved Henry’s wrath to travel with him to the Council of Reims in 1119.126 So he would have been an obvious choice to support Ralph Nowell. If so, he had the dubious privilege of witnessing internecine conflict at its rawest and most desperate. William’s precise involvement in Scottish affairs can only be surmised, but there is no question that he was himself directly affected by the impact of monastic-reform ideals in the 1130s. On 17 October 1132 William accompanied Archbishop Thurstan on a visit to St Mary’s Abbey, York. Thurstan was attempting to resolve an increasingly bitter division within the community between a ‘reformist’ party who wished to make far-reaching changes to the life of the monastery, and a ‘traditionalist’ party who were largely content with the status quo. William was an eye-witness to the

124 125

126

EYC I, 39–40, no. 31 = RRAN III, 362, no. 979, dated February 1136. Richard of Hexham, Historia in The Priory of Hexham, I, ed. J. H Hinde, SS 44 (Durham, 1864), p. 88. Ralph’s speech is given in Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, X.7, pp. 712–19. For fuller discussions, see for instance Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 219–28, and D. Baker, ‘Ailred of Rievaulx and Walter Espec’, Haskins Society Journal 1 (1989), 91–8. See above.

67

St William of York dramatic dénouement, when Thurstan along with his entourage was physically assaulted by some of the traditionalist monks at the entrance to the chapter house, retreated in confusion into the church, where he felt compelled to bar the door behind him, and finally withdrew accompanied by thirteen of the reformist monks, who were no longer welcome in the abbey.127 Before the year was out, Thurstan settled the monks on land near Ripon, and assumed the unforeseen mantle of founder of Fountains Abbey. William, along with the majority of the chapter, witnessed subsequent charters of Thurstan confirming the abbey’s rights and properties.128 This scandalous tale has often been told, and need not be recounted anew.129 But it exemplifies two related themes running through Thurstan’s reign, which are crucial for understanding the events of William’s archiepiscopate: the prominence of the monastic orders in Yorkshire, and the influence of reformist ideals. St Mary’s Abbey was about the same age as William, having been founded in 1088 at a ceremony attended by William Rufus and an impressive array of barons and prelates. By Winchester standards, the abbey was a recent foundation, but it was one of the oldest monasteries in Yorkshire. By the 1130s it had attracted significant endowments, had completed the construction of a large abbey church in the new Romanesque mode, and was already established as the premier monastery in the county.130 Its abbot was regularly called upon for administrative or diplomatic missions by both king and archbishop. Its location at the heart of the diocese meant that it was a natural stopping-off point for monks of any order or nationality who were passing through York. It was therefore well placed to keep abreast of developments both locally and abroad. As a wellconnected and wealthy Benedictine establishment, it espoused a traditional view of the role of the monastery as a pillar and support for the church at large and a partner (within reason) for the temporal authorities. Monasticism had been extinct in Yorkshire at the time of the Norman Conquest.131 From the late 1070s onwards there was a regular stream of new foundations, including the Benedictine house of Holy Trinity Priory in York, a dependency of Marmoutier which, however, never rivalled St Mary’s Abbey in importance. In the second decade of the twelfth century the Benedictines were joined by the order of Augustinian Canons, and in the 1130s and 1140s they in turn were joined by the newly fashionable orders of 127 128 129

130 131

Epistola Turstini, in Memorials of Fountains, I, p. 24. EEA V, nos 44 and 45. Recently re-assessed in C. Norton, ‘Richard of Fountains and the Letter of Thurstan: History and Historiography of a Monastic Controversy, St Mary’s Abbey, York, 1132’, in Perspectives for an Architecture of Solitude: Essays on Cistercians, Art and Architecture in Honour of Peter Fergusson, ed. T. N. Kinder (Turnhout, 2004), pp. 9–34, with references. See references cited in Chapter One, n. 45. For what follows, see Burton, Monastic Order, passim; see also Nicholl, Thurstan, passim.

68

William the Treasurer Savigniac and Cistercian monks. Thurstan was a prominent supporter of monasticism, irrespective of its colours, and his archiepiscopate witnessed a remarkable spate of new foundations. The East Riding exemplifies particularly well the transformation which took place during William’s lifetime.132 When he arrived in York, there was not a single monastic house of any description in his archdeaconry. The first foundation in the East Riding was the Augustinian house of Bridlington (c. 1113), followed by Kirkham Priory (c. 1122) and Warter Priory close to the FitzHerbert estate at Londesborough (c. 1132). The dramatic appearance on the scene of the Cistercians initially focused on the North and West Ridings of Yorkshire, and it was not till 1151 that a daughter-house of Fountains was founded at Meaux, a few miles east of Beverley. William was to visit the new foundation shortly before his death.133 The archdeaconry also witnessed the foundation of a number of nunneries, almost all small and poorly endowed establishments of modest renown. Nunkeeling, Wilberfoss and Swine all sprang up in William’s lifetime, as did the Gilbertine house at Watton, said to have been founded by Eustace fitzJohn, lord of Knaresborough, to atone for having fought against the Yorkshire army at the Battle of the Standard. Prior to his archiepiscopate, there is little sign that William himself took any particular interest in the monastic foundations within his archdeaconry.134 His only recorded endowment of any monastic house was the gift of Weaverthorpe church to Nostell Priory outside his archdeaconry, and this, as we have seen, was prompted by considerations of appeasing the king and making amends for his father’s misdeeds.135 If William’s enthusiasm for the monastic houses did not match that of Archbishop Thurstan, he cannot have remained indifferent to them. They attracted a significant proportion of the financial resources of the church in the north, as well as many of the most able and energetic churchmen. Many of the new communities exhibited to a marked degree the vigour and enthusiasm of youth. By contrast, the rest of the institutional church in the vast diocese of York was still comparatively enfeebled. The ancient foundations at Ripon and Beverley had the potential to provide a counter-weight to the monasteries, but while Beverley shows some signs of life in this period, Ripon seems fairly moribund. Thurstan therefore had very few secular clergy of calibre to rely on: five archdeacons for the whole diocese, the remaining canons of the Minster (by whose qualities Archbishop Gerard had been 132

133 134

135

There is a useful summary of East Riding material in J. Burton, The Religious Orders in the East Riding of Yorkshire in the Twelfth Century (East Yorkshire Local History Society, 1989). See below, Chapter Four. Between 1125 and 1133 he witnessed two charters of Archbishop Thurstan in favour of the Augustinian house at Bridlington, along with Athelwold, prior of Nostell (EEA V, nos 39–40), otherwise nothing. See above.

69

St William of York distinctly unimpressed), and perhaps a few others. Even the York chapter had two members of religious communities among their number, since both the prior of Nostell and the prior of Hexham were granted prebends by Thurstan.136 It is no wonder, therefore, that the archbishop often turned to the abbots and priors of his diocese in expediting diocesan business and that the influence of the monastic orders was profound. It is equally no surprise that it was through the monastic orders that the ideals of the reform movement forced themselves upon the attention of the church of York. The web of ideas that goes by the name of the Gregorian reform comprised numerous threads: the independence of the church from secular control; the strengthening of canon law; the celibacy of the clergy; pastoral provision for every parish; a refocused monasticism with an emphasis on asceticism and renunciation of worldly connections – these were just some of the changes which were transforming the western church. The Norman kings of England had been relatively successful in resisting these pressures and maintaining royal control over the churches within their realms. Henry I, for instance, continued to appoint those whom he wished to the archbishopric of York, just as his father the Conqueror had done. The idea of celibate clergy was finding little support among the canons of York in the early twelfth century,137 and Thurstan himself (whose reputation in such matters was unsullied) tolerated both married canons and a married bishop: Ralph Nowell, the bishop of the Orkneys, was married and fathered an ecclesiastical dynasty of some note.138 So when the first houses of the ascetic, reformed monks were founded in the diocese, for all but a handful of senior clergy with experience of developments on the continent, they would have been a revelation not merely of a new conception of the monastic life, but of a new way of thinking more generally. And that revelation came in the most potent form, not as abstract ideas or papal directives, but incarnate in flesh and blood dressed in distinctive habits. The Savigniacs were the first to arrive, founding Furness Abbey in 1127, followed by the Cistercians at Rievaulx in 1131.139 Furness was situated in a remote part of the diocese the other side of the Pennines, but Rievaulx was much more accessible, close to Walter Espec’s caput at Helmsley and only a short distance from the Vale of York. The Rievaulx monks also brought with them direct links with one of the fountain-heads of twelfthcentury monastic reform, Clairvaux. William, the first abbot, was an Englishman who had been secretary to St Bernard, and from this moment onwards there were regular contacts with the man who was emerging as one

136 137 138 139

Greenway, Fasti, pp. xxiii, 59–60 and 95–7. See Chapter One, n. 32. See Appendix B and Genealogical Table 4. Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 143–4 for Furness; D. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, 940–1216, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 239–45 and Burton, Monastic Order, pp. 98–103 for Rievaulx.

70

William the Treasurer of the most vociferous and influential churchmen in Europe. The consequences were to be profound. The effect of the reformed monks was electrifying, and not just in York itself. Adam, a Benedictine monk from Whitby, joined the reformist party which had been ejected from St Mary’s Abbey at a very early date. Recruits flocked to Rievaulx, the most famous of them being Aelred, an up-andcoming member of the household of King David of Scotland, who was inspired to join the Cistercians during a mission to Thurstan at York in 1134. At Walter Espec’s earlier, Augustinian foundation, Kirkham Priory, the community seems to have been split. A proposal was mooted somewhere before 1140 that Kirkham should become a Cistercian house, and that a new monastery would be constructed elsewhere for those of the canons who did not wish to join the Cistercians.140 In the event, nothing came of the plan, and the whole episode is much more obscure than the crisis at St Mary’s Abbey in 1132, of which we have a dramatic, first-hand account from the pen of Archbishop Thurstan himself. The confrontation had been slowly brewing over the summer and early autumn.141 Both parties within the monastery had had time to reflect upon their positions, and Thurstan had been kept informed. The reformers included some of the senior officers within the monastery: the prior Richard, the sub-prior Gervase, and Richard the sacristan. The greater part of the community, including Abbot Geoffrey, maintained the traditional point of view. In the end, it must have become clear that the ideals of the reformers were irreconcilable with the majority view. And it is at this point that the enclosed nature of even such an outward-looking community as St Mary’s Abbey brought the issue to boiling point. The differences between the two parties were so profound as to affect the very nature of the daily life of the community; on both sides it became a matter of principle, even of conscience. But Benedictines were vowed to stability and obedience, both to the Rule and to the abbot. If it had been only a matter of one or two individuals, they could have been allowed to leave and find the life they sought in another community – as in the case of Adam of Whitby. But to allow such a large, active and important element in the community to secede would have left St Mary’s Abbey almost crippled, and Abbot Geoffrey, understandably enough, was not willing to let this happen. There was no obvious way out of such an impasse. What solution, if any, Thurstan was planning to offer when he visited the monastery on 17 October 1132 we do not know. He was overtaken by events, and the only way out for both the archbishop and the reformist monks was through the main gate of the monastery. Thus the ideals of the reformers quite literally entered the precincts of the 140

141

Burton, Monastic Order, pp. 79–80; J. Burton, Kirkham Priory from Foundation to Dissolution, Borthwick Paper 86 (York, 1995), pp. 4–9. For what follows, Epistola Turstini in Memorials of Fountains, I, pp. 11–29.

71

St William of York Minster itself. Thurstan was forced to look after his unexpected guests, and neither Hugh the dean nor William the treasurer, who were both present on that memorable day, can have escaped some part in dealing with the ejected monks. Maybe they even accommodated some of them in their own houses until Thurstan had managed to make arrangements for them to move to Fountains. Certain it is that the Minster community, like St Mary’s Abbey, became caught up in the reformist zeal. But in this case the more open and undisciplined nature of the Minster chapter worked in their favour. The canons could be forced by no-one, not even the archbishop, to adopt reforms which they resisted, but individual clergy could choose to respond, whether by changing their life as canons of York or resigning their prebends and moving elsewhere. The latter course was adopted by the aged dean and by one of the canons called Serlo, both of whom had accompanied Thurstan on his fateful visitation of St Mary’s Abbey. Within a few years they abandoned the world and entered the nascent community at Fountains, where they were joined by another Minster canon called Tosti.142 William’s reaction can only be deduced from his silence. In response to the crisis of 1132, so far as we know, he did nothing. But if he had not already done so earlier on, he must have had an opportunity to get to know the future founders of Fountains Abbey – and they him. If later events are any indication, there is unlikely to have been any meeting of minds or warmth of affection between the two parties. The church of York was profoundly affected by the events of 1132, news of which rapidly reached the ears of the king, of the archbishop of Canterbury, and of Bernard of Clairvaux. A flurry of letters and tracts followed, including letters from Bernard to Archbishop Thurstan and Abbot Geoffrey expressing his support for the reformist monks who had left St Mary’s Abbey in his usual vehement style.143 York was a matter of national and international attention, not all of it welcome to the ageing Thurstan. A few years later he organised an event which was designed to affirm the status and significance of the see of York and set a seal, in a sense, on his long and difficult archiepiscopate. The date 4 June 1137 appears in all the books on the history of York. It was the day on which, according to an early chronicle source, the Minster, St Peter’s Hospital, St Mary’s Abbey and a total of thirty-nine different churches were destroyed by fire, as was Holy Trinity Priory shortly afterwards. It is inconceivable that a cataclysmic fire of this kind could have happened without leaving any other trace in either the historical or archaeological record, and it has been argued elsewhere that the source preserves a 142

143

Hugh of Kirkstall, Narratio de Fundatione Fontanis Monasterii, in Memorials of Fountains, I, pp. 52–4; Greenway, Fasti, pp. 8, 77 and 130, Clay, Fasti, I, 1 and II, 36. Clay and Greenway seem to overlook the entry of Tosti and Serlo into Fountains, and seem to ignore the latter, perhaps conflating him with Serlo son of Serlo. Bernard, Epistolae 94–6 and 313 in Sancti Bernardi Opera, VII–VIII, ed. J. Leclercq and H. M. Rochais (Rome, 1974–7), translated in The Letters of St Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B. Scott James, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1998), nos 168–71.

72

William the Treasurer garbled reference to a great ceremony of consecration.144 Canterbury Cathedral had been consecrated with great pomp and splendour in 1130. Glasgow Cathedral, seat of Bishop John, the leading opponent of York’s claims over the church in Scotland, was likewise ceremonially consecrated in 1136. Thurstan attended the consecration of neither of the two rival churches. 1137 was his opportunity to reaffirm and publicly celebrate the status of the church of York. 4 June that year was the Friday in Pentecost, the season commemorating the descent of the Holy Spirit and the birth of the church. The Sunday immediately following was Trinity Sunday. We may imagine a triduum of events with a Pentecostal and Trinitarian symbolism. On the first day, three great ceremonies at the Minster, the Hospital and the Abbey; on the third day, one great ceremony at the Priory of the Holy Trinity. Three in one and one in three. Apart from its symbolic appropriateness, Pentecost was the season in the year when it was customary for people from all over the diocese to converge on York. From some of the more distant regions this involved a not inconsiderable journey, and the Pentecost celebrations would continue after Whit Sunday itself into the following week. A special event at this season could therefore be assured of a large popular turnout.145 The senior clergy of the diocese would have been expected to attend. Bishop Ralph of the Orkneys could assist in the consecrations and a large turn-out of Minster dignitaries and archdeacons would underline the solemnity of the occasion. There must be a strong presumption that William was there; and it is no coincidence that the season of Pentecost and Trinity looms large in his story later on. By the time that William’s Vita came to be written in the early thirteenth century, the details of his life prior to his election to the archbishopric of York had already passed into oblivion. The Vita devotes all of three sentences to his lengthy career as treasurer of York Minster and archdeacon of the East Riding, and they consist of little more than platitudes.146 But we at last are in a position to discern at least the outlines of his career. It was a career in which family connections not merely set him on the path of initial preferment but continued to provide a link to the centres of ecclesiastical and political power at Winchester, and ultimately determined, for better or for worse, his standing in the highest court in the realm. His experience there and in the papal curia during the years of the primacy dispute would stand him in good stead during the seemingly interminable disputes about his own archi-

144

145

146

C. Norton, ‘The York Fire of 1137: Conflagration or Consecration?’, Northern History, 34 (1998), 194–204. On Pentecost processions in the English dioceses, see Brett, English Church, pp. 163 ff; EEA VIII, Winchester 1070–1204, nos 19 and 130; and see below, Chapters Four and Five. Vita, p. 271.

73

St William of York episcopate. Family connections also supported William in Yorkshire, where the middle years of his treasurership were probably largely spent, between the time of his father’s disgrace and the accession of his cousin to the throne in 1135. Not that the middle years of William’s life should be seen as a period of isolation. The diocese of York, as we have seen, was one of the most vital parts of the English church in this period, and was in close contact with the broader currents of European ecclesiastical life. In Thurstan it possessed one of the most remarkable of the medieval archbishops, and many of the developments which took place in his time had a profound effect on the church in the north for centuries to come. The nature of the sources is such that, for the most part, we can only catch a glimpse of William in the light reflected off Thurstan. Occasionally we can see him at Thurstan’s side; more often, we know that he was too senior a cleric not to have been involved in what was going on, but not senior enough for his part in events to be discernible. But as Thurstan’s health worsened towards the end of the 1130s, and political difficulties intensified on every side, William must have been conscious of a sense of fin de régime at York, and of uncertain times ahead. In the event, no-one was to be more exposed to the storms which ensued than William himself. As to the character of the man who was to be elected to succeed Thurstan, the sources, though open to question, do present a reasonably consistent picture. The Vita eulogises the mildness of his manner as treasurer in social dealings, the modesty of his speech, his caution in reply, his reliability and faithful counsel, his inclination towards harmony and his firmness in censure. It also states that during the years of his treasurership he gave freely of his private wealth for the relief of the needy.147 This could be dismissed as little more than hagiographical convention, but the remark about William’s careful responses has a ring of truth about it for a career churchman and diplomat who had witnessed such dramatic turns of fortune over the years. More significantly, the remark of John of Hexham (writing at a time prior to the emergence of the cult of St William), though brief, is consistent with the Vita. He remarks that William was much liked at this time by the people because of his kindness and his generosity.148 William of Newburgh, rather later, introduces William, following the death of Thurstan, with the comment that he was likeable and mild-mannered.149 The Cistercians, it is true, were to take a very different view of William’s character during the appeals against his 147 148 149

Vita, p. 271. John of Hexham, p. 317. William of Newburgh, p. 55: vir plane et secundum carnem nobilis, et morum ingenua lenitate amabilis. Burton, ‘William of York’, translates the last phrase as ‘likeable, and with a certain lightness of morals’, which seems to be based on a reading of levitate and not (as in the printed text) lenitate. William of Newburgh, p. 80, uses a similar phrase to describe William’s behaviour at York in the final month of his life: ecclesiam decenti moderamine regens, et ingenita lenitate nulli onerosus existens.

74

William the Treasurer election – with what result we shall shortly see.150 It is the more striking, therefore, that the Fountains chronicler, to whom we shall give the final word, was subsequently prepared to declare that William fitzHerbert was a man worthy enough of the archiepiscopal throne, if only his election had been canonical.151

150 151

See Chapter Three. Hugh of Kirkstall, Narratio de Fundatione, p. 80: dignus satis qui cathedram optineret, si canonica fuisset electio ipsius: see Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi’, p. 96.

75

CHAPTER THREE

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate

William fitzHerbert was not the first choice to succeed Archbishop Thurstan in the see of York. Two or three other names had been put forward previously but had fallen by the wayside. It was an inauspicious start to an ill-fated archiepiscopate. The saga which unfolded over the following fourteen years was acted out by an international cast of characters which included no fewer than five successive popes, diverse archdeacons, bishops, cardinals and papal legates, Benedictines, Augustinians and Cistercians, and lay people of all ranks of society from the king downwards. Among them were several men who came to be revered as saints, in addition to William himself. The story involved legal arguments and political manoeuvres, bitter controversies and physical violence, unexpected coincidences and extraordinary reversals of fortune. It threw up along the way allegations of simony, unchaste living, intrusion, forgery, assault, arson and murder – a combination of worldly vice and spiritual wickedness in high places sufficient to fill the pages of many a modern novel. Recent scholarship has done much to elucidate the circumstances and chronology of this most unhappy episode in the history of the church of York, and there is more to be added still; yet the protagonist himself remains very much an enigma. In a classic article first published in 1936, Dom David Knowles disentangled the threads of evidence relating to what he called ‘the case of St William of York’. He established a reliable chronology of the election dispute, which remains the basis for all subsequent discussions.1 Some years later C. H. Talbot published a dossier of previously unknown letters of Bernard of Clairvaux which clarified certain phases of the dispute,2 and further evidence brought to light shortly afterwards by Dom Adrian Morey revealed something of the long aftermath of the affair.3 In the 1970s Derek Baker 1 2

3

Knowles, ‘St William’. C. H. Talbot, ‘New Documents in the Case of St William of York’, Cambridge Historical Journal 10.1 (1950), 1–15. The letters by Bernard were subsequently printed in the standard edition of his works, Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. Leclercq and Rochais VII–VIII. For a discussion of these letters, see C. Holdsworth, ‘St Bernard and England’, Anglo-Norman Studies 8 (1985), 138–53, esp. pp. 141 and 149–51. A. Morey, ‘Canonist Evidence in the Case of St William of York’, Cambridge Historical

76

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate published a lengthy analysis of the sources and suggested some minor amendments to Knowles’s chronology.4 The course of events is now reasonably clear, but their interpretation is much more controversial. The period from the death of Thurstan to William’s consecration (1140–3) and the years of his first archiepiscopate (1143–7) form the subject of the present chapter. His exile (1147–53) followed by his return and death (1153–4) will be discussed in the next chapter. The affair of William fitzHerbert touches upon issues of major importance at many levels, personal and individual, institutional and constitutional, political and ecclesiastical, local and regional, national and international. It was played out against a backdrop of crisis, contention and confusion. The papacy was still recovering from the consequences of a disputed election and the subsequent schism which lasted for most of the 1130s. During the early to mid-1140s it had to contend with a succession of short-lived popes, at the same time that papal authority was being challenged in Italy and within Rome itself. In the later 1140s the papacy threw itself into the launching of a new crusade, which soon broke down in disaster and recrimination. Against this background, the affairs of the archbishopric of York must have been a relatively minor preoccupation for the papal curia. In spite of all its problems, however, the papacy was still actively promoting ideas of reform in the western church. In 1139 Innocent II had called the Second Lateran Council both to celebrate the end of the schism and to move forward the reforming agenda. For Knowles, the York election dispute was to be understood primarily as a manifestation of the reform movement within the English church, with particular reference to one of the canons of the Second Lateran Council; this interpretation has been followed by the majority of subsequent commentators. Baker, however, disputed the relevance of the Second Lateran Council. He saw the affair as an expression of deep-seated divisions and rivalries among the leading churchmen in Yorkshire and specifically within the chapter of York. In spite of their differences, both Knowles and Baker interpreted the affair in fundamentally ecclesiastical terms, and both were primarily concerned with the twists and turns of the actual arguments concerning the York election. This meant that both focused their attention on the period 1140–7, had little to say of William’s other activities in these years, and passed over the time of his exile in short order. The publication by Janet Burton in 1988 of the York episcopal acta has helped to flesh out some of William’s other activities and concerns while he was archbishop,5 and, as we

4

5

Journal 10 (1952), 352–3. D. Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi’, and at much greater length Baker, ‘San Bernardo’. S. TeubnerSchoebel, Bernhard von Clairvaux als Vermittler an der Kurie (Bonn, 1993), pp. 208–24, recounts the affair from the perspective of Bernard’s letters, drawing largely on Knowles and Baker. EEA V; and see now her recent summary of William’s life (Burton, ‘William of York’).

77

St William of York shall see, there is more to say about the years of his exile than might have been expected. The political background to the York election dispute is even more complex. These were the years of the anarchy of King Stephen’s reign, when disputes over the rightful archbishop of York must have taken second place, in the eyes of most English people, to the struggle over the rightful sovereign of England. By the same token, the York election dispute occupies only a relatively minor place in modern accounts of the period.6 But the York dispute cannot be seen in isolation from the political context. Even at the best of times, matters of ecclesiastical principle and affairs of state were liable to become entangled. Against a background of rebellion and civil war, local and individual interests might attach themselves to ecclesiastical disputes, and the kind of personal opportunism so evident in secular affairs in those years could spill over into the ecclesiastical sphere. In the absence of a superior authority capable of imposing a solution, disputes, once started, could acquire a momentum of their own, and as dissension continued, attitudes could harden, motives change, enmities become entrenched. In attempting to make sense of this period of William’s life, we cannot ignore the wider disturbances in the realm, and the recent study of Yorkshire during the reign of Stephen by Paul Dalton is very valuable for the light it sheds on the complex manoeuvrings of the regional magnates, whose role in the affair has tended to be ignored.7 If modern commentators have held divergent views on the dispute which raged around the figure of William fitzHerbert, they are as nothing compared to the extremes of opinion expressed by some of his contemporaries. It is essential to recognise at the outset that there is a serious imbalance in the strictly contemporary sources which have come down to us. We have a few, but only a few of the original papal pronouncements on the case. We are fortunate to possess a whole series of letters from Bernard of Clairvaux, expressed with sometimes more than his usual directness and forcefulness, but no correspondence has survived from William himself or any of his supporters. We hear the voice of Bernard, loud and clear down the centuries; William is silent. Knowles was a great admirer of Bernard and the Cistercians generally, and he wrote his classic article on the ‘case of St William of York’ at a time when he was himself deeply embroiled in issues of monastic reform which had many similarities to the controversies of the twelfth century.8 It is not surprising that his account of the York election dispute is very 6

7 8

R. H. C. Davis, King Stephen, 1135–54 (London, 1967); H. A. Cronne, The Reign of Stephen 1135–54: Anarchy in England (London, 1970); The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign, ed. E. King (Oxford, 1994). For a recent restatement of the traditional view of the chaos prevalent during the anarchy, see C. W. Hollister, ‘The Magnates of Stephen’s Reign: Reluctant Anarchists’, Haskins Society Journal 5 (1983), 77–87. Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship. See Norton, ‘Richard of Fountains and the Letter of Thurstan’.

78

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate sympathetic to William’s reformist opponents. But we would do well to remember the cautionary words of Christopher Holdsworth, when writing about another of Bernard’s correspondents: ‘He emerges as one of those about whom Bernard gives a partial picture, and when Bernard alone provides us with a picture we need to be very aware of that partiality.’9

Archbishop elect The vacancy at York was not unexpected. Thurstan’s health had been fragile for some years, to the extent that he had been reduced to being carried around in a litter from at least 1138 onwards. He wanted to lay down the cares of office and retire to a Cluniac monastery, in fulfilment of a vow made many years before. And he took thought about a suitable successor, apparently hoping to have his brother Audouen, bishop of Evreux, translated to York.10 Audouen had been at the Council of Reims with Thurstan in 1119 and had accompanied him back to York in 1121. In 1125 he had travelled to Rome with Thurstan when the latter was still embroiled in the final stages of the primacy dispute with Canterbury, and he had visited York in company with King Stephen in 1136.11 Was Thurstan already thinking about the succession at this point? If so, it would have been a convenient moment to discuss it with the king. He must surely have raised the matter two years later with the papal legate Alberic of Ostia, a Cluniac, who was in England in 1138–9. Thurstan was by then too frail to accompany Alberic to a critical meeting in Carlisle with King David of Scotland on 26 September 1138, following the Battle of the Standard; too frail also to attend the legatine council held by Alberic at Westminster in December 1138. When Alberic returned to Rome for the Lateran Council in April 1139, Thurstan sent with him a personal representative with private business to discuss with the pope. It was generally believed that this concerned his retirement and the appointment of Audouen as his successor. But Audouen, of similar age to Thurstan, himself retired from the cares of office and died at the Augustinian priory of Merton in the same year. In late 1138, according to one source, Thurstan slipped away from York without having consulted the clergy and people, intending never to return, but he was forced to go back. Discussions then took place with religiosis et sapientibus viris (‘religious and wise men’) about his desire for retirement and the effective transaction of archiepiscopal 9 10

11

Holdsworth, ‘St Bernard and England’, p. 146. For what follows on Thurstan, Audouen and Alberic, see CS, pp. 766–8 and 779–81; A. Saltman, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1956), p. 90; Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 70, 76, 217 and 228–38; Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi’, pp. 90–1; Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, pp. 156–9, and references cited by them. Knowles, ‘St William’, took up the story in 1140 and omitted any mention of this episode. RRAN III, nos 335, 717, 919 and 979, and see 990.

79

St William of York business.12 As an archdeacon with responsibility to the archbishop for diocesan affairs, William should have been involved in the discussions. Eventually, on 25 January 1140, Thurstan did retire to the Cluniac Priory of Pontefract, and he died there on 6 February surrounded by monks and the dignitaries of the church of York. William the treasurer was presumably among them. Thurstan was buried before the high altar at Pontefract. So the issue of the succession had been aired well before Thurstan’s death, and the vacuum in the diocese left by Thurstan’s withdrawal was a premonition of the problems which were likely to arise in the absence of an incumbent archbishop. If Thurstan himself had been canvassing support for his preferred choice of successor, other interested parties must also have been taking thought for the future. There was plenty of time for the various factions to consider their nominations and plan their tactics. In the course of the year 1140 there were two successive elections, both of which produced nominees who were subsequently vetoed. One was Henry de Sully, abbot of Fécamp; the other was Waltheof, prior of Kirkham.13 The order of the two elections is not known. Henry de Sully was a nephew of King Stephen and of Henry of Blois, being the son of their brother William; he was therefore a relative of William fitzHerbert (Genealogical Table 1). He had been elected abbot of Fécamp shortly before, and remained in that office till 1188. He was young and inexperienced, but he was not altogether a stranger to York. He accompanied his uncle the king on his tour of the north shortly after his accession, and was with Stephen when he visited York in late February or March 1136. He reappears in the king’s company at Westminster over Easter, and was again with him at Winchester at some point in the year. On these occasions he attested charters witnessed by many of the leading magnates and prelates of the realm, including Thurstan, Audouen of Evreux, Henry of Blois and Alan, earl of Richmond. At York, he would have met many of the local notables, including William the treasurer, and he witnessed the royal 12

13

This is the anonymous chronicle in a Durham manuscript printed in HCY II, 513–30, at p. 529. Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 236 n. 75 relegates this source to a footnote, commenting that ‘if this story is true it looks as though the York clergy had already got out of hand in Thurstan’s last year’. Precisely because this episode does not reflect well on Thurstan, in a source which is otherwise very laudatory, it carries conviction. The election of Waltheof is recorded only in the early-thirteenth-century Life of Waltheof by Jocelin of Furness, Book I, 29–30, in Acta Sanctorum, August, I (Paris, 1867), pp. 242–78 (p. 256), and ‘An Edition and Translation of the Life of Waldef, Abbot of Melrose, by Jocelin of Furness’, ed. G. J. McFadden, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1952, pp. 114–15. On Henry de Sully and Waltheof, see Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 239–42; Knowles, ‘St William’, p. 80; Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi’, pp. 91–4; Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, pp. 129 and 158–60. D. Baker, ‘Legend and Reality: The Case of Waldef of Melrose’, in Church, Society and Politics, ed. D. Baker, Studies in Church History 12 (Oxford, 1975), pp. 59–82, suggests the source of the information about Waltheof’s involvement in the York election dispute could have been Everard, a former canon of Kirkham. See also Burton, Kirkham Priory, pp. 10–11.

80

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate charter confirming Walter Espec’s foundation at Rievaulx. He occurs again in the king’s entourage over the winter of 1137–8.14 He was therefore not a complete unknown, but his principal qualification was his relationship to the king. He was supported by Henry of Blois, at that time papal legate, but Pope Innocent II refused to confirm the election unless he resigned from the abbacy of Fécamp. This Henry de Sully was loathe to do, to the great advantage of the see of York, since his subsequent career was both long and undistinguished. Waltheof had equally important connections, but came from a very different background. A scion of the family of the pre-Conquest earls of Northumbria and a stepson of King David of Scotland, he was head of Walter Espec’s Augustinian foundation at Kirkham. He represented a completely different kind of churchmanship from Henry de Sully and presumably appealed to a very different constituency on the chapter. He was very sympathetic to the ideals of the monastic reformers, and he went on to become a Cistercian of some renown. Just two years after the Battle of the Standard, King Stephen could hardly have been expected to approve of the election of a man so closely connected to the Scottish king, who had declared in favour of the Empress Matilda. William of Aumâle, the earl of York, offered to intercede with the king if Waltheof would promise to make over to him the archiepiscopal estate at Sherburn-in-Elmet, but this Waltheof refused to do, and his election was vetoed by the king. In January 1141 the chapter reassembled for a third election, and this time the majority vote was for William fitzHerbert. William of Aumâle, who supported William, made his presence felt, while his election was opposed by Walter of London, the archdeacon of York, and his fellow archdeacons, Osbert of Bayeux, archdeacon of Richmond, being prominent among them.15 Immediately after the election both parties set out to petition the king, who was engaged in the siege of Lincoln, but Walter of London was intercepted by William of Aumâle and imprisoned for a while at his castle at Bytham. William fitzHerbert was therefore able to present himself to the king unchallenged, and was granted the temporalities of the see by King Stephen. Just in time. On 2 February 1141, Stephen was captured by the rebel forces at Lincoln.16 14 15

16

RRAN III, nos 46, 204, 263, 288, 716, 818, 919, 944–5, 948 and 990. Osbert, who was later accused of poisoning William (see Chapter Four), is only mentioned at this early stage by the Chronica Pontificum, pp. 389–90. Knowles, ‘St William’, p. 97, dismisses this evidence from what he describes as ‘the late Vita of Henry Murdac’. The Chronica Pontificum draws heavily on John of Hexham and the early-thirteenth-century Vita of St William, but it also contains credible information not reported elsewhere, and its comments on Osbert accord with everything we know about him. The key source for this episode, and the early phase of the dispute generally, is John of Hexham, pp. 306–7 and RRAN III, nos 982–3, for two royal charters in William’s favour issued at this time. For other sources and modern analyses, see Knowles,

81

St William of York The movements of the various parties during the rest of the year are not recorded, but by the end of 1141 the opposition to William had grown significantly. Among their number were now to be found William, abbot of Rievaulx, Richard II, abbot of Fountains (formerly sacrist of St Mary’s Abbey, York), Cuthbert, prior of the Augustinian house of Guisborough, Waltheof, prior of Kirkham (the disappointed candidate from the 1140 election), and Robert, master of the Hospital of St Peter in York. Most if not all of these must have been well known to William. According to John of Hexham, it was alleged that William’s election had been secured with the help of financial inducements. The charge of simony came before Henry of Blois (as papal legate), probably at the legatine council held at Westminster in December. The details of the deliberations are not recorded, but the outcome was that Henry referred the matter to Rome.17 By the time the case came before the pope in the early spring of 1142, Bernard of Clairvaux had lent his support to the appeal against William. The affair had taken on an international flavour. William presented his defence in person. His opponents were represented by archdeacon Walter of London, bearing with him written allegations against William from the heads of the Yorkshire religious houses who supported the appeal.18 Walter was supported by Aelred of Rievaulx, who had been sent on the delegation to Rome by Abbot William, and it was during this mission that Aelred visited Clairvaux and came face to face with St Bernard.19 Bernard threw himself into the affair with characteristic vigour.20 He wrote letters of recommendation on behalf of the delegation from York to various cardinals who he hoped would support the case at Rome. One of them was Cardinal Alberic of Ostia, who had visited the northern province as papal legate in 1138 and therefore had first-hand knowledge of the institutions and the people involved. Bernard also wrote directly to Pope Innocent II.21 Already in

17

18 19

20

21

‘St William’, pp. 80–2; Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi’, pp. 95–9; Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, pp. 129– 30, 144 and 162–5. John of Hexham says that Walter of London was imprisoned at Biham. This was identified by Knowles, ‘St William’, pp. 82 and 97, as Bayham (in Sussex); but it is clearly Castle Bytham in Lincolnshire. John of Hexham, p. 311. Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, pp. 130 n. 103 and 144, plausibly suggests that the case was heard at the December legatine council, for which see CS, pp. 788–94. John of Hexham, p. 311. The Life of Ailred of Rievaulx by Walter Daniel, ed. F. M. Powicke, Nelson Medieval Texts (London, 1950), pp. xliv–xlv and 23; Knowles, ‘St William’, p. 83. In what follows, I give the numbers of Bernard’s letters in volumes VII–VIII of the standard Latin edition (see n. 2), where the relevant letters are Epistolae 235–6, 238– 40, 252, 346–7, 353, 360, 520 and 525–35, and the numbers in the English translation by B. S. James, The Letters of St Bernard of Clairvaux, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1998), where they are James nos 187–208; pp. 543–4 give (not always reliable) estimates of the dates of the letters, which are also discussed at some length by Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, pp. 144– 50. All extracts are cited from the translation by James. Ep. 346–7 and 525–8 = James 187–92. Talbot, ‘New Documents’, pp. 2–3, discusses the recipients of Bernard’s letters, who were all members of the curia sympathetic to

82

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate these early letters Bernard’s stance on the matter is clear. William is ‘a man who puts not his trust in God his helper, but hopes in the abundance of his riches. His case is a weak and feeble one, and I have it on the authority of truthful men that he is rotten from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head.’ The appellants, on the other hand, are ‘true, honest, and God-fearing men, [who] have undertaken the fatigues of their long journey for God’s cause and not their own. It is all the more certain that they are inspired by love of justice and zeal for the house of God since it is so very evident that they stand to gain nothing for themselves and do not hope to.’ Pope Innocent set out his decision in a letter dated 22 April 1142 to the abbots of Rievaulx and Fountains, the priors of Guisborough and Kirkham, and Robert of the Hospital.22 He informed them that he had received their written depositions, as well as those of Henry of Blois and others (including, evidently, Bernard), but that he could not accept second-hand testimony. The canons of the church stated clearly, not once but in many places, that accusations and testimony in written form were unacceptable, and that anyone accusing someone else should make the accusation in person. If they knew that the accusations about the election and the elect were true, they were to appear at Rome in person the following Lent so that the issue could be decided properly. The precise nature of the charges against William is not spelt out in Innocent’s letter, but another letter to the same five heads of houses from Cardinal Alberic reveals that they were accusing William of having been intruded into the see: that outside influence, in other words, had been brought to bear to ensure his election.23 Simony is not specifically mentioned. Cardinal Alberic reported that he had been able to prevent William from proceeding to consecration, and that it was very important that the appellants present themselves in person in front of the curia. If not, the church would suffer much harm, their reputation at the Roman curia would be seriously damaged and his own position not a little weakened. He urged them not to abandon the case, even if they were to bring down upon themselves and their communities the wrath of the king and the potentes anglie – the first allusion to physical threats to the monasteries opposing William.24 In short, uncorroborated and second-hand testimony was not acceptable (even when supported by Bernard of Clairvaux himself), William’s opponents had been rebuffed and (reading between the lines) they were lucky that the case had not simply been dismissed. The two parties had no more than eight months back in England before it was time to set off again on the arduous winter journey to Rome. There were

22

23 24

monastic interests. The citations are from Ep. 346 and 526 = James 187 and 190. Printed by Talbot, ‘New Documents’, pp. 3–4, no. 5, who points out that the summary of Innocent’s letter given by John of Hexham, p. 311, is not entirely accurate. Talbot, ‘New Documents’, no. 6: ille enim, ut dicitis, intrusus . . . Talbot, ‘New Documents’, pp. 4–5.

83

St William of York numerous preparations for each side to make. The cost of repeated trips to Rome was such that William, for instance, was at one point forced to borrow money on the security of some of the Minster’s treasures and its papal privileges.25 William’s supporters on the second visit to Rome are unfortunately not named. His opponents on this occasion consisted of the abbots of Fountains and Rievaulx, the priors of Guisborough and Kirkham, Robert of the Hospital and Archdeacon Walter of London, together with William, the precentor of York, who is here mentioned for the first time. On the way out they again passed by Clairvaux, where they were given further letters of recommendation by Bernard.26 On 7 March 1143 the two sides appeared before the papal curia at Rome. The outcome is recorded in a letter of Innocent II to his legate in England, Henry of Blois.27 Innocent reported that Walter of London had claimed that William fitzHerbert had been intruded into the see of York (electionem . . . per intrusionem factam), and that he had produced two witnesses (not named) who had asserted that King Stephen had given orders to the dean via William of Aumâle for William to be elected. However, when questioned in the curia, the witnesses had disagreed as to the place where William of Aumâle had given the orders from the king to the dean. Their testimony on the matter was therefore not acceptable. It had then been decided, since episcopal elections should be free from lay interference, that, if the dean and two or three other suitable people from the church of York were to swear on the gospels that William fitzHerbert had been elected by the better and wiser part of the chapter without any special mandate or nomination on the part of the king (sine speciali mandato et nominatione ex parte regis), the election should stand. Innocent then continued that some members of the religious orders (quidam religiosi viri) had claimed that it was common talk in the northern province that William was guilty of fornication and unchastity (incontinentia et incestu) and that his election had been achieved through simony. On this issue, Innocent said that if anyone wished to lay formal charges, they should be properly heard and adjudged; otherwise, William could exculpate himself of the charges of simony and unchastity by swearing an oath on the gospels with four honourable people of his order. Innocent then commanded Henry of Blois, as his legate, in conjunction with the bishop of Hereford and other religious men, to decide the matter, and bring it to a conclusion without further appeal (absque appellationis subterfugio terminare). Finally, if these things were carried out on William’s part, Henry should ensure his consecration as archbishop of York. The pope’s letter to his legate is a crucial fixed point in the shifting sands of 25 26

27

John of Hexham, p. 325; Chronica Pontificum, p. 395. John of Hexham, p. 313; Ep. 529–30 = James 193–4. The addressees of these letters have not certainly been identified (Talbot, ‘New Documents’, nos 7–8). PUE II, no. 32; see Knowles, ‘St William’, pp. 83–4; Talbot, ‘New Documents’, p. 6; Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, pp. 130–1, 139–42 and 150–1.

84

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate the election dispute. It clarifies the points at issue very helpfully. The charge of intrusion related to the actual process of election. Walter of London’s witnesses agreed on the nature of William of Aumâle’s intervention on behalf of the king, but not on the place in which it happened, i.e. on whether it occurred during the formal election procedure or not. Walter of London’s witnesses very likely included William the precentor, who makes his only appearance in the election dispute on this occasion. If Robert of the Hospital was Walter’s second witness, it is easy to see why the curia adjudged the evidence inconclusive. As a York man, he would have been well placed to pick up the rumour and gossip which surrounds cathedral chapters, but he could not have known directly what had happened at the election as he did not have a seat in chapter. Nor did the Yorkshire abbots, whose testimony on the subject could therefore not be admitted. They presented a different case, namely that William was widely rumoured to be immoral, and that his election had been simoniacal. Although this time, unlike the previous year, they presented their case in person, their testimony was evidently only second-hand at best, and therefore not an adequate basis for condemning William – indeed, for hearing the case at all. So Henry of Blois was given clear instructions to deal with the two charges in different ways, and it is fairly clear that the curia wanted to hear no more about it. In this they were to be disappointed, since Innocent’s judgement was to be interpreted differently by different parties, and was subsequently used as the basis of a passionate appeal by Bernard of Clairvaux. To this we shall return in due course. Meanwhile, the opposing parties set off back to England. Abbot Richard II of Fountains again visited Clairvaux en route, arriving back at Fountains on 23 May 1143.28 It is likely that he had carried with him a fistful of letters which Bernard had written on hearing of the pope’s decision. One was to Henry of Blois, another to Robert, bishop of Hereford, the two judges delegate appointed by the pope. He also wrote to King Stephen and Queen Matilda, boldly implying that the misfortunes of the realm were a result of the king’s treatment of the church in general, and the church of York in particular. The tone of these letters, effectively prejudging the outcome of Henry of Blois’s consideration of the case, was hardly conducive to achieving the desired result.29 Innocent II’s letter had presumably reached his legate, Henry of Blois, before 20 June 1143, the day on which Henry at Winchester consecrated as bishop of Durham the dean of York, William of Ste Barbe. William of Ste Barbe had been present at the legatine council held by Henry of Blois at London in the spring of 1143, at which the usurper in the see of Durham, William Cumin, had been condemned. On his return journey to York, he had learnt that in his absence he had been elected bishop of Durham at an election held 28 29

Memorials of Fountains, I, 75. Ep. 531–4 = James nos 195–8; Talbot, ‘New Documents’, pp. 6–7.

85

St William of York in the archbishop’s palace at York. Henry of Blois had given his approval, and through him the king, and William of Ste Barbe was consecrated at a ceremony attended by no fewer than nine bishops.30 Henry and William can hardly have failed to discuss the York election dispute. Following Innocent II’s judgement, William fitzHerbert needed William of Ste Barbe’s word before he could be consecrated as archbishop of York. William of Ste Barbe, on the other hand, needed the legate’s assent to his election to Durham, and would also benefit from a supportive archbishop of York as he attempted to impose his authority on a see which was still in the hands of William Cumin. The various parties presumably came to some sort of agreement. The charges against William fitzHerbert were formally considered, it would appear, at a legatine council held at Winchester in September 1143.31 In the absence of any formal report of the proceedings, we depend upon John of Hexham’s compressed and incomplete account of what happened. According to John, no-one appeared to speak against William.32 William of Ste Barbe had been summoned to the council, but excused himself on the grounds of his difficulties at Durham, which was still held by his rival, William Cumin. In his place Ralph Nowell, bishop of the Orkneys, Severin, abbot of St Mary’s Abbey, York, and Benedict, abbot of Whitby, made satisfaction with and for William fitzHerbert. This statement appears to conflate the two separate procedures specified by Innocent II for the two different charges. If no-one formally accused William of simony and unchastity, then the case could have been discharged, as specified by the pope, by means of an oath sworn by William himself and his supporters. This would have been a formal process of purgatio on a charge of diffamatio, and it presumably explains John of Hexham’s remark that Ralph and the two abbots made satisfaction with and for William.33 At any rate, nothing more is heard of the charge of simony and unchastity. The issue of the charge of intrusion is more controversial. Here, formal charges had been laid before the pope by Walter of London, and Innocent II’s judgement specified that the dean, William of Ste Barbe, and two or three others should swear that the election had not been subject to undue interference. William fitzHerbert could not clear himself of the charge by swearing an oath, and since it related to events alleged to have taken place in chapter, the logic of the situation suggests that the two or three others who were to 30 31

32

33

John of Hexham, pp. 313–14; Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, p. 154; CS, pp. 794–804. John of Hexham, p. 315, considentibus cleri Angliae nobilibus. Robert of Hereford is not mentioned by name, but he was at the council, since he acted as judge delegate with Henry of Blois on another case discussed at the council: see CS, pp. 804–10, and EEA VII, Hereford 1079–1234, ed. J. Barrow (Oxford, 1993), p. 313. John of Hexham, p. 315. Richard of Fountains was on his way to the Cistercian chapter general, which normally met in September, and William of Rievaulx was presumably with him (Memorials of Fountains, I, 78; Knowles, ‘St William’, p. 86 n. 2). Knowles, ‘St William’, pp. 85–6.

86

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate swear an oath together with the dean should have been present at the time, i.e., should be members of the chapter. On the other hand, Innocent’s letter to Henry of Blois merely specified that the oath be sworn by the dean cum duobus vel tribus idoneis personis ipsius ecclesie (‘along with two or three suitable persons of that church’). This could have been interpreted more broadly by Henry of Blois. It is not clear whether this oath was also sworn by Ralph Nowell and the two abbots, or whether it was sworn by members of the chapter. Since John of Hexham apparently did not realise that there were to be two different oaths according to two different procedures on two different charges, he may simply have overlooked an oath sworn by members of the chapter in support of William. Whatever the case, the subsequent squabble about the judgement made at the council of Winchester revolved around the fact that the former dean, William of Ste Barbe, had not sworn the oath specified by Innocent II. John of Hexham, writing fifteen or twenty years later, stated that permission had been given for the dean to be replaced by another suitable person, if necessary. Bernard, when writing to the curia later that year, alleged that William claimed to be in possession of a secret letter from Rome, and he refers to such a letter again two years later in a letter to Pope Eugenius. The precise content of the alleged letters is not stated, merely that they cleared William. Eugenius replied that no trace of any such letter could be found in the papal archives.34 Did William have such a letter? If so, was it, as Bernard supposed, a forgery, or a result of some private deal done on the side? Had William received a private note which had not been entered in the papal registers? Even if he did possess a letter from Rome, there is no way of knowing whether it contained what Bernard alleged that it contained, or whether in fact it affected the final decision in any way. It could be that Henry of Blois reported to the council the contents of a conversation which he had held with William of Ste Barbe earlier in the summer, at the time of his consecration, and that this was considered sufficient. Or it could be that, in William of Ste Barbe’s absence, it was agreed to substitute someone else in his place, so that the matter could be concluded. In the event, it was this issue which provided Bernard with grounds for appeal to successive popes, leading ultimately to William’s deposition in 1147. At the time, the legate’s judgement appeared to be the end of the matter. Henry of Blois confirmed William’s election, ordained him priest, and consecrated him archbishop of York on 26 September 1143.35 At Rome the very same day, Celestine II was elected pope in succession to Innocent II, who had died two days earlier. 34

35

John of Hexham, p. 313: Impetratum etiam fuit, vice decani aliam approbatam personam ad sacramentum posse substitui, but with no mention of a secret letter. Bernard, Ep. 236 and 240 = James 203 and 207; Bernard’s assertion that William was in possession of a secret letter has been accepted for example by Knowles, ‘St William’, pp. 84–5 and by Burton, ‘William of York’. John of Hexham, p. 315; Annales de Wintonia, p. 54, for William’s ordination, and see above, Chapter One.

87

St William of York When news of Innocent’s death reached England, Henry of Blois’s legateship expired.36 By then the York affair had been to all appearances concluded.

Men and motives At this point it will be as well to pause and take stock. How are we to understand this dispute? And – an issue that has attracted much attention – how do we explain the involvement of the Cistercians and Bernard of Clairvaux? There is no certain answer to these questions, and there probably never can be. The York election dispute, in a sense, was a microcosm of contemporary English political and ecclesiastical history: complex, confused, protracted and multi-faceted, and involving a large cast of characters who were caught up in a constantly changing and probably only partially understood drama. If therefore the dispute eludes precise analysis, there are nonetheless certain key themes which must be taken into consideration. We can perhaps start by excluding one possible cause of strife. York was no stranger to disputes involving its newly elected archbishops: they had been a regular feature of the life of the church since the election of Thomas of Bayeux in 1070. But the previous controversies had revolved around the issue of the primacy and focused on the consecration ceremony. Although the fundamental principle had been settled in Thurstan’s time,37 there was always the possibility of further skirmishing between Canterbury and York, as subsequent events were to prove. Surprisingly enough, however, in William’s case this was one issue which did not rear its ugly head. According to Gervase of Canterbury, Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury refused to consent to William’s election, and it was for this reason that William was consecrated by Henry of Blois.38 But Gervase was writing at the end of the century, and this may be just an ex post facto rationalisation. The fact was that so long as Henry of Blois was papal legate, William had no need to turn to Canterbury for consecration: indeed, he had every reason to deal with Henry instead. Quite apart from William’s connections with Winchester and his blood relationship to Henry, it was around this time that Henry of Blois was seeking to have the see of Winchester elevated to archiepiscopal status.39 Had he succeeded, the authority of Canterbury would have been greatly diminished, to the benefit of York. For once, Canterbury was sidelined, and Theobald was to involve himself very little in the affairs of the northern province, even after he became papal legate.40 36 37 38 39 40

But see CS, p. 806 n. 3 on this issue. See above, Chapter Two. Gervase, p. 123. Saltman, Theobald, pp. 21–2; and see below, n. 128. Saltman, Theobald, p. 189.

88

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate In the 1140s the issue was not the primacy, but the election. And the dispute was larger than William fitzHerbert, even though his is the name most frequently associated with it. The problems began before William was elected, and they continued after he was deposed. Although the dispute inevitably centred on particular individuals and took on certain personal elements, it was fundamentally an expression not of individual difficulties but of a pervasive malaise afflicting society in general. And the source of the difficulty at York was quite simple. The old method of choosing a new archbishop no longer worked. William in fact was probably the only survivor of the chapter which had seen through the vacancy following the death of Archbishop Thomas II in 1114.41 However, so much had changed since then that his experience of those years provided little guidance in the difficult circumstances of the 1140s. The Norman kings of England had been remarkably adept at keeping at arm’s length the encroaching power of an assertive papacy intent on reforming the western church. They had controlled the entry into the realm of papal legates and papal letters; they had exercised the right to refuse permission for English bishops to travel abroad, thereby restricting their attendance at papal councils or their visits to Rome; they had kept an eye on the business of ecclesiastical synods; and they had decided upon (or at the very least maintained a veto over) episcopal elections. To a large extent, they had ensured that the business of the English church was conducted in England, with minimum reference to Rome unless (as with some of the disputes involving the archbishops) it was absolutely unavoidable. All the same, the passage of time and the emergence of a younger generation of clergy more accustomed to the reformist agenda inevitably meant that the new ideas gained a foothold. As we have seen, reformed monasticism, with its emphasis on austerity, discipline and withdrawal from the world, was a powerful force in Yorkshire in the 1130s. The arrival of the Savigniacs and the Cistercians had had a dramatic effect not only on individual clerics, but on institutions at the very heart of the diocese. The community of St Mary’s Abbey had split down the middle, and several members of the Minster chapter had abandoned the world and taken the Cistercian habit at Fountains.42 The ferment which the new ideas caused in Yorkshire cannot have been confined to monastic issues. Other aspects of the reform programme must equally have attracted attention, including moral reform, the celibacy of the clergy and the freedom of the church from lay interference, symbolised in the issue of free episcopal elections. In 1138 the new archbishop of Canterbury, Theobald, was chosen in an election supervised by the papal legate, Alberic, with minimal involvement on the part of the king. It was the closest thing to a free election 41

42

The members of the chapter in 1140 listed in Greenway, Fasti include no-one whose term of office definitely went back to before 1120, except for William himself. See above, Chapter Two.

89

St William of York at Canterbury since the Norman Conquest.43 The Canterbury election took place shortly after Alberic’s return from northern England. With Thurstan’s health visibly declining, there must have been many debates and discussions on the way ahead for the church of York. Freedom of election was in reality constrained by external forces. The difficulty for the York electors was to know which ones had to be accommodated, and to what extent. The king, after all, could not be ignored, even though Stephen’s control over events in his realm was always tenuous and his very legitimacy questionable. This created a new situation fraught with difficulty and uncertainty. Stephen did not have the authority or power to impose his will. But he had a legitimate interest in the York election in view of the archbishop’s importance in affairs temporal. We need only remember the crucial role played by Thurstan in the Battle of the Standard in 1138, and the fact that the archbishops of York controlled a mint which issued coin in the name of the king.44 And the king’s control of the temporalities of the see during a vacancy gave him a powerful weapon which could be used to considerable tactical advantage, even if, at the end of the day, it would not enable him to hold out against a consecrated archbishop indefinitely, as even Henry I had been forced to concede. The king’s veto of Waltheof’s election was entirely reasonable, given the latter’s connection with the king of Scotland, who had declared in favour of the Empress Matilda, and who was ready at any moment to march south with an army. In 1139 Stephen had been forced to grant the earldom of Northumberland to King David’s son, Earl Henry; he could not afford to let the archbishopric of York fall into the hands of a prelate sympathetic to his enemy. On the ecclesiastical front, too, a ‘free’ election would by no means mean that the York chapter could elect a new archbishop without outside interference. In the case of Canterbury in 1138 Alberic the legate decided on the time of the election (the see having been vacant for two years), on the place of the election (Westminster), on the manner of the election (by a commission sent from Canterbury, rather than by the whole chapter), and he advised on the choice of candidate.45 When Henry of Blois succeeded Cardinal Alberic as papal legate in 1139, his notion of a free election was that it should be free from interference from the king, but should be supervised by the legate himself. In the succeeding years, Henry intervened in a number of episcopal elections on behalf of relatives or protégés.46 The situation was not necessarily made any easier for the York electors by the fact that Henry was the brother

43 44

45 46

Saltman, Theobald, pp. 9–13; CS, pp. 768–79. M. Blackburn, ‘Coinage and Currency’, in King, The Anarchy, pp. 145–205, esp. pp. 182–7. Saltman, Theobald, pp. 9–10. Knowles, Monastic Order, pp. 285–93; Scammell, Puiset, p. 6; Cronne, Reign of Stephen, pp. 113–34, esp. p. 123; cf. Saltman, Theobald, pp. 90–126.

90

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate of the king. Henry had played a key part in securing the crown for Stephen in 1135, but by 1139 the two had fallen out. Henry had been disappointed of his hopes of securing the throne of St Augustine at Canterbury in December 1138, and the following summer he was incensed by Stephen’s arrest of the bishops of Salisbury, Lincoln and Ely. Henry summoned his brother the king to a legatine council to explain himself.47 Thereafter, although Henry for the most part took his brother’s side in the civil war against the Empress Matilda, the two no longer necessarily worked in tandem. When the bishop of Salisbury died in December 1139, Henry of Blois proposed to replace him with Henry de Sully, his own and the king’s nephew. Stephen would not have him, and appointed him to the abbey of Fécamp instead. He then appointed his own candidate, Philip de Harcourt, who was his chancellor; but Henry of Blois rejected him, and was supported by Rome on appeal. The see finally went to Jocelin de Bohun who had previously been archdeacon of Winchester and is therefore assumed to have been nominated by Henry of Blois, perhaps during Stephen’s captivity in 1141. Jocelin, however, did not have the full support of the Salisbury chapter, and found himself opposed by the dean.48 The Salisbury election is interesting from a number of points of view. At York, according to John of Hexham, it was Henry of Blois who prevailed upon the chapter to elect Henry de Sully, and it was Innocent II who refused to confirm the election unless Henry de Sully renounced the abbacy of Fécamp. One might imagine that an ambitious young cleric would willingly give up the abbacy for the archbishopric. In view of Stephen’s reaction to Henry de Sully’s nomination to the see of Salisbury, should we see his hand too in Henry de Sully’s failure to secure the see of York?49 At both Salisbury and York, three candidates were proposed in quick succession, and Rome was dragged into the quarrel. It was in fact just at this time, during the legateship of Henry of Blois, that it became common for the first time for parties to ecclesiastical disputes in England to appeal to Rome.50 This had a major impact on the affair at York, and was one reason why the various disputes dragged on so long, even after William’s death. The fact that Bernard of Clairvaux had no qualms about addressing (or even berating) the monarchs of Europe and the occupants of the throne of St Peter was another, much more individual factor which greatly influenced the course of events. In a more general sense, the challenge to the legitimacy of the king, not to mention the papal schism which had lasted through most of the 1130s, must have encouraged the ambitious, the disappointed and the disaffected to pursue

47 48 49

50

Cronne, Reign of Stephen, pp. 37–9. Saltman, Theobald, pp. 97–8. John of Hexham, pp. 306–7. In 1148 Henry of Blois tried once more to have Henry de Sully elevated to the episcopate, this time at Lincoln; once more, he failed (Knowles, Monastic Order, p. 292; Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi’, p. 92). Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, X.31, pp. 756–7; CS, p. 821.

91

St William of York disputes and appeals which in other, more peaceful (or more authoritarian) times would not have been considered appropriate. Henry of Blois’s apparent opportunism in taking advantage of Stephen’s captivity in 1141 to settle the Salisbury succession raises another question about the impact of political events during that dramatic year on the York election. William fitzHerbert was elected in January 1141 amidst allegations, as we have seen, that William of Aumâle had applied pressure on his behalf from the king. At the very least it might be said, in relation to the charges of intrusion, that the chapter would have been naive to proceed to their third attempt at electing an archbishop without first ascertaining which candidates were or were not likely to be acceptable to the king. Stephen at the time was encamped with his army, in a seemingly strong position, not far away at Lincoln. Might this have had something to do with the chapter’s decision? It was very fortunate for William that he was able to reach the king at Lincoln and receive the grant of the temporalities before Stephen was captured on 2 February. Did William fitzHerbert have Henry of Blois’s support as well? He certainly did later on, but being a relative of the king and the legate was no guarantee of their joint support, as the case of Henry de Sully proves. Henry of Blois showed himself perfectly capable of switching horses more than once during the course of 1141. Before long he agreed to recognise the Empress Matilda as the rightful claimant to the throne of England. She in return promised that the legate should have control of episcopal elections.51 The empress would have had every incentive to foment opposition to William fitzHerbert. There is also the case of Durham to consider. The bishop of Durham, Geoffrey Rufus, died in May 1141, shortly after Henry of Blois had acknowledged the empress. Durham was immediately seized by William Cumin, the former chancellor of Scotland, with the active support of King David.52 The summer of 1141 also saw King David marching south with an army to support the empress. With a usurper ensconced in Durham, and an appeal against his candidate at York, Stephen was in real danger of losing the north altogether, in ecclesiastical terms, to add to the impossibility of his position as a prisoner of his rival.53 All of this must have given great encouragement to Walter of London and his fellow appellants against William fitzHerbert. Henry of Blois’s view of the York affair during these months is not known, but it cannot be excluded that he changed sides, perhaps more than once. In the event, however, the empress rapidly threw away her advantage. She quarrelled with Henry of Blois over William Cumin, whom the legate could not support; Henry returned to his former alliance 51 52

53

Cronne, Reign of Stephen, pp. 43–8. A. Young, William Cumin: Border Politics and the Bishopric of Durham 1141–1144, Borthwick Paper 54 (York, n.d. [1978]). Compare the comments on King David’s designs on Yorkshire by Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 221–7.

92

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate with the royalist party; the armies of the empress, including the Scottish forces, were defeated; and hostages were taken of sufficient rank to be used as bargaining counters for the king’s release. Stephen was set free on 1 November, and it was probably at the subsequent legatine council in December that the York election dispute was considered. If it is correct that it was Henry of Blois who referred the issue to Rome, rather than an appeal by one of the parties, it perhaps reflects an appreciation of his own weakness following his political tergiversations during the course of the year. At Salisbury, there is just a glimpse of the divisions within the chapter and the opposition to the new bishop which are such prominent features of the affair of York. How are we to understand these divisions, and the involvement of the religious orders? In his famous article on the case of St William, Knowles briefly summarised the circumstances which affected episcopal elections generally in this period: the political uncertainties of the time and the weakness of the king, the influence of the Gregorian policy of canonical elections by the cathedral chapter unfettered by lay interference, and the somewhat ambiguous consequences of Henry of Blois’s promotion of ecclesiastical freedom. He also pointed to the widespread fact that ‘freedom of election was a new thing, and the chapters of the great cathedrals often included several members of influential families unconnected with the diocese, together with a number of young ecclesiastics with great patrons’. But he then pointed to a particular feature of the York dispute. The whole situation at York, however, was novel, for the York electors acted under the eyes of a group of men who held opinions on the qualities essential to a bishop and on the freedom of election which were far more exacting than those held by Henry of Winchester. This group, formidable by reason of the high character and fearlessness of those who composed it, consisted of the heads of the newly founded Cistercian abbeys, together with the priors of the northern houses of Augustinian canons who were in sympathy with their programme of reform. Only three years earlier St Bernard had provided a model for his followers by his conduct of the election at Langres, and it was scarcely a year since the Lateran Council of 1139 had reasserted the right of viri religiosi of the neighbourhood to assist the chapter at an election; the monks and canons were therefore in a position to know what was going forward and anxious to exert their influence.54

In a less-often quoted passage in the Monastic Order, written just a few years later, Knowles placed the initiative firmly on the shoulders of William, abbot of Rievaulx: He was in close touch with Bernard, had watched his conduct of the episcopal election at Langres, and knew of his approval of the decree of the 54

Knowles, ‘St William’, pp. 77–8.

93

St William of York Lateran Council of 1139 that viri religiosi of the neighbourhood should assist the diocesan chapter at episcopal elections. Consequently, when the see of York fell vacant early in 1140, he was prepared to take a share in the proceedings, the more so because it was essential to the white monks that their infant communities should have a bishop favourable to the reform, while at the same time the ecclesiastical situation in the kingdom made it likely that political and partisan considerations would influence the electors.55

As well as emphasising the initiative of William of Rievaulx and his involvement from an early point in the vacancy, Knowles here lays greater stress on Bernard and his views on the Lateran Council, rather than the decree of the council itself, but without citing any new evidence to support this analysis. In his article, Knowles formulated his words very carefully. Most subsequent writers have followed his lead, but in so doing have tended to express themselves in formulations that are categoric where Knowles had been indicative. Thus we read, for instance, that the Yorkshire abbots and priors took an active interest in the election ‘as a result of rights given to them by the Lateran Council of 1139’ (my italics).56 And this perhaps unconscious process led in due course to a reaction from Baker, who challenged what had become the orthodox hypothesis, which (in his words) seeks to submerge the complexity of motive, action, and reaction at York within the wave of reform which was, apparently, sweeping Europe in the wake of that great leviathan St Bernard, and does so on very inadequate grounds. There is, as far as I know, no indication that the Cistercians and Augustinians who opposed William Fitzherbert were influenced to oppose him by St Bernard’s conduct of the election dispute at Langres. There is, indeed, no evidence that they became involved at all until after the archdeacons had moved against the treasurer. In the wider view, there is nothing to show that the reaffirmation of the right of viri religiosi to participate in episcopal elections at the Lateran Council of 1139 exercised any influence on the outbreak or the course of the York election dispute. Whatever it may have later become, or seemed to become, in the hands of St Bernard, the dispute at York sprang from the rich soil of capitular rivalry and local family relationship.57

Baker proposed, rather, that the origins of the election dispute are to be found within the York chapter itself. The previous candidates, Audouen, Henry de Sully and Waltheof, were all, in this view, ‘inadequate if not undesirable’, whereas William fitzHerbert was ‘a man amongst boys’, in no way ‘the nonentity which he appears in so much contemporary writing’. Yet the 55 56

57

Knowles, Monastic Order, p. 254. Talbot, ‘New Documents’, p. 1; cf. Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 240–1, a passage cited at the outset of his critique by Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, pp. 116–17. Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi’, pp. 99–100.

94

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate chapter itself is not recorded as having made any objections to the first three nominations, while throwing themselves energetically (in part at least) into the campaign against William. Paradoxically, Baker suggested, the members of the chapter may have been more willing to accept incompetents, who would not challenge their local interests, than the experienced William who knew his fellow members of chapter well and would present a more formidable opposition. The subsequent involvement of the reformist monks could then be seen as simply a tactical alliance brought about by men such as the distinctly unreformed Archdeacon Osbert of Bayeux for their own purposes. Baker, in short, denied that William fitzHerbert’s opponents could be categorised simply in terms of a reformist party within the diocese of York, and he challenged the notion that the origin of the York dispute was to be found in the reforming ideals of a group of Yorkshire monks; rather it should be seen as lying within the personal and local animosities of the York chapter, which only subsequently drew in the leaders of the Yorkshire monastic houses. Underlying the different interpretations lies a difference not just of motive but of chronology. Were the Cistercians and the other monks involved from the start, or only after the appeal against William’s election had already been launched? The Langres election dispute arose as a result of a vacancy caused by the death of the incumbent bishop in 1136. Like the York dispute, it was a convoluted affair involving a large cast of characters including Pope Innocent II, the archbishop of Lyons, canons on the cathedral chapter and archdeacons (who themselves were divided into different parties), and interested abbots from the region, including both Bernard of Clairvaux (which lay within the diocese of Langres) and Peter the Venerable of Cluny. The affair has been discussed at length by Giles Constable,58 and subsequently by Derek Baker in the context of the York dispute.59 It would serve little purpose to repeat the minutiae of the affair, but it does present interesting analogies both in the course of events and in the methodological issues raised. As at York, we are partly dependent for our knowledge of key events on the letters of Bernard, whose interpretation of the proceedings cannot be assumed to be disinterested or unbiased. Bernard is first known to have been involved in 1138, when the dispute had already been raging for a year and a half; and it is Bernard who is our source for the information that Innocent II had decided (at some point) that viri religiosi should be involved in the discussions, and that Bernard’s own advice on the matter should be taken into consideration. Bernard claimed to have reached an agreement on the procedures to be followed with the archbishop of Lyons, and reacted furiously when he learnt that the archbishop had accepted and consecrated a candidate who was not 58

59

G. Constable, ‘The Disputed Election at Langres in 1138’, Traditio 13 (1957), 119–52; and see G. Constable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable (Cambridge, MA, 1967). Principally in Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, pp. 120–7; also Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi’, pp. 99–100.

95

St William of York on the shortlist which the two of them had agreed. Bernard took this as a betrayal both of himself and of the papacy. He claimed to have seen letters proving his opponents’ deceitfulness, and cast aspersions on the calibre and reputation of the candidate. Bernard bombarded the pope and the curia with letters, and in the end, the election was quashed (even though the elect had been consecrated). A new election resulted in the elevation of an intimate associate of Bernard’s, Geoffrey de la Roche, prior of Clairvaux, who was consecrated late in 1138. A further letter from Bernard to the king of France, who had accepted the deposed candidate, persuaded him to acquiesce in the new election.60 The following year the Second Lateran Council passed a canon which required cathedral chapters to include religiosos viros in episcopal elections, and declared that elections carried out without their assent should be considered void.61 Both content and wording are closely paralleled in Bernard’s letter on the Langres dispute. It is a question whether Bernard’s involvement in the Langres dispute was merely a response to a little local difficulty, or whether it represented a practical demonstration of ecclesiological principles of potentially general application. The importance of the Langres case on the development of papal policy on episcopal elections is equally disputed.62 However, for present purposes a more immediate issue is the relevance of the Langres affair and the Lateran Council decree for the York election dispute. Baker is correct to point out that there is no reference to either in the contemporary sources on the York affair, though these are far from complete. The evidence does not suggest that the decrees of the Second Lateran Council had either a wide or a rapid circulation in England; indeed, no extant English manuscript includes the canons of the Council.63 Not that rapid dissemination would in any case be evidence of rapid implementation – the interminable struggle to enforce canons on clerical celibacy are proof enough of that. In any case, neither Langres nor the Lateran decree provides a legal precedent for the York case. When the York appeal came before the pope, the case did not concern the issue of whether viri religiosi had been excluded from the election procedure, or, conversely, whether they had any locus standi in the proceedings at all. Rather, as we have seen, it turned upon 60 61

62 63

Ep. 164–70 and 501 = James 179–86. The key phrase is the following: sub anathemate interdicimus, ne canonici de sede episcopali ab electione episcoporum excludant religiosos viros, sed eorum consilio honesta et idonea persona in episcopum eligatur. Quod si exclusis eisdem religiosis electio fuerat celebrata; quod absque eorum assensu et convenientia factum fuerit, irritum habeatur et vacuum (Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 240 n. 6; Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi’, p. 89 n. 1). See Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, pp. 126–7. Saltman, Theobald, pp. 137–41; Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, p. 127; CS, pp. 779–81, noting that no manuscript of English provenance contains the canons of the Council, which were, however, incorporated into Gratian’s Decretum, which was circulating in England by the 1150s.

96

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate the reliability and acceptability of evidence in charges of intrusion, simony and unchastity. Even if the involvement (or otherwise) of the heads of the religious houses had been the point at issue, the practical application of the Lateran decree of 1139 would have been debatable. The York chapter included the heads of the Augustinian houses of Nostell and Hexham, both of whom held Minster prebends. And if heads of other religious houses were to be involved, the Benedictines would have had an equal right to express their views. It is improbable that the monastic houses would have spoken with one voice, any more than they had at Langres. It is true to say, therefore, that on a narrow perspective the Langres affair and the Second Lateran Council are not directly relevant to the legal challenge which was mounted to William fitzHerbert’s election in 1141. But on a wider view (and this, I suspect, is what Knowles had in mind in his carefully formulated remarks in his article) it would be foolish to ignore their relevance. At the very least, the involvement of viri religiosi in the Langres election and the formulation of principle in the Lateran decree are symptomatic of a broad current of thought in the church which helps explain the involvement of the religious houses in the York affair. The Cistercian triumph at the conclusion of the Langres dispute is also symptomatic of the emerging influence of the Cistercians and of Bernard himself in the later 1130s and 1140s, which cannot fail to have been noticed by reformists and traditionalists alike in many parts of Europe. Bernard’s personal triumph at Langres can only have encouraged him to take up the cudgels elsewhere. Nor should it be forgotten that one of the principals in the Langres affair was in northern England just before the York crisis broke. Alberic of Ostia, the papal legate, who travelled north in the autumn of 1138, was abbot of Vézelay in Burgundy, and his name had in fact been put forward as a possible candidate for the see of Langres at some point prior to April of that year.64 It was the same Alberic who, four years later, supported the mission of Walter of London and Aelred of Rievaulx to the Roman curia. No less than the Yorkshire Cistercians, with their close connections to Bernard, Alberic must have been fully acquainted with the progress of events at Langres, and aware of their potential relevance to the diocese of York, where an election could not be long delayed. It is perhaps not a coincidence that, after Thurstan’s unsuccessful attempt to slip away to Pontefract Priory in late 1138 without telling anyone, discussions took place about the future of the diocese with religiosis et sapientibus viris.65 Perhaps we should see in this the influence of the papal legate, responding both to the ideals of the European reform movement and the reality of life in Yorkshire, where the weakness of the institutions of the church and the attractiveness of the new monastic houses to many of the more impressive young ecclesiastics of the day meant that the monasteries 64 65

Constable, ‘The Disputed Election at Langres’, pp. 124, 132 and 134. See above, n. 12.

97

St William of York inevitably loomed large in church affairs.66 And Bernard of Clairvaux was himself taking an interest in the York succession at about this time. His earliest extant letter on the election dispute, addressed to Pope Innocent II early in 1142, reveals that he had already written repeatedly to Innocent about William fitzHerbert.67 It is a reminder of the haphazard survival of Bernard’s letters. But we do have an earlier letter addressed to Archbishop Thurstan in late 1138 or 1139. This is usually treated in isolation from the dossier of later letters relating to the York affair, but it is very germane to them, for in it Bernard addresses Thurstan’s desire to lay down his office and retire to a monastery.68 In typical fashion, Bernard first urges Thurstan not to resign before suggesting, none too subtly, that, if he must, he should retire to a Cistercian monastery. The letter was written in response to one of Thurstan’s, which unfortunately does not survive. Whether or not the exchange of correspondence was in fact initiated by Thurstan (as has sometimes been assumed), his desire to retire need not have come as a surprise to Bernard. He was in close contact with Rievaulx and Fountains, and, for all their proclaimed withdrawal from the cares of this world, the Cistercians knew perfectly well how things stood in the diocese. In 1138, Richard, abbot of Fountains, the former prior of St Mary’s Abbey, York, had been chosen by Cardinal Alberic to advise him on his visit to the north because of his experience in matters of ecclesiastical business, and it was Richard of Fountains whom Thurstan sent to Rome on his behalf in 1139 to discuss the York succession with the pope. It would not be surprising if Richard had sought Bernard’s advice, nor if he had suggested that Thurstan should do the same. Alberic’s legateship would doubtless have informed any such correspondence, and, given Bernard’s well-known forwardness, an exchange of letters between him and Alberic is also very likely. Both Richard and Bernard had a particular motive for being worried about the succession. Fountains, most unusually, had been founded not by a lay patron, but by the archbishop himself on land belonging to the archbishopric. Thurstan’s successor would effectively inherit the patronage of the monastery, and an unsympathetic archbishop would have been in a position to make life distinctly uncomfortable for the Fountains community. Bernard, ever-watchful of the interests of his flock, would have sensed the danger immediately. Nor is it out of the question that the solution which presented itself to him (perhaps with the outcome of the Langres dispute in mind) was that the efficient and experienced Abbot Richard would make an excellent archbishop of York. That can only be speculation, and the death of Abbot Richard in

66 67 68

See above, Chapter Two. Ep. 346 = James 187. Ep. 319 = James 175; see Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 233–4 and Baker, ‘Viri Religiosi’, p. 99 n. 3.

98

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate Rome in April 1139 put an end to any hopes in that direction.69 It would not have put an end to Bernard’s concern for Fountains, or his interest in the York succession. If it is correct that the Cistercians were following events in York closely from at least 1138, it is unlikely that they would have been indifferent to the attempts of the York chapter at electing a new archbishop. It would also be unwise to assume that the chapter was not the focus of dissension until William fitzHerbert’s election, or that the heads of the monastic houses only became involved once the appeal had been launched by Walter of London in 1141. The sources are too laconic to draw any such inferences from their silence. It is therefore impossible to know where, when or among whom the signs of serious dissension first arose. What we can, however, do is move beyond the simple characterisation of the disputants as either reformists or traditionalists. There were many different parties involved, and their motives were various and not always high-minded religious ones. Many were distinctly base and related to squalid local squabbles. In attempting to understand something of the dynamics which animated different people, the recent work by Paul Dalton on Yorkshire during the anarchy is very illuminating. William fitzHerbert’s candidacy was promoted by William of Aumâle. Created earl of York by King Stephen after the Battle of the Standard, William of Aumâle held York throughout the anarchy and was Stephen’s principal ally in Yorkshire. Indeed, such was his power in Yorkshire, and the weakness of the king, that he was memorably described by William of Newburgh as one qui ibidem sub Stephano rex verior fuerat (‘who under Stephen had more truly been king in that region’).70 Like Henry of Blois, however, William of Aumâle found that his own interests did not always coincide with those of the king. Dalton has shown that ‘far from preserving law and order as an agent of royal government, William directly provoked many of the worst disorders in Yorkshire by his reckless pursuit of private ambitions’.71 A blatant example of this in the ecclesiastical sphere was his offer to support Waltheof’s election to the archbishopric in the face of opposition from the king, if Waltheof would grant him the archiepiscopal manor of Sherburn-in-Elmet, which occupied a key strategic position on the south-western approaches to York (Fig. 12).72 Less immediately obvious, 69 70 71

72

John of Hexham, pp. 300–1; Memorials of Fountains, I, 70–3. William of Newburgh, p. 103. See Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, p. 147, and his chapter four passim. Summary of William of Aumâle’s career in B. English, The Lords of Holderness 1086– 1260: A Study in Feudal Society (Oxford, 1979), pp. 16–28. See above, and Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, p. 170. On the extent of the Sherburn estate, see S. Keynes, ‘The Additions in Old English’, in The York Gospels, ed. N. Barker, Roxburghe Club (London, 1986), pp. 81–99, at pp. 86–9, and S. Baxter, ‘Archbishop Wulfstan and the Administration of God’s Property’, in Wulfstan, Archbishop of York. The Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, ed. M. Townend

99

St William of York perhaps, are the advantages to William of Aumâle of William fitzHerbert’s candidacy. William of Aumâle’s Yorkshire power-base, apart from York itself, was firmly centred on the East Riding, and more particularly the eastern side of the Wolds and the coastal lands extending right up as far as the Tees. He was the dominant landowner in William fitzHerbert’s archdeaconry, whose ecclesiastical capital, Beverley, lay under the shadow of William of Aumâle’s presence. The FitzHerbert family estates at Weaverthorpe and Londesborough adjoined land controlled by William of Aumâle and his baronial supporters. William fitzHerbert, whose archdeaconry was combined with the treasurership of the Minster, was the ecclesiastical counterpart to William of Aumâle. At a regional level, there was a perfect geographical correspondence between the temporal and spiritual arms. William fitzHerbert’s activities in Yorkshire as archbishop-elect between 1141 and 1143 are largely invisible, but such evidence as there is points, not surprisingly, to the East Riding. He witnessed a charter of the dean and chapter relating to Bridlington Priory,73 and he summoned Thurstan, provost of Beverley, to his presence on more than one occasion.74 As archbishop between 1143 and 1147 he issued an important charter in favour of the men of Beverley.75 The charter was witnessed firstly by William of Aumâle, then by two of his supporters in the East Riding, Robert de Stuteville and Everard de Ros,76 and then by William’s brother, Herbert fitzHerbert. Thurstan, provost of Beverley, and other local ecclesiastics follow later. The witnesses read like a roll-call of the victorious faction in the election dispute. Even after William fitzHerbert’s deposition, the close connection between William of Aumâle and the archdeacon of the East Riding continued. Hugh du Puiset, who had been appointed to the archdeaconry by William fitzHerbert probably in 1143, became William of Aumâle’s principal ecclesiastical ally in the years of Henry Murdac’s archiepiscopate. As treasurer of the Minster, Hugh combined with William of Aumâle to deny Henry Murdac access to his cathedral church and city between 1147 and 1150, when the parties were finally reconciled.77 A similar coincidence of interests united some of William fitzHerbert’s ecclesiastical opponents to some of William of Aumâle’s enemies. Among the archdeacons the two principal opponents of William fitzHerbert were Walter of London and Osbert of Bayeux. Both had been appointed by Archbishop Thurstan in the mid-1120s, and both attested some of Thurstan’s charters. Walter of London, who led the appeal against William’s election, was archdeacon of York.78 Having been arrested by William of Aumâle in January

73 74 75 76 77 78

(Turnhout, 2004), pp. 161–205, at pp. 179–86. EYC II, no. 1153, see Chapter Two. EEA V, no. 83, see below, n. 113. EEA V, no. 86. On these two, see Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 180–3. See below. Greenway, Fasti, pp. 31–2; EEA V, 125 and see Chapter Two, n. 15.

100

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate 1141 lest he protest to the king about William fitzHerbert’s election, he had the misfortune in 1148 of falling into the hands of some of William fitzHerbert’s relatives. Enraged by his deposition, they did not scruple to mutilate the archdeacon. Walter died shortly afterwards.79 Apart from his trips to Rome in connection with the appeal, his activities in this period are obscure,80 and his political connections remain elusive. His toponymic could indicate that his associations were as much metropolitan as regional.

Fig. 12

79

80

Map of Yorkshire in the mid-twelfth century.

See above, n. 16, for the 1141 arrest; and for his 1148 capture, see William of Newburgh, pp. 56–7, and Knowles, ‘St William’, p. 97. On the date, see below, n. 150, and Chapter Four. Walter was commemorated in the Durham Liber Vitae on 12 July (Greenway, Fasti, p. 32). He did witness a charter of Archbishop Theobald dated 1143 x 1148, heading the list of witnesses, which also includes the future archbishop, Roger of Pont l’Évêque (Saltman, Theobald, no. 178).

101

St William of York Osbert of Bayeux is more interesting. He was a nephew of Archbishop Thurstan, and had a son who bore the archbishop’s name. He it was who resisted William fitzHerbert’s final return to York in 1154 and was accused of poisoning him. Subsequently, he was deposed from his archdeaconry and returned to the life of a minor secular lord.81 The Chronica Pontificum reports that he was among William’s opponents from the outset, invidiae stimulo agitatus (‘driven on by the spur of envy’), and that he opposed him tenaciously.82 Rivalry with a fellow archdeacon may have been a factor; but he may have imagined that he had a claim on the archbishopric himself. Apart from Archbishop Gerard, all of the Norman archbishops of York from Thomas of Bayeux to Thurstan had Bayeux connections, and Osbert may have felt that he had an innate claim on the office. If so, he was very much out of touch with the currents of the time, and hopelessly lacking in any self-awareness. His subsequent career shows that he would have made a disastrous archbishop, and Thurstan’s promotion of his own brother Audouen was perhaps a comment on Osbert’s abilities. Osbert was archdeacon of Richmond, a vast archdeaconry which stretched right across the Pennines and up into Cumbria even, nominally as far as Carlisle, prior to the establishment of the see there in 1133.83 Much of the land within the archdeaconry was controlled by Alan of Richmond, who had been created earl of Richmond by Stephen in 1136. Richmondshire was administratively distinct from the rest of Yorkshire and functioned as a largely independent shire. Alan of Richmond was William of Aumâle’s principal rival and enemy in Yorkshire. The two competed vigorously for influence, territorial control and family alliances in the early 1140s. In 1142, on one of his rare visits to York, King Stephen had to intervene to stop physical combat between the two men.84 It is therefore no surprise that Alan of Richmond took a strong line on the York election. Not long after Thurstan’s death he pillaged the stores at Ripon which Thurstan had accumulated for the use of his successor. In 1143, shortly after William fitzHerbert’s return to Yorkshire following his consecration, Alan of Richmond burst into Ripon Minster in military attire accompanied by armed soldiers and proceeded to assault the archbishop by the shrine of St Wilfrid.85 And it is no accident that the 1147 election of Henry Murdac following William’s deposition took place at Richmond.86 There must be a strong presumption that Osbert of Bayeux was acting in concert with Alan of Richmond to oppose William fitzHerbert and William of Aumâle with their power-base in eastern Yorkshire. Osbert’s political connections in the last decades of his life, 81 82 83

84 85 86

See below, Chapter Four. Chronica Pontificum, pp. 389–90, and see n. 15 above. Greenway, Fasti, p. 47; EEA V, 126–7 and above, n. 15; Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 27, 121 and 141. Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 73–4 and 162–8. John of Hexham, pp. 306 and 315; Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 167–8. See below.

102

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate following the abandonment of his ecclesiastical career, are fairly well documented, but there is less to show from the period of the anarchy. There is, however, a charter of Osbert of Bayeux dated 1138 x 1145 addressed to Hugh, son of Jernegan, steward of the earl of Richmond, confirming a grant of land.87 Following the death of Alan of Richmond in 1146, Osbert witnessed a number of charters of Alice de Rumilly, the wife of William son of Duncan. He was a nephew of King David of Scotland, and his expansionist policies in the honour of Skipton are linked by Dalton to Scottish ambitions to recover control of the whole of Northumbria. By 1166 Osbert held a knight’s fee in the honour of Skipton, along with half a knight’s fee held of Henry de Lacy. Osbert’s links with the latter went back to at least the early 1150s, and Henry de Lacy had been engaged in fighting William of Aumâle in and around Selby in the earlier 1140s.88 So Osbert of Bayeux’s political affiliations were with the enemies of William of Aumâle. Furthermore, Alan of Richmond and Alice de Rumilly together with her husband were benefactors of Fountains. Earl Alan gave the grange of Cowton not later than 1145, and Alice de Rumilly and William fitzDuncan gave the estate of Kilnsey in the parish of Burnsall, no later than 1151.89 Patronage connections thus help to explain how it was that such a distinctly pre-Gregorian figure as Osbert of Bayeux came to be in alliance with the austere reforming Cistercians. Osbert of Bayeux was himself a benefactor of Guisborough Priory,90 whose prior, Cuthbert, participated in the appeal against William’s election. Guisborough, an Augustinian Priory on the northern edge of the North York moors, had been founded in 1119 by Robert I de Brus in the heart of his lordship. A close companion of Henry I, he also had connections with King David of Scotland going back at least to the second decade of the century, and he was granted the Scottish barony of Annandale in the mid-1120s. He was one of those who had found himself with divided loyalties at the Battle of the Standard. Robert himself withdrew from his fealty to King David before the battle, but his son Robert II fought on the Scottish side. Subsequently, Robert I gave his Scottish lands to Robert II, and his Yorkshire estates to his oldest son, Adam. Adam’s death in 1143, leaving an infant son and heir, prompted an attempt by William of Aumâle to secure custody of the young Adam II and marry him to his own sister Agnes. The Brus family were related to Alan of Richmond, who also held land adjacent to some of the Brus estates, so William of Aumâle’s actions must have been a deliberate attempt to extend

87 88

89

90

EYC V, no. 163, not in Twelfth-Century English Archidiaconal and Vice-Archidiaconal Acta. On these and other links, see EYC I, no. 641, EYC III, nos 1500, 1508, 1623 and 1718, EYC V, nos 13 and 14, EYC VII, nos 17, 18, 21, 22, 28, 29, 47 and 87. On Henry de Lacy, see Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 171–2 and 211–19. Memorials of Fountains, I, 86; J. Wardrop, Fountains Abbey and Its Benefactors 1132–1300 (Kalamazoo, 1987), pp. 163–7. EYC II, no. 673.

103

St William of York his influence at the expense of his rivals.91 Cuthbert of Guisborough’s opposition to William fitzHerbert may therefore have been prompted by political motives as much as commitment to the principles of ecclesiastical reform. Another man with divided loyalties was Walter Espec. A senior figure in the royal administration in Yorkshire under Henry I, Walter had acquired estates in both Yorkshire and Northumberland. His Augustinian foundation at Kirkham lay at the centre of one group of Yorkshire estates, while the Cistercian abbey of Rievaulx was close to his caput at Helmsley. He also had links with King David of Scotland, at one point coming to the aid of the king in quelling a rebellion. Aelred of Rievaulx had been a steward in the household of King David, and Waltheof of Kirkham was David’s stepson. Walter fought on the English side at the Battle of the Standard, but his role in the royal administration was never the same following Stephen’s promotion of William of Aumâle to be earl of York. His holdings in Northumberland were also continually threatened by the Scottish incursions which King Stephen was largely powerless to prevent; and in late 1138, with Scottish forces still active in Northumberland, Walter made over the castle at his Northumbrian caput at Wark to King David. He sent William, abbot of Rievaulx, to negotiate the surrender on his behalf. Thereafter, his allegiance to King Stephen is questionable.92 By the time of the York election, therefore, Walter had cause both to resent William of Aumâle’s rise to power, and to support the efforts of King David to extend his control over northern England. It is an open question, therefore, to what extent the involvement of William of Rievaulx and Waltheof of Kirkham in the opposition to William fitzHerbert reflected the zeal of the reformers or the influence of their patron. Walter, one of whose nephews was a canon of York,93 had presumably supported Waltheof’s election to the archbishopric in 1140. If he could order William of Rievaulx to negotiate the surrender of a castle, could he not also demand from the heads of his two monastic foundations a vigorous approach to the election dispute? In the years of the anarchy, the religious houses had to cope with much more than the usual interference from their founders and patrons. Violent men did not scruple to attack churches or monasteries and their possessions. Alan of Richmond launched his assaults on Ripon from a nearby castle belonging to the bishop of Durham which he had seized for himself.94 Mean91 92

93

94

Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 92–4, 166, 201 and 209. Baker, ‘Ailred of Rievaulx and Walter Espec’; D. Baker, ‘Patronage in the Early Twelfth-Century Church: Walter Espec, Kirkham and Rievaulx’, in Traditio–Krisis– Renovatio aus Theologische-Sicht, ed. B. Jaspert and R. Mohr (Marburg, 1976), pp. 92– 100; Burton, Kirkham Priory, passim; Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 98–100, 105–7, 151, 153–5, 201–2 and 210. Nicholas de Trailli, son of Walter’s sister Aubreye (Greenway, Fasti, p. 99). Baker, ‘Legend and Reality’, p. 79, suggested that Waltheof’s candidacy for the election probably arose out of Walter Espec’s interests. See references cited in n. 85.

104

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate while, across the Vale of York, William of Aumâle took over the Augustinian priory at Bridlington and fortified it.95 Selby, St Mary’s Abbey, York, and York Minster itself were among the great churches whose estates were plundered or seized at one time or another.96 In such circumstances, any monastery might well fear for its safety. Considerations of this kind may partly underlie the involvement in the election dispute of Robert, master of St Peter’s Hospital. The hospital seems to have suffered particularly severe depredations. As early as 1140, the king himself was commanding William of Aumâle that Robert of the Hospital, his men and possessions should have the king’s peace, and that no actions should be launched against them until the consecration of a new archbishop. Other later charters refer to further severe depredations.97 Whether Robert and the hospital suffered these attacks because of opposition to William of Aumâle, or whether his opposition to William fitzHerbert was prompted by these attacks, there is no way of knowing. But as an opponent of the two Williams based at the very heart of York, Robert’s position was unenviable indeed. The threat of looting, depredation, physical violence and even death which Cardinal Alberic alluded to in his 1142 letter to Robert of the Hospital, the abbots of Rievaulx and Fountains and the priors of Kirkham and Guisborough was indeed real enough;98 but it did not only apply to the opponents of William fitzHerbert. It was a universal danger to all the Yorkshire religious houses. In the midst of such a confusion of men and motives, what conclusions may we draw? The origins of the York election dispute must be traced back several years before Thurstan’s death. Thurstan himself attempted to arrange the succession for his brother, Audouen. Bernard and the Cistercians were taking a close interest from early on. They may even have entertained hopes that Abbot Richard I of Fountains would impress himself sufficiently forcefully on Cardinal Alberic to secure his support. Other parties must have been weighing up their chances. The dispute unfolded in a period of maximum political confusion and uncertainty when controversial episcopal elections were by no means unusual. The king no longer had the power to impose his candidate, nor was there any single authority in the church who could take the election in hand, as Cardinal Alberic had been able to do with the Canterbury election in 1138 in his capacity as papal legate. Had he been able to organise an election during his visit to the northern province earlier that year, a lot of trouble could have been avoided. As it was, when the time came in 1140–1, the papal legate was Henry of Blois, who did not have Alberic’s advantage of detachment from local affairs, and who was too preoccupied 95 96 97 98

Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 162–5. Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 168–9 and 193, and see below. RRAN III, no. 991, and cf. no. 992; Saltman, Theobald, no. 286. Talbot, ‘New Documents’, no. 6, and see above.

105

St William of York with business in the south to be able to oversee the election in York in person. By then, in any case, it is doubtful whether a personal appearance by Henry of Blois would have resolved the tensions which had built up around the election. He had too much of a personal interest, and appeals to Rome are likely to have ensued just the same. For all the talk of freedom of election from lay interference, temporal power could not be ignored. Here too the weakness of royal authority caused a power vacuum which offered opportunities to local and regional grandees to chance their arm. More than that, the interest of the king of Scotland meant that the York election had the potential to destabilise the whole of the north of England. Even a redrawing of boundaries was not out of the question. The stakes could hardly have been higher. In such a situation, many people were bound to take an interest in the election and start jostling for position. Their motives were many and various, within the ranks of the clergy as much as the laity. The ideals of the reform movement motivated some of the protagonists; the internal politics of the York chapter, others. But it would be simplistic to reduce the election dispute to one factor or the other. Both were significant, but they were by no means the only considerations. It was precisely the complex and unstable situation of the years around 1140 which made the York affair so protracted, and which make it so difficult for us to pin down. The constantly shifting circumstances forced people regularly to reassess where their own best interests lay, and encouraged them to enter into alliances (or enmities) which may seem, on the surface, improbable. There were no easy choices; and even those whose names do not appear among the protagonists of the affair must have been affected by it, and found themselves faced with difficult decisions about which course of action – or inaction – to take. In the general anarchy and violence of the times, there were plenty of opportunities for the ambitious and the litigious, those who bore grudges and those who sought revenge to prolong disputes. Voices for peace were easily shouted down. Some of the motives of some of the leading players can be discerned, but by no means all. Walter of London is an elusive figure, and William himself remains an enigma. Was he keen to possess the archiepiscopal throne? Or was he a reluctant candidate spurred on by others? Did he pursue the case with enthusiasm and commitment, or out of a sense of duty and conviction, or with distaste and despondency? He had seen enough of the ways of the world and of the church, its conflicts, animosities and pain, to know the fragility of worldly ambitions and the uncertainty of outcome of such a case. Did this spur him on the more eagerly to grasp the great ecclesiastical prize that was offered to him? Or did he share the world-weariness of his contemporary Henry of Huntingdon and his contempt for the glories of this present age? We do not know.

106

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate

Archbishop William’s consecration should have been the end of the affair. He was now in possession of both the temporalities and the spiritualities of the see, and all that remained was to be vested with the pallium by the pope. The pallium was a liturgical vestment made of white wool marked with a number of dark crosses. It was worn on top of the standard episcopal vestments, and consisted of a circular band hung low over the shoulders, with two long strips hanging down front and back to approximately knee height.99 A rare specimen of a medieval pallium came to light in 1969 when the tomb of Archbishop Godfrey de Ludham (1258–65) was opened. It was composed of fairly coarse woollen threads, which had turned brown with age, and was ornamented with Maltese crosses woven in a finer thread, perhaps silk (Fig. 13).100 The pallium was worn only on solemn occasions, which are listed in a letter from Pope Pascal II to Archbishop Gerard dated 10 April 1103: the major festivals of the Christian year, including Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension and Pentecost; the feast days of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostles, St Stephen the protomartyr, All Saints, and the special commemorations of York saints; the consecration of bishops, priests and deacons, the dedication of churches, and the anniversary of the archbishop’s consecration.101 The pallium distinguished an archbishop from a bishop, and was the final ecclesiastical seal of approval conferred after consecration on the authority of the pope himself. In William’s case, this should have been a mere formality, since his election had been upheld and his consecration performed by the papal legate. The pallium could be handed over by the pope in person, or it could be sent to the recipient. However, the grant of the pallium took effect not from the moment when the pope decided to confer it or to send it to the new archbishop, but only when the archbishop was formally and physically vested with it, whether at the curia or in England. There could therefore be a delay of some months or even years between the archbishop’s consecration and his vesting with the pallium, and during this time the authority and legitimacy of the new archbishop was still open to challenge. The first York pallium was that sent by Pope Honorius in 634 for Paulinus, who had 99

100

101

The Catholic Encyclopedia, XI (London, 1913), pp. 427–9. A clear contemporary representation of the pallium is to be found in F. Wormald, The Winchester Psalter (London, 1973), pl. 40, where a page of the mid-twelfth-century psalter sometimes known as the psalter of Henry of Blois (British Library, Cotton MS Nero C IV, f. 37) shows two tonsured archbishops (therefore presumably from Canterbury) among the ranks of the damned! H. G. Ramm, ‘The Tombs of Archbishops Walter de Gray (1216–55) and Godfrey de Ludham (1258–65) in York Minster, and Their Contents’, Archaeologia 103 (1971), 101– 47. HCY III, no. XI; and see Hugh the Chanter, pp. 150–1 and n. 3 and pp. 168–71.

107

St William of York

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view the image on this page please refer to the printed version of this book.

Fig. 13 The tomb of Archbishop Godfrey de Ludham (d. 1265) as revealed in 1969, showing the pallium.

108

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate established his see at York in 627. However, by the time it arrived, Paulinus had been forced to flee from York, which did not therefore achieve archiepiscopal status until 735, when the pallium was conferred on Archbishop Egbert.102 Early in the eleventh century Archbishop Wulfstan had protested vigorously against papal demands that the archbishop should collect his pallium in person. Nonetheless, the earliest archbishop of York to do so was perhaps Aelfric in 1026, followed by other eleventh-century archbishops who made the journey to Rome.103 More recently, Archbishop Gerard had received his pallium at Rome in person; Archbishop Thomas II had been vested with his at York by the papal legate, Cardinal Odalric, while Thurstan had received the pallium from the hands of Calixtus II at Reims just a fortnight after his consecration.104 Thurstan’s case illustrates the importance of being vested with the pallium. When Henry I heard that, contrary to his will, Thurstan had been consecrated archbishop, he immediately asked whether he had been vested with the pallium. The pope, for his part, told Thurstan to hide it so long as he (the pope) was still in France.105 These and other considerations must have been in William’s mind following his consecration when he discussed his next move with Henry of Blois, in ignorance of the death of Innocent II. William had been to Rome twice in the previous eighteen months, so the prospect of a third visit, with winter approaching, is not likely to have been appealing. Besides, the diocese had been without an archbishop for three and a half years, and in the troubled times of the anarchy there was little to be said for prolonging his absence. William of Ste Barbe’s continuing inability to dislodge the usurper William Cumin from Durham was a reminder of the importance of physical control of the seat of the bishop. Henry would have needed to send messengers to Rome to announce his decision on the York election dispute. They were very likely accompanied or followed by envoys from William requesting that the pallium be sent to England where Henry, as papal legate, could invest William with it. Not till later in the year would the news have reached them that Innocent II had died and been succeeded by Celestine II. The change of pope and the expiry of 102

103

104 105

Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, II. 17 in Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, ed. C. Plummer (Oxford, 1896), I, 118–20, and useful discussion at II, 49–52; Sources for York History to AD 1100, ed. D. Rollason, D. Gore and G. Fellows-Jensen, AY (York, 1998), pp. 47 and 57–8. G. Mann, ‘The Development of Wulfstan’s Alcuin Manuscript’, in Wulfstan, Archbishop of York, ed. Townend, pp. 234–67 (pp. 261–5); Cooper, Last Four Anglo-Saxon Archbishops, pp. 16, 21 and 26; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Archbishop Thomas I of York and the Pallium’, Haskins Society Journal 11 (1998), 31–41; D. Bullough, ‘St Oswald, Monk, Bishop and Archbishop’, in St Oswald of Worcester – Life and Influence, ed. N. Brooks and C. Cubitt (London, 1996), pp. 1–22, at p. 8 records a tradition that Oswald collected his pallium from Rome in the tenth century, but remains sceptical. EEA V, 112–14, and see Chapter Two. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 124–5; see Chapter Two.

109

St William of York Henry of Blois’s legateship had an important influence on the subsequent course of events.

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view the image on this page please refer to the printed version of this book.

Fig. 14 Seal of Archbishop William fitzHerbert (Durham Cathedral Muniments 4.1 Archiep. 7).

For the moment, however, William apparently went north to take possession of his diocese. Before setting off, he probably ordered a die for his archiepiscopal seal, which shows him in traditional manner wearing the pallium as a symbol of his authority (Fig. 14).106 He had numerous debts to repay. He showed his gratitude to Henry of Blois by appointing Henry’s nephew, Hugh du Puiset, treasurer of York Minster and archdeacon of the East Riding in his own place.107 He transferred to the Minster as part of Hugh’s prebendal endowment the churches of Market Weighton and of Nether Wallop with the chapel at Grateley in fulfilment of the wishes of

106

107

J. P. Dalton, The Archiepiscopal and Deputed Seals of York 1114–1500, Borthwick Texts and Calendars 17 (York, 1992), p. 47 and pl. 1; EEA V, xliii. The only surviving impression is on a charter in favour of Durham Cathedral Priory (Durham, Dean and Chapter Archives 4. I. Archiep. 7 = EEA V, no. 88). It is not certain whether this dates to William’s first or second archiepiscopate, but the presence of the pallium on the seal by no means excludes the former, and William had so little time in England in 1154 between his return from Rome with the pallium and his death (see Chapter Four) that it may be doubted whether he would have had time to order and receive delivery of a new seal. Given his Winchester connections, it seems likely that he would have ordered his seal-die from one of the Winchester goldsmiths, but this cannot be proved. Greenway, Fasti, p. 41; Scammell, Puiset, pp. 7–8.

110

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate Henry I, and in due course had the grant confirmed by the pope.108 And, if it was not already numbered among the endowments of the treasurership, it was probably at this time that the valuable archiepiscopal estate of Mottisfont was transferred to the treasurer.109 Hugh du Puiset’s connections with Winchester, where he continued to hold an archdeaconry, meant that he was well placed to exploit these possessions. If so, it was a suitably generous reward for favours received from Henry of Blois. At Henry’s command, William also held a synod at York at which he adjudicated in favour of the monks of Shrewsbury in a dispute concerning the church of Kirkham.110 It was probably around this time that William granted a property in Ripon to one of the canons of Ripon called Gilbert. Gilbert was the son of Ralph Nowell, the bishop of the Orkneys, one of the trio of senior ecclesiastics who had testified in William’s favour in front of Henry of Blois.111 Severin, abbot of St Mary’s Abbey, York, and Benedict, abbot of Whitby, were presumably rewarded in other ways. Benedict was subsequently forced to resign his office by Henry Murdac.112 Another individual who was rewarded for his support for the archbishop was Thurstan, provost of Beverley. A charter of this period records the grant to Thurstan of twenty bovates of land in augmentation of the York Minster prebend of Apesthorpe which he held, in consideration of the expenses which Thurstan had incurred during repeated visits to York to assist the archbishop.113 As both provost of Beverley and canon of York, Thurstan would have been an important ally. The importance of Beverley and the East Riding to William is further evidenced by his major charter in favour of the men of Beverley.114 In it he both confirmed and significantly extended the rights which had been granted to the burgesses by Archbishop Thurstan. The charter was apparently sealed with Thurstan’s seal, suggesting that it dates to very shortly after William’s

108

109 110

111

112 113

114

PUE II, no. 41 = Cartulary of the Treasurer, no. 9; see Chapter Two and Appendix A, n. 63. See above, Chapter Two. EEA V, nos 100–1, and see no. 7; see also EEA VIII, Winchester 1070–1204, no. 100. This is Kirkham in Lancashire, not to be confused with Kirkham Priory in the East Riding of Yorkshire, for which see n. 120. Memorials of the Church of SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon, IV, ed. Canon Fowler, SS 115 (Durham, 1908), p. 97 no. 159, which is not included in EEA V. See Appendix B, n. 18. See Chapter Four. EEA V, no. 83 = EYC I, no. 155. Farrer, followed by McDermid, Beverley Minster Fasti, p. 4, identified the recipient of this charter as Thomas Becket, and dated it to 1153 x 1154. However, as pointed out in EEA V, 67–8, Becket is elsewhere stated to have been appointed provost of Beverley by Roger of Pont l’Évêque, i.e. after William’s death (see Chapter Four, n. 44). Furthermore, the use of the imperfect tense implies repeated visits to York by the provost. This cannot refer to 1153–4, when William was in York for just a month prior to his death (see Chapter Four). The charter must refer to repeated visits to York by provost Thurstan in the 1140s. EEA V, no. 86.

111

St William of York consecration, and it is attested by a long list of witnesses which provides a valuable snapshot of William’s supporters in the East Riding. The clergy consist of Thurstan, provost of Beverley, and two other canons of Beverley Minster together with Alured the sacrist, plus the abbot of the Augustinian house of Warter in the Wolds. Warter was very close to the FitzHerbert estate at Londesborough. It is said to have been founded c. 1132 by Geoffrey son of Pain, to whom Henry I had granted half of the manor of Market Weighton, the other half going to the FitzHerberts.115 William apparently issued a confirmation charter in favour of Warter at some point.116 Ahead of the clerical witnesses to the Beverley charter are the principal laymen, headed, significantly, by William of Aumâle. A fourteenth-century source records two charters of an Archbishop W. in favour of the abbey of Aumâle, which had been founded by William of Aumâle’s father in 1115. They may well have been issued by William fitzHerbert.117 William of Aumâle is followed in the witness list by Robert de Stuteville and Everard de Ros, representatives, as we have seen, of two important East Riding land-holding families in William of Aumâle’s sphere of influence.118 The next witness is Herbert fitzHerbert, William’s brother and head of the family, who thus makes his only certainly documented appearance in Yorkshire. We may surmise that Herbert had accompanied William from Winchester to York following his consecration, and had taken the opportunity to visit his Yorkshire estates on the Wolds. Further down the list of witnesses was a certain Alan son of Edric, a local man of some significance. He and his father had both received grants of land and properties from Archbishop Gerard and from either Archbishop Thomas II or Thurstan, grants which William himself confirmed, perhaps about this time.119 The Beverley charter indicates the kinds of local connections which William had been able to build up over many years as archdeacon of the East Riding. The absence of any York witnesses confirms the inherent likelihood that the charter was issued in Beverley. Analysis of William’s archiepiscopal acta is complicated by the fact that eleven of the twenty-seven known acta are of questionable attribution or authenticity.120 Furthermore, in many cases it is not clear whether they belong 115

116 117 118 119

120

See Appendix A, and on Warter, Burton, Monastic Order, pp. 84–6, where the contradictory evidence relating to the foundation is discussed. EEA V, no. 103. EEA V, nos 84–5. See above. EEA V, nos. 26, 30A and 82A, and EEA XX, no. 2, for a confirmation by Archbishop Roger of Pont l’Évêque. I include in the total all those printed in EEA V, nos 82A–107, plus the charter cited in n. 111 and Appendix B, n. 18. I do not count a possible grant to the canons of Kirkham Priory referred to in EEA XXIV, Durham 1153–95, ed. M. G. Snape (Oxford, 2002), p. 72 no. 79, referring to an obscure episode in which William as archbishop and Hugh du Puiset as archdeacon granted to the canons of Kirkham freedom from synodals and customs for their church of Carham in the diocese of Durham. This presumably took

112

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate to his first archiepiscopate (1143–7) or the second (1153–4). The former is in principle more likely, since William actually spent very little time in the country during his second archiepiscopate. Excluding those which definitely belong to 1153–4, we are left with eleven genuine acta of William fitzHerbert and another nine possibles or probables. Of the eleven, six relate to York or the East Riding, two concern Shrewsbury (at Henry of Blois’s request), while the remaining three concern Newburgh Priory, Pontefract Priory and Durham Cathedral Priory. The nine additional acta produce two in favour of Aumâle, two for religious houses in Nottinghamshire, four more for the East Riding, plus one more for Newburgh. In other words, leaving aside Shrewsbury and Aumâle, which are explicable in terms of personal obligations, the only acta which relate to places or people (and they almost all relate to monastic houses) outside York and the East Riding, are one concerned with Durham, two relating to the Augustinian Priory of Newburgh, and two possibles concerned with Lenton Priory and Worksop Priory in Nottinghamshire. Newburgh is the only place in the North Riding, while there is not a single one relating to the West Riding of Yorkshire. It is no coincidence that these were the areas where William of Aumâle’s power was weakest, and his opponents strongest. By contrast, between 1147 and 1153 William’s successor, the Cistercian Henry Murdac, issued twenty-four or twenty-six known acta, of which only six concern York or the East Riding. Most of the rest relate to monastic houses in the North or West Ridings of Yorkshire. Seven of them concern Cistercian houses, including three in favour of his own monastery at Fountains.121 The contrast between the two archbishops speaks for itself. William’s movements during his first archiepiscopate can seldom be determined. He presumably spent some time at York, where William of Aumâle was in control, and at Beverley he was among friends and supporters. The reception which he received at Ripon late in 1143 was very different. The assault on him in Ripon Minster by Alan of Richmond has already been mentioned.122 Alan’s plundering of supplies from the archiepiscopal stores at

121 122

place in the period 1143 x 1147. The church of Carham had been part of the original endowment of Kirkham Priory (Burton, Kirkham Priory, pp. 3, 6 and 11). EEA V, nos 108–33. John of Hexham, p. 315, records this incident along with other examples of violations of monasteries in his account of 1143, immediately before he tells of William’s consecration. However, John describes William as archiepiscopus when attacked at Ripon, whereas previously he called him electus, so the Ripon incident probably belongs to the final months of 1143. Also apparently from late 1143 is a charter of Richard Bacon in favour of the Augustinian abbey of Rocester (Staffordshire) which is said to have been attested by William as archbishop (EEA XIV, Coventry and Lichfield 1072–1159, ed. M. J. Franklin (Oxford, 1997), p. 31). The charter in question, however, was not attested by William, but addressed to him (Monasticon Anglicanum, VI, 410–11), as was a similar charter printed by G. Barraclough, ‘Some Charters of the Earls of Chester’, in A Medieval Miscellany for Doris May Stenton, ed. P. M. Barnes and C. F. Slade (= Pipe Roll Society, new series 36 for 1960) (London, 1962), pp. 25–43, at

113

St William of York Ripon and the proximity of the Cistercians at Fountains must have made the prospect of a sojourn there unappealing. William subsequently visited Durham. William of Ste Barbe, the former dean of York who had been consecrated by Henry of Blois in summer 1143, had still not succeeded in taking possession of Durham, which was occupied by William Cumin. In 1144 William fitzHerbert arranged a truce between Ste Barbe and Cumin, who eventually gave way. On 18 October 1144 William fitzHerbert enthroned William of Ste Barbe in his cathedral and pardoned Cumin. At an earlier stage in the Durham election dispute, the monks of Durham, in an attempt to thwart William Cumin, had claimed that the Durham election could not take place without the consent of the archbishop.123 This may have been a tactical ploy on the part of the monks, knowing that the archbishop’s election had itself been challenged, but it did provide an excuse (if one were needed) for William fitzHerbert, once consecrated, to reassert the rights of the archiepiscopal see. The relationship between the former dean and the former treasurer of York may or may not have been amical at this point. It soon became a major problem for William, because the legitimacy of his election had once again been challenged by the Cistercians.

Appeals and deposition When Bernard of Clairvaux heard of William’s consecration in the autumn of 1143, he was appalled. He wrote to the new pope, Celestine II, and to the Roman curia, complaining that the church of Rome had been put to shame because William fitzHerbert had been consecrated by Henry of Blois, even though William of Ste Barbe had not sworn the oath required by Innocent II, namely that the election had not been compromised by pressure from William of Aumâle acting on behalf of the king.124 In his letter to the curia, he added that William was claiming to be in possession of secret letters from Rome vindicating him. The supposed content of the alleged letters is not stated by Bernard. His tone is passionate, the style fiery, the content vituperative. He claims in the letter to Pope Celestine that Master Walter of London was prepared to return to Rome, but was no longer able to because he had lost all his money.125 The reaction of the curia to these philippics is not

123 124 125

p. 26 n. 1. William has no other known connection with Rocester or Richard Bacon, and the notification appears to be entirely formal. John of Hexham, p. 216; Young, William Cumin, pp. 14 and 23–5. Ep. 235 and 236 = James 202 and 203. This is stated in the final paragraph of Ep. 235 = James 202, which was unknown until the discoveries by Talbot, ‘New Documents’. It suggests that enough time must have passed since the news of William’s consecration reached Bernard for an exchange of correspondence with Walter. Bernard’s letter was not therefore a spur-of-the-moment response, and may date to later than October 1143, perhaps even early 1144.

114

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate recorded. Celestine II, in his previous incarnation, had been one of the cardinals to whom Bernard had addressed letters of recommendation for the delegations from York in 1142 and 1143. If Bernard was hoping for decisive support from Celestine, he was to be disappointed. Celestine died on 8 March 1144 before the matter had been decided, conceivably even before Bernard’s letters arrived. His successor was Cardinal Gerard, the papal chancellor, who took the name of Lucius II. Gerard had been the recipient of another of the earlier letters of recommendation sent by Bernard in support of Walter of London and his delegation to Rome.126 Bernard hoped that he would prove sympathetic, and he fired off another long letter. In this he repeats the main charge, declaring that William of Ste Barbe had not only publicly refused to take the oath in support of William fitzHerbert, but had even declared himself willing to make a contrary oath. No evidence is given to support such a claim. Bernard’s principal target in the letter to Lucius II is not so much William fitzHerbert as Henry of Blois, whom he excoriates in fine rhetorical style. He ends by asking the pope not to grant William the pallium. It sounds as if Bernard had got wind of Henry of Blois’s journey to Rome that summer, and wished to forestall him. Henry in fact seems to have got no further than Cluny, and was therefore unable to present his case to Lucius in person.127 Nonetheless, the pope ignored Bernard’s plea. Late in 1144 he sent Imar of Tusculum, a Cluniac monk, to England as his legate, and entrusted him with the pallium for William fitzHerbert. Worse still, according to Ralph Diceto, he also gave him a pallium for Henry of Blois, which can only mean that he had accepted Henry’s arguments for elevating Winchester to archiepiscopal status.128 En route for England Imar met Bernard, who extracted from him a promise that he would not hand over the pallium unless William of Ste Barbe took the oath which Bernard had long demanded. So much, at any rate, he reported in a far from confident letter to Abbot William of Rievaulx.129 Imar was in southern England in the spring of 1145.130 According to John of Hexham, William delayed meeting him, negligently, being taken up with less important business, as was his wont.131 This is unduly harsh. William was one of the few people who remembered the occasion in 1109 when Archbishop Thomas II had been vested with the pallium by the then papal legate,

126 127

128

129 130

131

Ep. 525 and 526 = James 189 and 190; Talbot, ‘New Documents’, p. 3. Ep. 520 = James 204. Henry of Blois’s movements are set out in EEA VIII, Winchester 1070–1204, pp. 217–19, and see p. xlvi. Radulfi de Diceto Decani Lundoniensis Opera Historica, ed. W. Stubbs, RS (London, 1876), p. 255; EEA VIII, Winchester 1070–1204, pp. xlv–xlvi. Ep. 360 = James 200. CS, pp. 810–13 suggests that Imar was in England from April or early May and left after 10 June, on which date he was at Winchester. John of Hexham, the Vita and some modern writers call him Hincmar. John of Hexham, p. 317.

115

St William of York Cardinal Odalric, in York Minster.132 A similar ceremony at York would have been the most effective demonstration of the legitimacy of William’s archiepiscopate. He was probably waiting for Imar to travel north. Alternatively, it may be that there were plans for a grand joint ceremony at Winchester, during which William would receive his pallium, and Henry of Blois would be vested with his as the first archbishop of Winchester. This would certainly have taken some planning. Neither William nor Henry can be blamed for failing to foresee that Lucius II would be hit by a rock while attempting to deal with some revolting Romans ensconced on the Capitol. He died on 15 February 1145. Nor could they have foreseen that the next pope, who was hurriedly elected on the day of Lucius’s death, would be a former monk of Clairvaux, Eugenius III. When news reached England, Imar’s legatine commission should have expired, and he returned to Rome in the early summer of 1145 taking the precious pallium with him.133 No less significant for William’s future was a change of leadership among the Yorkshire Cistercians. Abbot Richard II of Fountains died at Clairvaux in October 1143. The former sacrist of St Mary’s Abbey, York, Richard was not adept at matters of business. Overburdened by the cares of office (not the least of which, it may be supposed, was the York election dispute), he had asked Bernard several times for permission to resign.134 In the summer of 1143 Bernard sent the abbot of Vauclair, Henry Murdac, to carry out a visitation of the Yorkshire houses in Bernard’s place. There is some doubt as to whether Murdac actually reached Yorkshire that summer, but the intention was no doubt in part to stiffen the nerve of the Yorkshire Cistercians in the election dispute.135 Murdac was a Yorkshireman with important family connections, and had held a position of honour in the church of York under Archbishop Thurstan. He must therefore have known William fitzHerbert. Following the 132 133

134 135

See Chapter One. CS, pp. 810–13 argues that Imar acted as legate for Eugenius III, news of whose election should have reached England by June 10, when Imar heard appeals at Winchester. There is no record of any formal judgement on the York case during his stay in England. See also n. 141. Memorials of Fountains, I, 73–8. Ep. 535 = James 201 = Talbot, ‘New Documents’, p. 8 and no. 13. It appears from Ep. 320 = James 173 that Murdac was in France late in the year or early in 1144 when Bernard sent him to be abbot of Fountains, and had been prevented from travelling to Fountains earlier. Either he had not made it to Yorkshire in the summer; or, equally possible, he had visited the Yorkshire abbeys and then returned to France to report back to Bernard. Murdac’s visitation of Fountains has often been cited as evidence that Bernard was in breach of the Cistercian requirement for a father abbot to visit his daughter houses every year. However, it is now apparent that the Chapter General had early on recognised the difficulties caused by the rapid geographical spread of the order, and between 1134 and 1147 had accepted that the annual visitation could be carried out either by the father abbot or another: see C. Holdsworth, ‘The Affiliation of Savigny’, in Truth as Gift: Studies in Medieval Cistercian History in Honor of John R. Sommerfeldt (Kalamazoo, 2004), pp. 43–88 (at pp. 70–1).

116

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate death of Abbot Richard II, Bernard ensured that Murdac took over as abbot of Fountains. He wrote to the Fountains community heavily hinting that they should elect him, and he wrote to Murdac telling him to accept.136 Such explicit advice from Bernard could not be ignored. Or, as John of Hexham succinctly puts it, Bernard transferred Murdac from Vauclair to Fountains.137 Murdac was not a man to be trifled with. He extirpated certain customs from the monastery at Fountains of which he disapproved; he revived the confidence of William’s opponents, and renewed the appeals against his election.138 The election of Eugenius III greatly strengthened his hand, and gave renewed hope to Bernard. On hearing the news Bernard wrote a letter of congratulation and admonition to his former subordinate.139 In the course of it Bernard reported that the bishop of Winchester and the archbishop of York were in disagreement with Theobald of Canterbury about the office of legate. He accorded William the unusual courtesy of using his proper title, before going on to denigrate his motives and accuse him of robbery, but he did not actually ask Eugenius to take action against him. But Eugenius did not have long to wait. Bernard’s next letter, written soon after the first, was devoted almost entirely to the York dispute.140 He expatiated on the sufferings of their Cistercian brethren in Yorkshire, their sighing and groaning under the yoke of oppression. However, ‘it is not worldly harm or temporal hurt of which we complain’, but the spiritual sufferings of the monks placed under the authority of a sinner. There then followed the usual moral reproaches. Imar of Tusculum, the legate, ‘has (so we are told) heard such things of this man that his nostrils would not be able to endure the stench of them, were the power not given him from on high’. This perhaps had come from Henry Murdac. He urged Eugenius to empower Imar to overthrow William without any possibility of appeal, ‘should he find 136 137

138

139 140

Ep. 320 and 321 = James 173 and 174. John of Hexham, p. 317. Likewise Hugh of Kirkstall in his Narratio de Fundatione Fontanis Monasterii says that the Fountains community ‘obeyed’ Bernard when they read his letter (Memorials of Fountains, I, 84). John of Hexham, pp. 317–18, a passage distinctly underplayed by Knowles, ‘St William’, p. 88. John of Hexham’s chronology is confusing here. He describes Henry Murdac’s appointment to the abbacy of Fountains (late 1143) after the election of Pope Eugenius (February 1145). He says resumpta itaque confidentia, convenerunt qui adversati fuerant Willelmo archiepiscopo, et cum eis iste Henricus, plurimum praesumens sibi de gratia Apostolici. Quibus instantibus in appellatione adversus eundem archiepiscopum Eboraci, Hicmarus [sic] revocatus Romam rediit, palliumque reportavit. The phrase plurimum praesumens . . . Apostolici would seem to refer to the support which Murdac could expect from his Cistercian colleague Eugenius III, but this can only have come into play with the arrival of the news from Rome of Lucius II’s death some time in the spring of 1145, a year or more after Murdac became abbot of Fountains. Ep. 238 = James 205. Ep. 239 = James 206.

117

St William of York a just and reasonable cause’.141 Yet he made no reference to the oath of William of Ste Barbe, nor did he suggest any other credible reason for removing William. Bernard’s next letter was more specific.142 He asserted that there existed a letter from William of Ste Barbe to Imar the legate denying that there was any election at all, and stating that it was a clear case of intrusion. He also returned to the alleged secret letters authorising William’s consecration. Once again, it is evident from his language that Bernard himself had not seen copies of any of these letters. His unconcern for due procedure comes through quite clearly. ‘It is not for me to tell you, a wise man, how you should go about it, but it does seem to me there is more than one way in which you could do it. I am not much concerned where the unfruitful tree falls, so long as it does fall.’ Faced with these renewed attacks, over the winter of 1145–6 William again presented himself at Rome, and the matter was re-examined by Eugenius III. The gist of William’s defence is not recorded, but the decision was announced in an extant letter from the pope to the people and clergy of York dated 21 February 1146.143 After examining the letters of Pope Innocent, it had been concluded that William’s consecration had taken place wrongly and against the judgement of the former pope, because the required oath had not been sworn. William had therefore usurped his office. If the dean (now the bishop of Durham) were now to swear an oath in accordance with Pope Innocent’s judgement, the consecration would be validated, and William could receive the pallium. In the meantime, however, he had been suspended and he was not to be accepted as bishop at York until the oath had been sworn. If the alleged secret letters were discussed at all, they are not mentioned. In coming to this decision, according to John of Hexham, Eugenius had been torn between the views of the majority of the curia, which favoured William, and the vehemence of his former abbot, Bernard.144 At this point William took himself off to the kingdom of Sicily, where he spent some time with his distant cousin, King Roger, and with Robert of Selby, the chancellor of Sicily, a man of great wealth and loaded with honours. John of Hexham implies that this unexpected visit may mean that William had effectively given up the struggle.145 Robert of Selby’s toponymic 141

142 143 144 145

Bernard therefore seems to have assumed that Imar was still acting as papal legate. There is some independent evidence that he continued operating as legate in England after news reached him of Eugenius’s election; see above, n. 133. Ep. 240 = James 207. John of Hexham, p. 318; PUE II, no. 50. John of Hexham, p. 318. John of Hexham, p. 318. The letter of Pope Eugenius of 11 May 1147 (PUE III, no. 62) presumably refers to the Sicilian trip when it states that William tanquam male sibi conscius ad alias naciones se transtulit. The text, however, is suspect (see n. 152). For Robert of Sicily, who was chancellor from 1137 till his death in 1151, and the political

118

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate suggests that he may have been an old Yorkshire acquaintance of William. Sicily does not immediately spring to mind as the most obvious place for William to seek political support for his case at the curia. King Roger had supported the anti-pope in the 1130s, and in the early 1140s had confronted the papacy in southern Italy, at one point facing Lucius II with his army. However, a seven-year truce had been agreed in 1144, and in 1146 Roger offered to secure the sea passage to the Holy Land for the forces of the Second Crusade. In the event the Crusaders decided in February 1147 to take the overland route to the east, but at the time of William’s visit it was very much in the papacy’s interest to cultivate good relations with Roger of Sicily, who must have been at the centre of high-powered international diplomacy. There may have been political ramifications to William’s visit to the kingdom of Sicily which we can no longer discern.

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view the image on this page please refer to the printed version of this book.

Fig. 15 Siculo-Arabic casket at York Minster, possibly brought back from Sicily by William fitzHerbert; rear view, showing ornamental hinges and metalwork.

However this may be, William’s Sicilian journey may have left traces in unexpected quarters. An ivory casket preserved at York Minster is one of a group of distinctive Siculo-Arabic caskets scattered around the treasuries of

situation in Sicily in the 1140s, see H. Takayama, The Administration of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Leiden, 1993), pp. 70–1 and 90–2; D. Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 33–67; and H. Houben, Roger II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 60–97.

119

St William of York Europe (Fig. 15). It may have been acquired by William and presented by him to the Minster.146 Another curious link between York and Sicily is to be found in the York coinage of the reign of Stephen. A very unusual design showing two standing figures may have been inspired by a ducalis of Roger II of Sicily issued in 1140, which shows the king and his son standing on either side of a cross. The York design belongs to an unusual series which has been dated to after c. 1145, perhaps c. 1150.147 Is it just a coincidence that William had been in Sicily in 1146? When news of William’s suspension reached Yorkshire, his supporters were incensed. A band of soldiers was gathered to attack Fountains Abbey. Hugh of Kirkstall’s Narratio de Fundatione Fontanis Monasterii preserves the eye-witness account of the monk Serlo. Breaking down the doors, the soldiers burst into the church, and rushed round the monastic buildings seeking Henry Murdac. Prostrate in front of the altar in prayer, he escaped their attention. Seizing such booty as they could find, the intruders retreated, setting fire to the buildings on the way out. Practically the entire monastery was destroyed, except only the church, half of which escaped the flames.148 Dramatic confirmation of the attack has come in recent years, when a thick layer of ash attributable to the 1146 fire has been found in more than one place at Fountains, including the south transept of the church and the east and west claustral ranges.149 The incident brought forth an anguished protest from Bernard to the pope, blaming William for the affair and demanding action against him.150 The final stage of the affair is unfortunately somewhat obscure. There are no further letters from Bernard, no formal papal pronouncement survives, and the chroniclers’ accounts are somewhat confused. Bernard’s influence at the papal curia, already enhanced by the election of a Cistercian pope, was

146

147 148

149

150

R. H. Pinder-Wilson and C. N. L. Brooke, ‘The Reliquary of St Petroc and the Ivories of Norman Sicily’, Archaeologia 104 (1973), 261–305. There is no historical evidence linking this casket with William fitzHerbert, nor is it properly dated. The association depends solely on the style of the object and the documented fact of William’s visit to Sicily. The casket could, however, have been acquired elsewhere and by someone else. Blackburn, ‘Coinage and Currency’, pp. 183–7. Hugh of Kirkstall, Narratio de Fundatione, in Memorials of Fountains, I, pp. 100–2. John of Hexham, pp. 318–19, recounts an incendiary attack on quandam possessionem monachorum de Fontibus, cum copiis opum quae ibi congestae conservabantur. This could refer to a separate attack on a Fountains grange, or could be a reference to the same incident (see Knowles, ‘St William’, p. 89 n. 4). R. Gilyard-Beer and G. Coppack, ‘Excavations at Fountains Abbey, North Yorkshire, 1979–80: The Early Development of the Monastery’, Archaeologia 108 (1986), 147–88; G. Coppack, Fountains Abbey (London, 1993), pp. 32–3. Ep. 252 = James 208. Knowles, ‘St William’, pp. 89–90, thought that this letter also refers to the mutilation of Walter of London; but according to William of Newburgh, pp. 56–7, that took place after Murdac’s return to England as archbishop, i.e. in 1148 (see Chapter Four).

120

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate raised still further by the decision of Eugenius III, along with King Louis VII of France, to throw himself enthusiastically into preparations for the Second Crusade. Kept at Rome by local difficulties, Eugenius had entrusted to Bernard the task of preaching the crusade to a great assembly at Vézelay at Easter 1146. His famous sermon was decisive in ensuring widespread support, and he continued active throughout the year in promoting Eugenius’s project. Eugenius left Rome later in 1146 and spent many months in France.151 His proximity to Bernard at this time and his indebtedness to him in the matter of the crusade did not bode well for William. It appears that at some point early in 1147 Eugenius declared William formally deposed, and on 11 May 1147 he wrote from Paris to the bishops of Durham and Carlisle and the dean and chapter of York with a mandate for a new election.152 The election was held on 24 July 1147 at Richmond, well away from William of Aumâle’s centre of power. The electors were divided along now-familiar lines. The dean, Robert of Gant, who was also Stephen’s chancellor, together with Hugh du Puiset and some of the canons, was in favour of Master Hilary, a canon lawyer who had begun his career in the service of Henry of Blois. Ranged against them were William of Eu, the precentor, who had supported the appeal against William fitzHerbert at Rome in 1143, the archdeacons (except for Hugh du Puiset), and the remainder of the chapter, including Athelwold, the bishop of Carlisle, who held a Minster prebend ex officio as prior of Nostell. They preferred Henry Murdac. Also supporting Murdac was the bishop of Durham, William’s enemy, William of Ste Barbe, the former dean of York. He was involved at the time in a dispute over land belonging to Durham which had been seized by William of Aumâle. This provides a possible motive for William of Ste Barbe’s apparent change from implicit support for William fitzHerbert in 1143 to explicit opposition to him (if Bernard is to be believed) in 1145–6. The matter was resolved by the pope, who confirmed the election of his Cistercian brother Henry Murdac and consecrated him archbishop of York. Master Hilary was given Chichester instead. At the Council of Reims Murdac’s archiepiscopate was confirmed.153 151

152

153

On the preparations for the Crusade, see E. Vacandard, Vie de Saint Bernard, Abbé de Clairvaux (Paris, 1927), II, 268–312, and M. Gervers, ed., The Second Crusade and the Cistercians (New York, 1992). PUE III, no. 62, which purports to give Eugenius’s reasons for deposing William in some detail. The text, however, is highly suspect: see Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, pp. 133, 139 and 143. Knowles, ‘St William’, seems to have been unaware of this letter even in the revised version of his article. John of Hexham, pp. 320–1; Gervase, pp. 134–5; William of Newburgh, p. 56; Saltman, Theobald, pp. 100–2. Both John and Gervase state that official sentence was passed at the Council of Reims, and Burton, ‘William of York’, says that William was deposed on 21 March 1147 at the Reims Council. But this took place in 1148, after Murdac’s consecration, and there is no mention of a formal decision on William in the records of the Council. It postponed a decision on a dispute between Gloucester Abbey and the archbishop of York until such time as Henry Murdac could take possession of his see,

121

St William of York * The second, post-consecration phase of the York election dispute does not require lengthy analysis. It revolved around just one of the original three charges brought against William, that of intrusion. The charges of simony and unchastity were not resurrected, and the heads of the religious houses who had promoted them in 1142–3 took no further part in the affair. William of Rievaulx and Richard II of Fountains died; Waltheof of Kirkham moved on to pastures new; Cuthbert of Guisborough and Robert of the Hospital both remained in office until William’s death, but played no further part in the opposition.154 It was in fact Bernard of Clairvaux who insisted on keeping the York election dispute going. Walter of London, using the plea of poverty perhaps as a convenient excuse for keeping away from Rome, left the running to Bernard. It was Bernard who wrote to Pope Celestine; Bernard who again raised the matter with Pope Lucius; Bernard who sent Henry Murdac to Yorkshire; Bernard who put pressure on Eugenius to reopen the case. Only Murdac’s arrival at Fountains galvanised the opposition, and even then it seems to have come principally from Murdac himself. Bernard and Murdac between them must take most of the credit or blame for William’s eventual deposition. Eugenius III’s decision looks decidedly unsatisfactory. William’s accusers had had repeated opportunities to prove their case: before Henry of Blois in 1141; at Rome in 1142, when they were reprimanded for relying on second-hand evidence and rumour; in Rome again in 1143, where the principal witnesses failed to agree; before Henry of Blois a second time in September 1143, when William’s accusers failed to press their case; in 1144 at Rome again, when even the apparently sympathetic Pope Lucius was unconvinced, and sent the pallium to England. Only with the accession of Eugenius was the prosecution case given any credence, and even then in the face of the opinions of the majority of the curia. When William was finally deposed, it is not at all clear on what formal grounds the judgement rested, since there is no evidence (beyond Bernard’s second-hand assertions) that William of Ste Barbe had finally made his position clear. William of Newburgh expresses the doubt clearly: Eugenius, implacably opposed to William, deposed him, sive per veritatem sive per surreptionem – either out of a concern for the truth, or by simple robbery. There must be a strong suspicion that it was the latter. As for Bernard, he emerges from the affair with very little credit. Even his supporters have conceded that some of his letters on the York dispute are

154

but the archiepiscopate itself was not at issue (CS, pp. 817–20). What little is known about the dean, Robert de Gant, is assessed by R. M. Sherman, ‘Robert de Gant (c. 1085 – c. 1158): Dean of York and King’s Chancellor’, Haskins Society Journal 13 (1999) (published 2004), 99–110. D. Knowles, C. N. L. Brooke and V. C. M. London, comp., The Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales 940–1216 (Cambridge, 1972), passim.

122

Archbishop William: The First Archiepiscopate among the most intemperate, vituperative and partisan of all his writings. One may go further and say that he was arguably guilty of the very charges which he brought against his opponents. If William was in his eyes intruded into the see of York not just by the king but also by Henry of Blois,155 it is not clear that the pressure put on the chapter of Fountains in 1143 to elect Henry Murdac as abbot was any less of an interference. And if Bernard complained that Henry of Blois as legate had altered the conditions drawn up by the pope in connection with William of Ste Barbe’s oath, what is one to make of the fact that Bernard apparently suborned the legate Imar on his journey to England and made him swear not to hand over the pallium until William of Ste Barbe had made satisfaction? Bernard’s zeal for his order led him to pursue obsessively a procedural point through a process of what can only be described as vexatious litigation. He would have done well to learn from the example of Archbishop Thurstan, who in 1123 urged the pope not to overturn William of Corbeil’s election as archbishop of Canterbury on a point of procedure, but rather to consider his merits and the greater good of the church.156

155 156

Ep. 235 = James 202. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 190–3; Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 87–8; CS, pp. 725–7.

123

CHAPTER FOUR

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate

William retired to Winchester, the city of his youth which he had left almost forty years before to pursue his career at York. It was a natural choice of refuge. The principal estates of his family were in Hampshire, and his brother Herbert held a number of properties in the city – albeit of considerably lesser value than those held by his father Herbert the Chamberlain c. 1110.1 And it was at Winchester that he would find his closest ecclesiastical ally in the southern province, his cousin, Henry of Blois. Although no longer holding the pre-eminent position within the English church which he had enjoyed as papal legate, as bishop of Winchester and brother of the king Henry of Blois was still a force to be reckoned with in the affairs of the realm, and was a dominant presence in the life of the city. And he was always inclined to help the members of his wider family when it lay within his power to do so. Henry received William with honour, gave him a house and provided for his daily needs.2 The house where William stayed, to begin with at least, can be located from the 1148 survey of Winchester carried out for Henry of Blois. It stood at the very centre of the city, on the south side of High Street and on the northern edge of the cathedral precinct, near the church of St Lawrence (Fig. 16).3 William had known this part of the city intimately in his youth, and 1

2

3

Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, nos II. 4, 38, 542, 828, 841, 860 and 873, and see pp. 370–3; see also Appendix A. Herbert fitzHerbert was still one of the ten richest private landlords in the city in 1148, though his rental income of £4 2s compares poorly with his father’s income of £27 10s 9d c. 1110. The decline in income cannot simply be explained by ‘a slackening of the link between the royal court and the city after the early years of the reign of Henry I’, since this ignores the fact that Herbert the Chamberlain père was a senior treasury official, whereas Herbert fitzHerbert, though holding the title of chamberlain, held no substantive office. It also ignores the likely consequences of Herbert the Chamberlain’s disgrace in 1118. John of Hexham, p. 320; Gervase, p. 135; Annales de Wintonia, p. 54; Vita, pp. 272–3. There are minor discrepancies of detail in their accounts, but nothing substantial. Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, p. 80, no. II. 121. The editors were of the opinion that the Willelmus filius Herberti who held this property was probably not our William, but it fits the evidence from other sources so well that there can be little doubt as to his identity. Another property in Tanner Street was held by one Willelmus filius Hereberti, but this may have been a different individual, as later documents refer to a property

124

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate it must have evoked memories both sweet and painful not only of his own early years but also of his father’s successes and final humiliation, for the house where William stayed had been built on part of the site of the former royal palace in the centre of Winchester, which Herbert the Chamberlain must have frequented on official business for years on end. The palace site, indeed the whole area between the cathedral and the High Street, had undergone extensive redevelopment since the start of the century (Fig. 3). The New Minster community, hard up against the north side of the Old Minster, had been preparing to move to their new site at Hyde around the time William was appointed to his position at York, and the land which they vacated was added to the cathedral precinct. The vast nave of the new Norman cathedral was brought to completion in the early twelfth century, and the royal palace, situated hard by the west end, was in due course abandoned by the king in favour of the castle further up the hill. The palace site seems to have passed into the hands of the bishop by the end of the 1130s. The buildings were devastated in a fire started by Henry of Blois’s forces during the fighting at Winchester in 1141, and the area was subsequently redeveloped under Henry’s direction. A new row of houses was constructed along the northern edge of the former palace site, on the south side of the High Street, and in one of these William took up residence. His house was therefore brand new, and ideally situated between the quiet of the cathedral precinct and the bustle of the town. The houses along the High Street were among the most expensive in the city, and were mostly occupied by wealthy merchants and craftsmen, such as the moneyers who served the mint.4 William’s position was analogous to that of his old friend Ralph Nowell, bishop of the Orkneys – a bishop without a see, but living in the cathedral city where he had grown up and where he had been ordained. Ralph Nowell had made a living for himself acting as an auxiliary bishop in the diocese of York, and there are suggestions in the sources that Henry of Blois may have intended to make use of William in some such manner. But William, unlike Ralph Nowell when he abandoned any hope of establishing himself in the Orkneys, was now well on in years, probably in his sixties, and had no need to carve out a new career for himself. He withdrew from affairs as far as possible, and devoted himself to study and contemplation. The Vita, which devotes as much space to this phase of William’s life as to the whole of his previous career, cites elderly Winchester sources as witnesses to his commitment to spiritual exercises, study and prayer. The slightly earlier Winchester Annals, not without partisan motives, claim that William spent as much time as possible, and as much time as Henry of Blois permitted, in the company of the monks of the cathedral priory, eating and drinking in their refectory and

4

in the street previously held by one magister herbertus elemosinarius (ibid., p. 113, no. II. 618) Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 296–302 and 319–21.

125

St William of York

Fig. 16 Map of Winchester c. 1148, showing principal sites and all churches known to have existed by the end of the twelfth century.

126

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate even sleeping in their dormitory. Although the Vita and the Winchester Annals both have their own motives for emphasising the sanctity of William’s life at this time, there is no reason to doubt the general tenor of their remarks, since much the same is said by John of Hexham, writing before any notion of William’s canonisation had emerged. According to John, William made no complaint in the time of his humiliation, bearing everything patiently in his heart. He spoke no ill word against his rivals, nor would he listen to those who did. He was instant in study and prayer, and was altogether a different man.5 Negative confirmation of William’s withdrawal from ecclesiastical affairs may be found in the fact that he witnessed none of Henry of Blois’s acta in this period,6 and is nowhere mentioned as a participant in the disputes which afflicted the church of York in subsequent years.

York without William William’s deposition and the election of Henry Murdac in his place did not bring peace to the troubled northern province.7 When Murdac returned to England following his consecration by the pope on 7 December 1147, King Stephen refused to accept him and retained the temporalities of the see. Murdac travelled north, but was refused entry to York. The city was still in the hands of William of Aumâle, the king’s chief ally in Yorkshire, the men of York were against him, and the Minster was under the control of Hugh du Puiset, William fitzHerbert’s successor as treasurer and archdeacon of the East Riding. Murdac retreated to Ripon, just up the road from his Cistercian brothers at Fountains, and was based there for much of the next two years.8 He excommunicated Hugh du Puiset, William of Aumâle and the citizens of York, and placed an interdict on York Minster. He may also have passed sentences of excommunication on the East Riding and on Beverley.9 Certainly 5

6 7

8 9

See references in n. 2. The phrase used by John of Hexham – totus enim immutatus est in virum alterum – is one which (as Dr James Binns has kindly informed me) is generally used in medieval Latin to describe a dramatic transformation from one extreme to another. In other words, William had not previously been noted for his devotion to study and prayer. This could be taken to imply a conversio morum or psychological change following his deposition, or it may rather refer to a transition from the vita activa to the vita contemplativa without necessarily implying anything about William’s character and motives prior to this period. EEA VIII, Winchester 1070–1204. The principal source for the rest of this section is John of Hexham, pp. 322–32, supplemented by other sources as cited. For a modern narrative of events, see Cronne, The Reign of Stephen, pp. 61–6. Memorials of Fountains, I, 102–3. There is no mention of this in the sources, but Murdac’s archiepiscopate is the most likely occasion for the cessation of services at the Minster at Beverley which provided

127

St William of York it would be no surprise if Beverley responded to him with as little enthusiasm as York. Hugh du Puiset retaliated by excommunicating the archbishop and ordered the services at the Minster to continue as before. For the time being Murdac could do nothing in York, but he was received by William of Ste Barbe, bishop of Durham, and Athelwold, bishop of Carlisle. He did also visit Beverley, staying presumably at the archiepiscopal palace hard by the Minster. It seems unlikely that Murdac would have been able to impose himself on Beverley had Hugh du Puiset been in Yorkshire, but Hugh was still archdeacon of Winchester. He is known to have been in the south later in the year fighting on behalf of Henry of Blois,10 and was probably already there at the time of Murdac’s visit to Beverley. At any rate, it was at Beverley on Ash Wednesday 1148 that Murdac received the resignation of Benedict, abbot of Whitby. Benedict had been one of the three senior clergy, along with Ralph Nowell and Severin, abbot of St Mary’s, who had opened the way for William’s consecration in 1143 by swearing an oath in his support.11 Murdac insisted that the monks of Whitby elect a successor from a short-list of three nominated by himself. The account of the incident in the Whitby cartulary suggests that in reality Abbot Benedict was forced to resign by the archbishop; the choice of day, at the beginning of the Lenten penitential season, suggests that Murdac at least felt that Benedict had something to atone for.12 Abbot Severin, secure in York, was beyond Murdac’s reach, and survived in

10 11 12

the enforced leisure which prompted Alured of Beverley, the sacrist, to start work on his History (Aluredi Beverlacensis, Annales sive Historia de Gestis Regum Britanniae, ed. T. Hearne (Oxford, 1716), pp. 1–2). Alured’s work commences with these words:In diebus silencii nostri, quando non poteramus reddere deo quae dei erant, et tamen cogebamur reddere Caesari quae Caesaris erant, quod propter praesentem excommunicatorum multitudinem secundum Londoniensis concilii decretum a divinis cessabamus, et regiis exaccionibus afflicti vitam taediosam agebamus, grassante oppressione qua, expulsis ad regis edictum de sedibus suis ecclesiae nostrae columpnis, diu graviterque vexatus sum, pene in desperacionem cum pene solus essem decidi. Henry of Blois’s legatine council at London in March 1143 included among its canons (which William would presumably have circulated in the diocese) the following (no. 5): Prohibemus nichilominus ne divinum officium celebretur, sed nec campana pulsetur in urbe vel in castro vel in rure, ubi aliquis excommunicatorum presens fuerit (CS, p. 801). The royal exactions probably refer to Stephen’s impositions on Beverley in 1149 (see below), in which case Alured is referring to the period between then and Murdac’s reconciliation with his opponents in late 1150 / early 1151, at which point, presumably, his excommunications were lifted. No plausible explanation for the excommunications which prompted Alured to write has previously been forthcoming (see A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England c. 550 to c. 1307 (London, 1974), p. 212); see also McDermid, Beverley Minster Fasti, p. 113, for Alured. Further confirmation of the excommunications may come from a charter of King Stephen of 1148 or 1149, extending his protection to the canons of York, to Hugh du Puiset and to all the clergy of his archdeaconry (see n. 14). This suggests that they too had been included in Murdac’s excommunication. See below. See Chapter Three. Cartularium Abbathiae de Whiteby, ed. J. C. Atkinson, I, SS 69 (Durham, 1878), pp. 8–9.

128

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate office until 1161, whereas Ralph Nowell simply disappears from the scene for most of Murdac’s archiepiscopate.13 Murdac’s opponents were not inactive. During a stay in York in 1148 or 1149, King Stephen issued a charter ordering that the canons of the Minster, Hugh du Puiset and the clergy of his archdeaconry should hold their lives and possessions in peace.14 It seems likely that the charter dates to Stephen’s visit to York at the end of May 1148, and was a response to Murdac’s initial attacks on his opponents, including his visit to Beverley on Ash Wednesday 1148. Some time during 1148 archdeacon Walter of London fell into the hands of some of William’s relatives, who mutilated him.15 He is not heard of again. The previously unexplained reference to William’s relatives presumably means that Herbert fitzHerbert or other members of the family were based on the FitzHerbert estates in the East Riding and were active in opposition to the Murdac party, in spite of William’s refusal to be drawn any further into the affair. Later in the year, Henry of Blois travelled to Rome and extracted a letter from the pope urging Henry Murdac to treat Hugh du Puiset leniently. During his absence, Hugh du Puiset was looking after his interests in the diocese of Winchester, and was actively involved in defending one of Henry’s castles against attack.16 Downton Castle, to the south of Salisbury, was not far from the Mottisfont estate, which was by then probably in the hands of Hugh du Puiset as treasurer of York. It was also not far from the FitzHerbert estates at Nether Wallop (Fig. 1).17 It would be interesting to know whether Hugh du Puiset was supported in the campaign by Herbert fitzHerbert’s men. William fitzHerbert, so far as we know, stayed in retreat at Winchester. Hugh du Puiset remained in the south during 1149–50, thereby giving some comfort to his opponents in Yorkshire. He could not be in two places at once. In the summer of 1149 King Stephen travelled north again and visited York more than once.18 As well as seeking to frustrate his enemies, he was raising much-needed money. The citizens of York, who were an obvious target, 13

14

15 16

17 18

He witnessed a charter of Roger de Mowbray in York Minster on 17 April 1153 (EYC III, no. 1823 = Charters of the Honour of Mowbray 1107–1191, ed. D. E. Greenway (Oxford, 1972) (hereafter Mowbray Charters), no. 322). By this date, Murdac had probably fled York (see below), so Ralph’s presence is not necessarily evidence that he had been reconciled to Murdac. RRAN III, no. 984, there dated c. 1141–53. However, since William retained his archdeaconry while he was archbishop elect (see Chapters Two and Three), the charter cannot be earlier than Hugh du Puiset’s appointment as archdeacon, probably in 1143. The only time Stephen was in York between 1143 and 1153 (when Puiset was elected bishop of Durham) was the end of May 1148, and again in August 1149 (ibid., pp. xliii–xliv). Scammell, Puiset, p. 11 n. 5, suggests 1149. William of Newburgh, pp. 56–7. Gesta Stephani, 2nd edn, ed. K. R. Potter and R. H. C. Davis, OMT (Oxford, 1976), pp. 214–15. For du Puiset’s activities in this period, see Scammell, Puiset, pp. 11–12. See Chapter Two. Itinerary in RRAN III, p. xliii.

129

St William of York generously suggested that he turn his attention to Beverley, and when Stephen went there he fined the men of Beverley for having received Henry Murdac as archbishop in the town without his permission. This perhaps refers back to Murdac’s visit on Ash Wednesday the previous year. Shortly after the king departed, his son Eustace came to York and found that services were no longer being held there. He compelled the clergy to resume the services, prompting another anxious letter from Murdac to the pope. Murdac’s opponents at this time are sometimes described as the supporters of William fitzHerbert, but this requires considerable qualification. William himself, as we have seen, had withdrawn from the fray, both physically and mentally, nor was there any realistic possibility that he would be reinstated. Whatever anyone thought about William’s deposition, the fact remained that Murdac had been consecrated archbishop by the pope and had been granted the pallium. There was therefore no further ecclesiastical case to be made, and no higher authority on this earth to which to appeal, and there is nothing to suggest that the king or anyone else at this time was trying to have William reinstated. Murdac was not one of two rival pretenders to the see of York. Rather, his position was comparable to that of Archbishop Thurstan at the end of 1119: lawfully consecrated and vested with the pallium, but still opposed in matters temporal by the king. No-one remembered better than William that Henry I had been able to resist Thurstan’s return for a while, but had eventually been forced to allow him into his diocese. How much weaker was Stephen’s sway over the realm of England than Henry I’s thirty years previously. The continued opposition to Henry Murdac was not based on any expectation of restoring William fitzHerbert, but on political calculations as to the interests of the people concerned. For the king, Murdac represented the party which favoured the Empress Matilda and Duke Henry, her son, the future Henry II. But with the king’s authority so weak and the king himself largely preoccupied with affairs elsewhere in the realm, for William of Aumâle, Hugh du Puiset and other people in Yorkshire, the decision to oppose Murdac is likely to have taken into consideration their own estimate of their own self-interest as much as the wishes of the king. This was a time when men’s allegiances could change rapidly and dramatically, as they continued to size up their chances in constantly fluctuating circumstances. The first moves towards accommodation with Henry Murdac came from the local opposition.19 The fact that the king’s son, Eustace, found the services suspended at York in the autumn of 1149 indicates that the York clergy were no longer ignoring Murdac’s interdict; they are unlikely to have come to such a decision in the face of serious opposition from William of Aumâle, who was still in control of the city. During 1150 William of Aumâle was negotiating for the establishment of a new Cistercian monastery at Meaux in Holderness, just 19

Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 172–6.

130

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate a few miles from Beverley and at the heart of his power-base. The first contingent of monks came from Fountains Abbey, and the foundation must have taken place with Murdac’s knowledge and support. Before the end of 1150 Hugh du Puiset’s excommunication had been lifted, and Murdac and Eustace had been reconciled.20 In the new year events moved rapidly. Meaux Abbey was officially founded on 1 January 1151; King Stephen and the archbishop were reconciled not long after, and on 25 January 1151 Murdac was publicly received with appropriate solemnity at York Minster. He placed upon the altar the apostolic privileges and precious objects from the Minster treasury which William fitzHerbert had given in pledge to the moneylenders when raising money for his trips to Rome, and he forbad that anyone should ever again remove them under pain of anathema. This was both a gesture of reconciliation, and a pointed symbol of the difference which Murdac wished to be perceived between the new regime and the old. Then, as if to emphasise the point, he set off for Rome himself, which he reached in time to celebrate Easter on 6 April with his old Cistercian colleague, Pope Eugenius. He interceded with the pope on behalf of King Stephen, urging Eugenius to recognise Eustace as the lawful heir to the throne of England. His pleas fell on deaf ears.21 For two years following Murdac’s enthronement there was relative peace in the church in the north. He had now been accepted by all the leading secular and ecclesiastical authorities, and there were no further disputes about his right to the full spiritual and temporal powers of the archbishopric. This was not the end of the troubles of the church of York, but Murdac was able to pursue his business largely uninterrupted.22

The exile’s return If William expected to live out his days in retirement at Winchester, he had reckoned without the capriciousness of fate. The deaths within a short space of time of some of the principal actors in the drama were to plunge him back into the maelstrom of ecclesiastical politics. First to depart, on 13 November 1152, was the bishop of Durham, William of Ste Barbe, William’s former colleague as dean of York, and latterly his opponent in the election dispute. On 22 January 1153 the monks of Durham elected in his place Hugh du Puiset, treasurer of York Minster and archdeacon of the East Riding,

20

21 22

Hugh du Puiset as treasurer witnessed a charter of Henry Murdac in favour of Fountains Abbey dated 1151 x 1153 (EEA V, no. 114), having previously witnessed none of Murdac’s earlier charters. John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, ed. M. Chibnall (London, 1956), pp. 82–6. See John of Hexham, p. 328, for the reforms instituted or planned at several major churches, including Beverley; EEA V, nos 108–33 for his acta.

131

St William of York supporter of William fitzHerbert and ally of William of Aumâle. When news of the election reached Henry Murdac, he refused to accept it and anathematised the prior of Durham and the archdeacons who had participated in the election. Murdac was staying at Beverley at the time, the heart of Hugh du Puiset’s (and William fitzHerbert’s) power-base, and not surprisingly his decision caused something of a tumult. Back in York on Ash Wednesday (the choice of day is again significant), he passed a sentence of excommunication on the prior of Durham and others. This characteristic example of Cistercian intransigence provoked considerable dissent in York, where the citizens (encouraged, no doubt, by William of Aumâle, who still held York castle) claimed that Murdac’s actions were an insult to the king. He fled the city, never to return. Hugh du Puiset was again in the south at the time. In August he came to York, but the chapter (of which he was presumably still a member, assuming that he had not yet resigned his archdeaconry or the treasurership) declined to support him, in view of the archbishop’s disapproval. His election to the see of Durham had however been endorsed by the papal legate, Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury, and later in August he left for Rome with some of the Durham clergy to seek ratification from the pope.23 When he set off, he would have been unaware that Pope Eugenius had died on 8 July 1153, and had been succeeded on the very same day by the elderly Anastasius IV. On 20 August Bernard of Clairvaux died, leaving a vacancy at his abbey which could easily be filled, and a vacuum in the European church which could never be filled. And on 14 October 1153, Henry Murdac died. It was not long before William fitzHerbert was once more on the road to Rome, hot on the heels of Hugh du Puiset, and he was back in Winchester bearing the archiepiscopal pallium in time for Easter on 4 April 1154.24 At this point we come up against a small but potentially important chronological discrepancy in the sources. John of Hexham’s history unfortunately ceases with the death of Henry Murdac, so for subsequent events we are thrown back on later and less reliable witnesses. According to William of Newburgh, William fitzHerbert set off for Rome on hearing of Bernard’s death, while Henry Murdac was still alive – in effect during September or early October.25 Roger of Howden, the Chronica Pontificum and the Vita, on the other hand, relate that he left Winchester only after hearing the news of Murdac’s death, i.e. in late October or November.26 William of Newburgh’s 23

24

25 26

John of Hexham, pp. 328–30; William of Newburgh, pp. 78–9; Scammell, Puiset, pp. 12–17. John of Hexham, pp. 331–2; William of Newburgh, pp. 79–80; Knowles, ‘St William’, pp. 90–1. Henry Murdac died at Beverley, according to John of Hexham, but at the archiepiscopal manor of Sherburn, according to the Chronica Pontificum, p. 395. He was buried in York Minster. William of Newburgh, p. 79. Roger of Howden I, 213; Chronica Pontificum, p. 396; and, less convincingly, the Vita,

132

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate chronology is unconvincing, on more than one count. The death of Pope Eugenius and of Bernard of Clairvaux did not alter the fact that Henry Murdac was the lawfully consecrated archbishop vested with the pallium, and had been accepted as such even by his erstwhile opponents. William had no grounds for appeal against Murdac at Rome.27 Furthermore, it is psychologically improbable that the elderly William would have shot off to Rome on a fool’s errand, given the well-attested evidence that he had renounced any interest in the affair. However, the death of Murdac changed everything. Not only did it create a vacancy in the second-most important ecclesiastical position in England; it came at a crucial moment in the affairs of the realm. The country was weary of civil strife. King Stephen had been forced to abandon his dynastic ambitions. The pope had pronounced against Eustace as the legitimate heir to the throne back in 1151 (in spite of Henry Murdac’s advocacy), and on 17 August 1153 Eustace died unexpectedly. Stephen gave up the struggle to determine the succession. He agreed that his rival Duke Henry should succeed him as Henry II, and to take advice from him in matters affecting the government of the kingdom. A settlement between the two, negotiated by Theobald of Canterbury and Henry of Blois, was agreed at Winchester on 6 November 1153.28 News of the vacancy at York must therefore have arrived during the final period of negotiations between the two parties. The archbishopric of York was too important to ignore. It had been a major focus of strife in the kingdom (if not necessarily a prime cause) for many a year, and had the potential for further serious dissension. With the political current now running overwhelmingly in the direction of peace and stability, it would have been imperative to secure a stable settlement at York acceptable to both sides as soon as possible. In this situation, William fitzHerbert’s merits are clear. No-one alive had a longer acquaintance with the affairs of the church of York at the highest level. As a former archbishop, William had unique experience of running the affairs of the diocese, and could be expected to take up the reins again very rapidly. He already had numerous connections within the diocese and considerable support from Yorkshire notables both lay and clerical. His most obstinate local opponents, the Cistercians, had lost their three most vociferous and powerful supporters. Fountains Abbey had gone through a period of some turmoil in the late 1140s, with three abbots in as many years, and was engaged in a major reconstruction of the monastery.29 The new abbot, Richard III, was probably content to concentrate on internal affairs. The most influential Cistercian in Yorkshire was now the eirenic figure of Aelred of Rievaulx. William therefore stood a good chance of

27 28 29

pp. 273–4, claiming that Eugenius and Henry Murdac died on the same day. See Knowles, ‘St William’, p. 91. J. C. Holt, ‘1153: the Treaty of Winchester’, in King, The Anarchy, pp. 291–316. Coppack, Fountains Abbey, pp. 28–35.

133

St William of York a peaceful reception in the diocese. On the larger stage, he was obviously acceptable to King Stephen and Henry of Blois. Nor was he on that account necessarily unacceptable to Duke Henry. Still only twenty years old, Henry was too young to have been involved in the previous disputes over William’s election and had no personal grudges against him. William, moreover, had the distinct advantage, from Henry’s point of view, of age. As an older cousin of the king, he could be expected to predecease him. By the time Henry succeeded to the throne, William would probably have passed on, and his successor would have had to have been appointed with Henry’s approval. There was a further important consideration. William was living on the spot at Winchester, discussions could take place rapidly, and William and Henry could meet to give and receive the assurances that each would have required from the other. And if William himself had indeed renounced any personal ambition in connection with York, that could only be an advantage. He could not ignore pleas to emerge from retirement in the urgent interest of the diocese, the province and the realm, and he could be expected to take a statesmanlike, reconciling attitude towards the difficult task of bringing peace to the church in the north. This is informed speculation, but it perhaps finds oblique confirmation in a story recounted in the Vita.30 This records that the deaths of Pope Eugenius and Henry Murdac were revealed to William by the Holy Spirit. Henry of Blois then came to offer him a pair of marvellously wrought spurs which he had recently obtained from abroad, whereupon William enquired of Henry whether it had been revealed to him, too, that William was being called by God to undertake a great journey – i.e. to Rome. A pious tale designed to illustrate the divine gifts of insight and prophecy which had been bestowed on William may seem unpromising material for the historian. However, if we allow that the Holy Spirit was not restricted to whispering in William’s ear through the medium of a white dove, but could have worked through the normal channels of human communication and reasoning, then the story makes perfectly good sense. The deaths of Eugenius and Henry Murdac were public knowledge, and William would not have required supernatural powers of insight to realise that the logic of the situation pointed towards him. Henry of Blois, as one of the key negotiators between Stephen and Duke Henry, would have been fully acquainted with any discussions over the York vacancy, and would have been the obvious person to sound William out. The gift of spurs, it may be said in passing, accords perfectly with Henry of Blois’s reputation as a collector of expensive, top-quality works of art and liturgical ornaments.31 30 31

Vita, pp. 273–4. John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, p. 79; N. Stratford, ‘The “Henry of Blois Plaques” in the British Museum’, in Medieval Art and Architecture at Winchester Cathedral, ed. T. A. Heslop and V. A. Sekules, BAACT 6 (1983), pp. 28–37.

134

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate Was there a formal election? Did there need to be an election? To put it another way, was William to be restored to the archbishopric of which he had been deprived? Or was he to be elected afresh to the newly vacant see? William of Newburgh assumes the former. He states that William was fully restored (in integrum restitutus) and was at last vested with the pallium which had previous eluded him.32 He makes no mention of a new election, nor does he record a new consecration, which would not have been necessary if Anastasius IV was in fact upholding his original election and consecration. There are problems with this analysis, however, apart from the chronological difficulties already mentioned. It means that Anastasius would have had to overturn the judgement of his predecessor Eugenius, and this would potentially have called into question the legitimacy of Henry Murdac’s archiepiscopate. Furthermore, it means that the outcome of the affair was entirely in the hands of the pope, who alone could reverse the decisions of earlier years, so there could be no guarantee of the outcome. All of these problems would have been avoided by treating the issue as a straightforward vacancy and holding an election. There would be no need to overturn Eugenius’s judgement, no doubts raised about Murdac’s archiepiscopate, and the affair could effectively be settled in England. If William were elected afresh, he could be sent to Rome as the new, unchallenged, canonically elected archbishop, with the full support of King Stephen and Duke Henry, Theobald of Canterbury and Henry of Blois. In the circumstances, and with the happy news of the final settlement of the civil war (which William’s party could have been the first to convey to the pope), Anastasius could hardly do other than confirm the election and recognise William. This seems the most likely course of events. The Chronica Pontificum and the Vita, using the same words, both state that William was elected by the canons of York, pro majori et digniori parte (‘for the greater and more worthy part’).33 This could signify a divided chapter, or it could imply that the election was made by a depleted chapter hurriedly convened with just enough members to produce a majority. Elections did not have to be held at York. Henry Murdac, as we have seen, had been elected at Richmond in 1147, 32

33

William of Newburgh, p. 79; see also Robert of Torigni, Chronica, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, IV, ed. R. Howlett, RS 82.4 (London, 1889), p. 178 (Anastasius papa restituit in eandem sedem Willelmum, donans ei pallium); Roger of Howden I, 213 (redditus est ei [sc. Willelmo] archiepiscopatus Eboracensis); Hugh of Kirkstall, Narratio de Fundatione, pp. 109–10 (restitutus in sedem pristinam unde prius fuerat amotus). Chronica Pontificum, p. 396; Vita, p. 274. Knowles, ‘St William’, p. 91, cautiously avoided committing himself to whether William was restored to the see or re-elected. Most other modern commentators have followed William of Newburgh in talking of William’s restoration, e.g. Cronne, Reign of Stephen, p. 66; W. L. Warren, Henry II (London, 1973), p. 425. W. H. Dixon and J. Raine, Fasti Eboracenses – Lives of the Archbishops of York, I (London, 1863), p. 225, and Baker, ‘San Bernardo’, p. 134, mention a second election.

135

St William of York and in 1154 Roger of Pont l’Évêque was elected at a meeting in London.34 So the election could have been held at Winchester. The dean of York since about 1147 was Robert de Gant, who had been Stephen’s chancellor since 1140. His temporal responsibilities perhaps explain why he took so little part in the York election dispute. He must have been with the king during the negotiations leading to the treaty of Winchester, and so would have been on hand.35 The delegation bringing the news of Murdac’s death to the king’s court should have included archdeacons or other senior York clergy, and a separate delegation of equivalent status may have been despatched to Duke Henry. So several of the senior members of the chapter are likely to have been available, and others may have been in the vicinity, given the national interest in the events taking place at Winchester. A chapter meeting could therefore have been summoned at short notice. It seems likely that William fitzHerbert was formally elected by the York chapter meeting at or near Winchester under the supervision of Archbishop Theobald and Henry of Blois.36 If William set off for Rome immediately afterwards, the timing is tight, but feasible. According to Gervase of Canterbury, William reached Rome just before Christmas 1153, and this is possible if an election had been held expeditiously.37 When he arrived, William discovered that Hugh du Puiset had been consecrated bishop of Durham by Pope Anastasius just a few days earlier.

34 35

36

37

See Chapter Three, and Saltman, Theobald, pp. 100 and 122–5. Greenway, Fasti, pp. 8–9; RRAN III, xi. Sherman, ‘Robert of Gant’, points out how little we know of his career as either chancellor or dean of York. Hugh du Puiset, the treasurer, was out of the country en route for Rome as bishop of Durham elect (see above). It may be noted that Stephen’s Westminster charter setting out details of terms which had been agreed with Duke Henry at Winchester on 6 November refers to the archbishops (RRAN III, no 272). It records that various oaths were sworn in manu archiepiscopi (Cantuariensis); but it also says that the archbishops and bishops swore fealty to Duke Henry, and anyone who is made a bishop in the future (note the absence of the word archbishop) will swear likewise. The archbishops and bishops had also sworn to ensure that Duke Henry kept his word. It may be that the use of the plural archiepiscopi is formulaic, to emphasise the universality of the support for the agreement, and that the absence of any mention of future archbishops is insignificant. But the text as it stands is consistent with the hypothesis that William was recognised as archbishop and participated in the business at Winchester. Furthermore, it would suggest that he had indeed been elected, and could therefore take his place formally as archbishop-elect. Without an election, his reinstatement as archbishop depended on the decision of the pope, and prior to that he would have had no right to act in any archiepiscopal capacity. It would have been in the interests both of King Stephen and of Duke Henry to have an elected archbishop of York supporting the agreement of 6 November. Gervase, pp. 157–8. G. B. Parks, The English Traveler to Italy, I, The Middle Ages (to 1525) (Rome, 1954), pp. 179–85, estimates journey times from London to Rome at 6–7 weeks; but express riders could make it from Rome to Canterbury in as little as 25 days.

136

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate Hugh stayed on and helped promote William’s cause at the curia.38 The Chronica Pontificum and the Vita state that Anastasius regretted his predecessor’s position on the York affair, but they do not claim that he reversed Eugenius’s judgement and restored William. Rather, they say that he confirmed his election, consecrated him, vested him with the pallium and sent him on his homeward journey with an apostolic benediction. All of this is consonant with treating the York affair as a standard vacancy. The only uncertainty concerns the question whether William needed to be consecrated anew. The quashing of his previous election did not alter the fact that he had been consecrated by Henry of Blois. It may be that the early thirteenthcentury Vita and the Chronica Pontificum assumed or invented a second consecration with the intention of removing any possibility of a challenge to the legitimacy of William’s second archiepiscopate. Equally, it is possible that the pope did consecrate William anew, for precisely the same reason.39 There remains some uncertainty as to how exactly the deed was done, but the outcome is not in doubt. William returned home as the legitimate archbishop of York, complete with pallium. William reached Winchester on 3 April, the day before Easter.40 Hugh du Puiset left Rome in February,41 and it seems likely that the two allies travelled back to England together. William stopped off at Canterbury en route. This enabled him to announce the outcome of his visit to Rome and present himself to the church of Canterbury as the lawfully constituted archbishop of York, with pallium in hand. There could be no possibility of any challenge from Canterbury. It is not known whether Archbishop Theobald was at Canterbury at the time, but it may have been during this visit that William appointed John of Canterbury, a clerk in Theobald’s household, as successor to Hugh du Puiset as treasurer of York Minster and archdeacon of the East Riding.42 He did meet the archdeacon of Canterbury, Roger of Pont l’Évêque. After their meeting, according to the Chronica Pontificum, William declared

38

39

40 41 42

Gervase, pp. 157–8; Robert of Torigni, Chronica, in Chronicles, ed. Howlett, pp. 178–9 says William attended Hugh du Puiset’s consecration at Rome on 20 December 1153, but his chronology is notoriously unreliable (see Saltman, Theobald, pp. 120–2; Scammell, Puiset, pp. 15–17). The date 20 December 1153 is cited as the date of William’s restitution by Greenway, Fasti, p. 3 (wrongly citing William of Newburgh, p. 79, as evidence). The letter of Pope Eugenius III of 11 May 1147 (PUE III, no. 62) states that William had been consecrated contrary to the sentence of Innocent II, si consecratio dicenda est [or sit]. The text, however, is suspect, this phrase not least (see Chapter Three, n. 152). Compare the case of Stephen, whose coronation and anointing as king of England was considered to have been valid, even though his claim to the throne (in some people’s eyes) was not. For modern views on the consecration, see also references in n. 33. William of Newburgh, p. 80. Scammell, Puiset, pp. 16–17. See below, n. 59.

137

St William of York that Roger would be his successor at York.43 Once again, his apparently prophetic insight may conceal more down-to-earth sources of information. Since William was likely to be no more than a stop-gap at York, it would not be surprising if the question of his successor had arisen during the negotiations between King Stephen and Duke Henry the previous autumn. Perhaps it also formed part of William’s business at Rome. Roger had started his career as a clerk in the household of Archbishop Theobald, who appointed him archdeacon of Canterbury no later than 1148. He was also probably known to Henry II prior to his accession, and was to serve him loyally as king for many years. His would be a plausible name to put forward, and if he had already been lined up to succeed William, it would explain why he was appointed to the provostship of Beverley. The post would provide him with some experience of the diocese, and it had previously been a stepping-stone to the archiepiscopal throne for Archbishop Thomas II, William’s first mentor.44 Not that Roger’s election to the archbishopric, when the time came later in the year, was without difficulty. Although King Stephen was in Yorkshire with Archbishop Theobald at harvest-time 1154,45 the election was

43 44

45

Chronica Pontificum, p. 396. It has generally been accepted that Roger of Pont l’Évêque was provost of Beverley prior to becoming archbishop (e.g. Saltman, Theobald, p. 167); but McDermid, Beverley Minster Fasti, p. 4, omitted him from the list of provosts, on the grounds that Thomas Becket was provost of Beverley during William fitzHerbert’s second archiepiscopate (see also EEA XXVII, lxxxii n. 293). This however is based on a misunderstanding (see Chapter Three, n. 113, and see also EEA XX, xxvii). Roger of Pont l’Évêque can therefore be readmitted to the list. His predecessor, provost Thurstan, died in 1152 or 1153. It can be assumed that Roger was appointed by William rather than Henry Murdac. A charter of Archbishop Theobald in favour of St Peter’s Hospital at York (Saltman, Theobald, no. 285 = EYC I, no. 185, dated 1150–4) confirms a number of gifts made to the hospital on the occasion of the dedication of the church of St Leonard within the hospital in the presence of Theobald himself (sub nostra presencia). They include a gift from King Stephen of 40s yearly from the farm of the city of York. Stephen’s charter recording this grant, issued at York, is extant (RRAN III, no. 993, dated summer 1154 = EYC I, no. 202, dated 1153). It was witnessed by Theobald and by Hugh du Puiset (as bishop of Durham, and therefore from 1154, as in 1153 he was only bishop elect), and by Richard de Canville and Eustace fitzJohn, who are also listed in Theobald’s charter among the benefactors at the dedication ceremony. Stephen is not recorded at York in 1153, so this must belong to his visit in the summer of 1154 (RRAN III, xliv). Several of the witnesses to Stephen’s charter also witnessed the two extant charters issued at the siege of Drax (RRAN III, nos 490 and 817), which took place in late summer 1154 (William of Newburgh, p. 90). Theobald had kept out of the affairs of the northern province throughout his archiepiscopacy, but he evidently allowed himself a visit during the York vacancy in his capacity as papal legate. This is very probably also the date of the three indulgences in favour of St Peter’s Hospital issued by him (Saltman, Theobald, nos 286–8). His confirmation charters in favour of Pontefract Priory, Nunappleton Priory and St Mary’s Abbey, York, are also likely to be of this period (Saltman, Theobald, nos 189, 202 and 289).

138

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate not held until they had returned to London, where the members of the chapter as well as the abbots and priors of the northern religious houses foregathered. Roger’s election was approved by the king, and timely interventions from Archbishop Theobald helped bring it about. Dean Robert de Gant and Archdeacon Osbert induced the chapter to assent with prayers and threats. In short, it sounds as if the chapter was placed under enormous pressure to accept a nomination which had already been decided. Theobald of Canterbury, as papal legate, consecrated Archbishop Roger with the minimum of delay on 10 October 1154. After a brief visit to York, Roger travelled to Rome, where he was vested with the pallium by Anastasius IV.46 It looks as if all of this had been set up well in advance, perhaps as early as the treaty of Winchester the previous November. After his visit to Canterbury, William spent Easter week at Winchester, and set forth again on the road for York towards the middle of April.47 His career had turned full circle. Forty-five years before he had left Winchester as a young man to pursue his career in the north. Now, at the end of his life, he took the same road for the last time, having achieved the unique distinction of being archbishop of York twice. In the next few weeks he visited a number of the major churches in his diocese and province. He would probably have stopped off en route at Southwell to take possession again of the archiepiscopal palace and re-establish himself at the Minster there. He did visit Beverley and Meaux, Ripon and Fountains, and Durham, though not necessarily in that order. Meaux Abbey had not existed when he had last been in Yorkshire. By going to the abbey and issuing a charter there confirming a grant made by Henry Murdac in favour of the fledgling Cistercian community which had been founded by William of Aumâle,48 he was making a deliberate gesture of reconciliation with his former enemies. Not only was Meaux a daughter-house of Fountains; most of the community would have been monks of Fountains during the most bitter years of the election dispute in the mid-1140s, culminating in the torching of Fountains Abbey in 1146. Since Meaux is so close to Beverley, we may take it that William also returned to his old haunts at Beverley, where he could have expected an enthusiastic welcome both from the townspeople and from the Minster community. In like manner, William must have stayed at the archiepiscopal palace and Minster at Ripon when he visited Fountains. No more eloquent demonstration of his desire for reconciliation and peace could have been made than this visit to the home of his formerly most unyielding opponents. According to 46

47 48

William of Newburgh, pp. 81–2 and 94–5. On Roger of Pont l’Évêque and his election, see Saltman, Theobald, pp. 122–5, and EEA XX, xxv–xxix and 178–9. Gervase, p. 80. Chronica Monasterii de Melsa, ed. E. A. Bond, RS 43 (London, 1866), I, 93–5, 108 and 114–16, which reports that the charter was subsequently thrown on the fire by Archbishop Roger of Pont l’Évêque! The Vita, p. 275, alludes in florid language to William’s tour through the remoter parts of the diocese, without giving any specifics.

139

St William of York Hugh of Kirkstall, William came to Fountains in humility, greeted the brothers with the kiss of peace, confirmed the abbey in all its possessions, and promised to make amends for all the damages and destruction that the community had suffered at the hands of his supporters.49 In early May he was in Durham. Reginald of Durham records a fascinating little vignette which took place in the cathedral.50 William came to pray at the shrine of St Cuthbert behind the high altar in the eastern apse of the cathedral. Hugh du Puiset, newly enthroned as bishop of Durham, received him with great honour and showed him the most precious relics which the cathedral possessed. Among these was a little book which had belonged to St Cuthbert – almost certainly the famous Stonyhurst Gospel book (Fig. 17). This was brought out by the sacrist wearing an alb and taken to the high altar. There, as a mark of great honour, it was hung round the archbishop’s neck on a cord. William opened the book and turned over the pages, showing it to anyone who wished to see it, and then hung it round the necks of members of his household. This is merely the starting-point for a miracle story concerning one of the monks of Durham, who was consumed with jealousy because he had never been allowed to touch the book, even though he helped look after the shrine. One day during siesta time he crept into the cathedral, took out the book and touched and handled it on his own, whereupon he fell ill. Stricken with remorse, he confessed his sin, and was cured by the merciful intervention of St Cuthbert. The story provides a rare insight into attitudes towards the most sacred relics connected with Cuthbert and the rituals that surrounded them. Hugh du Puiset was enthroned at Durham on 2 May 1154.51 It is reasonable to suppose that William’s visit to Durham was timed to coincide with the ceremony, and that the incident with the relic-book took place almost immediately afterwards. He was back at York a week later. William made a ceremonial entry into the city on the Sunday before the feast of the Ascension, 9 May 1154.52 Approaching from the south, he was confronted by his old opponent, Osbert of Bayeux, the archdeacon of York, accompanied by Robert de Gant, the dean, who tried to bar his way. They were thrust aside, and took themselves off to Theobald of Canterbury in the

49 50

51 52

Hugh of Kirkstall, Narratio de Fundatione, pp. 109–10. See also n. 63. Reginaldi Monachi Dunelmensis, Libellus de Admirandis Beati Cuthberti Virtutibus, ed. J. Raine, SS1 (Durham, 1835), p. 198; see The Stonyhurst Gospel of Saint John, facsimile edn, ed. T. J. Brown (Roxburghe Club, Oxford, 1969); C. Norton, ‘Liber Specialis et Preciosus: An Illuminated Life of St Cuthbert from Durham’, in New Offerings, Ancient Treasures: Studies in Medieval Art for George Henderson, ed. P. Binski and W. Noel (Stroud, 2001), pp. 210–34, at pp. 225–6. D. Marner, St Cuthbert – His Life and Cult in Medieval Durham (London, 2000), pp. 22–3 and 46, asserts that the book hung round William’s neck was a copy of the Life of St Cuthbert, but it would be extraordinary for a manuscript of the Vita to be treated in this way as one of the most precious relics. Scammell, Puiset, p. 17. Date from Chronica Pontificum, p. 396.

140

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view the image on this page please refer to the printed version of this book.

Fig. 17 The St Cuthbert or Stonyhurst Gospel Book, which was hung round the neck of William fitzHerbert during his visit to Durham Cathedral in 1154.

141

St William of York vain hope of an appeal.53 Continuing on towards the city, William was greeted by the civic authorities and an enthusiastic crowd of laity and clergy.54 Riding in along Micklegate, he passed the entrance to Holy Trinity Priory on his right, and carried on down the hill towards the river. After he had passed Ouse bridge, the wooden structure gave way beneath the crowds and a number of people were precipitated into the Ouse. On hearing this, William turned around and made the sign of the cross over the unfortunate victims, and prayed for their safety. Not one was drowned. In later years, the story was recited as William’s one lifetime miracle.55 Moving on up to the Minster, he was met by a procession of clergy and the Minster choir. He took possession of the archbishop’s palace once more, and remained in York receiving visitors and attending to the business of the diocese.56 Some idea of William’s activities in the last month of his life can be gained from three of his charters which were probably issued at York at this time. One was a routine confirmation of a grant to the Minster.57 Another was a charter in favour of the canons of Nostell, in which William took the opportunity of confirming the grant of the church of Weaverthorpe which he had

53

54

55

56

57

William of Newburgh, p. 80. Osbert of Bayeux had been among William’s most bitter enemies since 1141 (see Chapter Three). The appearance alongside him of Robert de Gant, the dean of York, is odd, since he was Stephen’s chancellor and was presumably acting against the king’s wishes (see Sherman, ‘Robert of Gant’, who suggests his opposition would be less surprising if he had supported Henry Murdac – though this is speculation). His opposition may have been related to a family dispute between Stephen and other members of the de Gant family (Davis, King Stephen, pp. 125–6) – though note that Robert witnessed a charter of King Stephen in summer 1154 (RRAN III, no. 489) and remained chancellor. Or it could have had something to do with a dispute with William of Aumâle, who had attacked various Gant interests and had supported William of Roumare’s claim to the earldom of Lincoln against the claim of Stephen’s nominee, Gilbert de Gant (Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 174 and 179). Alternatively, is it possible that William of Newburgh has confused Robert, dean of York, with Robert, archdeacon of York? Robert Butevilain had been appointed archdeacon by Henry Murdac and attested many of Murdac’s charters – though he did also attest one of William’s final 1154 charters (EEA V, 125, see below). Or has he confused Dean Robert with Robert, master of the Hospital of St Peter, one of William’s earliest opponents along with Osbert of Bayeux (see Chapter Three)? William of Newburgh, p. 80; Chronica Pontificum, p. 396; Vita, p. 275. In later times distinguished visitors were sometimes met not at the entrance to the city, but at the boundary of the Ainsty, but this was probably not under the jurisdiction of the citizens at this date (VCH,York, pp. 318–19). Omitted by William of Newburgh, but recorded in the Chronica Pontificum, pp. 396–7, the Vita, pp. 275–6, and the Miracula, p. 539 no. 38, which states that the only injury was a horse with a broken leg. According to the Chronica Monasterii de Melsa, p. 108, William was enthroned in the Minster on this day. This may be correct but it is not stated in any of the earlier sources. It may be a false deduction from the record of his entry into York. Trinity Sunday is said to have been his first mass (see below). EEA V, no. 107.

142

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate made to the canons of Nostell over thirty years before. He confirmed the resignation the previous year as prior of Nostell of Athelwold, bishop of Carlisle. He recorded the election by the canons of one of their number, called Savard, as the new prior, and declared that Savard had been presented to William himself and to the chapter of York (of which the prior of Nostell was a member ex officio). The presentation to William and to the chapter presumably took place at the Minster, in which case the charter dates to William’s final stay in York.58 The same is probably true of a charter in favour of Kirkham Priory, which was witnessed by a roll-call of senior clergy from the diocese and province. They included Hugh du Puiset, bishop of Durham; William’s old friend Ralph Nowell, the bishop of the Orkneys; the abbots of St Mary’s Abbey, York, and of Whitby; Robert, archdeacon of York, and another archdeacon, John; and the priors of the Augustinian houses of Guisborough, Newburgh, Marton, Nostell and Hexham.59 Cuthbert, prior of Guisborough, had been one of the appellants at Rome against William in 1143;60 he was now apparently reconciled. So many senior clergy had presumably gathered in preparation for the celebration of William’s first pontifical mass, which was scheduled for Trinity Sunday, 30 May 1154. Nor was it only the clergy who would have been invited: the leading members of the Yorkshire nobility would also have been expected. William’s efforts at reconciliation among the feuding barons can be glimpsed in a charter of Alice de Gant, wife of Roger de Mowbray, which was issued in York. In it, she confirmed a grant of lands at Cave in the East Riding to the Minster pro absolutione domini mei (‘for the absolution of my lord’).61 Roger de Mowbray, who had made the original grant on 17 April 1153, had been one of the chief opponents of William of Aumâle. During the course of the anarchy he had seized land from St Mary’s Abbey and Selby Abbey, and done damage to the Minster. Roger’s charter notifying William that he had made restitution to Selby may also belong to this period.62 William’s moderation and emollience 58 59

60 61

62

EEA V, no. 97 (dated April x 8 June 1154) = EYC I, no. 28 (dated 1153). EEA V, no. 91, identifying Archdeacon John as an archdeacon in the diocese of Durham. Alternatively, he could be John of Canterbury alias John Bellesmains, who replaced Hugh du Puiset as treasurer and archdeacon of the East Riding in 1154. He is first recorded as archdeacon and treasurer prior to Roger of Pont l’Évêque’s election (Saltman, Theobald, no. 51, cf. no. 182 when Roger was archbishop elect), so he was probably appointed by William, perhaps during his visit to Canterbury before Easter (see above). Greenway, Fasti, p. 22, suggests that he could have been appointed by Anastasius IV in Rome at the start of 1154. The presence of Savard, prior of Nostell, among the witnesses means this probably postdates William’s confirmation of Savard (see previous note). See Chapter Three. EYC III, nos 1823–4 = Mowbray Charters, nos 322–3. Alice’s charter, dated 9 June 1154, and issued in the Minster vacante ecclesia post obitum archiepiscopi Willelmi, eodem etiam nondum sepulto, was to have been issued, we may presume, in William’s presence. Mowbray Charters, no. 256, has been dated 1143 x 1147 or October 1153 x June 1154, i.e.

143

St William of York during these final weeks of his life at York is commented upon by William of Newburgh.63 It was an important contribution to the process of reconciliation and healing.

Murder in the cathedral? Trinity Sunday was an obvious choice for William’s first pontifical mass in his cathedral church wearing his pallium. It concluded the season of Pentecost, when the annual pilgrimages from around the diocese converged on the mother-church and guaranteed a good crowd of ordinary people. It was the same season which had been chosen for Archbishop Thurstan’s celebrations in the year 1137.64 The company which gathered in 1154 is likely to have included the bishop of Durham, Hugh du Puiset, Athelwold, bishop of Carlisle, and Ralph Nowell, the bishop of the Orkneys; a long line of abbots and priors of monastic houses in the north together with Robert, master of the Hospital of St Peter; the archdeacons of the diocese including Osbert of Bayeux; the other members of the cathedral chapter; and many lesser clergy. Of the secular aristocracy, no attendance list has come down to us, but the significance of the occasion should have ensured a large turn-out of Yorkshire families. The congregation which gathered on 30 May 1154 must have been one of the most impressive ever seen in the romanesque cathedral of Thomas of Bayeux. The occasion demanded the greatest ceremony. William would have been dressed in full pontificals: with buskins and sandals on his feet and gloves on his hands, with his episcopal ring over the glove on his right hand, robed in dalmatic and tunicle, with his pectoral cross round his neck, his

63

64

to one or other of William’s periods of office; the latter seems more probable. See also Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, pp. 168–9 and 192. It was probably also during William’s tour of the diocese and province, or during his final stay at York, that he witnessed a charter of Adam de Engelby in favour of Whitby Abbey (EYC I, no. 568, dated 1153 x 1154). William of Newburgh, p. 80: ecclesiam decenti moderamine regens, et ingenita lenitate nulli onerosus exsistens. The phrase recalls his earlier description of William fitzHerbert (p. 55) as morum ingenua lenitate amabilis. Another possible indication of William’s reconciling activities comes in a charter of probably 1154 (EYC V, no. 367) which records a grant of lands to Fountains Abbey by Ralph son of Ribald. Ralph grants the monks of Fountains land between Aldburgh and Well pro qua inter nos contentio fuit aliquando, together with a grant of pasture nearby for a period of ten years a festivitate sancti Martini que prima evenit post mortem Willelmi Eboracensis archiepiscopi (11 November). This may be no more than a convenient means of dating; however, given the fact that William is recorded as having promised to make amends to the Fountains community for the damage they had suffered (see n. 49), the mention of him in the charter may indicate that William had been active in reconciling Ralph son of Ribald to the Fountains community. See Chapter Two.

144

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate mitre on his head and his crozier in his hand, and, clearly visible over all his robes, the white strip of the pallium adorned with crosses. Thus arrayed, he would have made his way to the archiepiscopal throne near the high altar.65 From there the entire congregation would have presented itself to his gaze as he faced to the west (Fig. 18). Moving to the high altar, he celebrated mass in his cathedral church. It was probably on this occasion that William presented to the Minster relics which he had brought back from Rome.66 The ceremony concluded, William and his guests retired to the archbishop’s palace for a feast. William, however, was suddenly taken ill. Ordering the festivities to continue without him, he withdrew to his chamber and took to his bed. For eight days he lay there, wracked with fever. Foreseeing his end, according to the Vita, he encouraged his household and all who visited him with spiritual discourses, and he gave himself over day and night to continuous prayer. He died on 8 June 1154. Hugh du Puiset performed one last service for him by officiating at his burial service in the Minster.67 His tomb was in a prominent position in the centre of the nave just west of the crossing.68

Fig. 18 Plan of York Minster as it may have been in William fitzHerbert’s time. The position of his tomb towards the east end of the nave is certain, but the plan of the eastern arm and the liturgical arrangements are hypothetical.

To be stricken with a fatal fever at the very moment when he was celebrating the culmination of his life’s work, a moment for which he had waited for thirteen long years: this was the final twist in a life which had seen 65 66

67

68

Norton, Thomas of Bayeux, pp. 25–7, for possible liturgical arrangements at the time. Recorded in a relic list together with others given by Archbishops Thurstan, Henry Murdac and Roger (HCY III, 109). William of Newburgh, p. 80; Gervase, p. 158; Chronica Pontificum, p. 397; Vita, pp. 279–80; Hugh of Kirkstall, Narratio de Fundatione, p. 110, who states that it was the first mass; Roger of Howden I, 213. And see n. 61 for the date. C. Wilson, The Shrines of St William of York (York, 1977), pp. 12–17; Phillips, The Cathedral of Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux, pp. 123–31.

145

St William of York more than its fair share of dramatic turns of fortune. William was in his midsixties, at the least, perhaps over seventy. Called unexpectedly out of retirement, he had been travelling almost incessantly for the previous six months. The return to Yorkshire and to his cathedral church cannot have been without stresses and strains: reconciliation can be a costly process. Perhaps the emotion of the moment on top of the physical and mental exertions of the previous six months were too much for his system. But in the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that rumours quickly spread that more sinister forces were at work. It was said that the chalice had been poisoned, and that responsibility lay with William’s long-standing foe, Osbert of Bayeux, archdeacon of Richmond.69 When the case came before King Stephen in the autumn, William’s chaplain, Symphorian, was Osbert’s chief accuser. He emphasised the strength of his conviction by offering to undergo any kind of trial by ordeal to press the case. Osbert protested his innocence, and Stephen died shortly thereafter. Archbishop Theobald managed with some difficulty to have the case transferred from the royal courts to his own ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The case came to trial in 1156, but Osbert appealed to Rome. By now the affair had attracted the support of weighty ecclesiastics on both sides. Gilbert Foliot, bishop of Hereford, protested Osbert’s innocence, while John of Salisbury doubted it. The case seems to have dragged on into the papacy of Alexander III (1159–81), and the final outcome is not clear. Osbert seems to have been deprived of his archdeaconry in 1157 and to have lived out his life as a minor lay baron, while continuing to call himself archdeacon. He survived into the mid-1180s, perhaps into the 1190s, as also did his accuser Symphorian. William was not the only senior ecclesiastic who was supposed to have died by poisoning. A similar rumour spread in connection with Robert de Sigillo, bishop of London, following his death in September 1150.70 In William’s case, the rumours continued to circulate for decades. Writing at Canterbury at the end of the century, Gervase was content to state that William was poisoned during the mass. So too Roger of Howden. Others were less sure. Robert of Torigni, writing in Normandy, recorded the story as common report, but without committing himself to its veracity, and the Chronicle of Melrose and Hugh of Kirkstall, a little later, repeated the assertion, but with the qualification ‘it is said’. William of Newburgh addressed the issue at greater length. He discussed the rumours with an elderly monk of 69

70

For what follows, see Knowles, ‘St William’, pp. 92–4; Saltman, Theobald, pp. 122–5; Morey, ‘Canonist Evidence’; The Letters of John of Salisbury, I, ed. A. Morey, W. J. Miller, H. E. Butler and C. N. L. Brooke (London, 1955), pp. 26–7, 30, 42–3 and 261–2; The Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot, ed. A. Morey and C. N. L. Brooke (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 164–5; EEA V, 126–7. A dossier of the relevant documents is collected in English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I, Volume II, Henry II and Richard I, ed. R. C. Van Caenegem, Selden Society 107 (London, 1991), pp. 571–8. John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, p. 88; Saltman, Theobald, p. 117.

146

Archbishop William: The Second Archiepiscopate Rievaulx who had been a canon of York at the time and close to William. He denied the allegations, but also said that William had taken an antidote to poison – a claim that was repeated in William of Newburgh’s hearing by Symphorian, and which could only reinforce the suspicions. On the other hand, neither the Chronica Pontificum nor the Vita makes any mention of the poisoning,71 nor was it ever raised during the process of canonisation.72 This reticence on the part of the sources closest to official church circles suggests that the charge of murder against Osbert was never proven, and the continuing rumours and uncertainties are hard to explain if a formal condemnation had in fact been pronounced. Nonetheless, the rumours had sufficiently wide credence to give rise to a Latin hymn in praise of William which attributes his death to the malice of his enemies and poison in the chalice.73 The ‘case of St William of York’, as Knowles famously called it, dragged on for the last thirteen years of William’s life, and for some further time thereafter. Yet there is some ambiguity in Knowles’s formulation. For although these final years do form a definable period in William’s life, the actual disputes which Knowles was at pains to trace are more properly seen as a series of episodes or cases which followed on from each other more or less without interruption, but which were nonetheless distinct. Nor, on their own, was any of them particularly exceptional. Two and a half years from election to consecration was by no means unusual when an election was disputed. The fact that an appeal was launched after William’s consecration, and was eventually successful, depended partly on the question of the pallium (which could not have been invoked in the case of an ordinary episcopal see), and partly on the obstinate determination of Bernard of Clairvaux to make the most of the unexpectedly rapid turn-over of popes at Rome. Even so, six years from election to final decision (1141–7) is not unparalleled even in the see of York: Thurstan had had to wait five years between his election and consecration, and more than a year again before he was able to take possession of his see. The next six years, as far as William

71

72 73

Gervase, p. 158; Roger of Howden I, 213; Roger of Torigni, Chronica, in Chronicles, ed. Howlett, p. 179; The Chronicle of Melrose, facsimile edn, ed. A. O. Anderson, M. O. Anderson and W. C. Dickinson (London, 1936), p. 35; Hugh of Kirkstall, Narratio de Fundatione, p. 110; William of Newburgh, pp. 80–1, a passage discussed by J. Gillingham, ‘Two Yorkshire Historians Compared: Roger of Howden and William of Newburgh’, Haskins Society Journal 12 (2002), 16–37 (pp. 27–37); Chronica Pontificum, p. 397; Vita, pp. 277–8. See next chapter. Printed in Memorials of Fountains, I, 111–12 n., from British Library, Cotton MS Titus A. xix, f. 150, and more fully in Dixon and Raine, Fasti Eboracenses, pp. 231–2. The ‘official’ hymn in the services for the feast of the translation, however, does not allude to the poisoning (ibid., pp. 232–3).

147

St William of York was concerned, were a time of quiet and withdrawal. The dispute which raged between 1147 and 1151 over Murdac’s election did not concern him directly, even though many of his former supporters were involved. 1151–3 were years of relative calm in the affairs of the church of York. Following Murdac’s death, William’s election to the vacant see was supported (however grudgingly) by all the key players, and was confirmed rapidly by the pope. There was no legal or political challenge, and the attempt by Osbert of Bayeux to call into question William’s legitimacy as he rode into York was brushed aside. William’s unexpected death resulted in new proceedings being initiated against Osbert, firstly in the king’s court, and then through ecclesiastical channels leading to Rome. Once again, the same protagonist was involved, but the legal case was quite different. William’s own part in these various episodes varied markedly: he was a leading party some of the time, a mere bystander much of the time, perhaps at the end a victim of murder. More broadly speaking, William was a victim of the times in which he lived, times when pretexts for disputes were easily found, strife and violence flourished, when the lack of a strong authority in the realm and constantly shifting factions within the highest echelons of the church encouraged the disputatious, the ambitious, the greedy and the powerful to seize every opportunity to pursue their own ends. William was caught up in the middle of all this, arguably more as a pawn than an active player. The initiative always seems to have come from others: the only active decision he made was to withdraw from public life in 1147. Even before his retirement, it is unclear whether he harboured active ambitions of his own, or whether he merely acquiesced in what was demanded of him. In the last year of his life he accepted the unenviable task of emerging from retirement to try to bring reconciliation to the church of York. One way or another, it probably cost him his life.

148

CHAPTER FIVE

Saint William

William fitzHerbert was formally canonised by Pope Honorius III on 18 March 1226. The text of the papal bull was carefully preserved at York.1 Written in the verbose style of the papal bureaucracy, it declares, after a lengthy preamble, that the pope has entered William’s name in the list of the holy confessors, so that his feast-day should be celebrated annually thereafter in solemn manner. The canonisation, it states, was proclaimed only after a careful investigation of the course of the most holy life of the saint and the many great miracles which the Lord had performed through him. Some of these are listed: oil flowing from the tomb which had healed many people of their infirmities; three dead people brought back to life; five blind people given their sight; and new eyes given to a man who had been unjustly defeated in a duel and blinded. But the papal canonisation was only the official culmination of a process which had taken place over the previous half-century in York, where William had been venerated as a saint since the late 1170s. It is this process which we now must trace. The second half of the early-thirteenth-century Life of St William is dedicated to his miracles. It starts with the earliest recorded posthumous miracle, and recounts how fire broke out in the city and spread to the Minster. A huge burning beam fell on William’s tomb and broke the grave-cover in half. The lower part of it fell away exposing the body of the saint to the burning timber. But to everyone’s astonishment, the silk vestments were not in the slightest bit burnt, nor the body damaged, and a sweet smell of burning incense or the most precious unguent was observed. And loss was turned to gain, for the humble old church was replaced by a bright and lofty new one, by the help of God and the then archbishop.2 This refers to the new east end of the Minster constructed by Archbishop Roger of Pont l’Évêque. Work is believed to have begun soon after he took office in succession to William

1

2

HCY III, 127–30, no. 92; Calendar of Papal Registers – Papal Letters I, 1198–1304, ed. W. H. Bliss (London, 1893), p. 109; translation in J. Browne, The History of the Metropolitan Church of St Peter, York, 2 vols (London, 1847), I, 52–3. The oft-cited date of 1227 is incorrect. Vita, pp. 279–80. A similar tale was told about the tomb of Bishop Remigius in Lincoln Cathedral in 1124: see G. Zarnecki, Romanesque Lincoln, The Sculpture of the Cathedral (Lincoln, 1988), p. 93.

149

St William of York fitzHerbert in 1154, so the episode must date to the mid-1150s.3 As recounted, the story contains many features common to miracle stories: the untouched body, the odour of sanctity, the disaster which comes to be seen nonetheless as an act of divine grace. The Vita then records that the tomb was resealed; holy oil began to flow out from it, and miracles began to spread abroad the fame of the saint. This, however, is certainly to compress events. The tomb must have been in the middle of a major building site for the next ten or twenty years, during which period there is no evidence for any cult of the saint. John of Hexham, writing at some length in the 1160s about William’s archiepiscopate, never refers to him in terms other than those appropriate for any ordinary prelate.4 Reginald of Durham displays a similar reticence in his account of William’s 1154 visit to Durham, written c. 1160–70. If William was by then being revered as a saint, Reginald would surely have said so, since a latter-day saint coming to reverence the relics of St Cuthbert could not but reflect credit on Durham’s patron saint.5 It was not until the later 1170s that the cult flared into life, and in dramatic fashion.

The miracles of 1177 The second of the posthumous miracles in the Vita concerns a young girl blind from an early age who regained her sight at the tomb of St William one Pentecost. This is the first of a series of miracles wrought at the tomb (sepulchrum or tumulum), sometimes through the agency of miraculous oil flowing from it, which all occurred at the season of Pentecost.6 The year is not stated, but the Vita is here following a larger set of miracles, beginning again with the blind girl, which are recorded in a separate source as having occurred during the week of Pentecost 1177. The text of the so-called Miracula was transcribed by Roger Dodsworth in the early seventeenth century from a now-lost ‘table’ kept in the revestry in the Minster.7 This seems to have been a 3

4 5 6 7

Roger’s choir, which was demolished to make way for the current Perpendicular east end, is the least understood part of the Minster’s architectural history. See C. Wilson, ‘The Cistercians as “Missionaries of Gothic” in Northern England’, in Cistercian Art and Architecture in the British Isles, ed. C. Norton and D. Park (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 86–116 (pp. 91–8); M. Thurlby, ‘Roger of Pont l’Évêque, Archbishop of York (1154–81) and French Sources for the Beginning of Gothic in Northern Britain’, in England and the Continent in the Middle Ages: Studies in Memory of Andrew Martindale, ed. J. Mitchell and M. Moran, Harlaxton Medieval Studies 8 (Stamford, 2000), pp. 35–47; S. Brown, ‘Our Magnificent Fabrick’: York Minster, An Architectural History c. 1220–1500 (Swindon, 2003), pp. 4–9. Research currently in progress should shed much new light on the building. John of Hexham, pp. 306–32. Reginaldi, Libellus de Admirandis, pp. 197–201. Vita, pp. 281 top – 284 bottom. Miracula Quaedam Sancti Willelmi, printed by Raine in HCY III, 531–43 from Oxford,

150

Saint William wooden panel of fourteenth- or fifteenth-century date comparable to the surviving ‘tables of the Vicars Choral’ which bear the texts of various historical sources relating to the history of the Minster.8 The last section transcribed by Dodsworth seems to have been devoted entirely to miracles and other material relating to St William. The largest single constituent was the record of the 1177 miracles, which were conveniently numbered by the editor. There are some very minor uncertainties in the text as it has come down to us, but it seems to represent a coherent list of miracles set down in writing within a few years of the events recorded.9 The account of the 1177 miracles in the Miracula contains a number of significant clues which are missing from the revised version given in the Vita. After a preface announcing that the miracles took place in York Minster in

8 9

Bodleian Library, MS Dodsworth CXXV, ff. 132–42. There are translations of some of the Miracula in Browne, History of the Metropolitan Church of St Peter, York, I, 51–2, in J. Browne, A Description of the Representations and Arms on the Glass in the Windows of York Minster (Leeds, 1915), pp. 151–63, and in J. Fowler, ‘On a Window Representing the Life and Miracles of S. William of York, at the North End of the Eastern Transept, York Minster’, YAJ 3 (1875), 198–348.. J. S. Purvis, ‘The Tables of the York Vicars Choral’, YAJ 41 (1963–6), 741–8. In the printed edition (see n. 7), Raine classicised the spellings and modernised the punctuation. Comparison of the printed text with the Dodsworth manuscript reveals a few minor variations, as listed. References are to the pages of Raine’s edition and to the individual miracle stories as numbered by him. 531, no. 1, line 2: percussa est . . . exinde; MS has no gap between est and exinde. 531, no. 1, line 6: visum recepit, dormiens vel soporata. Visumque: MS visum recepit. Dormiens vel soporata, visumque 532, no. 2, lines 2–3: meritis ejusdem sanctissimi: MS reading unclear. 532, no. 2, line 5: hominis; adminiculo: MS hominis adminiculo. 532, no. 3, line 6: huiusmodi: MS huius. 532, no. 3, line 8: subjectis: MS abjectis. 533, no. 10, lines 2–4: circumligato . . ., ad recipiendam, juxta erroneam aestimationem gentilium, infl . . .;: MS circumligato ad recipiendam, juxta erroneam aestimationem gentilium, inflationem,. 583, no. 14, line 4: sicut a Johanne; MS sicut Johanne. 534, no. 15, lines 4–5: Eboraci, adiit (forestam) de Galtres: MS Eboraci, et adiit (blank) de Galtres. 534, no. 18, line 9: manumque (et) brachium: MS manumque brachium. 535, no. 21, line 2: quadam [die] sumeret: MS quadam sumeret. 535, no. 21, line 10: ad ecclesiam appropinquavit: MS ad ecclesiam Beati Petri veniens ostia eiusdem ecclesie appropinquavit. 535, no. 21, line 12: via: MS vix. 536, no. 25, line 4: Sancti Willelmi: MS ad sanctum Willelmum. The transcriber had some difficulty with the end of no. 25 and the start of no. 26. 536, no. 28, line 5: vomita [et] ejecta: MS vomitu ejecta. 537, no. 32, lines 11–12: plurimos apud Eboracum per Beatum Willelmum ad sanitatem restitui: MS plurimis apud Eboracum per Beatum Willelmum sanitatem restitui. For textual amendments to later sections of the Miracula, see below, n. 51, and for the suggested date of 1177 x 1186, see below.

151

St William of York 1177, the entries in the Miracula, which vary in length from two lines to twenty, follow a consistent format. They normally include a description of the individual(s) concerned (and sometimes a name), their geographical origin, the nature of the affliction which was cured, and witnesses to the miracle, whether people from the town or village of origin who knew the person concerned or, in a few cases, named individuals. All the cures take place at the tomb, and all are carefully dated to specific days of the week. The accounts are brief and factual, with none of the literary elaborations and stylistic devices which characterise the retelling of the stories in the Vita. There are thirty-three miracles in all, whose contents can be conveniently tabulated (Table 1). The flavour of the miracles can be judged from the following examples: 1. A girl from the parish of Leeds was stricken with blindness when she was three years old, and remained blind for the next seven years. On the day of Pentecost, the 12 June, having spent some time in distress at the tomb of the Blessed William, at last, while asleep or dozing, she regained her sight through the merits of the same holy archbishop. It had seemed to the girl, as became known when she herself openly recounted what had happened, that a man came to her who was dressed in venerable clothes and shining with remarkable brightness. He touched her eyes with his hand, and in this way she regained her sight. Her blindness was attested by Paulinus, priest of Leeds, a man of blameless life whose testimony is trustworthy, and by the parishioners, and by the girl’s own mother. 5. A woman from the parish of Helmsley had been deaf from her very birth, as we learnt both by her own account after she had been healed, and from witnesses who were summoned and testified on her behalf. On the Tuesday of Pentecost at the tomb of the Blessed William she received her hearing and could hear very clearly. 7. On the following night a dropsical woman from Harewood with a very swollen stomach came to the tomb of Saint William and was cured on the spot. 21. Another woman from Murton, from land belonging to Saint Peter, was one day taking the bread of life when she discovered that a frog had been unwittingly baked in the very piece of bread, which had been given to her out of charity. For two years she suffered from poisoning and was so ill that she could neither lie on her right side, nor hold down any bread she had eaten, but immediately vomited it up after eating it. And she was being tortured by the most severe internal pains, to the extent that she was often thought to be on the point of death, as was testified by the priest and other people from the same village. On the same day of the week as she approached the church, her feet and hands and stomach suddenly, as she declared, swelled up. Proceeding on her way on her knees, she came to the tomb of Saint William. There, the following night, she vomited up some putrefying matter, and straightway recovered her health.

152

Saint William This is the only example of frog-poisoning.10 There are several cases of blindness and deafness, of dumbness and speech impediments, of swollen and painful members, crippled limbs and paralysis. The chronic nature of the illness is often emphasised, and in one case (no. 32) it was only after an unsuccessful visit to the shrine of St Thomas Becket in Canterbury that the sufferer found relief at the tomb of St William in York. The majority of the sufferers were girls or women (twenty-five out of thirty-three). One, Richard of Lepyngton (no. 33), was the son of a knight, but otherwise they appear to have been of modest social status. Six were from York, one of whom (no. 18) is recorded as living in Walmgate. The rest mostly came from a good spread of places around Yorkshire, together with a few from outside the county (Fig. 19). Several were from villages near York, such as Fulford or Haxby; others were from further afield in the Vale of York, for instance Tadcaster and Helperby. Two came from the edge of the Wolds (Bishop Wilton and Warter), three from the Moors (Helmsley, twice, and Pickering), two from the Dales (Gisburn and Richmondshire). There were also visitors from Sedgefield north of the Tees, from Middleton in Teesdale, from Lonsdale (the Lune valley across the Pennines), and a girl from Roxburgh on Tweed who happened to be in York. This was not quite so fortuitous as it might appear. By the treaty of Falaise, ratified at York in 1175, Roxburgh castle had been ceded to Henry II by King William the Lion of Scotland following his capture at Alnwick the year before. Roxburgh castle was put into the hands of Archbishop Roger, who held it for the king till 1177.11 Whatever their origin, all were cured at York, at William’s tomb in the Minster. The omission of anyone from south of the Humber is notable. The season of Pentecost, as we have seen, was traditionally a time when people all over the country converged on the mother church of their dioceses, but the inhabitants of the southern part of the huge diocese of York had been given permission to visit Southwell instead of York. The absence of anyone from the south of the diocese is thus explained, leaving a snapshot of the visitors who could have been expected to be in York over Pentecost. Both the celebrations of 1137 and William’s first mass as archbishop in 1154 had been planned for the week of Pentecost and Trinity Sunday.12 A series of miracles at this point in the calendar was guaranteed to attract the widest possible attention, and the most effective publicity as people returned to their homes after the festival.

10

11 12

But for a similar case, see Walter Daniel, The Life of Ailred of Rievaulx, ed. Powicke, pp. 46–8 and 69. Warren, Henry II, pp. 141 and 185. See above, Chapters Two and Four, and EEA V, no. 22, for the dispensation of Archbishop Thomas II (1109 x 1114) for the people of Nottinghamshire to visit Southwell instead of York.

153

St William of York Table 1. The 1177 miracles No. Date

Individual

Origin

Affliction

Witness

1. Sunday 12 June, Pentecost

girl

Leeds

blindness

Paulinus of Leeds, priest; parishioners; mother

2. Monday 13 June

woman

Fulford

crippled leg

–

3. Monday 13 June

Geoffrey

York

crippled leg

York people

4. Monday 13 June

woman

Heworth

blindness: swollen stomach

–

5. Tuesday 14 June

woman

Helmsley

deafness

witnesses

6. Tuesday 14 June

woman

York

hump-back

York people

7. Tuesday 14 June, night

woman

Harewood

swollen stomach

–

8. Wednesday 15 June (Octave of Feast of St William)

Henry, a young man

York

crippled foot

York people

9. Wednesday 15 June

girl

Aughton-onDerwent

blindness in one eye

those who tested her sight

10. (Monday 13 June)a

girl

York

swollen throat bystanders and pain in one foot

11. Wednesday 15 June

man

Lonsdale

blindness

Paulinus of Leeds, priest

12. Wednesday 15 June

boy

Ulleskelf

deafness

–

13. Wednesday 15 June

girl

Roxburgh

speech impediment

many bystanders, mother, stepfather

14. Wednesday 15 June

woman

Haxby

innards and leg problems

John of Rawcliffe, cleric; Haxby people

a

feria secunda, presumably an error for feria quarta, Wednesday.

154

Saint William 15. Wednesday 15 June, night

youth

Sedgefield

internal pains

–

16. Wednesday 15 June, night

woman

Helmsley

head pains, deafness in one ear

father and Helmsley people

17. Thursday 16 June

woman

Pickering

blindness

York people

18. Thursday 16 June

woman

York, Walmgate

crippled right arm and leg, speech impediment

archbishop of York and many others

19. Thursday 16 June

man

Leeds

internal pains

Paulinus of Leeds, priest

20. Friday 17 June

woman

York

blindness and York people internal pains

21. Friday 17 June, night

woman

Murton

stomach pains priest and from swallow- people of ing bread con- Murton taminated by a frog

22. Friday 17 June, night

woman

Middleton in Teesdale

swollen stomach

–

23. Saturday 18 June

woman

Helperby

hump back and crippled legs

–

24. Saturday 18 June

woman

Richmondshire deafness and swollen right foot

–

25. ‘during this woman feast of St William’ (hac etiam fes-

Haxby

pain in hands, – legs and feet

tivitate Sancti Willelmi) 26. Saturday 18 June

woman

Bandoclyve (?)

stomach pains –

27. Saturday 18 June

woman

Tadcaster

broken and swollen right jaw

bystanders

28. ‘during the same feast’ (eadem etiam festivitate)

girl

Flaxton

swollen stomach, legs and feet

those who knew her

155

St William of York 29. eadem

festivitate 30. eadem festivitate 31. ‘during this same feast’ (hac eadem festivitate) 32. eadem festivitate

33. eadem

festivitate

man

Warter

deafness and dumbness

–

woman

Wiltonb

blindness

people of Wilton

woman

Newbyc

paralysis

–

Albreda

Gisburn

inability to retain urine following excision of stone

priest and lawful women

humpback

–

boy, son of a knight Richard de of Carpecotis Lepyngton (?)

b Probably Bishop Wilton; alternatively either of two villages called West Wilton in the North Riding. c This would be one of a number of villages of this name in Yorkshire.

There is a pattern to the miracles. One miracle took place on the Sunday of Pentecost, 12 June 1177. There were three each on the Monday and Tuesday and nine on the Wednesday. This was followed by another three on the Thursday and Friday. A further eleven at the weekend brought the total up to thirty-three. The significance of the numbers becomes clearer when written in numerical form: 1, 3, 3, 9, 3, 3, 11 = 33. The whole series is based on the numbers 1 and 3, symbolic of the Holy Trinity. The first day, Pentecost, is the festival of the third person of the Trinity, and the series ends the following weekend with Trinity Sunday itself.13 All of the weekdays have the same number of miracles (3), except Wednesday, which has three times as many (9 = 3 x 3). Similarly, one person from York itself is cured each weekday except the Wednesday, which is marked out by two miracles for York people. 13

No. 10 is described as having happened on feria secunda (Monday), but this is evidently a mistake for feria quarta (Wednesday), as it is the only one which is out of order. In numerical form (which is used for a number of the miracles), feria ii is only one stroke of the pen different from feria iv. What happened at the weekend is not entirely clear. Four miracles are specifically recorded on the Saturday (nos 23–4 and 26–7); no. 25 is said to have happened hac festivitate Sancti Willelmi; nos 28–33 eadem festivitate. As the feast of St William only began to be celebrated as such in subsequent years, it may be suggested that the festival referred to in the original version of the text was actually Trinity Sunday. If the week was rounded off with seven miracles (symbolic of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit) on Trinity Sunday (which is also the octave of the feast of Pentecost), this would be symbolically and numerically very apt.

156

Saint William The emphasis on the Wednesday is explained by the fact that in 1177 the anniversary of the death of William fitzHerbert (or, as it would subsequently be called, the feast of St William) fell on Wednesday 8 June. Wednesday 15 June 1177 was therefore the octave of the feast of St William. The symbolic meaning is not hard to discern. In the thirty-third year since the birth of Christ (by traditional reckoning), at the first Pentecost in Jerusalem, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Holy Trinity, had been poured out on the apostles, who had been given the power to preach and to work miracles. Even so had the Holy Spirit been poured out through Saint William to effect thirty-three miracles and proclaim the good news of God to the people in the church of York at Pentecost 1177.

Fig. 19 Map showing the origins of individuals cured at the tomb of St William in 1177.

So the seemingly artless account of the 1177 miracles has in fact been carefully orchestrated to reinforce a particular ecclesiological message. It is well known that the Minster had no local saint of its own. The early AngloSaxon saints associated with York all rested elsewhere. Paulinus had been 157

St William of York forced to abandon York in 633 and finished his life at Rochester, which claimed his relics. Chad, who had been briefly bishop in the 660s, moved on to Lichfield, and his relics were venerated there. Cuthbert, who was consecrated in York Minster on Easter Day 685,14 rested at Durham. Wilfrid and John of Beverley lay closer at hand, Wilfrid at Ripon and John at Beverley. Both were important minsters under the control of the archbishops of York, but any attempt to translate their relics to York would have provoked intense local opposition, and would have solved York’s vacancy only at the cost of creating another one elsewhere. Of the later Anglo-Saxon archbishop-saints, Oswald was principally associated with Worcester, where his body lay, and Wulfstan, who was the focus of a modest cult, was buried at Ely. York had received the head of King Edwin by the early eighth century, but this does not seem to have survived.15 At the time of the Norman Conquest, therefore, the Minster could boast no major relics of its own. By the end of the twelfth century it had accumulated an extensive collection of bits and pieces of the kind which might be found in any major church in western Christendom, including such items as part of Moses’ rod, pieces of bone from the apostles Simon and Jude, some of the blood of St Laurence, part of the cross on which the apostle Andrew was crucified, and a piece of stone on which Christ sat while fasting in the wilderness. Many of these had been acquired by the twelfth-century archbishops: Thurstan, William, Henry Murdac and Roger of Pont l’Évêque all contributed to the collection, which was housed in reliquaries behind the high altar and the altars of St Andrew and St James. But they did not compensate for the lack of a major local shrine.16 The need for the relics of local saints had already been felt by earlier Norman archbishops. In 1113, shortly before he died, Archbishop Thomas II had attempted to remove the body of St Eata from the church at Hexham, where he had recently installed a community of Augustinian canons. He was encouraged in this course of action by some of the York clergy, who felt that it was not proper that none of the relics of the early saintly bishops should rest at York. One version of the story says that Thomas was spurred into action by some of his archdeacons – who could have included William fitzHerbert. In the event, he was only dissuaded from removing the relics by a vision of

14

15

16

I have suggested elsewhere that he was in fact consecrated to the see of York: Norton, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Cathedral at York’, pp. 28–35. For Edwin’s head, see Sources for York History to AD 1100, pp. 135–6. For the cult of Wulfstan at Ely, see J. Crook, ‘“Vir Optimus Wlfstanus”: the Post-Conquest Commemoration of Archbishop Wulfstan of York at Ely Cathedral’, in Wulfstan, Archbishop of York, The Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, ed. M. Townend (Turnhout, 2004), pp. 501–24. Early-thirteenth-century relic-list printed in HCY III, no. LXXIX. It does include two teeth and some other bones of St Paulinus, but his principal relics were not at York. See also the anonymous Chronicle printed in HCY II, 526.

158

Saint William St Eata himself, who castigated the archbishop for his presumption.17 In 1137 Archbishop Thurstan had the satisfaction of reporting the discovery at Southwell of the relics of certain saints along with a glass vessel containing water which cured the sick.18 But York still lacked its own saint; indeed, the splendid consecration ceremony at York at the season of Pentecost in the same year could be seen, in some measure, as a means of enhancing the status of the church of York in the absence of its own major relics.19 Among the post-Conquest archbishops, Thurstan himself was the most obvious candidate for canonisation. A dominating presence in the church in the north, his manner of life had been beyond reproach. Within a few years of his death he was being spoken of in terms befitting a saint, and it was reported that his body was uncorrupt and sweet-smelling. But for the Minster authorities, Thurstan was of little help. He had chosen to end his days among the Cluniac monks at Pontefract Priory, and he was buried in a position of honour there in front of the high altar.20 The monks of Pontefract would not permit his return to York. Thomas of Bayeux, the first Norman archbishop and founder of the Norman cathedral, had played a role hardly less significant than Thurstan (though much less well documented) in the revival of the church of York. A man of very considerable gifts, he too had been widely respected.21 But unlike his contemporaries Remigius of Lincoln and Osmund of Salisbury, Thomas of Bayeux was not the object of any local veneration. His successor Gerard would not have appealed to the Minster clergy. His hearty dislike for the canons had been reciprocated, to the extent that, when he died, they refused him burial within the Minster, only allowing him to find a place outside the doors of his own cathedral church. He was subsequently brought inside to lie next to his predecessors by his successor, Archbishop Thomas II.22 Thomas, William’s first patron, had been an amiable but unexceptional archbishop, while Henry Murdac, although he was permitted burial within the Minster, had been profoundly unpopular in York.23 By the mid-1170s, developments elsewhere were rendering York’s lack of a major local saint increasingly problematic. In 1155, the ancient relics of the saints at Hexham, which had resisted Archbishop Thomas II’s attempts to 17

18 19 20 21 22

23

Aelred of Rievaulx, De Sanctis Ecclesiae Hagustaldensis in The Priory of Hexham, I, ed. J. H. Hinde, SS 44 (Durham, 1864), pp. 202–3, and another version of the story at pp. 214–15. The Chronicle of John of Worcester, III, pp. 230–1. See above, Chapter Two. Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 236–8; and see above, Chapter Three. Norton, Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux. William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, RS (London, 1870), p. 260. See above, Chapter Two for Gerard’s views on the Minster clergy. See above, Chapter Four.

159

St William of York move them to York, were translated into new shrines. To publicise their merits, Aelred of Rievaulx wrote a tract about them.24 In 1159–60 attempts were made to raise the see of St Andrews to metropolitan status, in direct defiance of York’s claims over the Scottish church. At the same time, plans were drawn up for a vast new cathedral at St Andrews, whose foundation stone was laid in 1162. This was in the latest early Gothic style, deliberately aping the style of Archbishop Roger’s new east end at York but exceeding it in scale; it was designed to house the relics of St Andrew himself, who was by this time effectively established as the patron saint of Scotland.25 It may have been partly in response to this activity that the monks of Durham initiated a vigorous promotion of the cult of St Cuthbert at around this time. In the 1160s Reginald of Durham began work on a major compilation of recent miracles to complement the already extensive hagiographical literature relating to St Cuthbert.26 Around the same time, an extension was begun to the east end of Durham cathedral, behind the saint’s shrine. In the event, building difficulties led to the abandonment of the work in favour of an extension at the west end in the form of the Galilee Chapel, dating to c. 1170.27 The completed chapel was adorned with life-size wall-paintings of St Cuthbert and St Oswald, and was developed as a subsidiary shrine to Cuthbert.28 Nor were such developments confined to the north. In 1161, Pope Alexander III officially canonised Edward the Confessor, and to mark the occasion of his translation in 1163 Aelred of Rievaulx was commissioned to write a new life of the saint.29 Aelred himself died in the odour of sanctity in 1167. 24

25

26

27

28

29

Aelred, De Sanctis Ecclesiae Hagustaldensis in The Priory of Hexham, ed. Hinde; A. Squire, Aelred of Rievaulx, A Study (London, 1969), pp. 112–15. E. Cambridge, ‘The Early Building-History of St Andrews Cathedral, Fife, and Its Context in Northern Transitional Architecture’, Antiquaries Journal 57 (1977), 277–88; M. Thurlby, ‘St Andrews Cathedral-Priory and the Beginnings of Gothic Architecture in Northern Britain’, in Medieval Art and Architecture in the Diocese of St Andrews, ed. J. Higgitt, BAACT 14 for 1986 (1994), pp. 47–60. A further Scottish stimulus may have been the discovery at Melrose in 1170 that the body of Waltheof, William’s former rival for the see of York, was entire and uncorrupt (Baker, ‘Legend and Reality’, pp. 62 and 66–7). Reginaldi, Libellus de Admirandis; V. Tudor, ‘The Cult in the Twelfth Century: the Evidence of Reginald of Durham’, in St Cuthbert, His Cult and his Community to AD 1200, ed. G. Bonner, D. Rollason and C. Stancliffe (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 444–67. R. Halsey, ‘The Galilee Chapel’, in Medieval Art and Architecture at Durham Cathedral, ed. N. Coldstream and P. Draper, BAACT 3 (1980), pp. 59–73; S. Harrison, ‘Observations on the Architecture of the Galilee Chapel’, in Anglo-Norman Durham 1093–1193, ed. D. Rollason, M. Harvey and M. Prestwich (Woodbridge, 1994), pp. 213–34. D. Park, ‘The Wall Paintings in the Galilee Chapel of Durham Cathedral’, Friends of Durham Cathedral 57th Annual Report (1990), 21–34; Norton, ‘Liber Specialis et Preciosus’, esp. p. 230. F. Barlow, Edward the Confessor, 2nd edn (New Haven, 1997), pp. 256–85; Squire, Aelred, pp. 92–7.

160

Saint William Something of a local cult grew up around him at Rievaulx, and not many years later his friend Walter Daniel wrote a life of Aelred.30 But it was the turn of events at the old enemy, Canterbury, which illuminated most cruelly York’s poverty in the matter of relics. Archbishop Roger of Pont l’Évêque, having been archdeacon of Canterbury prior to his election to the see of York, knew well Canterbury’s superiority. It already boasted the mortal remains of the early Anglo-Saxon archbishops, which had been moved into the new Romanesque church at St Augustine’s Abbey in 1091, as well as the relics of St Dunstan and St Alphege in the cathedral.31 Roger was also well acquainted with Thomas Becket: the two had been members together of the household of Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury, before moving on to greater things. Although the main principles of the primacy dispute had been settled in York’s favour in Thurstan’s time, arguments about precedence continued for many years thereafter. Archbishop Roger was particularly sensitive to any slight (real or perceived) to the honour of the church of York, on one famous occasion actually sitting in the archbishop of Canterbury’s lap at a legatine council when he was unable to squeeze himself between the archbishop of Canterbury and the legate.32 When Becket went into exile in 1164, Roger was left as the senior churchman in the land, a situation which he exploited to particular effect in 1170 when at Henry II’s request he crowned Henry the Young King in Westminster Abbey. This was a deliberate insult, since it was the traditional right of the archbishop of Canterbury, and not the archbishop of York, to perform coronations. It was also carried out in defiance of directives from Becket and the pope forbidding him to take part in the Young King’s coronation.33 But Roger’s triumph was short-lived. Before the year was out, Becket had been cut down in front of the altar in Canterbury Cathedral, and a martyr-cult sprang up almost immediately. He was formally canonised just three years later. In 1174, the eastern arm of Canterbury Cathedral burnt down, and a new east end was begun and constructed with great speed as a glorious shrine to Canterbury’s new martyr.34 Thus, almost as soon as it was completed, Roger of Pont l’Évêque’s enlarged east end at York was being upstaged by the new Gothic work at Canterbury. A new saint’s cult would be one way of reasserting the authority of the church of York. And in this context, the first of William’s miracles takes on a new significance: it provides a 30 31

32 33 34

Walter Daniel, Life of Ailred. R. Gem, ‘The Anglo-Saxon and Norman Churches’, in St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury, ed. R. Gem (London, 1997), pp. 90–122 (pp. 114–16); N. Ramsay and M. Sparks, ‘The Cult of St Dunstan at Christ Church, Canterbury’, in St Dunstan, His Life, Times and Cult, ed. N. Ramsay, M. Sparks and T. Tatton-Brown (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 311–23. Haines, ‘Canterbury versus York’, esp. pp. 82–3. Warren, Henry II, p. 111; Haines, ‘Canterbury versus York’, pp. 78–81. F. Woodman, The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral (London, 1981), pp. 87–130.

161

St William of York parallel avant la lettre for events at Canterbury. If the fire at Canterbury resulted in the construction of a splendid new eastern arm built to celebrate Canterbury’s new saint, much the same had already occurred at York, where the fire which left the body of St William untouched had also provided a divinely inspired opportunity for a magnificent new east end. As well as the canonisation of Becket and the fire at Canterbury, the years 1173–4 were marked by major political upheavals. The Young King’s revolt and the invasions of northern England by King William the Lion of Scotland put Henry II on the defensive. The rival forces were particularly evenly poised in the north. Hugh du Puiset, the bishop of Durham, incurred suspicion by his failure to resist the Scottish invasions. Roger of Pont l’Évêque, by contrast, was both loyal to the king and active in the field on his behalf. His reward was the staging of William the Lion’s formal submission to Henry II in 1175 in York Minster.35 Roger’s triumph was followed by the miracles at the tomb of his predecessor just two years later. 1177 was a propitious year. We have seen the skill with which the Pentecost miracles as recounted in the Miracula were orchestrated to underline both their Pentecostal and Trinitarian meanings. It was by no means every year that the octave of the feast of St William overlapped with the season of Pentecost. Between 1170 and 1180, it happened only in 1172, 1175, 1177 and 1180.36 Of these, 1177 was the most apt. It was 550 years since the foundation of York Minster, and forty years (an ecclesiologically significant number) since the great consecration ceremony organised by Archbishop Thurstan in 1137.37 Just as that can be seen as a crowning moment of Thurstan’s archiepiscopacy, so the events of Pentecost 1177 can be seen as a culmination of the achievements of Archbishop Roger’s reign. A magnificent, enlarged cathedral combined with a new saint’s cult would put York on a par with its rivals at St Andrews, Durham and Canterbury, while the glorification of St William would reflect credit back onto Roger himself. For it was William, in the spring of 1154, who had prophesied that Roger would succeed him as archbishop; and it was the first of William’s miracles, when his body was untouched by fire, which had provided the occasion for Roger’s building works.38 In the late 1170s Roger established the Chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels within the courtyard of the archbishop’s palace, hard by the north side of the nave of the Minster, as a kind of chantry foundation for himself, and in 1181 his work was completed.39 35

36 37 38 39

Roger of Howden II, 79–82; Warren, Henry II, pp. 184–7. Herbert fitzHerbert II, William’s nephew, also seems to have been implicated in the Young King’s revolt, perhaps in association with Hugh du Puiset (see Appendix A). However, this does not seem to have affected the start of the cult of St William. C. R. Cheney, Handbook of Dates (London, 1955). See above, Chapter Two. Chronica Pontificum, p. 396; Vita, pp. 279–80. A. Hamilton Thompson, ‘The Chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels, Otherwise

162

Saint William Archbishop Roger is cited as a witness to one of the 1177 miracles (no. 18). He personally examined a woman who had been cured at the tomb. In early May of that year Roger was at Windsor and Geddington; by about September he was in Normandy.40 He could easily have visited York for Pentecost. Only two other witnesses, both clerics, are cited by name: John of Rawcliffe and Paulinus of Leeds. John witnessed the cure of a woman from Haxby (no. 14), while Paulinus is mentioned three times: the very first miracle on the Sunday of Pentecost, the girl cured of blindness who came from Leeds (no. 1); a blind man from Lonsdale cured on the Wednesday (no. 11); and a man from Leeds with internal pains cured on the Thursday (no. 19). Paulinus is uniquely prominent in the Miracula, and he is of great interest.41 He was no mere country parson, but a well-known York figure of the period. He was the son of Ralph Nowell, bishop of the Orkneys, the colleague and supporter of William fitzHerbert. He would have been well acquainted with the church of York from an early age, and he married into a prominent York family (Genealogical Table 4). He is first recorded before the middle of the century, and in the early years often styled himself medicus. He was already very probably associated with St Peter’s/St Leonard’s Hospital, of which he later became master. Between 1164 and c. 1171 he was appointed by the prior of Holy Trinity Priory to the lucrative vicarage at Leeds, and began to sign himself Paulinus of Leeds. By the early 1180s he had been appointed a chaplain to Henry II, and not long after he was appointed master of St Peter’s/ St Leonard’s Hospital by the king. In July 1186 he was offered the see of Carlisle by Henry II, but declined it. He retained the office of master of the hospital until his death probably in 1202, and during this final phase of his career abandoned the style Paulinus of Leeds in favour of the title master of the hospital, or just master. In his middle years he had been well known to Archbishop Roger. In a charter confirming Paulinus’s right to the vicarage at Leeds, Roger departs from the usual impersonal language of an official charter to declare that he has made the grant to Paulinus dilecto filio nostro . . . intuitu prudentie et honestatis eius (‘our dear son . . . in consideration of his prudence and honesty’).42 Roger of Howden, in the chronicle which passes under the name of Benedict of Peterborough, describes him as virum honestum, prudentem et circumspectum (‘an honest man, prudent and circumspect’).43 If there is one person to whom we could point as having played a

40 41

42

43

Known as St Sepulchre’s Chapel, at York’, YAJ 36 (1944–7), 63–77. EEA XX, 181. There may be a connection too between Paulinus and the woman from Harewood (no. 7), for in 1199 the church of Harewood was being held by Paulinus’ son, Ralph Nowell the younger. For this and fuller details on Paulinus’ career, see Appendix B, n. 40. EEA XX, no. 55, commenting that ‘the whole tenor of this charter reflects Paulinus’s eminence both in learning (as the archbp points out) and in social standing’. Roger of Howden (formerly attributed to Benedict of Peterborough), Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, 2 vols, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 49 (London, 1867), I, 349. For a summary of

163

St William of York key role in the events of 1177, it would be Paulinus. He must have known William fitzHerbert in his youth, and must have learnt much more of him from his father, Ralph Nowell. As vicar of Leeds, he would have been well placed to encourage his parishioners to undertake the Pentecost pilgrimage to York – the more so, since the patrons of the living, Holy Trinity Priory, celebrated their own patronal festival at the end of the week, on Trinity Sunday. As a close associate of the archbishop, he would have understood the wider significance both for Roger of Pont l’Évêque and for the Minster of the emergence of a new saint’s cult. As a medicus, he would have carried credence as a witness, and he would have been well placed to assess, and record, the events of that week. At one point the text of the 1177 Miracula (no. 5) uses the first-person plural, cognovimus (‘we learnt’), when appealing to the testimony of witnesses, indicating that the author was closely involved in the events of that week. In short, Paulinus was ideally situated to act as an impresario and publicist for the miracles of 1177, even if he was not (as seems quite likely) the author of the Miracula. His name is also associated with the very first independent piece of evidence for the 1177 miracles. A charter of 1177 x 1186 records a grant of land in Hunslet by Peter de Autrey to his brother Philip. It has nothing to do with the Minster at all, but it contains a striking chronological indicator: the land in Hunslet is that which ipse Philippus predictus tenuit in proxima festivitate Beati Petri ad Vincula [1 August] post revelationem miraculorum Beati Willelmi archiepiscopi Eboracensis, que facta fuit in Pentecosten (‘the aforementioned Philip held at the festival of St Peter’s Chains immediately following the revelation of the miracles of Blessed William, archbishop of York, which took place at Pentecost’). The charter was witnessed, in the first place, by Paulino presbitero de Ledes. The charter must therefore date to between 1177 and July 1186, from which point Paulinus styled himself master of the hospital. It is perhaps closer in date to 1177 than 1186.44 By the same reasoning, the text of the Miracula can likewise be ascribed to the period 1177 x 1186, since there too Paulinus is described as priest of Leeds rather than master of the hospital.

The early development of the cult of St William The 1177 miracles are nowhere mentioned in the chronicles of the period, but the charter reference just cited indicates what may be presumed to have been the official attitude to the events of the week of Pentecost: the outpouring of divine power at the tomb demonstrated that William was a saint. The charter is the first independent use of the word beatus (‘blessed’) in connection with

44

the evidence for Roger of Howden’s authorship of the Gesta, see EEA XXVII, cxxxii n. 594. EYC III, no. 1621, there dated c. 1180–91.

164

Saint William William, along with the contemporary Miracula, which employs both beatus (‘blessed’) and sanctus (‘saint’). In the terminology of the time the two terms were interchangeable.45 From this time onwards William is increasingly referred to as sanctus or beatus. In his account of William’s archiepiscopate, William of Newburgh, writing towards the end of the century, refers to him merely in the manner appropriate to any archbishop. Likewise Roger of Howden; but later on, recounting an incident which took place in York Minster in 1190, he refers without comment to the tumbam Sancti Willelmi (‘tomb of St William’).46 Nor is it only the northern sources which begin to adopt this usage. Gervase of Canterbury, writing at about the same time of the events of the middle of the century, initially refers to William as cuidam clerico (‘a certain cleric’); but not long after, in recounting the complex events of his archiepiscopate, is content to describe him as beatum Willelmum (‘blessed William’).47 The anonymous author of the relevant section of the Winchester Annals, written probably in the 1190s, described William as archiepiscopus Eboracensis (‘archbishop of York’), but makes a point of emphasising his reputation for sanctity.48 A story recounted by Roger of Howden shows that William’s tomb was already being used as a place of sanctuary. On the feast of Epiphany 1190, during a bitter dispute between Archbishop Geoffrey Plantagenet and the dean and chapter, the dean and the treasurer were threatened by a mob inside the cathedral. Both turned tail and fled, the dean back to the safety of the deanery, the treasurer to the tomb of St William. The implication is that both reached safety unharmed.49 The provision of sanctuary was a traditional function of a saint’s shrine. Another indication that William’s tomb was already the focus of a liturgical cult comes from a charter of 1219 in which Alice, widow of Richard Croere, granted to Old Malton Priory land in Ogleforth which owed an annual rent of half a pound of incense to the tomb of St William. Other properties in Ogleforth belonging to Old Malton Priory involved annual payments to St William or were dependent on the taking of an oath to the saint.50 The decades around the turn of the century provide some more miracle stories. Following the 1177 miracles, the text of the Miracula, as it has come down to us, lists three miracles (nos 34–6) of early-fourteenth-century date. These are followed by another six (nos 37–42) which are not dated, but seem 45 46 47 48

49 50

E. W. Kemp, Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (Oxford, 1948), p. 116. William of Newburgh, pp. 55–82; Roger of Howden I, 198 and 213, and III, 31–2. Gervase, pp. 123, 134 and 157. Winchester Annals in Annales Monastici, II, 54–5; on the date, see J. J. Appleby, ‘Richard of Devizes and the Annals of Winchester’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 36 (1963), 70–7. Roger of Howden III, 31–2. British Library, MS Cotton Claudius DXI, ff 201v-202v. I owe this reference to Dr Sarah Rees Jones.

165

St William of York to form a set. They are all brief accounts similar in style to the 1177 miracles, though the majority of these give names to the people involved. Finally, after some later liturgical material relating to the shrine, there is one final miracle story (no. 43).51 This is somewhat different in style. It is a more extended piece of prose about a page long, and it does not name any of the protagonists, but the incident can be dated to the same period. The second of the set of six (no. 38) recounts the story of the collapse of Ouse bridge at the time of William’s final return to York in 1154. The same story also appears in the Vita.52 The version in the Miracula was set down in its present form several decades after the incident it describes. It explains that, at the time of the miracle, Ouse bridge was made of wood. The bridge was rebuilt in stone in the later twelfth century. It incorporated a chapel dedicated to St William. This chapel along with other parts of the medieval structure survived until the demolition of the ancient bridge in 1810. From drawings made prior to its destruction and from surviving fragments of medieval stonework, it is clear that the chapel contained work of two distinct phases, one of the late twelfth century and one of the first half of the thirteenth. The earlier work has been dated on stylistic grounds to c. 1170–80 (Fig. 20). The earliest documentary reference to the dedication of the chapel to St William dates from 1228, but it seems likely that it bore this dedication from the beginning.53 The chapel can be seen, therefore, as a very early manifestation of the new cult of St William following the miracles of Pentecost 1177, and it probably dates to c. 1180. The version of the Ouse bridge miracle recorded in the Miracula can therefore date to no earlier than c. 1180, but both it and the chapel itself witness to the currency of the story within a few decades of the event itself. 51

52 53

Miracula, pp. 539–40 and 542–3. The following textual variations may be noted, set out as in n. 9 above. 539, no. 37, line 12: alterius: MS alterioris [sic] 540, no. 39, line 1: est: MS et [sic] 540, no. 40, line 5: accessus: MS accessionis. 540, no. 41, lines 1–2: sotulares: MS solutares. 540, no. 41, lines 2–3: amisit visum, et auditum, et loquelam; et os: MS amisit visum et auditum, loquelam et sensum; et os. 542, no. 43, line 12: fuit: MS fuit fuit [sic] 542, no. 43, line 15: extenta: MS optenta. 542, no. 43, line 18: vestigium v . . . vesica: MS vestigium . . . vesica, presumably for vestigium vesicae. 542, no. 43, line 26: [Willelmus]: MS omits. 542, no. 43, line 26: item: MS etiam. 543, no. 43, line 4: permittere: MS promittere. Vita, p. 275. RCHM, York, III, 48–50; B. Wilson and F. Mee, ‘The Fairest Arch in England’: Old Ouse Bridge, York, and Its Buildings – the Pictorial Evidence, AY Supplementary Series 1/2 (York, 2002), passim. The thirteenth-century phase of the bridge chapel is discussed below.

166

Saint William

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view the image on this page please refer to the printed version of this book.

Fig. 20 Engraving by Henry Cave of the west wall of St William’s Chapel on Ouse bridge during demolition, showing ornate late twelfth-century wall arcading and string course, and early thirteenth-century doorway.

Four more of the miracles in the set of six report events connected with the tomb. A man broke off a piece of mortar from the tomb to take home to his wife who was ill. As he was crossing Ouse bridge, he opened his hand and discovered the fragment had been turned into bread. His wife ate it and was cured, along with other sufferers from fever (no. 39). The mention of Ouse bridge as the site of the discovery of the miraculous transformation is noteworthy. Another man, a priest, was cured of fever by eating a rose petal which he had dipped into oil flowing from the tomb (no. 40). A shoe-maker, who had been suddenly struck blind, deaf and dumb on the vigil of the feast of St Laurence (9 August), was cured after remaining at the tomb of St William from the Nativity of the Virgin (8 September) until Michaelmas (29 September) (no. 41). And a boy who had been crippled from infancy was cured at the tomb (no. 42). These four are similar in content to the 1177 miracles, and are closely focused on the tomb; but they are not associated with Pentecost or the feast of St William. The first in the set of six (no. 37) and the final story in the Miracula (no. 43) are also associated with the tomb, but are of a very different kind. They revolve around the issue of the unjust condemnation of innocent people, and their vindication through divine intervention. No. 43 concerns 167

St William of York two women who were accused of homicide and were imprisoned secundum consuetudinem regni (‘according to the normal custom of the realm’). One died in prison; the other was taken to court when the king’s justiciars arrived. She denied the charge, and was given over to the ordeal by fire, secundum consuetudinem regni quae tunc fuit (‘according to the normal custom of the realm as it was at that time’). After she grasped the hot iron, a mark appeared on her hand, so she was found guilty and sentenced to death by fire by a jury of twelve knights. The king’s justiciars gave her permission to pray at the tomb of St William. When she got there, the mark on her hand disappeared. The justiciars then declared the woman not guilty and let her go, since she had been absolved by God and St William. The knights were then placed at the king’s mercy, for giving a false judgement. The woman brought the iron from the ordeal to the altar of St Michael in the Minster. The twelve knights then attempted to remove her on the grounds that she was guilty, but the priest who was the keeper of the tomb refused to allow her to be abducted, since she had been healed by St William. Major churches were often involved in the administration of the ordeal, which had quasi-liturgical elements. The mention of the altar of St Michael in this context is interesting: as the weigher of souls and the minister of divine justice at the end of time, it was natural that he should be associated with a procedure intended to reveal the judgement of God in connection with a particular case on earth. Not that the outcome of the ordeal was always clearcut. The hand which had held the hot iron had to be scrutinised, and there was potential for disagreement about the interpretation of the result. Priests could be involved in coming to a judgement, and in this case one senses disagreement between the ecclesiastical and secular officials as to the woman’s guilt or innocence. These and other considerations led to increasing criticism of the whole notion of trial by ordeal in clerical circles, and the ordeal was formally condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It was abolished as a judicial procedure in England just four years later.54 This story, with its mention of the consuetudinem regni quae tunc fuit, must therefore have been written down after 1219 and refer to an incident which had taken place some years earlier. The administration of royal justice ground to a halt in the middle of the second decade of the thirteenth century. King John himself presided over the court at York in 1210 and 1212, but thereafter there was a hiatus until the first justices in eyre of Henry III’s reign were sent out in 1218–19. They were faced with a considerable backlog of cases, as well as the procedural uncertainty as to how to deal with cases which would previously

54

R. Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal (Oxford, 1986), esp. pp. 40–1, 56–60, 62–9, 97–101 and 107. On knights in the judicial process, see Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls 1199–1230 AD, ed. C. T. Flower, Selden Society 62 (London, 1944), pp. 434–40.

168

Saint William have gone to trial by ordeal.55 The miracle story implies that the court at the time was presided over not by the king himself, but by his justiciars. Royal justices in eyre sat in York on four occasions during the first half of John’s reign: in 1202, 1204, 1206 and 1208.56 The so-called ‘Autumnal Justices’ also visited the shires in 1210.57 This should be the latest date for the incident which lay behind the miracle story. The condition of the country and the administration of justice both deteriorated after the imposition of the interdict in 1208,58 and it may be surmised that the incident which gave rise to the miracle story happened during the visit of the king’s justices in either 1208 or 1210.

The story of Ralph and Besing More remarkable still is the incident recounted in the Miracula, no. 37. A longer version of the same story is contained in the Vita, and it is instructive to examine the two versions together.59 The Miracula version runs as follows: A man called Ralph was accused of breaking the peace of the lord king. He was defeated in a duel, and one of his eyes was taken out by his adversary, who was called Besing. Subsequently, the other eye was taken out because he had been defeated. He was handed over to the executor of justice, who took out his other eye. A boy called Hugh picked up both the extracted eyes and carried them in his hand; and when several days had passed, Ralph himself coming to the tomb of the Blessed William, after fasting and praying, recovered two other eyes which were smaller than his previous ones, and regained his sight, sharp and clear; but his previous eyes were of a different colour, like glass [or like woad].

The Vita tells the tale thus: Some robust and spiteful rustic, who became ill with jealousy of his neighbour’s prosperity, poor because others were rich and unhappy because they were happy, started, driven by jealousy, to make plans against one of his neighbours, a rather feeble man. His internal spite was boiling like fat frying in a pan, bringing together all forms of perfidy and cooking up arguments by which he could engineer his death. Thus his 55

56 57

58 59

Rolls of the Justices in Eyre, Being the Rolls of Pleas and Assizes for Yorkshire 3 Henry III (1218–19), ed. D. M. Stenton, Selden Society 56 (London, 1937), esp. pp. xl and liii–liv. Pedes Finium Ebor. Regnante Johanne, SS 94 (Durham, 1897), pp. xi–xii. D. M. Stenton, English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter, 1066– 1215 (London, 1965), pp. 105–6. Stenton, English Justice, p. 107. Miracula, p. 539, no. 37; Vita, pp. 289–90. Both versions (incorrectly dated to 1177) are printed in English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I, Volume II, ed. Van Caeneghem, pp. 557–9, from whom I borrow the translation of the passage in the Vita down to ‘size and colour’.

169

St William of York insanity perspired, for he knew no joy until he found something to turn his joy to sorrow and his harp to mourning. To realize this the servant of malice, the doctor of deceit, mobilized all his evil tricks in order to bring him by way of a criminal process before a royal court charged with the crime of arson, to beat him after he had been brought there and to deform him with irreparable bodily mutilation after he had been beaten. His mendacious iniquity was carried out as his corrupt heart had planned, and so the day of the lugubrious spectacle arrived: ‘his sad plan materialized’. The accuser lent his poisonous tongue to perjury, his wrath leapt forward to administer blows, his jealousy was striving for sadness and his cruelty was after blood; the man, who was not fit to fight, fell in battle, an undefended defendant in combat. In the sight of the multitude, who were standing around, the just man was blinded by the unjust, the pious by the impious, the pure by the impure. Moreover, with bestial ferocity and doing his evil deed with a sharp knife, he forcefully and completely cut off his virile parts and, horrible sight, publicly threw them to the people, together with the pupils of his eyes, so that children and adults were astounded by his rage and the judges filled with horror at this enormity, which they permitted in the exercise of their official duties rather than being in agreement with it. Keeping the pain of so great a torment to himself, he overcame all the bitterness of his suffering thanks to his devotion to St William, to whose tomb he was led that same day; he poured forth fragrant prayers and they obtained what his confidence had hoped for. Marvellous to say and stupendous to relate, before the memorial of the holy father the mutilated man received new privy parts and fresh little eyes were placed in his head which, however, were different from his previous ones in size and colour. Nor did there remain around the wounds any sign of mutilation, which the consoling bathing of the Divine mercy had washed clean. The eyes newly appeared in the oratory and the miraculously restored mutilated members brought forth a double rejoicing for the church of York: clergy and people, united in a single trumpet of praise, called out praises to God, who, wonderful in his saints, wonderfully adorned his saint William with such remarkable signs of sanctity and the greatness of miracles.

The two versions differ in style as well as content. The first is briefer and more factual; it gives the names of the combatants, and it mentions only blinding, one eye being taken out by Besing, the other by the judicial officials. The eyes are collected by a boy named Hugh, and several days pass before the miraculous healing. The Vita is more verbose, literary and rhetorical. It does not name the protagonists, but it explains both the charge (arson) and something of the background and motives of the false accuser. The outcome of the duel is crueller, the cure the more miraculous: Besing removes both Ralph’s eyes and his testicles without interference from the judges, but Ralph receives back all that he lost later the same day at the tomb of the saint. The duel, or trial by combat, was a standard, if often controversial, part of

170

Saint William the administration of justice.60 It could be employed in civil cases involving rights of property tenure (writs of right); and it could be employed in serious criminal cases, such as treason, perjury, robbery, murder and arson. Where a charge had been laid, the judges decided if a duel was permissible in the case in question. If so, battle was adjudged or wagered, and a day was appointed. On the day of the duel, various distinct phases were recognised. The duel was armed, then struck, and finally won. The duel was a means of deciding a case, not a penalty. At any point in the procedure, the case could be terminated by agreement, so it was only in a minority of cases that all four stages of the process were completed, and that the duel was wagered, armed, struck and won. Once the case had been decided, legal ownership would be declared in a writ of right, or the punishment prescribed by law would be applied in a criminal case. From the reign of Henry III onwards the whole business became increasingly formalised, and duels were actually fought increasingly rarely, though the final case of a judicial duel in England took place only in 1492. In civil cases, champions (though officially forbidden) became increasingly common and were eventually legalised. One such champion was William de Copeland, who fought on behalf of a number of different parties in Yorkshire and elsewhere between 1203 and 1220. Among others, he appeared on behalf of Robert de Ros in a case against Henry du Puiset concerning and on behalf of Peter fitzHerbert (William’s great-nephew).61 But champions were not normally permitted in criminal cases, and prior to the reign of Henry III the whole business was potentially very hazardous and dangerous. Duels were fought in specific places, were supposed to be conducted according to specific rules, and they had a more or less explicit religious stamp, with an oath administered to the parties by the judicial authorities at the start. Henry I had ordered that whenever there was a duel at York, oaths should be sworn on the gospels or on the Minster relics, and after the battle, the victor should offer his arms to the Minster, giving thanks to God and St Peter for his victory.62 The later York Manual includes an order for the blessing of the shield and staff of a man about to undertake a duel; another appears in the

60

61

62

For what follows, see G. Neilsen, Trial by Combat (Glasgow, 1890); Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls, pp. 113–22; Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water, pp. 103–26. Some Yorkshire duels can be found in Rolls of the Justices in Eyre, passim. Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls, p. 121. C. Daniell, ‘Battle and Trial: Weapon Injury Burials of St Andrew’s Church, Fishergate, York’, Medieval Archaeology 45 (2001), 220–6, suggests that some of the burials at the Gilbertine Priory at York could be those of professional champions, but the evidence is open to various interpretations. HCY III, 36 = RRAN II, no. 1083 (dated 1108 x 1114), confirmed by King Stephen, probably in 1136 (RRAN III, no. 975). The contents of Henry’s charter have been doubted, but, even if interpolated, it is evidence of what was considered proper practice at York.

171

St William of York Glasgow Pontifical of c. 1180.63 The shield and staff were specially made for duelling. The shield was of wood, and the staff was a wooden stick 3–4 feet long, tipped with a T-shaped horn or iron spike which was sharply pointed at one end. Both appear as devices on the seal of a late-twelfth-century Durham miller who acted as a duelling champion.64 As well as special weapons, there were special clothes, and the combatants were ritually shaven beforehand. Once one party had admitted defeat, the combat was supposed to cease, and from the thirteenth century a duel might consist of no more than one ritual blow struck by the winning party. But there is plenty of evidence that, once struck, a duel could be fierce and bitter, serious wounds and mutilations could be inflicted, and even the bystanders could be drawn into the affray. A party to a duel could literally be chancing life and limb, and the potential for an innocent but weaker party to be defeated and unjustly condemned was obvious to all. The duel was much feared and much criticised. Some religious writers condemned the procedure altogether, in spite of its formal religious sanction, but in practice most efforts were directed towards limiting rather than abolishing the duel. Fighting a duel was increasingly seen as incompatible with the clerical calling, and in 1176 Henry II granted the clergy immunity from fighting duels. Nonetheless, in 1216 Innocent III was anathematising anyone in the province of York or in Scotland who forced the clergy to fight a duel in person.65 It was accepted that there were general exemptions for certain categories of people, such as children, women and the elderly. One of the liberties that was greatly prized by the more important English boroughs during the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries was the exemption for their burgesses from the necessity to undergo trial by combat, for which was substituted a grand assize. London and Newcastle received this privilege under Henry I, and many other boroughs gained similar exemptions in the reigns of Richard I and John.66 Richard I granted to the burgesses of York that ‘they defend themselves against all appeals by the oaths of thirty-six men of the city, unless the appeal is one touching the king’s body’. A similar charter for Wearmouth makes the meaning quite explicit when it states that any charge on which battle might arise should be decided per legem civilem, scilicet per xxxvi homines (‘by civil law, that is by thirty-six men’).67 These were 63

64

65

66

67

Manuale et Processionale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis, ed. Dr Henderson, SS 63 (Durham, 1875), pp. 106–7 and 211*. W. Brown, ‘Trial by Combat’, YAJ 23 (1915), 300–7 for this and other interesting details. Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water, pp. 118–19. And see Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 120, for Hugh the Chanter’s comment on duels: ‘the guilty sometimes escape, the innocent sometimes perish’. British Borough Charters 1042–1216, ed. A. Ballard (Cambridge, 1913), pp. 132–4; M. Bateson, Borough Customs, I, Selden Society 18 (London, 1904), pp. 32–6. F. Drake, Eboracum (London, 1736), p. 204; Bateson, Borough Customs, I, 39–40; VCH

172

Saint William valuable privileges for burgesses, but created numerous difficulties. For instance, an identical charge could be tried by battle or by assize, simply depending on whether the alleged offence took place within a borough or in the suburbs.68 Another symptom of unease is the number of contemporary miracle stories connected with trial by battle. Reginald of Durham, for instance, records two miracles associated with duelling. In one case, one of the protagonists falsely swore his innocence on a relic of St Cuthbert. Immediately, his right eye fell to the ground, and he hobbled away with a lame leg. Unable to defend himself in the ensuing duel, he was killed at the first blow. Thus was the justice meted out by St Cuthbert made manifest.69 Another story concerns St Godric of Finchale. A man had been falsely accused and required to fight a duel. Although clear of conscience, he went to seek support from the saint because of the uncertainty of the outcome in such cases. The duel was fought on Palace Green outside Durham Cathedral, and the man was killed. Godric knew by divine inspiration that the man had been killed, and he had a vision of the judgement-seat of Christ, where the evil spirits who would condemn the man to Hell were put to flight. For, said Godric, he was not guilty of the charge which had been laid against him, and it was because of the envy of his enemies that he had suffered death, not because of his crimes.70 These miracles highlight a number of themes which recur in the story of Ralph and Besing: the false charge prompted by jealousy; the importance of the relics of the saint; the loss of an eye; the vindication of the innocent man; the issue of human and divine justice. So the story of Ralph and Besing fits into a context which would have been quite familiar at the time. The details, however, are specific to this particular incident. According to the version of the story in the Vita, the accuser was quidam rusticus. If, as I suggest, the incident belongs to the period after Richard I’s charter exempting the burgesses of York from the duel, the description of Besing as rusticus indicates not so much social standing as his geographical origin and jurisdictional status: it explains why the case went to a duel rather than to an assize. But there may be a further implication in the story. A considerable area of the countryside in Yorkshire lay within royal forests. King Richard had disafforested the Ainsty in 1190,71 but to the north of the city lay the forest of Galtres, whose limits extended as close in as Layerthorpe and the city walls. Until 1234 the forest of Ouse and Derwent

68 69 70

71

York, p. 36, and see D. Palliser, ‘The Birth of York’s Civic Liberties, c. 1200–1354’, in The Government of Medieval York: Essays in Commemoration of the 1396 Royal Charter, ed. S. Rees Jones, Borthwick Studies in History 3 (York, 1997), pp. 88–107. Cf. a case at Bury St Edmunds in 1182 discussed by Neilsen, Trial by Combat, pp. 64–8. Reginaldi, Libellus de Admirandis, p. 115. Reginald of Durham, Libellus de Vita et Miraculis S. Godric, ed. Mr Stevenson, SS 20 (London, 1847), pp. 189–91. HCY III, 87, no. LXIX.

173

St William of York also extended up to the boundaries of the city. Further afield, sizeable areas of Yorkshire lay within other royal forests, such as the forest of Pickering and the forest of Knaresborough.72 Forest law was a separate tier of royal administration, and was widely considered the harshest, most oppressive and most capricious legal jurisdiction in the land. In a famous passage in the Dialogus de Scaccario, Richard fitzNigel stated that the whole organization of the forests, the punishment, pecuniary or corporeal, of forest offences, is outside the jurisdiction of the other courts, and solely dependent on the decision of the King, or of some officer specially appointed by him. The forest has its own laws, based, it is said, not on the Common Law of the realm, but on the arbitrary legislation of the King; so that what is done in accordance with forest law is not called ‘just’ without qualification, but ‘just, according to forest law’.73

Richard and John caused particular resentment by their afforestation of new areas of the country, and the harsh punishments which could be exacted under forest law were considered to be particularly oppressive.74 The king could use forest law as a convenient source of additional funds; but forest law allowed for far worse punishments. Henry II’s Assize of the Forest of c. 1166 states clearly: If anyone from henceforth commits an offence [against the king’s hunting or his forests] and is rightfully convicted, it is the king’s will that justice shall be dealt to him fully, in such manner as had been done in the time of Henry his grandfather, namely that he shall lose his eyes and his testicles.75

The injustices carried out in the name of forest law in the years around 1200 have passed into the stuff of legend. More prosaically, the chronicler Roger of Howden, who had himself been a justice of the forests in 1185, complained about the severity of the justice meted out by his successors in the late 1190s.76 It is no accident that the 1217 Charter of the Forest, one of the first legal instruments of the regime of the young Henry III, included the provisions that all those areas which had been afforested under Richard and John should be immediately disafforested, and that for the rest no-one should 72

73

74

75 76

VCH York, p. 320; VCH Yorkshire, I (London, 1907), 501–23; G. C. Cowling, The History of Easingwold and the Forest of Galtres (Huddersfield, 1967), pp. 153–5; B. Jennings, ed., A History of Harrogate and Knaresborough (Huddersfield, 1970). Richard fitz Nigel, Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. C. Johnson, 2nd edn with corrections by F. E. L. Carter and D. E. Greenway, OMT (Oxford, 1983), pp. 59–60. Warren, Henry II, pp. 390–6; Select Pleas of the Forest, ed. G. J. Turner, Selden Society 13 (London, 1901), passim, which largely concerns the period from 1217. J. C. Holt, The Northerners, A Study in the Reign of King John (Oxford, 1961), pp. 157–64, on forest law under King John. Richardson and Sayles, The Governance of Mediaeval England, pp. 444–9. Roger of Howden I, xxi–xxii.

174

Saint William lose life or limbs for offences against forest law.77 The story of Ralph and Besing fits perfectly into the context of forest law. The two versions of the story differ in their details, but they both imply the same thing: that the penalty for the alleged crime was blinding and castration, and that Besing, having used the duel to prove his opponent’s guilt, had then taken upon himself to carry out the punishment (or part of it) himself. The rough justice of forest law provided the perfect means for a jealous and spiteful person to get his revenge on a weaker neighbour, with the prospect of the harshest of sentences. By the same token, the more flagrant the injustice and the more bitter the punishment, the greater the potential for demonstrating the power of divine justice through the relics of the saint. Besing (or Basing) is an unusual name. In the south, various people took their name from the Hampshire village of Basing, near Basingstoke. Lincolnshire sources record a number called Besing or Basing in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries,78 including Nicholas de Besing(es) of Wivelingham and his family, who turn up on occasion in Yorkshire documents because of connections with land in Lincolnshire held by Holy Trinity Priory, York.79 Yorkshire too had a few men of the same name. Domesday Book records one or more men called Basin or Basinc holding land in the East Riding at the time of the Conquest.80 Twelfth- and thirteenth-century Yorkshire sources reveal a Besing of Hudeswell and a Besing of Thrybergh, the latter an outlaw for having murdered his wife.81 There were also men of the same name at York. Norman son of Basing was among the prudentissimos Anglos who gave evidence to the inquest concerning the customs and liberties of the church of York in 1106.82 Around the middle of the century there are several charters witnessed by Ernisius son of Besing of York and his brother Aldred, who at one point held land at Brackenthwaite. There is also a Gamell son of Besing.83 In the 1160s a Besing attested a charter together with Lambert medicus de Eboraco.84 Could he have been the same as the Basing filius Suani who attested some charters of around the time – Swane being the name of the master of St Peter’s Hospital about this period?85 Towards the end of the century we 77

78

79 80

81

82 83 84 85

Select Pleas of the Forest, pp. cxxxv–vii, nos 3 and 10: nullus de cetero amittat vitam vel membra pro venacione nostra. G. F. Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire (Copenhagen, 1968), pp. 49–51. See for example EYC VI, 166; CRR II, 154 and 167, III, 93–4. DB, ff. 301, 304v, 306, 320v, 325, 331v and 373; Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names, pp. 49–51. Rolls of the Justices in Eyre, p. 195; Pedes Finium Ebor., p. 67; Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names, pp. 49–51. Sources for York History to AD 1100, p. 221. EYC II, no. 1201, XI, 269, and nos 10 and 37. EYC III, no. 1531. EYC III, nos 1395 (dated 1150 x 1170) and 1399 (dated c. 1150 x 1176). On Swane, see Appendix B, n. 35.

175

St William of York find charters witnessed by a Besing and his brother Walter.86 Finally, there is mention in a charter of Hugh son of Lefwin of 1180 x 1195 of a Besing (or Vesing) Betemarched who had previously held land in York.87 Given the common pattern of names recurring within families, often every other generation, it is quite likely that we have here the traces of one or more families of some standing in succeeding generations from the time of Domesday Book onwards, but unfortunately there is insufficient evidence to be confident. It is a modest harvest from the abundant Yorkshire sources. And there is one other Besing whose name jumps out at us from the dry pages of the Pipe Rolls. The Pipe Roll for Michaelmas 1210–11 contains the accounts of Brian de l’Isle, one of King John’s men, for the royal castle and estate of Knaresborough. They include a short section with the unusual heading Amerciamenta per comitem Wint’ et R. de Marisco pro duello male percusso (‘Amercements by the earl of Winchester and R[ichard] Marsh for a duel badly struck’). One man was fined 5 marks; another four individuals paid half a mark each, and unspecified numbers of others paid two separate sums of £20 6s 8d and £4. One of the men fined half a mark is called Besing de Ripun.88 Knaresborough Castle lay at the centre of the royal forest of Knaresborough. Quite apart from the general unpopularity of forest law in the later years of King John, Knaresborough was the focus of particular discontent. It had effectively been seized by the king in 1205 from the de Stutevilles and placed in the hands of a hated royal servant, Brian de l’Isle, who accounted for it to the king; and for a while Knaresborough became one of the chief centres of royal power in the north. In 1215 the rebels against the king included the seizure of Knaresborough from the de Stutevilles among the grievances for which they wanted redress.89 In these circumstances, Knaresborough was a potential flashpoint, with political opposition compounded by resentment at the often arbitrary exactions of forest law. It is therefore more than likely that the improperly fought duel related to an offence committed (or alleged) under forest law. Forest law was administered by forest justices who operated independently of the normal judicial system. The records of the forest justices for this period do not survive, but the Pipe Rolls of the immediately preceding years for Yorkshire include many entries under the heading De placitis foreste, with the addition per H. de Nevil’ for the 1207–8 roll. Hugh de Nevill was the son of Erneis de Nevill, who had been a forest justice along with Roger of Howden in the mid-1180s. In the 1198 forest eyre, which provoked Roger of Howden’s displeasure, Erneis was joined by his son 86 87 88 89

EYC II, no. 845, XI, no. 246. EYC I, no. 208. PR 1211, p. 92. History of Harrogate and Knaresborough, pp. 36–7 and 76–7; Holt, The Northerners, pp. 157–64, 221–2 and 227.

176

Saint William Hugh.90 Hugh de Nevill thus enjoyed a reputation for the harsh administration of forest justice from an early date. In 1207 he was sent out on another forest eyre, whose results appear in the Pipe Roll for 1207–8 and subsequent years.91 The long list of people fined for forest pleas in 1207–8 includes two men called Ralph. One is Ralph prepositus, who owed ten marks; the other is Ralph Nuvel de Ebor who owed forty marks. Of these, thirty were paid in 1207–8, and the remaining ten in two instalments of five marks in 1208–9 and 1209–10.92 Ralph Nuvel (or Nowell) is a well-known figure. He was one of the leading citizens of York in the years around 1200, with extensive property interests in the city and its suburbs, and elsewhere in Yorkshire. Moreover, he was the grandson of the earlier Ralph Nowell, bishop of the Orkneys and colleague of William fitzHerbert, and the son of Paulinus of Leeds, subsequently master of St Peter’s Hospital in York (Genealogical Table 4), the man who, as I have suggested, was involved in the promotion of the cult of St William following the miracles of 1177. Miraculous events and historical analysis make uncomfortable bedfellows. But leaving aside the miraculous conclusion to the affair, Besing of Ripon and Ralph Nowell of York fit the story of Ralph and Besing very well. Ralph Nowell came from a well-established York family, and he had profited from his situation to increase his estate considerably.93 One of his earliest appearances is in 1184 when he proved his ownership of part of a vill in Garmondsway, Co. Durham per finem duelli (‘through a settlement by means of a duel’). This being a duel over a writ of right, it was, we may suppose, fought by champions on behalf of the parties (if indeed the dispute got as far as an actual duel). Among other properties, he held land in Ripon and the church of Harewood, and other members of his family had interests in the West Riding. Knaresborough is situated half-way between Ripon and Harewood, and the boundaries of the forest of Knaresborough extended almost as far as Harewood.94 Ralph Nowell could have had interests within the forest of Knaresborough sufficient to enable a jealous rival to plant trumped-up criminal charges on him. Of Besing of Ripon we know nothing for certain beyond his appearance in the Pipe Roll. He could be identical with one or other of the Besings whose names appear in York sources. Two of them have circumstantial links to Ralph Nowell. If the Basing son of Swane was the son of Swane, the master of 90

91 92

93 94

Roger of Howden I, xxi–xxii. Select Pleas of the Forest, pp. l–lxxv, on the forest eyre and justices, and pp. 1–10 for the only surviving fragments of records of the forest eyres of Shropshire, Rutland and Northamptonshire for 1209. PR 1208, p. xxii. PR 1208, p. 156; PR 1209, p. 137; PR 1210, p. 156. C. Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics: Ralph Nuvel’s Family and Ancestors in York (c. 1120-c. 1240)’, York Historian 12 (1995), 2–20, at p. 13 states incorrectly that he paid 45 marks in total. For full details of Ralph Nowell’s career, see Appendix B. VCH Yorks, I, 508. Map of the forest in History of Harrogate and Knaresborough, Map 4.

177

St William of York St Peter’s Hospital in the 1170s, then both he and Ralph Nowell were the sons of former masters of the Hospital. Hugh son of Lefwin, who purchased property in York from Besing of Betemarched, was Ralph Nowell’s uncle.95 This transaction could be a tiny pointer to the rise of the families of Lefwin and Nowell at the expense of the family of Besing – the kind of situation which could give rise to pent-up feelings of jealousy such as prompted Besing’s accusation of Ralph, according to the Vita. There are additional hints that Ralph Nowell was coming under attack from other directions in the early thirteenth century. Between 1203 and 1207 his right to the ownership of the church of All Saints in the Marsh was challenged – by whom, and with what result, we do not know. At just the same period, Archbishop Geoffrey appointed as successor to Paulinus of Leeds as master of the Hospital a man called John, a priest of York, who may have been a cousin of Ralph Nowell. His appointment was disputed and in 1205 he was deposed. In later years Ralph Nowell’s ownership of other properties in York was successfully challenged. There is the distinct impression of scores being settled in the disturbed years of King John’s reign.96 And can it be a coincidence that the same Ralph Nowell belonged to a family which had been intimately associated with the story of William fitzHerbert in both life and death? His father Paulinus, as we have seen, seems to have been one of the principal promoters of the cult of St William from 1177 onwards, and his grandfather and namesake, the bishop of the Orkneys, had known William from his earliest days in York. There is a curious irony in the fact that the story of Ralph and Besing involves the very same punishment – blinding and castration – as was inflicted on William’s father, Herbert the Chamberlain.97 Herbert’s fate is recorded in no English source, but it would have been all too familiar to later generations of the FitzHerberts and to Ralph Nowell the elder, from whom knowledge of it could have been passed down within the Nowell family. William himself had known the pain and humiliation of harsh royal justice. The vindication of Ralph Nowell could be seen as symbolic restitution for the wrongs suffered by all innocent victims of the king’s justice. And for Ralph himself, what better vindication could there be than a supernatural demonstration of the power of divine justice through the agency of the man who could almost be said to have been the family saint? So the story of the miracle of Ralph and Besing may have arisen out of a duel fought probably in 1207–8. The incident is therefore close in date to the 95 96

97

See above, nn. 85 and 87. This impression would be distinctly strengthened if it could be proved that Richard Marsh, the royal official who imposed the fines for the badly struck duel and who was subsequently chancellor of England and bishop of Durham, was a member of the Marsh family of York, who were connected by marriage to the Nowell family (Genealogical Table 4). See Appendix B for details of Ralph Nowell’s property holdings, and n. 47 for Richard Marsh. See above, Chapter Two.

178

Saint William miracle story of the woman who underwent trial by ordeal. Both belong to the disturbed years of King John’s reign, perhaps specifically to the period of the Interdict (1208–13), or the immediately preceding period. ‘The uneasy state of the country during the interdict had increased both crime and its violent, even extra-legal, suppression’, in the words of Doris Stenton, and the evidence of the royal archives shows that the conduct of judicial duels was a matter of serious concern in more than one county, including Yorkshire.98 At York, the situation had been further destabilised by the departure for exile of Archbishop Geoffrey in the latter half of 1207. The turbulent relationship between the archbishop and the king had come to a head in that year when Geoffrey had publicly opposed King John’s attempts to raise taxes from the clergy. In spite of papal support, he felt it advisable to flee the country. John immediately (and not for the first time) seized the temporalities of the see. Geoffrey died in exile in 1212, and was considered in some quarters a martyr in the cause of the church.99 Thus York was a particular cause of contention between the king and the church even before the Interdict. The fact that the temporal affairs of the archbishopric were in the hands of the crown from 1207 onwards could have affected the ecclesiastical administration of justice, including the conduct of judicial duels. The story of Ralph and Besing would have had additional significance as a demonstration of divine intervention on behalf of an innocent victim if not merely the charge (under forest law) but the duel itself were thought to exemplify the iniquities of royal justice. The years around the Interdict witnessed an upsurge of miracles at shrines around the country. Miraculous events were recorded, for instance, at the shrines of St Wulfstan at Worcester, St Frehemund at Dunstable, St Hugh at Lincoln and St Osmund at Salisbury. At Beverley, too, miracles took place at the shrine of St John.100 During the Interdict, church bells fell silent, the celebration of the mass was forbidden, and churches generally were closed. Access was, however, permitted to the shrines of the saints, which thus became an unusually intense focus of devotion. In the absence of the consecrated eucharistic elements, the relics of the saints were the most powerful physical manifestation of the divine to which access was still possible. If therefore the story of Ralph and Besing and the miracle of the woman who underwent trial by ordeal arguably reflect the violence and harsh justice of John’s reign, and more particularly the years of the Interdict, two of the other post-1177 miracles in the Miracula also seem to reflect the mentality of those years. The story of the mortar from the tomb which turned into bread as a 98 99 100

Stenton, English Justice, p. 107. EEA XXVII, lii–lvii. C. R. Cheney, ‘King John and the Papal Interdict’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 31 (1948), 295–317 (p. 316), reprinted in his The Papacy and England, 12th–14th Centuries (London, 1982). R. Morris and E. Cambridge, ‘Beverley Minster before the Early Thirteenth Century’, in Medieval Art and Architecture in the East Riding of Yorkshire, ed. C. Wilson, BAACT 9 for 1983 (1989), pp. 9–32, at pp. 13–20.

179

St William of York man was crossing Ouse bridge and healed the sick woman (no. 39) has obvious eucharistic overtones, and would have had added significance in a situation where the consecrated host was no longer available either to the faithful in church or for distribution to the sick at home. This is immediately followed (no. 40) by the miracle of the priest who was cured by eating a roseleaf dipped in oil flowing from the tomb of St William.101 This can be understood as a divinely ordained substitute for the forbidden consecrated wine of the eucharist, and it is perhaps no coincidence that this is the first recorded miracle involving a priest. The eucharistic symbolism of this pair of miracles would have been especially potent during the Interdict. So with the exception of the 1154 miracle of Ouse bridge (no. 39), which provides a sort of prologue to the story of the mortar turned to bread on the bridge, the set of six miracles in the Miracula (nos 37–43) may best be understood as a group of stories all relating to the disturbed years under King John. The Ouse bridge miracle and the story of Ralph and Besing are the only ones in this set of six miracles which are retold in the Vita. The Vita also contains some other miracle stories, which are placed after the account of the 1177 miracles and which have no known written source. They include some novel elements. There is, for instance, a case of demoniac possession (the vision of the Ethiopian, who was considered a type of demon); the case of a leprous woman whose nose was so horrifically deformed that she could not go out in public or find a husband; and three cases of dead people brought back to life.102 All of these, along with the miraculous cure of the unfortunate Ralph, involve far more dramatic interventions and more powerful cures than the earlier miracles; and for the first time they include miracles performed away from St William’s tomb. It is time now to turn to a consideration of the Vita itself.

The Vita Sancti Willelmi The Vita has been dismissed as of little historical value for the life of William fitzHerbert,103 and the miracles have seldom been considered at all, except in so far as they relate to some of the scenes in the fifteenth-century St William window in York Minster.104 Yet the Vita is by no means devoid of interest for understanding William’s life, as we have already seen, and the miracle stories, as I have attempted to show, are themselves of considerable interest. Hitherto, we have quarried the Vita for evidence of events in earlier years; 101 102 103 104

Miracula, pp. 539–40. Vita, pp. 285–91. Described e.g. as ‘late and usually untrustworthy’ by Knowles, ‘St William’, p. 91. Fowler, ‘On a Window Representing the Life and Miracles of S. William of York’; T. French, York Minster: The St William Window (Oxford, 1999).

180

Saint William now we must consider the text in its own right. When was it written, how did the author employ the sources available to him, and to what effect? A preliminary assessment of its date emerges from what has already been said. It makes extensive use of the miracle stories of 1177 preserved in the Miracula, and it refers to Archbishop Roger of Pont l’Évêque (1154–81) in terms which imply that he was dead.105 A terminus post quem of c. 1208 is provided by the story of Ralph and Besing. The bull of canonisation of 1226 refers to that incident, and to the miracles of three dead people brought back to life, which are mentioned in no extant source except the Vita. If it can be shown that the Vita was used in the papal canonisation process, then it must have been written in the period c. 1210–25. Or could it have been written to celebrate William’s official canonisation? The complete text of the Vita survives in a single manuscript preserved in the British Library, MS Harley 2, from which it was printed by James Raine.106 Extensive extracts are also to be found in the form of lessons for the octave of the feast of St William in the York Breviary. Most of the surviving manuscripts of the York Breviary are of fifteenth-century date, and there are early printed versions as well. The Breviary versions can occasionally be used to confirm uncertain readings in the Harley manuscript.107 The manuscript bears an ex libris of the Augustinian abbey of Thornton in Lincolnshire, and has a post-medieval binding. It comprises ten sections, which were brought together to form a single volume in the medieval period: a list of contents in a medieval hand on the verso of f1* corresponds to the current contents and order. The texts are primarily hagiographical, including lives of St Thomas Becket and St Edmund of Canterbury.108 105 106

107

108

Praesulis pro tempore praesidentis, Vita, p. 280. A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, I (London, 1808), pp. 1–2; HCY II, 270–91. Breviarium ad Usum Insignis Ecclesie Eboracensis, 2 vols, ed. Lawley, SS 71 and 75 (Durham, 1880 and 1883), II, 298–318. See n. 111 for corrections to the text. The contents of the volume are as follows: 1: ff. 1–75. A single section in uniform style containing a life of Thomas Becket and other items relating to St Thomas. 2: ff. 76–87. The Vita Sancti Willelmi. 3: ff. 88–97. A Life of St Edmund of Canterbury. 4: ff. 98–171. William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum, book 1 and part of book 2, ending at the bottom of f. 171r with the words hic desinit [sic] quatuor aut quinque libri. 5: ff. 172–97. A life of St John the Patriarch. 6: ff. 198–208. Miracles of St Andrew the Apostle, and on the Apostle Matthew. 7: ff. 209–15. A Life of St Mary Magdalene, a text on St Martha, and a sermon of St Augustine de igne purgatorio. 8: ff. 216–33. A treatise de missarum solempniis. 9: ff. 234–62. St Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons on the Song of Songs, nos 44 to 58. 10: ff. 263–88. A treatise starting Nichil fit in terra sine casu dicit Job, listed on f. 1*v as tractatus bonus de viciis.

181

St William of York

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view the image on this page please refer to the printed version of this book.

Fig. 21 The opening page of the only complete surviving manuscript of the Vita Sancti Willelmi, from Thornton Abbey (British Library, MS Harley 2, f. 76r).

182

Saint William The Vita of St William forms the second section of the book, ff. 76–87. These constitute a single gathering of six bifolia, sewn in the middle between ff. 81v and 82r. The text is written in a single hand in two columns of twenty-nine lines throughout, in an even and consistent script, with only occasional corrections in the original or a contemporary hand (Fig. 21). The headings are written in rubrics at the start of each section, and the scribe’s instructions to the rubricator are still visible, though faint, at the base of each relevant page. The opening initial G on f. 76r is in blue and red with simple penwork decoration. A large plain red P initiates the miracles on f. 80v. Thereafter, each chapter commences with a simple plain blue or red initial. The scribe’s instructions for the initials, consisting of a single letter, are still visible in many cases, adjacent to the coloured initials. The text has not been marked up for reading out loud as lections, but the pages are quite well thumbed, like the rest of the volume. It has the appearance of a book used for lectio divina. The manuscript was dated to the thirteenth century by Raine. Ker refined this to the first half of the thirteenth century.109 The section immediately following the Vita Sancti Willelmi is a life of St Edmund of Canterbury, who died in 1240. This Latin life, attributed to Eustace of Faversham, was written in 1242–4, before the completion of the process of canonisation in 1246.110 The copy in the Thornton manuscript is carelessly written, with numerous corrections and additions, but the script and layout of the pages are broadly comparable to the Vita Sancti Willelmi. Unless the Life of St Edmund reached Thornton extremely rapidly, the various sections of the Harley manuscript cannot have been brought together to form the book as currently constituted before the middle of the thirteenth century. Ker’s extremely summary dating of the manuscript to the first half of the thirteenth century seems the most appropriate for the gathering which constitutes the Vita Sancti Willelmi, though a date slightly after 1250 cannot be excluded. The copy in the Harley manuscript must therefore have been written within a few decades of the composition of the text; but for a more refined dating of the text, we must look to internal evidence. In his edition Raine classicised the spelling and modernised the punctuation. For the rest, his text is reliable, apart from a few insignificant errors.111 It 109

110

111

N. R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain – A List of Surviving Books, 2nd edn (London, 1964), p. 189. C. H. Lawrence, St Edmund of Abingdon – A Study in Hagiography and History (Oxford, 1960), pp. 30–47 and 203–21. Vita in HCY II, 270–91. The following corrections may be noted. I give the reading in Raine’s edition (R); in the Harley manuscript (H); and, where relevant, the reading in the printed edition of the Breviary (Br), with page numbers. (R) 272, l.5: ad; (H) in. (R) 275, l. 17: nulli; (H) nullum. (R) 278, l. 20: patrocinante; (H) prante, perhaps alternatively patrante.

183

St William of York occupies twenty-two printed pages. The Vita adopts the simple structure traditional for a saint’s Life: the first six and a half pages are devoted to William’s life, the remainder to his posthumous miracles. It is a question whether something is missing at the end. The Vita opens with a short paragraph setting out its theme, which is summarised as Gloriosi praesulis Willelmi vitam, virtutes et miracula (‘the life, powers and miracles of the glorious bishop William’). The first section, dealing with his life, concludes with an account of his burial, mentions the posthumous miracles which he wrought, declares that the saint is now enjoying the felicity of heaven, and ends with a prayer expressing the hope that we may join him in that state of blessedness. The account of the posthumous miracles begins with another brief authorial preface. Most of the miracles are recounted at some length. The stories build to a climax with the miracle of the boy dying of fever, the duel of Ralph and Besing, and the boy who fell down a well, each of which receives a whole page. The text then stops abruptly with a single sentence recording that a boy who drowned in the river Ouse was brought back to life. There is no conclusion, no final exhortation, doxology or prayer. In the Harley manuscript, the final word, accidisse, is written on the last line of the second column of the final page of the gathering. The final sentence has the appearance of a scribal summary of a longer story designed to bring the text to a conclusion at the end of the gathering. This was certainly intended to be the conclusion of the Vita in this particular manuscript: for although there is no final rubric, the scribe has in fact written the instructions for one at the bottom of the page: Expliciunt (sc. Miracula) (‘Here end (the miracles)’). So there is nothing missing from the Harley manuscript; nor do the extracts from the Vita incorporated into the York Breviary contain any additional material.112 But it must seem likely that, like St Mark’s Gospel, the Vita Sancti Willelmi has lost its original conclusion. The account of William’s life is brief and uneven. The prefatory paragraph, the account of William’s parentage and his upbringing, and the decades of his treasurership between them occupy little more than one printed page. The election dispute, from the death of Thurstan in 1140 to William’s deposition

112

(R) 280, l. 4: follia; (H) follia, but corrected in margin to fila; (Br) I, 695, sila or fila. (R) 280, l.19: Christum Deum; (H) Christum dm, probably should read dni, i.e. Christum domini, cf. Psalm CV, 15, and 1. Samuel 26.11, 16, 23, etc. (R) 281, l. 2: septenis; (H), (Br) I, 696, septennio. (R) 281, l. 17: conductu; (H) conducto. (R) 281, l. 31: producitur; (H), (Br) I, 696, perducitur. (R) 282, l. 17: et; (H), (Br) I, 696, ac. (R) 283, l. 3: ad fomentum; (H), (Br) I, 697 ad morbi fomentum. (R) 289, l. 2: mentis; (H) mtis, perhaps matris. (R) 291, l. 13: in puteo: (H) vi putei. (R) 291, bottom: no rubric: (H), no rubric, but instruction for rubricator at bottom of page reads Expliciunt [sc. Miracula]. See n. 107.

184

Saint William and the election of Henry Murdac in 1147, is covered in another page of text. The following two and a half pages are devoted to the period 1147–54, namely his exile at Winchester, his re-election as archbishop, his final visit to Rome to receive the pallium and his return to England. His last couple of months in England in the spring of 1154 are then recounted at length: they occupy over three and a half pages, i.e. more than half of the total space devoted to his life. It is therefore not surprising that modern historians, whose interests have focused principally on the election dispute, and in particular the years 1141–7, have tended to dismiss the Vita as of little value. Indeed, it has nothing significant to add to what we know from other sources about the events of these years. On the other hand, as we have seen, the Vita does contain material on William’s life which is found nowhere else: details about his parents which, although slightly garbled, seem to be based on reliable traditions; information about his exile at Winchester between 1147 and 1153, which is barely mentioned by other historians, but which is compatible with what can be gleaned from Winchester sources; a record of his tour of the diocese and province in 1154 prior to his triumphant return to York, which is amply confirmed by independent testimony; the Ouse bridge story, otherwise known only from the local York source preserved in the Miracula; and an extended account of the final days of his life incorporating circumstantial details which cannot be dismissed.113 What sources did the Vita draw on? The author does not betray any dependence on John of Hexham, William of Newburgh or Roger of Howden, or indeed familiarity with any of the other sources known to us. The Ouse bridge miracle, it is true, is recorded in the Miracula, no. 38,114 but there is nothing to suggest verbal borrowings in either direction. It must have been a familiar tale in York. The author writes from a definite York perspective. When describing William’s exile in Winchester, he gives a source for his information: ut enim fertur ab antiquissimis illius provinciae viris (‘for so it is related by the most elderly men of that see’).115 As late as the 1220s, though hardly much beyond, there could have been elderly monks at Winchester who remembered William’s stay in the cathedral precincts in 1147–53. A parallel case early in the thirteenth century is Hugh of Kirkstall’s Narratio de Fundatione Monasterii de Fontibus. Hugh was able to draw on the memories of the centenarian monk Serlo, who had entered Fountains Abbey in 1137–8 and had been an eye-witness to many memorable events in the early history of Fountains, including probably the burning of the abbey by William fitzHerbert’s supporters in 1146.116 In similar vein, the Vita narrates William’s final days at York in the spring of 1154 prout fidelis nobis retulit antiquitas (‘as reliable ancient sources have 113 114 115 116

See above, Chapters One and Four. Miracula, p. 539. Vita, p. 273. Hugh of Kirkstall, Narratio de Fundatione, pp. 1–129.

185

St William of York related to us’).117 The suspicion that William had been poisoned was widely bruited abroad in the following decades. Even at the end of the twelfth century William of Newburgh thought it worth seeking out an elderly monk of Rievaulx for his views on the matter.118 There must have been plenty of tales told about William’s return from exile and sudden death. After the revelation of his sanctity through the miracles of 1177, stories of the miracles and memories of his life must have been frequently recounted. Figures such as Hamo, successively canon, precentor, treasurer and dean of York between c. 1170 and 1219 x 20, would have had tales to tell.119 Paulinus of Leeds would have preserved first-hand memories going back as far as the later years of William’s life. As a medicus and the son of William’s long-time colleague Ralph Nowell, the bishop of the Orkneys, he could have had access to William’s sick-bed in the final days of his life. Certainly, he would have heard about this time and much about William’s earlier career from his father, whose recollections of William went back as far as c. 1110. After Paulinus’s death, probably in 1202, the traditions he had passed on would have been preserved by the Hospital community, by other York clergy and by his son, Ralph Nowell the younger, who was still alive at the time of the papal canonisation.120 Another possible source of information on William’s life, going right back as far as his parentage and youth, was the FitzHerbert family. There is no evidence to suggest that they played any particular part in the emergence of the cult of St William, whether in the 1170s or the 1220s, but they retained their Yorkshire connections. The head of the family in the early thirteenth century, Peter fitzHerbert (d. 1235), the great-grandson of Herbert the Chamberlain and great-nephew of William, was vigorous in asserting his rights to the family estates which had been passed down from Herbert the Chamberlain. This was particularly the case with the southern estates, but he was also active in Yorkshire. At one point he was in charge of the royal castle and forest of Pickering, and he was appointed sheriff of Yorkshire by King John in 1214–15. His daughter Lucy married into the Yorkshire family of Ros of Helmsley.121 All in all, there is no reason to doubt that a York author writing in the early thirteenth century would have had access to what could be considered fidelis antiquitas when composing the Vita. The picture of William’s life painted in the first half of the Vita is sober and restrained. In contrast, the style of writing strains at rhetorical effect. There is a marked predilection for abstract nouns, for alliteration and assonance, and most noticeably for wordplay and oppositions which rapidly become wearisome on a continuous reading. It will suffice to quote two passages to 117 118 119 120 121

Vita, p. 276. William of Newburgh, pp. 80–2, and see Chapter Four. Clay, Fasti, I, 2–3, 12 and 23; Greenway, Fasti, pp. 10, 14, 24 and 81. See Appendix B for fuller details on the family. Fuller details in Appendix A.

186

Saint William illustrate the point. The first records William’s appointment as treasurer of York Minster:122 His et aliis Divinae gratiae pensatis donis, Eboracensis thesaurarius effectus, publica bona sub tenacitatis sera servavit, sed opes privatas et proprias intra manus postulantium opem transire coegit, nullum thesaurum pretiosiorem putans, quam patientibus penuriam subvenire. Bearing in mind these and other gifts of God’s grace, when he was made treasurer of York, he kept under tight control the resources of the community, but his own private wealth he transferred into the hands of those who asked for his assistance, considering no treasure more precious than coming to the help of those who were afflicted with penury.

The second tells of William’s last visit to Rome in the late autumn of 1153, where he was finally to receive the pallium.123 Deo igitur inspirante et ducatum praebente, Qui absentium praesentiam suae mentis oculis praesentavit, Romam venit, ita quod nec in progressu, nec in urbis ingressu triste aliquid, sed e contrario, laeta omnia et magnis successibus plena ei dicuntur accidisse. Therefore, inspired and led on by God, who made present to his mind’s eye the presence of things absent, he came to Rome, in such manner that neither in his going out to the city, nor in his going in, anything sad is said to have happened to him, but, on the contrary, all that was delightful and filled with the most happy issue.

The two versions of the Ralph and Besing story quoted above suffice to point up the verbose style of the Vita compared to the simple narrative in the Miracula. It is the more striking, therefore, that the Vita does not elaborate upon the details of William’s life, as so many saints’ lives tend to do. The account of his early years is brief in the extreme, as we have seen, but without apparent invention. No tales here of the child’s supernatural abilities or prophetic powers, no exaggerated claims of a morally exemplary youth. The comments on William’s school-days and life prior to his appointment to the treasurership of York are, if anything, rather unflattering. Perhaps the author was aware of the scepticism which had greeted some of Walter Daniel’s exaggeratedly pietistic remarks about Aelred’s youth in his Vita.124 The years of the election dispute, William’s first archiepiscopate and his deposition are treated with a brevity which has not recommended itself to modern historians. But it is doubtful whether the complex manoeuvrings of the years 122 123 124

Vita, p. 271. Vita, p. 274. Walter Daniel, Life of Ailred, pp. 4 and 76.

187

St William of York 1140 to 1147, even if they were understood in any detail by the author, have any place in a Vita designed to extol its subject and edify its readers. William’s opponents are not named, neither the archdeacons who initiated the challenge, nor the Yorkshire Cistercians, nor St Bernard. Pope Eugenius and Henry Murdac are mentioned in terms which at least preserve the form of reverence due to men of their position. Compared to the passionate outbursts which the dispute evoked at the time, particularly from the pen of St Bernard, the Vita’s account of these years is a model of discretion and sobriety. Similarly, there is no hint here (in contrast to William of Newburgh, for instance) that William’s death was anything other than a natural occurrence, and there are only two stories in William’s lifetime which pretend to the miraculous. The first concerns William’s supernatural knowledge of his opponents’ deaths in 1153, which will open the way to his final, successful trip to Rome. This is also the only occasion when the author attempts any kind of dialogue, albeit of minimal extent.125 The story most likely derives from Winchester sources. The second is the miracle of Ouse bridge.126 For the rest, the first half of the Vita, though scattered with biblical quotations and allusions in the normal way, largely eschews pious tales. The longer second half of the Vita is devoted to the posthumous miracles, some of which have already been discussed. We now need to consider their treatment by the author of the Vita. Table 2 presents a digest of the miracle stories. They are numbered in the order in which they appear in the Vita, using Roman numerals to avoid confusion with the Arabic numbering of the stories in the Miracula, which are listed (where relevant) in the last column. In the Harley manuscript, the second half of the Vita (unlike the first) is subdivided into a number of sections a page or two in length by rubricated headings. Although most sections contain more than one miracle, the rubrics refer to the one immediately following, except for the general rubric De paralyticis curatis before no. xiv, which refers to more than one story.127 The miracles are recounted at varying length: no. i occupies two whole pages, nos xxiv, xxv and xxvi cover a page or more, nos vi, xvi and xviii take half a page, while the rest are narrated more briefly, sometimes in a single sentence (nos ix, xvii,xxi, xxiii and xxvii). Most recount a single incident, but there are some which group together several similar cures (nos vii, viii, ix, xv, xvii, xxi). The treatment of the miracles is therefore rather uneven, but the style of writing is similar throughout. The miracles are ordered chronologically, at least to start with, although this is not made explicit. No. i, the story of the fire which damaged the Minster and the tomb of St William without affecting his remains, must date to the mid-1150s, as we have seen. This is followed by a series of stories (nos ii 125 126 127

Vita, pp. 273–4. Vita, pp. 275–6. Vita, p. 285.

188

Saint William Table 2. Posthumous miracles in the Vita No. (+ p. ref. in Vita)

Indications of date/time

Miracle

Source (no. in 1177 Miracula)

i (279–80)

night

William’s body untouched by fire

–

ii (281)

night of Pentecost

blind girl healed

1

iii (281)

same night

woman with stomach pains and blindness healed

4

iv (281–2)

Monday after Pentecost

crippled and lame man healed

3

v (282)

same time

deaf woman healed

5

vi (282–3)

–

woman with swollen stomach healed

7 (?)

vii (283)

–

many people with swollen bodies cured

10, 22, 28 (?)

viii (283)

–

two people blind in one eye healed

9+ ?

ix (283)

same days

eight one-eyed people cured

11, 17, + (?)

x (283–4)

Friday of the same week

blind woman with swollen stomach cured

20

xi (284)

same day

woman who had swallowed part 21 of a frog cured

xii (284)

night

deaf and dumb woman cured

16 (?)

xiii (284)

same days

blind old woman healed

30 (?)

xiv (285)

–

crippled and dumb man healed

29 (?)

xv (285)

–

five crippled and dumb men and 2, 6, 8, 13, women cured 18, 31 (?)

xvi (285–6)

night/day

man tormented by Ethiopian delivered

xvii (286)

–

numerous people delivered from – demons and madness

–

xviii (286–7) –

boy with paralysed hand healed

–

xix (287)

–

old man contracted into the shape of a ball healed

–

xx (287)

night

– poor man with paralysed arm and finger-nails growing into his flesh cured

xxi (287)

–

countless lame people healed

–

xxii (287–8)

–

woman deformed by leprosy healed

–

189

St William of York xxiii (288)

Feast of the another leper cured Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

–

xxiv (288–9) –

boy from outside York who died – of a fever brought back to life

xxv (289–90) –

unjustly accused man blinded and mutilated in duel is healed

37

xxvi (290–1) –

York boy drowned in well is brought back to life

–

xxvii (291)

fisherman’s boy drowned in the Ouse brought back to life

–

–

to probably xv) which are based on the Pentecost miracles of 1177. The author has selected some of the stories for individual treatment; others he has grouped together by categories of illness, introducing them with rhetorical flourishes such as: Quid currerem per singulos? (‘Why run through them individually?’) or Si enim hydropicorum ibidem curatorum singula miracula prosequerer, praesenti non esset modus in pagina (‘For if I were to set out the individual miracles of those healed there of dropsy, there would be no limit to the present text’). Even when telling a story at length, he has systematically removed all references to the names of individuals, whether sufferers or witnesses, and omitted any mention of their geographical origins. On the other hand, he does incorporate certain temporal references which link the stories to the 1177 Miracula. He nowhere gives the year, but the story of the blind girl which opens the series takes place, as in the 1177 miracles, at Pentecost (no. ii = Miracula no. 1). Thereafter, the majority of the stories down to no. xiii include references to the day of the week or the time of the day, just as in the Miracula. The order of the miracles in the Vita is broadly similar to that in the Miracula, though not identical. Nor can every one of the stories in the Vita be precisely matched to one in the Miracula: the omission of many of the individual details and the similarity of many of the cures, combined with the flowery style of writing, leave some uncertainty. There can, however, be no doubt, for instance, about the blind girl who had a vision of St William (no. ii = Miracula no. 1), or the woman poisoned by bread contaminated by a frog (no. xi = Miracula no. 21). In a few points the Vita diverges from the version in the Miracula, such as the remarkable number of one-eyed people cured (nos viii–ix). These differences could result from corruptions to the texts in the course of their transmission – the text of the Miracula, in particular, having come down to us from a seventeenth-century transcription of a late medieval copy of a lost exemplar of much earlier date.128 Or they

128

See above, n. 7.

190

Saint William could indicate that the versions of the 1177 miracles in the Vita were based on a variant text, or on a closely similar oral tradition, rather than the known text of the Miracula. Or it may be that the author of the Vita was simply not concerned to follow the text of the Miracula in pedantic detail. What is not in doubt is that he has written the stories up in his own way. The Vita does not replicate the Trinitarian structure of the 1177 miracles as told in the Miracula;129 rather, it incorporates them into a larger structure. The remaining miracle stories presumably post-date 1177. The only one for which there is independent evidence is the story of the unjustly accused man defeated in the duel (no. xxv), which we also know as the story of Ralph and Besing from the Miracula (no. 37). If the post-1177 miracles are in chronological order, then nos xvi to xxiv date to the years 1177 to 1208, and the final two miracles (nos xxvi–xxvii) date to after the duel of Ralph and Besing in 1208. Or it may be that the author has arranged the post-1177 miracles according to different criteria. I have already suggested that the surviving conclusion to the Vita represents an abbreviation of the story of the drowned boy, and that this would have been followed by some kind of final doxology. There is a deliberate build-up to a final climax, with the four most dramatic miracles at the end – the story of Ralph and Besing and the three dead children brought back to life. More than that, the healing miracles in their totality implicitly recall a key passage in the gospels, where John the Baptist’s disciples came to Jesus and asked if he was the One who was to come. As St Luke tells the story (Luke 7.21–3): In that same hour, he cured many of their diseases, and hurts, and evil spirits: and to many that were blind he gave sight. And answering, he said to them: ‘Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are made clean, the deaf hear, and dead rise again, to the poor the gospel is preached.’

Just as the reader of the gospels is expected to recognise in this passage the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecy of Isaiah 35.5–6, so the reader of the Vita is expected to see in the miracles a revelation of the Christlike power of St William. And now we can see why the author of the Vita changed the order of some of the 1177 miracles: he reversed the order of Miracula nos 4 and 3 (= Vita nos iii and iv) so that they followed the biblical order – first the blind (Vita nos ii and iii), and then the lame (no. iv). These are followed by the deaf (no. v), since there were no lepers among the 1177 miracles. But the post-1177 miracles make up a full set with the addition of demoniacs, lepers and the dead raised to life. In the lost concluding sentences, we may surmise, there would have been an allusion to the good news revealed to the world through the miracles, thus completing the Christological pattern revealed in St William. 129

See above.

191

St William of York The qualities of the Vita Sancti Willelmi are not such as to recommend it to the modern reader. It has none of the memorable incidents of the early Lives of St Cuthbert; it lacks the intimate atmosphere of Walter Daniel’s Life of Aelred; it cannot compare with the first-hand knowledge and characterisation of Adam of Eynsham’s Life of St Hugh of Lincoln.130 The narrative of William’s life passes rapidly over the years which have attracted most critical attention, and is silent on the details of the many disputes which have fascinated modern scholars. But it serves little purpose to criticise the Vita for failing to achieve something which it has not attempted to do. The Vita has a hagiographical structure and a didactic intent based on a particular theological understanding. All the same, the account of William’s life is notable for its sobriety and restraint, and the modesty of its invention. Everything suggests that its date of composition can hardly have been much later than the 1220s; but to understand its purpose more fully we need to examine the process leading up to William’s formal canonisation.

The papal canonisation of 1226 The canonisation of William of York perfectly illustrates the changes in canonisation procedures which were taking place in the western church in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries – changes which themselves reflected evolving notions of authority and ecclesiology. According to ancient church tradition, the authority to canonise a saint and enter his feast-day in the church calendar resided with the local church in the person of the diocesan bishop. Whether or not Archbishop Roger of Pont l’Évêque formally promulgated the cult of St William, the evidence already presented makes abundantly clear that he was acknowledged as a saint following the miracles of 1177, and not just in the north, but also at the heart of two of the most senior dioceses in the southern province, Canterbury and Winchester. But it was at just this period that the idea was taking root in Rome and beginning to be propagated abroad that the authority to canonise a saint rested with the pope, and the pope alone. This idea was firmly established in the collective mind of the papal curia by the early thirteenth century, and the canonisation of 1226 represents the formal approval of the central authority of the Catholic church. But canonisation does not make a saint: it merely recognises in a public and authoritative manner the sanctity of the individual concerned. William of York, according to all the reference books, was canonised in 1226.131 But it would be more exact to say that he was canonised twice, 130

131

Two Lives of St Cuthbert, ed. B. Colgrave (Cambridge, 1940); Walter Daniel, Life of Ailred; The Life of St Hugh of Lincoln, 2 vols, ed. D. L. Douie and H. Farmer, Nelson Medieval Texts (London, 1961–2). See n. 1 for references.

192

Saint William according to two different procedures: firstly following the miracles of 1177, according to the ancient tradition of canonisation by the local church, and secondly in 1226, in accordance with the new doctrine of exclusively papal canonisation. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries it became increasingly common, in line with the centralising tendency of church administration generally, to seek papal ratification for the canonisation of new saints, as a means of enhancing their prestige and international standing.132 But it was not until the reign of the first of the great canonist popes, Alexander III (1159–81) that the notion first emerged that canonisation was reserved to the pope. In 1171 x 1172 Alexander III wrote a long letter to the king of Sweden in which, among other matters, he declared that it was not permitted publicly to venerate a new saint without the authority of the church of Rome. There is some doubt as to whether Alexander III intended this as a general statement of principle, or as a response to a particular set of circumstances: the Swedish church was still young and was in danger of bringing itself into disrepute, because the individual concerned was said to have been killed while drunk! Whatever Alexander III’s intentions, it is clear that the papacy in the late twelfth century was becoming increasingly involved in the procedures of canonisation across the western church. By the time of Innocent III (1198–1216), it was taken for granted, at the papal curia at least, that canonisation was a matter for the pope, and this centralising view was thereafter propagated with increasing conviction in individual canonisation processes and in collections of and commentaries on canon law. And it was accompanied by a gradual standardisation of procedures. So the development of the cult of St William coincided with the emergence of the new doctrine of papal exclusivity in the matter of canonisation. Alexander III canonised two English saints: St Edward the Confessor in 1161 and St Thomas Becket in 1173. The cult of St Edward had already been established at Westminster for some decades; but the political value of a royal saint would be greatly enhanced by his public recognition at the highest international forum. Nor was his acceptance by the pope unconnected to the fact that in 1160 Henry II had decided to back Alexander III’s claim to the papacy rather than his rival’s.133 The papal canonisation had as much to do with international politics as ecclesiological doctrine. The case of Thomas Becket likewise involved high political calculation. The papacy had been dragged into the dispute between Henry II and Becket some years before the archbishop’s dramatic demise. His death was an immediate international cause célèbre, the papacy could hardly stand aloof, and for the proponents of 132

133

For much of what follows, I am dependent on Kemp, Canonization and Authority, esp. pp. 82–106. The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster, ed. F. Barlow, Nelson Medieval Texts (London, 1962), pp. 112–33, at pp. 131–2; Warren, Henry II, pp. 445–6.

193

St William of York his cause a papal canonisation offered the chance of maximum publicity. So there were powerful motives on all sides in favour of a formal canonisation by the pope, irrespective of the fact that Becket’s canonisation was proclaimed shortly after the first (and ambiguous) written formulation of the exclusive papal right to canonisation in Alexander III’s letter to the king of Sweden. By any reckoning, a papal canonisation within three years of death was a rapid result. But even so there was considerable impatience at the delay in England, where a cult of the martyr had sprung up almost over night. And there were differing opinions as to whether it was permissible to venerate Thomas as a martyr in the mass and in public prayers prior to papal authorisation.134 This is very revealing of attitudes in England in the years immediately preceding William’s revelation as a saint in the miracles of 1177. Archbishop Roger of Pont l’Évêque had consistently opposed Becket during his lifetime; he was also uncompromising in upholding the rights of the see of York vis-à-vis Canterbury in the matter of the primacy, even if it meant coming to blows in public.135 If Canterbury took the papal route to canonising his enemy Becket, this may merely have reinforced Roger in his determination to take the traditional, episcopal route to the canonisation of York’s own archbishop-saint. By the thirteenth century, however, the papal view of canonisation increasingly held sway, and the English church was not slow to put forward its candidates to Innocent III and his successors on the throne of Peter. There were four English canonisations within twenty-five years. Gilbert of Sempringham (1202) and Wulfstan of Worcester (1203) were followed by Hugh of Lincoln (1220) and William of York (1226).136 Gilbert, Wulfstan and Hugh were all members of the religious orders; they were also all from the province of Canterbury. Not that the province of York had lacked monastic figures in this period who were considered to be saints. Aelred of Rievaulx, Waltheof, Robert of Newminster, and (slightly later) Robert of Knaresborough (†1218) were all the subject of local veneration, and each had a Vita composed in his honour.137 Yet none of them was presented to the pope for canonisation. The first three were Cistercians, and it could be said that the Cistercians may not have wished to encourage a public cult; this, however, is contradicted by the case of the hermit Robert of Knaresborough, whom the monks of Fountains tried to appropriate for themselves. And neither was Godric of Finchale 134 135

136

137

Kemp, Canonization and Authority, pp. 86–9. Roger of Howden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, I, 112–13; Roger of Howden II, 92–3; Haines, ‘Canterbury versus York’, pp. 78–81; EEA XX, liv–lviii. Kemp, Canonization and Authority, pp. 176–7; The Book of St Gilbert, ed. R. Foreville, OMT (Oxford, 1987); D. H. Farmer, ‘The Cult and Canonization of St Hugh’, in St Hugh of Lincoln, ed. H. Mayr-Harting (Oxford, 1987), pp. 75–87. Walter Daniel, Life of Ailred; Life of Waltheof, by Jocelin of Furness; ‘Vita S. Roberti Novi Monasterii Abbatis’, ed. P. Grosjean, Analecta Bollandiana 56 (1936), 334–60; ‘Vitae S. Roberti Knaresburgensis’, ed. P. Grosjean, Analecta Bollandiana 57 (1939), 364–400.

194

Saint William canonised by the pope, even though the monks of Durham never missed a chance to enhance and promote the sanctity and reputation of the church of Durham, even to the point of producing forged documents when it suited them.138 It would seem that the doubts concerning the necessity of papal canonisation, which had been raised in the case of Thomas Becket, persisted rather longer in the northern province. The issue of clerical celibacy shows how long it could take for decisions taken at the Roman curia to be implemented further afield, and on the issue of canonisation the northern province seems to have shown a characteristic indifference to novelties imposed from afar. William was unique among these northern saints in having his status confirmed by the papacy by means of a formal canonisation. The decision to promote his cause at Rome can be attributed to changed circumstances and new personnel at York. The election of Archbishop Walter de Gray in 1215 inaugurated a new era in the life of the Minster. Decisive leadership had been lacking since the death of Archbishop Roger of Pont l’Évêque in 1181. An eight-year vacancy had been finally ended by the appointment of Geoffrey Plantagenet, who openly avowed his preference for hunting and hawking over church affairs. There was continuing conflict between the archbishop and the chapter until 1207, when he went into exile.139 The Interdict following immediately thereafter threw the church into further confusion, followed by another vacancy of three years until de Gray’s election. De Gray was a man of a very different stamp from his predecessors. The first archbishop of York to have been educated at one of the new universities, he brought with him both the authority and the experience of a former chancellor of the realm. By 1220, de Gray had been able to appoint a new dean to replace Hamo, who had been a canon of York since the early 1170s and was thus a link with the era of the 1177 miracles. The new dean, Roger de Insula, like many of de Gray’s appointees to the chapter, was also a university graduate. With the support of his own men, the archbishop was able to embark on extensive reforms to the Minster and the diocese, which were to transform the church of York by the end of his exceptionally long reign in 1255. A formidable administrator and organiser, de Gray has been described as one of the leading reformist bishops of the thirteenth century.140 There can be little doubt that it was de Gray and the like-minded men whom he gathered around him on the cathedral chapter who decided to pursue the cause of William’s formal canonisation at Rome. By their education, background and experience, they would have been much more attuned to the latest ways of thinking emanating from the papacy, particularly in the 138

139 140

Reginald of Durham, Libellus de Vita et Miraculis S. Godrici; Scammell, Puiset, pp. 134–5 and 300–7. D. L. Douie, Archbishop Geoffrey Plantagenet and the Chapter of York (York, 1960). R. B. Dobson, ‘The Later Middle Ages 1215–1500’, in A History of York Minster, ed. Aylmer and Cant, pp. 44–109, at pp. 46–52.

195

St William of York aftermath of the fourth Lateran council. The process by which William had come to be venerated as a saint would no longer have seemed adequate, as it had to the old guard, and his equivocal or inferior status as a saint would have been reinforced by the papal canonisation of St Hugh of Lincoln in 1220, and by the magnificent ceremony of translation of the relics of St Thomas Becket at Canterbury in the same year. In 1177 papal canonisation was not a serious issue; by 1220 the lack of it had come to be seen as problematic. And whereas it may not have mattered so much with Aelred or the other recent saints from the monastic orders, for the mother church of the northern province any hint of inferiority to Canterbury was unacceptable. International recognition and equality of status through a papal canonisation were essential.

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view the image on this page please refer to the printed version of this book.

Fig. 22 Engraving by Joseph Halfpenny of St William’s Chapel on Ouse bridge, showing the early-thirteenth-century east front.

Within a few years there are signs of an active revival of interest in St William. There was a sudden burst of activity around the chapel on Ouse bridge. In 1223, Pope Honorius III wrote to a certain B., the rector of the chapel on Ouse bridge, taking him and his possessions under papal protection, and in particular the chapel itself with its appurtenances. Anyone infringing his rights was threatened with the indignation of Almighty God

196

Saint William and Sts Peter and Paul.141 If Honorius does not describe it as St William’s chapel, that was probably because William’s canonisation process was still pending at Rome. What prompted this recourse to papal protection is not known, but sooner or later questions were bound to be raised about the chapel’s status. Suspended as it was in the air above the river, did it belong to the parish of the nearest piece of terra firma, namely St John Ouse Bridge, or not? Even if it did, the relationship of the chapel to the parish church would still need to be defined. The church of St John belonged to the Minster,142 but in the event the chapel of St William remained an independent chapel. In 1228, letters of protection were issued by the king for those who were collecting money for Ouse bridge and the chapel of St William.143 This is the first documented reference to the chapel by this name. Five years later, building work was in progress. Archbishop de Gray issued an indulgence in support of repairs to the bridge, and in the same year he obtained from Henry III a grant of thirteen oaks in the forest of Knaresborough ad quandam capellam construendam apud Eboracum (‘for the construction of a chapel at York’).144 Taken together, these documents may be interpreted to refer to a reconstruction of St William’s chapel. Drawings of the structure prior to its demolition indicate that a thirteenth-century doorway was cut through the late twelfthcentury work in the end wall (Fig. 20), and the north and south arcades and the east wall with its triple-lancet window were rebuilt in the Early English style (Fig. 22). A date of c. 1230 would fit very well.145 The site of William’s first miracle was a natural focus of attention, but the tomb in the Minster was of far greater importance. In 1223, according to Matthew Paris, oil once again flowed from his tomb,146 and it is in the same year of 1223 that the papal canonisation process first comes into view with the establishment of a commission of enquiry by Pope Honorius III. By the 1220s the procedures for canonisation were becoming increasingly standardised, and William’s cause, so far as the evidence goes, seems to have followed the normal procedures.147 Walter de Gray and the dean and chapter of York 141

142 143 144

145

146

147

HCY III, 116 no. LXXXIV = York Memorandum Book, II, ed. M. Sellers, SS 125 (Durham, 1915), p. 68. VCH York, pp. 284–5. Calendar of Patent Rolls 1225–32 (London, 1903), pp. 174–5. The Register or Rolls of Walter Gray, ed. J. Raine, SS 56 (Durham, 1872), pp. 60–1, no. CCLVIII. Calendar of the Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, 1231–4 (London, 1905), p. 238. This has been taken to refer to the chapel of the archbishop’s palace, or possibly one of the chapels in the Minster of this period (E. A. Gee, ‘Architectural History until 1290’ in A History of York Minster, ed. Aylmer and Cant, pp. 111–48, at p. 131), but the date and the wording suggest St William’s chapel on Ouse bridge. RCHM York, III, 48–50; Wilson and Mee, ‘The Fairest Arch’, passim for the graphic evidence, but with a less plausible interpretation of the building phases. Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, 7 vols, ed. H. Richmond, RS (London, 1872–83), III, 77. Kemp, Canonization and Authority, pp. 100–6.

197

St William of York Minster, supported by several other senior northern ecclesiastics whose names are not specified, opened their campaign by writing several letters to the pope requesting that William be placed in the catalogue of the saints. Honorius responded on 5 April 1223 by writing to the bishop of Ely, to Abbot John III of Fountains and to Abbot William III of Rievaulx asking them to form a commission of enquiry into William’s life and miracles.148 John, bishop of Ely, had previously served on the commission of investigation into the canonisation of St Hugh of Lincoln.149 Before moving to Ely, he had been abbot of Fountains, so the commissioners were all Cistercians. Given the implacable opposition which had existed between the supporters of William fitzHerbert and the Cistercians at the time of the election dispute, reaching its nadir in the destruction of Fountains Abbey by fire, this might be thought a distinctly unsympathetic choice of commissioners. On the other hand, the Fountains chronicle written in the early thirteenth century by Hugh of Kirkstall betrays no particular animosity towards William.150 More relevant, perhaps, is the fact that the Cistercians notoriously had suffered extreme deprivations at the hands of King John during the Interdict. The order as a whole had been fined heavily, and the community at Meaux (which William had visited in its infancy) had even had to abandon its monastery and take refuge with the monks of St Mary’s Abbey at York.151 If the miracle stories of Ralph and Besing and of the woman who underwent trial by ordeal can be interpreted as demonstrations of divine justice triumphing over the oppressive injustices of the regime of King John, then both the papacy, which imposed the Interdict, and the Cistercians, who suffered so harshly as a consequence, had good reason to look favourably upon a saint who had so publicly demonstrated the righteousness of the church in the face of tyranny. The church was vindicating its own. The three Cistercians, at any rate, carried out their commission promptly, for a year later, on 11 April 1224, Honorius wrote again with his response to their report. He says that he has read carefully their submission super miraculis beati Guillelmi (‘on the miracles of the Blessed William’; his life is not mentioned), but that it is insufficient. Although they have shown that he worked many great miracles, and have named witnesses to the miracles, they have not reported the actual testimony of the witnesses. So he asks them either to send him under their seal by reliable messengers verbatim reports of 148

149

150 151

Memorials of Fountains, I, 173–4, no. xv = Calendar of Papal Registers I, A.D. 1198–1304, pp. 90–1. D. Knowles, C. N. L. Brooke and V. C. M. London, comp., The Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales, I, 940–1216, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 133, 140 and 272; D. M. Smith and V. C. M. London, comp., The Heads of Religious Houses England and Wales, II, 1216–1377 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 279–80 and 302. Farmer, ‘Cult of St Hugh’, p. 78. Hugh of Kirkstall, Narratio de Fundatione, pp. 1–129. Knowles, Monastic Order, pp. 366–70.

198

Saint William the witnesses which they already have, or, if necessary, to reopen their enquiries and to send him the depositions of the individual witnesses in full. Similar letters were sent to the archbishop and the dean and chapter, adding that they should not take the delay amiss.152 In fact, delays of this kind were by no means uncommon, and happened during the preliminary procedures for both Gilbert of Sempringham and, subsequently, Edmund of Abingdon. The papal curia had by this date decided that second-hand testimony was insufficient, and that the first-hand evidence of the witnesses to miracles should be presented to the curia. In the case of St Edmund considerable resentment was caused by asking the witnesses to journey to Rome in person.153 Exactly what happened next we do not know. Writing from Rome on 11 April 1224, Honorius was apparently unaware that William of Rievaulx had died on 1 February 1224. John, bishop of Ely, died the following year on 6 May,154 so it was perhaps only Abbot John of Fountains who reported back to the pope with the testimony of the witnesses. At any rate, Honorius must have been satisfied with whatever response he received, for on 18 March 1226 he issued the formal bull of canonisation.155 Both sanctity of life and miracles were required for canonisation, but in William’s case the emphasis was placed firmly upon the posthumous miracles. By the time of the canonisation of St Edmund of Abingdon much more emphasis was placed on the evidence of a holy life. It was perhaps fortunate for William that his canonisation process was completed when it was, before St Francis (†1226, canonised 1228) and St Dominic (†1221, canonised 1234) brought altogether new standards to the concept of a holy life. The bull of canonisation announces that William has been inscribed in the catalogue of the saints, ordains the celebration of his feast-day and grants an indulgence of forty days for all who devoutly visit the church of York at the time of his feast. On its reception at York, the dean and chapter wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, and almost all the bishops in England, asking them to inscribe St William in the liturgical calendars of their dioceses. Stephen Langton wrote back on 24 June 1226 offering indulgences of twenty days to those who visited the Minster within

152

153

154

155

Memorials of Fountains, I, 174–5, no. xvi (printing G. Bernardi in error for E. Bernardi) = Calendar of Papal Registers I, A.D. 1198–1304, p. 96. Kemp, Canonization and Authority, p. 105; Lawrence, St Edmund, pp. 7–30; The Life of St Edmund by Matthew Paris, trans. and ed. C. H. Lawrence (Stroud, 1996), pp. 90–9. Knowles et al., Heads of Religious Houses, I, 140, and Smith and London, Heads of Religious Houses, II, 302, were uncertain whether Abbot William died on 1 February 1223 or 1224. In view of this papal letter, the latter is presumably correct. Had he died in February 1223, news would have reached Rome by April 1224. See n. 1. J. E. Sayers, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227) (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 177–80 suggests that the canonisation may have been facilitated by the appointment of a number of Italians to York prebends in the preceding years.

199

St William of York the octave of the feast of St William. The bishops of Rochester, London and Lincoln and the archbishops of Ardfert and Dublin did likewise, offering indulgences of between seven and twenty days.156 How then does the Vita relate to the canonisation process? As we have seen, it is the only extant source to record all of the miracles mentioned in the bull of canonisation, and the second half of the Vita culminates with four of the most remarkable of the miracles mentioned by Honorius – the story of Ralph and Besing and the three people brought back to life. But it does not contain any of the eye-witness testimony demanded by the pope, nor does it include the names of the people concerned, as was the case with the report of the Cistercian commissioners. Indeed, as already noted, the Vita has deliberately excluded any names from the miracle stories, even though we know from the texts in the Miracula that many such names were recorded. An interesting comparison is provided by the Life of Aelred. Walter Daniel omitted names from the miracle stories in the Life. When challenged by sceptical readers, he responded that it was not usual to include names of sources in saints’ Lives, but he nonetheless provided a list of named witnesses.157 The purpose of a Vita, in fact, was not to convince the doubters; it was to instruct and edify the faithful, and in many cases it was used to provide liturgical readings for the feast-day of the saint concerned. Individual names were unnecessary for the purposes of edification, and positively inappropriate for liturgical use. At the same time, it was the absence of names and first-hand testimony which rendered the Vita Sancti Willelmi inappropriate – or at any rate insufficient – for the quasi-judicial investigation which preceded the canonisation. But this does not necessarily mean that the writing of the Vita was divorced from the canonisation process. The end result of the process was the proclamation of William’s feast-day, and the proper celebration of his feast-day required liturgical readings which we know from the Breviary were in fact provided from the Vita. It is very likely that such a function was intended from the outset. The Vita, in other words, belongs to the process of canonisation in a broader sense, rather than to the narrower investigative procedure which resulted in the issuing of the papal bull. An illuminating parallel is the slightly later case of St Edmund of Abingdon, which is much better documented. The earliest Vita of St Edmund was written at the same time as evidence was being collated by the commission of enquiry in the 1240s. It contains material which is closely related to some of the submissions made to the commissioners. And it has been attributed to Eustace of Canterbury, who played a key role in promoting the cause of

156

157

HCY III, 133–5 nos XCVI–VII. The archbishop of Canterbury is wrongly named Simon by the editor. See also Browne, History of the Metropolitan Church of St Peter, York, I, 54–5. Walter Daniel, Life of Ailred, p. 67.

200

Saint William St Edmund.158 The Vita Sancti Willelmi probably has a similar relationship to the canonisation process of St William. It can be understood as one product, but not the only product of the process of papal canonisation. This being so, it matters little whether the Vita was actually begun, continued and ended before 18 March 1226, or not. All the evidence suggests that it was produced as part of the formal canonisation process initiated by the new regime at York Minster under Archbishop de Gray. It therefore almost certainly belongs to the third decade of the thirteenth century – let us say, c. 1225. If we were to hazard a guess as to the author of the Vita, there is one name which suggests itself as a probable candidate. The first report of the commission of enquiry was presented to the pope in 1224 by Sampson, archdeacon of York, and Elias Bernard, a canon of York, together with two procurators of the archbishop and the dean and chapter. Two years later, in his bull of canonisation, Honorius reports that the case on behalf of St William had been pressed by letters from the archbishop and the dean and chapter, and in person by Master G. the penitentiary, by Master Elias Bernard and by Laurence of Aquileia, canons.159 The name of Elias Bernard occurs again in 1230, when he established a chantry at the altar of St William which he had recently founded in the Minster.160 A few years later during another visit to Rome he had the chantry foundation approved by Pope Gregory IX.161 Elias Bernard was one of the university-educated canons appointed by Walter de Gray.162 He would have had no previous knowledge of the life or miracles of St William, but he should have been capable of writing the rhetorical if rather formulaic Latin characteristic of the Vita. He was perhaps to St William what Eustace of Canterbury was to St Edmund – a promoter of his cause, and the author of his Vita, as well as the founder of an altar in his honour. Perhaps it was he who not merely wrote the Vita, but adapted it for use in the Breviary and wrote the liturgical material for the feast of St William. However this may be, the liturgical texts, supplemented in due course by additional material relating to William’s translation in 1284 and his later miracles,163 were the principal means of transmitting the memory of St William at York until the destruction of his shrine and the suppression of his cult at the Reformation.

158 159 160

161

162 163

Lawrence, St Edmund, pp. 30–47. See references in nn. 152 and 1. HCY III, 138–41, no. CI; translation in Browne, History of the Metropolitan Church of St Peter, York, I, 55. HCY III, 141–2, no. CII, wrongly dated 24 January 1230 instead of 1237, see Calendar of Papal Registers I, A.D. 1198–1304, p. 159 = Les Registres de Grégoire IX, ed. L. Auvray, 4 vols (Paris, 1896–1955), II, 542–3, no. 3464. Greenway, Fasti, p. 120. Summary accounts of the later cult of St William in Wilson, The Shrines of St William and French, York Minster,The St William Window, pp. 6–9. I hope to return to this in due course.

201

Epilogue

The papal canonisation was the high point of William’s international reputation. The universal proclamation of his sanctity was greeted by an almost universal lack of interest. A few months later Francis of Assisi died. The rapid and international spread of his cult, like that of St Dominic, was assisted by the order which he founded and responded to the mood of the times. By contrast, William was a conventional figure from the past with no popular appeal and no institutional support outside York. The generation of those who remembered him finally passed away around the time of his canonisation. The disputes of the 1140s which had aroused such passions both locally and internationally were now of remote interest. The fame of his miracles scarcely spread beyond the boundaries of the province of York. His feast-day was entered into the calendar of the church of York, but even at St Mary’s Abbey, York, it was thirty years before he was accorded an annual liturgical commemoration, and only then at the instigation of an ambitious new abbot who originated from elsewhere.1 In 1284 the relics of St William in York Minster were translated in the presence of Edward I, and in the early fourteenth century a splendid new tomb-shrine was constructed at the east end of the nave.2 The cult was sustained throughout the years at the Minster, but William’s reputation was limited, the later history of his cult essentially a local affair beyond the purview of the present study. In the fifteenth century the cult of St William underwent something of a national revival, being promoted for political reasons by clerical supporters of the Lancastrians. The most striking memorial of this somewhat unexpected renewal of interest in the twelfth-century archbishop is the immense St William window in York Minster.3 Created in about 1415, its one hundred panels illustrating the life and miracles of William fitzHerbert constitute one of the largest pictorial cycles of the life of a saint ever attempted. The current restoration of the damaged panels of glass is bringing vividly back to life one of the most ambitious and unusual stained glass windows to have survived from medieval Europe. St William still has the capacity to surprise!

1

2 3

The Chronicle of St Mary’s Abbey, York, ed. H. H. E. Craster and M. E. Thornton, SS 148 (Durham, 1934), p. 8. Wilson, The Shrines of St William. Its pre-restoration state is shown in French, York Minster, The St William Window. Excellent post-restoration colour photographs of the panels are being made available on-line by the Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi (cvma.ac.uk).

202

APPENDIX A

The Family and Estates of Herbert the Chamberlain

Much of what we can discern about William fitzHerbert’s life and career revolves around his family connections. His father, Herbert the Chamberlain, was instrumental in securing his appointment to the treasurership at York, and William maintained links with other members of his family until the end of his life. The churches which he acquired derived from his family’s estates, and he probably maintained an interest in some of the family properties, particularly those in Yorkshire, throughout his life. The evidence of direct relevance to William himself has been discussed at appropriate points in the preceding chapters, but much of the evidence only makes sense in the light of occasional references in widely dispersed documents, often of much later date. By assembling it into some sort of coherent order, it has proved possible to illuminate the family and the estates of one of the most successful of the royal officials at the court of the Norman kings, and their descent. I shall consider firstly Herbert the Chamberlain’s family tree (Genealogical Tables 1–3), and secondly his estates. William’s father, Herbert, was chamberlain to William the Conqueror, William Rufus and Henry I, and his career has been outlined above.1 But there has been no consensus about his origins. John of Hexham states in passing that William fitzHerbert was a kinsman of King Roger of Sicily.2 John was writing only about a decade after William’s death, before the emergence of the cult of St William, and is considered a generally reliable witness. William of Newburgh, another well-informed northern writer of the end of the twelfth century, says that William was of noble extraction.3 Neither author, however, expatiates further on his family. The early thirteenthcentury Vita of St William asserts that he was the son of the most powerful and energetic Count Herbert,4 and very similar wording is to be found in two versions of the later-fourteenth-century continuation of the York Chronica Pontificum attributed to Thomas Stubbs.5 Herbert, however, was certainly not

1 2 3 4

5

See Chapters One and Two. John of Hexham, pp. 317–18. Secundum carnem nobilis, William of Newburgh I, xvii and 55. Erat enim filius strenuissimi comitis Herberti, viri secundum caducos hujus mundi honores potentissimi, Vita, p. 270. Chronica Pontificum, p. 389.

203

St William of York a count, and William of Malmesbury, in his account of Herbert the Chamberlain’s attempt on Henry I’s life, states that the ringleader (whom he does not name) was a man of low birth who rose to fame in the royal treasury.6 Such eminent authorities as Bilson and Hollister have dismissed the York evidence as worthless hagiographical invention.7 But we have seen that the Vita cannot be dismissed out of hand as a historical source, so the information it provides must be treated on its own merits. R. L. Poole argued that the York sources preserved some reliable traditions concerning William’s parentage, and his conclusions have been accepted by Knowles and others. Poole suggested that Herbert the Chamberlain, although not himself a count, was the son of a count, namely Herbert II, count of Maine.8 Count Herbert succeeded to the title at a tender age on the death of his father in 1051. His minority placed him in a very exposed position and in 1061, on his mother’s advice, he came to an arrangement with Duke William of Normandy. It was agreed that he should marry one of William’s daughters, while his sister Margaret should marry William’s eldest son, Robert. In the event of Herbert dying without heir, the county of Maine would pass to Duke William or to Robert. ‘Such an arrangement could not fail to be fatal to the strongest constitution’, as G. H. White trenchantly put it,9 and both Count Herbert and his sister died within a year or two, unmarried and heirless. Poole hypothesised that Count Herbert left an illegitimate infant son, who was called Herbert after his father and was brought up under the guardianship of Duke William. In due course, after the Conquest, William gave him some modest lands and appointed him chamberlain. This would give a plausible biography for Herbert the Chamberlain: born within a year or two either side of 1060; appointed chamberlain c. 1085 at the age of about 25; blinded and castrated after his attempt on Henry I’s life in 1118; died a year or two later at the age of about 60.10 His son and heir, Herbert fitzHerbert, could have been born in the early to mid-1080s, and was still alive in 1148.11 William, probably the second son, could have been born in the mid to late 1080s. He would then 6 7

8

9

10 11

William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, I, 744–5. Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe’, pp. 66–7; Hollister, ‘Origins of the English Treasury’, p. 215 n. 3. Poole, ‘Appointment and Deprivation of St William’; Knowles, ‘St William’, p. 81. Discussing the sentence cited above in n. 4, Poole plausibly suggested that confusion arose from a scribal conflation of the words cam[erarii] Herberti and com[itis] Herberti. The adjective strenuissimi seems more appropriate to what we know of Herbert the Chamberlain than (as Poole suggested) the short-lived Count Herbert of Maine. The phrase viri secundum caducos hujus mundi honores potentissimi could potentially apply to either: if to Herbert the Chamberlain, it is perhaps an oblique allusion to his fall from power in 1118. For the Vita, see Chapter Five. G. H. White, ‘The Parentage of Herbert the Chamberlain’, Notes and Queries 166 (1932), 439–41 and 453–5 (p. 440). See above, Chapters One and Two. See below.

204

Herbert the Chamberlain have been appointed treasurer of York Minster somewhere in his early to mid-20s, and would have been approaching 70 when he died in 1154. Thus, Poole’s conjecture that the Vita has mistakenly conflated two generations of Herberts – viz. Count Herbert II of Maine, and an illegitimate son, Herbert the Chamberlain – makes excellent sense of the family genealogy, while remaining consistent with William of Malmesbury’s remark about Herbert the Chamberlain’s low birth. Herbert the Chamberlain’s wife presents a similar set of problems. As Herbert’s widow, she is mentioned in the Pipe Roll for 1130, but it is only the Vita, followed again by both versions of Stubbs’s Chronica Pontificum, that speaks of her family.12 It claims that she was a sister of King Stephen by the name of Emma. No such sister of the king is recorded, but Poole suggested that she was an illegitimate daughter of Count Stephen of Blois and therefore a halfsister of King Stephen.13 However, as Bilson had already pointed out, this is almost impossible on chronological grounds.14 Herbert the Chamberlain’s children, as we have seen, were born probably from the early 1080s onwards. So if their mother was a half-sister of King Stephen, she must have been born thirty years or more before he was. This would also mean that William fitzHerbert died in the same year (1154) as his putative uncle, King Stephen, and seventeen years before his other putative uncle, Henry of Blois (d. 1171). However, a simple solution emerges if we postulate that Emma belonged to the previous generation. She could have been an illegitimate daughter of Theobald III, count of Blois (d. 1089/90), which would make her a half-sister of Stephen, count of Blois (d. 1102), the father of King Stephen. It is not difficult to imagine that a York author in the early thirteenth century, on learning that William fitzHerbert’s mother was a half-sister of Stephen of Blois, should assume that this meant King Stephen, when in fact it referred to his father. In short, just as Poole argued that the York Vita had conflated two generations of Herberts, father and son, so, I suggest, it has also conflated two generations of Stephens of Blois, father and son. If Emma were the illegitimate daughter of Theobald of Blois, equilibrium is restored to the family tree, and William would have belonged to the same generation as King Stephen and Henry of Blois, who would have been his cousins (Genealogical Table 1). If this is right, the two illegitimate parents of William fitzHerbert were in fact cousins of a kind. For Count Herbert of Maine had an aunt called Gersendis, who was married for a while to Count Theobald of Blois, putative father of Emma. Gersendis was therefore both the step-mother of Emma and 12 13

14

PR 1130, p. 25; Vita, p. 270; Chronica Pontificum, p. 389. Poole, ‘Appointment and Deprivation of St William’, pp. 273–6, followed for example by Davis, King Stephen 1135–54, p. 100 and F. Barlow, The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042–1216, 4th edn (London, 1988), pp. 227 and 453. Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe’, pp. 66–7.

205

St William of York the great-aunt of Herbert the Chamberlain. And it was Count Theobald and Gersendis who provided the link between William fitzHerbert and King Roger of Sicily – a distant link, but a double one.15 Count Stephen of Blois (half-brother of William’s mother Emma, according to this hypothesis) married Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror, and Adela’s brother, Robert, duke of Normandy (following his abortive engagement to Count Herbert of Maine’s ill-fated sister, Margaret) married Sibyl, daughter of Geoffrey of Conversano, who was first cousin to Roger of Sicily. So Emma could be said to have been a very distant cousin, of sorts, to King Roger. At the same time there was another connection, through Gersendis. By her third marriage to Azzo, marquess of Liguria, she bore a son, Hugh, who married another first cousin of Roger of Sicily, called Heria. Gersendis’s marriage to Azzo of Liguria also established another distant link to King Roger of Sicily, since the latter’s mother, Adelasia of Montferrat, was the daughter of Boniface, marquis of Liguria. So Herbert the Chamberlain was distantly related to King Roger in more than one way. And there was a connection in a younger generation. William fitzHerbert’s cousin, Theobald IV of Blois, had a daughter, Elizabeth, who married the son of King Roger of Sicily, Roger, duke of Apulia (d. 1149).16 Thus both Herbert and Emma could claim distant links with King Roger. To call William fitzHerbert a kinsman of Roger of Sicily, as John of Hexham did, was stretching a point, but not perhaps quite to the point of breaking. There are obvious objections to these hypotheses. They presuppose a link between Herbert the Chamberlain and Count Herbert of Maine which is undocumented, as well as the existence of an otherwise unknown half-sister of Count Stephen of Blois. White objected that if Herbert of Maine did not long survive falling into the hands of William the Conqueror, an infant son would surely have stood no chance. On the other hand, defenceless children could be useful pawns in the dynastic games played by assertive rulers. White also asserted that when John of Hexham described William fitzHerbert as a cognatus of King Roger of Sicily, this must mean a blood relative, rather than a relative by marriage. The objection fails, however, because cognatus is regularly used in medieval Latin to mean ‘relative by marriage’.17 A further objection was raised by Round. Dismissing altogether the evidence of John of Hexham, William of Newburgh and the York sources, he claimed that Herbert the Chamberlain’s wife was a daughter of Hunger, son of Odin, lord of Broad Windsor, who appears in Domesday Book. This hypothesis, 15

16

17

Poole, ‘Appointment and Deprivation of St William’, pointed out the Sicilian link, but with Emma in the wrong place, as I have argued. The connection via Adelasia of Montferrat was pointed out in John of Hexham, p. 318 n. The link via Elizabeth, wife of Duke Roger of Apulia, was noted by H. Houben, Roger II von Sizilien (Darmstadt, 1997), p. 155 n. 103. White, ‘Parentage’; R. E. Latham and D. R. Howlett, eds, Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources (Oxford, 1975–), s.v. ‘cognatus’.

206

Herbert the Chamberlain however, involves very considerable problems of its own.18 Nor is it strictly 18

J. H. Round, ‘The Weigher of the Exchequer’, English Historical Review 26 (1911), 724–7, followed by Hollister, ‘Origins of the English Treasury’, p. 215 n. 3, and see Richardson and Sayle, Governance of Medieval England, pp. 425–6. Round’s argument, in brief, is as follows. In Domesday Book Herbert the Chamberlain is listed as holding land in Hampshire at Soberton and LaRode (i.e. Rhode in nearby Selborne). The 1130 Pipe Roll records payments for lands in Hampshire held by Herbert fitzHerbert; by Robert de Venuiz, who had married a daughter of Herbert the Chamberlain; and (between these two entries) by Gervase fitzOsbert pro rehabenda terra sua quam Herbertus Camerarius habuit cum sorore patris sui (PR 1130, p. 37). The lands held by Gervase are not named, but Round was able to show that he was probably the same man as Gervase of the treasury alias Gervase de Windsor, who was ancestor of the family of Windsor of Broad Windsor (Dorset) which held Soberton in the thirteenth century (see also VCH Hampshire, III (London, 1908), 259–60). So the descent of the Soberton property from Gervase fitzOsbert to the Windsors seems assured. What then was the link between Gervase and Herbert the Chamberlain, previous tenant of the Soberton estate? Round proposed that Herbert married an unnamed daughter of Hunger, son of Odin, lord of Broad Windsor at the time of Domesday Book. This daughter would have been the sister of Osbert, father of Gervase de Windsor, and thus the aunt of Gervase. The Soberton and LaRode lands, according to Round, would have been given by Hunger, son of Odin, to the daughter on her marriage to Herbert the Chamberlain; and from her it would have reverted, by 1130, to her nephew Gervase fitzOsbert. It is a neat theory, but not without its problems. If Herbert the Chamberlain held the lands from 1086 in right of his wife, why would they not have passed to one or other of their children? Herbert’s wife was still alive at the time of the 1130 Pipe Roll (see n. 12). If the lands had been part of her dowry, one would expect her to have retained them till her death. Even if she had given up any claim to them, one would expect them to have passed to one of her own children, rather than to her nephew. Before proceeding, we may note that another part of the manor of Soberton was in the early thirteenth century held by Robert de Venuz. It had presumably been part of the dowry of Herbert the Chamberlain’s unnamed daughter who married an earlier Robert de Venuiz, he who is listed in the Pipe Roll entry for Hampshire in 1130 holding land formerly belonging to Herbert the Chamberlain (PR 1130, p. 37; VCH Hants, III, 260). It is further interesting to note that yet another part of Soberton was held in 1086 by Henry the Treasurer, who was a senior colleague of Herbert the Chamberlain in the royal treasury at that time. But in the reign of Henry III it was held of the abbey of Hyde de veteri feoffamento by one of the FitzHerberts, Herbert fitzPeter (VCH Hants, III, 261). It had presumably descended to him via the senior family line from Herbert the Chamberlain, whose links with Hyde Abbey are discussed below. So Herbert the Chamberlain had an interest in three different estates at Soberton, two of which clearly passed to his children and to their heirs. A similar descent seems most plausible for the portion of Soberton which descended to the Windsors of Broad Windsor. It may be suggested that the lands in question were given by Herbert the Chamberlain to one of his younger sons, and that it was this son who married the aunt of Gervase fitzOsbert. If they had no issue, the land could then have been contested between the FitzHerberts and Gervase, passing in the event to the latter. It may be suggested that Herbert’s son was the Arnulf who is recorded in the Liber Vitae of Hyde Abbey (see below, n. 19) – note again the Hyde link. It could also be that, through his father’s influence, he was a treasury official, perhaps indeed the ‘weigher of the

207

St William of York incompatible with the identification of Emma which has been proposed. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Herbert the Chamberlain’s wife, Emma, was indeed the daughter of a mistress of Theobald III of Blois, who was married to Hunger, son of Odin. There is one piece of evidence to add to the above. The Liber Vitae of New Minster/Hyde Abbey at Winchester includes a list of names which is believed to have been entered in the book before 1121, or perhaps before 1118. It starts with Henry I, Queen Matilda and Prince William, followed immediately by Herbertus camerarius, Arnulfus filius eius, and Emma uxor eius (‘Herbert the Chamberlain’, ‘Arnulf his son’ and ‘Emma his wife’).19 Although it is strictly speaking ambiguous whether Emma was the wife or daughter-in-law of Herbert the Chamberlain, this can be taken as contemporary confirmation of the statement in the Vita that William fitzHerbert’s mother was called Emma, and it thereby adds credence to the Vita’s claim (suitably amended) that she was a daughter of the house of Blois. Herbert the Chamberlain and Emma’s children have been the object of some confusion (Genealogical Table 2). Eyton, who published a family tree of the FitzHerberts in 1858, included among them one Stephen, son of Herbert the Chamberlain. However, Clay has shown that this Stephen was the son of another Herbert, chamberlain of the king of Scotland, who was active between c. 1136 and c. 1160.20 They are not related to our FitzHerberts. Herbert and Emma had at least five children. Their son Arnulf is known only from the New Minster/Hyde Abbey Liber Vitae, just mentioned, but he may have been a treasury official, and may have married into the family of Hunger, son of Odin.21 Two other fitzHerberts, Geoffrey and Gilbert, who appear fleetingly in association with other members of the family, are also likely to have been sons of Herbert the Chamberlain. Geoffrey fitzHerbert was present together with Herbert the Chamberlain at a court convened at

19

20

21

exchequer’ which was the serjeanty held by the Windsors of Broad Windsor in the early thirteenth century. If he died early (caught up perhaps in the imbroglio of 1118?), both the office and the lands could have passed to his wife’s nephew Gervase fitzOsbert. This solution is close to that proposed by Round, but avoids the difficulties of his hypothesis. It also means that Gervase fitzOsbert’s aunt was Herbert the Chamberlain’s daughter-in-law, not his wife, which was the starting-point for this convoluted discussion. London, British Library, MS Stowe 944, f. 24v; Liber Vitae, ed. Birch, p. 50; The Liber Vitae, ed. Keynes, f. 24v. The entry is on column 1. Column 2 also includes the entry Herbertus et omnes filii eius, and column 3 includes Emma and Herbertus. Are these different people, or duplicate entries? Eyton, Shropshire, VII, 148; EYC XI, 213–19, correcting EYC II, no. 825 n. This has not stopped some more recent authors describing Stephen as a son of Herbert the Chamberlain. Note that in EYC I, no. 32, Farrer wrongly amended the reading of the manuscript from Stephanus filius Herberti camerarii regis Scotie to regis Stephani. See n. 18.

208

Herbert the Chamberlain Winchester in 1111. He is also mentioned in the Winton Domesday survey of c. 1110, and his son Herbert fitzGeoffrey is recorded in the 1148 Winchester survey.22 Gilbert fitzHerbert witnessed a charter probably of Archbishop Thomas II (1109 x 1114) in favour of St Oswald’s, Gloucester, along with William.23 Since Herbert the Chamberlain had business concerns and property in Gloucester, it seems likely that Gilbert was another son who may have been based there. Two unnamed daughters of Herbert and Emma are recorded in the 1130 Pipe Roll holding estates in Hampshire and Berkshire which had belonged to their father. One had married William Croc, the other Robert de Venuiz, both descended from officials of William the Conqueror called Croc the huntsman and Geoffrey the marshal.24 The two most prominent children were William fitzHerbert, and Herbert fitzHerbert, who inherited the majority of the family estates and was presumably the eldest son. Herbert fitzHerbert has left fewer traces in the records than his father and brother. He apparently inherited the title of chamberlain, but seems to have kept a low profile after his father’s disgrace. He turns up in the 1140s in connection with his brother the archbishop. He attested William’s important charter of liberties for the men of Beverley dated 1143 x 1147,25 and it was probably he who was implicated in the attack on the archdeacon Walter of London in 1148.26 He married Sibyl (alias Adela or Lucy), daughter of Robert Corbet and mistress of Henry I, by whom she bore five children. Of these, the most notable were Reginald de Dunstanville, created earl of Cornwall in 1141, shortly after William’s election to the archbishopric of York; Sibyl, who married Alexander I, king of Scotland, and died suddenly in 1122; and William, who accompanied Sibyl to Scotland, and was still alive in 1187.27 22

23 24 25 26 27

RRAN II, no. 1000 = Historia Abbendonensis, pp. 170–1 (noting that he witnesses no other royal charter); Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 17, 38–9 and 125. EEA V, no. 27; see Chapter Two, nn. 25 and 26. PR 1130, pp. 37 and 125; Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe’, pp. 64–5; and see above, n. 18. EEA V, no. 86. See Chapter Three. I here follow G. H. White’s analysis of Henry I’s illegitimate children in C. E. Cokayne, The Complete Peerage, new edn, 13 vols (London, 1910–59), XI, 105–20; and see C. Given-Wilson and A. Curteis, The Royal Bastards of Medieval England (London, 1984), pp. 60–6. Recently, K. Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: The Illegitimate Children of Henry I’, Journal of Medieval History 29 (2003), 129–51, has questioned whether Sibyl, wife of Herbert fitzHerbert, was the daughter of Robert Corbet and the mother of so many illegitimate children of Henry I. However, the evidence is open to more than one interpretation. In support of the traditional view, it is worth noting that Sibyl’s oldest illegitimate son was called Robert, which fits the common pattern of eldest sons bearing their grandfather’s name. Also, the pattern of ‘locational monogamy’ identified by Thompson as characteristic of Henry I’s relationships with his mistresses would make perfect sense of a long-term relationship between the king and Sibyl, since Winchester, where the FitzHerberts were based, was one of Henry I’s most frequent places of residence. As for the children, much depends on whether they were full or half-brothers and sisters. None of this seriously affects my analysis of the

209

St William of York Sibyl Corbet had three known legitimate children by Herbert fitzHerbert. The eldest, Robert fitzHerbert, succeeded his father as chamberlain to Henry II in 1155, but died without heir in 1165.28 He was succeeded by his brother, Herbert fitzHerbert II. A third brother, Henry fitzHerbert, also occurs. Herbert fitzHerbert II inherited most of the estates which had belonged to his grandfather Herbert the Chamberlain. He is an important figure for establishing the details of the family land-holdings, but the matter is not without complications. Herbert fitzHerbert II married Lucy, daughter and co-heir of Milo, earl of Hereford. She died in 1219 x 1220. Through her, the FitzHerberts gained possession of a number of estates previously held by Earl Milo, and these need to be distinguished from the family inheritance from Herbert the Chamberlain. It was Eyton, tracing some of the West Midlands estates, who uncovered evidence that Herbert fitzHerbert II had fallen foul of Henry II and had at one point in the 1180s had his estates confiscated – though they were subsequently to be recovered.29 An inquisition held in 1211–12 in connection with land at Parham in Sussex claimed by Peter fitzHerbert (son and heir of Herbert fitzHerbert II) confirms that Henry II had indeed seized property belonging to Herbert fitzHerbert II. The jurors concluded that Peter fitzHerbert had been deprived of land nesciunt quomodo, set, ut credunt, per voluntatem domini regis Henrici (‘they know not how, but, as they believe, by the will of the lord King Henry’).30They were being economical with the truth, since there is still sufficient evidence that Herbert fitzHerbert’s fall-out with Henry II was no minor matter. Herbert fitzHerbert II’s difficulties began in the 1170s. The Pipe Roll for 1175–6 records a fine of 20 marks for failing to appear before the king’s justices. This is entered under Yorkshire. But under forest pleas for Hampshire there appears the enormous fine of 500 marks. 100 marks of this were paid immediately. The remaining 400 marks were carried forward for the next two years. Then in 1178–9 he was pardoned 300 marks, paid another 50, and carried forward the final 50 marks, which were eventually paid off in 1181–2.31 In 1177 we find two estates in Yorkshire and Hampshire which had previously belonged to the FitzHerberts being granted to other recipients by Henry II.32 In the same year Henry II offered the kingdom of Limerick to Herbert fitzHerbert, along with William, brother of Earl Reginald of

28

29 30

31

32

FitzHerbert family. Richardson and Sayle, Governance of Medieval England, pp. 426–8, on the descent of the title in the family. Eyton, Shropshire, VII, 150–2. CRR VI, 176–7, 287 and 296, where the depositions also explicitly set out Peter fitzHerbert’s descent from Herbert fitzHerbert I and his wife Sibyl. PR 1176, pp. 109 and 193; PR 1177, p. 172; PR 1178, p. 109; PR 1179, pp. 104–5; PR 1180, p. 133; PR 1181, p. 132; PR 1182, p. 141. Market Weighton and Nether Wallop, see below.

210

Herbert the Chamberlain Cornwall, and Joel de la Pomerai, their nephew.33 William was a step-brother of Herbert fitzHerbert II, being one of Henry I’s illegitimate children by Sibyl Corbet. Joel was the son of William’s sister Rohese, who married the Devon magnate Henry de la Pomerai. It is interesting to find Herbert fitzHerbert II thus associated with his relatives. However, all three declined the king’s offer, since Angevin control of Limerick was merely nominal. Then in 1185 the Pipe Roll contains a whole new section entitled Terra Herberti filii Herberti (‘the estates of Herbert fitzHerbert’), and it emerges that Herbert’s estates had been in the hands of Geoffrey fitzPeter since before Michaelmas 1184.34 The nature of his offences is not stated, but it is a reasonable supposition that the initial fines of the mid-1170s relate to the revolt of Henry the Young King and the invasion of northern England by the king of Scotland, William the Lion. In 1175–6 Gospatric, son of Orm, the constable of Appleby, was fined 500 marks for surrendering to William the Lion, and Herbert fitzHerbert II’s fine the same year for the same amount may reflect a similar offence.35 The bishop of Durham, Hugh du Puiset, was suspected at the very least of temporising, if not actively sympathising with the Scots, and found himself reduced to purchasing the king’s peace in 1177 for the huge sum of 2000 marks.36 Herbert fitzHerbert II had connections with Hugh du Puiset (who was a distant cousin of his and had been a close ally of William fitzHerbert during the election dispute), if we may judge from the fact that he granted property in York adjacent to the church of St John del Pyke to Ernald, the bishop’s chaplain. This was evidently the property next to the church which had been granted to Herbert the Chamberlain by Archbishop Thomas II in c. 1109. Ernald in turn granted the property to Guisborough Priory in a charter witnessed by Hamo, precentor of York between 1177 x 1181 and 1195 x 1199.37 Another baron whose loyalty was suspect during the 1173–4 revolt was 33

34 35

36 37

See Eyton, Shropshire, VII, 151–2. For the wider context, Warren, Henry II, pp. 187–206, and G. H. Orpen, Ireland under the Normans 1169–1216, 2 vols (Oxford, 1911), II, 32–3. Herbert fitzHerbert II witnessed two charters of Reginald, earl of Cornwall, along with the latter’s brother William, between 1170 and 1175 (Charters of the Redvers Family and the Earldom of Devon, 1090–1217, ed. R. Bearman, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, new series 37 (1994), Appendix II, nos 15a and 15b). Subsequently, Herbert fitzHerbert II appears as a witness alongside John Cumin, archbishop of Dublin (1182–1212) on charters in favour of Southwick Priory, Hampshire, in the 1180s or 1190s (The Cartularies of Southwick Priory, 2 vols, ed. K. A. Hanna, Hampshire Record Series 9–10 (1988–9), nos I. 70, 71 and 78). Subsequent generations of the FitzHerberts also appear in both of these volumes, including an otherwise unknown Robert Bastarde son of Herbert fitzHerbert (I or II?). PR 1185, p. 239; see also Eyton, Shropshire, VII, 152. PR 1176, p. 119. See Warren, Henry II, pp. 132–3. See Appendix B, n. 49, for the possibility that Herbert fitzHerbert II may have been associated with Roger de Mowbray in the Young King’s revolt of 1173–4. Scammell, Puiset, pp. 36–44. Cartularium Prioratus de Gyseburne, ed. W. Brown, II, SS 89 (Durham, 1894), p. 303 no. MCXVIII, a charter which mentions Herbert fitzHerbert II and Lucy his wife.

211

St William of York William, earl of Gloucester, from whom Herbert fitzHerbert II held land in Gloucestershire as a sub-tenant. This connection too could have landed him in trouble.38 Although the rebellion of 1173–4 involved many notable figures, Henry II was generally magnanimous in his treatment of the rebels, most of whom recovered their lands within a few years. The subsequent confiscation of Herbert’s estates in 1184 perhaps resulted from involvement in the second rebellion associated with the Young King, which faded away after the latter’s death in June 1183.39 Whatever the cause, it is not in doubt that Herbert fitzHerbert II had seriously offended against Henry II, following, it would seem, in the family tradition established by his grandfather Herbert the Chamberlain’s treason against Henry’s grandfather, Henry I. Herbert fitzHerbert II’s punishment, fortunately for him, was less drastic than that inflicted on his grandfather. The consequences for the FitzHerbert family, on the other hand, were severe. Once Henry II was gone, Herbert fitzHerbert II and his son Peter fitzHerbert made strenuous efforts to reclaim the lost family estates through the courts. Coming as they do at a period for which documentation is becoming increasingly voluminous, those court cases provide important (if fragmentary) evidence for the extent of the family’s land-holdings in the time of Herbert the Chamberlain and William fitzHerbert. Peter fitzHerbert was particularly assiduous in his efforts to restore the family fortunes. He became a trusted servant of King John, and was among those who witnessed the royal surrender of England to Pope Innocent III in 1213. He was keeper of Pickering Castle, and in 1214–15 he was appointed sheriff of Yorkshire. His younger brother, Matthew, was sheriff of Sussex. In 1216, following a long family tradition, he joined the rebels on the invasion of England by Louis of France, but was reconciled to Henry III not long after without, it would seem, any serious damage to his interests.40 Peter fitzHerbert died in 1235. Thereafter the family fortunes seem to have declined. The subsequent generations can be traced on the genealogical table (Genealogical Tables 2 and 3).41 They become increasingly distant from William fitzHerbert, though they are of relevance for the later development of his cult. In the thirteenth century they were conscious of having a saint 38 39 40

41

Red Book, I, 291; Warren, Henry II, p. 123. Warren, Henry II, pp. 136–49 and 580–93. Summary of his political career in W. M. Ormrod, ed., The Lord Lieutenants and High Sheriffs of Yorkshire, 1066–2000 (Barnsley, 2000), pp. 53–4; see also Holt, The Northerners, passim. A first attempt at a family tree was made by W. Dugdale, The Baronage of England, 2 vols (London, 1675–6), I, 624–5. The details in Eyton, Shropshire, VII, 146–56, can be supplemented by information in Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe’, pp. 65–6 n.; VCH Hants, IV, 270–1 and 532, VCH Wiltshire, VII (Oxford, 1953), 82, and X (Oxford, 1975), 62–3 and VCH Bedfordshire, II (London, 1904), 351–2; and Complete Peerage, IV, 196–203 and V, 331–63.

212

Herbert the Chamberlain among their forebears, and their connections with the Ros family help explain the magnificent gift of the early-fifteenth-century St William window in York Minster.42 We must now turn to consider Herbert the Chamberlain’s estates. As a selfmade man, it may be assumed that he inherited nothing by right of birth. At the time of Domesday Book, he was tenant-in-chief of the manors of Soberton and Larode in Hampshire, and he held Brockhampton in Havant from Hugh de Port and land in Micheldever from New Minster at Winchester.43 His holdings, in fact, were modest and all within a short distance of Winchester, where he was based. By the time of his death c. 1120 he had accumulated extensive estates in Hampshire, Berkshire, Wiltshire and Yorkshire. The 1130 Pipe Roll reveals that a decade after Herbert the Chamberlain’s death, his widow was still owing money on the estates which had belonged to him in Yorkshire, William fitzHerbert was responsible for land in Wiltshire, and Herbert fitzHerbert owed substantial amounts on the principal estates in Hampshire. In addition, Gervase fitzOsbert and Robert de Venuiz owed money on land in Hampshire acquired through marriages into the FitzHerbert family, and William Croc likewise answered for land in Berkshire.44 These debts do not necessarily represent the full extent of the estates held by Herbert the Chamberlain on his death, and the estates are neither named nor described. It is only in the case of some of the Berkshire and Yorkshire estates that there exists good early evidence of their location and the means by which Herbert the Chamberlain acquired them. Further important clues are provided by the names of the churches which passed into the hands of William fitzHerbert. The churches of Weaverthorpe, Londesborough, Stanton and Clere (with its attached chapels) were granted to him by Herbert the Chamberlain and his brother Herbert fitzHerbert, and the churches of Market Weighton and Nether Wallop (with the chapel of Grateley) were made over to him with the assent of Henry I.45 All the same, much has to be deduced from late-twelfth- and early-thirteenth-century records of lands held or claimed by Herbert fitzHerbert II or his successors. Analysis of this is complicated, on the one hand, by the fact that Herbert fitzHerbert II, as we have seen, had an unspecified number of his estates seized by Henry II, and on the other hand by the fact that further properties had passed into the hands of the FitzHerbert family through a succession of advantageous marriages. Herbert fitzHerbert I’s wife, Sibyl Corbet, was both the mistress of Henry I 42 43

44 45

French, York Minster – The St William Window. DB 42b, 45b and 48b. See Bilson, ‘Weaverthorpe’, pp. 60–5, for the fullest account of Herbert the Chamberlain’s estates to date. PR 1130, pp. 22–3, 25, 37 and 125. EYC I, no. 31 = RRAN III, no. 979 and EYC I, no. 132 = RRAN II, no. 1259 = Cartulary of the Treasurer, no. 1. See also Chapter Two, and below, n. 62 on the correct reading of the charter.

213

St William of York and mother of a number of his children, and the co-heiress of her father, Robert Corbet. However, it appears that Sibyl’s legitimate heirs were not allowed to take possession of their inheritance until after the death of Henry I’s bastard son by her, Reginald, earl of Cornwall, in 1175. And in the end, it appears that the FitzHerberts only acquired a modest share of the inheritance of Robert Corbet.46 Herbert fitzHerbert II married Lucy, daughter and coheiress of Milo, earl of Hereford. He died in 1143, and some of his former estates were among those seized by the king from Herbert fitzHerbert II in 1184. Milo’s estates, however, had generally lain in a different part of the country, and can usually be distinguished from those inherited from Herbert the Chamberlain without too much trouble. Lucy survived her husband for at least fifteen years and was laid to rest with her father and her brothers and sisters in the chapter house at her father’s foundation of Llanthony Secunda, near Gloucester.47 Peter fitzHerbert married successively Alice, daughter of Robert fitzRoger in 1203, and Isobel de Ferrers, widow of Roger Mortimer I, in about 1225. His son, Reginald fitzPeter, married another co-heiress, Isabel, daughter of William de Braose, who brought into the family land at Blenlevny and probably Thalegard after her father was hanged by Llewellyn in 1229–30.48 After these preliminaries, we may continue with the search for Herbert the Chamberlain’s estates (Table 3). The fullest record exists for the estates (principally in Yorkshire) granted to Herbert the Chamberlain by Archbishop Thomas II, probably c. 1109. Since they are of direct relevance to William fitzHerbert, they have already been discussed at some length, and may therefore be treated briefly here (Fig. 2).49 Archbishop Thomas’s charter makes over to Herbert the Chamberlain some unspecified lands in Gloucestershire (to which we shall return in due course), plus four distinct holdings in Yorkshire, viz. a house in Beverley, the church of St John Ogleforth and associated property in York, an estate at Londesborough and an estate at Weaverthorpe. In total they were worth three knights’ fees.50 Of the house in Beverley, nothing further is heard. The church of St John Ogleforth (alias St John del Pyke) is poorly documented. It turns up much later on in the hands of the dean and chapter allocated to the treasurer, and it seems likely that the 46

47 48

49 50

Eyton, Shropshire, VII, 145–56, esp. pp. 151–2, though his analysis is confused in places by his partly erroneous construction of the FitzHerbert family tree. Thompson, ‘Affairs of State’, argues from the fact that the FitzHerberts only acquired a minor part of Robert Corbet’s estates that Sibyl was not in fact a daugter of Robert Corbet (see n. 28). Eyton, loc. cit. Eyton, loc. cit., esp. pp. 153–4, where however Isabel de Braose is wrongly discussed (and dismissed) as a putative third wife of Peter fitzHerbert. For Peter’s marriage to Alice, see CRR III, 6. See Chapters One and Two. EYC I, no. 25 = EEA V, no. 15, see Chapter One, n. 16.

214

Herbert the Chamberlain church was at an early date transferred to William fitzHerbert, and then granted by him to the treasurer.51 The associated property situated between the church and Monk Bar remained in the family’s possession until later in the twelfth century, when it was granted by Herbert fitzHerbert II to Ernald, chaplain to Hugh du Puiset, bishop of Durham. He in turn granted it to Guisborough Priory.52 These were peripheral acquisitions. The main Yorkshire estates were those of Weaverthorpe and Londesborough. The Weaverthorpe estate, according to Archbishop Thomas’s charter, consisted of Weaverthorpe with Helperthorpe and the two Luttons, 1 carucate of land in Thirkleby, 3 carucates in Sherburn and another 3 in Birdsall, 5 carucates in Mowthorpe, 1 in Ulkilthorpe, and 4 in Croom, together with the church of Cowlam with half a carucate of land. The estate at Londesborough consisted of Londesborough with Towthorpe. Although the latter was less extensive, it was more conveniently situated, and it was most probably the site of the principal family residence in Yorkshire.53 Both estates remained in the FitzHerbert family for generations. There is nothing to suggest that their possession of these two estates was ever challenged. They perhaps escaped Henry II’s confiscation of Herbert fitzHerbert II’s estates because he was a sub-tenant of the archbishop of York. He is listed as holding three knights’ fees from the archbishop of York in the cartae baronum of 1166 (the same amount as in Archbishop Thomas II’s original charter), and the same assessment recurs subsequently.54 The churches on the FitzHerbert estates, however, were treated separately and had their own history. St John Ogleforth in York has already been discussed. The church at Cowlam, a tiny settlement on the periphery of the Weaverthorpe estate, is scantily documented, but it seems to have come into the possession of the Grimston family at an early date.55 It is not known

51

52 53 54

55

See VCH York, p. 384 and above Chapter One, n. 25 and Chapter Two. It is probably no coincidence that St John-del-Pyke was among the poorer churches which disappeared following the 1547 act of union, which was put into effect from 1549 (B. Wilson and F. Mee, The Medieval Parish Churches of York – the Pictorial Evidence, AY (York, 1998), pp. 7 and 89), for the office of treasurer was abolished by the Crown at just this time. See above, n. 37. See Chapter Three. Red Book, I, 413 = EEA XX, no. 113. In Red Book, II, 492, Peter fitzHerbert was assessed at three knights’ fees for lands in Yorkshire in 1210–12. EYC I, no. 33 records the grant of two bovates of land in Birdsall held of the fee of Herbert fitzHerbert II by William, son of Hugh de Bridessale, to the convent at Watton. This was merely a minor outlier of the FitzHerbert estate which lay adjacent to land already held by Watton. In a case before the king in April 1206 it was determined that 2 carucates of land at Weaverthorpe were held by Peter fitzHerbert of Robert fitzNigel for one fifth of a knight’s fee. This does not seem to have been part of the original estate granted to Herbert the Chamberlain (Pedes Finium Ebor., p. 99). N. A. H. Lawrance, ed., Fasti Parochiales V, Deanery of Buckrose, YASRS 143 (1985), pp. 8–10.

215

St William of York whether it passed through the hands of William fitzHerbert, as was certainly the case with the churches at Weaverthorpe and Londesborough. The descent of the church of Londesborough is not recorded for the next century, but in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries presentations to the living were made by successive members of the FitzHerbert family.56 It seems likely that the church was reunited with the rest of the family estate at Londesborough by William fitzHerbert. The case of Weaverthorpe church is more complex. It was granted to the canons of Nostell by William, probably in the spring of 1121, and they maintained their right of presentation through the twelfth century.57 But this was subsequently challenged. Taking advantage, perhaps, of the confusion surrounding other properties which had at one time or another belonged to the FitzHerbert family, Peter fitzHerbert launched a claim to the ownership of the advowson in 1219. The case dragged on for a few years, but the canons of Nostell seem to have made good their claim to the church. In 1247, however, Archbishop de Gray reserved the church to himself. Finally, in 1269, it was resolved in a tripartite settlement between Reginald fitzPeter, the dean and chapter of York Minster and the prior of Nostell that the advowson should be held by the dean and chapter. Reginald fitzPeter assented to this settlement at the request of the prior and out of love for St William, his ancestor.58 Thus the church of Weaverthorpe, which had been granted away by Archbishop Thomas II in c. 1109, finally reverted to York Minster. The final element in Archbishop Thomas II’s grant of c. 1109 consisted of some unspecified lands in Gloucestershire quas tenuerunt Hermerus et Turchetillus (‘which Hermer and Turchetill held’). Hermer may be the man of the same name who witnessed the archbishop’s charter and is described in the witness list as one of Count Stephen of Brittany’s men. The lands in question have yet to be identified.59 They could have been useful to Herbert the Chamberlain at a time early in Henry I’s reign when he was still expecting to visit Gloucester regularly for the crown-wearing ceremonies there,60 but once these fell out of fashion, and Herbert the Chamberlain fell from grace, the Gloucestershire properties may have been of less value to the FitzHerberts. It is not clear if they clung on to the lands, or whether they disposed of them at an early date.61 56

57 58

59

60 61

York Minster Library, unpublished Notes on Yorkshire Churches, s.v. ‘Londesborough’, recording presentations from Reginald fitzPeter from 1275 onwards. See also Clay, Fasti, I, 94. See Chapter Two, n. 55; EYC I, nos 29–30. On the thirteenth-century dispute, see Lawrance, Fasti Parochiales, V, Deanery of Buckrose, pp. 57–60 with references. EYC I, no. 25. The archbishop of York’s holdings in Gloucestershire are listed in DB. f. 164. See above, Chapter One, nn. 8 and 39. In 1166 Herbert fitzHerbert II held half a knight’s fee in Gloucestershire from William,

216

Herbert the Chamberlain Before turning to the FitzHerbert land-holdings in the south, there is one other Yorkshire estate to consider. The family interest in Market Weighton, near Londesborough, emerges from Henry I’s 1133 charter, in which he granted in perpetuity to the church of St Peter in York for the purpose of making a prebend there two churches and a chapel belonging to William the treasurer, which he was to hold during his lifetime. One of these was Nether Wallop in Hampshire with the chapel of Grateley, the other was Market Weighton.62 In 1144 x 1145 Pope Lucius II confirmed to the canons of the church of York a grant of the same two churches and chapel, which had been given shortly before by William fitzHerbert for a prebend.63 William had evidently adhered to Henry I’s intention that the churches should support a prebend, and had handed them over on his elevation to the archbishopric, even though Henry I’s charter of 1133 had stated that he could hold them for life. However, as it turned out, this was only the start of an eventful history. Market Weighton church soon passed out of the control of the Minster into the hands of Henry du Puiset, son of the bishop of Durham, Hugh du Puiset.64 Henry gave it to Finchale Priory (a dependency of Durham) at the end of the twelfth century. He also claimed to have been granted the manor of Market Weighton by Henry II. But his claim was challenged in 1204 by Robert de Ros and some of his relatives in the Trussebut family, who claimed to hold the manor of Weighton by descent from Geoffrey son of Pain, an ancestor of the Trussebuts. The outcome of this case is not recorded. Henry du Puiset died in 1209 x 1211, and by 1211 it emerges that the Ros family held half of the manor of Weighton, while the other half was held by one of the FitzHerberts, Peter fitzHerbert. Both parties also claimed half of the advowson of the church. On the latter issue, they challenged both the prior of Finchale and the dean of York. The latter made default, but the prior of Finchale asserted his claim.65

62

63

64

65

earl of Gloucester (Red Book, I, 291). It is not clear if this has anything to do with the archiepiscopal grant. EYC I, no. 132, discussed in Clay, Fasti, II, 80–2. The text here is somewhat garbled, and a better version is printed in Cartulary of the Treasurer, no. 1. The key phrase reads: Sciatis me concessisse Deo et ecclesie Sancti Petri de Eboraco in perpetuam elemosinam ad faciendum unam prebendam in ecclesia illa, duas ecclesias Willelmi thesaurarii et unam capellam quas ipse tenebit in vita sua, scilicet, ecclesiam de Wallop’ cum capella de Grateleia et ecclesiam de Wichtona. PUE II, no. 41, not known to Clay, and re-printed in Cartulary of the Treasurer, no. 9, noting that William is there referred to as archbishop elect, even though he had been consecrated in September 1143, before the start of Lucius’ pontificate (12 March 1144 – 15 February 1145). Perhaps the papal chancery was not up to date with events, or perhaps the wording reprises that of a grant made by William while he was still archbishop elect, i.e. before September 1143. This is apparently the solution preferred in EEA V, 108. The principal sources for what follows are given in EYC X, 14–15, EYC XI, 305–7, and Clay, Fasti, I, 93–5, and II, 80–2. The case is discussed as an illustration of the general problem of shared advowsons in Cheney, ‘King John and the Papal Interdict’, pp. 309–10.

217

St William of York Eventually, in 1230, the monks of Durham and Finchale handed over the church of Market Weighton to Archbishop de Gray. Having access, it would appear, to evidence that had earlier escaped the dean of York, he declared that it had been a prebend of York sicut nobis manifestis constitit indiciis (‘as has been established for us by clear evidence’) and had been unlawfully taken away from the Minster. He restored it as a prebend of York, thus finally fulfilling the will of Henry I, and in a charter of August 1271 Reginald fitzPeter acknowledged that the FitzHerberts had no rights in the matter. There are gaps in this story – gaps which can be filled by reference to the history of the manor of Market Weighton. At the time of Domesday, Market Weighton belonged to the king. At some unspecified time Henry I granted land there to Geoffrey son of Pain, who died at about the same time as the king, and from him it descended through the Trussebuts to the Ros family. But what was the origin of the claim by the FitzHerberts? And how did Henry du Puiset manage not merely to stake a claim to the manor, but also to gain possession of the church? A solution lies at hand if we assume that Henry I granted half of Market Weighton to Geoffrey son of Pain, and the other half to Herbert the Chamberlain. This would presumably have been prior to 1118, and would have complemented their holdings at nearby Londesborough. Both families could then have claimed half the advowson of the church, and it would have been in line with what happened at Londesborough and Weaverthorpe if Herbert the Chamberlain and/or Herbert fitzHerbert had managed to transfer the church to William. Henry I’s charter of 1133 would then be a recognition of this arrangement as well as a record of his ultimate intention for the church. When William became archbishop and transferred the church to the Minster for a prebend, he appointed as his successor as treasurer of the Minster Hugh du Puiset, the future bishop of Durham (1153–95) and father of Henry du Puiset.66 It may be that, in the confusion of the later years of Archbishop William’s life and of King Stephen’s reign, Hugh du Puiset somehow managed to retain the church of Market Weighton when he resigned the treasurership on his elevation to Durham, and that it was from his father that Henry du Puiset acquired his interest in the church of Market Weighton. Alternatively, it may be that Hugh du Puiset managed to acquire the church of Market Weighton along with the manor when he bought the latter for his son Henry in 1177. Roger of Howden records that Hugh du Puiset paid Henry II 2000 marks of silver to atone for his disloyalty during the Young King’s rebellion, so that the king would give his son Henry quandam villam quae vocatur Wictona cum pertinentiis suis (‘a vill called Weighton with its appurtenances’).67 Now Herbert fitzHerbert, as we have seen, had also apparently been implicated in 66 67

Clay, Fasti, I, 22, and Greenway, Fasti, 22. Roger of Howden (formerly attributed to Benedict of Peterborough), Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, I, 161; Scammell, Puiset, p. 234. See also PR 1176, 100.

218

Herbert the Chamberlain the Young King’s revolt and had paid a heavy fine in 1175–6. It may be deduced that he also forfeited his half of the manor of Market Weighton – the more so, since, as will shortly appear, something very similar happened with Nether Wallop in the very same year. At any rate, after the death of Henry du Puiset, the manor reverted to the FitzHerberts and the Ros family, thereby restoring the status quo ante 1177. Somehow, in all the confusion, the advowson of the church had reverted to the owners of the manor, and it was not until Archbishop de Gray that it was rightfully reclaimed for York Minster, as Henry I had intended. Herbert the Chamberlain, we may conclude, had been granted half of the manor of Market Weighton by Henry I, and the church had been subsequently transferred to William fitzHerbert. We come now to Nether Wallop in Hampshire, whose church (along with the chapel at Grateley) was included by Henry I in his charter of 1133 on the same terms as the church of Market Weighton (Fig. 1). Here again it is necessary to deduce the situation in the early twelfth century from other evidence, but the conclusion is much the same. Domesday Book records that the manor of Nether Wallop had belonged to the family of Earl Godwin before the Conquest, and was held by the king in 1086. It included a church with its own land attached, together with a chapel (æcclesiola). In view of the association of Nether Wallop with a chapel at Grateley in the charter of 1133, this æcclesiola may be identified as the one at Grateley. The chief manor of Nether Wallop (which included several separate manors) was given by Henry II to Amesbury Abbey in 1177, and remained in the abbey’s possession until the Dissolution. However, in the early thirteenth century Peter fitzHerbert sued the nuns for the possession of the manor, claiming that it had belonged to his grandfather Herbert fitzHerbert I in 1135, and the claim was maintained by both of his sons, Herbert and Reginald (who succeeded one another). It was not finally until 1273 that Reginald fitzPeter abandoned his claim in return for a consideration of 200 marks. The estate given to Amesbury Abbey by Henry II included some land in Over Wallop, and in the thirteenth century one Richard de Wallop was holding some other land at Over Wallop from Herbert fitzPeter.68 It seems likely that he was a descendant of the John de Wallop who was granted land in Berkshire by Herbert fitzHerbert II (the grandson of Herbert the Chamberlain) before 1166.69 There is therefore evidence for a FitzHerbert family interest in Nether 68

69

CRR VIII, 295. VCH Hants, IV, 525–35, gives the full details. It identifies the chapel attached to the church of Nether Wallop in 1086 as the church at Over Wallop, which is not otherwise mentioned in Domesday Book. But the chapel is clearly included in Domesday with the manor identified as Nether Wallop, not with Over Wallop, and Grateley receives no independent mention in Domesday (VCH Hants, IV, 369). VCH Hants, IV, 532 and Red Book I, 307. In Soberton, too, there was a manor known as Wallop’s Manor from its association with this family, and in the early thirteenth century it was held by Peter fitzHerbert of the abbot of Hyde de veteri feoffamento (VCH Hants, III, 26).

219

St William of York Wallop and part of Over Wallop, and we may deduce that the situation here was analogous to that at Market Weighton: a grant of land from the king to Herbert the Chamberlain early in the twelfth century; transfer of the church of Nether Wallop with the chapel of Grateley to William fitzHerbert prior to 1133; and subsequent confiscation of the manor from Herbert fitzHerbert II in the mid-1170s, resulting in contested claims to ownership in the thirteenth century. In this case, however, there was (so far as we know) no dispute about the ownership of the church. Having been given to the Minster by William for a prebend, in fulfilment of Henry I’s wishes, it remained in the hands of the treasurer until transferred to the Vicars Choral in 1459.70 King Stephen’s 1136 confirmation charter mentions two other hitherto unidentified churches which had been given to William by his father and brother: Clera with the chapels attached to it, and Stanton.71 These can be identified as Stanton FitzWarren in Wiltshire and Kingsclere in Hampshire. The Pipe Roll for 1130 records William fitzHerbert himself owing money on land in Wiltshire.72 In the 1160s and 1190s Herbert fitzHerbert II answered for unspecified land in Wiltshire worth a knight’s fee which he held of the king.73 At the start of King Richard’s reign he and his son Reginald fitzHerbert maintained their right to the manor of Caleston and Stanton against rival claimants, and subsequently paid substantial amounts to the king for the estate.74 In the early thirteenth century Peter fitzHerbert answered for one knight’s fee in Wiltshire, and a few years later (1210–12) for two fees at Stanton and Manningford Bruce respectively.75 So a family interest in Stanton is well attested. There are in fact three villages called Stanton in Wiltshire. However, the 70 71

72 73 74

75

PUE II, no. 41 = Cartulary of the Treasurer, no. 9, see also pp. viii, 65–6 and 78–9. RRAN III, no. 979 = EYC I, no. 31, where Farrer suggested that they could be Clare and Stanton in Suffolk. PR 1130, p. 22–3. Red Book I, 31–2, 45, 74, 115, 120, 152 and 246; PR 1168, 161. PR 1190, p. 121, PR 1191–2, p. 120 and Three Rolls of the King’s Court in the Reign of Richard the First, AD 1194–1195, ed. F. W. Maitland, Pipe Roll Society 14 (London, 1891), p. 3; also CRR I, 35, 37 and CRR VII, 330; Red Book I, 74. Red Book I, 152 and II, 483–4; see also Testa de Nevill, ed. J. Caley (London, 1807), p. 141, for a knight’s fee at both Stanton and Manningford Bruce held of the king by Herbert fitzPeter. Both Peter fitzHerbert and his younger brother Matthew acquired a number of other Wiltshire interests through their wives or in other ways, but these are generally not difficult to distinguish (see e.g. VCH Wilts, VII, 82; IX (Oxford, 1970), 169; X, 62–3). Manningford Bruce is an uncertain case. In 1275 Reginald fitzPeter held the manor which was said to belong to the constabulary of England, held by the earls of Hereford, which suggests that it came into the family through Lucy, wife of Herbert fitzHerbert II, co-heiress of Milo, earl of Hereford (VCH Wilts, X, 114). However, in 1086 the manor had been held by Grimbald the goldsmith along with Stanton FitzWarren, which was subsequently acquired by Herbert the Chamberlain. It is therefore possible that Manningford Bruce passed to the FitzHerberts at the same time as Stanton.

220

Herbert the Chamberlain ownership of Stanton St Bernard and Stanton St Quintin was quite different,76 so the FitzHerbert estate must have been Stanton FitzWarren. The village lies in the Vale of White Horse, just north of Ermine Street, and would have made a convenient stopping-off point on the journey from Winchester to Gloucester. At the time of Domesday Book, Stanton FitzWarren was held of the king by Grimbald the Goldsmith, a royal official associated very probably with the Winchester treasury and mint.77 The estate was presumably transferred at some point to Herbert the Chamberlain, his connection with the Winchester treasury being perhaps significant, and from him it seemingly passed, uniquely of all the FitzHerbert estates, to William fitzHerbert, if the entry in the 1130 Pipe Roll can be called in evidence. If so, it evidently passed back at a later date to the senior family line, and may have been among the properties confiscated from Herbert fitzHerbert II by Henry II and subsequently re-acquired. The later descent of the advowson of the church remains to be elucidated. The church of Clera with the chapels belonging to it can be identified as Kingsclere, a large parish in north-western Hampshire which comprised a parish church and dependent chapels at North Oakley, Ecchinswell and Sydmonton. There were a number of different manors within Kingsclere, and a strong royal presence there going back well into the pre-Conquest period.78 One of these manors, known as Parsonage Tithing, formed part of the endowment of the church as far back as the mid eleventh century.79 The church at Kingsclere is independently documented. It was granted in 1072 x 1086 by William the Conqueror to New Minster in Winchester along with the church of Alton in Hampshire in exchange for the site of the New Minster cemetery, on which William intended to construct a new royal palace.80 The Conqueror’s grant was confirmed by Henry I in a charter dated 1107 x 1118, perhaps of February 1116,81 i.e. around the time of New Minster’s move to Hyde Abbey. Shortly after this, presumably before his disgrace in 1118, the church must have been acquired by Herbert the Chamberlain, since he and Herbert fitzHerbert gave it to William fitzHerbert prior to the former’s death

76

77 78 79

80

81

VCH Wilts, X, 148, and XIV (Oxford, 1991), 215. The VCH volume covering Stanton FitzWarren has yet to be written. DB, f. 74; see also n. 75. VCH Hants, IV, 249–67. VCH Hants, IV, 261, which states that the manor descended together with the advowson down to the fourteenth century. RRAN I, no. 37 = Regesta William I, no. 344 = Property and Piety in Early Medieval Winchester, no. X. RRAN II, no. 1126 = Property and Piety in Early Medieval Winchester, no. XIV, which asserts that the land attached to the church in the Conqueror’s grant (i.e. Parsonage Tithing) had by this date been separated from the church and was granted to St Mary’s, Rouen, by Henry I. However, there seems to be a confusion with another manor at Kingsclere which was given to St Mary, Rouen (see VCH Hants, IV, 251).

221

St William of York c. 1120.82 He presumably granted it back to the family at some point, since in the early thirteenth century Peter fitzHerbert held the advowson. In 1208, however, the advowson was claimed by Hyde Abbey, but the following year it was agreed that Peter fitzHerbert should have the advowson on payment of a hundred pounds of wax annually.83 It is not clear if this case resulted from a prior deprivation of the FitzHerberts by Henry II, or from an opportunistic claim by Hyde Abbey. In the early thirteenth century the FitzHerberts held other lands in and around Kingsclere, some of which may have been in the family since Herbert the Chamberlain’s time. In 1206 Peter fitzHerbert was engaged in litigation over 40 acres of pasture in ‘Acle’, i.e. North Oakley, and in c. 1212–17 he claimed to hold ‘Acle’ per serjanteriam in hospitio domini Regis (‘through serjeanty in the household of the lord king’).84 As one of the chapels dependent on the church of Kingsclere was at North Oakley, this particular holding could have descended from the original grant to Herbert the Chamberlain about a century earlier. The same may apply to the manor at Hannington within the parish of Kingsclere.85 On the other hand, the important estate at nearby Wolverton was definitely in royal hands during the twelfth century and was the site of a royal residence. It was granted to Peter fitzHerbert by King John in 1215.86 Hampshire was Herbert the Chamberlain’s home territory. As well as Nether Wallop and Kingsclere, he acquired interests in a number of other manors. Of the land at Micheldever, which he held at the time of Domesday Book as a sub-tenant of New Minster, nothing further can be said. The advowson of the church was held by New Minster/Hyde Abbey.87 At Havant, where Herbert the Chamberlain held land from Hugh de Port at the time of Domesday Book, he was subsequently able to increase his property. His original holding was at Brockhampton, on the west side of the parish, which was still in the family in the late thirteenth century.88 Nearby Bedhampton was held by Hugh de Port of New Minster at the time of Domesday Book, but it appears that by 1166 it was occupied by Herbert fitzHerbert II, and it remained in the family down to the early fourteenth century.89 The 82 83

84 85 86

87 88 89

RRAN III, no. 979. CRR V, 312 and 314; EEA IX, Winchester 1205–1238, ed. N. Vincent (Oxford, 1994), no. 21; VCH Hants, IV, 265. CRR IV, 78, 99, 157, 243 and 295; Red Book II, 460; VCH Hants, IV, 257–9. VCH Hants, IV, 258–9. VCH Hants, IV, 270–1. Herbert fitzPeter subsequently answered for two knights’ fees in Wolverton and Oakley (Testa de Nevill, p. 231a). In 1276 Reginald fitzPeter additionally acquired the manor of Freemantle within the parish of Kingsclere from Edward I (VCH Hants, IV, 252). DB, f. 42; VCH Hants, III, 390–4. DB, f. 45. VCH Hants, III, 122–7. VCH Hants, III, 142–4. In the Red Book I, 207 John de Port returns Herbert fitzHerbert as a Hampshire sub-tenant for one knight’s fee of the old feoffment.

222

Herbert the Chamberlain advowsons of Havant and Bedhampton, like that of Micheldever, were held by the abbot of New Minster/Hyde Abbey, so none of them ever came into the possession of the FitzHerbert family or of William fitzHerbert. Of the two manors held by Herbert the Chamberlain as tenant-in-chief of the king at the time of Domesday Book, the first, Larode, is something of a mystery. It is thought to have been near Selborne, but its precise location is unknown.90 Soberton is further south, on the route from Winchester to Havant. In 1086 there were three estates at Soberton, one held by the king, one held by Herbert the Chamberlain, and the third held by another royal official, Henry the treasurer. The subsequent history of the various estates is somewhat confused. The manor held by Herbert the Chamberlain at the time of Domesday Book did not pass down through the male line. Part of it seems to have formed the dowry of Herbert the Chamberlain’s daughter who married Robert de Venuiz. In 1130 he owed money on land in Hampshire from his wife’s dowry, and his grandson Robert held the manor of Flexland in Soberton in the early thirteenth century by the service of acting as marshal in the king’s household.91 At the same time a large part of the manor of Soberton was in the hands of Thomas de Windsor in the thirteenth century by the serjeanty of weighing money at the exchequer. He was a descendant of Gervase fitzOsbert, who was also assessed for land formerly owned by Herbert the Chamberlain in the 1130 Pipe Roll. As suggested above, one of Herbert’s younger sons had probably married a daughter of the Windsor family.92 It also appears that at some time after 1086 Herbert the Chamberlain acquired the manor at Soberton which was held at the time of Domesday Book by Henry the treasurer. Henry the treasurer had also held Eastleigh of the king in 1086, and in the thirteenth century both Eastleigh and the relevant manor at Soberton turn up in the hands of the FitzHerberts. The Soberton manor was held by the Wallop family of the FitzHerberts. They presumably originated on or near the FitzHerbert estate at Nether Wallop and were very likely descended from the John de Wallop who was given land in Berkshire by Herbert fitzHerbert II before 1166. The Eastleigh estate was also subtenanted in the thirteenth century, so these two properties seem not to have formed a significant part of the FitzHerbert estates.93 In Winchester, Herbert the Chamberlain built up a substantial portfolio of properties. These can be studied in exceptional detail, thanks to the survey of Winchester of c. 1110 for which Herbert himself was one of the commissioners. A number of his properties were in prime locations at the heart of the city, on the High Street or around West Gate, near the Conqueror’s castle 90 91 92 93

DB, f. 49. Compare VCH Hampshire, II (London, 1903), 471, and III, 58–62. DB, f. 49. PR 1130, p. 37; VCH Hants, III, 260. PR 1130, p. 37; VCH Hants, III, 259; see above, n. 18. DB, f. 49; VCH Hants, III, 261 and n. 72; Testa de Nevill, p. 231a, in which the Eastleigh manor was worth one-third of a knight’s fee.

223

St William of York at the top of the city. The survey covers only property on the royal demesne, from which Herbert derived rents totalling £27 10s 9d. In addition, his son Geoffrey fitzHerbert held two properties in High Street worth £9 9s 6d, and some of Herbert’s servants had holdings in less central parts of the city.94 By the time the 1148 survey of all the properties in Winchester was held, the family’s holdings had been considerably reduced. Herbert fitzHerbert I held at that time two properties in High Street, and four others elsewhere in the city in less prestigious locations, bringing in rent of less than £3.95 None of these properties was held of the bishop of Winchester, and it remains to determine what were the two knights’ fees in Hampshire held by Herbert fitzHerbert II in 1166 as a sub-tenant of the bishop, and before him by Herbert fitzHerbert I.96 The Hampshire estates do not exhaust the list of Herbert the Chamberlain’s lands. In Berkshire he acquired from Abingdon Abbey the important manor of Leckhampstead near Newbury, not far from Kingsclere. The circumstances of this acquisition are unusually well known, thanks to the Abingdon Chronicle. During the vacancy which followed the death of Abbot Reginald, the abbey’s lands were taken into the hands of the king. Herbert the Chamberlain had previously under Abbot Reginald gained control of a hide of land in the abbey’s possession at Farnborough (Berkshire). He now managed during the interregnum to get his hands on additional land at Farnborough and the manor of Leckhampstead. Following the election of Abbot Faricius in 1100, he refused to relinquish his acquisitions, in spite of a royal writ of 1100 x 1101 ordering the restitution of abbey lands, including those held by Herbert the Chamberlain. Eventually, Faricius came to a settlement with Herbert the Chamberlain whereby Herbert restored the lands in Farnborough, but retained Leckhampstead for the service of one knight. Exactly what influence Herbert brought to bear on the abbot to bring about this conclusion is not certain. The chronicler omits the details, contenting himself with the comment that ‘it would be long-winded to continue with the extent of that man’s plottings against the church and the abbot’.97 Thereafter Leckhampstead remained in the family.98 In addition to the land held of the abbot of Abingdon, in 1166 Herbert fitzHerbert II also held land in Berkshire from the king in chief per servitium j militis et per serjantiam suam (‘through the service of one knight and through 94

95 96 97 98

Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 17–18, and Survey I, nos 4, 13b, 24, 33, 35, 48, 74, 111, 116–18, 123 and 152. Winchester in the Early Middle Ages,Survey II, nos 4, 38, 542, 828, 841, 860 and 873. Red Book I, 205. Historia Abbendonensis, pp. 62–3, 126–7 and 196–9; RRAN II, no. 521. Red Book I, 306; PR 1167, p. 9; Historia Abbendonensis, pp. 324–5, 381, 389 and 390. Red Book I, 94 assesses Peter fitzHerbert for ¾ of a knight’s fee in Berkshire under the heading De hiis qui non habent capitales honores in hoc comitatu, which seems likely to refer to Leckhampstead.

224

Herbert the Chamberlain his serjeanty’). This goes back to the time of Henry I, and therefore very probably to the time of Herbert the Chamberlain, since two and a half knights’ fees had already been sub-tenanted by 1135. A further half knight’s fee had been granted to John de Wallop by Herbert fitzHerbert II. These estates have still to be identified.99 In the 1130 Pipe Roll William Croc, Herbert the Chamberlain’s son-in-law, was owing the considerable sum of money of 200 marks of silver and two marks of gold on land in Berkshire held through his marriage. It remains to be seen how, if at all, this relates to the other Berkshire estates.100 The FitzHerberts also had land in Sussex. The history of their estate at Parham, however, exhibits a rather different pattern from that which can be discerned elsewhere. It is first mentioned in a charter of Henry I dated 1121 x 1133.101 The charter records that judgement had been given against Herbert fitzHerbert and in favour of Abbot Herbert of Westminster in a suit concerning the title to lands at Parham and Mapleford, which the abbot may have in his demesne, if he wishes.102 In spite of this apparently clear judgement, Parham was nonetheless held in the time of Henry II by Herbert fitzHerbert II, until he was disseized of it by the will of the king. Before him, the land at Parham had been held by Sibyl, the widow of Herbert fitzHerbert I. This appears from the records of a case brought before the king’s court in 1211–12. An inquisition which confirmed these facts was however unable to state how the estate came into Sibyl’s hands (nor could they state when her husband, Herbert fitzHerbert I, had died). The abbot did not dispute the facts, but claimed that Sibyl could have come by the estate tempore werre, i.e. during the civil wars of Stephen’s reign.103 In fact, Parham had presumably been acquired originally by Herbert the Chamberlain. He must have had regular dealings with the abbot of Westminster in connection with the crown-

99

100 101

102

103

Red Book I, 307. It may be that the Berkshire lands were confiscated in 1177, like the estates at Market Weighton, Nether Wallop and perhaps Stanton, which were also held in chief of the king, were granted to new owners by Henry II, and were never reclaimed by the family. If so, they may be difficult to trace. On the other hand, land held of the king in Soberton and sub-tenanted seems not to have been confiscated, so the Berkshire estates may have been similarly protected. PR 1130, p. 125. CRR VI, 176–7 = RRAN II, no. 1879, there dated c. 1130–3. The terminus post quem is based on the death of Herbert the Chamberlain, who was at that time thought to have died c. 1129–30. We now know that he died c. 1118–20. The terminus post quem for the charter is therefore the accession of Abbot Herbert of Westminster (1121-c. 1136). Mapleford has not been identified. It was apparently in Middlesex, though it has been suggested that it could be the Westminster manor of Pyrford in Surrey (CRR VI, 461 and 475). CRR VI, 119, 133, 176–7, 287, 296 and 393; CRR VII, 239. Herbert fitzHerbert II and the abbot of Westminster had previously been in court de placito terre in 1199–1200, perhaps over the same issue (Pleas before the King or his Justices 1198–1202, I, ed. D. M. Stenton, Selden Society 67 (London, 1953), pp. 222 and 265).

225

St William of York wearing ceremonies held there, if nothing else,104 and he had witnessed a charter in favour of Westminster before 1098.105 How it came about that Henry I’s judgement in favour of the abbey was (as it appears) never carried out, there is no means of knowing, but one may wonder whether Sibyl Corbet, his mistress, had persuaded him to change his mind and thereby succeeded in retaining the estate. In due course, it had evidently been confiscated by Henry II from Herbert fitzHerbert II. The outcome is not recorded in the court records but a charter of Peter fitzHerbert relates that he had received £100 from the abbot and convent of Westminster as part of a concord made between them, and Parham remained in the hands of Westminster Abbey.106 In 1166 Herbert fitzHerbert II and three others held land in Sussex worth one knight’s fee as sub-tenants of the bishop of Chichester. It is not clear if this is anything to do with Parham.107 One other great church where Herbert the Chamberlain made himself unpopular was St Paul’s Cathedral in London. In the early twelfth century the canons complained that Herbert had done them an injury in connection with unam terram (‘a piece of land’) which the neighbours attested belonged to Saint Paul’s. Nothing more is known of the property.108 Finally, there is the doubtful case of land in Bedfordshire. The 1130 Pipe Roll records Herbertus Camerarius owing a modest sum (20s) on land in Bedfordshire. There is no other evidence for Herbert the Chamberlain having land in the county, and it is more probable that this is an early appearance of Herbert, chamberlain to the king of Scotland.109 In brief conclusion, during a career spanning more than three decades in the service of the Norman kings in the treasury at Winchester, Herbert the Chamberlain accumulated an impressive collection of properties around the country. The majority were concentrated in Hampshire and the adjoining counties of Wiltshire, Berkshire and Sussex, but others were found as far afield as Gloucestershire and Yorkshire. Nearly half were held in capite from the king; others were acquired from major ecclesiastical patrons by methods which may well have left something to be desired. The institutions concerned 104 105 106

107 108

109

See Chapter One, nn. 8 and 39. Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, p. 146, no. 27; Mason, Westminster Abbey Charters, no. 488. Mason, Westminster Abbey Charters, no. 487; B. Harvey, Westminster Abbey and Its Estates in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1977), p. 359. The case is discussed in Holt, Magna Carta, pp. 76–7 and 88–9 and R. V. Turner, The King and His Courts (New York, 1968), p. 256. Red Book I, 199–200. From a list of invasions and depredations suffered by St Paul’s published in English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I, I, ed. R. C. Van Caenegem, Selden Society 106 (London, 1990), no. 253, dated 1127 at the latest. Previously he had suggested a date at the end of the eleventh century (Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glanvill, ed. R. C. Van Caenegem, Selden Society 77 (London, 1959), p. 72 n. 3. PR 1130, p. 104. So also Hollister, ‘Origins of the English Treasury’, p. 212 n. 6. On Herbert, chamberlain to the king of Scotland, see above, n. 20.

226

Herbert the Chamberlain included the long-established and well-endowed monastic houses of New Minster/Hyde Abbey at Winchester, Abingdon Abbey and Westminster Abbey. The archbishop of York was a major contributor, and there may have been minor grants from the bishops of Winchester and Chichester. In the case of the abbot of Abingdon and the archbishop of York, Herbert took advantage of vacancies to get his hands on estates. At Winchester, he probably found a way of turning to advantage the costly move of the monastery of New Minster to the new site at Hyde Abbey. Similar tactics were doubtless employed elsewhere. In spite of Herbert the Chamberlain’s treachery, blinding and castration in 1118, he managed to retain his estates and pass them on to his heirs. The churches were mostly if not all passed on to his clerical son William fitzHerbert, from whom some of them reverted in time to the family. The majority of the estates were inherited by Herbert fitzHerbert I and were held by Herbert fitzHerbert II in 1166. Following his disgrace in the 1170s, Nether Wallop and Market Weighton were seized by the king and allocated to new tenants. Parham and perhaps Stanton also seem to have been disseized by Henry II, whether at the same time, in the mid-1180s, or on other occasions, and the same may have happened to others of the estates held in chief from the king. The estates held as sub-tenants seem not to have been affected. In the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries Herbert fitzHerbert II and Peter fitzHerbert succeeded by vigorous action in the courts in reclaiming some of the confiscated estates, thereby ensuring that the greater part of Herbert the Chamberlain’s lands were still in the hands of his successors in the thirteenth century.

227

St William of York Table 3. Herbert the Chamberlain’s estates Berkshire

Location

Held from

Church attached

1. Leckhampstead

Abbot of Abingdon

?

2. Unidentified

King

?

Gloucestershire 3. Unidentified

Archbp of York

?

Hampshire

4. Brockhampton in Havant

Hugh de Port

No

5. Eastleigh

King

?

6. Kingsclere (part)

Abbot of New Minster/Hyde

Kingsclere with attached chapels

7? Kingsclere (part)

King

No

8. Larode, near Selborne

King

?

9. Micheldever

Abbot of New Minster/Hyde

?

10. Nether Wallop

King

Nether Wallop with chapel of Grateley

11. Soberton (part)

King

No

12. Soberton (another part)

King

No

13. Winchester, various properties

King

No

14? Unidentified

Bishop of Winchester

?

15. Parham

?

?

16? Unidentified

Bishop of Chichester

?

Wiltshire

17. Stanton FitzWarren

King

Stanton FitzWarren

Yorkshire

18. Beverley, house

Archbp of York

No

19. Londesborough

Archbp of York

Londesborough

20. Market Weighton (half)

King

Market Weighton

21. Weaverthorpe estate

Archbp of York

Weaverthorpe and Cowlam

22. York, property near Monk Bar

Archbp of York

St John Ogleforth, York

23. Unidentified

St Paul’s Cathedral, London

?

Sussex

Uncertain

228

APPENDIX B

Paulinus of Leeds and the Family of Ralph Nowell

Paulinus of Leeds seems to have played a key role in promoting the cult of St William and was a considerable figure in his own right. The confusion that surrounds both his career and his family connections has obscured from view what must be considered one of the most interesting York dynasties of the period. Paulinus was the son of Ralph Nowell, bishop of the Orkneys. He was himself at one point offered a bishopric, which he declined, and he ended his life as master of St Peter’s Hospital in York (also known as St Leonard’s Hospital), one of the richest hospitals in the country. Like his father, he continued the old tradition of clerical marriage. His son Ralph adopted his grandfather’s surname but not his clerical calling, and emerged as one of the leading citizens of York. His name is associated with one of the defining moments in the emergence of corporate government within the city. The three generations of the Nowell family (alias Noel, Novell or Nuvell) were prominent York figures for well over a century, and impinged upon the story of St William at several crucial moments. It may be useful to gather the evidence together in one place (Genealogical Table 4). Ralph Nowell the elder is the least problematic of the three so far as the evidence is concerned, but by no means the least interesting. The outlines of his career are reasonably well known, and need not be rehearsed at length.1 He was a contemporary of William fitzHerbert, and first enters the history of the church of York at about the same time. He was consecrated bishop of the Orkneys by Archbishop Thomas II in 1109 x 1114.2 It is far from certain that he ever succeeded in establishing himself at the head of his diocese. At any rate, if he did, it was only for a short period, and most of his life was passed in exile from his diocese, involved in the affairs of the church of York. He was treated as one of the Scottish bishops by Pope Calixtus II at the time of the Council of Reims,3 and, in the context of Archbishop Thurstan’s attempts during the 1120s to establish York’s claims over the Scottish dioceses, strenuous efforts were made, with papal support, to re-instate Ralph at the head of his diocese. But Rome was very distant from the Orkneys, and papal 1

2 3

Nicholl, Thurstan, passim; Hugh the Chanter, pp. xlviii–xlix and liii; Brett, English Church, pp. 15 and 18–19; EEA V, xxxvii and passim. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 52–3. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 124–7, and see Chapter Two.

229

St William of York exhortations easily ignored.4 There is no evidence that Ralph ever returned to his see. When he does turn up in the sources, both before and after this final attempt to re-instate him, it is almost always in the company of or on the business of the archbishops of York. He supported Thurstan during the primacy dispute at the start of the latter’s archiepiscopate, and he witnessed Thurstan’s consecration by the pope at Reims in 1119, having apparently travelled there in the company of William fitzHerbert.5 Subsequently, he acted on a number of occasions as a kind of suffragan to the archbishops. In 1123, for instance, he accompanied Thurstan to Selby to receive the resignation of the abbot,6 and he joined Thurstan on the fateful visitation of St Mary’s Abbey in 1132.7 He assisted at the consecration of Robert, bishop of St Andrews, at York in 1127, and in 1138 he represented the frail archbishop at the confrontation with the Scottish army at the Battle of the Standard.8 In 1143 he was one of the key witnesses who attested to the legality of William fitzHerbert’s election to the archbishopric, thereby enabling William to be consecrated by Henry of Blois.9 He appears not infrequently as a charter witness over the years, including one dating to William’s final months or weeks in office in 1154.10 So we may take it that he witnessed William fitzHerbert’s return to York and death in June of that year. The two men’s careers ran very much in parallel, and they must have known each other well. He is last recorded in the years 1154 x 1157.11 In origin, Ralph seems to have been a York priest with associations with the city’s Orcadian community, who are said to have elected him to the bishopric.12 The name of his wife is not recorded, but something of his connections can be deduced from his descendants. An important document datable 1203 x 1207 records that the church of All Saints in the Marsh (alias All Saints Peaseholme Green) belonged to the fee of Ralph Nowell the younger and his ancestors, had belonged to the family from the time of its foundation, and had descended to the younger Ralph by inheritance and the gift of his predecessor.13 The reference to his ancestors implies that the church went 4 5 6 7 8

9 10

11 12

13

HCY III, nos XXI and XXXIV. See above, Chapter Two. The Coucher Book of Selby, 2 vols, ed. J. T. Fowler, YASRS 10 and 13 (1891–3), I, 24. See above, Chapter Two. Chronicle of John of Worcester, III, pp. 174–5; EEA V, no. 63 = HCY III, no. XXXV; and see above, Chapter Two. See above, Chapter Three. For instance EEA V, nos 43, 63, 91 and 100; EYC IX, no. 116 and EYC III, no. 1823 = Mowbray Charters, nos 288 and 322; also EYC IX, no. 117 and The Chartulary of St John of Pontefract, 2 vols, ed. R. Holmes, YASRS 25 and 30 (1899–1902), I, no. XLII. Burton, ‘William of York’, wrongly states that Ralph Nowell died in 1144. EEA XX, no. 20. Hugh the Chanter, pp. 52–3, where he is described as urbis Eboracensis presbiterum, i.e. not one of the Minster clergy. EYC I, no. 298; for the date, see below.

230

Paulinus of Leeds back at least to the time of his grandfather, the bishop, and perhaps earlier still. There is independent evidence for Ralph Nowell the younger’s ownership of properties in the Marsh quarter,14 and it may be surmised that Ralph the elder was actually priest of All Saints prior to his election to the episcopate. All Saints’ church, as its name implies, was situated by the low-lying ground on the banks of the river Foss,15 and it is in just such an area as this that we might expect a community of Orcadians living off maritime trade to establish themselves. As we shall see shortly, one of Bishop Ralph’s sons, Paulinus, married into the family of one Lefwin son of Thurwif, who appears to be the same as Lefwin ‘of the Marsh’ (de Marisco). Lefwin’s descendants, like those of Ralph Nowell, achieved some prominence in both ecclesiastical and civic affairs. Paulinus’s connection with Lefwin son of Thurwif united two families of similar standing, and it is interesting to note that one of Lefwin’s sons, Walter, is described variously as de Marisco and as chaplain. So too, apparently, is Walter’s son, John.16 It may be that both Walter and subsequently John were appointed to the church of All Saints in the Marsh by the Nowells. So Ralph Nowell the elder seems to have emerged from a family prominent in the Marsh area and to have been associated with the Orcadian community in York. His descendants maintained their connections with this part of the city right through the twelfth century. But Ralph’s children also expanded their interests into new areas (Genealogical Table 4). Apart from Paulinus, four sons are documented. Gilbert was a canon of Ripon. Along with William fitzHerbert, he attested a charter of Archbishop Thurstan in favour of Fountains Abbey dated 1135 x 1139.17 In the mid-1140s he was granted land in Ripon by Archbishop William. The charter recording the grant was witnessed by Bishop Ralph,18 but the genealogical significance of this only emerges from a later charter in which the same property was granted by the Ripon community to Ralph Nowell the younger.19 This states 14 15

16 17 18

19

See below. On the church, VCH York, pp. 371–2; Wilson and Mee, The Medieval Parish Churches of York, p. 37; Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics’, pp. 13–14. D. Brinklow, ‘Bulls in the Church’, Interim – Archaeology in York 12.1 (1987), 1–7, reports the discovery of a platform beneath the remains of the thirteenth-century church which could be part of an earlier church of no later than eleventh-century date; also two burials containing papal bulls of Urban III (1185–7) and Clement (1187–91). Could these belong to members of the Nowell or Lefwin families? Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics’, pp. 9–11. EEA V, no. 44 = EYC I, no. 62. Memorials of Ripon, IV, no. 159, omitted from EEA V, probably dating to William’s first archiepiscopate, i.e. 1143 x 1147. The land in question had previously been held by Richard son of Turstin and granted to the canons of Ripon by Thurstan (Memorials of Ripon, I, no. V = EYC I, no. 125 (wrongly dated much later) = EEA V, no. 60, dated 1121 x 1140); see Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics’, p. 12 and n. 92. Memorials of Ripon, I, no. CLII.

231

St William of York that Canon Gilbert had been the younger Ralph’s uncle. He must in fact have been the son of Bishop Ralph, who was therefore witnessing a charter in favour of his own son. Three other sons are known from witness-lists in charters. Peter the priest, of Wakefield, and Adam the priest are mentioned several times as brothers of Paulinus. Another brother called Thomas, apparently not a priest, also occurs.20 The relative ages of the brothers are not known, but it was Paulinus who was most prominent in the affairs of the time. Paulinus was not a common name. It may have had a particular significance for his father. Not only was St Paulinus the founder of the see to which Ralph Nowell owed his consecration and his allegiance; he had also been sent with papal support to a distant northern see, but had been forced to abandon it in the face of opposition, ending his life in exile. Ralph may have seen parallels with his own situation, and, curiously enough, his son Paulinus was to find himself in a not dissimilar situation later on. Paulinus witnessed many charters, and the titles which he gave himself enable us to follow the various stages of his career.21 In some of the earliest charters of around the middle of the century he appears as Paulinus son of Ralph, or Paulinus son of the bishop, thus indicating both his kinship and his original entrée into ecclesiastical life. In some cases he attests alongside his father.22 Lest there be any doubt about his identity, he is described as Paulinus filius Radulfi Orcadensis episcopi (‘Paulinus, son of Ralph, bishop of the Orkneys’) in an original charter granting land in Garmondsway, Co. Durham to him and his brothers issued by G., bishop of Durham. An early indication of his interests outside York, this has been ascribed to Geoffrey Rufus (1133–40). This is not impossibly early, but a charter of William of Ste Barbe (1143–52) would fit better with the known facts of Paulinus’s life.23 We may perhaps conjecture that he began his clerical career by being appointed by his father as priest of the family church of All Saints in the Marsh. In other early charters he describes himself as medicus, the earliest such mention being no later than 20

21

22

23

R. Holmes, ‘Paulinus de Leeds’, Publications of the Thoresby Society 4 (1895), 209–25, at pp. 214–15; see also EYC III, nos 1692, 1703, 1732; and Chartulary of St John of Pontefract, II, 426–7, no. CCCXXXIIII. Holmes, ‘Paulinus de Leeds’, is the only extended attempt to unravel his career, but he causes himself unnecessary problems by assuming (on no evidence) that Paulinus was appointed master of the hospital at the start of Henry II’s reign. See also EYC I, 245 and III, 228–9; EEA XX, xlii–xliii n. C. H. Talbot and E. A. Hammond, The Medical Practioners in Medieval England – A Biographical Register (London, 1965), p. 241 give Paulinus of York and Paulinus of Leeds as two different individuals. Further confusion is added by E. J. Kealey, Medieval Medicus, A Social History of Anglo-Norman Medicine (Baltimore, 1981), pp. 138–9. EYC I, no. 279, dated c. 1140 x 1148; EYC I, no. 528, dated c. 1145 x 1161; EYC II, no. 1038, dated c. 1150 x 1165; EYC III, no. 1547 = Coucher Book of Selby, I, no. DX, dated c. 1144–60. Printed in Scammell, Puiset, pp. 264–5; see also p. 10 n. 3.

232

Paulinus of Leeds 1153.24 In view of his later connection with St Peter’s Hospital, it seems likely that he employed his medical knowledge there from an early date. Between 1164 and c. 1171 Paulinus was appointed to the vicarage of Leeds by Holy Trinity Priory, which had held this lucrative living for many years.25 With one brother, Gilbert, at Ripon, and another, Peter, at Wakefield, the family had a strong presence in the West Riding. It was presumably from this time that Paulinus started signing himself Paulinus presbiter de Ledes (‘Paulinus, priest of Leeds’).26 He is again called Paulinus of Leeds in the list of miracles which occurred at the tomb of St William in 1177.27 Between 1135 x 1143 and 1155 x 1165 there are several references to a Paulinus who was canon of York.28 He has been identified as Paulinus of Leeds, but this is improbable. The dates are early, and it would be odd for him to give up the title of canon and start signing himself Paulinus of Leeds following his appointment to the vicarage there, when the vicarage must have been a far less significant appointment than the canonry. Paulinus the canon must be a different man.29 A charter of Henry II dated 1181 x 1189 granting Paulinus property in Leeds refers to him as ‘my clerk’.30 It is not known when he achieved this position,31 but he certainly benefited substantially from the king’s favour during the 1180s. It was Henry II who appointed him to the mastership of St Peter’s (St Leonard’s) Hospital, and it is as master of the hospital that he styled himself up to his death. He appears variously as magister, humilis magister or, when in full flood, magister Paulinus dictus humilis minister hospitalis domus Sancti Petri de Eboraco (‘Master Paulinus, called the humble minister of the hospital house of St Peter of York’), this last on a charter issued by him in 1189 x 1195 which retains its seal in white wax bearing a standing

24

25

26

27 28 29 30 31

EYC I, no. 561, dated 1132 x 1153; EYC I, no. 606, dated c. 1140 x 1155; EYC II, no. 718, dated 1166; EYC II, no. 848, dated 1161 x 1184. EYC VI, no. 82, dated 1164 x 1175 = EEA XX, no. 55, dated 1164 x c. 1171. However, as the latest certain appearance of Paulinus as medicus (a title which he seems to have dropped on being appointed to Leeds) dates to 1166 (see n. 24), the date can perhaps be narrowed down to 1166 x c. 1171. The original charter is illustrated in EYC VI, pl. VIII. On Leeds and Holy Trinity Priory see Burton, Monastic Order, pp. 45–51, esp. p. 47 n. 8, and EEA XX, nos 56 and 115; see also EEA XXVII, no. 88 n. and Appendix I, no. 9 n. For example EYC III, no. 1692, dated 1170 x 1185; EYC III, no. 1703, dated 1180 x 1190; EYC III, no. 1732, dated 1160 x c. 1180; EYC III, no. 1762, dated c. 1165 x 1177; EYC III, no. 1768, dated 1166 x 1177. EYC III, no. 1724 is dated by Farrer to 1145 x 1160, but this seems too early, as he was signing himself medicus in this period (see n. 25). Miracula, nos 1, 11 and 19. Greenway, Fasti, p. 126. See also below for his son Thomas. EYC III, no. 1463. EEA XX, 64 claims that Paulinus was already a royal clerk at the time of his appointment to the vicarage at Leeds, but I can find no support for this.

233

St William of York image of him in his vestments.32 The mastership of the hospital had traditionally been in the gift of the dean and chapter, but we learn from a later document that the dean and chapter had assented to the king’s appointment of Paulinus, qui multum fuit ei familiaris . . . ob reverentiam principis (‘who was well known to him . . . out of reverence for the king’).33 Reverence for the king was unusually prevalent among the English clergy in the years following the death of Thomas Becket. Another later document stated that the king had made the appointment during a vacancy in the archbishopric. The see was indeed vacant between the death of Roger of Pont l’Évêque in 1181 and the appointment of Geoffrey Plantagenet in 1189. A charter of Archbishop Roger stated that the archbishop should have custody of the hospital during a vacancy in the mastership,34 so the king presumably claimed custody while holding the temporalities of the see and bent the dean and chapter to his will. Two previous masters of the hospital were Robert (recorded in 1148) and Swane, who appears in 1173,35 the latter probably being Paulinus’s immediate predecessor. Paulinus was appointed at some point between 1181 and July 1186, as two charters which he witnessed as magister Paulinus were also witnessed by Robert, dean of York from 1158, who died at Carlisle in July 1186.36 It was also as master of the hospital that Paulinus was offered the see of Carlisle in that same month. Carlisle had been vacant since the death of Athelwold in 1156 or 1157, and was still disputed between the Scottish and English crown and church. Roger of Howden describes Paulinus as virum honestum, prudentem et circumspectum (‘an honest man, prudent and circumspect’).37 His circumspection was shown by his refusal to accept the preferment, in spite of Henry II’s offer to increase its endowments. From the experience of his own father he knew enough about the life of a bishop who was unable to establish himself in his own see.

32

33 34 35 36

37

EYC I, no. 252, from Oxford, Bodleian Library, Yorks ch. 106; also EYC I, no. 221, dated 1184 x 1191; EYC I, no. 241, dated 1186 x 1203; EYC I, no. 304, dated 1180 x 1203; EYC I, no. 315, dated 1175 x 1190; EYC I, no. 320, dated c. 1180 x 1200. There is a single charter where he signs himself with the hybrid form Paulino de Ledes magistro hospitalis Eboracensis (EYC II, no. 846, dated 1180–90). This perhaps dates from shortly after his appointment. HCY III, no. CXIII, dated 1246. EEA XX, no. 118, see also no. 117. Loc. cit. Cartularium Abbatiae de Rievalle, ed. J. C. Atkinson, SS 83 (Durham, 1889), nos CLXVII and CLXVIII; Greenway, Fasti, p. 9. Roger of Howden II, 309; and also in his Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi (attributed to Benedict of Peterborough), I, 349, saying that he was master of the hospital when offered Carlisle. Although this is likely to be correct, it is conceivable that Paulinus was offered the mastership of the hospital immediately after declining the bishopric of Carlisle. The charters cited in n. 36 could have been witnessed by Paulinus as the newly appointed master, having refused the bishopric, immediately prior to the death of Robert, dean of York, at Carlisle in July 1186.

234

Paulinus of Leeds In the event, the regular succession of bishops of Carlisle was not reestablished until 1203. Paulinus stayed on as master of St Peter’s Hospital. There are passing references to him in 1199 and 1201, and he died in office probably in 1202.38 Paulinus is said to have been the father of a canon of York Minster, called Thomas. Thomas son of Paulinus first appears as canon in 1142 x 54, and is last recorded in 1191 x 1194. His dates and his position, along with the fact that he had interests in Nottinghamshire,39 an area where the Nowell family had no known connections, suggest that he was the son of Paulinus the canon, discussed above, rather than Paulinus of Leeds. But Paulinus unquestionably did have a son. He was a layman and was called after his grandfather, Ralph Nowell. Ralph the younger was a prominent York citizen who built up considerable property holdings in York, in the Marsh district, in the northern and eastern suburbs, and further afield at Whitby, Ripon, Harewood and Womersley. He has recently been the subject of a study by Christopher Daniell, who has highlighted his connections with the notable York family of Lefwin son of Thurwif.40 In spite of bearing the same name as the bishop of the Orkneys, Ralph’s family origins have remained obscure. Walter, son of Lefwin, is described as his uncle, and it has therefore been suggested that Ralph’s father was another of the sons of Lefwin. However, there survive two separate sources which describe him unambiguously as Ralph, son of Paulinus of York. He attested in this form a charter of William de Stuteville of 1183 x 1199,41 and in 1184 Hugh du Puiset, bishop of Durham, settled a dispute between Ralph son of Paulinus and others over the vill of Garmondsway, Co. Durham.42 This is evidently the same property as had been granted previously by an earlier bishop of Durham to Paulinus, son of Ralph Nowell the elder. So Ralph Nowell the younger was indeed, as his name would suggest, the grandson of the bishop of the Orkneys. Walter son of Lefwin must therefore have been his uncle by marriage. Paulinus had

38

39 40

41

42

EYC II, 177; EYC I, 245; EYC I, no. 263; HCY III, no. LXXX, citing a mandate of Innocent III on the dispute about the succession to Paulinus dated May 1203. EEA XXVII, lxv n. 202 and nn. to nos 4, 88 and Appendix I, no. 9 gives the year of Paulinus’ death variously as 1200, 1201 or c. 1202. Greenway, Fasti, p. 97–8; EEA XX, nos 54, 88–9 and passim. Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics’, with references. Ralph’s interests in the churches at Harewood and Womersley emerge from a justiciar’s writ of 1199 printed in Pleas before the King or his Justices 1198–1202, p. 386 no. 3512. Monasticon Anglicanum, VI, 322, no. I = EYC IX, no. 24, dated 1183 x 1199, confirming an earlier gift of the site of Hood. It is perhaps not a coincidence that Ralph’s grandfather, the bishop of the Orkneys, had witnessed an earlier charter in favour of Hood (EYC IX, no. 117, dated 1138 x 1140). As Radulfo Nuvel, Ralph Nowell the younger witnessed another charter of William de Stuteville, EYC IX, no. 27, dated 1190–1203. Scammell, Puiset, pp. 10.n. 3 and 222.

235

St William of York probably married a daughter of Lefwin,43 and would therefore have been the brother-in-law of Hugh and Walter, the sons of Lefwin. Alternatively, Walter could have married a sister of Paulinus – it matters little for our purposes. Ralph Nowell’s genealogy helps shed light on some of his other connections.44 We have already seen that he was granted land in Ripon which had previously belonged to his uncle Gilbert, the canon of Ripon. Like his father, he witnessed several charters in favour of Fountains Abbey, but the institution on whose charters his name appears much the most frequently is St Peter’s Hospital in York. He witnessed at least nine charters in favour of the hospital spanning the years 1170 x 1176 to 1203 x 1212, i.e. starting before and continuing after the period of his father’s mastership of the hospital. Ralph Nowell himself also gave a property to the hospital in the time of King John.45 The family interest in the hospital evidently extended over many years, and was by no means confined to the years of Paulinus’s mastership. It also sheds new light on events following the death of Paulinus. When the mastership of the hospital fell vacant probably in 1202, Archbishop Geoffrey refused to accept the dean and chapter’s nomination and appointed his own preferred candidate to the post, one John, priest of York. The dean and chapter disputed the archbishop’s right of appointment, a commission was established, and in 1205 John of York was deposed and replaced by the dean and chapter’s nominee, Master Ralph of Nottingham. Of course, there are likely to have been several priests called John in York at any one time.46 But one who is definitely recorded was a nephew of Paulinus and a cousin of Ralph Nowell the younger. This John was the son of Walter, son of Lefwin; he is sometimes described as ‘of the Marsh’ and also adopted the name Nuvel or Nowell.47 Now Ralph Nowell received land in Beningborough 43

44 45

46

47

Paulinus attested a charter together with Lefwin, son of Thurwif, in c. 1140 x 1155 (EYC I, no. 606). All references not cited here will be found in Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics’. A mortmain inquest of c. 1230 records the gift of a property in the parish of St Maurice made by a man whose name is printed as Radulfus Nune (?) (Palliser, ‘An Early Mortmain Inquest’, no. 91). I suggest this should read Nuve(l); and Professor Palliser has kindly confirmed that this is a possible reading. The same inquest also records grants of properties in York by Lefwin son of Thurwif to Durham (no. 15, presumably the same property in Coney St mentioned by Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics’, p. 5), by Hugh son of Lefwin to Holy Trinity Priory and St Clement’s Nunnery (nos 16, 32, 43 and 157) and by Matilda wife of Hugh son of Lefwin to Holy Trinity Priory (no. 136). HCY III, nos LXXX and LXXVIII; see also nos LII, LVIII (= EEA XX, no. 117), LXXV, CXIII , and EEA XX, no. 118. Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics’, pp. 10–11. One wonders whether Richard de Marisco (Richard Marsh) was a member of the family. His origins are unknown. He had a successful career in royal administration and ecclesiastical positions, the most senior of these being in the dioceses of York and Durham. He first appears as a royal clerk accounting for the issues of the bishopric of Durham during the vacancy of 1196/7. By 1211 he was archdeacon of Northumberland, in 1213 he became

236

Paulinus of Leeds from his uncle Walter in the 1190s. Paulinus, on the other hand, had been granted land in Leeds by Henry II in 1181 x 1189 which, the charter informs us, he was entitled to pass at his death to a brother or nephew.48 Presumably the property was expected to remain in clerical hands: two at least of his brothers were priests, as we have seen, and so was his nephew John son of Walter. We glimpse here some close ties of interest which may have linked the Nowell family and the Lefwin family, or more particularly Paulinus and his brother-in-law Walter son of Lefwin, and their two sons (Genealogical Table 4).49 Perhaps there was some kind of agreement between them whereby the families’ secular interests would be concentrated in the hands of the layman, Ralph Nowell the younger, while the ecclesiastical interests would be focused on his ordained cousin John. Once he became master of the hospital, Paulinus would have been in a position to direct some of the hospital’s patronage towards his nephew. During his mastership the hospital received a gift of land in the Marsh which had belonged to John the son of Walter, and which he had given (perhaps on her marriage) to his daughter.50 The first witness to the accompanying charter was Ralph Nowell, Paulinus’s son. Archbishop Geoffrey, King John’s half-brother, had remained at loggerheads with the dean and chapter since his election.51 In Paulinus, an appointee of his father Henry II, he perhaps found someone in York whom he could deal with on easier terms. Was John’s nomination to the mastership in succession to Paulinus a quid pro quo? Whether or not John, the priest of York, was the same as John son of Walter, the relationship between Paulinus and Ralph Nowell the younger sheds new light on the charter (mentioned above) asserting Ralph Nowell’s right to

48 49

50 51

archdeacon of Richmond, and in 1217 bishop of Durham. He was a faithful servant of King John (Greenway, Fasti, p. 49; R. C. Stacey, ‘Richard Marsh’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and B. Harrison (Oxford, 2004), XXXVI, 807–8). If he was a member of this family, he could have helped secure the nomination of John de Marisco to the mastership of the hospital; and it was he who imposed fines for the badly struck duel on Besing of Ripon (see Chapter Five, n. 96). EEA XXVII, cxii and n. 478 suggests two other possible identifications for John of York, the archbishop’s appointee to the mastership of the hospital. See n. 30. It may be noted also that Hugh son of Lefwin, Paulinus’ presumed brother-in-law, had close connections with Roger de Mowbray (Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics’, pp. 4–5); and that Ralph Nowell the elder (the bishop of the Orkneys) had witnessed two Mowbray charters (see n. 11). There seem to be family connections here, which may have extended as far as the FitzHerberts. Roger de Mowbray and Hugh son of Lefwin were both involved in the Young King’s revolt in 1173–4 (Daniell, loc. cit.), and so, I have suggested, was Herbert fitzHerbert II (see Appendix A). Given the links of the Nowell family both to the FitzHerberts and the family of Hugh son of Lefwin, they may all have been implicated in the same business. EYC I, no. 297, dated 1190 x 1200. Douie, Archbishop Geoffrey Plantagenet.

237

St William of York the church of All Saints in the Marsh. Hitherto dated to the period 1191 x 1206 or 1207,52 this charter is of more than ordinary interest, as it is the first known record of the citizens of York acting as a corporate body with their own corporate seal.53 As the charter states that Ralph Nowell held the advowson of the church by inheritance, it should post-date the death of his father Paulinus, probably in 1202, in which case the charter must belong to the narrower date bracket of 1202 x 1207.54 The precise purpose of the charter, which is addressed to Archbishop Geoffrey, remains a matter of conjecture; we have no idea who the rival claimant to the church may have been. But it would make sense if the succession to Paulinus and his inheritance was being challenged in the context of deep-seated ecclesiastical (and perhaps civic) divisions in York. Whether or not Ralph Nowell succeeded in maintaining his claim to the church is not clear,55 but the family’s affairs seem to have taken a turn for the worse within a few years. If the nominee to the mastership of the hospital was Ralph’s cousin John, nothing came of it, as we have seen, and he was evicted in 1205. Three years later, as I have argued above, Ralph Nowell was involved in a bitter court case which lies behind the miracle-story of Ralph and Besing.56 In his declining years, Ralph is known to us largely through court cases. In 1218 he made an unsuccessful claim to land which had belonged to his deceased wife Helen, widow of Robert Wilstrop. As Ralph and Helen were childless, the land was adjudged the property of Helen’s son by her former husband, Richard Wilstrop.57 Between 1218 and 1221 Ralph was involved in further legal disputes with one of the canons of the Minster, Robert de Winton, concerning property in Tang Hall and in Newbiggin. In this case the honours seem to have been divided, Ralph giving up his claim to the properties in Newbiggin in exchange for the right to the Tang Hall property, though disputes on the latter rumbled on until 1227. By 1235 x 1240 he was dead.58 52 53

54

55

56 57

58

EYC I, no. 298, dated 1191 x 1206, but see n. 53. Palliser, ‘The Birth of York’s Civic Liberties, c. 1200–1354’. At p. 92 n. 23 he points out that the latest possible date for the charter is 1207, the year of Archbishop Geoffrey’s exile. Even if ownership of the church had been passed to Ralph Nowell before Paulinus’ death, Paulinus would surely have been cited as a witness if he had still been alive, since the whole point of the charter is to establish the right of succession going back over generations. It next appears in the possession of the le Grant family, who have no known connection with Ralph Nowell (VCH York, p. 371; Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics’, p. 13). See Chapter Five. Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics’, 11 and nn. 84 and 85. There remains some uncertainty as to whether Ralph had any children. Certainly, he had none by Helen Wilstrop. But she may not have been his first wife, just as he was certainly not her first husband. The Coucher Book of Selby, II, 63–7 and 86–9, records a Peter son of Ralph Noel of York, and his daughter and heir Agnes, two of whose charters are dated 1273 and 1278. They could be the descendants of Ralph Nowell the younger by an earlier marriage (Genealogical Table 4). Daniell, ‘Family, Land and Politics’, pp. 12–13.

238

APPENDIX C

An Itinerary of William fitzHerbert

From 1141 onwards, this itinerary expands upon that printed in EEA V, 118– 19. Page references in the right-hand column are to the present volume, where the evidence is set out in detail. 1080s

Born, probably at Winchester

5–6, 18– 19, 203–9

May 1108– June 1109

Probably involved in negotiations between his father, Herbert the Chamberlain, Archbishop Thomas II, and the king over Thomas’s consecration, at Winchester and elsewhere. Perhaps sent on a mission to Anselm at Canterbury, summer 1108

10–16

Probably after 27 June 1109

Appointed treasurer of York Minster and archdeacon of the East Riding

10–16

Winter 1115– 1116

Possible mission to Rome on behalf of the York chapter

36–8

1116, summer– autumn

Probably sent by the chapter from York to the king in Normandy

37–8

Winter 1116– spring 1117

Probable mission to Rome

37–8

After 5 April 1117

Probably leaves Rome

38

Summer 1117

Probably meets Thurstan in Normandy

38

1119, 18 October

Probably arrives at the Council of Reims with Ralph Nowell, bishop of the Orkneys

41–2

October 1119January 1121

Probably with Thurstan in exile in France. From October 1119 to 6 March 1120 Thurstan travelled with the papal curia (see itinerary in EEA V, 114–15): 19 October 1119, Reims, consecration of Archbishop Thurstan.

42–3

239

St William of York 1 November 1119, Reims, Thurstan receives the pallium from the pope. Thereafter, Thurstan visited Préaux, Beauvais, Chaumont en Vexin, Saint-Denis, Corbeil, Melun, Ferrières, Sens, Auxerre, Saulieu, Autun, Cluny, Tournus, Lyons, Vienne, Romans, Valence, Crest and Gap. After leaving the pope, between 6 March 1120 and January 1121 Thurstan visited Blois, Reims, Soissons, Colombes, Dammartin, Marcigny, Vernon, Beauvais, Gisors and Chartres.

42–3

1121, 31 January

Probably returns to England with Thurstan

42–3

February 1121 x January 1122 (probably spring 1121)

At York with Thurstan

43–5

1121, 29 September

? At king’s council with Thurstan

61

1123, 2 February

? At king’s council at Gloucester

61–3

1127, spring

Probably at York for consecration of Robert, bishop of St Andrews, by Thurstan

63–4

1132, 17 October

Accompanies Thurstan St Mary’s Abbey, York

67–72

1133, 6 August

? At York for consecration of Athelwold, bishop of Carlisle, and Geoffrey Rufus, bishop of Durham

66

1136, February

Probably at York during King Stephen’s visit

29, 47, 66–7

1137, 4–6 June

Probably at York during supposed consecration ceremony

72–3

1138, 22 August

? Present at the Battle of the Standard with Ralph Nowell, bishop of the Orkneys

67

1140, 6 February

Probably present at Thurstan’s death-bed at Pontefract Priory

80

1140

Probably present at abortive elections of Henry de Sully and Waltheof of Kirkham

80–1

240

on

visitation

of

An Itinerary of William fitzHerbert 1141, January x 2 February

William elected archbishop of York, travels to Lincoln and granted temporalities of the see by King Stephen

81

1142, before 22 April

At Rome for hearing of the appeal against his election by Innocent II

82–3

1143, 7 March

At Rome for further hearing of the appeal before Innocent II

84–5

1143, September

Probably appeared at legatine council at Winchester

86–7

1143, 26 September

Consecrated archbishop at Winchester by Henry of Blois

87

After September 1143

Visits Ripon Holds synod at York Probably visits Beverley

102, 113 111 111–12

1144, 18 October

At Durham for enthronement of William of Ste Barbe

114

1146, before 21 February

At Rome for hearing of his case before Eugenius III

118

1146

Visit to Sicily

118–20

1147–53

In exile at Winchester, following deposition by Eugenius III no later than 11 May 1147

121, 124–7

1153, late October x early November

Probable election to the archbishopric at Winchester

132–6

1153, Christmas

At Rome

136–7

1154, February

Probably sets off from Rome with Hugh du Puiset

137

1154, March

Stops off at Canterbury

137–8

1154, 3 April

Arrives at Winchester

139

1154, mid-April

Leaves Winchester

139

1154, late April to early May

Visits Meaux Abbey, Fountains Abbey and Durham, and probably Beverley and Ripon

139–40

1154, 9 May

Returns to York

140–2

1154, 30 May

Taken ill after mass at York Minster

144–5

1154, 8 June

Dies in the archbishop’s palace at York

145

241

BIBLIOGRAPHY Manuscript sources cited Durham, Dean and Chapter Archives 4.1 Archiep. 7 London, British Library MS Cotton Claudius D XI MS Cotton Nero C IV MS Harley 2 MS Stowe 944 Loan MS 74 Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Dodsworth CXXV Yorks ch. 106

Primary sources Aelred of Rievaulx, De Sanctis Ecclesiae Hagustaldensis, in The Priory of Hexham, I, ed. J. H. Hinde, SS 44 (Durham, 1864). Aluredi Beverlacensis, Annales sive Historia de Gestis Regum Britanniae, ed. T. Hearne (Oxford, 1716). Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in English Historical Documents II, 1042–1189, ed. D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenaway, 2nd edn (London, 1981), pp. 103–215. Annales de Wintonia, in Annales Monastici, II, ed. H. R. Luard, RS 36 (London, 1865). Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, in Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, ed. C. Plummer (Oxford, 1896). The Book of St Gilbert, ed. R. Foreville, OMT (Oxford, 1987). Breviarium ad Usum Insignis Ecclesie Eboracensis, 2 vols, ed. Mr Lawley, SS 71 and 75 (Durham, 1880 and 1883). British Borough Charters 1042–1216, ed. A. Ballard (Cambridge, 1913). Calendar of the Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, 1231–1234 (London, 1905). Calendar of Papal Registers – Papal Letters I, 1198–1304, ed. W. H. Bliss (London, 1893). Calendar of Patent Rolls 1225–1232 (London, 1903). Cartularium Abbathiae de Whiteby, ed. J. C. Atkinson, I, SS 69 (Durham, 1878). Cartularium Abbatiae de Rievalle, ed. J. C. Atkinson, SS 83 (Durham, 1889). Cartularium Prioratus de Gyseburne, ed. W. Brown, II, SS 89 (Durham, 1894). The Cartularies of Southwick Priory, 2 vols, ed. K. A. Hanna, Hampshire Record Series 9–10 (1988–9).

243

St William of York The Cartulary of the Treasurer of York Minster, ed. J. Burton, Borthwick Texts and Calendars (York, 1978). The Charters of King David I, ed. G. W. S. Barrow (Woodbridge, 1999). Charters of the Honour of Mowbray 1107–1191, ed. D. E. Greenway (Oxford, 1972). Charters of the Redvers Family and the Earldom of Devon 1090–1217, ed. R. Bearman, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, new series 37 (1994). The Chartulary of St John of Pontefract, 2 vols, ed. R. Holmes, YASRS 25 and 30 (1899–1902). Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene, 4 vols, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 51 (London, 1868– 71). Chronica Monasterii de Melsa, ed. E. A. Bond, RS 43 (London, 1866). Chronica Pontificum Ecclesiae Eboracensis, in The Historians of the Church of York and Its Archbishops, ed. J. Raine, RS 71 (London, 1879–94), II, 312–445. The Chronicle of John of Worcester, III, The Annals from 1067 to 1140, ed. P. McGurk, OMT (Oxford, 1998). The Chronicle of Melrose, facsimile edn, ed. A. O. Anderson, M. O. Anderson and W. C. Dickinson (London, 1936). The Chronicle of St Mary’s Abbey, York, ed. H. H. E. Craster and M. E. Thornton, SS 148 (Durham, 1934). The Coucher Book of Selby, 2 vols, ed. J. T. Fowler, YASRS 10 and 13 (1891–3). Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, I, AD 871–1204, Part II, 1066–1204, ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C. N. L. Brooke (Oxford, 1981). Curia Regis Rolls, I–VIII (London, 1922–38). Domesday Book, ed. J. Morris, 38 vols (Chichester, 1975–92). Eadmer, Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule, RS 81 (London, 1884). ‘An Early Mortmain Inquest’, ed. D. M. Palliser, in The Church in Medieval York – Records Edited in Honour of Professor Barrie Dobson, Borthwick Texts and Calendars 24 (York, 1999), pp. 1–15. Early Yorkshire Charters, vols 1–3, ed. W. Farrer (Edinburgh, 1914–16); with Consolidated Index, ed. C. T. Clay and E. M. Clay, YASRS, Extra Series 4 (1942). Early Yorkshire Charters, vols 4–12, ed. C. T. Clay, YASRS, Extra Series 1–3 and 5– 10 (1935–65). ‘An Edition and Translation of the Life of Waldef, Abbot of Melrose, by Jocelin of Furness’, ed. G. J. McFadden, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1952. English Episcopal Acta V, York 1070–1154, ed. J. Burton (Oxford, 1988). English Episcopal Acta VI, Norwich 1070–1214, ed. C. Harper-Bill (Oxford, 1990). English Episcopal Acta VII, Hereford 1079–1234, ed. J. Barrow (Oxford, 1993). English Episcopal Acta VIII, Winchester 1070–1204, ed. M. J. Franklin (Oxford, 1993). English Episcopal Acta IX, Winchester 1205–1238, ed. N. Vincent (Oxford, 1994). English Episcopal Acta XIV, Coventry and Lichfield 1072–1159, ed. M. J. Franklin (Oxford, 1997). English Episcopal Acta XX, York 1154–1181, ed. M. Lovatt (Oxford, 2000). English Episcopal Acta XXIV, Durham 1153–95, ed. M. G. Snape (Oxford, 2002). English Episcopal Acta XXVII, York 1189–1212, ed. M. Lovatt (Oxford, 2004). English Historical Documents II, 1042–1189, ed. D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenaway, 2nd edn (London, 1981).

244

Bibliography English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I, Volume II, Henry II and Richard I, ed. R. C. Van Caenegem, Selden Society 107 (London, 1991). Epistola Turstini, in Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, I, ed. J. R. Walbran, SS 42 (Durham, 1863), pp. 11–29. Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica, in The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, I, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 73 (London, 1879). Gesta Stephani, 2nd edn, ed. K. R. Potter and R. H. C. Davis, OMT (Oxford, 1976). The Great Roll of the Pipe AD 1158–1159, Publications of the Pipe Roll Society, I (1884), and subsequent volumes for subsequent years. Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. D. Greenway, OMT (Oxford, 1996). Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis: The History of the Church of Abingdon, II, ed. J. Hudson, OMT (Oxford, 2002). The Historians of the Church of York and Its Archbishops, 3 vols, ed. J. Raine, RS 71 (London, 1879–94). Hugh of Kirkstall, Narratio de Fundatione Fontanis Monasterii, in Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, I, ed. J. R. Walbran, SS 42 (Durham, 1863), pp. 1–129. Hugh the Chanter, The History of the Church of York, 1066–1127, ed. C. Johnson, Nelson Medieval Texts (Edinburgh, 1961). Hugh the Chanter, The History of the Church of York 1066–1127, ed. C. Johnson, M. Brett, C. N. L. Brooke and M. Winterbottom, revised edn, OMT (Oxford, 1990). Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls 1199–1230 AD, ed. C. T. Flower, Selden Society 62 (London, 1944). John of Hexham, Historia, in Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, ed. T. Arnold, II, RS 75 (London, 1885). John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, ed. M. Chibnall (London, 1956). The Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot, ed. A. Morey and C. N. L. Brooke (Cambridge, 1967). The Letters of John of Salisbury, I, ed. A. Morey, W. J. Miller, H. E. Butler and C. N. L. Brooke (London, 1955). The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. G. Constable (Cambridge, MA, 1967). The Letters of St Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B. S. James, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1998). The Liber Vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey Winchester, ed. S. Keynes, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 26 (Copenhagen, 1996). Liber Vitae: Register and Martyrology of New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester, ed. W. de Gray Birch, Hampshire Record Society (London, 1892). The Life of Ailred of Rievaulx by Walter Daniel, ed. F. M. Powicke, Nelson Medieval Texts (London, 1950). The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster, ed. F. Barlow, Nelson Medieval Texts (London, 1962). The Life of St Edmund by Matthew Paris, trans. and ed. C. H. Lawrence (Stroud, 1996). The Life of St Hugh of Lincoln, 2 vols, ed. D. L. Douie and H. Farmer, Nelson Medieval Texts (London, 1961–2). Life of Waltheof by Jocelin of Furness, in Acta Sanctorum, August, I (Paris, 1867), pp. 242–78.

245

St William of York Magnum Rotulum Scaccarii, vel Magnum Rotulum Pipae de Anno Tricesimo-Primo Regni Henrici Primi, ed. J. Hunter (London, 1833). Manuale et Processionale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis, ed. Dr Henderson, SS 63 (Durham, 1875). Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, 7 vols, ed. H. R. Luard, RS 57 (London, 1872–83). Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, I, ed. J. R. Walbran, SS 42 (Durham, 1863). Memorials of the Church of SS Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon, I, ed. J. T. Fowler, SS 74 (Durham, 1882). Memorials of the Church of SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon, IV, ed. Canon Fowler, SS 115 (Durham, 1908). Miracula Quaedam Sancti Willelmi, in The Historians of the Church of York and Its Archbishops, ed. J. Raine, RS 71 (London, 1879–94), III, 531–43. Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. W. Dugdale, revised edn ed. J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel, 6 vols in 8 (London, 1817–30). Papsturkunden in England, II–III, ed. W. Holtzmann (Berlin, 1935, and Göttingen, 1952). Pedes Finium Ebor. Regnante Johanne, SS 94 (Durham, 1897). Pleas before the King or His Justices 1198–1202, I, ed. D. M. Stenton, Selden Society 67 (London, 1953). Property and Piety in Early Medieval Winchester. Documents Relating to the Topography of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman City and Its Minsters, ed. A. R. Rumble, Winchester Studies 4.iii (Oxford, 2002). Radulfi de Diceto Decani Lundoniensis Opera Historica, 2 vols, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 68 (London, 1876). Red Book of the Exchequer, 3 vols, ed. H. Hall, RS 99 (London, 1896). Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: The Acta of William I (1066–1087), ed. D. Bates (Oxford, 1998). Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066–1154, Volume I, ed. H. W. C. Davis (Oxford, 1913); Volume II, Regesta Henrici Primi 1100–1135, ed. C. Johnson and H. A. Cronne (Oxford, 1956); Volume III, Regesta Regis Stephani ac Mathildis Imperatricis ac Gaufridi et Henrici Ducum Normannorum, 1135–54, ed. H. A. Cronne and R. H. C. Davis (Oxford, 1968). Reginald of Durham, Libellus de Vita et Miraculis S. Godrici, ed. Mr Stevenson, SS 20 (London, 1847). Reginaldi Monachi Dunelmensis, Libellus de Admirandis Beati Cuthberti Virtutibus, ed. J. Raine, SS 1 (Durham, 1835). The Register or Rolls of Walter Gray, ed. J. Raine, SS 56 (Durham, 1872). Les Registres de Grégoire IX, ed. L. Auvray, 4 vols (Paris, 1896–1955). Richard fitz Nigel, Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. C. Johnson, 2nd edn with corrections by F. E. L. Carter and D. E. Greenway, OMT (Oxford, 1983). Richard of Hexham, Historia, in The Priory of Hexham, I, ed. J. H Hinde, SS 44 (Durham, 1864). Robert of Torigni, Chronica, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, IV, ed. R. Howlett, RS 82.4 (London, 1889). Roger of Howden (formerly attributed to Benedict of Peterborough), Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, 2 vols, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 49 (London, 1867).

246

Bibliography Rolls of the Justices in Eyre, Being the Rolls of Pleas and Assizes for Yorkshire 3 Henry III (1218–19), ed. D. M. Stenton, Selden Society 56 (London, 1937). Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glanvill, ed. R. C. Van Caenegem, Selden Society 77 (London, 1959). Sancti Anselmi Opera Omnia, ed. F. S. Schmitt, 6 vols (Edinburgh, 1938–61). Sancti Bernardi Opera, VII–VIII, ed. J. Leclercq and H. M. Rochais (Rome, 1974–7). Select Pleas of the Forest, ed. G. J. Turner, Selden Society 13 (London, 1901). Sources for York History to AD 1100, ed. D. Rollason, D. Gore and G. FellowsJensen, AY (York, 1998). Stephen of Whitby, De Fundatione Abbatiae Sanctae Mariae Virginis Eboraci in Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. W. Dugdale, revised edn ed. J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel, 6 vols in 8 (London, 1817–30), III, 544–6. The Stonyhurst Gospel of Saint John, facsimile edn, ed. T. J. Brown, Roxburghe Club (Oxford, 1969). Suger, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, ed. H. Waquet (Paris, 1929). Suger, The Deeds of Louis the Fat, trans. R. Cusimano and J. Moorhead (Washington, 1992). Testa de Nevill, ed. J. Caley (London, 1807). Three Rolls of the King’s Court in the Reign of Richard the First, AD 1194–1195, ed. F. W. Maitland, Pipe Roll Society 14 (London, 1891). Twelfth-Century English Archidiaconal and Vice-Archidiaconal Acta, ed. B. R. Kemp, Canterbury and York Society 92 (Woodbridge, 2001). Two Lives of St Cuthbert, ed. B. Colgrave (Cambridge, 1940). ‘Vita S. Roberti Novi Monasterii Abbatis’, ed. P. Grosjean, Analecta Bollandiana 56 (1936), 334–60. ‘Vitae S. Roberti Knaresburgensis’, ed. P. Grosjean, Analecta Bollandiana 57 (1939), 364–400. Vita Sancti Willelmi Auctore Anonymo, in The Historians of the Church of York and Its Archbishops, ed. J. Raine, RS 71 (London, 1879–94), II, 270–91. Westminster Abbey Charters 1066–c. 1214, ed. E. Mason, London Record Society 25 (1988). William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, RS 52 (London, 1870). William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. R. A. B. Mynors, R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, OMT (Oxford, 1998). William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, I, ed. R. Howlett, RS 82 (London, 1884). Winchester in the Early Middle Ages: An Edition and Discussion of the Winton Domesday, ed. M. Biddle, Winchester Studies, 1 (Oxford, 1976). York Memorandum Book, II, ed. M. Sellers, SS 125 (Durham, 1915). The Yorkshire Domesday (London, 1992).

247

St William of York

Secondary sources Appleby, J. C., and P. Dalton, eds, Government, Religion and Society in Northern England 1000–1700 (Stroud, 1997). Appleby, J. J., ‘Richard of Devizes and the Annals of Winchester’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 36 (1963), 70–7. Aylmer, G. E., and R. Cant, eds, A History of York Minster (Oxford, 1977). Baker, D., ‘Viri Religiosi and the York Election Dispute’, in Councils and Assemblies, ed. G. J. Cuming and D. Baker, Studies in Church History 7 (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 82–100. Baker, D., ‘San Bernardo e l’elezione di York’, in Studi su S. Bernardo di Chiaravalle, Convegno Internazionale, Firenze, 1974 (Rome, 1975), pp. 115–80. Baker, D., ‘Legend and Reality: The Case of Waldef of Melrose’, in Church, Society and Politics, ed. D. Baker, Studies in Church History 12 (Oxford, 1975), pp. 59– 82. Baker, D., ‘Patronage in the Early Twelfth-Century Church: Walter Espec, Kirkham and Rievaulx’, in Traditio–Krisis–Renovatio aus Theologische-Sicht, ed. B. Jaspert and R. Mohr (Marburg, 1976), pp. 92–100. Baker, D., ‘Ailred of Rievaulx and Walter Espec’, Haskins Society Journal 1 (1989), 91–8. Barlow, F., The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042–1216, 4th edn (London, 1988). Barlow, F., Edward the Confessor, 2nd edn (New Haven, 1997). Barraclough, G., ‘Some Charters of the Earls of Chester’, in A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton, ed. P. M. Barnes and C. F. Slade (Pipe Roll Society, new series 36 for 1960) (London, 1962), pp. 25–43. Barrow, G. W. S., ‘The Scots and the North of England’, in The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign, ed. E. King (Oxford, 1994), pp. 231–53. Bartlett, R., Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal (Oxford, 1986). Bateson, M., Borough Customs, I, Selden Society 18 (London, 1904). Baxter, S., ‘Archbishop Wulfstan and the Administration of God’s Property’, in Wulfstan, Archbishop of York. The Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, ed. M. Townend (Turnhout, 2004), pp. 161–205. Biddle, M., ‘Seasonal Festivals and Residence: Winchester, Westminster and Gloucester in the Tenth to Twelfth Centuries’, Anglo-Norman Studies 8 (1986), 52–72. Bilson, J., ‘Weaverthorpe Church and Its Builder’, Archaeologia 72 (1922), 51–70. Bilson, J., ‘Wharram-le-Street Church, Yorkshire, and St Rule’s Church, St Andrews’, Archaeologia 73 (1923), 55–72. Blackburn, M., ‘Coinage and Currency’, in The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign, ed. E. King (Oxford, 1994), pp. 145–205. Bradley, S. A. J., Orm Gamalson’s Sundial: The Lily’s Blossom and the Roses’ Fragrance (Kirkdale, 2002). Brett, M., The English Church under Henry I (Oxford, 1975). Brewster, T. C. H., ‘An Excavation at Weaverthorpe Manor, East Riding, 1960', YAJ 44 (1972), 114–33. Brinklow, D., ‘Bulls in the Church’, Interim – Archaeology in York 12.1 (1987), 1–7.

248

Bibliography Brooke, C., ‘The Archdeacon and the Norman Conquest’, in Tradition and Change: Essays in Honour of Marjorie Chibnall Presented by Her Friends on the Occasion of Her Seventieth Birthday, ed. D. Greenway, C. Holdsworth and J. Sayers (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 1–19. Brown, S., ‘Our Magnificent Fabrick’: York Minster, An Architectural History c. 1220– 1500 (Swindon, 2003). Brown, W., ‘Trial by Combat’, YAJ 23 (1915), 300–7. Browne, J., The History of the Metropolitan Church of St Peter, York, 2 vols (London, 1847). Browne, J., A Description of the Representations and Arms on the Glass in the Windows of York Minster (Leeds, 1915). Bullough, D., ‘St Oswald, Monk, Bishop and Archbishop’, in St Oswald of Worcester – Life and Influence, ed. N. Brooks and C. Cubitt (London, 1996), pp. 1–22. Burton, J., The Religious Orders in the East Riding of Yorkshire in the Twelfth Century (East Yorkshire Local History Society, 1989). Burton, J., Kirkham Priory from Foundation to Dissolution, Borthwick Paper 86 (York, 1995). Burton, J., The Monastic Order in Yorkshire, 1069–1215 (Cambridge, 1999). Burton, J., ‘William of York’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and B. Harrison (Oxford, 2004), LIX, 123–5. Cambridge, E., ‘The Early Building-History of St Andrews Cathedral, Fife, and Its Context in Northern Transitional Architecture’, Antiquaries Journal 57 (1977), 277–88. A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, I (London, 1808). The Catholic Encyclopedia, XI (London, 1913). Cheney, C. R., ‘King John and the Papal Interdict’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 31 (1948), 295–317, reprinted in his The Papacy and England, 12th–14th Centuries (London, 1982). Cheney, C. R., Handbook of Dates (London, 1955). Clay, C. T., ‘The Early Treasurers of York’, YAJ 35 (1940–3), 7–34. Clay, C. T., ‘The Early Precentors and Chancellors of York’, YAJ 35 (1943), 116–38. Clay, C. T., ‘Notes on the Early Archdeacons in the Church of York’, YAJ 36 (1944–7), 269–87. Clay, C. T., comp., York Minster Fasti, 2 vols, YASRS 123–4 (1958–9). Cokayne, G. E., The Complete Peerage, new edn, 13 vols (London, 1910–59). Constable, G., ‘The Disputed Election at Langres in 1138', Traditio 13 (1957), 119–52. Cooper, J. M., The Last Four Anglo-Saxon Archbishops of York, Borthwick Paper 38 (York, 1970). Coppack, G., Fountains Abbey (London, 1993). Cowdrey, H. E. J., ‘Archbishop Thomas I of York and the Pallium’, Haskins Society Journal 11 (1998), 31–41. Cowling, G. C., The History of Easingwold and the Forest of Galtres (Huddersfield, 1967). Cronne, H. A., The Reign of Stephen 1135–54: Anarchy in England (London, 1970).

249

St William of York Crook, J., ed., Winchester Cathedral, Nine Hundred Years, 1093–1993 (Chichester, 1993). Crook, J., ‘“Vir Optimus Wlfstanus”: The Post-Conquest Commemoration of Archbishop Wulfstan of York at Ely Cathedral’, in Wulfstan, Archbishop of York, The Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, ed. M. Townend (Turnhout, 2004), pp. 501–24. Dalton, J. P., The Archiepiscopal and Deputed Seals of York 1114–1500, Borthwick Texts and Calendars 17 (York, 1992). Dalton, P., Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship – Yorkshire, 1066–1154 (Cambridge, 1994). Daniell, C., ‘Family, Land and Politics: Ralph Nuvel’s Family and Ancestors in York (c. 1120 – c. 1240)’, York Historian 12 (1995), 2–20. Daniell, C., ‘Battle and Trial: Weapon Injury Burials of St Andrew’s Church, Fishergate, York’, Medieval Archaeology 45 (2001), 220–6. Davis, R. C. H., King Stephen, 1135–1154 (London, 1967). Dixon, W. H., and J. Raine, Fasti Eboracenses – Lives of the Archbishops of York, I (London, 1863). Dobson, R. B., ‘The Later Middle Ages 1215–1500’, in A History of York Minster, ed. G. E. Aylmer and R. Cant (Oxford, 1977), pp. 44–109. Douie, D. L., Archbishop Geoffrey Plantagenet and the Chapter of York (York, 1960). Drake, C. S., The Romanesque Fonts of Northern Europe and Scandinavia (Woodbridge, 2002). Drake, F., Eboracum (London, 1736). Dugdale, W., The Baronage of England, 2 vols (London, 1675–6). English, B., The Lords of Holderness 1086–1260: A Study in Feudal Society (Oxford, 1979). Eyton, R. W., Antiquities of Shropshire, 12 vols (London, 1854–60). Farmer, D. H., ‘The Cult and Canonization of St Hugh’, in St Hugh of Lincoln, ed. H. Mayr-Harting (Oxford, 1987), pp. 75–87. Fowler, J., ‘On a Window Representing the Life and Miracles of S. William of York, at the North End of the Eastern Transept, York Minster’, YAJ 3 (1875), 198–348. French, T., York Minster: The St William Window (Oxford, 1999). Gem, R., ‘The English Parish Church in the 11th and 12th Centuries: A Great Rebuilding?’, in Minsters and Parish Churches: The Local Church in Transition 950–1200, ed. J. Blair (Oxford, 1988), pp. 21–30. Gem, R., ‘The Anglo-Saxon and Norman Churches’, in St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury, ed. R. Gem (London, 1997), pp. 90–122. Gem, R., and M. Thurlby, ‘The Early Monastic Church of Lastingham’, in Yorkshire Monasticism: Archaeology, Art and Architecture, from the 7th to the 16th Centuries, ed. L. R. Hoey, BAACT 16 (1995), pp. 31–9. Gem, R., and P. Tudor-Craig, ‘A “Winchester School” Wall-Painting at Nether Wallop, Hampshire’, Anglo-Saxon England 9 (1981), 115–36. Gervers, M., ed., The Second Crusade and the Cistercians (New York, 1992). Gillingham, J., ‘Two Yorkshire Historians Compared: Roger of Howden and William of Newburgh’, Haskins Society Journal 12 (2002), 16–37. Gilyard-Beer, R., and G. Coppack, ‘Excavations at Fountains Abbey, North Yorkshire, 1979–80: The Early Development of the Monastery’, Archaeologia 108 (1986), 147–88.

250

Bibliography Given-Wilson, C., and A. Curteis, The Royal Bastards of Medieval England (London, 1984). Gransden, A., Historical Writing in England c. 550 to c. 1307 (London, 1974). Green, J., ‘Aristocratic Loyalties on the Northern Frontier of England, c. 1100– 1174’, in England in the Twelfth Century: Proceedings of the 1988 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. D. Williams (Woodbridge, 1990), pp. 83–100. Green, J. A., The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986). Greenway, D. E., comp., Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066–1300, VI, York (London, 1999). Haines, R. M., ‘Canterbury versus York; Fluctuating Fortunes in a Perennial Conflict’, in his Ecclesia Anglicana: Studies in the English Church of the Later Middle Ages (Toronto, 1989), pp. 69–105. Halsey, R., ‘The Galilee Chapel’, in Medieval Art and Architecture at Durham Cathedral, ed. N. Coldstream and P. Draper, BAACT 3 (1980), pp. 59–73. Hamilton Thompson, A., ‘The Chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels, Otherwise Known as St Sepulchre’s Chapel, at York’, YAJ 36 (1944–7), 63–77. Harrison, S., ‘Observations on the Architecture of the Galilee Chapel’, in AngloNorman Durham 1093–1193, ed. D. Rollason, M. Harvey and M. Prestwich (Woodbridge, 1994), pp. 213–34. Harvey, B., Westminster Abbey and Its Estates in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1977). Harvey, J., English Mediaeval Architects – A Biographical Dictionary down to 1550, rev. edn (Gloucester, 1987). Heywood, S., ‘The Church of St Rule, St Andrews’, in Medieval Art and Architecture in the Diocese of St Andrews, ed. J. Higgitt, BAACT 14 (1994), pp. 38–46. Hill, R. M. T., and C. N. L. Brooke, ‘From 627 until the Early Thirteenth Century’, in A History of York Minster, ed. G. E. Aylmer and R. Cant (Oxford, 1977), pp. 1–43. Holdsworth, C., ‘St Bernard and England’, Anglo-Norman Studies 8 (1985), 138–53. Holdsworth, C., ‘The Affiliation of Savigny’, in Truth as Gift: Studies in Medieval Cistercian History in Honor of John R. Sommerfeldt (Kalamazoo, 2004), pp. 43–88. Hollister, C. W., ‘The Misfortunes of the Mandevilles’, History 58 (1973), 18–28, reprinted in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London, 1986), pp. 117–27. Hollister, C. W., ‘The Origins of the English Treasury’, EHR 93 (1978), 262–75, reprinted in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London, 1986), pp. 209–22. Hollister, C. W., ‘Royal Acts of Mutilation: The Case against Henry I’, Albion 10 (1978), 330–40, reprinted in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London, 1986), pp. 291–301. Hollister, C. W., ‘The Magnates of Stephen’s Reign: Reluctant Anarchists’, Haskins Society Journal 5 (1983), 77–87. Hollister, C. W., Henry I (New Haven, 2001). Holmes, R., ‘Paulinus de Leeds’, Publications of the Thoresby Society 4 (1895), 209–25. Holt, J. C., The Northerners, A Study in the Reign of King John (Oxford, 1961). Holt, J. C., ‘1153: The Treaty of Winchester’, in The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign, ed. E. King (Oxford, 1994), pp. 291–316.

251

St William of York Horrox, R., ed., Beverley Minster, An Illustrated History (Beverley, 2000). Houben, H., Roger II von Sizilien (Darmstadt, 1997). Houben, H., Roger II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West (Cambridge, 2002). Jennings, B., ed., A History of Harrogate and Knaresborough (Huddersfield, 1970). Jensen, G. F., Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire (Copenhagen, 1968). Kapelle, W. E., The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and Its Transformation 1000–1135 (London, 1979). E. J. Kealey, Medieval Medicus, A Social History of Anglo-Norman Medicine (Baltimore, 1981). Keats-Rohan, K. S. B., Domesday People: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents 1066–1166, I, Domesday Book (Woodbridge, 1999). Kemp, E. W., Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (Oxford, 1948). Ker, N. R., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain – A List of Surviving Books, 2nd edn (London, 1964). Keynes, S., ‘The Additions in Old English’, in The York Gospels, ed. N. Barker, Roxburghe Club (London, 1986), pp. 81–99. King, E., ed., The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign (Oxford, 1994). Knowles, D., ‘The Case of St William of York’, Cambridge Historical Journal, 5.2 (1936), 162–77 and 212–14, reprinted with additional notes in his collected essays, The Historian and Character and Other Essays (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 76–97. Knowles, D., The Monastic Order in England, 940–1216, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1963). Knowles, D., C. N. L. Brooke and V. C. M. London, comp., The Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales, 940–1216, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 2001 [1st 1972]). Lang, J., Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture III, York and East Yorkshire (Oxford, 1991). Latham, R. E., and D. R. Howlett, eds., Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources (Oxford, 1975–). Lawrance, N. A. H., ed., Fasti Parochiales V, Deanery of Buckrose, YASRS 143 (1985). Lawrence, C. H., St Edmund of Abingdon – A Study in Hagiography and History (Oxford, 1960). Mann, F., Early Medieval Church Sculpture: A Study of 12th-Century Fragments in East Yorkshire (Beverley, 1985). Mann, G., ‘The Development of Wulfstan’s Alcuin Manuscript’, in Wulfstan, Archbishop of York. The Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, ed. M. Townend (Turnhout, 2004), pp. 234–67. Marner, D., St Cuthbert – His Life and Cult in Medieval Durham (London, 2000). Matthew, D., The Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge, 1992). McDermid, R. T. W., comp., Beverley Minster Fasti, YASRS 149 for 1990 (1993). Morey, A., ‘Canonist Evidence in the Case of St William of York’, Cambridge Historical Journal 10 (1952), 352–3. Morris, R., and E. Cambridge, ‘Beverley Minster before the Early Thirteenth Century’, in Medieval Art and Architecture in the East Riding of Yorkshire, ed. C. Wilson, BAACT 9 (1989), pp. 9–32. Morris, R. K., ‘Churches in York and Its Hinterland, Building Patterns and Stone Sources in the 11th and 12th Centuries’, in Minsters and Parish Churches: The Local Church in Transition 950–1200, ed. J. Blair (Oxford, 1988), pp. 191–9. Neilsen, G., Trial by Combat (Glasgow, 1890).

252

Bibliography Nicholl, D., Thurstan, Archbishop of York (1114–1140) (York, 1964). Norton, C., ‘The Buildings of St Mary’s Abbey, York, and Their Destruction’, Antiquaries Journal 74 (1994), 256–88. Norton, C., ‘The Anglo-Saxon Cathedral at York and the Topography of the Anglian City’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association 151 (1998), 1–42. Norton, C., ‘The York Fire of 1137: Conflagration or Consecration?’, Northern History, 34 (1998), 194–204. Norton, C., ‘The Design and Construction of the Romanesque Church of St Mary’s Abbey, York’, YAJ 71 (1999), 73–88. Norton, C., ‘Liber Specialis et Preciosus: An Illuminated Life of St Cuthbert from Durham’, in New Offerings, Ancient Treasures: Studies in Medieval Art for George Henderson, ed. P. Binski and W. Noel (Stroud, 2001), pp. 210–34. Norton, C., Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux and the Norman Cathedral at York, Borthwick Paper 100 (York, 2001). Norton, C., ‘York Minster in the Time of Wulfstan’, in Wulfstan, Archbishop of York. The Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference, ed. M. Townend (Turnhout, 2004), pp. 207–34. Norton, C., ‘Richard of Fountains and the Letter of Thurstan: History and Historiography of a Monastic Controversy, St Mary’s Abbey, York, 1132’, in Perspectives for an Architecture of Solitude: Essays on Cistercians, Art and Architecture in Honour of Peter Fergusson, ed. T. N. Kinder (Turnhout, 2004), pp. 9–34. Norton, C., ‘Alcuin’s York’, in Alcuin, ed. M. Garrison (forthcoming). Ormrod, W. M., ed., The Lord Lieutenants and High Sheriffs of Yorkshire, 1066–2000 (Barnsley, 2000). Orpen, G. H., Ireland under the Normans 1169–1216, 2 vols (Oxford, 1911). Palliser, D., Domesday York, Borthwick Paper 78 (York, 1990). Palliser, D., ‘The Birth of York’s Civic Liberties, c. 1200–1354', in The Government of Medieval York: Essays in Commemoration of the 1396 Royal Charter, ed. S. Rees Jones, Borthwick Studies in History, 3 (York, 1997), pp. 88–107. Park, D., ‘The “Lewes Group” of Wall-Paintings in Sussex’, Anglo-Norman Studies 6 (1984), 200–37. Park, D., ‘The Wall Paintings in the Galilee Chapel of Durham Cathedral’, Friends of Durham Cathedral 57th Annual Report (1990), 21–34. Parks, G. B., The English Traveler to Italy, I, The Middle Ages (to 1525) (Rome, 1954). Pevsner, N., and D. Neave, Yorkshire: York and the East Riding, 2nd edn, Buildings of England (London, 1995). Phillips, D., The Cathedral of Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux: Excavations at York Minster, II, RCHM (London, 1985). Phillips, D., and B. Heywood, ed. M. O. H. Carver, Excavations at York Minster, Volume I, From Roman Fortress to Norman Cathedral, RCHM (London, 1995). Pinder-Wilson, R. H., and C. N. L. Brooke, ‘The Reliquary of St Petroc and the Ivories of Norman Sicily’, Archaeologia 104 (1973), 261–305. Poole, R. L., ‘The Appointment and Deprivation of St William, Archbishop of York’, EHR 45 (1930), 273–81. Purvis, J. S., ‘The Tables of the York Vicars Choral’, YAJ 41 (1963–6), 741–8. Ramm, H. G., ‘The Tombs of Archbishops Walter de Gray (1216–55) and Godfrey de Ludham (1258–65) in York Minster, and Their Contents’, Archaeologia 103 (1971), 101–47.

253

St William of York Ramsay, N., and M. Sparks, ‘The Cult of St Dunstan at Christ Church, Canterbury’, in St Dunstan, His Life, Times and Cult, ed. N. Ramsay, M. Sparks and T. Tatton-Brown (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 311–23. Richardson, H. G., and G. O. Sayles, The Governance of Medieval England from the Conquest to Magna Carta (Edinburgh, 1963). Robinson, J. A., Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster (Cambridge, 1911). Round, J. H., ‘The Weigher of the Exchequer’, EHR 26 (1911), 724–7. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York, Volume III, South-West of the Ouse (London, 1972). Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York, Volume IV, Outside the City Walls East of the Ouse (London, 1975). Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York, V, The Central Area (London, 1981). Saltman, A., Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1956). Sayers, J. E., Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227) (Cambridge, 1984). Scammell, G. V., Hugh du Puiset, Bishop of Durham (Cambridge, 1956). Sherman, R. M., ‘Robert de Gant (c. 1085 – c. 1158): Dean of York and King’s Chancellor’, Haskins Society Journal 13 (1999) (published 2004), 99–110. Shirley, K. L., ‘Faricius of Abingdon and the King’s Court’, Haskins Society Journal 9 (1997) (published 2001), 175–84. Smith, D. M., and V. C. M. London, comp., The Heads of Religious Houses England and Wales, II, 1216–1377 (Cambridge, 2001). Southern, R. W., Saint Anselm and His Biographer: A Study of Monastic Life and Thought 1059–c. 1130 (Cambridge, 1966). Squire, A., Aelred of Rievaulx, A Study (London, 1969). Stacey, R. C., ‘Richard Marsh’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and B. Harrison (Oxford, 2004), XXXVI, 807–8. Stenton, D. M., English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter, 1066–1215 (London, 1965). Stocker, D. A., ‘The Priory of Holy Trinity, York: Antiquarians and Architectural History’, in Yorkshire Monasticism: Archaeology, Art and Architecture, from the 7th to 16th Centuries, ed. L. R. Hoey, BAACT 16 (1995), pp. 79–96. Stratford, N., ‘The “Henry of Blois Plaques” in the British Museum’, in Medieval Art and Architecture at Winchester Cathedral, ed. T. A. Heslop and V. A. Sekules, BAACT 6 (1983), pp. 28–37. Takayama, H., The Administration of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Leiden, 1993). Talbot, C. H., ‘New Documents in the Case of St William of York’, Cambridge Historical Journal, 10.1 (1950), 1–15. Talbot, C. H., and E. A. Hammond, The Medical Practitioners in Medieval England – A Biographical Register (London, 1965). Teubner-Schoebel, S., Bernhard von Clairvaux als Vermittler an der Kurie (Bonn, 1993). Thirion, J., ‘La Cathédrale de Bayeux’, Congrès Archéologique 132 (1978), 240–85. Thompson, K., ‘Affairs of State : The Illegitimate Children of Henry I’, Journal of Medieval History 29 (2003), 129–51.

254

Bibliography Thurlby, M., ‘St Andrews Cathedral-Priory and the Beginnings of Gothic Architecture in Northern Britain’, in Medieval Art and Architecture in the Diocese of St Andrews, ed. J. Higgitt, BAACT 14 for 1986 (1994), pp. 47–60. Thurlby, M., ‘Roger of Pont l’Évêque, Archbishop of York (1154–81) and French Sources for the Beginning of Gothic in Northern Britain’, in England and the Continent in the Middle Ages: Studies in Memory of Andrew Martindale, ed. J. Mitchell and M. Moran, Harlaxon Medieval Studies 8 (Stamford, 2000), pp. 35–47. Tudor, V., ‘The Cult in the Twelfth Century: The Evidence of Reginald of Durham’, in St Cuthbert, His Cult and His Community to AD 1200, ed. G. Bonner, D. Rollason and C. Stancliffe (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 444–67. Turner, R. V., The King and His Courts (New York, 1968). Vacandard, E., Vie de Saint Bernard, abbé de Clairvaux (Paris, 1927). Victoria County History Bedfordshire, II (London, 1904). Victoria County History Hampshire, II (London, 1903). Victoria County History Hampshire, III (London, 1908). Victoria County History Hampshire, IV (London, 1911). Victoria County History Wiltshire, VII (Oxford, 1953). Victoria County History Wiltshire, IX (Oxford, 1970). Victoria County History Wiltshire, X (Oxford, 1975). Victoria County History Wiltshire, XIV (Oxford, 1991). Victoria County History York (Oxford, 1961). Victoria County History Yorkshire, I (London, 1907). Victoria County History Yorkshire, III (London, 1913). Victoria County History Yorkshire East Riding, VI (Oxford, 1989). Wall, J., ‘Anglo-Saxon Sundials in Ryedale’, YAJ 69 (1997), 93–117. Wardrop, J., Fountains Abbey and Its Benefactors 1132–1300 (Kalamazoo, 1987). Warren, W. L., Henry II (London, 1973). Wenham, L. P. et al., St Mary Bishophill Junior and St Mary Castlegate, AY 8.2 (York, 1987). White, G. H., ‘Financial Administration under Henry I’, TRHS 4th s., 8 (1925), 56–78. White, G. H., ‘The Parentage of Herbert the Chamberlain’, Notes and Queries 166 (1932), 439–41 and 453–5. Wilson, B., and F. Mee, The Medieval Parish Churches of York – The Pictorial Evidence, AY Supplementary Series 1.1 (York, 1998). Wilson, B., and F. Mee, ’The Fairest Arch in England’: Old Ouse Bridge, York, and Its Buildings – The Pictorial Evidence, AY Supplementary Series 1.2 (York, 2002). Wilson, C., The Shrines of St William of York (York, 1977). Wilson, C., ‘The Cistercians as “Missionaries of Gothic” in Northern England’, in Cistercian Art and Architecture in the British Isles, ed. C. Norton and D. Park (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 86–116. Wilson, C., and J. Burton, St Mary’s Abbey, York (York, 1988). Wilson, C., D. E. O’Connor and M. A. J. Thompson, St Giles, Skelton: A Brief Guide (York, 1978). Woodman, F., The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral (London, 1981). Wormald, F., The Winchester Psalter (London, 1973). Young, A., William Cumin: Border Politics and the Bishopric of Durham 1141–1144, Borthwick Paper 54 (York, n.d. [1978]). Zarnecki, G., Romanesque Lincoln, The Sculpture of the Cathedral (Lincoln, 1988).

255

INDEX All places in the index are in Yorkshire, unless otherwise indicated.

Alton (Hants), 8 Alured, sacrist of Beverley, 3, 112, 128 Amesbury Abbey (Wilts), 219 Anastasius IV, pope, 132, 135–7, 139, 143 Andover (Hants), 48 Andrew, St, 158, 181 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 37 Annandale, barony of, 103 Anselm, St, archbishop of Canterbury, 11, 14–17, 28, 34, 62, 239 Apesthorpe, prebend of, 111 Appleby (Westmoreland), 211 Apulia, duke of, see Roger Aquileia, Laurence of, canon of York, 201 Ardfert (Ireland), archbishop of, 200 Arnulf, son of Herbert the Chamberlain, brother of William, 9, 207–8 Athelwold, prior of Nostell, bishop of Carlisle, 62, 65–6, 69, 121, 128, 143–4, 234, 240 Audouen, bishop of Evreux, 79–80, 94, 102, 105 Aughton-on-Derwent, 154, 157 Augustine, St, 181 Aumâle Abbey (France), 112–13 Aumâle, William of, see William Autrey, Peter and Philip de, 164 Autun (France), 240 Auxerre (France), 240 Azzo, marquis of Liguria, 206

Abingdon Abbey (Berks), 8, 50, 224, 227; abbots of, see Reginald; Faricius; Chronicle of, see Historia Abbendonensis Adam I de Brus, 103 Adam II de Brus, 103 Adam de Engelby, 144 Adam of Eynsham, 192 Adam, monk of Whitby and Fountains, 71 Adam the priest, brother of Paulinus of Leeds, 232 Adela, countess of Blois, daughter of William the Conqueror, 6, 43, 206 Adela, alias Sibyl Corbet, q.v. Adelasia of Montferrat, daughter of Boniface of Liguria, 206 Aelfric, archbishop of York, 109 Aelred, St, abbot of Rievaulx, 1, 71, 82, 97, 104, 133, 159–60, 187, 192, 194, 196, 200: Life of, see Walter Daniel Agnes, daughter of Peter son of Ralph Noel, 238 Ainsty, 142, 173 Alan, earl of Richmond, 80, 102–4, 113 Alan, son of Edric, 112 Alberic of Ostia, abbot of Vézelay, cardinal, 79, 82–3, 89–90, 97–8, 105 Albini, Nigel de, 15 Albreda of Gisburn, 156 Aldborough, 54 Aldburgh, 144 Aldred, son of Besing, 175 Alexander I, king of Scotland, 15, 64, 66, 209 Alexander III, pope, 146, 160, 193–4 Alice Croere, 165 Alice de Gant, wife of Roger de Mowbray, 143 Alice, daughter of Robert fitzRoger, 214 Alice de Rumilly, 103 Alnwick (Northumberland), 153 Alphege, St, archbishop of Canterbury, 161

B., rector of St William’s Chapel, 196 Bacon, Richard, 113–14 Bandoclyve, 155 Baro, Ralph de, archdeacon of Cleveland, 30–1 Basin, Basinc, Basing, see Besing Basing (Hants), 175 Bayeux (France), 36, 102; bishops of, see Odo; Richard fitzSamson; see also Osbert of Bayeux Bayeux Tapestry, 36

257

St William of York Birdsall, 13, 215 Bishop Wilton, 153, 156–7 Blenlevny (Wales), 214 Blois (France), 240; house of, see Adela; Elizabeth; Gersendis; Henry of Blois; Henry de Sully; Count Stephen; King Stephen; Theobald III and IV Bohun, Jocelin de, bishop of Salisbury, 91 Boyle family, 51 Brackenthwaite, 175 Bramham, 65 Brian de l’Isle, 176 Bridlington Priory, 28, 30, 63, 100–1, 105 Brittany, Stephen, count of, 216 Broad Windsor (Dorset), 206–8; family of, see Gervase fitzOsbert; Hunger, son of Odin; Thomas de Windsor Brockhampton (Hants), 213, 222, 228 Brus, family of, see Adam I and II and Robert I and II Burlington, Lord, 51 Bytham Castle (Lincs), 82–3

Bayham (Sussex), 82 Beauvais (France), 240 Becket, Thomas, see Thomas Becket Bedfordshire, estate in, 226 Bedhampton (Hants), 222–3 Bede, 109 Benedict, abbot of Whitby, 86, 111, 128 Benedict of Peterborough, 163, 218, 234; see also Roger of Howden Berkshire, FitzHerbert estates in, 8–10, 209, 213, 219, 223–6, 228; see also Leckhampstead Bernard, Elias, canon of York, 201 Bernard, St, abbot of Clairvaux – links with Fountains Abbey, 70, 72, 116– 17, 119–20, 123 – the Langres affair, 93–8 – opposes William’s election, 2, 76–9, 82– 5, 87–8, 91, 93–4, 98–9, 105, 188 – challenges William’s consecration, 114–20, 122–3, 147, 188 – Second Crusade, 121 – death, 132 – letters, 3, 72, 76–9, 82–4, 87, 96, 98, 114–20 – sermons 181 Besing, story of Ralph and, 169, 181, 184, 187, 191, 198, 200, 238 Besing, 175–6 Besing, Nicholas de, of Wivelingham (Lincs), 175 Besing of Betemarched, 176, 178 Besing of Hudeswell, 175 Besing of Ripon, 176–80, 237 Besing of Thryberg, 175 Besing, son of Swane, 175, 177–8 Betemarched, Besing or Vesing of, 176, 178 Beverley, 12–13, 25–6, 48, 51, 69, 100–1, 113, 127–32, 139, 241 – Minster, 14–15, 25–6, 69, 112, 127–8, 179 – house at, belonging to William, 13, 62–3, 214, 228 – provosts of, 15, see also Robert; Roger of Pont l’Evêque; Archbishop Thomas II; Thomas Becket; Thurstan – canons of, 25, 37–8, 112 – sacrist of, see Alured – John of, St, q.v. – William of, alias William fitzHerbert, 31–4, 37–8 – men of, 100, 111–12, 130, 209

Caen (France), St Etienne, monk of, 37 Caleston (Wilts), 220 Calixtus II, pope, 40–2, 61, 109, 229 Canterbury (Kent), 11–12, 136–9, 192–4, 239, 241 – primacy dispute with, 11–12, 15–16, 61–3, 79, 88 – cathedral, 73, 153, 161–2, 196 – St Augustine’s Abbey, 161 – archbishops of, 15, 108, 161; see also Alphege; Anselm; Dunstan; Edmund of Abingdon; Ralph d’Escures; Stephen Langton; Theobald; Thomas Becket; William of Corbeil – archdeacon of, see Roger of Pont l’Evêque – monks of, see Eadmer; Gervase – John of, see John Bellesmains Canville, Richard de, 138 Carham (Northumberland), 112–13 Carlisle (Cumberland), 66, 79, 102, 163, 234; bishop of, see Athelwold Carpecotis, 156 Castle Bytham (Lincs), 82–3 Celestine II, pope, 87, 109, 114–15 Chad, St, bishop of York and Lichfield, 158 Chartres (France), 240 Chaumont en Vexin (France), 240

258

Index 175–6, 206–7, 213, 218–19, 221–3 Dominic, St, 199, 202 Dover (Kent), 40 Downton (Wilts), 10, 129 Driffield, 12 Dublin, archbishop of, 200; see also John Cumin Dunstable Priory (Beds), 179 Dunstan, St, archbishop of Canterbury, 161 Dunstanville, Reginald de, see Reginald Durand, archdeacon, 31, 41 Durham, 35, 63–4, 114 – cathedral, 57, 114, 139–41, 158, 160, 173, 195 – charters, 17, 32, 63, 110, 113 – chronicle, 80 – Liber Vitae, 101 – bishops of, see Geoffrey Rufus; Hugh du Puiset; Ranulf Flambard; Richard Marsh; William Cumin; William of Ste Barbe – archdeacon, John, 143 – miller, 172 – see also Reginald of Durham

Chichester (Sussex), bishop of, 121, 226–8; see also Hilary Chronica Pontificum, 3, 45, 81, 84, 102, 132, 135, 137–8, 140, 142, 145, 147, 162, 203, 205 Cirencester (Glos), 48 Clairvaux Abbey (France), 70, 82, 84–5, 116 – abbot of, see Bernard – prior of, see Geoffrey de la Roche – monk of, see John Bellesmains Clement, pope, 231 Clera, Clere, see Kingsclere Cleveland, archdeaconry of, 101, 157; archdeacons of, see Geoffrey I; Hugh I; Hugh the Chanter; Ralph de Baro; William son of Tole Clifford family, 51 Cluny (France), 42, 95, 115, 240; abbot of, see Peter the Venerable Colombes (France), 240 Copeland, William of, 171 Corbeil (France), 240; see also William of Corbeil Corbet family, see Robert; Sibyl Cornwall, earl of, see Reginald de Dunstanville Cowlam, 12–13, 48–9, 55, 215, 228 Cowton, 103 Crest (France), 240 Croc the huntsman, 9, 209 Croc, William, 209, 225 Croere, Alice and Richard, 165 Croom, 12–13, 215 Crusade, Second, 119, 121 Cumin, John, archbishop of Dublin, 211 Cumin, William, usurping bishop of Durham, see William Cumin Curia Regis Rolls, 168, 171, 210, 214, 219, 222, 225 Cuthbert, St, 140, 150, 158, 160, 173, 192 Cuthbert, prior of Guisborough, 82–4, 103–5, 122, 143

Eadmer, monk of Canterbury, 11, 29, 38–9 Ealdred, archbishop of York, 25 East Riding, archdeacons of, see Geoffrey Plantagenet; Hamo; Hugh du Puiset; John Bellesmains; Ralph de Warneville; Ranulph – William fitzHerbert as archdeacon, 1, 10, 12–13, 16, 25, 27–8, 33, 41, 69, 73, 100, 110–13, 127, 239 Eastleigh (Hants), 223, 228 Eata, St, 158–9 Ecchinswell (Hants), 48, 221 Edmund of Abingdon, alias Canterbury, St, 181, 183, 199–201 Edward the Confessor, king of England and saint, 54, 160, 193 Edward I, king of England, 202, 222 Edwin, king, 158 Egbert, archbishop of York, 109 Elias Bernard, canon of York, 201 Elizabeth, daughter of Theobald of Blois, 206 Ely (Cambs), cathedral, 158; bishop of, 91; see also John Emma, mother of St William, 5–6, 9, 43, 51, 205–8

Dammartin (France), 240 Daniel, Walter, see Walter Daniel David, king of Scotland, 66–7, 71, 79, 81, 90, 92, 103–4 Devizes, Richard of, see Richard Diceto, Ralph, 115 Dodsworth, Roger, 150–1 Domesday Book, 6, 8–9, 12–13, 48, 60,

259

St William of York Furness Abbey (Lancs), 70 – Jocelin of, 80, 194

Ernald, chaplain to Hugh du Puiset, 211, 215 Erneis de Nevill, 176 Ernisius son of Besing, 175 Escures, Ralph d’, see Ralph Espec, Walter, see Walter Espec Eudes the steward, 7 Eugenius III, pope, 87, 116–18, 120–2, 131–5, 137, 188, 241 Eustace of Canterbury, alias Eustace of Faversham, 183, 200–1 Eustace fitzJohn, lord of Knaresborough, 69, 138 Eustace, son of King Stephen, 130–1, 133 Everard, canon of Kirkham, 80 Everard de Ros, 100, 112 Everingham, 12 Evreux (France), bishop of, see Audouen Exchequer, see Red Book Eynsham, Adam of, 192

G., master, penitentiary of York, 201 Galtres, forest of, 173 Gamell, son of Besing, 175 Gant family, see Alice; Gilbert; Robert, dean of York Gap (France), 42, 61, 240 Garmondsway (Co. Durham), 177, 232, 235 Geddington (Northants), 163 Geoffrey, abbot of St Mary’s Abbey, York, 71–2 Geoffrey de la Roche, prior of Clairvaux, bishop of Langres, 96 Geoffrey I, archdeacon of Cleveland or Nottingham, 30–1, 41, 46 Geoffrey II Turcople, archdeacon of Nottingham, 30–1 Geoffrey fitzHerbert, brother of St William, 8–9, 208–9, 224 Geoffrey fitzPeter, 211 Geoffrey Plantagenet, treasurer of York Minster, archbishop of York, 28, 165, 195, 234, 236–7 Geoffrey Rufus, bishop of Durham, 66, 92, 232, 240 Geoffrey son of Pain, 48, 112, 217–18 Geoffrey the marshal, 9, 209 Gerard, archbishop of York, 11, 14–15, 17, 31, 46, 62, 69, 102, 107, 109, 112, 159 Gerard, archdeacon, 31, 41 Gerard, cardinal, 115; see also Lucius II Gersendis, wife of Theobald III of Blois, 205 Gervase, monk of St Mary’s Abbey, York and Fountains, 72 Gervase fitzOsbert, alias Gervase de Windsor, 207–8, 213, 223 Gervase, monk of Canterbury, 88, 121, 124, 136–7, 139, 145–7, 165 Gesta Stephani, 129 Gilbert, canon of Ripon, son of Ralph Nowell the elder, 111, 231–3, 236 Gilbert de Gant, 142 Gilbert Foliot, bishop of Hereford, 146 Gilbert of Sempringham, St, 194, 199; Gilbertines, 171 Gilbert fitzHerbert, brother of St William, 9, 33–4, 208–9 Gisburn, 153, 156–7

Falaise (France), Treaty of, 153 Faricius, abbot of Abingdon, 8, 15, 35, 224 Farnborough (Berks), 224 Fécamp Abbey (France), abbot of, see Henry de Sully Ferrers, Isobel de, 214 Ferrières (France), 240 Finchale Priory (Co. Durham), 217–18; see also Godric of Finchale FitzHerbert family, 203–13, see also 9 Flambard, Ranulf, bishop of Durham, 36–7 Flaxton, 155, 157 Flexland (Hants), 223 Foliot, Gilbert, bishop of Hereford, 146 Forest, Assize of and Charter of, 174 Fossard, Robert, 64–5 Fountains Abbey, 114, 116–17, 122–3, 127, 131, 133, 139–40, 194, 241 – foundation of, 68–72, 89 – attack on, 120, 139, 185, 198 – grants to, 103, 113, 144, 231, 236 – Chronicle of, see Hugh of Kirkstall – abbots of, see Henry Murdac, John II and III, Richard I, II, III – monks of, see Adam of Whitby; Gervase; Hugh, dean of York; Serlo; Serlo, canon of York; Tosti, canon of York Francis, St, 199, 202 Frehemund, St, 179

260

Index 47–50, 111–12, 172, 221 – grants to FitzHerbert family, 15–16, 47–51, 62, 111, 213, 216–19, 225 – Yorkshire affairs, 26, 44, 65, 103–4, 112, 171 – misc., 20, 66, 70, 208 Henry II, king of England: – as duke of Normandy, 130, 133, 138 – revolts against, 153, 161–2, 211–12, 218–19, 237 – dealings with FitzHerbert family, 210–13, 215, 218–19, 221–2, 225–7 – dealings with Paulinus of Leeds, 66, 163, 232–4, 237 – misc, 28, 66, 172, 174, 193 Henry III, king of England, 168, 171, 174, 197, 207, 212 Henry the Young King, 161–2, 211–12, 218–19, 237 Henry, earl, son of King David of Scotland, 90 Henry de Lacy, 103 Henry de la Pomerai, 211 Henry de Sully, abbot of Fécamp, 80, 91–2, 94, 240 Henry du Puiset, 50, 217–19 Henry Murdac, abbot of Vauclair, abbot of Fountains, archbishop of York: – as abbot of Fountains, opposes William’s election, 116–17, 120, 122–3 – election as archbishop, 102, 121, 148, 185 – as archbishop, 60, 81, 111, 113, 127–35, 138–9, 142, 145, 158–9, 188 Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester, cousin of William: – family connections, 6, 61, 80, 88, 205 – during the election dispute, 80, 82–8, 90–3, 99, 105–6, 123, 125, 128 – consecrates William, 17, 42, 87, 137, 230, 241 – during William’s first archiepiscopate, 107, 109–11, 113–15, 121–2 – during William’s exile, 29, 124–9 – during William’s second archiepiscopate, 133–7 Henry, archdeacon of Huntingdon, 29–30, 63, 67, 91, 106 Henry the treasurer, 207, 223 Herbert, abbot of Westminster, 225–6 Herbert, chamberlain to the king of Scotland, 208, 226

Gisors (France), 240 Glasgow, bishop of, see John Glasgow Pontifical, 172 Gloucester (Glocs), 7, 48, 61–2, 209, 216, 221, 240 – Abbey, 7, 121 – Llanthony Secunda Priory, 214 – St Oswald’s Priory, 33–4, 209 – earl of, see William Gloucestershire, FitzHerbert estates in, 10, 33, 212, 214, 216, 226, 228 Godfrey de Ludham, archbishop of York, 107–8 Godric of Finchale, St, 173, 194–5 Godwin, earl, 48, 219 Goodmanham, 12 Gospatric, son of Orm, 211 Grateley (Hants), 10, 47–8, 50–1, 110, 213, 217, 219–20, 228 Gratian, 96 Great Edstone, 54 Gregorian reform, 70 Gregory IX, pope, 201 Grimbald, 220–1 Guisborough Priory, 101, 103, 211, 215; prior of, see Cuthbert Haget, Robert, see Robert Haget Hamo, canon, precentor, treasurer and dean of York, 186, 195, 211 Hampshire, FitzHerbert estates in, 9, 47–8, 50, 60, 62, 124, 207, 209–10, 213, 217, 219–24, 226, 228 Harcourt, Philip de, 91 Harewood, 152, 154, 157, 163, 177, 235 Hastings (Sussex), 40 Havant (Hants), 213, 222–3, 228 Haxby, 153–5, 157, 163 Helen, widow of Robert Wilstrop, 238 Helmsley, 67, 70, 101, 104, 152–5, 157, 186 Helperby, 153, 155, 157 Helperthorpe, 12–13, 215 Henry I, king of England: – illegitimate children, 15–16, 39–40, 209–10, 214 – dealings with Herbert the Chamberlain, 5, 7–9, 17, 20–1, 38–40, 51, 54, 124, 203, 208, 212 – primacy dispute, 15–16, 35–43, 90, 109, 130 – links with Normandy, 36–40 – charters, grants and privileges, 28–9, 44,

261

St William of York – as treasurer and archdeacon of the East Riding, 28, 50, 60, 100, 110–12, 129, 132, 217 – opposes Henry Murdac, 100, 121, 127–31 – travels to Rome, 132, 136–7, 241 – as bishop of Durham, 129, 131–2, 138, 140, 143–5, 162, 211, 217–18, 235 Hugh of Kirkstall, 72, 75, 117, 120, 135, 140, 145–7, 185, 198 Hugh of Lincoln, St, 179, 192, 194, 196, 198 Hugh, son of Gersendis and Azzo of Liguria, 206 Hugh, son of Jernegan, 103 Hugh, son of Lefwin, 176, 178, 235–7 Hunger, son of Odin, 206–8 Hunslet, 164 Hyde Abbey, see Winchester

Herbert the Chamberlain, father of William: – family, 5, 9, 15–16, 29, 186, 203–13 – as treasury official, 6–12, 15–16, 20–1, 35, 60, 125 – estates, 9–10, 29, 33, 47–51, 67, 213–28 – Yorkshire interests, 10–16, 23, 43–5, 47–9, 53–5, 57, 67 – attempted assassination of Henry I, 38–40, 44–5, 54, 62, 178 Herbert II, count of Maine, 5, 204–5 Herbert Wake-Dog, count of Maine, 5 Herbert elemosinarius, of Winchester, 125 Herbert fitzGeoffrey, 209 Herbert fitzHerbert I, brother of William, 29, 44, 47, 51, 64, 66, 100, 112, 124, 129, 209–10, 213, 219, 224–5, 227 Herbert fitzHerbert II, 162, 210–16, 219–27, 237 Herbert fitzPeter, 219–20, 222 Herbert, son of Aubry, 10–11 Hereford, bishops of, see Gilbert Foliot; Robert – earl of, see Milo Heria, 206 Hermer, 216 Hexham Priory, (Northumberland), 35, 158–60; priors of, 70, 97, 143, see also John; Richard Hilary, bishop of Chichester, 121 Hincmar, cardinal; see Imar of Tusculum Historia Abbendonensis, 7–8, 209, 224 Honorius I, pope, 107 Honorius III, pope, 149, 196–201 Hood, 235 Hudeswell, 175 Hugh I, archdeacon of Cleveland or Nottingham, 30, 41, 46 Hugh II the Chanter, precentor of York, archdeacon of Cleveland, 3, 11, 15, 30, 32, 34–8, 40, 42–3, 45–6, 61–2, 107–9, 123, 172, 229–30 Hugh, boy of York, 169 Hugh II, count of Maine, 5 Hugh, dean of York, monk of Fountains, 46, 64, 72 Hugh de Nevill, 176 Hugh de Port, 213, 222, 228 Hugh du Puiset, archdeacon of Winchester, treasurer and archdeacon of the East Riding, bishop of Durham: – active in Hampshire, 111, 129, 132

Imar of Tusculum, cardinal, 115–18 Innocent II, pope, 77, 81–8, 91, 95, 98, 109, 114, 137, 241 Innocent III, pope, 172, 193–4, 212, 235 Insula, Roger de, dean of York, 195 Interdict, 179–80, 195, 198 Isle, Brian de l’, 176 Isobel de Ferrers, 214 Jerusalem, 157 Jocelin de Bohun, archdeacon of Winchester, bishop of Salisbury, 91 Jocelin of Furness, 80, 194 Joel de la Pomerai, 211 John, king of England, 168, 176, 178–80, 186, 198, 212, 222, 237 John II, abbot of Fountains, bishop of Ely, 198–9 John III, abbot of Fountains, 198–9 John, archdeacon in Durham diocese , 143 John Bellesmains, alias John of Canterbury, treasurer of York Minster, archdeacon of the East Riding, bishop of Poitiers, archbishop of Lyons, monk of Clairvaux, 28, 137, 143 John, bishop of Glasgow, 66 John Cumin, archbishop of Dublin, 211 John de Port, 222 John de Wallop, 219, 223 John of Beverley, St, 158, 179 John of Hexham, 7, 20, 74, 81–4, 86–7, 91, 99, 102, 113–18, 120–1, 124, 127, 131–2, 150, 185, 203, 206

262

Index – earldom of, 142 – Hugh of, St, see Hugh Lisieux, bishop of, see Ralph de Warneville Llanthony Secunda Priory (Glocs), 214 Londesborough, 12–13, 15, 32, 47–8, 50–1, 54, 62, 69, 100, 112, 213–18, 228 London, 33, 40, 85, 128, 136, 139, 172 – St Paul’s Cathedral, 226, 228 – bishop of, 200, see also Robert de Sigillo – see also Walter of London Lonsdale (Lancs), 153–4, 157, 163 Louis VI the Fat, king of France, 39 Louis VII, king of France, 121 Louis of France, prince, 212 Lucius II, pope, 50, 108, 115–17, 119, 217 Lucy, see Sibyl Corbet Lucy, daughter of Peter fitzHerbert, 186 Lucy, wife of Herbert fitzHerbert II, 210–11, 214, 220 Ludham, Godfrey de, archbishop of York, 107–8 Lune valley, see Lonsdale Lutton, East and West, 12–13, 215 Lyons (France), 240; archbishop of, 95; see also John Bellesmains

John of Rawcliffe, 154, 163 John of Salisbury, 131, 134, 146 John of Worcester, 64, 159, 230 John, priest of York, master of St Peter’s Hospital, 178, 236–7 John, son of Walter, alias John Nowell or Nuvel, of the Marsh, 178, 231, 236–7 John the Patriarch, St, 181 Jude, St, 158 Kilnsey, 103 Kingsclere (Hants), 10, 47–8, 50–1, 213, 220–2, 224, 228 Kirkdale, 54 Kirkham (Lancs), 111 Kirkham Priory, 69, 71, 81, 101, 104, 112, 143; canon of, see Everard; prior of, see Waltheof Kirkstall, Hugh of, see Hugh Knaresborough, forest of, 174, 176–7; lord of, see Eustace fitzJohn; Robert of, St, 194 Kynesige, archbishop of York, 25 Lacy, Henry de, 103 Lambert, medicus of York, 175 Langres (France), 93–8; bishop of, see Geoffrey de la Roche Langton, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, 199–200 Larode or Rhode (Hants), 10, 207, 213, 223, 228 Lastingham Abbey, 57 Lateran Councils: – Second, 77, 79, 93–4, 96–7 – Fourth, 168 Laurence of Aquileia, canon of York, 201 Laurence, St, 158 Leckhampstead (Berks), 8, 50, 224, 228 Leeds, 152, 154–5, 233, 237; see also Paulinus of Leeds Lefwin, son of Thurwif, alias Lefwin of the Marsh, 231, 235–7 Lenton Priory (Notts), 113 Liber Vitae, see Durham; Winchester, Hyde Abbey/New Minster Lichfield (Staffs), bishop of, see Chad Liguria, marquis of, see Azzo Limerick (Ireland), 210 Lincoln (Lincs), 14, 81, 92, 241 – cathedral, 30, 149, 179 – bishops of, 91, 200, see also Hugh; Remigius

Maine (France), counts of, 5, 39, 203–6; see also Herbert, Herbert Wake-Dog, and Hugh Manningford Bruce (Wilts), 220 Mapleford (? Middlesex), 225 Marcigny (France), 43, 240 Margaret, sister of Count Herbert II of Maine, 204, 206 Marisco, see Marsh Market Weighton, 13, 47–8, 50–1, 110–12, 210, 213, 217–19, 225, 227–8 Marmoutier Abbey (France), 68 Marsh family of York, 178, 231, 235–8; see also Richard Marsh Marsh, Richard, bishop of Durham, 176, 178, 236–7 Martha, St, 181 Marton Priory, prior of, 143 Mary Magdalene, St, 181 Matilda, empress, 66, 81, 90–2, 130 Matilda, queen, wife of Henry I, 208 Matilda, queen, wife of King Stephen, 85 Matilda, wife of Hugh, son of Lefwin, 236 Matthew fitzHerbert, 212, 220 Matthew Paris, 197

263

St William of York Hugh I, Thurstan Nottingham, Master Ralph of, 236 Nowell family, see Ralph Nowell the elder and younger, and Paulinus of Leeds Nunappleton Priory, 138 Nunkeeling Priory, 69 Nuvel, see Nowell

Matthew, St, 181 Meaux Abbey, 69, 101, 130–1, 139, 198, 241; Chronicle, 139, 142 Melrose Abbey (Scotland), abbot, see Waltheof – Chronicle of, 146–7 Melun (France), 240 Merton Priory (Surrey), 79 Micheldever (Hants), 10, 213, 222, 228 Middleton in Teesdale, 153, 155, 157 Milo, earl of Hereford, 210, 214, 220 Miracula Sancti Willelmi, 3, 142, 150–7, 162–9, 179–80, 185, 187, 189–91, 200, 233 Mortimer, Roger, 214 Moses, 158 Mottisfont (Hants), 10, 60–1, 111, 129 Mowbray family, see Roger; charters, 129, 143, 230 Mowthorpe, 12–13, 215 Murdac, Henry, see Henry Murdac Murton, 152, 155, 157

Odalric, cardinal, 11, 109, 116 Odo, bishop of Bayeux, 36 Old Byland, 54 Old Malton Priory, 165 Orkneys, 26, 41, 229–31; see also Ralph Nowell, bishop of the Orkneys Osbert of Bayeux, archdeacon of Richmond, 30–1, 81, 95, 100, 102–3, 139–40, 142, 144, 146–8 Osbert the sheriff, 15 Osmund, St, bishop of Salisbury, 159, 179 Oswald, St and king, 160 Oswald, St, archbishop of York, 158 Ouse and Derwent, forest of, 173 Over Wallop (Hants), 219

Nether Wallop (Hants), 10, 47–8, 50, 52–3, 58, 60, 110–1, 129, 210, 213, 217, 219, 222–3, 225, 227–8 Nevill family, see Erneis de and Hugh de New Forest (Hants), 20 Newburgh Priory, 113; see also William of Newburgh Newbury (Berks), 224 Newby, 156–7 Newcastle (Northumberland), 66, 172 Nicholas, son of Durand, canon of York, 31 Nigel de Albini, 15 Noel, see Nowell Norman Conquest, 25–6, 36, 68, 90, 158 Norman, son of Besing, 175 Normandy, 35–40, 42, 45, 146, 163, 239: – dukes of, see Henry II; Robert; William the Conqueror North Oakley (Hants), 48, 221–2 Northallerton, 67 Northumberland, archdeacon of, 236 Northumbria, earls of, 81; see also Henry, son of King David Nostell Priory, 64–5, 101, 142–3, 216: – gift of Weaverthorpe church to, 29, 43–5, 47, 49–51, 54, 65, 69, 142–3, 216 – priors of, 64, 70, 97, 121, 143, 216; see also Athelwold; Savard Nottingham, archdeaconry of, 30, 63; see also Geoffrey I; Geoffrey Turcople;

Papal legates, see Alberic of Ostia; Henry of Blois; Imar of Tusculum; Odalric; Theobald Parham (Sussex), 210, 225–8 Paris (France), 121 Paris, Matthew, 197 Pascal II, pope, 107 Patney (Wilts), 8 Paulinus, St, bishop of York, 107, 157–8, 232 Paulinus, canon of York, 233, 235 Paulinus of Leeds, 66, 152, 154–5, 163–4, 177–8, 186, 229, 231–8 Percy, William de, 62 Peter, St, 171 Peter de Autrey, 164 Peter fitzHerbert, 171, 186, 210, 212, 214–17, 219–20, 222, 224, 226–7 Peter, son of Ralph Noel, 238 Peter the mason, 65 Peter the priest, of Wakefield, brother of Paulinus of Leeds, 232 Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, 95 Peterborough, Benedict of, see Benedict Philip de Autrey, 164 Philip de Harcourt, 91 Pickering, 153, 155, 157; castle, 186, 212; forest of, 174, 186

264

Index – Council of (1147), 121 Remigius, bishop of Lincoln, 149, 159 Rhode (Hants), 207 Richard I, king of England, 172–3 Richard I, abbot of Fountains, formerly prior of St Mary’s Abbey, York, 71, 98, 105 Richard II, abbot of Fountains, formerly sacrist of St Mary’s Abbey, York, 71, 82–6, 105, 116–17, 122 Richard III, abbot of Fountains, 133 Richard, abbot of St Mary’s Abbey, York, 37 Richard Bacon, 113–14 Richard, bastard son of Herbert fitzHerbert (I or II), 211 Richard Croere, 165 Richard de Canville, 138 Richard de Wallop, 219 Richard fitzNigel, 174 Richard fitzSamson, bishop of Bayeux, 36 Richard Marsh, bishop of Durham, 176, 178, 236–7 Richard of Devizes, 165; see also Winchester Annals Richard of Hexham, 67 Richard of Lepyngton, 153, 156 Richard, son of Turstin, 231 Richard Wilstrop, 238 Richmond, 121, 135 – archdeaconry of, 101–2, 157 – archdeacons of, see Osbert of Bayeux; Richard Marsh – earl of, see Alan Richmondshire, 102, 153, 155 Rievaulx Abbey, 70–1, 81, 98, 101, 104 – abbots of, see Aelred; William I and III – monk of, 146–7, 186 Ripon, 68, 102, 104, 111, 127, 177, 231–2, 235–6, 241 – Minster, 25, 69, 102, 104, 122–3, 139, 158, 241 – canon of, Gilbert, 111, 231–3, 236 – Besing of, 176–80, 237 Robert, bishop of Hereford, 85–6 Robert Butevilain, archdeacon of York, dean of York, 142, 234 Robert Corbet, 15, 209, 214 Robert de Brus I, 103 Robert de Brus II, 103 Robert de Gant, dean of York, chancellor, 121–2, 136, 139–40, 142

Pipe Rolls, 29, 40, 49, 51, 177, 205, 207, 209–11, 213, 218, 220, 223, 225–6 Plantagenet, Geoffrey, see Geoffrey Pocklington, 12 Poitiers (France), bishop of, 28 Pomerai, de la, family, 211; see also Joel and Henry Pontefract Priory, 80, 97, 113, 138, 159, 240 Popes: see Alexander; Anastasius; Calixtus; Celestine; Clement; Eugenius; Gregory; Honorius; Innocent; Lucius; Pascal; Urban Port family, see Hugh and John de Préaux (France), 240 Puiset family, see Henry and Hugh du Pyrford (Surrey), 225 Ralph and Besing, miracle of, 169–81, 184, 187, 191, 198, 200 Ralph de Baro, archdeacon of Cleveland, 30–1 Ralph d’Escures, archbishop of Canterbury, 35, 37–8 Ralph Diceto, 115 Ralph de Warneville, treasurer and archdeacon of the East Riding, bishop of Lisieux, 28 Ralph Nowell (alias Noel alias Nuvel) the elder, bishop of the Orkneys, 4, 41–3, 64, 66–7, 70, 73, 86–7, 111, 125, 128–9, 143–4, 163, 177–8, 186, 229–40 Ralph Nowell (alias Noel alias Nuvel) the younger, 177–8, 186, 229–32, 235–8 Ralph of Nottingham, master of St Peter’s Hospital, 236 Ralph prepositus, 177 Ralph, son of Ribald, 144 Ranulf Flambard, bishop of Durham, 36–7, 41 Ranulph, treasurer and archdeacon of the East Riding, 27–8, 31, 41, 60 Rawcliffe, John of, 154, 163 Red Book of the Exchequer, 212, 215, 217, 219–20, 222, 224–6 Reginald, abbot of Abingdon, 224 Reginald de Dunstanville, earl of Cornwall, 15, 209–11, 214 Reginald fitzPeter, 214, 216, 218–20, 222 Reginald of Durham, 140, 150, 160, 173, 195 Reims (France), 41–3, 109, 239–40 – Council of (1119), 41–3, 67, 79, 229, 239–40

265

St William of York -

Archbishop Aelfric, 109 Aelred of Rievaulx, 82, 97 Alberic of Ostia, 79 Elias Bernard, canon of York, 201 Archbishop Gerard, 109 Henry of Blois, 115, 129 Archbishop Henry Murdac, 131, 145 Hugh du Puiset, 132, 136–7, 143 Imar of Tusculum, 116 Archbishop Oswald (?), 109 Richard of Fountains, 98 Sampson, archdeacon of York, 201 Archbishop Thurstan, 62, 79, 145 ‘William of Beverley’, 32–4, 36–8, 42–3, 45, 239 - William as archbishop elect, 82–5, 109, 122, 131, 241 - William as archbishop the first time, 118, 131, 241 - William as archbishop the second time, 110, 132–7, 145, 185, 187–8, 241 - William’s opponents, 82–5, 101, 114, 121–2 - a York emissary, 36–8, 40 - witnesses to canonisation procedures, 199 – letters from, 83–4, 87, 118, 129, 229–30 – papal authority at challenged, 77, 116, 119, 121 – involvement in canonisation procedures, 192–5, 197, 199 – see also Lateran Councils; papal legates; popes Roumare, William of, 142 Romans (France), 240 Ros family, 186, 213, 217–19; see also Everard; Robert Rouen (France), St Mary, 221 Roxburgh (Scotland), 153–4, 157 Rumilly, Alice de, 103

Robert de Ros, 171, 217 Robert de Sigillo, bishop of London, 146 Robert de Stuteville, 100, 112 Robert de Venuiz, 207, 209, 223 Robert de Winton, canon of York, 238 Robert, duke of Normandy, 204, 206 Robert fitzHerbert, 209–10 Robert fitzNigel, 215 Robert fitzRoger, 214 Robert Fossard, 64–5 Robert Haget, treasurer of York, 58 Robert, master of the Hospital of St Peter, York (alias St Leonard’s Hospital), 82–5, 105, 122, 142 Robert of Knaresborough, St, 194 Robert of Newminster, St, 194 Robert of Selby, chancellor of Sicily, 118–19 Robert of Torigni, 135, 137, 146–7 Robert, priest of St John Ogleforth, 14 Robert, prior of Scone, bishop of St Andrews, 64–6, 230, 240 Robert, provost of Beverley, 11 Robert, son of Sibyl Corbet and Henry I, 209 Robert Wilstrop, 238 Rocester Abbey (Staffs), 113–14 Roche, Geoffrey de la, prior of Clairvaux, bishop of Langres, 96 Rochester (Kent), 158; bishop of, 200 Roger, king of Sicily, 118–19, 203, 206 Roger de Insula, dean of York, 195 Roger de Mowbray, 129, 143, 211, 237 Roger, duke of Apulia, 206 Roger Mortimer, 214 Roger of Howden, 132, 135, 145–7, 162–5, 174, 176–7, 185, 194, 218, 234 Roger of Pont l’Evêque, archdeacon of Canterbury, provost of Beverley, archbishop of York: – early career, election, 17, 101, 136–9, 143 – charters, 62, 112 – building works at York, 149–50, 161–2 – promotes cult of St William, 161–4, 192, 194 – death, 181, 195, 234 Rohese, 211 Rome: – appeals to, 82–5, 89, 91, 93, 106, 146 – letters to from Bernard of Clairvaux, 114, 117–18, 122, 147 – journeys to, 136; by:

St Andrews (Scotland): – cathedral, 64–6, 160, 162 – St Rule’s church, 64–5 – bishop of, see Robert Saint-Denis (France), 39, 42, 240; abbot of, see Suger Ste-Barbe, William of, bishop of Durham, see William of Ste Barbe Saints, see Aelred; Alphege; Andrew; Anselm; Bernard; Chad; Cuthbert; Dominic; Dunstan; Eata; Edmund of

266

Index Sibyl, queen of Scotland, wife of Alexander I, 40 Sicily, 118–20, 241; king of, see Roger Sigillo, Robert de, bishop of London, 146 Simon, St, 158 Skelton, 58 Skipton, 103 Soberton (Hants), 10, 207, 213, 219, 223, 225, 228 Soissons (France), 240 Southwell Minster (Notts), 139, 153, 159 Southwick Priory (Hants), 211 Standard, Battle of the, 67, 69, 79, 81, 90, 99, 101, 103–4, 230, 240 Stanton (Wilts), see Stanton FitzWarren Stanton FitzWarren (Wilts), 10, 47–50, 213, 220–1, 225, 227–8 Stanton St Bernard (Wilts), 221 Stanton St Quintin (Wilts), 221 Stephen, king of England: – family connections with FitzHerberts, 6, 29, 43, 47, 66–7, 205 – visits to Yorkshire, 47, 66, 79–80, 102, 129–30, 138, 240 – during election dispute, 80–2, 84–5, 90–2, 99, 102, 104, 121, 241 – during Murdac’s archiepiscopate, 127–31 – and William’s second archiepiscopate, 133–7, 142, 146 – anarchy under, 78, 99, 120, 218, 225 – death, 146 Stephen, count of Blois, 6, 43, 205–6 Stephen, count of Brittany, 216 Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, 199–200 Stephen of Whitby, abbot of St Mary’s Abbey, York, 36 Stephen, son of Herbert, the chamberlain of the king of Scotland, 208 Stonyhurst Gospel Book, 140–1 Stubbs, Thomas, 203, 205; see also Chronica Pontificum Stuteville family, 176; see also Robert, William Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis, 39 Sully, Henry de, abbot of Fécamp, 80, 91–2, 94, 240 Sussex, fitzHerbert estates in, 9, 210, 225–6, 228 Swane, master of St Peter’s Hospital, York, 175, 177–8, 234

Abingdon; Edward the Confessor; Francis; Frehemund; Gilbert of Sempringham; Godric of Finchale; Hugh of Lincoln; John of Beverley; John the Patriarch; Jude; Laurence; Martha; Mary Magdalene; Matthew; Osmund; Oswald, king; Oswald, archbishop; Paulinus; Robert of Knaresborough; Robert of Newminster; Simon; Waltheof; Wilfrid; Wulfstan Salisbury (Wilts), 10, 36, 48, 129 – cathedral, 179 – bishops of, 91–3, see also Jocelin de Bohun; Osmund – John of, 131, 134, 146 Sampson, archdeacon of York, 201 Sampson, bishop of Worcester, 34, 36 Saulieu (France), 240 Savard, prior of Nostell, 143 Savigny (France), monks of, 70, 89 Scone Priory (Scotland), 64; prior of, see Robert Scotland: – border disputes, 26, 63–4, 66, 79, 81, 90, 92, 103–4, 106, 153, 162, 211; see also Standard, Battle of – ecclesiastical connections with, 63–4, 66, 73, 92, 160, 162, 172, 211 – FitzHerbert connections, 34, 40, 64, 209 – kings of, see Alexander; David; William the Lion Sedgefield (Co. Durham), 153, 155, 157 Selborne (Hants), 207, 223, 228 Selby Abbey, 28, 34, 57, 101, 103, 105, 143, 230 Selby, Robert of, chancellor of Sicily, 118–19 Sempringham, Gilbert of, St, 194, 199 Sens (France), 42, 240 Serlo, canon of York, monk of Fountains, 72 Serlo, monk of Fountains, 120, 185 Severin, abbot of St Mary’s Abbey, York, 86, 111, 128 Sherburn, 12–13, 215 Sherburn-in-Elmet, 81, 99, 101, 132 Shrewsbury Abbey (Salop), 111, 113 Sibyl Corbet (alias Adela, alias Lucy), wife of Herbert fitzHerbert I, 15, 40, 209–11, 213–14, 225 Sibyl, daughter of Geoffrey of Conversano, 206

267

St William of York – charters and grants, 29–30, 32–3, 44, 47, 61, 63–4, 69, 111, 231 – Letter of, 29, 68, 71 – death and succession, 12, 45, 74, 76–7, 79–80, 90, 97–8, 102, 105, 159 Thurstan, archdeacon of Nottingham, 30–1 Thurstan, provost of Beverley, canon of York, 100, 111 Thurwif, 231, 235–6 Tosti, canon of York, monk of Fountains, 72 Tostig, earl, 54 Tournus (France), 240 Towthorpe, 12–13, 215 Trussebut family, 217 Turchetill, 216

Sweden, king of, 193–4 Swine Priory, 69 Sydmonton (Hants), 48, 221 Symphorian, chaplain to William fitzHerbert, 146–7 Tadcaster, 153, 155, 157 Tewkesbury Abbey (Glocs), abbot of, 32 Thalegard (Wales), 214 Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, 88– 90, 101, 105, 117, 132–3, 135–40, 146, 161 Theobald III, count of Blois, 6, 205–6, 208 Theobald IV, count of Blois, 43, 206 Thirkleby, 12–13, 215 Thomas I of Bayeux, archbishop of York: – background, 36, 102 – archiepiscopate, 14–15, 25, 27, 33, 45–6, 60, 88, 109, 159 – Minster of, 21–2, 57–9, 144–5, 159 Thomas II, provost of Beverley, archbishop of York: – background, 36, 138 – primacy dispute, 9–12, 15, 17, 20, 35, 45–6, 60–1, 239 – appoints William, 10–17 – archiepiscopate, 34, 41, 64, 109, 115–16, 158–9, 229 – grants and charters, 10–11, 28, 32–4, 43–4, 47–8, 54, 60–1, 112, 153, 209, 211, 214–16 – death, 34, 89 Thomas Becket, St, provost of Beverley, archbishop of Canterbury, 1–2, 111, 138, 153, 161–2, 181, 193–6, 234 Thomas, brother of Paulinus of Leeds, 232 Thomas de Windsor, 223 Thomas, son of Paulinus, canon of York, 235 Thornton Abbey (Lincs), 181–3 Thrybergh, 175 Thurstan, archbishop of York: – family background, 102 – election and primacy dispute, 15, 32–8, 40–3, 45–6, 50, 61–3, 79, 88, 109, 123, 130, 147, 161, 239–40 – dealings as archbishop, 43–7, 61–2, 72–4, 100, 116, 159 – Scottish affairs, 63–4, 66–7, 71, 79, 90, 229 – crisis at St Mary’s Abbey, York, 67–72 – dealings with York Minster, 72–3, 144–5, 158, 162

Ulkilthorpe, 12–13, 215 Ulleskelf, 154, 157 Urban III, pope, 231 Valence (France), 240 Vauclair Abbey (France), 116; abbot of, see Henry Murdac Vernon (France), 240 Vesing, see Besing of Betemarched Vézelay (France), 97, 121; abbot of, see Alberic of Ostia Vienne (France), 240 Vita Sancti Willelmi, 3, 19–20, 73–4, 81, 115, 124–5, 127, 132, 134–5, 137, 139–40, 142, 145, 147, 149–52, 162, 166, 169–70, 173, 178, 180–92, 194, 200–1, 203–5, 208 Walkelin, bishop of Winchester, 21 Wallop, John and Richard de, 219 Walter, brother of Besing, 176 Walter Daniel, 153, 161, 187, 192, 194, 200 Walter de Gray, archbishop of York, 28, 50, 195, 197, 201, 216, 218–19 Walter Espec, 67, 70–1, 81, 104 Walter of London, archdeacon of York, 81, 84–6, 92, 97, 99–100, 106, 114–15, 120, 129, 209 Walter, son of Lefwin, 231, 235–7 Waltheof, prior of Kirkham, abbot of Melrose, 80–4, 90, 94, 99, 104–5, 122, 160, 194, 240; Life of, see Jocelin of Furness Wark (Northumberland), 104 Warter, 48, 153, 156–7 – Priory, 13, 69, 112

268

Index William of Newburgh, 60, 74, 99, 101, 120–2, 129, 132, 135, 137–9, 142, 144–7, 165, 185–6, 188, 203, 206 William of Roumare, 142 William of Ste Barbe, dean of York, bishop of Durham, 84–6, 109, 114, 118, 121–3, 128, 131, 232, 241 William, son of Duncan, 103 William, son of Durand, canon of York, 31 William, son of Hugh de Bridessale, 215 William, son of the archbishop, 17 William, son of Tole, archdeacon of Cleveland, 30–3 William the archdeacon, 31, 33 William the Lion, king of Scotland, 153, 162, 211 William, earl of Gloucester, 212, 216–17 Wilstrop, Robert, 238 Wilton, West, 156; see also Bishop Wilton Wiltshire, FitzHerbert family estates in, 9–10, 48–50, 213, 220, 226, 228 Winchester (Hants): – William’s early years at, 5, 11–12, 17–21, 26, 73, 239 – later connections with, 85–8, 112 – William’s exile at, 29, 124–7, 134, 185, 241 – re-election and second archiepiscopate, 131–4, 137, 185, 188, 241 – councils and meetings, 80, 85–7, 115–16, 133, 136, 139, 209 – topography: - bishop’s palace, 18–19, 126 - castle, 18, 20, 126, 223 - cathedral, 7, 18–22, 124–6, 185, 192 - churches, 24, 53, 124, 126 - High St, 18, 20, 124–6, 223–4 - Hyde Abbey/New Minster, 8–9, 18–20, 24, 48, 125, 213, 221, 229; estates, 48, 207, 213, 219, 221–2, 227–8 - Old Minster, 19, 125 - royal palace, 20, 125, 221 - St Mary’s Abbey / Nunnaminster, 18–19, 126 - Tanner St, 124 - treasury, 7–8, 20 - West Gate, 20, 26, 223 - William’s house, 125–6 - FitzHerbert properties in, 9, 20, 62, 223–4, 228 – people: - archdeacons of, see Hugh du Puiset; Jocelin de Bohun

Watton Priory, 69, 215 Wearmouth (Co. Durham), 172 Weaverthorpe, 6, 12–13, 15, 43–5, 47–59, 62, 65, 69, 100–1, 142–3, 213–16, 218, 228 Well, 144 West Wilton, 156 Westminster Abbey, 6–7, 9–10, 80, 82, 90, 161, 193, 226–7; abbot of, see Herbert Wharram-le-Street, 55, 57, 64–6 Whitby, 101, 235 – Abbey, 57, 144 – abbot of, 143; see also Benedict – Adam, monk of, 71 – see also Stephen of Whitby Wilberfoss Priory, 69 Wilfrid, St, bishop of York, 102, 158 William I the Conqueror, king of England: – family connections, 5–6, 43, 203–4, 206 – royal officials and administration, 5–7, 9, 20, 209, 221, 223 – dealings with St William’s father, 5–6, 39, 203–4, 206 – York links, 21, 26 – grants and charters, 48, 221 – see also Domesday Boook William II Rufus, king of England, 7, 20, 24, 26, 36, 68, 203 William, prince, son of Henry I, 208 William I, abbot of Rievaulx, 82–6, 93–4, 104–5, 115 William III, abbot of Rievaulx, 198–9 William Croc, 209, 225 William Cumin, usurping bishop of Durham, 85–6, 92, 109, 114 William de Percy, 62 William de Stuteville, 235 William Giffard, bishop of Winchester, 35 William of Aumâle, earl of York: – involvement in William’s election, 81, 84–5, 92, 99–100, 102–5 – during William’s first archiepiscopate, 112–14, 121, 139 – during William’s exile and return, 127, 130, 132, 142–3 William of Beverley, 31–4, 37–8 William of Copeland, 171 William of Corbeil, archbishop of Canterbury, 62, 123 William of Eu, precentor of York, 85, 121 William of Malmesbury, 38–9, 159, 181, 204

269

St William of York - interdict on, 127, 130–1 - ecclesiastical meetings at, 35–6, 80–1, 111, 241 – Topography: - Aldwark, 22 - archbishop’s palace, 22–3, 57, 86, 142, 145, 162, 241 - Bootham Bar, 21–2, 24 - castles, 21, 132 - Chapter House St, 22–3 - Coney St, 236 - deanery, 165 - FitzHerbert properties in, 13–14, 23, 49–50, 211, 214–15 - Layerthorpe, 173 - Marsh district 230—2, 235–7 - Micklegate Bar, 21, 25, 142 - mint, 90, 120 - Monk Bar, 13, 21–3, 215, 228 - Multangular Tower, 24 - Newbiggin, 238 - Ogleforth, 22–3, 165 - Ouse bridge, 1, 142, 166–7, 180, 185, 188, 196–7 - Petergate, 22, 24 - Stonegate, 22 - Tang Hall, 238 - Treasurer’s House, 14, 23, 57, 63 - Walmgate, 153, 155 – Religious houses: - Gilbertine Priory, 171 - Holy Trinity Priory, 21, 25, 63, 68, 72–3, 142, 163, 175, 233, 236 - St Clement’s Nunnery, 63, 236 - St Mary’s Abbey, 21, 24, 36–7, 57–8, 105, 138, 143, 198, 202; crisis at, 67–8, 71–2, 89, 230, 240; see also abbots; monks - St Peter’s Hospital, alias St Leonard’s Hospital, 21–2, 24, 72, 105, 138, 229, 236; see also masters – Churches and chapels, 24–5: - Agia Sophia, 22–3 - All Saints in the Marsh, alias All Saints Peaseholme Green, 178, 230–2, 238 - Holy Trinity, Goodramgate, 22 - St Andrew, 22–3 - St John del Pyke, alias St John Ogleforth, 13–14, 22, 49–50, 211, 214–15, 228; Robert, priest of, 14 - St John Ouse Bridge, 197 - St Mary and the Holy Angels, 22–3, 162 - St Mary Bishophill Junior, 25, 57

- bishop of, 8, 224; see also Henry of Blois; Walkelin; William Giffard - earl of, 176 - goldsmiths, 130 - Herbert of, see Herbert the Chamberlain – texts: - Hyde Abbey/New Minster Liber Vitae, 9, 48, 207–8 - 1148 Survey of Winchester, 29, 124, 223–4 - Winchester Annals, 17, 87, 124–5, 127, 165 - Winton Domesday, 8–9, 209, 223–4 Windsor (Berks), 163; see also Broad Windsor Wivelingham (Lincs), 175 Wolverton (Hants), 222 Worcester (Worcs), 34: – cathedral, 158, 179 – archdeacons of, 32 – bishops of, 32, 34, see also Oswald; Sampson; and Wulfstan – monk of, see John Worksop Priory (Notts), 113 Wulfstan, archbishop of York, 12, 99, 109, 158 Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester, 179, 194 York, city of, 5, 21, 26, 41, 172–3 – royal visits to, 26, 29, 47, 66–8, 79–80, 102, 129–30, 138, 168, 240 – Minster: - Anglo-Saxon Cathedral, 23 - Norman Minster, 21–4, 57–9, 144–5, 149–50, 159, 161–2, 188 - altars, 158, 168, 201 - burials, 107–8, 132, 159 - St William Window, 180, 202 - tomb of St William, 5, 145, 149–56, 162–3, 165, 167–70, 180, 184, 188–90, 197, 201–2, 233 - treasures and relics, 119–20, 131, 145, 157–9, 161, 171 - ceremonies at, 11, 64, 66, 72–3, 167, 115–16, 129, 131–2, 140–1, 143–5, 147, 153, 156–8, 162, 164–5, 171, 180–1, 189–90, 199–201, 240–1 - charters and grants to, 44, 47, 50, 60–1, 110–1, 113, 128–9, 142 - finances and temporalities of the see, 11–12, 15, 60–2, 84, 90, 127, 179, 234

270

Index Serlo; Thomas, son of Paulinus; Thurstan, provost of Beverley; Tosti; William, son of Durand - penitentiary, see G., master - Vicars Choral, 151 - Abbots of St Mary’s, 24, 68, 143; see also Geoffrey; Richard; Severin; Stephen of Whitby - monks of St Mary’s; see Gervase; Richard I and II, abbots of Fountains - master of St Peter’s Hospital, see John, priest of York; Paulinus of Leeds; Ralph of Nottingham; Robert; Swane - earl of, see William of Aumâle – texts - chartulary of the treasurer, 29, 47, 50, 60, 111, 213, 217, 220 - chronicle , 158 - chronicle of St Mary’s Abbey, 202 - York Breviary, 181, 183–4, 200–1 - York Manual, 171 - see also Chronica Pontificum; Hugh the Chanter; Miracula; Vita Yorkshire, FitzHerbert estates in, 9, 11–15, 32, 47–62, 65, 100, 112, 186, 203, 210, 213–19, 226

- St Maurice, 236 - St Michael-le-Belfrey, 22–4 - St William’s Chapel, Ouse Bridge, 166–7, 196–7 – People: - (arch)bishops: see Aelfric; Chad; Cuthbert (?); Ealdred; Egbert; Geoffrey Plantagenet; Gerard; Godfrey de Ludham; Henry Murdac; Kynesige; Oswald; Paulinus; Walter de Gray; Wulfstan - archdeacons of York: see Walter of London; Robert Butevilain; Sampson - deans: 217–18; see also Hamo; Hugh; Robert Butevilain; Robert de Gant; Roger de Insula; William of Ste Barbe - precentors: see Hamo; Hugh the Chanter; William of Eu - treasurers: see Geoffrey Plantagenet; Hamo; Hugh du Puiset; John Bellesmains; Ranulph; Ralph de Warneville; Robert Haget - canons, 14, 17, 62, 69–70, 118, 135, 147, 159; see also Elias Bernard; Hamo; Laurence of Aquileia; Nicholas, son of Durand; Paulinus; Robert de Winton;

271

YORK MEDIEVAL PRESS: PUBLICATIONS God’s Words, Women’s Voices: The Discernment of Spirits in the Writing of LateMedieval Women Visionaries, Rosalynn Voaden (1999) Pilgrimage Explored, ed. J. Stopford (1999) Piety, Fraternity and Power: Religious Gilds in Late Medieval Yorkshire, 1389–1547, David J. F. Crouch (2000) Courts and Regions in Medieval Europe, ed. Sarah Rees Jones, Richard Marks and A. J. Minnis (2000) Treasure in the Medieval West, ed. Elizabeth M. Tyler (2000) Nunneries, Learning and Spirituality in Late Medieval English Society: The Dominican Priory of Dartford, Paul Lee (2000) Prophecy and Public Affairs in Later Medieval England, Lesley A. Coote (2000) The Problem of Labour in Fourteenth-Century England, ed. James Bothwell, P. J. P. Goldberg and W. M. Ormrod (2000) New Directions in later Medieval Manuscript Studies: Essays from the 1998 Harvard Conference, ed. Derek Pearsall (2000) Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade in Occitania, 1145–1229: Preaching in the Lord’s Vineyard, Beverly Mayne Kienzle (2001) Guilds and the Parish Community in Late Medieval East Anglia, c. 1470–1550, Ken Farnhill (2001) The Age of Edward III, ed. J. S. Bothwell (2001) Time in the Medieval World, ed. Chris Humphrey and W. M. Ormrod (2001) The Cross Goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300–1300, ed. Martin Carver (2002) Henry IV: The Establishment of the Regime, 1399–1406, ed. Gwilym Dodd and Douglas Biggs (2003) Youth in the Middle Ages, ed. P. J. P Goldberg and Felicity Riddy (2004) The Idea of the Castle in Medieval England, Abigail Wheatley (2004) Rites of Passage: Cultures of Transition in the Fourteenth Century, ed. Nicola F. McDonald and W. M. Ormrod (2004) Creating the Monastic Past in Medieval Flanders, Karin Ugé (2005)

272

York Studies in Medieval Theology I Medieval Theology and the Natural Body, ed. Peter Biller and A. J. Minnis (1997) II Handling Sin: Confession in the Middle Ages, ed. Peter Biller and A. J. Minnis (1998) III Religion and Medicine in the Middle Ages, ed. Peter Biller and Joseph Ziegler (2001) IV Texts and the Repression of Medieval Heresy, ed. Caterina Bruschi and Peter Biller (2002)

York Manuscripts Conference Manuscripts and Readers in Fifteenth-Century England: The Literary Implications of Manuscript Study, ed. Derek Pearsall (1983) [Proceedings of the 1981 York Manuscripts Conference] Manuscripts and Texts: Editorial Problems in Later Middle English Literature, ed. Derek Pearsall (1987) [Proceedings of the 1985 York Manuscripts Conference] Latin and Vernacular: Studies in Late-Medieval Texts and Manuscripts, ed. A. J. Minnis (1989) [Proceedings of the 1987 York Manuscripts Conference] Regionalism in Late-Medieval Manuscripts and Texts: Essays celebrating the publication of `A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English’, ed. Felicity Riddy (1991) [Proceedings of the 1989 York Manuscripts Conference] Late-Medieval Religious Texts and Their Transmission: Essays in Honour of A. I. Doyle, ed. A. J. Minnis (1994) [Proceedings of the 1991 York Manuscripts Conference] Prestige, Authority and Power in Late Medieval Manuscripts and Texts, ed. Felicity Riddy (2000) [Proceedings of the 1994 York Manuscripts Conference] Middle English Poetry: Texts and Traditions. Essays in Honour of Derek Pearsall, ed. A. J. Minnis (2001) [Proceedings of the 1996 York Manuscripts Conference]

273