The History of the Church of York 1066-1127

Citation preview

OXFORD

MEDIEVAL

TEXTS

General Editors D. E. GREENWAY

B. F. HARVEY

M.LAPIDGE

HUGH

THE

HISTORY

THE

CHANTER

OF THE CHURCH 1066-1127

OF YORK

BR J63

Hugh the Chanter

*, THE HISTORY OF E THE CHURCH OF YORK 1066—1127 EDITED AND TRANSLATED CHARLES

JOHNSON

REVISED

M.

BRETT,

BY

BY

C. N. L. BROOKE, and

M. WINTERBOTTOM

OXFORD

MEDIEVAL

TEXTS

PRESS

: OXFORD

CLARENDON

1990

Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford ox2 6pP Oxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press Published in the United States by Oxford University Press, Nem York

O Translation, Estate of the late Charles Johnson 1990 © Introduction and notes, M. Brett, C. N. L. Brooke, and M. Winterbottom 1990

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or othermise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Hugh, the chanter The history ofthe Church of York, 1066—1127. — (Oxford medieval texts) 1. York Minster History I. Title II. Johnson, Charles III. Brett, M. (Martin) 1939— IIII. Brooke, Christopher, 1927— — V. Winterbottom,

Michael

942.643 ISBN-o0-19-822213-0 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Hugh, the Chanter, d. 1139?

Hugh the chanter: the history ofthe church of York, 1066-1127 edited and translated by Charles Johnson; revised by M. Brett, C. N. L. Brooke, and M. Winterbottom.

p. cm. — (Oxford medieval texts) 1. Catholic Church. Province of York (England) — History. 2. England, Northern — Church history. I. Johnson, Charles, 1670- .

Il. Brett, M. III. Brooke, Christopher Nugent Lawrence.

IV. Winterbottom, Michael. V. Title. church of York, 1066-1127.

VI. Title: History of the VII. Series. BR763. Y6H83 1990 262428109021 —dc20 89-49743 ISBN 0-19 -822213-0

Typeset byJoshua Associates Ltd, Oxford Printed in Great Britain by

|heology | ibran, po si. us SCHOOL OF THEOLOGN

AT CLAREMONT (alilonnia

REVISERS'

PREFACE

THE edition of Hugh the Chanter’s History by Charles Johnson was published in Nelson's Medieval Texts in 1961: it was the final task of a notable scholar, and he passed his goth birthday while it was in the press. The translation showed the life and vigour which stayed with him till near the end; but in his late eighties he could

not cope with major revision of a difficult text, nor elaborate annotation; and some of the recent literature on the subject of York minster, especially the papers of his friend Sir Charles Clay, seems to have passed him by. This edition incorporates the essence of his translation, but text and translation have been checked and substantially corrected, and the introduction and notes are new. The text and apparatus have been revised by MW with much help from MB, and the translation by MW, assisted by CB and MB; the introduction and historical notes are the fruit of collaboration

between CB and MB. Our first debt of gratitude is to the Dean and Chapter at York for permission to use their manuscript, and particularly to Bernard Barr and the staff of the Minster Library. Their hospitality and advice on the history of the manuscript have been of essential service. We were delighted at the last minute to incorporate two brilliant emendations privately communicated by Giovanni Orlandi and Isabella Gualandri. In the final stages we have been much assisted by the new General Editors of this series. CB particularly recalls his own long friendship with Sir Charles Clay, who first introduced him to Hugh and his colleagues in the chapter of York; and he has recently (by good fortune) been working with Dr David Smith in helping Dr Janet Burton to revise her volume of

English Episcopal Acta, v. York 1070—1154: he thanks both of them for the help and inspiration this has given him. A revised list of the early dignitaries of York has appeared as Appendix III in English Episcopal Acta, v, and to this and to Clay's articles, the reader is referred for detailed references to them. We are greatly indebted to the staff of Oxford University Press,

vi

REVISERS’

PREFACE

especially Anthony Morris and Sophie MacCallum, and to Vera Keep of Joshua Associates.

C.N.L.B. M.B. M.W.

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATED REFERENCES Printed Books Manuscripts

viii

INTRODUCTION i. Eadmer and Hugh the Chanter ii. Hugh the Chanter and York

xiii xiii

viii xi

xix

iii. The Primacy Dispute

iv. York and the Bishops of Scotland

xlv

v. The Text THE

HISTORY

CONCORDANCE INDEX

OF

GENERAL

OF THE

WITH

EARLIER

QUOTATIONS INDEX

AND

CHURCH

OF YORK

EDITIONS

225

ALLUSIONS

227.

229

ABBREVIATED

PRINTED

REFERENCES

BOOKS

— The Peterborough Chronicle 1070—1154 ed. C. Clark (2nd edn., Oxford, 1970); also in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans. D. Whitelock et al. (London, 1961), Two ofthe Saxon Chronicles Parallel, 2 vols., ed. C. Plummer (Oxford, 1892-9, repr. 1952, etc.). Barlow, English Church F. Barlow, The English Church 1066-1154 (Lon-

ASC

don, 1979). Barrow, Kingdom

London,

BL

Canterbury Professions Clay, ‘Archdeacons’

‘Deans’

Library

(formerly

British

Church under Henry I (Oxford, 1975). Canterbury Professions, ed. M. Richter (Canterbury and York Soc., Ixvii, 1973). Sir Charles T. Clay, ‘Notes on the early archdeacons in the church of York’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 36 (1944-7), 269-87, 409-34. — ‘Notes on the chronology of the early deans of York’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 34

(1939), 361-78.

Fasti

— York Minster Fasti (2 vols.; Yorkshire Archaeological Soc., Record Ser. cxxiii-iv,

*Precentors'

— ‘The early precentors and chancellors of York’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 35 (19403), 116-38. — ‘The early treasurers of York’, Yorkshire

"Treasurers

CP

British

Museum). M. Brett, The English

Brett

—

G. W. S. Barrow, The Kingdom of the Scots (Lon-

don, 1973).

1958-9).

Archaeological Journal, 35 (1940-3), 7-34. The Complete Peerage by G.E.C., revised edn. by

V. Gibbs, H. A. Doubleday, Lord Howard de

CS

Walden, G. H. White, and R. S. Lea (13 vols. in 14; London, 1910-59). Councils and Synods with Other Documents relating to

ABBREVIATED

REFERENCES

ix

the English Church, i (871-1204), ed. D. White-

lock, M. Brett, and C.N.L.

EA EEA EHR EYC

Fasti

Florence of Worcester

Gallia Christiana

Harleian manuscript 433

HCY

Brooke

(2 pts.;

Oxford, 1981). Epistolae Anselmi, in S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia, ed. F. S. Schmitt (6 vols.; Edinburgh, 1946-61), cited by number. English Episcopal Acta (London, British Academy, 198o- ). English Historical Reviem. Early Yorkshire Charters, i-iii, ed. W. Farrer (Edinburgh, 1914-16), iv-xii, ed. C. T. Clay (Yorkshire Record Soc., Extra Ser., i-x, 193565). John Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066— 1300, revised edn., ed. D. E. Greenway (London, 1968- ). Florentii Wigorniensis monachi Chronicon ex Chronicis, 2 vols., ed. B. Thorpe (English Historical

Soc., 1848-9). Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa (16 vols.; Paris, 1715-1865). British Library Harleian manuscript 433, ed. R. Horrox and P.W. Hammond (4 vols.; Richard III Soc., 1979-83). The Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, ed.J.Raine (3 vols.; RS, 1879-94).

Heads

The Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales, 940—1216, ed. D. Knowles, C. N. L. Brooke,

HN

Eadmer, Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule (RS, 1884). R. Hüls, Kardindle, Klerus und Kirchen Roms,

and V. C. M. London (Cambridge, 1972).

Hils

JE

JEH JL John of Worcester

Letters ofLanfranc

1049-1130 (Tübingen, 1977). See. Journal ofEcclesiastical History. P. Jafté, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ad annum 1198, revised edn. by W. Wattenbach, S. Loewenfeld, F. Kaltenbrunner, and P. Ewald (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1885-8). The Chronicle ofJohn of Worcester 1118—1140, ed. J. R. H. Weaver (Oxford, 1908). The Letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. and trans. H. Clover and M. Gibson (OMT,

1979).

X

ABBREVIATED

REFERENCES

Luchaire

A. Luchaire, Louis VI, le Gros. Annales de sa vie et de son régne (Paris, 1890).

MGH MLD

Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, ed. R. E. Latham, D. Howlett, et al. (London, I975- )..

MRA

Minus Registrum Album of York (York Minster Library Muniments L2/1).

Nicholl, Thurstan

D. Nicholl, Thurstan, Archbishop of York (1114— 1140) (York, 1964). Nelson's Medieval Texts. Oxford Medieval Texts. The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and

NMT OMT Orderic PE

PUE

Regesta

Richard of Hexham

RS Schieffer

trans. M. Chibnall (6 vols.; OMT, 1969-80). Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1844-64). W. Holtzmann, Papsturkunden in England (3 vols.; Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Góttingen, Ns xxv, 1930-1, 3rd Ser., xiv-v, 1935-6, xxxiii, 1952). Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum, 1066-1154, ed. H. W. C. Davis, C. Johnson, H. A. Cronne,

R. H. C. Davis (4 vols.; Oxford, 1913-69). J. Raine, The Priory of Hexham, i (Surtees Soc., xliv, 1864). Rolls Series.

T. Schieffer, Die pápstlichen Legaten in Frankreich vom Vertrage von Meersen (870) bis zum Schisma von

1130 (Berlin, 1935).

Scotia Pontificia

Simeon Southern, St Anselm

TRHS VA Watt, Fasti

WMGP

Scotia Pontificia, ed. R.Somerville (Oxford, 1982). Symeonis monachi opera omnia, 2 vols., ed.

T. Arnold (RS, 1882-5). R. W. Southern, St Anselm and his Biographer (Cambridge, 1963). Transactions ofthe Royal Historical Society.

Eadmer, Life of St Anselm, ed. R. W. Southern (NMT, 1962; repr. OMT, 1972). D. E. R. Watt, Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae Medii Aevi ad annum 1638, 2nd Draft (Scottish Record Soc., NS i, 1969). Willelmi Malmesbiriensis de Gestis Pontificum Anglorum libri quinque, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton (RS, 1870).

ABBREVIATED

WMGR

REFERENCES

xi

Willelmi Malmesbiriensis de Gestis Regum Anglorum libri quinque, 2 vols., ed. W. Stubbs (RS, 1887-9).

MANUSCRIPTS

York, Minster Library, L2/1, ff. 1-32

Other parts of York, Minster Library, L2/1 BL, Cotton Cleopatra E i Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 140 BL, Cotton Claudius A i BL, Harley 1808 Cambridge, University Library, Kk 4. 6 BL, Cotton Claudius E v BL, Lansdowne 402

Hereford, Cathedral Library, P i. 3 BL, Harley 633 Durham, Cathedral Library, B ii. 35, as printed in HCY ii. 513-30 a e m epum Corrupt words in the Latin text are marked off by obeli (T).

INTRODUCTION

I. EADMER

AND

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

ONE ofthe momentous consequences of St Anselm's consecration to the see of Canterbury was the meeting between the saint and

Eadmer, the English monk who was to be his chronicler. Sir

Richard Southern has made famous Eadmer's skills as biographer,

and shown how he pioneered a new literary mode, in which the virtues and the teaching of a saint were portrayed through his conversation.! From the days of Thucydides it had been an accepted convention that a historian might put into the mouths of his characters speeches entirely of his own devising: the fictitious utterances recorded in Sallust or Bede or Orderic Vitalis are no qualification to the general veracity of their authors: they followed . a useful convention which enabled them to enliven their narratives with appropriate dramatic dialogue, or merely with their own comments.’ Eadmer was different: he set out to record Anselm's conversation mie es eigentlich gemesen —more or less. For Eadmer was an artist, and it is very noticeable that Anselm's conversation is no less lively before he met Eadmer than after; and that he sometimes presents Anselm's ideas in a form so brilliantly adapted to his purpose as to make clear that even Eadmer freely edited his material. In a debate with King William Rufus the doctrine of the proprietary church, and its denial by ecclesiastical reformers, is stated with a succinct precision never bettered by Ulrich Stutz himself? ! R. W. Southern, St Anselm and his Biographer (Cambridge, 1963), esp. chaps. vi, ix, x; for Eadmer's reporting of Anselm's conversation, see esp. pp. 332-3. What follows is based on Southern's study and his edition of the Life of St Anselm (NMT, 1962; repr. OMT, 1972); and on Eadmer's Historia Novorum, ed. M. Rule (RS, 1884)—henceforth VA and HN; see also Eadmer' sHistory of Recent Events in England, trans. G. Bosanquet, foreword by R. W. Southern (London, 1964). ? A characteristic passage in Orderic, ii. 300ff., is quoted in C. Brooke, Europe in the Central Middle Ages (znd edn., London, 1987), p. 13. Especially striking is the entirely fanciful dialogue between the emir Karbuqa and his mother related by the author of the Gesta Francorum ,ed. and trans. R. Hill (NMT, 1962; repr. OMT, 1972), pp. 53-6. 3 [n his numerous studies of the proprietary church, the Eigenkirche, summarized e.g. in his essay translated by G. Barraclough, Mediaeval Germany (Oxford, 1938), ii. 35-70. What follows is based on C. Brooke in J] monachesimo e la riforma ecclesiastica (1049 —1122),

xiv

INTRODUCTION

WILLIAM. Are not the abbeys mine? Dash it—you do as you like with your manors and shall not I do as I like with my abbeys? ANSELM. They are yours to defend and guard as their patron (quasi aduocatus); but not yours to assault or lay waste. . . .

Here the artistry is manifest; yet the semblance of genuine speech is sustained, even to the king's staccato, stammering, explosive utterance.! As with the Gospels, or the writings of St Francis’s companions,’ it will be debated till the end of time in what measure Eadmer's manner of composition was inspired by the milieu in which he lived, the models he followed, the causes to

which he was devoted, or the overwhelming experience of being a friend and companion of Anselm. Some of the causes mattered very much to him. The complement to his account of Anselm's life as a saint and monk was his Historia Novorum in Anglia —'Recent events in England’—which meant, to Eadmer, contemporary history as itimpinged on his own church, the cathedral at Canterbury; and not the least of the causes he loved was that of his church's privileges, and especially of its primacy over York? When the main body of his book was finished, the two Italian archbishops he had known, Lanfranc and Anselm, seemed to have established the primacy of Canterbury over York in a satisfying manner; it is a vital but secondary theme in the Historia Novorum as originally written. But after Anselm's death King Henry I was inspired to appoint to the see of York a royal clerk, and canon of St Paul's, of infinite patience and determination, Thurstan of Bayeux; and Eadmer's later years were marred by the tragic story of how Thurstan and the canons of York asserted the independence of the see from Canterbury's primacy: this is the leading theme of the two books Eadmer added to his Historia in the 1120s.* For all his artistry, the Life of Anselm and the first part of the Historia Novorum remain historical sources of exceptional quality and veracity; and we need take little exception to anything he said about the negotiations with York down to 1109. When Canterbury began to fade and to fail, Atti della quarta Settimana internazionale di studio Mendola (Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali, vi; Milan, 1971), pp. 125-6, quoting HN, pp. 49-50. ' See Brooke (p. xiii n. 3), p. 126, and n. 5; WMGR ii. 374. ? See Scripta Leonis ..., ed. and trans. R. B. Brooke (OMT, 1970); R. B. Brooke in Latin Biography, ed. T. A. Dorey (London, 1967), pp. 193-5. ? See below, pp. xxx-xlv. * HN, bks. v-vi; cf. Southern, St Anselm, pp. 304-9. These books are not included in Bosanquet’s translation.

EADMER

AND

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

XV

Eadmer took to lying: he quotes at length the celebrated forgeries the monks of Canterbury discovered—or invented—to support their case; and no recent scholar has believed that Eadmer supposed them to be genuine.! Eadmer even tried to join in the battle himself by accepting the see of St Andrews as a suffragan of Canterbury: his attempt failed, but if it had succeeded, it would have threatened York with encirclement, with the loss of major claims to superiority over the Scottish church York's victory over Canterbury has never been formally reversed, though the centuries witnessed a steady erosion of what Thurstan had achieved, until Thomas Arundel accepted translation from York to Canterbury in 1396, taking it to be promotion—a step for which (as Hugh the Chanter might have thought) he was duly punished the next year by provision to St Andrews, a see owing obedience to another pope in the Great Schism and so imaginary.? Thus Thurstan's triumph in the late 1120s represented a unique moment in the history of York, and the story Hugh the Chanter told is the mirror image of Eadmer's. That Hugh was directly inspired by Eadmer’s Historia Novorum , that he knew the book even, cannot be proved: the close resemblances, the striking parallels, might be explained by the common theme, the many common events, and the background and literary inheritance they shared. But in some sense it is an answer to Eadmer, and it is much easier to understand its form if Hugh had read Eadmer's book. Thurstan was not a many-sided genius of the pattern of Anselm, and the issues for which he suffered were far narrower.’ Hugh's History is not of the stature of Eadmer's. But it is a remarkable book; it succeeds in bringing many features of the church and the world of the early twelfth century vividly to life; its account of Thurstan is memorable and its picture of Pope Calixtus II preparing to leave his native Vienne for ever is quite unforgettable. There are distinct similarities of arrangement between the two ! Southern, St Anselm, pp. 308-9; Southern in EHR 73 (1958), 193-226; cf. M. Gibson, Lanfranc ofBec (Oxford, 1978), pp. 231-7. ? HN, pp. 279-88, 298—302; Brett, pp. 20-1, cf. Brett, pp. 22-5. ? M. Aston, Thomas Arundel (Oxford, 1967); these vicissitudes were caused by the political conflicts of Richard II's later years, and he was restored to Canterbury in 1399. 4 On Thurstan see below, pp. xxvii—xxix; Brett, Index, s.v. Thurstan; and the sympa-

thetic biography of D. Nicholl. > Below, pp. 140-3.

xvi

INTRODUCTION

books. Eadmer prefaced his Historia with an account of events back to St Dunstan—the first saintly archbishop to be buried in the cathedral at Canterbury (his predecessors to Cuthbert, who died in 760, are in St Augustine’s abbey). He continues with a remarkable narrative of the Norman Conquest and a brief summary of the achievements of Lanfranc, before launching into his chief theme, the career of St Anselm.’ By the same token Hugh began his story with the Norman Conquest, gave a brief account of Archbishop Thomas I (1070-1100), his lamentable profession to Lanfranc and his achievements in York, and of Gerard (11008).2 His story becomes circumstantial with Thomas II (1108-14) but the core of the book opens with the election of Thurstan in 1114 and closes with a firm letter of Honorius II on behalf of York early in 1127. There may even be a parallel between their motives in writing. Eadmer’s chief purpose was to celebrate the merits of St Anselm; the Historia Novorum is in part designed to provide necessary background to his external activity, but it is also an apologia, a defence of his hero against charges which had been made at Canterbury and elsewhere. Some thought him evidently too ready to abandon his charge for inadequate reasons, others thought him at best a slipshod guardian of the rights of Canterbury. In his last two books Eadmer is even more clearly defending Archbishop Ralph, and even his own conduct, against domestic criticism. Hugh's explanation for his book comes right at the end: he has written it, he says, that posterity may forgive those who gave way to the demand for a profession to Canterbury, whatever their motives, and imitate rather the heroic defenders of York's independence. Even Thurstan's persecution and exile, he adds, were a benefit, for they brought him into contact with a wider world; resistance to Canterbury brought unqualified success? The story he tells is clear; archbishop and chapter are at one in a common cause, united alike in adversity and triumph. From other sources we know that this cannot be the whole truth,

for Gerard's relations with his canons were clearly extremely uneasy. It is barely credible that all the canons of York saw Thurstan's resistance as prudent or profitable to their church, for - HN, pp. 3-27. * Below, pp. 2-25. * Below, pp. 24-57. * Southern, St Anselm, pp. 139, 173-80, 253-4, 306-7. > Below, pp. 220-3. * Below, p. xxvi and n. 3

EADMER

AND

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

xvii

the king’s favour had brought them great advantages earlier;! an exiled archbishop or a vacant see brought grave inconveniences in their train. The primacy of Canterbury might be resented bitterly, but the cost of resisting it must have been heavy. If, however, there were doubters, Hugh tells us nothing of them. It is at least possible that he wrote to vindicate a policy which only a hard core of the most determined canons had been ready to support over the long years of the struggle. Until Thurstan's return from Rome in 1126 sceptics might still believe that his achievement was a paper victory, while the costs were real and enduring. Hugh may be addressing the more cautious of his fellows as much as posterity or any other wider audience. Hugh was writing while Ranulf Flambard, bishop of Durham, still lived; since he died on 5 September 1128 we may be sure his book was contemporary It is in other ways, too, the mirror of Eadmer: while Canterbury flourished, Eadmer spoke true and Hugh prevaricated. What he says for instance about the primacy agreement of 1072 is palpably false: he claims it to be a forgery, but few documents of the age are better recorded and better authenticated? Once Thurstan was elected, Hugh had little motive to lie,

and his narrative seems veridical, while Eadmer slips down into falsehood. That there is an authentic structure of knowledge behind Hugh's story cannot be doubted. It is particularly clear in the narrative of Thurstan's travels on the continent in 1119-20, which gives details of places and dates when he met Henry I, Louis VI, and the pope. Some of the kings’ movements can be checked, almost every detail of the pope's is otherwise known—and although there is an occasional imprecision (as we should expect), it is abundantly clear that Hugh had access to a wealth of information not accessible from any written record before the publication

of Jaffé's Regesta Pontificum Romanorum in 1851.* But it must be ! Cf. below, pp. 24-5, 52-3, and the long series of royal writs on behalf of Archbishop Gerard (Regesta, ii, Nos. 518, 669, 675, 681, 686, 713, 720, 807-8, 837, 839, 852, 870), with the apparent absence of royal writs for York in Thurstan’s time which can be securely dated before c. 1121 (in spite of the date ?1114 attributed to Regesta, ii, No. 1072). While some of the writs for Gerard protect existing rights, rather than granting new ones, such ‘negative’ patronage was an important part of the advantages enjoyed by those in royal favour. ? Below, pp. 10-11; cf. Fasti, ii. 29. 3 Below, pp. xxxiv-xxxv; cf. CS i/2. 591—604. 4 For Henry I: W. Farrer, An Outline Itinerary of King Henry I (Oxford, n.d., repr. from EHR 34 (1919), 303-82, 505-79) and Regesta, vol. ii, pp. xxix-xxxi; for Louis VI,

xviii

INTRODUCTION

admitted that even though Hugh is a reliable source for the 1120s, he is noticeably silent about the history of the Scottish

church and the Scottish border; and the adventure which took

Eadmer himself to St Andrews was doubtless reckoned a dangerous theme. One further parallel is worth quoting. Eadmer reproduces lifelike conversation at all points, but he only once specifically claims to give a verbatim report, and that (significantly) in a most improbable context. Soon after Henry I won the throne in 1100 he wished to marry the Scots princess—sprung of the Old English line— Edith or Matilda, and a council of bishops was summoned to determine if she was free to marry. She admitted that she had worn the veil of a nun under her Aunt Christina's direction, who insisted on it to preserve her from ‘the lust of the Normans’. But as soon as her aunt's back was turned, she vented her wrath in a childish manner by jumping on it—‘pannum ... pedibus proterere ... et ... quamuis insipienter consueueram desaeuire’.? Eadmer goes on to assure his reader that he was present and has given an impartial account—‘praesens audiui et uidi, in nullam partem declinando descripsi, uerba puellae ita duntaxat in medio ponens . . —he has quoted the maiden's own words. Perhaps he protests rather too much: but it was a bold thing to say of the reigning queen. Hugh frequently casts his narrative in the first person; but when he is claiming eyewitness evidence it is always ‘we’, in the manner of St Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, and may refer to other Yorkists than himself. None the less, there is a striking passage, shortly after Thurstan's consecration by Pope Calixtus in 1119, in which Hugh claims to quote a comment of King Louis VI—*ut uerba eius plene exprimam'—in which he says pretty bluntly that the church of Rome will be judged by whether or not it stands by the man who had been consecrated by the pope himself—'as it were by the Luchaire; Philip Jaffé's first edition, published in Berlin in 1851, was later replaced by JL—but it remains a pioneer work of unique erudition, dedicated ‘mederi hominum memoriae iniquitate temporis obliteratae’ (p. iii). ! But see below, pp. xlv-liv.

? HN, p. 122; for this council see CS i/2. 661-7; cf. Southern, St Anselm, pp. 188-90

(but we do not accept Southern’s scepticism as to Henry’s motives: Henry needed legitimacy above all, and this was surely one of a variety of ways in which he set about achieving it). * HN, p. 125. What follows assumes that the passage stood in Eadmer's first version, which is probable; but no manuscript survives (Southern, St Anselm, p. 299; Brett in

Scriptorium, 33 (1979), 56-8).

EADMER

AND

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

xix

hands of St Peter'—against King Henry.! We may believe that

King Louis enjoyed the opportunity: there was no love lost

between him and Henry in the months after Louis's defeat in the battle of Brémule Hugh was not an artist of the quality of Eadmer, but he lived in the same world and wrote vivid, first-hand history, at its best exceptionally fresh and memorable. II. HUGH

THE

CHANTER

AND

YORK

It is characteristic of the one more or less complete manuscript of Hugh's Historia at York that it does not tell us the author's name. But happily the Digby chronicle of the archbishops of York, closely modelled on Hugh, and written, it seems, soon after the death of Hugh and Thurstan in 1139-40, makes it abundantly clear that its prime source for the period from 1070 to Thurstan’s later years was Hugh, 'eiusdem ecclesie cantor'? That there are two equal metropolitans in England, and that there has been strife between them, is manifest to any *who has carefully surveyed the History of the archbishops of York—that is, of the Norman archbishops—which that admirable man, worthy of remembrance, Hugh, precentor of the same church, set down in order with a truthful pen—a man of reverend age and happy urbanity, of whom it could truly be said he Saw the wide world, its ways and cities all;

and who lived a long while in company with these same pontiffs, that is, Thomas I, Gerard, Thomas II, and Thurstan, their essential counsellor in the study of Divinity and of the affairs of men: with several of them he stayed as an inseparable companion till his death. . . And he heard with close attention, was present and saw (presentialiter uidit) and kept in his memory' the whole story of the

primacy dispute. There could hardly be more secure testimony of his authorship of the present book. He has been known for many generations as Hugh the Chanter; but the word simply renders the Latin ‘cantor’ of this passage, the normal word for a cathedral precentor in England between the ! ? 3 ^

Below, pp. 134-5. See Orderic, vi. 234-43. For this and what follows, HCY ii. 355. Horace, Ars Poetica, 142 (as translated by H. R. Fairclough in the Loeb edn.).

INTRODUCTION

XX

rogos and the late twelfth century. Hugh Sottovagina or Sottewaine appears quite frequently in the charters of the period of Thomas II and Thurstan over the years c. 1109-39; he was precen-

tor from some date between ¢.1125 and 1133, and combined the

office with an archdeaconry, probably of Cleveland, in the 1 1308.” His career was sketched by James Raine and worked out in detail

by Charles Clay; but there is still something to say. Hugh’s own account of the first Norman archbishops does not contradict the obituary notice we have just quoted which implies he knew them personally and well. But there is a marked change of style when he comes to describe the election of Thomas II in 1108. An occasional ‘our’ had indicated his Yorkist sympathy before 1108; but suddenly the first person becomes normal and intrusive. Not only was

Thomas brought up ‘among us’ and his likeness to his uncle ‘brought’ Thomas I ‘back to us again’; but ‘we, when he had been sent to us... forbade him to make the profession’.’ From then on the chapter is ‘we’ in a conspicuous manner, and it seems clear that Hugh—whatever role he had played in the 1ogos—was a canon of York by c. 1109, and the change of tone implies that he had been collated late in Gerard's time, perhaps about 1108. Unlike Eadmer, ! Thus at York the precentor Hamo (c. 1170 X 471197X 9—cf. Clay, ‘Precentors’, pp. 121-3) normally witnesses as ‘cantor’, but occasionally in his later years as ‘precen-

tor’ (e.g. EYC i, No. 550). 2 The fullest account of him is by Clay, ‘Precentors’, pp. 116—20; see also Clay, ‘Archdeacons’, pp. 276-7; cf. J. Burton in EEA v. 121-2; Raine in HCY, vol. ii, pp. xii-xvi. Both Raine and Clay thought that he was to be identified as Hugh the archdeacon who occurs in the dramatic story of the attempt to reform St Mary's, York, in 1132, which led to the foundation of Fountains, and in a Durham calendar as dying on 4 July (Memorials of. . . Fountains, ed.J.R. Walbran, i (Surtees Soc., 1863), p. 24; Liber Vitae ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed.J.Stevenson (Surtees Soc., 1841), p. 144); but in the former case it is probable

and the latter possible that the reference is to another Archdeacon Hugh, who occurs from 1108 on, at least into the 1120s as H., as Hugh from before 1114: Clay, ‘Archdeacons’, p. 276; EEA v. 124. An original letter of the Chanter survives in Durham, in which he calls himself ‘cantor et archidiaconus! and on his seal ‘Sottovagine cog. cognitus Hugo’; it relates to synodal dues and is friendly in tone: this link perhaps suggests that the Durham calendar is likely to refer to him (ed. Raine, HCY, vol. ii, pp. xii—xiii and vol. iii, p. 68; cf. Clay, “Precentors’, p. 118 and n. 3). For his seal see below, p. xxx n. 1. Clay deduced that Hugh was archdeacon of Cleveland by a process of elimination:

the probable date of his death makes it likely that he was succeeded by Ralph de Baro, and there is evidence both positive and negative that Ralph was archdeacon of Cleveland (for the positive, Clay, “‘Archdeacons’, p. 279; for the negative, ibid., p. 286, where

the other archdeaconries are accounted for). For the possibility that Hugh might have retired to Pontefract in 1139, and therefore perhaps died some time later, see below,

P. 55 n. 3. 3 Below, pp. 26-7.

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

AND

YORK

xxi

he does not say ‘audiui . . . uidi" but ‘quanta audiuimus": he is the spokesman for the community of dignitaries and canons of St Peter's, York: it is a collective witness which he wishes to be seen

to present, like that of Psalm 77:3, which he quotes: ‘quanta audiuimus et cognouimus ea'—a witness similar in kind to that

claimed by the companions of St Francis: ‘nos qui cum ipso fuimus'.! It is extremely probable that Hugh was in fact an eyewitness of many of the scenes he describes. The obituary notice implies as much, and if he was chosen by the chapter to record Thurstan’s sufferings it is the more likely that he had witnessed many of them himself. It could be argued that he chose himself, seized an opportunity to argue a case or express a viewpoint; but at least it is clear that he claims to be a representative of a chapter he had known over many be misled, for there is a warning in the years. Even here we could example of Hugh’s contemporary, Herman of Tournai, employed by the canons of Laon to write up their miracles of St Mary for his literary competence. He was a very young monk at Tournai at the time most of the events he describes had taken place, yet wrote a preface in the name of the canons and cast his story in the first person throughout, although he had seen nothing of what he

recorded.’ Nevertheless, Hugh’s narrative often does appear to be that of an eyewitness, most strikingly in Thurstan’s long journeying with

Pope Calixtus in 1119 and 1120.) It is instructive to compare his narrative with the long and vivid account of some of the same scenes by Orderic Vitalis. Orderic mentions Thurstan’s consecration and dismisses him in a sentence; he dwells at length on the Council of Reims which immediately followed, on the pope’s visit to Normandy and negotiations with the kings, and he goes to town on the wreck of the White Ship and the loss of William, Henry I’s only legitimate son, with many of his companions, in November 1120. Hugh, in contrast, dwells at length on the consecration, deals briefly with the council, not so briefly with the visit to Normandy, but concentrating on the episodes relevant to his theme, and dismisses the White Ship in one brief paragraph— ! HN, p. 125; below, pp. 222-3; 1 John 1:1; Scripta Leonis (p. xiv n. 2), p. 352, S.v. Companions; R. Manselli, Nos qui cum eo fuimus (Rome, 1980). ? PL 156. 962-3; G. Niemeyer in Deutsches Archiv, 27 (1971), 135-74) esp. 141.

3 Below, pp. 114-51. ^ Orderic, vi. 252—77, esp. 252-3; 282-307.

xxii

INTRODUCTION

tragic in tone, but emphasizing Henry's consolement.’ Meanwhile he takes the pope from Normandy through Ferriéres to Sens, and next through Burgundy, by Auxerre, Autun, and Cluny, to the pope’s old home at Vienne; and then, after a moving farewell to his family and friends, deals with his journey on to Valence and east up into the mountains at Gap There Calixtus and Thurstan parted, and the archbishop returned to Normandy. It is among the most striking passages in the book, and it is hard not to think that then, at least, Hugh was with him. It is not at all improbable that he was with Thurstan on many of his journeys. There is no evidence of Hugh at York between 1114 and 1121, but charters of that epoch are very scarce, and it is not surprising that he does not appear as witness. What is more surprising, perhaps, is that he had to wait so long for promotion—though it must be admitted that the dates are imprecise, and it is likely that Thurstan could make no promotions at York before early 1121. We may conjecture that the greatest claim Hugh had for high office was his unwavering support for Thurstan when many others doubted, and he may have been precentor by the mid-1120s.? What is certain is that when promotion arrived it came in good measure: by what would normally have been regarded as an abuse, he was both precentor and archdeacon before he died. He lived long enough to witness Thurstan’s final triumph, when the armies the archbishop had gathered defeated the Scots at the Battle of the Standard in August 1138, and to write a poem on the subject.* Well before Thurstan’s retirement on ! Below, pp. 114-33, 164-5. ? Below, pp. 132-51 and nn. * His only known predecessor, Gilbert, occurs in a witness list of c 1109, but Hugh was simply styled canon in a charter certainly to be dated well after 1121 (EEA v, Nos. 3, 21, 74). His first occurrence as precentor cannot be dated more closely than c. 1125 X 1133 (EEA v, Nos. 39-40). * Richard of Hexham, p. 9o, quoting two lines of the poem; cf. Clay, ‘Precentors’, p. 118; Raine in HCY, vol. ii, p. xiii. Two further poems are attributed to Hugh. A long set of versified moral precepts appears in the 12th-cent. London, BL Vitellius A xii, ff. 133-135"; before the Cotton fire it bore apparently the rubric ‘Versus Hugonis Sotauagine cantoris et archidiaconi ecclesie Sancti Petri Eboraci", though the last four words are now illegible. The same poem, with the rubric ‘Versus Hugonis Sotouagine cantoris et archidiaconi Eboracensis", appears in Oxford, Bodl. MS Digby 65, f. 11. It is printed in T. Wright, The Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists ofthe Twelfth Century (RS, 1872), ii. 219-29. For the manuscripts see A. Boutemy in Latomus, 1 (1937), 278-313. Raine in Richard of Hexham, p. g1n, also cites an epitaph by Hugh, archdeacon of York, for Wulgrin the chanter, ultimately from W. Camden, Remaines ofa Greater Worke concerning Britaine (London, 1605), Poems, p. 39 (p. 369 of the edn. of 1657), though this is a much more accomplished piece of work than anything else attributed to the Chanter. Raine suggests that the epitaph for Thomas I (below, pp. 20-1) is also by Hugh.

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

AND

YORK

xxiii

25 January 1140 Hugh had been succeeded both as precentor and as archdeacon.! It therefore seems reasonably certain that he died in 1139. There is an entry in a Durham calendar which notes the death of an Archdeacon Hugh of York on 4 July; since there survives a fine charter with his seal upon it, as precentor and archdeacon, to show his interest in Durham, it is likely that Hugh the

Chanter died on 4 July 1139? But there was at least one other Archdeacon Hugh of about the same epoch, and we cannot be sure. His strange family nickname, Sottovagina, Sottewaine, enables us to identify a group of men probably related to him: Thomas

Sottewaine, who occurs as canon of York from the 1120s to the 1150S, and his brother Ernulf, also a canon; and later in the century

another Hugh, with his brothers Ernulf and Matthew, probably laymen.* Canons Thomas and Ernulf may well have been Hugh’s nephews—or his sons—for we evidently have here a clerical family like those well documented in the chapter of St Paul's in the early twelfth century, from one of which Thurstan himself had sprung. We need not doubt that York like London enjoyed a hereditary element in this period before the campaign for celibacy dispossessed the married canons and their concubines. The major theme of the History is the struggle of Thurstan to preserve the independence of his see and metropolitan throne; its secondary plot is the struggle between monks and clerks, or secular canons. Early on he emphasizes the nobility of the canons of Lyons; he loves to dwell on the ‘shameless demand’ of the monks of Canterbury for primacy and profession: ‘they think on it while awake and dream on it in their sleep, and pine away for grief? at its loss. The ! Clay, ‘Precentors’, pp. 118, 120; Clay, ‘Archdeacons’, pp. 279, 286. The contemporary chronicle of the archbishops (HCY ii. 387) tells us that Thurstan retired to become a monk at Pontefract on 25 Jan., after 25 years and about 6 months as archbishop—the author was evidently counting (inclusively) from his election, 16 Aug. 1114, to 25 Jan. 1140; he goes on to say that he died on 5 Feb. 2 Liber Vitae (p. xx n. 2), p. 144; cf. above, p. xx n. 2. But see below, p. 55 n. 3. > See-p: xx n- 2. ^ See Clay, ‘Precentors’, pp. 119-20; Clay, Fasti, ii. 41 —2, 56; and in EYC, i-iii, Index, p. 215, s.v. Sottewame. Clay gives references to Thomas as canon from before 1129 to 1153 X 4, perhaps still in 1167; but the first of these, EYC ii, No. 1012, dated by Farrer c. 1126-1129, is witnessed by William of Ste-Barbe as dean; since it refers to Thurstan as alive, it may be dated 1135 X 1140. Thomas held the prebend of Husthwaite, Ernulf of Newbald (Clay, Fasti, ii. 41—2, 56). 5 C. N. L. Brooke in Cambridge Historical Journal, o/2 (1951), 124-6; Brooke, Medieval Church and Society (London, 1971), pp. 93-4; Fasti, i, ed. D. E. Greenway; Brett, p. 190.

6 See below, pp. 16-17, 26-7.

xxiv

INTRODUCTION

contrast between ze, the canons of York, and they, the monks of

Canterbury, rumbles on through the book, echoing a lively contemporary controversy.! It is indeed a very striking fact that the see of York, though often linked to Worcester by a common bishop in the tenth and eleventh centuries, never had a monastic chapter.’ It is abundantly clear that the tendency immediately after the Norman Conquest was for English cathedrals to receive monastic, or anyway regular, chapters. There was some dispute whose course is obscure to us: Eadmer implies that even at Canterbury the monks felt threatened, and tells a moving story of how an army of clerks collected by Bishop Walkelin of Winchester was prevented from usurping the place of the monks.’ The result is clear: monastic chapters grew and throve while Lanfranc lived; and at York, already subjected to some form of regular discipline before the Conquest, the canons were given a new common dormitory and refectory.* There were at first no signs of the secular chapters which were to become the norm in England in the next generation, or at least in the next century, although such were already becoming established in Normandy. Lanfranc knew Rome and the papal reformers; towards their authority he kept a certain reserve: he shared with William I a distaste for excessive papal monarchy. But he evidently shared to the full the papal reformers’ suspicion of secular chapters—of canons not subject to any rule save that of their concubines. Between his death in 1089 and the arrival of Anselm in 1093 there are signs of change which cannot all be put down to chance: at Lincoln, Salisbury, and London such secular chapters appeared—not from a clear sky, but in fair measure new

' For e.g. Theobald of Etampes see R. Foreville and J. Leclercq, ‘Un débat sur le sacerdoce des moines au XIIe siécle’, Studia Anselmiana, 41 (1957), 8-118; Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 180-91; D. Bethell, EHR 84 (1969), 673-94. * See the chapter by R. M. T. Hill and C. N. L. Brooke in A History of York Minster, ed. G. E. Aylmer and R. Cant (Oxford, 1977), pp. 1-43, esp. pp. 14—35, on the chapter from the roth cent. to the death of Thurstan. Shortly before the Norman Conquest Archbishop Ealdred seems to have been ‘active in attempting to sustain or revive some kind of communal life in the minsters of his diocese, especially Beverley; and he is said to have built a refectory at York’ (ibid., p. rg n. 75) ? HN; pp. 18-21. * See above n. 2 and below, pp. 18—19. For what follows see Brooke in History of York Minster, pp. 24-8; A. Morey and C. N. L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his letters (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 227-9; see correctives by D. E. Greenway in Tradition and Change: Essays in Honour of Marjorie Chibnall, ed. D. Greenway, C. Holdsworth, and J. Sayers (Cambridge, 1985), chap. v; also Brooke in ibid., p. 10, and on Lanfranc’s wider view, M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford, 1978), chaps. vi, vii.

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

AND

YORK

XXV

foundations—and to this epoch may reasonably be ascribed the new foundation of the York chapter which Hugh the Chanter describes as a late, or fairly late, development of the reign of Thomas I.' This indicates a marked polarization of opinion about cathedral chapters, for the period between 1083 and 1109 also saw

monastic cathedrals established Coventry, and Ely. In 1093 Hugh new dignitaries in attendance on south to consecrate Anselm: Hugh

at Bath, Durham, Norwich, gives us the first glimpse of the the archbishop when he went the dean, possibly a very young

man who survived to become a monk of Fountains abbey in 1135;

Ranulf the treasurer, the first to combine that rich office (as it became) with the archdeaconry of the East Riding, Durand the archdeacon, and Gilbert the precentor.” Donald Nicholl has evoked in a fine passage the quality of the chapter under Thurstan, especially referring to Dean Hugh, who ‘came to the rescue of Thurstan's foundation at Fountains by

offering both himself and his wealth to the Cistercian order’; to his successor, William of Ste-Barbe, later bishop of Durham; to the treasurer, William FitzHerbert, ‘another man of wealth and stand-

ing, whose father was chamberlain to King Henry I’, though ‘few could have foreseen that his personality would eventually secure his elevation to the church’s altars as St William of York’; and to

Hugh himself? By 1093 it is fairly clear that the diocese was divided into a number of archdeaconries; and well before 1093 the first Master of the Schools was appointed. ^We meet him or his successor in the genuine witness list of the time of Thomas II (1109-14) attached to ! It was also in this period that the notion of bishops of the province of Canterbury as a chapter to elect the archbishop was first mooted. A. Morey and C. N. L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his Letters (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 227-9, show a progression starting in the 107os, and developing 1089 X 1093; but it was not complete until the 12th cent., when we first have evidence of the titles of dean and precentor of the province for the bishops of London and Winchester. The evidence for the date of these foundations or refoundations varies in precision: the most precise is for Salisbury, based on two remarkable entries in the Chronicle of Holyrood under 1089 and the foundation charter of 1091 (Chron. of Holyrood, ed. M. O. Anderson (Scottish Hist. Soc., 3rd Ser., xxx, 1938), pp. 110-11, and cf. ibid., pp. 22-3; Greenway in Tradition and Change, pp. 79-80, 97100). The election of the canon William of Corbeil to Canterbury in 1123 seems to have generated new anxieties in the monastic chapters (D. Bethell in EHR 84 (1969), 680). _ + EEA v, Appendix III; Clay, ‘Deans’, pp. 363-4; Clay, "Treasurers', pp. 7-8; Clay, ‘Archdeacons’, p. 280; ibid., p. 274; Clay, ‘Precentors’, p. 116. 3 Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 118; D. Knowles, Historian and Character (Cambridge, 1963), chap. v. * Below, pp. 18-19; EEA v, Appx. III; cf. Clay, ‘Precentors’, p. 129.

xxvi

INTRODUCTION

a spurious Durham charter concocted later in the twelfth century,

bearing the doubtful name of Siurus (or possibly Laurence); he is mentioned once, without a name, in Hugh's narrative of the events of 1119.! Hugh the Chanter himself is evidence that learned men frequented the chapter of York in this epoch, and it was from the schools sustained by the lively, active chapters of the early twelfth

century that some of the mainsprings of the revival of schools and learning—to issue later in the century into the formation of univer-

sities—were to come. To determine where true learning was to be found, in secular chapters or in monastic schools and libraries, would be a task as fruitless as to determine the rights and wrongs of Canterbury and York. Both played their part. But the hidden world ofthe cathedral

chapters of England and France in the early twelfth century has a special fascination and importance. In a sense it is peculiarly obscure, for the family life which it fostered died away later in the century;? celibacy became the norm; the chapters were depleted; the majority of the canons became absentees; the leading scholars settled in Paris and Oxford. At York the family complexion of the

chapter was already threatened in the opening years of the twelfth century, when ‘it seems that Archbishop Gerard made serious efforts to enforce the provisions of the council of 1102’—including those enjoining celibacy on archdeacon, priest, deacon, and canon alike. "The canons repaid him by accusing him of necromancy and refusing to bury his body.? They were also so fortunate, or so canny, as to secure as his successors two hereditary canons. Hugh

says nothing of this, a silence which reminds us how difficult it is to penetrate this world.

Yet it is not a world wholly lost. Heloise herself was the daughter of the cathedral chapter before she was a canon’s concubine; and her spirited statement of the reasons why it was better to be a concubine than a wife—though the heroic dialectic of a devoted woman who accepted in the end both marriage and divorce at Abelard’s behest—shows us in a mirror something of the quality of ' EEA v, no. 3 and note. The identification depends on the punctuation. ? See in general Brett, pp. 193-4, 219-20; C. N. L. Brooke, Medieval Church and Society, chap. iv and The Medieval Idea ofMarriage (Oxford, 1989), chap. iii. There is no doubt that the hereditary benefice declined after the first third or so of the 12th cent.; but it lingered here and there, and extensively and indefinitely among the lower clergy. See esp. M. G. Cheney, Roger, Bishop of Worcester 1164— 1179 (Oxford, 1980), pp. 69-77. * Brett, p. 194; CS i/2. 675, 684-7.

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

AND

YORK

xxvii

life in these chapters.! Also very revealing in quite a different way is the prebendal catalogue of St Paul's cathedral, listing all the canons from about 109o on, unveiling in the first two generations a

remarkably domestic scene.? There were thirty canonries, or prebends—small estates for the separate support of the secular canons—c.1090, and between then and the death of Bishop

Richard de Belmeis in 1127 at least seven or eight passed from father to son, perhaps far more. It seems that the number rapidly decreased, though some of the great clerical families, especially that of the Belmeis, survived through several generations; but celibacy gradually made its way—or at least the concubines had to be concealed. Not so in that first generation. The Liber Vitae of Durham cathedral priory noted as recipients of the monks’ prayers ‘Ralph son of Algod, his brother Edmund, Maud his companion [socia, that is, concubine], Thomas and William his sons . . —and

Ralph and Edmund were canons of St Paul's of the first generation, William of the second, his father’s successor.’ A few of the hereditary canons, like Ralph, were evidently English, but most seem to have been Norman or anyway French; and from Bayeux or its region came the most celebrated names: Ranulf Flambard, later bishop of Durham, who figures in Hugh's

pages as a loyal suffragan of Archbishop Thurstan, and at least two members of his family, and Anger or Anskar of Bayeux, royal chaplain and canon, and his two sons, Audoen, later bishop of Evreux, and Thurstan himself, the hero of this book. Some verses

written by a monk of Pontefract tell us the names of Thurstan's honourable

parents—Anger

and Popelina? and Popelina and

! Heloise's statement was reported by Abelard in his Historia Calamitatum, and his account was corrected by Heloise in her first letter to him: for a detailed discussion of this evidence, its authenticity, and significance in the present context, see C. N. L. Brooke, The Medieval Idea ofMarriage (Oxford, 1989), pp. 90-115. ? Fasti, i, passim (D. E. Greenway); C. N. L. Brooke in Cambridge Historical Journal, 10/2 (1951), 111-32. 3 Brooke, ibid., p. 123, n. 66, citing Liber Vitae, facs. edn. by A. H. Thompson (Surtees Soc., 1923), f. 42+r (46); Fasti i. 40-1, 74-5. ^ Brooke, art. cit., pp. 124-5, 129-31, corrected by Fasti, i. 97-8, also ibid., pp. 43, 47,

77, 79 (family of Ranulf Flambard), 36, 43 (Anger, Audoen, Thurstan). On Audoen see also Orderic, vi. 174-5, 530-1 and notes; he became bishop in 1113 and died on 2 or 4 July 1139 X 1140 (Orderic, vi. 530-1, Robert of Torigny in Chrons. of the Reigns ofStephen ..., ed. R. Howlett (RS, 1884—9), iv. 95, 139; Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de laFrance, xxiii, ed. [N.] de Wailly, [L.] Delisle, and [C.] Jourdain (Paris, 1894), p. 463, cf. pp. 473, 579). On all this see Nicholl, Thurstan, chap. 1. > HCY ii. 261.

xxviii

INTRODUCTION

Maud are rare survivors from the lost world to which Heloise herself belonged, the honoured, respectable canons' concubines. It is noticeable that we owe our knowledge of them to monks: for all Hugh’s lively harping on the opposition of clerks and monks, for all the ascetic fervour of many monastic leaders and the gloomy doubts of men like St Peter Damian and St Anselm whether anyone else could be saved, there was ample room for coexistence and mutual respect. Only so can we comprehend the career of Heloise, rapidly converted from concubine to wife to highly respectable nun, courted by some of the monastic leaders of the age. Only so can we comprehend the career of Archbishop Thurstan. Thurstan’s career has many facets, of which Hugh only takes two to any depth—his dogged, persistent, defence of the rights of his see, and his yearning to be a pastoral archbishop. The politician is almost wholly hidden from us. We hear little of his work as royal clerk before his promotion, almost nothing of his relations with other powers in the north of England. His reign saw the development of a complex if inconclusive struggle to win and sustain supremacy over the Scottish church, but Hugh barely touches on this. Facing Canterbury or the kings of England or Scotland Thurstan was evidently exceedingly tough: not for nothing had he sprung from the Bayeux of Bishop Odo, the Conqueror’s warrior half-brother, and been brought up alongside the family of Ranulf Flambard. But there was evidently another side: Hugh’s Thurstan is ruthlessly determined but also a man of character and charm and devotion and diplomacy, employed by the pope himself to consecrate churches, taking time off to accompany the Countess Adela of Blois to her final home in the priory of Marcigny.! She and Thurstan may have been kindred spirits—for Hugh describes her even in old age as a virile woman, and she had shown her devotion earlier in life by chasing her husband back to the crusade he had abandoned.’ By a remarkable chance we have another striking witness of Thurstan's pastoral care of holy women—in The Life of Christina of Markyate: when Christina was sorely in need of help, her mentor, the hermit Roger, thought of Thurstan, ‘a helper of such vocations'? What Thurstan was doing intervening in the ' Below, pp. 138-9, 152-5, and the fine biography of Nicholl.

? Orderic, v. 324-5.

> The Life of Christina of Markyate, ed. and trans. C. H. Talbot (Oxford, 1959; repr. OMT, 1987), pp. 110-11, cf. 112-13, 126-7; cf. Nicholl, Thurstan, chap. vii; J. Burton, The Yorkshire Nunneries in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (York, Borthwick Papers, 56, 1979), p. 18 and n. 85.

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

AND

YORK

xxix

affairs of the diocese of Lincoln we may wonder, but he duly offered help in annulling her marriage and arranging her future, and the author alleges he tried to make her head of his own foundation for nuns in York, or transfer her to Marcigny (like the Countess Adela)! or to Fontevrault. But what is most conspicuously absent, whose absence we must most regret, is any description of the cathedral and the chapter of York: Hugh's style could have equipped him to bring wonderfully to life this great building and this lively society. The cathedral he knew was built by "Thomas I, and the brilliant archaeological investigation and reconstruction by Derek Phillips has shown how much of it survives, and how much we can learn of it? It was doubtless completed under Hugh's eyes; the next major campaign, issuing in a new choir and new west end, was the work of Archbishop Roger of Pont L’Evéque (1154-81): the minster that we know is mainly of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. A little of Thomas I's constructive work, in cathedral and chapter, Hugh describes, briefly and rather formally;? but in later pages his major theme takes charge and usurps all else: the issue of primacy and profession, of York and Canterbury.

Hugh's surname Hugh was the first member of his family known to have borne the surname Sottovagina or Sottewain. It was evidently a nickname that became a surname: in the best texts it is never qualified by *de', and the name passed through a succession of members of the York chapter to a younger group at the end of the twelfth century, including one or two laymen.’ The Christian names of the first two generations— Hugh, Ernulf, Thomas—suggest a French origin: such names were quickly picked up by English and Anglo-Scandinavian families, but Hugh himself must have been born in the 1080s or so, which would be very early for such a use; and a persistent surname from so early a date also points to a continental origin. The earliest texts give us two kinds of form: a Latin version, 1 See below, pp. 152-5.

? D. Phillips, Excavations at York Minster, ii (London, Royal Commission on Histori-

cal Monuments, 1985). 3 Below, pp. 18-21. 4 For Hugh's family see above, p. xxiii; Clay, ‘Precentors’, pp. 119-20; EYC i-iii, Index, p. 215, s.v. Sottewame.

XXX

INTRODUCTION

such as occurs on Hugh's seal *sorr(o)yvAGINE' (more often in later texts Sottovagina), or Sotavagina in a later original, and a vernacular

form ‘Sotte wain'—Sottewai and Sottewain in twelfth-century originals, 'Sotewain" in Pipe Roll 13 Henry II, of 1166—7.! We laid these facts before Cecily Clark, who has suggested to us that they point to a Picard or Walloon origin. In the Picard dialect the Latin ‘vagina’, a sheath or scabbard, becomes ‘waine’, whereas in middle French it would be 'gaine"?This suggests that the nickname meant ‘foolish, absurd scabbard’ and that Hugh or his family hailed from Picardy or Flanders, as did many of those who came over with the Conqueror.’ There may be other possibilities; but if, as seems most probable, the Latin and the vernacular form had a common, consistent, meaning, then this solution seems to us very convincing. III. THE

PRIMACY

DISPUTE

At the end of his book Hugh suggested that it might well be called ‘The Man Set Free'^ In spite of the elaborate rubric at the beginning, which seems to promise a general history of the archbishopric, he was right. The structure of his story is dominated by a single theme: the origin, defence, and defeat of the demands for the ! The seal survives in Durham, Dean and Chapter Muniments, 2. 4. Ebor. 6: it was described by W. Greenwell in ‘Durham seals’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd Ser., 15 (1918), 126 and pl. III (= no. 3285, pl. 61), who read it as 'sorrovAGINE, but it cannot be read on the photograph there printed. Alan Piper and Martin Snape have very kindly looked at

the seal for me and report that what is now legible is 'sorr( )vAGINE', and Mr Piper writes: ‘it may well be that the first word was entirely intact when the record for no. 3285 was made; the impression given by the catalogue as a whole suggests that missing letters were not silently supplied, but in the nature of things we cannot demonstrate this conclusively’ (Letter of 6 Aug. 1987). Hugh himself witnesses BL Cotton Cht. xi. 66 as *Hugone Sottewai’ (EEA v, No. 74, Archbishop Thurstan’s foundation charter for St Clement's nunnery): we are grateful for advice on this and other information to Dr Janet Burton. Thomas witnesses as Sotavagina in EEA v, No. 114; Arnold witnesses an original charter of William Fossard (after 1154) as ‘Arnusto Sotewain’ (BL Addit. Cht.

20561, printed as 'Sotewam' in EYC ii, No. 1095). The surname is rendered 'Sotewain" in PRO E 372/13, rot. 6, m. 2d = Pipe Roll 13 Henry II (Pipe Roll Soc., 1889), p. 99: the reading has kindly been verified for us by Dr Elizabeth Hallam Smith. ? W. von Wartburg, Franzósisches etymologisches Worterbuch (Bonn—Basel, 1928— ), xiv. 121-2 s.v. vagina; A. Tobler and E. Lommatzsch, Altfranzósisches Worterbuch (BerlinWiesbaden, 1925- ), iv. 50-1 s.v. gaine. * [n the Latin form Sottus could conceivably be a Latin word, but if so the form should be Sottevagine or the like—as in Sotavagina (see n. 1). For a summary account of the Picard and Flemish elements in the Conqueror's army in 1066 see F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (3rd edn., Oxford, 1971), p. 629; D. C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (London, 1964), pp. 266—7. Immigration from both areas later was also important. * Below, pp. 222-3.

THE

PRIMACY

DISPUTE

xxxi

submission of York to the primatial claims of Canterbury. There

was a real unity here, for the primacy which Lanfranc defined in 1070 had no substantial roots in the past, and by 1 127 Canterbury's

cause was lost; for centuries the archbishops were to quarrel cver precedence and formal privileges, but Canterbury would never again succeed in securing the obedience of York.! From the election of Archbishop Thurstan Hugh’s narrative is fuller than anything surviving from the Canterbury side, and it can beunderstood with only occasional references to other sources. For the earlier period the case is quite different, for Hugh gives only the most summary and misleading account ofthe years of Canterbury's success between 1070 and 1109. Here the correspondence of Lanfranc and Anselm, the archives of Canterbury, and the Historia Novorum of Eadmer provide an abundance of material by which Hugh's story can be controlled and completed. Without a sketch of these earlier years it is difficult to understand the passions which Thurstan's defiance aroused or the terms in which the later arguments were conducted. Although claims to primatial rank were widespread in the late eleventh century,’ the English dispute was unusual, not only because it occurred so early but because it rested upon the unique circumstances of the conversion of the English under the direction of Pope Gregory I. Alone among the churches of the Latin West, England possessed a ‘foundation charter’ in the letter sent by Gregory to Augustine soon after he received the first reports of the success ofthe mission. In 601 the pope laid downa design for the new church; Augustine was to create two provinces based on London and York, each with an archbishop and twelve diocesans. As long as Augustine lived he was to have authority over the whole church, including the British bishops already there. After his death the archbishop who had been consecrated earlier was to have precedence over the other, though both were to act in concert in matters con-

cerning the faith.? ! The primacy has been discussed very often. There is an extended account of the period covered by Hugh in M. Dueball, Der Suprematstreit zwischen den Erzdiozesen Canterbury und York (Berlin, 1929). C. Jenkins, The Dispute with Canterbury (York Minster Historical Tracts, x [1927]) provides a convenient sketch of the issues down to 1353. The more important studies on particular aspects are cited below. ? For the general background see H. Fuhrmann, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt., 39 (1953), 112-76; 40 (1954), 1-84; 41 (1955), 95-183. 3 JE 1829, Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, i. 29 (ed. B. Colgrave and R. Mynors (OMT 1969), pp. 104-7). There is a good general account of the origins of Gregory's mission in

xxxii

INTRODUCTION

On hearing of the conversion of King Edwin of Northumbria, Pope Honorius sent Paulinus a pallium in 634, according to Gregory's design, but he also made an important change. Gregory had provided that the suffragans of the southern province should consecrate their archbishop, and presumably York should do the same. Honorius had been urged to consider the isolation of the English, and accordingly allowed that the surviving archbishop of either province should consecrate the successor to the other.’ In the event both popes had been a good deal too optimistic. King Edwin had already been killed, and Paulinus had fled, before Honorius wrote his letter. Gregory's schematic map of the English church was never to be fulfilled, for by the time London was securely in Christian hands the archbishops had settled at Canterbury too long to be moved, and York was not to have its own archbishop with a pallium again until 735.” In the interval the new church had come near foundering, and had been largely reconstructed under Archbishop Theodore (668—90). When the English church emerged from the confusion of the Danish wars in the tenth century, under a single king of England, there were still two archbishops, but they presided over provinces of most unequal size. Canterbury's was remarkably large, with fourteen suffragans,

York's very small, with a single suffragan at the shrine of St Cuthbert, soon to settle at Durham.’ This presented obvious difficulties for any archbishop elect of York, since it would be impossible to find three suffragans to consecrate him; possibly for this reason the provision of Honorius for each archbishop to consecrate his fellow seems to have been observed until the Norman Conquest, on the few occasions on which it was necessary and possible.^ His wealth and the prestige of St Augustine, of St Dunstan, and of St /Elfheah, ensured the archbishop of Canterbury a precedence of honour, which is reflected in the leading place he took in H. Mayr-Harting, The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England (London, 1972),

PP. 51-77.

! JE 2020, Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica ,ii. 18 (ed. Colgrave and Mynors, pp. 196—9). ? Continuation of Bede, ed. Colgrave and Mynors, p. 572. ? Tn the rith cent. at least York provided some sacraments for the Scottish church, but there is too little evidence to establish what kind of authority, if any, this was believed to express (below, pp. xlv-xlvi and nn.). * For the period immediately preceding the Conquest see CS i/1. 441-5; for the liturgical evidence Canterbury Professions, p. \xiii n. 2. Many archbishops in the roth and 11th cents., particularly at York, had been translated from other sees, and so required no consecration.

THE

PRIMACY

DISPUTE

xxxiii

witnessing royal charters. There is no reason to suppose that the precise nature of this precedence was an issue of any importance. Canterbury seems to have used no title suggesting a particular preeminence, and the greatest public occasions of the church were assemblies of the whole realm. These needed no defined ecclesiastical presidency or means of compulsion to secure the attendance

- of the churchmen of the north.! In 1069 Archbishop Ealdred of York died, and in 107o Stigand of Canterbury was deposed by a legatine council at Winchester. King William appointed Thomas of Bayeux to York in May, but took no steps to have him consecrated before appointing Lanfranc to Canterbury in August. Lanfranc was consecrated by his suffragans at Canterbury.” The events which Hugh describes were set in motion shortly afterwards. When Thomas presented himself for consecration Lanfranc refused unless he made a profession of obedience to Canterbury ‘following the practice of his predecessors'? This was an astonishing demand, without parallel elsewhere in the church. It is not surprising that Thomas rejected it, demanding written proof and lawful witnesses of its supposed antiquity, and legal authority for such a subjection of his church. A few days later Lanfranc appeared before the king and persuaded him and the Normans of the justice of his cause; at least in Lanfranc's account the English needed no persuading. By the judgement of

the king, Thomas was required to return to Canterbury for consecration, making there a profession of obedience. This was to Lanfranc personally, but it reserved his position towards later ! There are very few surviving charters in the names of archbishops of Canterbury and York before 1066, and their drafting does not help. In royal charters of unchallenged authenticity after 1000, the almost invariable form for the attestation of an archbishop is simply ‘Ego N. archiepiscopus'. One bizarre contemporary single sheet, apparently

drafted locally for a Devon thegn, describes /Ethelnoth of Canterbury as *Eboracensis basilice primas; J.Kemble, Codex diplomaticus aevi Saxonici (London, 1839-48), iv, No. 744; P. Chaplais, Bulletin of the Institute ofHistorical Research ,39 (1966), 24. Even the first four archbishops after the Conquest rarely if ever used the primatial style in their own charters; see below, p. xliv nn. r, 2. For the precedence of Canterbury see F. Barlow, The English Church 1000— 1066 (2nd edn., London, 1979), pp. 234-6. 2 CS i/2. 565-85. 3 Letters ofLanfranc, pp. 40-1 (CS i/2. 586—9); the narrative is apparently the work of Lanfranc himself, written after 1075; cf. below, pp. 4-7. * In rog7 Ivo of Chartres denounced such a demand as wholly unjustified and unprecedented when Archbishop Hugh of Lyons required a similar profession from Daimbert, archbishop elect of Sens; Hugh may well have sought to use the Canterbury example for his own purpose (Yves de Chartres, Correspondence, ed. J. Leclercq (Paris, 1949), pp. 238-55, Ep. 6o; MGH Libelli de lite, ii. 640-7).

XXXiV

INTRODUCTION

archbishops until he had been shown convincing evidence that his predecessors had similarly submitted. The profession, which does not survive, is the only one which Hugh admits to have existed.’ The following year Lanfranc and Thomas were together at Rome to obtain their pallia; Thomas took the chance to raise the issue of the primacy, coupling it with a claim to the obedience of the bishoprics of Lichfield, Worcester, and Dorchester (or at least Lindsey, its northernmost element). Geography, some recent practice, and York’s desperate shortage of suffragans all lent colour and urgency to the claim. The pope referred both issues to the judgement of a council to be held in England in the presence of a papal envoy, the lector Hubert. Prolonged negotiations took place in 1072, beginning at Win-

chester in April, and completed at the Whitsun court at Windsor. The outcome is recorded in an agreement which survives in two single sheets still preserved at Canterbury. One has the autograph signa of the king, queen, legate, the two archbishops, and the bishops of Dorchester, Worcester, and Elmham. Lichfield, the other see directly involved, was vacant; Herfast of Elmham was a

former royal chancellor, which may explain his presence. The authenticity of this text has never been disputed. The second has the same text in all essentials, with an added note that the matter was finally settled at Windsor; here the signa and attestations are not autograph, but they are far more numerous, and there was once an impression of the genuine great seal of King William attached. This is the version which can be shown to have circulated quite widely, and Hugh asserts that the seal was secured and attached by fraud. It is almost impossible to believe him, for the second version says nothing of substance that is not in the first, and the first version gives no grounds for suspicion.’ By this agreement three points were determined. Firstly, it was established ‘by written proofs of various kinds’ that the church of York should be subject to Canterbury and should obey the directions of the archbishop as primate of all Britain; accordingly, Archbishop Thomas made a second profession to Lanfranc and his successors, though Lanfranc remitted the oath out of love for the king. Secondly, it was decided that the province of York began at the ! Letters ofLanfranc, pp. 40-3 (CS i/2. 588-9); below, pp. 6-7, 10-11. ? Below, pp. 8-11, 40-3.

THE

PRIMACY

DISPUTE

XXXV

Humber (with some outliers) and extended to the furthest limits of

Scotland, hence rejecting York's claims to the three bishoprics, though providing room for York to find herself other suffragans outside the realm of King William. Thirdly, the principle of Pope Honorius was reasserted, in that York should consecrate an archbishop elect of Canterbury, and Canterbury an elect of York, but in both cases the ceremony should take place at Canterbury.! If the text is secure, as it surely must be, there are no serious grounds for doubting whether the surviving second profession of Archbishop Thomas to Lanfranc and his successors is also genuine. Although it only survives in sources connected with Canterbury, it is entirely consistent with the terms of the agreement of

1072, and incidentally confirms that Thomas made two profes-

sions, one personal only to Lanfranc at his consecration, the second later to Lanfranc and his successors.” For York afterwards the most pressing difficulty was to explain how Archbishop Thomas had ever come to submit, for in many respects he had proved an admirable archbishop. Hugh claims that Lanfranc secured the support of King William by suggesting that an archbishop at York who had not made a profession might be persuaded to consecrate a rival king,’ and this has often been taken seriously. The idea is not easy to accept; the notion that Thomas of Bayeux was likely to consecrate a rival to William seems most improbable, and if he were prepared to do so a profession to Canterbury scarcely offered an obstacle. For this early

period Hugh is a most untrustworthy guide in detail, and it looks more like a much later effort to explain the king’s support. According to Canterbury the king was incredulous when he first heard of Lanfranc’s demand, detached while the case was argued, and he intervened at the end only to secure a remission of Lanfranc’s demand for an oath of obedience as well as a profession. Once the settlement was reached, of course, William or his successors were ! Letters ofLanfranc, pp. 42—9; CS i/2. 586—605. There is no profession in the Canterbury archives for Peter, bishop of Lichfield, consecrated after 29 Aug. 1072. re ? Canterbury Professions, No. 34 (Letters ofLanfranc, pp. 44-5; CS i/ 2. 604-5). - 3 Below, pp. 4-5. The precarious hold of the king on the North is discussed in its general context by J. Le Patourel, The Norman Empire (London, 1976), pp. 54-61, and for these years in detail by W. E. Kapelle, The Norman Conquest ofthe North (London, 1979), pp. 120-57. These difficulties provide the background to Hugh s explanation of Thomas’s submission, but do not provide substantial support for it.

xxxvi

INTRODUCTION

unlikely to be sympathetic to an archbishop who invoked outside . authorities to overthrow a royal judgement. The contemporary account from Canterbury, stressing the effectiveness of Lanfranc's advocacy, commands more confidence. It is likely that the Normans of 1070-2 would have been a good deal less conscious of the weaknesses of the case than later critics have been. The arguments by which Thomas was brought to submission have been much discussed.! Lanfranc's letter to Pope Alexander II, reporting the outcome of the council, is the only contemporary evidence of any substance.? According to this the first proofs were drawn from Bede, showing archbishops of Canterbury exercising unchallenged authority over all England for the hundred and forty yearsbetween the coming of Augustine and Bede's death, which was true enough, even ifthroughout that period there had been no established archbishop of York with a pallium. Unspecified conciliar texts had been cited, showing Canterbury exercising these rights.’ The professions of obedience made to earlier archbishops were then brought in. There is a unique series of episcopal professions to Canterbury from the time of Archbishop /Ethelheard (793—805) to Ceolnoth (833-70), with a single outlier for Archbishop Oda of 942 X 956; these are powerful evidence on the claims of Canterbury to Dorchester, Worcester, and Lichfield, but the only one attributed to York is a crude rehandling ofa profession of Eadwulf of Lindsey (796—836/9) to convert it into one in the name of Archbishop Ealdwulf (appointed in 995), and it is not clear when it was altered. Lanfranc does not cite it, and it first appears in the 1120s.* A further proof ! Among the most important are H. Bohmer, Die Fülschungen Erzbischof Lanfranks von Canterbury (Leipzig, 1902); Z. N. Brooke, The English Church and the Papacy (Cambridge, 1931), pp. 118-26; W. Levison, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946), pp. 201-6; R. W. Southern, EHR 73 (1958), 193-226, and St Anselm, pp. 127-42; M. Richter, Downside Review, 9o (1972), 110-24; M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford, 1978), pp. 116-31, 231-7; Barlow, English Church, pp. 39—46. * Letters ofLanfranc, No. 4 (pp. 48-57); CS i/2. 597-601. > Two of these councils may be CS i/1. 165—9 (an Exeter composition from the late roth cent), and the manipulated version of the Council of Rome of 679 described by W. Levison in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung ‘firRechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt., 2 (1912), 265 82; 19 (1930), 672-4. M. Gibbs, Speculum, 48 (1973), 213-46, argues that the manipulation was more substantial than Levison believed. The source is a manuscript from St Augustine's, Canterbury, whose connection with the first of the forged Canterbury bulls was established by Levison. * Canterbury Professions, pp. xi, xxii-xxiv, xxxvi-xlvii, No. 1; many of the preConquest professions to Canterbury, except for this one all apparently genuine, are first found in BL MS Cotton Cleopatra E i of the 1120s; this also includes the forgeries discussed below.

THE

PRIMACY

DISPUTE

xxxvii

was drawn from the story of an archbishop of Canterbury excom-

municating a king of Northumbria for simony, though no other trace of the story has been found. The last element in Lanfranc's case is the most contentious: a list of papal letters in the names of Gregory, Boniface, Honori us, Vitalian, Sergius, Gregory [II], Leo [III], and Leo IX, none of which is quoted, but said to be ‘as it were the strength and cornerstone of the entire case’. This list coincides for the most part with the set of interpolated or forged privileges which Canterbury produced in evidence in the early 1120s; Hugh’s account of their reception at the curia in 1123 is one ofthe most celebrated passages in his book. It was long supposed that these forgeries were produced by or for Lanfranc. Sir Richard Southern showed good cause for doubting whether this was so, holding that Lanfranc was citing a number of genuine bulls whose phrasing might encourage an exalted vision of the rights of Canterbury without establishing any decisive case. On this view Lanfranc's list of proofs and the later forgeries are close, though not identical, because many of the genuine bulls were subsequently modified by the forgers. Nothing more was heard ofthe genuine bulls because they were inadequate for the purpose. The forgeries said all that could be desired, but they were not cited by partisans of Canterbury, even in the elaborate statement of their case sent to Rome by Archbishop Ralph in 1120, because they had not yet been created. They were produced in 1121 X 1123 in the crisis which followed the return of Thurstan to England early in 1121. This view has been widely accepted, though other scholars have argued for an intermediate date.! ! [t is usually held that the first of the forgeries, JE 1998 (Bóhmer, Die Falschungen Erzbischof Lanfranks, pp. 145-6) must have been composed by 1073, since it is cited in a letter of Alexander II, JL 4761; it deals with the monastic chapter at Christ Church, not the primacy. Alexander's letter, which refers to Canterbury as ‘metropolis totius Britannie' is itself deeply suspect, and even the first forgery may therefore be later than has generally been supposed (H. Clover in La Normandie bénédictine aux temps de Guillaume le conquérant (Lille, 1967), pp. 417-42). Osbern, the precentor of Christ Church, referred to bulls of Boniface, Honorius, Vitalian, and Agatho in 1093 in a context which might suggest that these were interpolated versions, rather than genuine but inconclusive ones (EA 149). M. Gibson, Lanfranc ofBec, pp. 231—7, argues that several of the forgeries already existed in 1070, and that they were originally produced as weapons against the claims to exemption at St Augustine’s, not against York. Her argument on their date somewhat misrepresents Southern’s case, summarized here in the text, and we do not

accept her argument on their purpose. Such exemption disputes are unknown in England, so far as our knowledge goes, before 1070. The St Augustine’s claim to

xxxviii

INTRODUCTION

Since we depend so heavily on Canterbury sources for 1070-2, it is not surprising that we know almost nothing of ‘the very few objections’ which Thomas could raise, though he did cite Gregory's letter on the parity of London and York. He had used it at the curia in 1071, and Lanfranc had denied its force, since the case concerned Canterbury, not London. The same argument seems to have prevailed in England.! It is clear that Gregory expected Augustine to set up his see at London in due course, but it would require unusual historical sense for Canterbury to acknowledge that their archbishop had only settled there by a kind of accident, even had the admission mattered less.

Lanfranc knew his triumph was insecure as long as it lacked papal confirmation, and he sent to Alexander II a full statement of the case with a copy of the formal judgement of the English church, asking for a papal privilege. He failed, explicitly because such a confirmation would have to be sought in person.’ It has been suggested that this was little more than a polite fiction, and that the popes displayed a consistent hostility to such primatial claims. This somewhat misrepresents the case, for Gregory VII was the first pope to confirm a primatial claim of the Canterbury type, for Lyons in 1079, and his immediate successors were relatively generous with such grants. Primatial powers figure widely in the collection of Pseudo-Isidore, which was exploited vigorously by the reformers, but their content was ill-defined and apparently slight. They presented no threat in themselves to papal authority; indeed they offered an opportunity to gratify powerful churchmen at low cost? It was, however, a cardinal point for Gregory and his exemption, which was certainly being pursued with vigour from the time of Anselm (Eadmer, HN, pp. 188-91, PUE i, Nos. 10-11), would not be undermined by the archbishop's claim to primacy, nor is there any evidence that the forgeries were ever employed in the course of that dispute. Recently S. E. Kelly, 'Some forgeries in the Archive of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury’, Falschungen im Mittelalter (Schriften der MGH 33; 1988), iv. 347-69, has argued that the primacy forgeries were created at Canterbury before 1070. This theory requires that Pseudo-Isidorean ecclesiology was current in England before the coming of Lanfranc, a view for which there is no other convincing evidence. ! Letters ofLanfranc, Nos. 3, 4 (pp. 42-3, 54-5); CS i/2. 590, 600. ^ Letters ofLanfranc, No. 6, a reply to Lanfranc’s request by Archdeacon Hildebrand (the later Gregory VII). No answer from the pope survives. * Against e.g. Dueball (above, p. xxxi n. 1), p. 35, or D. C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (London, 1964), p. 323, see Z. N. Brooke, English Church and the Papacy, pp. 171—3; Fuhrmann, Zeits der chrif Savigny-Stiftt ung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt., 40 (1954), 61-84;

41 (1955), 95-114, 129-31; see too Ivo of Chartres, Ep. 236 (PL 162. 238-42; MGH Libelli

THE

PRIMACY

DISPUTE

xxxix

Successors to secure a regular personal attendance of distant bishops at the curia. It may well be that Lanfranc's demands might have received a more favourable hearing than is usually supposed had he gone to Rome himself. From 1072 until his death in 1089 Lanfranc enjoyed the peaceful use of his title without further challenge. The consecration of Archbishop Anselm in 1093 presented the first occasion for reopening the issue. According to Hugh, it was originally said that Anselm was to be consecrated as ‘primate of all Britain’, but Archbishop Thomas refused, on the grounds that he had made only a personal profession to Lanfranc which had now expired. After some discussion he consecrated Anselm simply as *metropolitan of Canterbury’. According to Eadmer, the original demand was that Anselm should be consecrated as ‘metropolitan of all Britain’, but when Thomas protested that this implied that York was not even metropolitan it was amended to ‘primate of all Britain’. Again the Canterbury version of events seems the more trustworthy, though it cannot be reconciled with Hugh’s. It is clear that Hugh is wrong in claiming that Thomas had made only a personal profession, and his version of events requires that Canterbury should have abandoned the heart of their claims with only the most token resistance. It is not as if they were in a serious dilemma; if Thomas had proved as obdurate as Hugh suggests, Anselm could always have been consecrated by his suffragans. Eadmer’s account, on the other hand, requires that the Canterbury partisans originally made a novel claim, which they abandoned in favour of the title Lanfranc had long enjoyed with the acquiescence, however reluctant, of York. It is impossible to be certain exactly what did happen in 1093, not least because neither party referred to Anselm’s consecration in clear terms later, but it seems very probable that Thomas did consecrate Anselm as primate of all Britain.’ There was a legal problem now impending for York, for rights de lite, ii. 647-54). The first of the sequence of primacy privileges, for Lyons, was originally expressly revocable, though the re-issues are not. The later evolution of the Canterbury claim to be both primate and exclusive papal legate in England gave the issue a distinct quality, but Anselm seems to have been the first archbishop to claim the legateship in this explicit form; Southern, St Anselm, pp. 130-2; CS i/2. 717.The king had his own version of the same demand; cf. J. Deer in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 2 (1964), 117-86, esp. 168-81. ! Eadmer, HN, pp. 42-3; below, pp. 12-15. For arguments in favour of Eadmer's version of events see CS i/2. 641n.; Barlow, English Church, pp. 42-3; see too H. Clover in La Normandie bénédictine aux temps de Guillaume le conquérant, pp. 434-5.

xl

INTRODUCTION

enjoyed for thirty years without challenge were commonly considered to be established.! This may explain the very curious letter from Urban II, which is the first document Hugh cites in full. Chronologically it is misplaced, for it was almost certainly written in 1093X1094, though Hugh places it before Lanfranc's death. This is not a serious objection in the earlier section of Hugh, which is partially thematic rather than sequential. The occasion of its issue is oddly defined: Pope Urban came to hear of the profession thus extorted, and was seriously disturbed.’ In 1093 Urban II had not been recognized by William II, and was not to be so for another two years. For such reasons the letter has sometimes been dismissed as a fabrication.’ The counter-arguments however seem stronger. If it is a forgery it is a very early one, for it is cited by Paschal II in 1116, the next papal letter Hugh cites on the matter, and constantly from then on;? the attitude Urban adopted on the letter of Gregory I is exactly that taken by his successors. More strikingly, the letter refers to two legates of the pope, Roger the cardinal deacon and Bishop Herbert of Thetford. There are no grounds for supposing that Roger ever reached England, but both appear as legates of Urban at about this time in a quite unrelated text for Fécamp. Such information is unlikely to have been available or attractive to a forger. There is a parallel to this appeal to Urban before his recognition in the letter on behalf of William of St Carilef of Durham of 1088 X 1089.* A further argument for its authenticity may be drawn from its reference to the written profession Thomas is said to have made after he had received his pallium. Hugh had made no mention of this second profession; indeed he had denied its existence by implication. The letter therefore contains a damaging admission, for it could scarcely be supposed that a second profession had been made in exactly the same terms as the first. Some of the curious features of Urban's bull could be explained on the hypothesis that the York chapter secured the letter around the time of ! The "longi temporis praescriptio", derived from Roman law, had long been a commonplace for canon lawyers too; see for example Ivo, Decretum, iii. 106, 131, 144-7, 212 (PL 161. 221, 226—7, 231-2, 248-9); Panormia, ii. 64-8 (PL 161. 1095-6); Gratian, C. 16,

q. 3, CC. 1-9. * Below, pp. 10-13; cf. e.g. H. Tillmann, Die papstlichen Legaten in England bis zur Beendigung der Legation Gualas (1218) (Bonn, 1926), p. 19 n. 38, cautiously;J.W. Alexan-

der, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History ,6 (1969), 164—5, emphatically. > Below, pp. 28-9, 66-7, 70-1, 168-9, 196-7, 222-3. * CS i/2. 635, 641-3.

THE

PRIMACY

DISPUTE

xli

Anselm's consecration, not for immediate use, but as insurance for

the future. With the translation of Bishop Gerard of Hereford to York the terms of the argument were changed again, for he needed no consecration, so depriving Canterbury of its most convenient lever for securing a profession; as a former suffragan of Canterbury he could claim too that he had already made one, without prejudicing the rights of York. According to Eadmer, in 1107 he was brought to make a formal concession that he would observe the same obedience at York that he had professed at Hereford, and there is no obvious reason to doubt this.! More strikingly for the future, Anselm was in constant and loyal communication with the papacy, and frequently at the curia, while Gerard was identified for a while with King Henry's refusal to surrender his right to invest bishops and abbots. The conditions could scarcely be more favourable for Canterbury's cause. Pope Paschal provided Anselm with two material letters; the first was a mandate to Gerard commanding him to make his profession to Canterbury as Thomas had done to Lanfranc. The second confirmed to Anselm and his successors such primatial rights as his predecessors had enjoyed, with whatever dignity and power is known to have belonged to Canterbury since the days of St Augustine. The mandate could not be put to much use, since Anselm went into exile shortly after receiving it, and the privilege is carefully vague just where the archbishop needed precision. Nevertheless it remains the nearest Canterbury ever came to obtaining papal recognition of the primacy.” By 1109 Canterbury, and the English bishops in general, had become used to the primatial title; it had been established by a series of royal judgements and church councils, and no open attack upon it had been heard from Rome. A single ‘ecclesia Anglicana' under its primate fitted easily into the political realities of AngloNorman England. For Lanfranc and for his successors its intellectual foundations had been laid by Bede; a string of Hugh's ! Eadmer, HN, pp. 186—7; Canterbury Professions, No. 53. ? JL. 5930 (EA 283) of 12 Dec. 1102; JL 5955 (EA 303) of 16 Dec. 1103; see R. W. Southern, St Anselm, p. 137. C. R. Cheney in Journal of the Society ofArchivists, 6 (1981), 467-81, examines the use of the primatial title at Canterbury, and discusses the papal bulls for Theobald and his successors which follow the terms of JL 5955 quite closely. The significance of a confirmation of the primacy as it had been lawfully enjoyed was necessarily much less once York had secured the privileges which defined those rights, at least in their negative aspects.

xlii

INTRODUCTION

contemporaries were at work on chronicles which shared and enlarged Bede's assumptions.! The time for prolonged analysis of the basis of the primacy seemed to be over. With hindsight, York's success in engaging papal interest in the issue in 1108-9 was an ominous development for Canterbury, but Thomas II had submitted in the end. For many the war may well have seemed won. Thurstan’s resistance caused anger and resentment therefore at a number of levels. It is possible to hold that King Henry cared little enough for the primacy itself, but he did object with passion to the overthrow of established customs and judgements. For Canterbury the loss was as direct and bitter as disinheritance. In 1120 Archbishop Ralph sent the pope the most elaborate defence of the case for Canterbury's primacy produced during the whole period. The confusion and impatience of his letter reflects as much bewilderment as anger? Most of the English clergy were much less directly involved, and the dispute finds little echo in the chronicles written outside York or Canterbury. Nevertheless almost all those who do mention the matter are hostile to Thurstan.’ The grievance of Thurstan’s opponents was well expressed when they rejected his offer to consecrate Archbishop William: "Things are different

now: the churches have been divided.” Outside the circle of English churchmen the dispute has left even fainter traces. Ivo of Chartres had devoted much energy to resisting the primatial claims of Lyons over his own metropolitan of Sens, which makes it the less surprising that near the end of his life he wrote to Paschal II to deplore the efforts of Canterbury to delay the consecration of Thurstan.> His most formal statement of the case against the exaction of a profession of obedience by one archbishop from another circulated widely; it is quoted directly b ! Brett, pp. 11-13. ? HCY ii. 288-51; Southern, EHR 73 (1958), 208—10. * Cf. Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. T. Arnold (RS, 1879), pp. 238-9; ASC, p. 40; Florence of Worcester, ii. 69; John of Worcester, PP. 14-15, 22; Orderic, vi. 252-3. William of Malmesbury devotes more time to the matter and so provides an exception, though a qualified one since he depends so heavily on Eadmer, in WMGP, pp. 39-66, 131, 258—66 and WMGR ii.346-54. The author of the Durham Historia Regum, in Simeon, ii. 249—50, 254, 257-8, 262, 272-3, depends usually on the Worcester chronicle and Eadmer, but modifies his sources to provide a more favourable interpretation of Thurstan's conduct. He may even have used Hugh directly; cf. Simeon, ii. 258, 262, with below, pp. 142-57, 172-7. * Below, pp. 186-7. * See Ivo’s Epp. 60, 236 (above, pp. xxxiii n. 4, Xxxviii n. 3). Hugh cites Ep. 60 below at

PP. 24-5.

THE

PRIMACY

DISPUTE

xliii

Hugh, and it was exploited at length by the mysterious ‘Norman Anonymous’ in his tracts against the claims of Lyons over Rouen, and in a short defence of York against Canterbury. While the Rouen tracts refer to specific events in the late 1096s, the York one is so general that no attempt to date it precisely carries much con-

viction. It belongs probably to the period 1093-1116, and like the rest of his works seems to have lacked both circulation and influence.! With hindsight it is clear that Lanfranc's success in establishing the primacy was overthrown completely when Calixtus II issued his privilege for York in March 1120, for that judgement appeared to be decisive and irrevocable. All that remained was to secure Thurstan’s return to his see. At the time this was far from clear; the continued efforts of Canterbury to renew the dispute after 1121 were not foredoomed to failure. There are a number of disputes before the pope in these years which were apparently as firmly concluded yet came to be reversed or revised Even after the

collapse of the negotiations of 1125-6 Canterbury was not reconciled to defeat. Her suffragans throughout Archbishop William's time continued to profess obedience to him as 'primate of all Britain’, with one significant exception? However, the renewal of the terms of the privilege of Calixtus by Honorius II in 1128 and Innocent II in 1131 were more decisive in ending any hope of restoring the old primacy.’ The professions made to Theobald still follow the earlier form, and it was Theobald who first regularly used the primatial style in his charters. Theobald and his successors ! Die Texte des normannischen Anonymus , ed. K. Pellens (Wiesbaden, 1966), prints Tract J 29 on pp. 226-30; for the authorship see R. Nineham, JEH 14 (1963), 31-45; K. Pellens, Das Kirchendenken des normannischen Anonymus (Wiesbaden, 1973), pp. 27-30. ? For examples see the privileges for Llandaff in The Text of the Book ofLlan Dav, ed. J. G. Evans (Oxford, 1893), pp. 30-3, 41-5 (JL 7304, 7369), with the analysis of their final result in J. Conway Davies, Episcopal Acts relating to Welsh dioceses (Historical Society of the Church in Wales, i, 1946), 174-81; the privileges confirming the extent of the province of Braga, discussed in C. Erdmann, Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil. Hist. Kl. (1928), 5-28 and R.A. Fletcher, St James’s Catapult (Oxford, 1984), pp. 206-7; the vexed history of the dependence of the dioceses of Corsica in P. Kehr, /talia pontificia, iii (Berlin, 1908), 321-5 (Nos. 9-26), x (1975), 459-78, supplemented by U.-R. Blumenthal in Bulletin ofMedieval Canon Law, Ns 4 (1974), 64-5. 3 Canterbury Professions, Nos. 70-9. The exception is the profession of Seffrid of Chichester (No. 72), addressed to William as 'sancte Cantuariensis ecclesie archiepiscope'; Seffrid was consecrated in the presence of John of Crema, the papal legate of 1125, and Archbishop Thurstan (John of Worcester, p. 19).

4 JL 7227, redated as PUE ii, No. 12; PUE ii, No. 13.

xliv

INTRODUCTION

continued to pursue Canterbury's claim to the primacy with great energy, but the title could no longer convey more than a formal

pre-eminence.! No one who reads Hugh or Eadmer can doubt the passions which the primacy aroused at Canterbury and York. It does not, however, follow that it had a proportionate importance in the life of the church and kingdom. If one asks what difference either Canterbury's primacy or York's release made to the conduct of affairs, it is curiously difficult to find a satisfactory answer. The only explicit duty Lanfranc imposed as a consequence of his success was that Thomas of York should attend his councils when summoned; the prefaces to the councils of 1075, 1076, and 1102 are very rare cases of the use of the title by Lanfranc or Anselm outside the professions.” Once it became the custom to hold formal ecclesiastical councils distinct from those of the whole realm after the Norman Conquest, some principle of summons for all the clergy of England was needed. The primacy provided one, but the legatine .commission to William in 1126 proved an adequate replacement. Distinct provincial councils for Canterbury and York are not clearly recorded until the 1190s? For Pseudo-Isidore a primate offered a half-way house for aggrieved bishops between their own archbishop and Rome, but there is no good evidence of appeal from the metropolitan authority of York to the primatial see of Canterbury between 1070 and the grant ofa legation to Archbishop William in 1126. It was remarked earlier that other contemporaries showed little interest in the substance of the dispute, and they may well have taken a just view of its long-term significance. For the ! A. Saltman, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1956), pp. 191-2; C. R. Cheney, Journal of the Society ofArchivists, 6 (1981), 478-81; Canterbury Professions, Nos. 81-101. Of his immediate predecessors, Ralph is called ‘totius Britannie primas' in a Lewes charter, apparently written by the beneficiary and not beyond suspicion (the form is one of those regularly used by Theobald). William of Corbeil is given the title in only two charters; both are for Leeds priory, and one if not both are spurious (EEA Canterbury 1066-1161, forthcoming). ? CS i/2. 612, 619, 674. Lanfranc issued no surviving charter which is clearly genuine, and none employs the primatial title. Anselm is styled primate in one apparently genuine charter of eccentric form, almost certainly drawn up by the beneficiary (The Charters ofNorwich Cathedral Priory, i, ed. B. Dodwell (Pipe Roll Society, ns xl, 1974 for 1965—6), No. 260); another charter using the style is a forgery (H. E. Salter, Facsimiles of Early Charters in Oxford Muniment Rooms (Oxford, 1929), No. 27, condemned not only by its erratic forms but by its seal). ? CS i/2. 1035, 1042-52, but cf. 965-6 for Westminster 1 175 as a probable Canterbur y provincial council.

THE

PRIMACY

DISPUTE

xlv

contestants its importance was clearly great, but it was reflected in

public ceremonial, in the liturgy of crown-wearings, the bearing of

a Cross before the archbishop outside his diocese, and so on. These were matters of the keenest interest to the participants, but they lie beyond our sight for the most part, and the passions they aroused are almost equally remote.

IV. YORK

AND

THE

BISHOPS

OF

SCOTLAND

The failure of Archbishop Thomas I to secure the obedience of any bishops except Durham in 1072 presented much more serious and continuing problems for his see than the issue of the primacy. Without at least three suffragans he would have to depend on outside help even to consecrate one of his own diocesan bishops. If the province was to have an independent life, York would either have to subdivide its own enormous and inchoate diocese or secure the obedience of the bishops of Scotland. The rubric to

Hugh's history promises to deal with the topic, but it is treated so slightly and allusively that some general background is needed to understand it at all. In 1070 the opportunities for asserting the authority of York in the North were not wholly unpromising. Beyond Durham lay a wide debatable land, for devotion to St Cuthbert extended far beyond the shifting frontier with the Scots. Durham itself seems to have exercised some spiritual jurisdiction in Teviotdale, and when

Carlisle was occupied by William Rufus in 1092 it also came under Durham’s charge.! Further to the north-west York claimed at least to send chrism to the church at Glasgow, and Archbishop Cynesige had consecrated two bishops for the area.’ In the old heartland of the kingdom of the Scots lay the royal bishopric of St Andrews. Here a line of bishops can be traced more or less continuously from the early eleventh century; the names of no 1 [n general see Barrow, Kingdom, pp. 152-4, 165-9; Durham Episcopal Charters 1071 — 1152, ed. H. S. Offler (Surtees Soc., 1968 for 1964), pp. 16, 22; H. H. E. Craster, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th Ser., 7 (1930), 37-9. The counter-argument of W. E. Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North (London, 1979), pp. 266-7, seems unconvincing. 2 HCY iii, No. 18 (EEA v, No. 6); below, pp. 52-3. The connection of Cynesige's bishops with Glasgow itself was remote at best. Cf. Watt, Fasti, pp. 143-4; N. F. Shead, Scottish Historical Reviem, 48 (1969), 220-5; Kapelle, Norman Conquest of the North,

PP- 43-4, 249.

xlvi

INTRODUCTION

other bishops in the realm survive before c. 1115, and it is far from clear that any had a fixed seat earlier.! Along the Scandinavian perimeter of Scotland, in Orkney, the Isles, and Man, things were more complicated and unstable. Orkney, which included much of Caithness, acknowledged the nominal suzerainty of the kings of Norway. The earldom was often divided, and seems to have looked for episcopal offices more or less indifferently to England, Scotland, or Bremen. Around 1050 Earl Thorfinn built Christ Church by his hall at Birsay as the first bishop's seat for Orkney, but it is uncertain whether any bishop had his permanent residence there so early? The independent kingdom of Man was founded in the 107os by Godred Crovan. There too a number of bishops had operated before his coming, and one Roolwer died and was buried at St Maughold on the island. The thirteenth-century chronicle of Man describes him as the first bishop, though it adds, with instructive honesty, that there had been earlier ones, but: ‘it is enough that the remembered line of bishops begins with him. We say enough, because we have not found any record or trustworthy tradition of our elders to tell us who had preceded him, or what sort of men they were.? Throughout the area York, Hamburg/Bremen, and very possibly Ireland ! The character of the authority of earlier unnamed Scottish bishops, who are mentioned in several sources, has been disputed. Cf. G. Donaldson, Scottish Church History (Edinburgh, 1985), pp. 11-24, with Barrow, Kingdom, pp. 192-3. ? The bishops listed in Adam of Bremen's Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum, cc. iii. 77, iv. 35 [34], ed. B. Schmeidler (3rd edn., Hanover/Leipzig, I917), pp. 224, 271, trans. F. J. Tschan (New York, 1959), pp. 183, 216, were for the most part consecrated elsewhere than at Bremen, and few, if any, seem to have been resident in the Orkneys

for long; Orkneyinga saga, c. 31, ed. A. B. Taylor (Edinburgh, 1938), p. 189; CP x, Appendix A, pp. 11-19; Watt, Fasti, pp. 247-9; B. E. Crawford, Scandinavian Scotland (Leicester, 1987), pp. 80-2. ? Chronicle of the Kings of Mann and the Isles, ed. G. E. Broderick (Edinburgh, 1973), p. 83; A. Ashley, The Church in the Isle of Man (York, 1958). The list of bishops in the chronicle runs: Roolwer (d. before c. 1079), William, Hamundr, son of Iola, from Man (cons. before c. 1093), Gamaliel (cons. 1154 X 1181). Gamaliel is the first of these bishops who also occurs in the York records, in a copy of a notarial transcript of a number of such documents of 1464 printed in British Library Harleian manuscript 433, ed. R. Horrox anc P. W. Hammond (Richard III Soc., 1979-83), iii. 85; cf. HCY ii. 462. The chronicle omits the very remarkable Englishman Wimund, described in other English sources as a monk of Furness and then Rushen (founded in 1134 X 1135), and first bishop of the Isles (Watt, Fasti, pp. 197-9). The Digby chronicle claims that Thomas II consecrated a Wimund as bishop of Skye, and provides the beginning of a profession (HCY ii. 372, cf. 462). This is puzzling, not least because it is the only entry of its kind which is not an amplification of anything in Hugh. The 1464 version of Wimund’s profession gives it as made to Thurstan, presumably 1134 X 1140 (Harleian manuscript 433, iii. 84), which. seems preferable.

YORK

AND

THE

BISHOPS

OF SCOTLAND

xlvii

could claim to have supplied some sacraments, but none seems to have established a firm foothold. Over the next sixty years the scene was to be transformed, as the churches of the North acquired more of the structures familiar over the rest of the Latin church. Consequently the form as well as the substance of York's claims were changing rapidly as Hugh wrote his history. In 1072, however, there seemed to be a wide field for York to work in. Curiously, Thomas I intervened first in the most distant part of

all. In 1073 he wrote to Lanfranc asking for the assistance of two

bishops from the southern province in consecrating Rodulf as bishop of Orkney, sent to York by Earl Paul (c 1o65—c. 1098) ‘following the usage of his predecessors’. Some time later York claimed to have his profession of obedience. The text is thoroughly corrupt, but is even more emphatic than the common run of such documents in its undertakings towards the mother church.!

Nothing more was heard of Bishop Rodulf, but York later claimed that Earl Hakon (c.1105-c.1123-6) had sent Roger, a monk of Whitby, to Archbishop Gerard for consecration, after election by the clergy and people. A letter of Archbishop Anselm, apparently written to the earl on the new bishop's behalf, suggests that Roger had at least some information on the islands, though again there is

no evidence of his activity there.’ The point needs stressing, since native Orkney tradition knows nothing of any of these bishops, consecrated at Bremen, York, or elsewhere. According to the Orkneyinga Saga, in its present form written at the beginning of the thirteenth century, the first bishop in the islands was Bishop William, who ruled for sixty-six years; he is said to have transferred his seat from Birsay to Kirkwall c. 1138. ! Letters ofLanfranc, pp. 5, 78-83. The first line of Rodulf's profession is cited in the Digby chronicle (HCY ii. 363); a text with the same opening, but addressed by a Bishop Richard to an Archbishop Richard, survives in Harleian manuscript 433, iii. 84. No conjunction of a bishop and archbishop both called Richard occurred in the medieval period, and it seems likely that the text is a bungled version of Rodulf's profession to Thomas I. ? Watt, Fasti, p. 248. The letter of *H. Orcadorn’ comes’ is printed from the transcript of 1464 in Harleian manuscript 433, iii. 85. The manuscript reads ‘HOrcadorn’, the editor ‘Horcadorn’; a second copy in BL Harley 1808, f. 58, lacks the initial *H'. Anselm's letter EA 449 is most readily associated with Roger's consecration; if so this probably occurred after Anselm's return to England late in 1106, but before the death of Gerard in May 1108. Cf. Eadmer, HN, p. 198, for the possibility of a bishop of Orkney being available at York in late summer, 1108.

xlviii

INTRODUCTION

His death is recorded in the Icelandic annals under 1168.! During the restoration of Kirkwall cathedral in 1848 Bishop William’s tomb was discovered in the chancel, in the position to which it had been moved in the thirteenth-century enlargement of the church. It contained a lead plate describing him as William ‘Senex’, first bishop.’ Ifthe calculations of the saga may be trusted William was appointed in 1102 or so, during the period when the islands were under the direct control of King Magnus of Norway, and the consecration of Bishop Roger a few years later can have been little more than a device by York for securing a suffragan of some kind, with or without the connivance ofa party among the men of Orkney. Norwegian scholars from Munch onwards have been inclined to doubt the accuracy of the saga, and sought to emend the length of William's rule from sixty-six to fifty-six years. This has the advantage of associating his appointment with other efforts to reorganize the Norwegian church after the return of King Sigurd from crusade; in 1112 rule in the islands was divided between Hakon and St Magnus (d. 1117), which might allow for two bishops for two earls. If this emendation were accepted it would be possible to claim that Roger had in fact exercised some kind of

recognized rights there. No such possibility exists for the next York appointee, Ralph Nowell, who was consecrated by Thomas II; this is the bishop of Orkney who figures often in Hugh's narrative, and elsewhere in

English sources.’ Thurstan secured two papal bulls on his behalf, the first addressed to the kings of Norway, probably in 1 11g, commanding that Ralph be allowed to enjoy his rights in peace. The next, in 1128, repeats the command with more emphasis since the pope had been told that the king of Norway had intruded another

bishop after York had consecrated one. Both bulls seem to have

' Orkneyinga Saga, cc. 52, 57, 85 (where William was claimed to have been a clerk at bos ed. Taylor, pp. 213, 219-21, 281; P. A. Munch, Bannatyne Miscellany , 3 (1885), 181—

96.

? J. Mooney, Proceedings of the Society ofAntiquaries ofScotland, 59 (1924/5), 239-44. * Diplomatarium Norvegicum ,xviiB, ed. O. Kolsrud (Christiania, 1913), 293-7; Watt,

Fasti , 248-9. * Below, pp. 52-3, 118—19, 122-3, 132-3; John of Worcester, p. 26; Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. T. Arnold (RS, 1879), pp. 262-3; Richard of Hexham, pp. 88-9, 119, 145. For his family, later settled on the lands of Durham, see G. V. Scammell, Hugh du Puiset (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 264-5. * HCY iii, Nos. 21, 34 (JL 6786, 7224). It is odd that it took so long for York and Rome to denounce William (apparently the ‘intrusus’ of HCY iii, No. 34).

YORK

AND

THE

BISHOPS

OF SCOTLAND

xlix

been devoid of all effect; Ralph Nowell remained a bishop without a see until his death after 1143, and Bishop William lived long enough to find his diocese incorporated in the province of Nidaros by a bull of Anastasius IV in 1154.! In Thurstan's time York had a suffragan, but no diocese for him to rule. Success or failure in the far north was much less important for York than the problem of St Andrews. This was the chief bishopric of the Scots, closely associated with the royal house, which possessed at least the basis of organized diocesan life by the end of the eleventh century.’ If York could secure obedience here, there was the raw material for a province of substance. Immediately, however, the Scottish royal house had its closest connections with Durham, and more surprisingly with Canterbury, for Queen Margaret secured monks from Christ Church for her foundation at Dunfermline. This was probably a small house, but it became the burial place for King Malcolm and his successors, replacing the traditional site at Iona, and retained its contacts with Canterbury long after its creation.’ It seems unlikely that the kings of Scotland would be ready to submit their church to York, yet Hugh claims that Fothadh of St Andrews (d. 1093) was sent to Thomas I at York by King Malcolm to make his profession, and he appears to quote from the text of that profession which survives in fragmentary form in the Digby chronicle and in full in an inspeximus of 1464.4 There seems to be no decisive test for choosing between two alternatives: either this is an early York forgery, or Fothadh did make a profession under circumstances which cannot now be recovered. After Thomas I’s death in 1100 the terms of the problem began to change. When Archbishop Gerard went to Rome for his pallium in 1102 he took the chance to obtain a bull commanding all the bishops of Scotland to obey him as their metropolitan? At the time St Andrews was apparently vacant, and it is unclear whether either the pope or the archbishop could name any bishop to whom the bull could be delivered. A much more serious development occurred in 1107, with the nomination of Turgot, prior of Durham, ! Watt, Fasti, pp. 248-9; W. Seegrün, Das Papsttum und Skandinavien bis zur Vollendung

der nordischen Kirchenorganisation (1164) (Neumünster, 1967), pp. 163-6. ? M. Ash, Scottish Historical Review, 55 (1976), 105-26. 3 Barrow, Kingdom, pp. 167, 193-9; M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford, 1978), pp. 128-30. i d 4 Below, pp. 50-1; HCY ii. 363; Harleian manuscript 433, iii. 84-5. 5 HCY iii, No. 8 (JL 5885, Scotia Pontificia, No. 1).

l

INTRODUCTION

to St Andrews. At Durham the significance of York's primatial claims must have been clear, and when Turgot finally presented himself for consecration by Thomas II in 1109 there was a formal dispute over the issue. Hugh gives an evasive account of events, which does not expressly contradict the assertion of the Durham chronicler that Turgot was consecrated at the request of King Alexander and command of King Henry without a profession, reserving the rights of both churches.! Turgot had an unhappy time at St Andrews, and retired to Durham to die in 1115. Again

there is no external confirmation of Hugh's claim that he had agreed to make a profession to Thurstan should he return to his church; it occurs in a passage that seems to be misplaced.’ Turgot’s career in Scotland, unsuccessful though it may seem, coincided with a number of important developments there. He seems to be the first bishop of St Andrews for many years to have entered into direct negotiations with the papacy, though the surviving letters deal with matters of discipline, not organization.? More strikingly, the foundation charter of the royal Augustinian

house at Scone, granted some time after 1115, is attested by Bishop Gregory and Bishop Cormac, identified in slightly later texts as

bishops of Moray and Dunkeld. For the first time it seems that St Andrews was at the centre of a circle of diocesan bishops of the conventional kind.^ The background to this development is largely invisible, except in the exceptional case of the bishopric for the old kingdom of Strathclyde at Glasgow. York already had some claims to authority here, and before 1114 Thomas II consecrated a Briton, Michael, to ' Below, pp. 50-1; Simeon, ii. 204. The Digby chronicle (HCY ii. 371) asserts that Turgot did make a profession, and includes a fragment of it, but no such text was produced in 1464 (above, p. xlvi n. 3).

? Below, p. 59 n. 5. * D. Bethell, Scottish Historical Review, 49 (1970), 33-45; Scotia Pontificia, Nos. 2-3. * Early Scottish Charters, ed. A. C. Lawrie (Glasgow, 1905), No. 36, pp. 280-8; cf. Regesta regum Scottorum ,i, ed. G. W. S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1960), pp. 36—7; Watt, Fasti, PP. 94, 214. The date of this charter, as well as its authenticity, have been the subject of much debate. It is usual to place it c. 1120 X 1124, on the grounds that Nostell was not in a position to provide canons for another house as early as 1115, the supposed date of Scone's foundation; I. B. Cowan and D. E. Easson, Medieval Religious Houses. Scotland (2nd edn., London, 1976), p. 97; Barrow, Kingdom, p. 171. All that can be said with much certainty of Nostell's origins is that the house existed as early as 1109 X 1114 (EEA v, No. 17), and was sufficiently well establishéd by the beginning of 1120 for Thurstan to secure a bull of protection on its behalf (below, pp. 124-5 n. 3). This does not exclude the traditional date for the foundation of Scone; the charter of course need not have been granted so early.

YORK

AND

THE

BISHOPS

OF

SCOTLAND

li

the see at the request of David, King Alexander's brother. Strath-

clyde was a political anomaly, an ancient kingdom straddling the frontier along the Solway which William Rufus had established by fortifying and settling the area around Carlisle after 1092. Although apparently the nominee of David, lord of Scottish Cumbria, Michael may have exercised episcopal authority entirely in the English part of his diocese; his recorded activity and burial took place at Morland.! In the period between the death of Thomas and the con-

secration of Thurstan Earl David chose his former tutor John as the

new bishop. According to the account provided by the bulls secured for York later, John was formally elected in the chapter at York and provided with letters asking Pope Paschal to consecrate him? By the time that Thurstan was consecrated there were more bishops in Scotland whose allegiance he claimed than ever before; they also formed a large enough group to provide the elements of an independent province, should he fail. In 1119 Calixtus supplied him with a series of bulls directed to all the bishops of Scotland, to the bishops of Orkney, Durham, and Glasgow by name, and to Alexander of Scotland, all commanding their obedience to the new archbishop. The pope also prohibited the practice whereby, as he had heard, the Scottish bishops consecrated one another without the consent of their metropolitan, and without the participation of the three bishops required by the canons.? Before Thurstan could reach his diocese and attempt to put these bulls into effect, there had been a further and threatening development. Though King Alexander wrote to Archbishop Ralph to seek his help in finding a new bishop immediately after Turgot's death, it was not until Ralph's return to England early in 1120 that Alexander wrote again, requesting his agreement to release the historian Eadmer for the office. The choice was an odd one, and might suggest a deliberate affront to York. Whatever its motive the appointment was not a success, for the king and his bishop elect were soon at odds, both on investitures and on Eadmer's determination to seek consecration at Canterbury. Thurstan was still in ! Below, pp. 52-3; HCY ii. 246-7; EEA v. No. 2; Watt, Fasti, p. 144; Barrow, Kingdom, pp. 142-8; Brett, pp. 18-19; Harleian Manuscript 433, iii. 85. Nz 2 Barrow, Kingdom, pp. 176, 203-4; HCY iii, No. 24 (JL 6944, Scotia Pontificia, No. 8). The series of York bulls on which this account is based cannot be reconciled with the Glasgow tradition in the prologue to Early Scottish charters (above, p. 1 n. 4), No. 50; cf. Brett, pp. 19-20. E

3 Below, pp. 124-7 (JL 6785); HCY

iii, No. 22 (JL 6787); Scotia Pontificia, Nos. 4-6.

INTRODUCTION

lii

exile, but urged King Henry to prevent any such plan, apparently

with success. In 1121 Eadmer returned to Canterbury in despair.’ By then Thurstan was back at York, seeking to enforce his rights

in the North. At the beginning of 1122 messengers from York were again at the curia, obtaining uncompromising mandates to the king and all the bishops of Scotland demanding the submission of their church to Thurstan, and a specific order for John of Glasgow to submit. Should he refuse, the pope would confirm whatever sentence Thurstan might pronounce upon him. Shortly afterwards John was suspended, and in May he appeared before Calixtus to seek release from the demand for a profession. When he failed, he set out for Jerusalem. In August the pope gave him a period of grace at the request of the king of Scots, but commanded his submission to York within thirty days ofthe receipt of his letter. John seems to have returned to his diocese, but continued to

resist. The quarrel became yet more complex when King Alexander returned to the problem of St Andrews shortly before his death in April 1124. His choice fell on Robert, a former canon of Nostell in Yorkshire and first prior of Scone.* The claims of York to his obedience ensured a long delay before his consecration, and much negotiation. Alexander's brother and successor, David, pursued the logic of Alexander's plans further by sending John of Glasgow to Rome in 1125-6 to seek a pallium for St Andrews. The choice of emissary was inflammatory enough, even if Thurstan had not been at the curia at the time. Naturally he took the opportunity to renew his own demands on John and the Scots. According to Hugh, the pope postponed a decision on John's case and the wider issue of the PME. of Scotland until a formal hearing in mid-Lent 1127. Thurstan was in a much stronger position now than Thomas II had been in 1109. He had a string of bulls from Calixtus II commanding the Scots to obey him, and King Henry was anxious ' Eadmer, HN, pp. 236, 279-88, 298-302; Eadmer, VA, pp. 163-4; Simeon, ii. 259; Southern, St Anselm, p. 236; Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 79-83; Brett, pp. 20-1.

? HCY iii, Nos. 24-6 (JL 6943—5; Scotia Pontificia, Nos. 7-9). * HCY iii, Nos. 27, 28 (JL 6976, 6982; Scotia Pontificia, No. 10); Simeon, ii. 264. * Watt, Fasti, p. 290; Simeon, ii. 275. The legate John of Crema (below, pp. 202-11) had been charged with a preliminary hearing of the dispute between Thurstan and the Scottish bishops in 1125 (Simeon, ii. 278; Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 93; Brett, pp. 22-3). > Below, pp. 204-7, 212-15. ;

YORK

AND

THE

BISHOPS

OF SCOTLAND

liii

to avoid gratuitous conflict with Pope Honorius II during his critical manceuvres over the succession. Equally, however, his plans required the support of King David of Scotland, his brother-in-

law, with whom he was on cordial terms. Hugh's last reference to

the issue describes a meeting between Thurstan and the two kings at Christmas 1126, where Thurstan was persuaded to postpone his litigation at Rome in the hope of reaching a compromise solution

at home.! Some agreement seems to have been reached, for Thurstan sought no further bulls on the obedience of the Scottish bishops in general until the end of 1131, but no source describes its terms. The immediate consequence was that in 1127 Thurstan conse-

crated Robert as bishop of St Andrews without a profession, saving the rights of both churches. This was a major concession from a position of some strength, and it is natural to associate it with other developments more favourable to York. At the end of 1128 Thurstan's agents were back in Rome, securing a number of mandates on his behalf. One commanded the submission of John of Glasgow yet again. Another, more strikingly, required the bishop elect of the newly restored see of Whithorn to make a profession to York. At the same time Honorius renewed the privilege of Calixtus II which prohibited any archbishop of York making a profession to Canterbury, and wrote again to the king of Norway on behalf of Ralph Nowell of Orkney. It is probable that the first stages of the creation of a see at Carlisle for the ‘English’ element of Strathclyde were also undertaken at the same time, though the first bishop was not consecrated there until 1133.” There are indications that Thurstan may have planned the creation of yet another see in the north-west of his diocese, for he also established the archdeaconry of Richmond—the largest archdeaconry in England and far larger than the whole see of Carlisle— running from Richmond in Yorkshire at its eastern end west over the Pennines, ignoring all secular boundaries in the region, fanning out to command a stretch of coast from Preston to Workington: the size of a bishopric, and for such it may have been intended. Over this obscure empire he set his nephew Osbert of ! Below, pp. 218-19. 2 Brett, pp. 23-7; Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 79-80, 137-42 (who did not accept Holtzmann's redating of JL 7224-8); Watt, Fasti, p. 128; HCY iii, Nos. 30, 32-4 (JL 7224-6, 7228); PUE ii. 104-5, and No. 12 (JL 7227); Scotia Pontificia, Nos. 14-15.

liv

INTRODUCTION

Bayeux, whose career as archdeacon came to a sudden end when

he was accused of poisoning Archbishop William in 1154, summoned to Rome, and unfrocked in 1157—and thereafter became a minor secular baron who lived to a ripe old age.! The plan for Richmond may have been only one among many schemes canvassed, attempted, or abandoned in these years; when

Hugh finished his book, the story of York's efforts to establish effective authority along the borders and in Scotland was entering a critical phase. It would have been convenient for later historians had he continued his work further, or dealt with the subject more fully, yet it was not mere chance that led to his scanty coverage. Hugh was celebrating a triumph and there is a marked contrast between Thurstan’s victory over Canterbury and his prolonged and indecisive conflict with the Scots. In both cases Popes Calixtus and Honorius sided firmly with York, but while York’s success in the South was enduring, of the disputed northern dioceses only the see of English Carlisle remained her unchallenged suffragan

by the end of the thirteenth century.’ If we are right to imagine Hugh as the constant companion of Thurstan in his exile, and even perhaps on the Roman journeys of 1123 and 1125-6, then for Hugh as for Thurstan a chapter was

ending. As far as we know the cancellation of the planned visit to Rome in 1127 meant that the archbishop would never again set off on an expedition beyond the limits of the realm. The years of probation and struggle on a European stage were over. From he was to be preoccupied by domestic affairs, full of action, and danger though these were to prove. We owe great debt for the vivid account he gives us of one story; gracious to lament his failure to tell us another.

now on interest, Hugh a it is un-

! Clay, ‘Archdeacons’, pp. 277-9; EEA v. 126—7; Letters ofJohn of Salisbury, i, ed. and trans. W. J. Millor, H. E. Butler, and C. N. L. Brooke (NMT, 1955; repr. with corrigenda OMT, 1986), Nos. 16, 18, 25-6, and pp. 261—2, corrected by Letters of Gilbert Foliot , ed. A. Morey and C. N. L. Brooke (Cambridge, 1967), No. 127 and n.; cf. A. Morey in Cambridge Historical Journal, 10/3 (1952), 352-3. Osbert had been succeeded as archdeacon by Bartholomew well before 1158 and it is reasonable to suppose that he was deposed by the pope in 1157 when his case came on in Rome (Letters, ut sup.; EEA, loc. cit.; cf. Clay, ‘Archdeacons’, p. 409). * Most of the material on the subsequent history of the relations of York with the Scottish bishops was already known to A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs in Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, ii/1 (Oxford, 1873), 26-50, 217-74. There is a useful modern summary, listing the more important literature, in A. A. M. Duncan, Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom (Edinburgh, 1975), pp. 256-80

lv V. THE

TEXT

Hugh's History survives complete in only one manuscript, York Minster Library L2/1 (A of our edition), known from medieval

times as the ‘Magnum Registrum Album’; its chief element is a

cartulary of York.’ It is a large book, written on yellowish vellum leaves c.360 X 240 mm., principally in a mid-fourteenth-century hand or hands. The documents in the earlier part of the book have rubrics in a bold hand, though later these are replaced by headings underlined in red or even omitted altogether. It is bound in wooden boards on four thongs; the boards are covered with reddish brown leather bearing a stamped design of the seventeenth century.” In 1960 the book was repaired at the British Museum; the restoration may have involved some rearrangement of the leaves, and the tightness of the binding means that the original collation cannot be established without dismantling the book altogether. There appear to be no quire signatures to assist the process. The contents of the book are these: ff. i-iv pp-1-4

Modern blank leaves. Originally blank except for the title ‘Magnum Registrum Album' on p. 1; subsequently notes of the use of the book in eighteenth and nineteenth-century litigation have been added on pp. 2 and 3. pp.5-10 (8 blank) An alphabetical list of contents in the hand of Thomas Water (d. 1540), registrar to the dean and chapter €. 1509—1539/ 40.? pp.11-12 Blank. pp. 13-29 A fourteenth-century list of contents, citing the texts by their medieval folio numbers. This is important both for proving that the division of the rest of the book into four parts goes back virtually to its composition, and because on p. 23 it cites bulls from the text of Hugh as part of the body of the work. On p. 27 there are brief historical notes ‘De primatia’ and ‘De crucis baiulacione’. ! PUE ii. 102-6; G. R. C. Davis, Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain (London, 1958),

No. 1087. 2 Alba described the book before its repairs on p. xi of the first edition: “The binding appears to be contemporary, and is of oak(?) boards with a leather cover which was probably white. It is in need of repair, but retains some of the cords to which the leaves were sewn, and the ends of the leather straps by which it was closed let into the wooden covers.’ There are now no traces either of the straps or of an earlier binding in white. 3 K. Longley, "Towards a history of archive-keeping in the Church of York’, Borthwick Institute Bulletin, (1975-8), 59—61.

lvi

INTRODUCTION

p. 30 pest p.32

Blank. Letters of Archbishop John Thoresby, dated 1357. Another copy of the historical memoranda on p. 27.

At this point a new pagination begins: pp. 1-24

An abbreviation of the Domesday survey for Yorkshire, again S. xiv.

The register proper then follows, divided into four parts, with a fourteenth-century foliation in arabic numerals for each: ff.1-74

ff.1-100 ff.1-100 ff.1-118'

Part I, including Hugh’s History on ff. 1-32; followed without a break by the continuation printed by Raine in HCY, ii. 220-7, which is based on John of Hexham. This ends at the foot of f. 33’, but is immediately followed by the beginning of the rubric to the first charter on f. 34. Part I ends half-way down f. 74”, leaving the rest blank. Part II. The last text continues two lines into the next section. Part III. The last text of this part is a long one, which continues well into f. 2 of the next section. Part IV. The original register ends on f. 108", and the additions are in a number of distinct hands. Four leaves from a glossed Digest at the end seem to be early flyleaves, perhaps placed here during the repairs of 1960.

The latest dated documents all occur in Part IV, and run up to

1344; the latest documents we noticed in the earlier parts refer to the reign of Edward I. Although the foliation of Parts II-IV does not entirely coincide with the text, the list of contents at the front, and early headings on f. 1 of each new section, show that the quadripartite division was already in use before c. 1400. The principles on which the documents were placed in each part are not entirely clear; they certainly allowed for a good deal of duplication of texts from part to part. The sequence of the earlier sections of the manuscript is unlikely to be original, for at the beginning of Hugh's History at Part I, f. 1 seems to have been an outer leaf for some time. It was very badly rubbed, probably not long after it was written since some of the fainter words have been overwritten in another hand apparently not later than the fifteenth century. The long rubric at the head of the text has suffered particularly, but there is no offset on the preceding leaf. It is far from clear how or when this rearrangement took place. What is clear is that the scribe conceived Hugh's History as an

THE TEXT

lvii

integral part of the register from the outset, and this is of considerable importance for an editor. Among the books of Thomas Gale (dean of York, 1697-1702), now at Cambridge (Trinity College MS O. ro. 35, James Cat. No. 1487) is a transcript made from A in 1699. It has no independent value. Heinrich Bóhmer rightly described the transmission of the History in A as “quite wretched’.! The text is littered with errors and lacunae, some trivial but others so severe that it is impossible to determine what was originally intended. A remarkable number of conjectures are necessary to provide a comprehensible text and translation. There seem to be some errors which could almost be described as systematic. The scribe frequently wrote primo, where the sense seems to require fost, the result of misreading the abbreviation ?; where Hugh seems to have intended archiepiscopio, the scribe often wrote archiepiscopo;? most of the errors, however, are less readily explicable. Beset by such difficulties, the editor must seek help wherever it may be found. Hugh's work was little used later, and by far the most extensive extracts from him are found in Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Digby 140 (D in our edition), a slender volume of 17 folios, formerly owned by Thomas Allen (d. 1632). This was written in the mid-twelfth century, and contains an anonymous history of the archbishops of York from Paulinus to the death of Thurstan; for the period 1070-1140 it is almost entirely an abbreviation of Hugh, lightly supplemented from the archives of York, concluding with a brief notice of Thurstan's death. Ata number of points it is clear that it is based on a text superior to that of A, and we have used its readings freely, having recollated the manuscript. In the fourteenth century the Digby chronicle in turn provided the first section of the chronicle of the archbishops, attributed to Thomas Stubbs.’ At ! H. Bohmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1899), p. 292 n. He proposed a number of emendations to the printed text, though we have adopted only one of them. ? For primo/post see below, pp. 60, 136, 146, and cf. p. 74, for archiepiscopio/ archiepiscopo pp. 46, 124, 130, 144 n. 2. 3 The Digby chronicle was printed by Raine in HCY ii. 312-87. The chronicle attributed to Stubbs was first printed by R. Twysden, Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores Decem (London, 1652), cols. 1685-734 and 'Variantes Lectiones’. He used two manuscripts. The first, belonging to W. Moore, is now Cambridge, Gonville and Caius Coll., 449 (390). The second, a quarto copy belonging to Sir Simonds d’Ewes, is probably now BL, Harley 108, though the few variants he reports do not allow certainty.

lviii

INTRODUCTION

Durham a short history of the archbishops (V), also written in the twelfth century but independent of D, uses Hugh for the period 1070-1114, but it is usually too abbreviated to give much help in

establishing the text.! One of the striking features of Hugh's narrative is the large number of documents, and particularly papal bulls, which he includes. Many of these are found elsewhere, particularly later in the Magnum Registrum Album (a of our edition) and in London, British Library Lansdowne MS 402, another fourteenth-century register of York (here cited as L). Though the Registrum texts are little better than those in Hugh, they are clearly independent of him; the texts of L are usually better, and also independent. Both supply a valuable control on the text, and we have used their read-

ings with some freedom to remove obscurities or to bring Hugh's text more into conformity with the known practice of the papal chancery. A few of the bulls are also found in other and earlier manuscripts, from Canterbury or elsewhere. Here there is a greater possibility that the differences between the copies are the result of deliberate manipulation by one, or even both, of the parties to the primacy dispute. Accordingly, we record the more striking variants, but alter Hugh's text from them only where it seems essential to the sense. With so defective a manuscript tradition there must be a doubt

of the integrity of A's text, for in principle it might have been

manipulated considerably over the years, both by interpolation and by omission. There is no case where interpolation seems particularly likely, but at two points the surviving text indicates that a document has dropped out. On pp. 22-3 Archbishop Gerard is said to have received his pallium and the bull which is *written below'. It is not included, though it does appear later in the

Register. Either the reference is an addition by the scribe, who

knew what was planned for the later sections of the book, or he omitted the bull from his source, possibly for the same reason. Since the Digby chronicle has the beginning of the bull at this point, it is probable that it was omitted The second case is much more striking. The key document in ! Printed from Durham, Dean and Chapter MS B ii. 35 (R. A. B. Mynors, Durham Cathedral Manuscripts to the End of the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1939), No. 47) in HCY ii. 513-30. á Ds 5886 (HCY iii. 26-8, No. 11); MRA i, f. 42", also BL Lansdowne 402, f. 27; HCY

ii. 366.

THE TEXT

lix

Thurstan's victory was the privilege which Calixtus II granted him early in 1120 at Gap, which forbade him or his successors for ever to make a profession to Canterbury. It was the pivot around which a battery of further letters revolved, to the king, Archbishop Ralph, the suffragans of York, and to the men of the diocese. Such a decisive document was not easy to obtain without a formal confrontation of the parties, and this seems to explain the five months Thurstan spent with the pope after his consecration. At any rate the pope delayed granting it until he was about to cross the Alps, and Thurstan left as soon as it had been delivered.! Hugh evidently knew the document well, and recognized its central importance as clearly as anyone. He describes the formalities of its authentication, and tells how it was read out and

expounded in the cathedral at York on the day the archbishop first appeared there after his return in 1121; more importantly, he shows Thurstan using it in the next few months to silence those who still sought to persuade him to make a profession. The arguments he represents Thurstan as using then cannot be supported from any other known papal letter, and can only be understood from the privilege itself? Yet it is not in the text we have: the very keystone of Hugh's story is missing. This was clearly not his purpose, for he announces his intention of including it on pp. 166—7: *Here follows a copy of the privilege." What follows, however, is not the privilege, but a series of letters and mandates, and Hugh certainly understood the difference. For these reasons we have supplied the text from the other manuscripts in which it survives, in the confident belief that Hugh meant it to be there, and wrote on the assumption that his readers would have it before them.’ Until 1886 Hugh's History was known only through the abbreviated text incorporated in the chronicle of Thomas Stubbs. In that year Canon Raine published the complete text from A for the Rolls Series. Raine had an unrivalled knowledge of the York muniments, and his edition is a skilful one. We have accepted many of his emendations and, although he does not make it clear in his apparatus, he made a good deal of use of the Digby chronicle to improve his text. Not all his conjectures are equally convincing, however, ! Below, pp. 146-51. ? Below, pp. 148-51, 166—7, 178-81, 196-7. ! 3 The arguments for inserting the bull here are largely based on M. Cheney in Journal ofEcclesiastical History ,31 (1980), 429-39. Cf. also below, pp. 146—7 and 167-8 n. 6.

lx

INTRODUCTION

and his work has one serious failing. The reader could scarcely guess from his pages what an extraordinary number of silent emendations have been made to the manuscript. Charles Johnson’s text for the first edition of 1961 was very largely based on Raine’s, including the silent emendations, but he used photographs of the manuscript to restore the medieval spelling, which Raine had ‘normalized’ in accordance with Rolls Series practice, and he proposed some alterations of his own, sometimes silently. Our text is therefore the first to present the text of A with all its faults, though we have emended it more often than the earlier editors did. The apparatus has been constructed on a plan unusual for this series, for it reports not only the readings of the manuscript or manuscripts, but also the points at which we have departed from the text of our predecessors. We do this for two reasons: to show as

clearly as possible how the new text differs from that which has been used so long by many scholars in different fields of study, and to allow readers to weigh for themselves the merits of alternative solutions to the puzzles which lie so thick about their feet. We have employed these conventions: ‘eos A’ means that Raine, followed by Johnson, emended A's eos to the reading given in our text. ‘eis edd.; eos A’ means that we have emended the text where our predecessors did not (or have done so differently from them, in which case we add their reading if they agree, or at least Johnson’s if they disagree). ‘eos Ra.’ means that Raine, followed by Johnson, read eos in our view wrongly, whether by misreading the manuscript or by conjecture. ‘eis Jo.; eos A’ means that Johnson, though not Raine, emended the text in a way that we accept. It is not always the case that Raine will have followed A. ‘eos D; eis A’ implies that Raine and Johnson read ‘eos’ too. If they did not, the fact is stated (‘eos D; eis A, Ra.’).

The effect of these procedures is that our apparatus records the

differences between our text and Johnson’s more or less fully, but those between ours and Raine’s much less fully. Minor orthographical differences between our text and that of our predecessors, or between Raine’s and Johnson’s, are ignored. Occasionally

we merely add a letter or two in our text (thus ‘uoc(ac)ione’) without a note in the apparatus. In these cases we are normally following our predecessors.

THE TEXT

lxi

We follow the (sometimes eccentric) orthography of A as far as we have felt it tolerable to do so. Hence, for instance, the disconcerting wavering between consilium and concilium where councils are in question, and strange forms like pasciscor. We show, in the text but not in the translation, where personal (but not geographical) names have been expanded from abbreviations in the manuscript. We do not signal omission of rubricated capitals (which are often supplied in a tiny hand by a corrector of A). We normally do not remark passages where the wrong reading has been corrected to the right by the scribe himself or in a contemporary hand, though we do note a few instances in the early pages where a late corrector has been at work. The headings of letters are as given in A; no variants in any headings supplied by other witnesses are recorded. The translation preserves Johnson's version as far as possible. In a few cases where the Latin is in particular disorder the English incorporates a reconstructed text of which not every element is found in the apparatus, though the difficulties are noted. In general the revision ofthe translation aims at a more literal rendering of the Latin where it seemed likely that Johnson's version might mislead, but there is one exception. Occasionally Hugh writes episcopus where we would expect archiepiscopus. Many, but not all, of these cases occur in papal letters, and sometimes there is independent support for the reading. We have therefore preserved episcopus in the Latin, though we translate it as ‘archbishop’. _ With so ample a field for speculation we do not claim to have solved every problem,! and some passages remain thoroughly obscure. However, just as Raine and Johnson cleared away enough difficulties to leave the remaining ones in starker relief, so at least this revised edition may prompt further work and better answers. ! [n token of which we give some afterthoughts of possible emendations (references by page and line of the Latin). 2, 11 admonet; 40, 25 disceptacionem (cf. 44, 5); 74, 27 elacio, et (ut); 76, 5 introduci (cf. 88, 33); 76, 15-16 transpose Scriptum. . . cogitans to end of para.; 94, 2 premonitus ;134, 29 minus'] nimis; 142, 3 ergo (rex); 148, 6—7 imputabatur; 156, 12 caritate que Christi; 158, 16 eius (cf. 156, 35 precepto suo); 200, 30 uoluerat; 204, 31 €05; 210, 19 fuerat; 218, 31 sustines.

THE

HUGH THE CHANTER HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF YORK 1066—1127

4

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

post, propter hoc et alia sibi obiecta, per legatos sedis Apostolice, rege uolente, degradatus est.! Erat et ipse possessionum multarum diues plurimum, auri uero et argenti supra modum. Que omnia

remanencia* eum copiose ditauer(u)nt, et confirmatum est regnum in manu eius? ; . Cantuariensem archiepiscopatum dedit rex cuidam seniori, nomine Lanfranco, sciencia et religione famoso, sub cuius magisterio de Gallie, Germanie, Italie finibus omnes fere didicerant,

inter quos et prefatus Th(omas),

quicunque

tunc temporis

sciencie litterarum aliquantum nomen habebat.? Hunc et ideo regi placuit ad quod potuit dignius promouere, quod eum primum abbatem fecerat in Cadomensi monasterio Sancti Stephani, quod ipse fundauerat. Tunc non potuit seruari illa consuetudo a papa Honorio inter Cantuariensem et Eboracensem archiepiscopos instituta, ut altero decedente successor eius ab altero superstite uicissim consecraretur.’ Lanf(rancus), licet posterius inuestitus, a suffraganeis suis prius consecratus est. Thomas ab eo consecrari requisiuit. Ille uero renuit nisi subieccionis professionem ei

far

faceret. Quod ille ex iure ecclesie sue se non debere |dicens, non

consecratus dicessit, rem, sicut erat, regi denuncians. Rex primo moleste accipiens, remisit eum ad archiepiscopum cum mandato ut eum professione non exacta consecraret; set nec tunc quidem uoluit. Venit igitur ad regem. Interrogatus ab eo cur Eboracensem electum non consecrasset, respondit Eboracensem ecclesiam Cantuariensi debere subici, et electum illius ordinandum ordinatori suo profiteri. Porro utile esse ad regni integritatem et firmitatem conseruandam ut Britannia tota uni quasi primati subderetur; alioquin contingere posse, uel suo uel successorum suorum tempore, ut de Dacis seu Norensibus siue Scotis, qui Eboracam nauigio uenientes

regnum infestare solebant, unus ab Eboracensi archiepiscopo et a

prouincie illius indigenis mobilibus et perfidis rex crearetur, et sic

regnum turbatum scinderetur. Talis opinio de Lanf(ranco) apud

Normannos habebatur quod quicquid astrueret non aliter debere esse iudicaretur. Erat quidem ipse uir bonus et sapiens, set plus * Jo. added regi; perhaps emend eum to regem or Willelmum

! In Apr. 1070, , CS i/2. 563-74. For his career, and his wealth, ,

: see F. : Barl , TiTh English Church 1000— 1066 (2nd edn., London, 1979), pp. 77-81 and Jocelin of Brakcland. Mees the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, trans. D. Greenway and J. Sayers (London, 1989), p. 6. * Cf. 3 Kgs. 3: 1 (1 Kgs. 2: 46).

1070]

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

5

degraded with the king's consent for that plurality and for other charges against him, by the papal legates.! He was also very rich in many possessions, but excessively so in gold and silver. All he left behind amply enriched the king, and his hold on the kingdom was

strengthened.” The king gave the archbishopric of Canterbury to an elderly

man called Lanfranc, famous for his learning and piety, who had been the teacher of almost everyone in France, Germany, or Italy (including Thomas), who had any reputation at that time as a man of letters.* The king had another reason for wishing to promote him as highly as he could, since he had made him the first abbot of his own foundation of St Stephen’s, Caen. It was impossible this time to observe the custom ordained by Pope Honorius for the archbishops of Canterbury and York, that when either of them died his successor should be consecrated by the survivor.* Lanfranc, the later to be invested, was consecrated first by his own suffragans. Thomas then applied to him for consecration, but he refused unless Thomas would make profession of subjection to him. Thomas said that the rights of his church forbade him to do so, and departed without consecration, reporting the actual state of the case to the king.’ William was annoyed at first, and sent him back to the archbishop with orders to consecrate him without insisting on the profession, but Lanfranc still refused. He came to the king, who asked him why he had not consecrated the archbishop elect of York. He replied that the church of York should be subject to that of Canterbury, and that its elect awaiting consecration should make his profession to his consecrator. Moreover, it was expedient for the union and solidarity of the kingdom that all Britain should be subject to one man as primate; it might otherwise happen, in the king’s time or that of one of his successors, that some one of the Danes, Norwegians, or Scots, who used to sail up to York in their attacks on the realm, might be made king by the archbishop of York and the fickle and treacherous Yorkshiremen, and the kingdom disturbed and divided. Lanfranc’s reputation with the Normans was such that whatever he suggested was thought certain to be right. He was certainly a good and wise man, but more eager 3 M. Gibson, Lanfranc ofBec (Oxford, 1978), pp. 34-8, 114-15; he is supposed to have been about sixty at the time of his appointment (ibid., p. 4).

4 Cf. above, p. xxxii. 5 Cf. above, pp. xxxiii-xxxvi and CS i/2, 586—605 for the Canterbury version of events and further literature.

6

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

quam decebat monacum glorie et dignitatis appetens.! Persuasionibus illius rex nouus credulus, donis et pollicitacionibus plurimis distractus est. Sicut quidam sapiens ait, 'plerumque regie uoluntates ut uehementes,^ sic sunt mobiles, sepe ipse aduerse sibi." Loquens igitur rex Eboracensi electo, primo precibus, blandiciis, promissis, efficere conatus est ut consecracionem suscipiens professionem faceret, propter regni unitatem et pacem, sicut ei persuasum erat. Ille regi respondit nec debere nec canonicum esse, regno quidem nec honestum nec utile. Iratus itaque rex dixit ei quod odium eius perpetuo haberet; comminatus est eciam quod nec (ipse nec) quisquam de sibi genere? propinquis in Anglia nec

in Normannia^ remaneret, si non personaliter saltem? L(anfranco) profiteretur. Vt Scriptura dicit, ‘sicut rugitus leonis, sic terror regis.? "Timuit domini sui et regis clericus suus et familiaris odium incurrere;* pertimuit non tam suum quam suorum exilium. Multi uero dissuadentes ei prius et confortantes nef faceret, ipsi sibique modo timentes, quidam uero assentatorie regi fauentes consiliabantur, suadebant, instabant ut regie uoluntati obsequeretur. Sic ergo consilio deceptus, minis territus, inuitus et dolens tandem facere concessit. Multi audierunt eum postea dicentem se nullatenus hoc concessisse si sine capcione putasset Angliam exire. Ventum est igitur Cantuariam ut consecraretur; ubi cum iuxta

morem examinacionis L(anfrancus) archiepiscopus Th(omam)

electum consecrari paratum interrogaret: ‘Vis esse subiectus sancte Cantuarie ecclesie, et michi et successoribus meis? paulisper attendens, flens et suspirans sic respondit "Tibi

subiectus ero quamdiu uixeris, successoribus tuis minime, nisi

iudicante summo pontifice. Cumque rogaretur ut cartam professionis a Cantuariensibus scriptam legeret et archiepiscopo traderet, ille nec legit nec tradidit. Adhuc supersunt aliqui qui hoc

et uiderunt et audierunt.

* ut uehementes edd. from Sallust; ut nec mentes A; necnon mentes Jate corrector, Ra.; ut nunc mentes Jo. > ipse nec quisquam de sibi genere edd. (cf. D's suique et suorum omnium, and below non tam suum quam suorum exilium; also 5.44 et ipsum et omnes sibi genere propinquos); quisquam de sui genere [generis Ra.] A * Nor-

manniam A(?) 4 satere A; corr. by late hand A edd.; non A; si non Ra. 1 Cf. Phil. 2: 21.

* jnoccurrere A

f ne

1070]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

7

for glory and honour than befitted a monk.! The king, newly on the throne, was moved by his arguments, and shaken by his many gifts and promises. As a wise man says, "The wills of kings are generally both passionate and changeable, and often contradictory.” So the king spoke to the archbishop elect and at first tried, by prayers, coaxing, and promises, to induce him to make his profession and be consecrated for the sake of unity and peace as he himself had been advised. Thomas replied that he ought not to do it; it was not canonically right, nor was it either honourable or expedient for the kingdom. The king then lost his temper and said he should hate him for ever; and he threatened that neither Thomas

nor any of his kinsmen should stay in England or Normandy, unless he made his profession, at least to Lanfranc personally. As it is written, "The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion.” The clerk and household servant was afraid to incur the hatred of his lord and king; though he was less afraid of his own exile than of that of his kinsmen. Moreover many who had at first advised him not to give way and encouraged him not to make his profession, being now afraid both for him and for themselves, together with others who took the king’s side by way of flattery, advised, persuaded, and

pressed him to conform to the king’s will. Misled by bad advice and terrified by threats, he at last sadly and unwillingly yielded. Many people afterwards heard him say that he would never have given way thus if he had thought he could leave England without being arrested. He came to Canterbury to be consecrated. There, when he was ready for consecration and Archbishop Lanfranc questioned him according to the customary form of examination, “Will you be subject to the holy church of Canterbury, and to me and my successors?’, he paused a moment, then answered with tears and sighs: ‘I will be subject to you as long as you live, but not to your successors, unless the pope shall so judge.’ And when he was asked to read the charter of profession written by the Canterbury scribes and deliver it to the archbishop, he neither read it nor delivered it. There are still some people living who saw and heard this.‘ 2 Sallust, Bell. Iug. ,113. 1. 3 Prov. 20: 2. ^ This first form of Thomas’s profession does not survive elsewhere, though the terms are described similarly in Letters ofLanfranc, pp. 40-3 (CS i/2. 589). Hugh ignores the second profession to Lanfranc and his successors (Letters ofLanfranc, pp. 44-5, CS i/2. 605), though it is referred to obliquely in the letter of Urban II below on pp. 10-11.

THE

8

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

A primordio Christianitatis in Eboracensi urbe semper paritas dignitatis exstiterat inter Cantuariensem et Eboracensem ecclesias. Nequam regis ecclesie retribucio. Illa eum* in regem consecrando exaltauit; ipse eam subdendo humiliauit. Audistis imnanem et superbam prelacionis et elacionis ambicionem. Audite monachorum, si uere monachorum, turpem et dolosam possidendi i

impietatem iniuste et uiolenter assecutam subieccionem. Mo|nachi Cantuarienses cartam scripserunt, et regis sigillo surrepcione et

dolo a(d)quisito sigillauerunt, causam scilicet uentilatam esse inter duos archiepiscopos coram rege et episcopis et primoribus Anglie, et ostensum et cognitum esse Eboracensem archiepisco-

pum Cantuariensi debere cum iuramento professionem facere;!

set propter amorem regis L(anfrancus) T(home) sacramentum

remisit, non preiudicans successoribus suis. Quod quam ueri dissimile sit, quam fictitium,? ex hoc facile perpendi potest, quod nec abbas episcopo suo nec episcopus metropolitano subieccionem iureiurando promittit; soli summo pontifici, ex consuetudine Romane ecclesie, metropolite et qui palleis utuntur, quando ipsa suscipiunt, obedienciam et fidelitatem iurant? Plurima autem carte illius exempla miserunt in ecclesias et monasteria ut in armariis conseruarentur. Contigit uero post aliquot annos quod rege in Normanniam transfretare parato, ambo archiepiscopi usque ad Wectam insulam eum persecuti sunt.’ Ibi dictum fuit regi cartam illam sic esse scriptam et sigillatam. Quod moleste accipiens, coram utroque archiepiscopo dixit per se factum non esse, et si T(homas) archiepiscopus aliquid propter amorem et timorem regis dispensatiue et

personaliter uel temporaliter fecerat, nolebat illud Eboracensi ecclesie preiudicium fieri. Ipsum uero T(homam) archiepiscopum blande deprecatus est ut interim patienter ferret, et, si Deus illi ? enim Ra.

^ fictiti non A; corr. by late hand

* promitti A

! See the text of this settlement, formerly authenticated by an impressio n of the

king’s seal, and another version with autograph attestations, in Letters of Lanfranc

PP.ER CS Ee at as zh € text of the oath

sworn

verbal echoes of the text.

by an archbishop

on receiving hi i i recorded from the time of Alexander II in 1070, though one may Made earlier, in Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit, ed. V. W. von Glanvell (Paderborn, 1905), iv. 423 (162), p. 599; compare Le Liber Censuum de l'église romaine, ed P. Fabre (Paris, 1905), i. 416-17; Le Pontifical romain au moyen-áge, ed. M. Andrieu (Vatican, 1938-40), i. 290-1; Urban II, below, DP. 10-11. A few bishops, including those of

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

9

From the very beginning of Christianity in the city of York, the churches of Canterbury and York had always been equal in rank. It was a shabby return for the king to make to the church. It had exalted him by consecrating him as king: he humiliated it by making it subject. So ends the shocking story of the ambition of a proud prelate. Now you shall hear the foul and deceitful sacrilege of monks (if you can call them so) in holding to a submission obtained by injustice and violence. The monks of Canterbury wrote a charter and sealed it with the king's seal which they obtained by theft and fraud, saying that the case had been brought up between the two archbishops before the king and the bishops and principal men of England, and that it had been proved and recognized that the archbishop of York was bound to make his profession by oath to the archbishop of Canterbury; but that Lanfranc, for love of the king, had remitted the oath to Thomas,

without prejudice to his own successors. How far from the truth this is, how fabricated, may easily be judged from the fact that neither does an abbot make his submission to his bishop by oath, nor a bishop to his metropolitan; only archbishops, and, when they receive it, those who enjoy the pallium, swear obedience and fealty to the supreme pontiff by the custom of the church of Rome.” But the monks sent several copies of this charter to churches and monasteries to be preserved in their archives. Now it happened some years later that when the king was ready to cross to Normandy, both archbishops followed him to the Isle of Wight? There the king was told that the charter had been written and sealed in this manner. The king took it amiss, and said before both archbishops that this was no doing of his; and if Archbishop Thomas had made any concessions on account of his love or fear of the king by way of exception, personally and for a limited time, he did not wish the church of York to be prejudiced thereby. But he winningly begged Archbishop Thomas to have patience for the moment, and promised that if God should Compostela, Bamberg, Pavia, and Lucca, also received a pallium as a special mark of honour. JL. 5986, 6291, 6013, and 7091 (cf. P. Kehr, Italia Pontificia (Berlin, 1906—75), iii. 391—2, vi (1). 179-80) were recent examples of the grant or confirmation of such rights when Hugh wrote. In general see C.-B. von Hacke, Die Palliumverleihungen bis 1143 (Marburg, 1898), pp. 119-21, 134-5; T. Gottlob, Der kirchliche Amtseid (Bonn,

1936), pp. 26—52; R. L. Benson, The Bishop-Elect (Princeton, 1968), pp. 167-73. 3 [f there is any truth in this story (see below, pp. 42-3 n. 3), it should have occurred at King William's last crossing to Normandy, some time between Aug. 1086 and July 1087 (ASC, p. 9; Orderic, iv. 73-9).

IO

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

redire permitteret, inter duos archiepiscopos rem iuste et canonice

disponeret. Hoc plures audierunt, inter quos et Rann(ulphus), qui nunc usque superest, Dunelmensis episcopus, tunc quidem capellanus et custos sigilli regis sub Mauricio cancellario, postea Londoniensi episcopo, et Gilbertus? Crispinus monachus L(anfranci) archiepiscopi, postea abbas Westmonasterii,! qui ambo coram multis edixerunt, et, si quis dubitaret, iurare parati cartam sic confirmatam fuisse, et regem, sicut predictum est, inde respondisse; et quod ipse rex Gilleberto Crispino, nobili genere monacho, preceperat ut hoc testimonium Eboracensi ecclesie perhiberet, quicquid de ipso contingeret. Rex non multo postin Normannia obiit, cui successer-

unt’ filii eius, Rodb(ertus) tinteruentut4 Normannia, Will(elmus) in regno Anglie. Set quod intendimus prosequamur. Hec sic extorta professio ad aures Vrbani summi pontificis peruenit. Quod grauiter accipiens T(home) archiepiscopo litteras direxit, quarum exemplum hoc est.*

Vr(banus) episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, dilecto in Christo filio, T(home) Eboracensi archiepiscopo, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Querelam non modicam habet aduersum

te mater

tua, sancta

Romana

ecclesia.

Cum

enim

beatus

Greg(orius), gentis Anglorum apostolus, dicat ut inter Can-

tuariensem et Eboracensem archiepiscopos ille prior habeatur?

qui prior (fuerit) ordinatus, tu^ (post) acceptum ab apostolica

sede pallium, post iuratam, sicut mos est metropolitani, fidelitatem, inconsulto Romano pontifice Cantuariensi episcopo‘tuam ecclesiam indebite subdidisti, et cartam ei professionis contra

decretum beati Greg(orii) fecisti? quod quamé grauiter ferre

nos conuenit prudenciam tuam latere non potest. Volumus igitur, et apostolica tibi auctoritate precipimus, quatinus nobis usque ad pascha Domini presenciam tuam super hoc satisfacturus ? Gillus A; corr. by late hand

^ Normanniam A

Jo.); successe in (corr. to successerint) A

ducatu Jo.; in mould suffice

supplements here signalled

! archiepiscopo a, Ra.

* successerunt Ra. (-ere

? jnteruentu in /afe corrector, Ra.; in

* Letter also in MRA i,f. 41 (a), from mhich Ro mad: the

" scilicet add. Jo.

? indebite om. a

! The reference to Ranulf Flambard helps to date the book, since he died on see R. W. Southern, Medieval Humanism liam Rufus (London, 1983), pp. 193—204,

® habebatur A

* ergo a

^ tunc a

(bishop of Durham ro9o- 112 ‘still living’ 1 5 Sept. 1128 (Fasti, ii. 20).ul e der (Oxford, 1970), pp. 184-7 and F. Barlow, Wilwhere it is argued that he was born c. 1966 and

this passage is quoted as evidence for his service under Maurice. Maurice became chancellor after the appointment of Osmund as bishop of Salisbury in 1078, witnessing

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

II

permit him to return, he would decide the question lawfully and canonically between the two archbishops. Many persons heard this, including Ranulf, who is still living as bishop of Durham, and was then a chaplain and keeper of the king’s seal under Maurice the chancellor, afterwards bishop of London, and also Gilbert Crispin, a monk of Archbishop Lanfranc, afterwards abbot of Westminster.’ Both these told many other people of it, and were prepared to swear, if any one doubted, that the charter had been thus [i.e. fraudulently] confirmed, and that the king had made answer as aforesaid. Also, that the king had ordered Gilbert Crispin, a nobly born monk, to bear this testimony to the church of

York, whatever might happen to himself. Not long afterwards the

king died in Normandy and was succeeded by his sons, in Normandy by Robert, by William in the kingdom of England. But let us continue our story. Pope Urban [II] came to hear of the profession thus extorted, was seriously disturbed, and sent a letter to Archbishop Thomas in the following terms: Urban, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved son in Christ, Thomas, archbishop of York, greeting and the

blessing of the apostle. Your mother, the holy Roman church, has a serious complaint against you. Whereas the blessed Gregory, the apostle of the English, says that of the arch-

bishops of Canterbury and York he who is first ordained shall have precedence,’ you, after having received the pallium from the apostolic see, and sworn fealty, as is the custom for metropolitans, did, without consulting the bishop of Rome, unduly submit your church to the archbishop of Canterbury, and did

make a charter of profession to him, contrary to the decree of the blessed Gregory;? the propriety of our displeasure at which cannot escape your prudence. We wish, therefore, and bid you by apostolic authority to appear in our presence before Easter to satisfy us on this matter; unless perhaps you remain by the royal charters as such in 1082 and very possibly in 1080 (Regesta, vol. i, p. xvii, Nos. 125, 131, 147, 158). He was appointed bishop of London in 1086 and died in 1107 (Fasti, i. 1). Gilbert Crispin was abbot of Westminster c. 1085-1117 (Heads, p. 77, Works of Gilbert Crispin, ed. A. S. Abulafia and G. R. Evans (London, 1986), pp. xxi-xxv). ? Gregory I in Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica ,i. 29. 3 This written profession, made after Thomas I received his pallium, cannot be the limited one described above on pp. 6-7; it is presumably the one preserved at Canterbury (above, pp. xxxiii-xxxv).

I2

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

exhibeas, nisi forte legatorum nostrorum R(ogeri) diaconi, filii

nostri, cardinalis, et confratris nostri Hereb(erti) The(t)forden-

sis episcopi certa prouisione^ remaneas. Prefatos autem legatos nostros, quibus in Anglie regno commisimus uices nostras, uobis plurimum commendamus, et ut eos? ope, consilio, |et commendacione iuuetis rogamus.!

Circa idem tempus L(anfrancus) archiepiscopus defunctus est,

et uacauit sedes aliquot annis.? Ab antiquo extitit consuetudo inter duos metropolitanos Anglie, ut altero defuncto alter in prouincia defuncti archiepiscopalia faceret, utpote episcopos consecrare, regem coronare, coronato die natalis Domini, Pasche et Pente-

costes missam maiorem cantare. Hec interim fecit T(homas)

archiepiscopus, nec quisquam episcoporum erat qui hoc in sua ipsius dyocesi archiepiscopo presente presumeret. Ordinauit

etiam episcopos

Herbertum

Norwycensem

et Rad(ulphum)

Cicestrensem et Herueum Pangornensem.?

Succedente tempore dedit rex Will(elmus) iunior archiepiscopatum Anselmo Beccensi* abbati, uiro merito sanctitatis celebri.

Quem cum ex decreto Hon(orii) pape T(homas) archiepiscopus, pontificalibus uestimentis indutus, consecrare paratus esset, sicut mos est, scripta peticione et lecta ut archiepiscopus eum in

primatem tocius Britannie consecraret, T(homas) discessit, uestiarium introiuit, et se pontificalibus exuit. Erant cum archiepiscopo de Eboracensi ecclesia Hugo decanus, Rann(ulfus) thesaurarius,

Duran(dus) archidiaconus, Gill(ebertus) cantor, et aliqui ex canonicis? Exierunt statim post eum et qui consecrari debebat et

Walchelinus Wint(oniensis) episcopus, et pedibus archiepiscopi affusi humiliter deprecati sunt ne moleste acciperet. Quibus archiepiscopus: ‘Cum duo tantum sint metropolite in Britannia, alter nisi super alterum primas esse non potest. Si timore uel amore et iuuenili^ consilio personaliter et indebite alicui me subieci, liberatus sum. In primatem neminem consecrabo.’ Et illi ‘Disponite’ inquiunt *peticionem* pro uestra uoluntate; nolumus Fee

^ promissione a; permissione Ra. ^ eos om. a, Ra. * Bescenti A P : E ; Se iuuenili A corr., D; uiuendi A before correction, Ra. * peticioni D

! Not in JL. The authenticity of this letter has often been attacked. If genuine it must belong to 1093/4; see above, pp. xl-xli, for arguments in its favour and for the legates. For Herbert see also below, p. 82 n. 2.

1093]

HUGH THE CHANTER

13

express stipulation of our legates, our son Roger, cardinal deacon, and our brother Herbert, bishop of Thetford. We highly commend to you our aforesaid legates, to whom we have committed our affairs in England, and ask you to assist them with your help, advice, and commendation.! About the same time Archbishop Lanfranc died, and the see was vacant for some years.’ It was the ancient custom of the arch-

bishops that if one of them died, the other exercised the archiepis-

copal functions in his province: consecrating bishops, crowning the king, singing high mass before the king when he wore his

crown at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide. Thomas followed the custom for the time; nor was there any bishop who presumed to do any of these things in his own diocese when the archbishop was present. He also consecrated bishops Herbert of Norwich, Ralph

of Chichester, and Hervey of Bangor. In course of time the younger King William gave the archbishopric to Anselm, abbot of Bec, a man with a deserved reputa-

tion for sanctity. Archbishop Thomas, wearing his pontifical vestments, was ready to consecrate him in the usual manner, in accordance with the decree of Pope Honorius; but on a petition

having been written and read that the archbishop should consecrate him primate of all Britain, Thomas withdrew, entered the

vestry and took off his pontificals. With the archbishop there were from the church of York Hugh the dean, Ranulf the treasurer, Durand the archdeacon, Gilbert the precentor, and some of the canons.’ The candidate for consecration and Walkelin, bishop of Winchester, at once went out after him and kneeling at his feet humbly besought him not to take it amiss. The archbishop replied: ‘Since there are only two metropolitans in Britain, one of them cannot be primate except over the other. If I personally and improperly submitted, whether for love or for fear, with a young

man’s folly, I am now free. I will consecrate no man primate.’ They said: ‘Deal with the petition as you wish: we seek nothing in the ? Lanfranc died on 28 May 1089; Anselm was elected on 6 Mar. 1093, and consecrated on 4 Dec. (Fasti, ii. 3).

3 Herbert was consecrated in 1090/1, Ralph and Hervey the Breton in ro9g2. See Canterbury Professions, Nos. 48-9, for Herbert and Ralph; no profession seems to survive for Hervey, the first Norman bishop to be consecrated to a Welsh see. 4 CS i/2. 640-1; R. W. Southern, St Anselm, pp. 151-3; Barlow,

pp. 300-9.

> See above, p. xxv.

William Rufus,

14

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

nec in peticione nec in consecracione nisi que pacis et caritatis et que Dei sunt querere.’ Hiis uerbis archiepiscopus placatus, pontificalibus se reinduens, ad altare regressus est. Quod ergo’ scriptum erat ‘in primatem’ minime lecto et ex toto abraso, peticione correpta ut in metropolitam Cantuariensem consecraretur, assistentibus fere omnibus totius prouincie coepiscopis et abbatibus

plurimis et diuersi ordinis clericis et laicis, Ansel(mus) a T(homa)

archiepiscopo solempniter, sicut tantum uirum decebat, in metropolitam consecratus est. Quod in conspectu tot et tantarum personarum actum est mendaciter scribere uel nequiter negare et apud homines turpe et apud Deum criminosum est.!

In crastinum T(homas) archiepiscopus Cantuaria recessurus, loquens cum Anselmo archiepiscopo coram episcopis qui ibi aderant, interdixit ei ex parte Dei et sancti Petri et domini pape et

societate quam inuicem habere debebant, ne Rob(ertum) Bloeth, Lincolniensis ecclesie electum, Lincolniensem ordinaret episcopum. Non prohibebat quin eum Dorracestrensem ordinaret episcopum, sicut et antecessores sui fuerant, uerum Lincolinum oppidum et magnam partem prouincie Lindissi dicebat fuisse et iure esse debere parochiam Eboracensis ecclesie, et iniuria illi

ereptam esse cum tribus uillis, scilicet Stou et Ludha (et)

Niuwerca, que proprie fuerunt sancti Petri Eboracensis, quod et ipse diracionare paratus erat si ei rectitudo consentiretur. Ipsi uero electo hoc calumpniabatur, qui et hoc audiebat. Venerat autem ad consecracionem archipresulis sui, et paucis post^ diebus ab ipso Lincolie ordinandus episcopus; set propter hanc calumpniam ordinacio illius diucius dilata est donec rex Willelmus quandam

concordiam fecit inter illos, T(homa) quidem archiepiscopo

inuito et renitente et coacto, nec consenciente nec consulto Ebora-

f.3 censis ecclesie capitulo. Hoc autem Anglia tota nouit, |quod prop-

ter hanc concordiam Robertus episcopus W(illelmo) regi ter mille libras dedit." Iam antea Remigio episcopo T(homas) archiepisco-

pus hanc calumpniam fecerat. Et cum Remigius Lincolniensem ecclesiam dedicandam parasset, Thomas) archiepiscopus interdixit ei ne eam dedicaret; quod nequaquam dimittere uolens, nocte : igitur Ra. primo A

^ Supplied by Ra. from D

* post edd. (cf. in proximo D);

: 1 abe Eadmer, HN, pp. 42-3, which seems preferable (above, p. xxxix; CS i/2. 4In.). ? For Remigius and Robert Bloet, the former chancellor, see EEA i. Lincoln, ed. D. M.

. 1093]

HUGH THE CHANTER

I5

petition, or the consecration, but things of peace and charity and the things that are God's." The archbishop was appeased by these words, put on his pontificals again, and returned to the altar. The words ‘as primate’ were not read, but were completely erased from the petition, which was amended to a request that Anselm should be consecrated metropolitan of Canterbury; and he was solemnly consecrated metropolitan, as it was fitting such a man should be, by Archbishop Thomas, in the presence of almost all the bishops of the whole province, very many abbots, clerks of various orders, and laymen. A false report and a wicked denial of what was done in the sight of so many important persons is disgraceful in men’s eyes

and criminal in God's.! The next day, Archbishop Thomas, talking with Archbishop Anselm in the presence of the bishops who were there as he was about to leave Canterbury, forbade him in the name of God, of St Peter, and of our lord the pope, and by their own proper fellowship, to consecrate Robert Bloet, elect of Lincoln, bishop of that see. He did not forbid him to consecrate him bishop of Dorchester, as his predecessors had been; but said that the town of Lincoln and a great part of Lindsey had been and rightly should be in the diocese ofthe church of York, and had been wrongfully taken from it, together with three towns, Stow, Louth, and Newark, which belonged to St Peter

of York; as he was prepared to prove if justice were granted him. He made this claim of the bishop elect in person, for Robert was among the audience. He had come to the consecration of his archbishop,

and was to have been consecrated bishop of Lincoln by him within the next few days; but his consecration was put off for some time on account of this claim, until King William arranged a concord between them against the will of Archbishop Thomas, who opposed it, and without consulting or gaining the consent of the chapter of York. All England knows that Bishop Robert gave King William

£3,000 for this.? Archbishop Thomas had previously made the same claim against Bishop Remigius. And when Remigius had prepared the church of Lincoln for dedication, Archbishop Thomas forbade him to dedicate it. He refused to put it off, but on the night before the Smith, pp. xxxi-xxxii. For the dispute over diocesan frontiers see Letters ofLanfranc, Nos. 4, 7; 13. It was settled by a judgement of King William II, best printed in Registrum Antiquissimum ofLincoln, i, ed. C. W. Foster (Lincoln Record Soc., xxvii, 1931), No. 4. The text is preserved at both York and Lincoln, and presents no suspicious features; in it Archbishop Thomas is said to act with the consent of his clergy. Archbishop Gerard secured a confirmation of the deal from Pope Paschal II in 1102 (below, pp. 22-3 n. 2).

16

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

precedente qua eam dedicare in crastino sperauit, infirmitate correptus ex qua et paulo post uitam finiuit,' nec ipse eam nec succes-

sor eius Rob(ertus) dedicauit. Licet sit a proposito digressio, hoc

tamen de Lincolia inseruisse non incongru(u)m uisum est. Ordinato Ansel(mo) a T(homa) archiepiscopo, multa fuit inter

eos de primatu uel subieccione questio uel contencio. Post aliquot annos inter regem et archiepiscopum (Cantuariensem)^ discordia orta est pro eo quod archiepiscopus inuestituras ecclesiarum per baculum et anulum fieri prohibebat; eas enim summi pontifices Greg(orius) ultimus et Vrbanus regibus et principibus sub anathemate interdixerant.’ Vnde rex iratus compulit

eum de regno exire. Exulatus itaque Romam uenit, ubi (ab)^ apostolico pie memorie Pascali et cardinalibus et ceteris Romanis benigne et honorifice pro sanctitate sua et exilii sui causa suscep-

tus, aliquamdiu conuersatus est. In Gallias reuersus, Lugduni,° que prima sedes est Galliarum, apud Hugonem reuerendum archiepiscopum diucius moram fecit? Religiosus incola religioso exuli omne studium humanitatis exhibuit. Similiter et canonici metropolis illius, quibus nec magis nobiles nec nobilius liberales Gallia habet.

Dumque ibi peregrinaretur, contigit regem W(illelmum) diro infortunio interemptum esse. Henricus uero, frater eius, qui erat cum eo in Anglia, successit ei in regno. Robertus comes Normannie, qui fuerat in sancto exercitu ad expugnandam Ierusalem, non multo post in Normanniam rediit. Qualiter inter fratres conuenit et satis notum est et nostra nichil interest.

Audito "T(homas) archiepiscopus, qui tunc erat in Ripun, de

morte regis, accelerans uersus Lundoniam, obtunc audiuit Henricum regem esse consecratum; quod egre ferens Lundoniam peruenit, inuentoque ibi nouo rege et episcopis, conquestus est iniuriam sibi factam de regis consecracione, quam ex iure ecclesie sibi competere certum erat, cum Cantuariensis archiepiscopus non *^ Supplied by late corrector

^ Supplied by Ra.

© Lugdini A

* On 6 or 8 May 1092 (Fasti, iii. 1). ? Rufus and Anselm do not appear to have discussed investiture at all. Anselm reached Rome in the spring of 1098 and remained with Urban II until the end of Apr. 1099, when he left for Lyons. Paschal II succeeded Urban in Aug. 1099, but did not meet Anselm again until 1103. However the disputes between Henry I and Anselm after 1100 centred on the issue of the admissible forms by which benefices could be conveyed. See Southern, St Anselm, pp. 150-62; Barlow, William Rufus (London, 198 8-46 373-5; CS i/2. 643-6, 650-2. oo -

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

ito,

day on which he hoped to dedicate it, he was seized with a sickness of which he shortly afterwards died.! So neither he nor his successor Robert dedicated it. Though this Lincoln story is a digression, I thought it not inappropriate to put it in. After Anselm's ordination by Archbishop Thomas, there was much dispute and contention between them as to primacy and submission. Some years later a quarrel arose between the king and the archbishop of Canterbury, because the archbishop forbade investitures of churches to be made with a staff and a ring; Pope Gregory VII and Pope Urban had by anathema forbidden kings and princes to do this.? The king was angered over this, and drove him into exile. He therefore went to Rome, where he was received by the late Pope Paschal and the cardinals and the other Romans with the kindness and honour due to his sanctity and his exile, and stayed there some time. He returned to Gaul and made a long stay at Lyons, the principal see of that land, with the reverend Archbishop Hugh? The native churchman treated his exiled brother with every human kindness. So did the canons, than whom there are none more noble or more nobly generous in all Gaul. While Anselm was thus abroad, King William died by an unfortunate accident. His brother Henry, who was with him in England, succeeded him as king. Robert, count of Normandy, who had been in the holy army sent to capture Jerusalem, soon afterwards returned to Normandy. The terms on which they agreed are well enough known, and are not our concern.’ When Archbishop Thomas, who was then in Ripon, heard of

the king’s death, he hastened towards London, only to hear that Henry had been consecrated king. Indignant at this he reached London, and finding the new king and the bishops there, com-

plained of the wrong done to him in the matter of the king’s consecration, which was beyond doubt his province by church

law, since the archbishop of Canterbury was absent. He had 3 For the reference to Lyons as ‘prima sedes Galliarum’ see above, pp. xxxviii-xxxix n. 3; Southern, St Anselm, pp. 161-3. 4 Rufus died on 2 Aug. 1100, Henry I was crowned on 5 Aug. “The terms on which

they agreed’ is not unambiguous, but presumably refers to the agreement between Henry I and Duke Robert in 110r, for which see C. W. Hollister in Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London/Ronceverte, 1986), pp. 77-96. In general see C. W. David, Robert Curthose, Duke ofNormandy (Cambridge, Mass., 1920), pp. 89-137; Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 361-7, 408-32.

18

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

adesset. Nec auditum habebat nec ecclesiastice consuetudinis erat regem nisi ab aliquo regni sui archiepiscopo consecrari debere. Quod nequaquam refellere ualentes, rex et episcopi humiliter deprecati sunt eum ne grauius acciperet, dicentes festinatam* esse consecracionem, ne prestolando eum qui de longe erat regnum fortasse turbaretur. Quibus uerbis placatus est. Erat enim satis mansueti animi, et morbo et senio tunc plurimum debilitatus. Lundonie postea concilio conuocato, archiepiscopus et episcopi, principes et proceres et alii, factis regi hominiis et fidelitatibus iuratis, regnum ei assecurauerunt. Archiepiscopus, a rege licencia accepta, domum regreditur, nec deinceps sese uiderunt. De archiepiscopo breuiter recapitulare uolo. Quando archiepiscopatum suscepit, cuncta hostili uastacione depopulata? inuenit. De septem canonicis (non enim plures fuerant) tres in ciuitate et ecclesia combusta et destructa reperit. Reliqui uel mortui uel metu et desolacione erant exulati. Ecclesie uero recooperte et iuxta facultatem suam restructe canonicos quos inuenerat restituit; dispersos reuocauit ad Deo seruiendum et ecclesie; aliquos addidit; refectorium refecit et dormitorium;! prepositum constituit qui ceteris preesset et eos procuraret; uillas aliquas et terras et ecclesias dedit, etab aliis ablatas reddidit; plurima* de suo proprio canonicis necessaria administrabat; archidiaconos quoque sapientes et industrios fov per diocesim | diuisit. Ipse uero dono regis aliquamdiu duodecim uillas habuit, quas Aldredum predecessorem suum de Wigornensi episcopatu sibi retinuisse supradiximus;? set eas, molimine et

instinctu Lanf(ranci) archiepiscopi, idem rex ei abstulit. Annis pluribus canonicis communiter sic uescentibus, consilio quorundam placuit archiepiscopo de terra sancti Petri, que multum adhuc uasta erat, singulis prebendas partiri; ita enim et canonicorum numerus crescere posset, et quisque, sicut pro^ se, partem suam studiosius et edificaret et excoleret. Quod et sic factum est. Tunc enim statuit decanum, thesaurarium, cantorem, dans cuique digne et ecclesie et suo et personarum honore; magistrum scolarum iam ante statuerat.) Ecclesiam que nunc est fundauit et fecit, et eam ? festinatum A " depopulata edd.; et depopulata [depopulata et Ra.]uastata A; uastata et depopulata V © plurima V; plurimum AD 4 pro V; per A, Ra. ! For Thomas as builder, and founder of the new chapter, see C. N. L. Brooke and

E. A. Gee in York Minster, ed. G. E. Aylmer and R. Cant (Oxford, 1977), pp. 19-31, II4-

27; D. Phillips, Excavations at York Minster, ii (London, Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, 1985), pp. 2-7, 47-205, and above, pp. xxiv-xxix.

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

IQ

never heard, nor wasitthe custom ofthe church, that the king should

be consecrated except by an archbishop of his realm. The king and the bishops could not dispute this, but humbly begged him not to be unduly offended, saying that the consecration had been hastened for fear that the kingdom might be disturbed while they awaited his coming from a distance. This satisfied the archbishop, who was a mild man, and by now much weakened by illness and age. At a council afterwards summoned to London, the archbishop, bishops, princes, nobles, and others did homage, swore fealty, and confirmed the king in his realm. The archbishop took leave ofthe king and went home, and the two never saw each other again. To sum up the archbishop's history: when he received the archbishopric he found everything laid waste as a result of enemy action. Ofthe seven canons (there had been no more), he found three in the burnt city and ruined church. The rest were either dead, or driven away by fear and devastation. He reroofed and to the best of his ability rebuilt the church, to which he restored the canons whom he had found there; he recalled the fugitives to the service of God and the church, and added to their number; he rebuilt the refectory and dormitory.! He appointed a provost to preside over the others and to manage their affairs; he gave manors, lands, and churches himself, and restored those which others had taken away. He bestowed much of his own property on the canons; he apportioned wise and diligent men to be archdeacons in the diocese. For some while he had ofthe king's gift the twelve manors in the diocese of Worcester, which, asI said, his predecessor Ealdred kept for himself? but at the instance and on the advice of Archbishop Lanfranc, the king took them away from him. The canons had long lived in common, but the archbishop, after taking advice, determined to divide some of the lands of St Peter's which were still waste into separate prebends, to leave room for a

growing number of canons; in this way each ofthem might be eager to build on and cultivate his own share for his own sake. This was done. He then appointed a dean, treasurer, and precentor, endowing each ofthem as befitted the church's dignity, his own, and theirs. He had already established a master of the schools.’ He founded and built the present church, and adorned and furnished it to the best of ? Above, pp. 2-3. 3 Above, pp. xxv-xxvi.

20

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

pro posse suo clericis, libris, ornamentis ornauit et muniuit,^ nec tam cuiuslibet rei quam’ bonos et honestos clericos habendi cupidus fuit. i Vixit autem in archiepiscopatu^ annis ferme xxx., quo nec alter episcopus tempore suo persona decencior, nec magnis et minimis

magis? unanimiter dilectus,! quia nec magis liberalis nec minus austerus,? neque quibuslibet in seriis et iocis honestis magis consentaneus; postremo in omnibus fere et amabilis et laudabilis et reuerendus. Henr(ico) rege nonis Augusti consecrato, et non multo post Ansel(mo) archiepiscopo mandato regis ab exilio reuocato,

T(homas) archiepiscopus, xiiii. kalendas proximi Decembris, die Dominica, Mc anno, Eboraci obiit.? Cuius epitaphium est hoc. Orba pio, uiduata bono pastore, patrono, Vrbs Eboraca dolet, uix habitura parem.

Qualia uix^uni persona, sciencia, uita

Contigerant* T(home) nobilis, alta, bona. Canities, hilaris facies, statura uenusta,

Angelici uultus splendor et instar erat. Hic numero atque modo doctrine seu probitatis Clericus omnis erat, uel magis omnis homo. Hec domus et clerus, sub tanto presule felix, Pene quod est et habet muneris omne sui est. Octauis sancti Martini transiit ille, Cui pietate Dei sit comes in requie!

GIRARDVS

Sede usque ad proximam Epiphaniam uacante, translatus estin eam

Gir(ardus) Herefordensis episcopus, qui fuerat Willelmi) primi (et) secundi regum cancellarius; clericus quidem sciencia et elo-

quencia tempore suo nulli aut paucis secundus? et qui Virgilio in metro et Tullio in prosa parum cessisset.

Monachi Cantuarienses, non bene cantantes Eboracensem, quia

* muniuit VD; A has five minims followed by rauit ^ quam VD; quod A * archiepiscopatu VD; archiepiscopatum A 4 magis V; magnis A * aus-

terus V; obsterus A

mg.) A, Fo.

f uix V; uirA

^ Supplied by edd. from VD

* contigerant VD, Ra.; contigerit (-erat

UN Gre William of Malmesbury in WMGP, pp. 257-8; Digby chronicle in HCY ii. 361-3. ? The Digby chronicle here has ‘apud Ripum obiit. Sed delatus Eboracum, iuxta

praedecessorem suum beatae memoriae Aldredum in ecclesia sepultus est’, HCY ii. 364.

1100-1]

HUGH THE CHANTER

2 his power with clerks, books, and ornaments: above all else he

desired to have good and reputable clerks. He was archbishop for nearly thirty years. No other bishop in his time had more personal dignity, or was more generally popular with great and small.’ For none was more generous or less severe, nor more agreeable in any company whether on serious business or in clean fun. In pretty well all matters he was lovable, praiseworthy, and reverend. After Henry had been consecrated on 5 August, and Archbishop Anselm not much later recalled from exile by the king's command, on Sunday 18 November 1100 Archbishop Thomas died

at York.’ This is his epitaph:

A tender shepherd and a master dear York widowed mourns, nor hopes to find his peer. Thomas was handsome, learned, good as well: Seldom to one man such rich virtues fell. White-haired and merry, full of manly grace,

He shared the splendour of an angel’s face. Such learning, with such honesty combined, A perfect clerk—or rather, man—defined. This house of clergy, happy ‘neath his sway, Owes to him all it is, or has, today.

Saint Martin's octave was the day he died: God grant him rest by good Saint Martin's side.

GERARD

The see remained vacant till the following Epiphany [1101], when Gerard, bishop of Hereford, was translated to it. He had been chancellor to kings William I and II, and was a clerk second to none, or few, in his time for learning and eloquence.’ He would have come near to Virgil in poetry and Cicero in prose. The monks of Canterbury, who could not well chant the praise of The Durham abbreviation in HCY ii. 521 has him dying and being buried at York. The day of his death is confirmed e.g. by Florence, ii. 48 and the Historia. . . Gloucestriae ,ed. W. H. Hart (RS, 1863-7), i. 12 (on which see C. N. L. Brooke, The Church and the Welsh Border (Woodbridge, 1986), chap. iii). 18 Nov. was indeed a Sunday in 1100. 3 For Gerard's career see the panegyric, apparently written by one of his household, in Quadripartitus, ed. F. Liebermann (Halle, 1892), pp. 161—3 and the references collected in Barlow, English Church 1066-1154 (London, 1979), pp. 72, 259; EEA, vol. v, pp. xxiv-xxv. He was the nephew of Bishop Walkelin of Winchester; his parents Osbert and Anne, and his brother Peter, were commemorated at Christ Church, Canterbury (J. Dart, Historyand Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of Canterbury (London, 1726), Appendix, p. xxxix).

22

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

ab illa indebita professione liber erat, archiepiscopum suum instigauerunt et inpulerunt ut? a Girardo^ professionem exigeret. Eorum inpulsu fortiter exegit, et litteras suas ad dominum papam, quas ipse petebat pro sua dimissione et translacione et pallei requisicione, tradere diu negauit, nisi prius professionem faceret aut Roma reuersum se professurum promitteret. Verum Gir(ardus), sapiens et disertus," dicens hoc inhonestum esse, et non

canonicum hac districcione professionem" uel promittere, tandem litteras illius accepit, pollicens se reuersum qui(c)quid iuste debebat ei facturum. Et scimus quia non exibuit.! Ad requirendum palleum Romam profectus, aliquot dies ibi moratus est, ubi in pluribus causarum accionibus sciencia et facundia eius laudata et approbata, a reuerendo papa Pascali et a tota curia honoratus est et magnifice laudatus. Abierant cum eo duo episcopi, quos rex propter negocium suum miserat, cum quibus et ipse reuersus est. Accepit ab apostolica sede palleum et

priuilegium quod subscriptum est. Postea placuit Ansel(mo) et Gir(ardo) archiepiscopis concilium f.4 | celebrare. Quo in Westmonasterio congregato, cum monachi

archiepiscopo suo sedem singulariter celsam parassent, Gir(ardus) indignatus et Dei odium ei qui sic parauerat uulgariter orans, pede subuertit, nec sedere uoluit donec sibi cum archiepiscopo sede pari parata, liquido uolens ostendere ei nullam subieccionem debere.

Sicut fecerat A(nselmus) archiepiscopus Will(elmo) regi, sic fecit et regi Henr(ico), inuestituras prohibendo, nec quemquam episcopum uel abbatem manu regia inuestitum consecrare uel benedicere solebat. Set licet rex moderacius agens odium patens in eum non exercuit, non eum postmodum sincere dilexit. Propter interdictum et anathema Romane ecclesie rex tandem inuestituras dimisit, dimissione quidem qua nichil aut parum amisit, parum quidem regie dignitatis, nichil prorsus potestatis quem uellet intronizandi. Credo equidem de inuestituris sane sensisse uenerabilem ? inpulerunt ut] in pulcr aut A(2) * disertus V; desertus A (discretus mg.)

^ Girardo edd.; girando A; Giraudo Jo. 4 promissionem A

! See above, p. xli; below, p. 56 n. 1. ? The bull for Gerard is not transcribed in Hugh's text as we have it. The Digby chronicle (HCY ii. 366) inserts here the beginning of Paschal's pallium privilege for Gerard, ‘Inter cetera regna’ (printed, though imperfectly, in HCY iii. 26-8, No. 11 (JL 5886), from later in the Magnum Registrum Album), dated 1o Apr. 1102 (CS i/2. 657n.).

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

23

the archbishop of York, because he was free from the profession [of submission] which he did not owe, aroused their own archbishop and urged him to press for the profession. At their insistence he earnestly demanded it, and for a long time refused to hand over his own letters to the pope, which Gerard required for his release and translation, and for his request for the pallium, unless Gerard should first make his profession or promise to make it on his return from Rome. But Gerard, wise as well as eloquent, said that this was dishonourable; it was against canon law even to promise profes-

sion under such pressure. So at last he obtained Anselm’s letter, promising to do for him whatever he was justly bound to do on his return. And we know that he made no such profession.! He went to Rome to claim his pallium and stayed some days there, winning praise and approval for his knowledge and eloquence in several cases on trial. He was honoured and highly praised by Pope Paschal and the whole curia. Two bishops had accompanied him, whom the king had sent on his own business, and he returned with them. He received from the pope his pallium

and the bull of privilege written below.’ Archbishops Anselm and Gerard afterwards decided to hold a council. When this assembled at Westminster,’ and the monks had

prepared a seat higher than any of the others for their archbishop, Gerard felt himself insulted, and openly cursing the man who had done this, kicked over the seat, and would not sit down until his

seat was made as high as the other archbishop's, plainly intending to show that he owed him no subjection.

Archbishop Anselm treated King Henry as he had King William by forbidding investitures; nor would he consecrate any bishop nor bless any abbot who had received investiture at the king's hand. But although Henry was more moderate, and did not show open hatred of him, he never sincerely loved him afterwards. He did at

length give up the investitures because of the prohibition and anathema ofthe Roman church; a concession which cost him little or nothing, a little, perhaps, of his royal dignity, but nothing at all of his power to enthrone anyone he pleased. I think the sound view on It is probable that the text here has been altered by the scribe, and the bull was originally part of Hugh's text; see above, p. lviii. Gerard secured two further bulls at the same time, HCY

iii. 22, No. 8 (JL 5885), and 28, No. 12, commanding the obedience of the Scottish bishops and confirming the settlement with Lincoln (above, pp. xlix and r5 n. 2). He was accompanied by Herbert of Norwich and Robert of Chester, CS i/2. 656-7.

3 ¢,.29 Sept. 1102, CS i/2. 668-88.

24

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Iuonem Carnotensem episcopum, quo nec alter in Gallis tempore suo melius in diuinis eruditus et exercitatus, nec fide et doctrina magis catholicus extitit. Dicebat parum interesse qualiter inuestiture fierent, siue uirga siue anulo siue manu siue mica, seu quocunque modo, dum canonica eleccio et libera consecracio ecclesiis seruarentur, nec quicquam Symoniace contagionis inesse, cum neque dans neque accipiens intelligat sacramentum uel rem sacramenti dare uel accipere, set uillas, predia, redditus que de munificencia regum et principum ecclesiis collata? sunt.! Set, si fas est dici, adhuc habet ecclesia decimantes mentam et anetum, et colantes culicem et deglutientes camelum,? de manuali inuestitura tumultuantes, de eleccione et consecracionis libertate nichil mucientes. Quibus, si licet? misceri sacra prophanis, ludibrio potest dici illud Persii Egroti ueteris meditantes sompnia, gigni De nichilo nichil, in nichilum nil posse reuerti?

Gir(ardus) archiepiscopus ecclesiam de Laxtona ecclesie nostre in prebendam dari a rege optinuit, et sex ecclesiarum, quas de uillis suis rex ei dedit, Driffeld, Chillum, Pochelinton, Pichering, Broch, Sned, quinque Sancto Petro,° sextam uero, scilicet Sneid,?

dedit Sancto Germano (de) Salebi.*

Vixit G(irardus) in archiepiscopatu annis septem et mensibus

fere quinque, et obiit xii. kalendas? Iunii.

THOMAS

SECVNDVS

Septima die successit ei T(homas) regis capellanus, (ecclesie)? Sancti Iohannis Beuerlacensis prepositus, nepos T (home) reue-

rendi senioris, cui rex eadem die Lundoniensem episcopatum uel collate A

> si licet Jo.; scilicet A

* Petro VD; Petri A

scilicet Sneid Lá Sneid uero scilicet A; uero, Sneid scilicet Ra.

Ra. fviD word follows Bever.)

® kalendas V(D); dieA

4 uero

* de VD; om. A,

? Supplied byRa. from D (in V the

! For Henry’s surrender of investitures see Southern, St Anselm, pp. 163-80, Barlow, English Church, pp. 297-302, CS i/2. 655-61, 689-94. Hugh is here summarizing Ivo's views in Yves de Chartres. Correspondance ,ed.J.Leclercq (Paris, 1949), Ep. 6o, p. 246 (PL 162. 73) of 1097, a letter which is also important for its defence of Sens against the primatial claims of Lyons (above, p. xlii). Ivo argued that it mattered little what means were employed to convey the temporalities: "Siue fiat manu, siue fiat nutu, siue lingua, siue

uirga, quid refert? For the development of Ivo's thought on the topic see H. Hoffmann

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

25

investitures was that of Ivo, bishop of Chartres, who was unsurpassed in all Gaul for his theory and practice in divinity and in catholicity of faith and doctrine. He said that it mattered little how investiture was given, by a staff, a ring, the hand, a crumb, or in any

other way, so long as the church retained canonical election and free consecration; and that no simony was involved, because both

the giver and the receiver of the investiture understood that what was given and received was not a sacrament or anything sacramental, but manors, farms, and rents conferred on the church by the

generosity of kings and princes.! But the church, if we may be permitted to say so, still has men in it who pay tithe of mint and anise, and strain at a gnat and swallow a camel;? who rage against investiture by [lay] hands, and are mum about election and free consecration. Indeed, if we may mix sacred and profane, we may say in mockery of them, with Persius: Pondering the dreams of an old sick man's thought, ‘Of nought nought comes, and nought returns to nought.”

Archbishop Gerard obtained from the king the gift of the church of Laughton-en-le-Morthen to our church as a prebend. The king also gave him six churches from his manors: Driffield, Kilham, Pocklington, Pickering, Aldborough, and Snaith; the first five for

St Peter [of York], the sixth, Snaith, for St German of Selby."

Gerard lived seven years and about five months as archbishop,

and died on 21 May [1108].°

THOMAS

II

Six days later he was succeeded by Thomas, the king’s chaplain, provost of St John’s, Beverley, a nephew of ‘Thomas I.° The king in Deutsches Archiv, 15 (1959), 393-440, and R. Sprandel, [vo von Chartres und seine Stellung in derKirchengeschichte (Stuttgart, 1962), pp. 161-9, citing the earlier literature. 3. Sat., iii. 83-4. 2 Matt. 23: 23-4. gift of Queen a was it 49-50; ii. Fasti, Clay, see Laughton of prebend 4 For the Matilda, confirmed by Henry I, probably in 1104. For the other churches see EYC i, Nos. 426-8, 472-3 (cf. Regesta, ii, Nos. 837, 839, 495). 5 At Southwell, according to both the Digby chronicle and the Durham abbreviation (HCY ii. 366, 522) in passages otherwise dependent on Hugh. Malmesbury in WMGP, to pp. 259-60, gives a vivid account of his death and the reluctance of the canons of York bury him. I The son of Sampson, bishop of Worcester, and so nephew of Archbishop Thomas Society and Church Medieval Brooke, L. N. C. 260; p. WMGP, (Eadmer, HN, p. 208;

26

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

in proxima? daturus, requisicione decani Hug(onis) et quorundam de nostris, qui tunc erant ad curiam, consilium mutauit, et ei Eboracensem ecclesiam tradidit. Multorum desideriis dies ille desideratus aduenit, quando in metropolitem metropolis nostra illum suscepit, quibus si antea elegisse licuisset, Thome Thomas, patruo nepos, quasi iure hereditario proxime successisset. Erat enim apud nos sub patruo suo amabili et amicabili educatus et decenter eruditus, moribus et conuersacione gratus, ipseque archiepiscopus factus pro consanguinitate et nominis similitudine et aliqua morum consuetudine patruum suum nobis in se ex parte reddidisse uisus est. Licet

morte L(anfranci) archiepiscopi T(homas) ab illa indebita et

foy

personali et uiolenter extorta professione liberatus esset (quod uerbo," actu ostendit, Anselmum archiepiscopum in primatem, sicut petebatur, consecrare renuens), licet postea professio illa a Girardo fuisset exacta, set iuste denegata,! monachi tamen Cantuarienses, quod iniustum® affectare et inpudenter petere non desistunt, set uigilando cogitantes, dormiendo sompniantes,? de perdita professione dolore tabescunt, neque quibus |modis eam

reparent, dummodo

optineant, quicquam attendunt. T(homa)

igitur in archiepiscopum electo, monachi suo archiepiscopo suggerunt, monent, incitant quatinus modo de restituendo ecclesie sue quod perdiderat cogitet et uiriliter laboret, electum nostrum consecrari Cantuariam uocet, set illum nullatenus nisi facta professione consecret. Huius rei ius et iniuria electo nostro non erat ignota; et nos illi ad nos misso et gratanter recepto, interdicentes ne professionem faceret, consilium dedimus ut regem consulens uoluntatem eius sentiret. Tunc ipse dixit se iturum ad curiam; necesse habebat loqui regi. Cumque iam dimidium itineris peregisset, uenit ad eum qui ex nostra parte litteras istas detulit.

Dilecto patri et diligendo domino, T(home) Dei gracia Eboracensis ecclesie electo archiepiscopo, capitulum eiusdem ecclesie eleganter* semper agere, et ad id quod possunt seruicia et

oracionum suffragia. Ad curiam uadis domino regi colloqui-

turus.? Dixisti enim nobis. Si uero ut ad presens consecreris, istud

* proxima D; prox A; proximo V (where eodem precedes), Ra. * Perhaps add est

* elegantem A

^ compniantes

f quod 7o.; qua A

A (somn-

> Perhaps add et

late corrector); computantes

® sicA

Ra.

(London, 1971), p. 86n.; EEA, vol. v, pp. xxv-xxvi). For Beverley see below, pp. 52-5, and the references there.

1108]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

27 had intended to give him the bishopric of London that very day or the next. But at the request of Hugh the dean and some others of our people who were then at court, he changed his mind and gave him the church of York. Many had been longing for this day, on which our mother city received as its metropolitan the man Thomas, who would have immediately succeeded his uncle Thomas, as though by right of inheritance, if they had had the power to elect him before. For he had been brought up and well trained among us at the feet of his beloved and friendly uncle; and he was himself agreeable both in morals and manners. As archbishop, his kinship, his same Christian name, and a certain likeness of character seemed in a way to have brought his uncle back to us again. Thomas had been released by Archbishop Lanfranc's death from that undue, personal, and extorted profession, as he showed in word and deed

when he refused to consecrate Anselm primate; further, the profession had later been demanded from Gerard and justly refused.! Yet the monks of Canterbury do not cease to aim at and shame-

lessly demand what is unjust; they think on it while awake and dream of it in their sleep, and pine away for grief at the loss of the profession; nor do they mind by what means they recover it, as long as they succeed. So when Thomas was chosen archbishop, the monks hint to their own archbishop, advise, and urge him to

take thought now how to restore to his church what it has lost. Let him be a man, let him call our archbishop elect to Canterbury to be

consecrated, and refuse to consecrate him till he has made his profession. Our archbishop elect knew the rights and wrongs of the case. And we, when he had been sent to us and thankfully received, forbade him to make the profession, and advised him to consult the

king and hear his pleasure in the matter. He then said he would go to court; he must speak to the king. And when he was half-way there, there came to him a man who brought him the following letter from us:

To our beloved father and dear lord, Thomas by the grace of God archbishop elect of York, from the chapter of that church, a successful life, and their best service and prayers. You are going to court, you told us, to speak with the king; but if this is with a view to your immediate consecration, you did not tell us, nor ! For the following section cf. Eadmer, HN, pp. 199-211, and EA 443-5, 451—6, 462— 5, 470-2.

28

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

minime, nec consiliatus es nobiscum. Scimus quod in consecracione professio a te exigetur. Vide quid agas; ut quidam sapiens ait, consilium uelox penitentia sequitur.' Subieccio nostre eccle-

sie Cantuariensi institucioni prime Christianitatis huius regni non concordat; quem prioratum beatus Greg(orius) inter alterutram precepit, tute nosti. Quod? autem dominum nostrum T(homam) archiepiscopum Lanfranco fecisse pretendunt, ecclesie nostre preiudicare non debet; iuuenis erat, deceptus fuit, grauatus fuit, inuitus fecit, coactus fecit, et id quidem absque consensu et consilio ecclesie sue, nec tamen legit, set tantum legere consensit, et id quidem mestus nimium et lacrimans. Propter hanc

qualemcumque professionem quod ab apostolico Vrbano uocatus fuerit, ipse scis, et ipsas litteras habens.^ Anselmo in Cantuariensem archiepiscopum recepto, cum

Thomas) archiepiscopus ante altare paratus esset ut eum consecraret antistitem, peticione facta ab episcopis Anglie (ut in

primatem tocius)° Britannie ordinaretur, surrexit T(homas),?

dicessit a choro, ac uestiarium ingrediens se disuestiuit. Set Anselmus archiepiscopus secutus est eum cum Walchelino episcopo, et prostratus pedibus eius deprecatus est eum ne moleste* acciperet quod audierat, huiusmodi peticionem per se nec scriptam nec lectam asserens,‘ tanquam uenia postulata

rogauit eum humiliter ut rediret. Redeunte T(homa) archiepiscopo, et peticione correpta ut in Cantuariensem archiepiscopum ordinaretur, ordinatus est? Hoc audierunt et uiderunt decanus noster et cantor et alii de nostris. Denique decanus,

quando fuit Rome cum Gir(ardo) archiepiscopo, sicut ipse testatur, a cancellario Romane ecclesie diligenter perscrutatus est de contencione harum ecclesiarum, quid inde Roma sentiret et quid in decretis sanctissimus haberet; at ille dixit Romam? nec

aliud sentire nec habere quam quod’ in registro beati Greg(orii) scriptum est. Respice ad Girardum archiepiscopum! Hoc probe, hoc uiriliter, hoc egit egregie! Londonie in consilio sedere noluit. ? quid A ^ Perhaps habes © Supplied by Ra. (df. p. 12) * moleste eum ne A f Perhaps add et * Roma A ' eo add. Jo., perhaps rightly

4 et Ra. ^ que A

Attributed to Publilius Syrus; see H. Walther, Lateinische Sprichworter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters, ii/5 (Gottingen, 1967), No. 32963. Some verses attributed to Hugh contain the line: *Consilium uelox iudiciumque nocet’ (The Anglo-Norman Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists of theTwelfth Century, ed. T. Wright (RS, 1872), ii. 220, above, p. xxii n. 4).

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

29

_ have you asked for any advice from us. We know that a profession will be asked from you at the consecration. Take heed of what you do; as is wisely said, ‘Hasty decisions are soon re-

gretted.”’ The subjection of our church to that of Canterbury is contrary to the original institution of Christianity in this realm: you know how St Gregory ordained that the primacy should be shared. Our church should not be prejudiced by the submission which they [i.e. the monks of Canterbury] assert that our lord, Archbishop Thomas, made to Lanfranc. He was young, he was cheated, he was under pressure, he did it unwillingly, under compulsion; and he did it without the consent and advice of his church. He did not read; he only consented to do so, and that with great sorrow and tears. You know that he was summoned [to Rome] by Pope Urban because of this alleged profession; you have the actual letters. When Anselm was received as archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas was before the altar ready to consecrate him bishop, and the English bishops petitioned him that Anselm should be consecrated primate of all Britain, he rose and left the choir,

entered the vestry, and disrobed. But Anselm, with Walkelin, bishop [of Winchester], followed him, and lying prostrate at his feet begged him not to take amiss what he had heard, saying that he had neither written nor read the petition, and begging pardon humbly asked him to come back. When Thomas came back and the petition had been amended to a request that he should be consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, he was consecrated.’ Our dean, precentor, and others of us heard and saw this. Finally, the dean, when he was in Rome with Archbishop Gerard, as he himself witnesses, diligently inquired of the chancellor of the Roman church about the contention between the two churches, what Rome thought of it, and what decisions his Holiness had about it? But the chancellor said that Rome had no view or record differing from what was written in the Register

of St Gregory. Look at Archbishop Gerard! How honest, how manly, how excellent this action of his! He refused to sit in the council at ‘Quidam sapiens ait’ recurs in another letter from the chapter, below, pp. 74-5; cf. above pp. 6-7. 2 For the conflicting account of Eadmer see above, p. xxxix. 3 [n 1102 (above, pp. 22-3 n. 2) the papal chancellor was John of Gaeta, who became Pope Gelasius II in 1118; see below, pp. 94-5. On Dean Hugh see above, p. xxv.

30

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

quod Anselmo? archiepiscopo altior sedes data erat, donec et illi eque digna parata est sedes. Diximus que tacere non debuimus; tu uero age quod te et ecclesiam a Deo tibi commissam non dedeceat, et Roma iure

arguere non possit. Respectum capere, uel longum uel eciam modicum, ad prouidendum multum adiuuare potest. Optimam partem consilii det tibi Deus eligere et sequi! Hiis in itinere lectis, ad regem perueniens, humiliter depre£5 catus, super | hac re eum consuluit. Consultus rex benigne respondit, et parti nostre fauere promisit, et ne profiteretur prohibuit. Gauisi sumus ualde. Ex alia parte Cantuarienses regem sollicitabant ut, sicut pater suus fecerat, electum nostrum Cantuariam uenire faceret consecrari et subieccionem profiteri. Bonum regem, boni regis filium, bona facta patris sequi debere. Rex non adquieuit illis, set bene et caute stetit pro nobis, utrum uere pro nobis, an propter hoc quod non bene Ans(elmum) archiepiscopum amabat quia inuestituras prohibuerat, tunc quidem incertum, postmodum euidens fuit, nisi forte rex propter aliud animum suum mutauit. Plures uero quorum consilio rex plurinum utebatur dicebant ei non esse sanum consilium ut altero alteri archiepiscopo professo totum regnum uni subiceretur. Venit ergo H(erbertus) Norwicensis episcopus ad electum nostrum, dicens quod archiepiscopus professionem dimitteret, (si)? tantum in primatem eum recognosceret; set noluit, de rege bene confidens. Circa idem tempus rex in Normanniam transiuit. Expectato aliquamdiu T(homa) electo ut ueniret consecrari, et non ueniente, Ans(elmus) archiepiscopus misit quendam clericum cum litteris quibus moram consecracionis sue redarguit, ostendens electum episcopum ultra quadraginta dies non consecratum esse non debere. Mandabat ergo, diem statuens illi, ut Cantuariam ueniret

facere et suscipere quod debebat.? Ille, causas aliquas dilacionis pretendens, placide respondit se Cantuariam uenire quam cicius posset oportune? Auditis litteris et responso, iterauimus interdictum ne profiteretur consecracionem accipiendo. Nec multo ? Alselmo A

^ si om. AD; perhaps tantum (ut) (ef. p. 158)

! July 1108 (Eadmer, HN, pp. 197-8; ASC, p. 34). ? Of the surviving letters of Anselm this suits EA 443 (HN, p. 199) best, the first summons for Thomas, setting a day for his consecration on 6 Sept., though this requires consecration within three months, not forty days. EA 445, a second summons, which does not mention this time-limit, postpones the day to 27 Sept. For the third summons see below, pp. 36-7.

1108]

HUGH THE CHANTER

zh

- London because Archbishop Anselm had been given a higher seat than himself, until a seat of equal dignity was made ready

for him. It was our duty not to keep back what we have told you. Do you act worthily of yourself and the church committed by God to your charge, and in such a way that Rome can have no complaint against you. Looking back, far or only a short way, is a great help to looking forward. God grant that you may choose and follow the best advice! After reading this letter during his journey, he came to the king and with humble prayers asked his advice. The king gave him a kind answer, promised to favour our side, and forbade Thomas to make the profession, to our great joy. On the other hand, the Canterbury party besought the king to do as his father had done, and to have our archbishop elect come to Canterbury to be consecrated and make his profession. A good king, they said, the son of a good king, ought to follow his father in doing good. The king did not agree, but stood out firmly and prudently for us. But whether he was really on our side, or only because he disliked Archbishop Anselm for having forbidden investitures, was then uncertain, though it became clear afterwards, unless maybe the king changed

his mind for some other reason. However, many of the king's usual counsellors told him it was not a good plan that one archbishop

should make his profession to the other, and the whole realm be subject to one. So Herbert bishop of Norwich came to our archbishop elect, saying that the archbishop would waive his profession, if he would merely recognize him as primate; but he refused,

having full confidence in the king. About this time the king crossed to Normandy.! Anselm waited for some time for Thomas to come and be consecrated, and as he did not come, sent a clerk to him with a letter, in which he com-

plained of his delay, and declared that an elect ought not to remain unconsecrated more than forty days. He therefore ordered him to come to Canterbury to do and receive what was due, fixing a day.’ 'Thomas made some excuses for his delay, and coolly answered

that he was coming to Canterbury as soon as he conveniently could? When we heard the letter and his answer, we repeated our prohibition of his making his profession on receiving consecration. 3 EA 444 is apparently the letter from Thomas in reply; Eadmer, HN, pp. 199-201.

32

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

post tempore electus noster misit ad archiepiscopum dominum Stephanum! monachum suum cum litteris subscriptis.

Dilecto domino et reuerendo patri A(nselmo), Dei gracia Can-

tuariensis

archiepiscopo

ecclesie,

"T(homas),

Eboracensis

ecclesie electus archiepiscopus, licet indignus, salutem, et quecumque potest seruicia. Ad uos, uenerande pater, uenire disposueram, paratis iuxta facultatem meam ad iter et ad alia facienda necessariis. Licencia uero accepta a capitulo nostre ecclesie, et summonitis quibusdam quos mecum? uenire idoneum uisum erat, dixerunt se perpendisse* ex litteris quas benignitas uestra michi miserat, et ex aliis que audierant, quod Cantuariensis ecclesia subieccionem nostre requirebat, atque ideo se nolle* uenire. Contradixerunt autem michi ex parte Dei et sancti Petri, et ex auctoritate sancte Romane ecclesie, ne ecclesiam michi commissam Cantuariensi indebite subicerem. Septima uero die post dicessum meum ab illis per unum ex archidiaconis ecclesie

contradictum istud iterauerunt. Nec id eis (satis)? uisum est, set litteris suis hoc ipsum acriter interdicentibus usque ad Wirecestriam me persecuti sunt, asserentes se michi nullam obedi-

enciam exibere nec* debere et (apud)! apostolicam sedem me

5%

accusare si subieccionem hanc facere presumpsero. Hinc igitur et inde me coartant angustie. T'urpe quidem est ad consecracionem uenire et non consecratum redire. Consecracionem autem suscipere, et contra appellacionem Romane ecclesie, quibus episcopus si non habere]? presertim cum^" sacri canones dicant ‘nullus inuitis’ ordinetur episcopus’,? inhonestum est et formidabile. Vestre uero dileccionis dulcedinem exacerbare timeo si uenire ad uos longius differo. Propterea, serenissime domine, inicio super uos consilium meum, ex quo maxime pendet spes mea post Deum. Beatitudinis autem et sciencie uestre consilium omni petenti* presto est et benignum et efficax. Circa! personam meam sanctitati uestre quantumcunque postularetis |subicere grande michi uidetur dignitatis insigne. Optimam partem consilii det michi Deus et bonitas uestra eligere et sequi? ?* meum A

> se perpendisse edd.; semper pendisse A (s: perpend /ate correc-

tor); se nuper perpendisse Jo.

* ne A

5 Supplied by Fo.

* nolle Jo.; uelle A

4? Supplied by jo.

€ The passage is corrupt and lacunose

: dicat A ! inuitis edd.; inuitus A ! circa Ra.; certa A; perhaps certe

^ est A * omni petenti edd.; omnipotenti A

! Possibly the abbot of St Mary, York (below, pp. 42-3; cf. EEA, vol. v, p. xxxvii).

1108]

HUGH THE CHANTER

33

And not long afterwards our archbishop elect sent his monk Dom Stephen! to Anselm with the following letter: To my dear lord and reverend father, Anselm, by God's grace archbishop of the church of Canterbury, Thomas, archbishop elect (though unworthy) of the church of York, greeting and all the service in his power. I had arranged to come to you, reverend father, and had so far as possible made the necessary preparations for my journey and for other business. But on my taking leave of the chapter of my church and summoning those whom I had thought fit to take with me, they said that from the letters which you had kindly sent me and from what they had heard besides, they had observed that the church of Canterbury was demanding the subjection of our church, and for that reason they wished not to come. They forbade me, in the name of God and St Peter, and by the authority of the holy Roman church, improperly to subject the church committed to me to that of Canterbury. On the seventh day after my leaving them, they repeated their prohibition through one of the church's archdeacons; nor did they think this enough, but they pursued me to Worcester with letters severely prohibiting this course, saying that they neither render nor owe m« obedience and must accuse me before the apostolic see. if I take it upon myself to make this submission. I am thus hemmed in on both sides. It is disgraceful to come to be consecrated and return unconsecrated. But to accept consecration and in the face of the appeal to the Roman church [. . .] especially as the sacred canons say, ‘Let no one be ordained bishop over the unwilling? is dishonourable and dreadful. Yet I fear to exasperate your good temper if I defer coming to you any longer. For this reason I cast the burden of advising me upon your serenity, in whom, after God, is my chief hope. Your blessed and learned counsel is available to all who seek it, kind and helpful. I am proud to make you any personal submission you may require. May God, and your goodness, grant that I may choose and follow the best advice.’ ? The reference is probably to either Celestine I or Leo I. Both texts are found in Pseudo-Isidore (PL 130. 757, 858-9), in the Collectio Lanfranci, in which English readers would find them most easily, and in Ivo's Decretum, v. 61, 347 (PL 161. 347, 427-8). Eadmer, HN, p. 204 (EA 456) has an extract from a letter of Thomas close to this, but it does not help with Hugh's corrupt text here. 3 Repr. from Hugh as EA 454.

THE

34

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Paucis in medium diebus, misimus et nos H(ugonem) archidiaconem cum litteris infrascriptis.

Sciencia et sanctitate uenerando seniori A(nselmo) Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, capitulum Eboracensis ecclesie, ab eo saluari ‘qui saluos facit rectos corde’.’ Quod noster electus consecracionem suam tamdiu distulit, cause fuerunt et alie, et quas nobis mandauit (pace uestra liceat) uobis loqui. Vos mandastis illi, et summonuistis^ eum nimis aspere, ut nobis uisum est, ut^? termino a uobis prefixo ueniret ad uos facere et suscipere quod debebat. Quid a Deo sanctarum manuum uestrarum inposicione suscipere debeat, scimus. Quid uero facere debeat, id nescimus. Set fortasse dicitis, aut monachi uestri, professionem.^ Confidimus de sanctitate uestra uos in nullo negocio nisi que Dei sunt querere, et certe concedimus et uolumus ut

archiepiscopus noster sanctitati uestre cedendo, assurgendo, inclinando, reuerenciam et obedienciam exhibeat. Ecclesiam autem nostram uestre subicere contra decreta illius agit qui eas fidei fundamento fundauit, et in eis archiepiscopos ordinauit, et sua cuique priuilegia dedit. Alia uero ab aliis apostolicis de

eadem re decreta ecclesia nostra habet: Romane sedis instituciones qui rescindunt, contra sacros canones agunt. Propterea omnes una uoce interdiximus* electo nostro ne faciat subieccionem in recipiendo consecracionem. Nec de nobis quilibet ad hec secum ueniret, nisi ut contradiceret, nec reuertenti quis-

quam ei obuiam procederet, nec ut archiepiscopo obediret. Viro sapienti et religioso in multis utile est sui iuris esse, suo ipsius uti consilio. Consiliarii autem quidam, et clerici et monachi, querunt preesse quam prodesse, tendentes et tendere instigantes ad prelacionem propter elacionem. Certo scimus nos nichil per contencionem nec per elacionem aut per inanem gloriam facere, set omnia in nomine Domini et recte pro bono.

Dominus custodiat uos ab omni malo! Custodiat/ animam uestram Dominus! Mirari satis nequeo tam sancte opinionis uirum sic* obstinate petere quod nec sancti patres scriptum reliquerunt nec ecclesi-

astica consuetudo tenet, cum et ipse, ut credo, bene meminerit qualiter T(homas) primus eum consecrando egerit. ^ summonuistis 4 sanctitate A 8 si A

eda;

summonuisti © jnterdiximus

A ed4;

bet A indiximus A

* confessionem f custodiam

A A

1108]

HUGH THE CHANTER

35

A few days later, we also sent H[ugh] the archdeacon with the following letter: To the venerable, learned, and holy elder, Anselm, archbishop

of Canterbury, the chapter of the church of York, salvation from Him ‘which saveth the upright in heart'.! Among the reasons why our archbishop elect has so long deferred his consecration are some which he has ordered us, with your permission, to tell you. You ordered him, and summoned him, as we thought rather roughly, to come to you, by a date which you fixed, to do and receive what he should. We know what he should receive from God by the imposition of your sacred hands: but we do not know what he should do. Perhaps you or your monks say, ‘Make his profession.' We are sure that your holiness seeks nothing in any matter but the things that are God's. And we certainly grant and will that our archbishop show his reverence of, and obedience to, your holiness by giving way, rising, and bowing. But to subject our church to yours is to act contrary to the decrees of him who planted them on the foundation of the faith, established archbishops in them, and gave their privileges to each. Our church has other decrees of subsequent popes on the same point; and to contravene the institutions of the Roman see is a breach of canon law. For these reasons we have unanimously forbidden our elect to make submission when he receives consecration. Neither would any of us come with him for this except to object to it; nor would any come to meet him on his return, nor obey him as archbishop. In many matters it is profitable for a wise and pious man to be independent, and make his own decisions. But some counsellors, clerks as well as monks, seek precedence more than profit, aiming and urging others to aim at preferment for the eminence it gives. We are quite sure that we are not acting out of rivalry, ambition, or vainglory, but do all in the Lord’s name and in a just cause. The Lord keep you from all evil! The Lord preserve your soul! I cannot wonder enough that a man with such a reputation for sanctity should so obstinately pursue a thing for which the fathers left no written authority, and which is not the custom of the church; since Anselm himself must, I suppose, well have remembered how Thomas the first behaved when consecrating him. U Psi gtr

36

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Item misit archiepiscopus ad electum duos episcopos, Ric(ar-

dum) Londoniensem et Rad(ulphu)m Roffensem, ut quod littere, et episcopi uiua uoce facerent, summonentes quatinus die ab illis statuta esset Cantuarie facere quod debebat et suscipere. . . .! Consecrando quam consecraturo* maior incumbit confeccionis festinacio. Et credo quod grauiter illi a Deo inputatur, cuius iniusta exaccione uel superba refragacione diucius retardatur. Veniam gaudenter consecrari, si uos, episcopi, michi dixeritis quod non exigar subieccionem profiteri; alioquin non audeo, prohibentibus illis quibus preesse debeo ex parte Romane ecclesie, et paratis defendere loco oportuno et tempore Eboracensem ecclesiam quod exigitur Cantuariensi non debere. Persuasorie loquebantur episcopi ne turbaret regnum, ne diuideret ecclesiam. Non erat melior quam patruus suus. Et ille: ‘Cum sit utraque ecclesia unius regni et unius corone, non est ecclesiam diuidere suum cuique ius uelle retinere. Culpa est homini cuius iniuria turbacio uenit. Et patruus meus quid et

quomodo

Lanf(ranco) fecerit, bene audiui. Quomodo® uero*

Ans(elmo) archiepiscopo egerit, melius noui: iam tunc eram cum eo. Si quid sponte uel inuitus perperam fecisset, nichil ab eo f.6

herediltate possideo."

Litteris utrimque missis et remissis, nunciis utrimque? euntibus et redeuntibus, aliquantum temporis processerat, cum tandem rex de Normannia litteras suas ad archiepiscopum misit, mandans amicabiliter ut ab hac summonicione et professionis exaccione desisteret, donec ipse in Angliam rediret? Tunc quidem, Deo auxiliante, illi controuersie finem honestum: inponeret. Ita electi nostri consecracio diucius induciata est. Interea ille, litteris a capitulo de eleccione sua acceptis, (...) propter contencionem hanc monstrandam et palleum requirendum Romam pergeret. Fauonius nobis prospere flabat, quia rex noster iusticie nostre bene fauebat. Dedit ergo rex domino decano litteras suas, (quas) ^ consecraturo 706. consecratura A ^ quomodo edd; qnd A; quod Ra. * no À 4 utrimque edd.; ut’mque A; utriusque Ra. * honestum edd. (cf. p. 96); hostium A; hastiuum Jo. f Supplied by Ra. (df.p. 22); D'sparaphrase gives quales (mithout suas)

! Apparently Anselm's third summons, EA 455, requiring Thomas to appear on 8 Nov.; cf. Anselm's letter to Sampson of Worcester, EA 464. Anselm’s choice of messengers was not random, London being recognized as the senior suffragan of Canterbury and Rochester as her special deputy when, as now, the archbishop was ill or absent. See Barlow, English Church, p. 47.

1108]

HUGH THE CHANTER

37

- The archbishop also sent two bishops to the archbishop elect, Richard, of London, and Ralph, of Rochester, so that the bishops should convey the effect of the letter by word of mouth, summoning him to be at Canterbury on the day named by them to do and receive what he should.’ [Thomas replied:] A candidate for consecration has more reason to make haste than the consecrator. And I believe that God demands a heavy reckoning from the man by whose unjust claim or proud opposition consecration is too long deferred. I will gladly come to be consecrated, if you bishops can assure me that I shall not be required to profess subjection. Otherwise I dare not, against the prohibition of those of whom I ought to be head, a prohibition made in the name of the Roman church by men who are ready to prove, at a fit time and place, that the church of York owes no such subjection to Canterbury. The bishops tried to persuade him not to disturb the realm or divide the church. He was no better, [they said], than his uncle. But he replied: ‘Since both churches belong to one realm and one crown, there is no division of the church in each choosing to retain its own rights. The blame lies on the man by whose wrongdoing the disturbance arises. I know by hearsay what my uncle did to Lanfranc, and how; how he behaved to Archbishop Anselm I know even better, for I was with him at the time. Whatever wrong he wilfully or unwillingly did is not my inheritance.’ Time went on. Letters were sent and returned on both sides: envoys came and went. At last the king sent a letter from Normandy to the archbishop, bidding him, in a friendly way, to give up the summons and demand for profession till he himself should return to England.’ Then, by God's help, he would put an honourable end to the dispute. Thus the consecration of our archbishop elect was further respited. Meanwhile, he obtained letters from the chapter as to his election, [and sent the dean] to Rome? to report the dispute and to ask for the pallium. We had a favouring wind, since the king supported the justice of our cause. So the king gave the dean the letter to the pope which he requested, commending, excusing, and apologising for ? Eadmer, HN, p. 205 (Regesta, ii, No. 904). 3 There seems to be a lacuna in the MS as there is no principal verb on which the subjunctive (pergeret should depend. The comparable passage in the Digby chronicle (HCY ii. 368) runs: ‘Interea ille Hugonem decanum ad regem in Normanniam misit. Qui, acceptis a rege quales petebat ad dominum papam litteris, Romam perrexit."

38

THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

OF YORK

ipse petebat, ad dominum papam pro electo nostro commendaticias, excusatorias, deprecatorias, quod uiro bene litterato, casto, et religioso tett* canonice archiepiscopatum concesserat, set, qui-

busdam causis obstantibus, absque magna difficultate (eum)? Romam uenire non posse. Quapropter paternitati sue supplicabat ut quemlibet a latere suo uirum iustum et discretum in Angliam mitteret, qui electo archiepiscopo palleum deferret, et causam inter duos metropolitanos canonice decideret. Summus pontifex, filii sui regis precibus annuens, contencionis causa plene cognita,

dominum Olricum,° presbiterum cardinalem, ortu Remensem, clericum bonum et prudentem, cum decano misit cum palleo et lit-

teris de contencionis diffinicione, sicut uisum fuerat domino pape et curie Romane.

Antequam in Normanniam uenissent,/ Ans(elmus) archiepiscopus a seculo migrauerat.' Cardinalis secum adduxerat quendam monachum, nomine Gaufridum, Diuionensis monasterii priorem, clericum bonum et sapientem. Venientes autem rex benigne suscepit, et diebus aliquot ibi moratos misit eos in Angliam precedere eum, paulo post secuturum. De causa nostra adhuc bonam spem dabat. Fecerunt ita, neque rex post eos diu moratus est.*

Nos quidem iam audieramus quod defuncto A(nselmo) archiepiscopo regis animus mutatus erat et magis tepide parti nostre fauebat. O imprudens prelacionis ambicio! O iniqua falsitatis excogitacio! Cogitauerunt’ quidam et tquodt# nequiter confinxe-

runt,” et iniquitatem in excelso locuti sunt’,? quod A(nselmus) archiepiscopus, in infirmitate qua uitam finiuit, T(homam) Eboracensem electum excommunicauerat et omnes ei communicantes,

nisi Cantuarie professionem faceret? Quod si, maligno consilio seductus, grauiter excedens fecisset, occultasse debuerant. Sin autem, quod uerius est, nec unquam in cor eius ascendit, patri suo sacerdoti tanto' tantum crimen imposuisse apud homines ignominia est apud Deum. Rege in Angliam regresso, multi de Cantuariensibus obuiam illi * To be deleted? Alternatively, precede with iuste (cf. p. 84), or replace with uel (cf. p. 62 n. h) > Supplied by Jo. © Olricum D; Osricum A(?) 7 uenisset Ra. GA gives this sentence here (reading fecerit and omitting est), then repeats it after fauebat below (with the order post eos rex); Ra. transposed it to follow secuturum f castigauernt (sic)

A

* que

' tanto om. Ra.

Ra;

best deleted

^ confinxerunt

Jo.;

confixerunt

AD

! Anselm died on 21 Apr. 1109 (Fasti, ii. 3). For the legates see CS i/2. 705-7. The

1108-9]

HUGH THE CHANTER

39

our archbishop elect; he said that he had granted the archbishopric to a learned, chaste, and devout man in accordance with canon law, but that, for various reasons, [the elect] could not come to Rome without great difficulty. He accordingly besought the holy

father to send to England a just and discreet legate a latere to bring the pallium to the archbishop elect, and to decide the cause between the two metropolitans by canon law. The pope, granting the prayer of his royal son, and having fully realized the cause of the dispute, sent with the dean the cardinal priest Odalric, a native of Reims, a good and prudent clerk, with the pallium and with letters about the settlement of the dispute, as had seemed good to the pope and the Roman court. Before they reached Normandy, Archbishop Anselm had departed this life.’ The cardinal had brought with him a monk named Geoffrey, prior of Dijon, a good and wise clerk. The king received them graciously when they came, and, after they had stayed there a few days, sent them on to England before him, intending to follow shortly. He still gave good hope of our cause. They did as they were bid, and the king did not stay much longer. Now we had already heard that since the death of Anselm the king had changed his mind and was cooling in his zeal on our behalf. How foolish is the ambition to be first! How wicked it is to devise a falsehood! Certain men ‘have devised’ and wickedly fabricated and ‘spoken iniquity on high’,’ [saying] that Archbishop Anselm, in his last illness, had excommunicated Thomas arch-

bishop elect of York and all communicating with him, unless he made his profession at Canterbury.’ If he did so, misled by evil counsel, it was an outrage, and they ought to have concealed it. But if, which is nearer the truth, he never meant to do anything of the kind, to have published such a charge against their distinguished father in God amongst men is disgraceful in God’s eyes. When the king returned to England, many of the men of cardinal had formerly been scholasticus of Reims. Geoffrey was prior of St Bénigne de Dijon c. rroo-1112. (“Diuionensis’ was misread as ‘Dunonensis’ by Raine, both here and on p. 46). ZEps721(73):8; 3 Anselm's letter to Thomas (Eadmer, HN, p. 206) and a covering letter are EA 471-2. Both are found on a single sheet, with Anselm's seal attached, in Canterbury

D & C Cartae Antiquae, Y 57, addressed to Bishop Sampson of Worcester. In other copies EA 471 is addressed to Bishop R., to William of Winchester, and to William of Exeter. Hugh's expressed doubts of its existence are probably disingenuous.

40

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

ueniunt, magna offerentes, maiora pollicentes, obnixe precantes ne Cantuariensis ecclesie dignitatem inminui pateretur; quibus rex ad proximam Pentecosten exspectare precepit. In Pentecoste ad curiam congregati sunt electus noster, episcopi et abbates, principes et proceres, clerici et monachi, et multi alii. Cardinalis quoque mandato regis ibi uenerat prima die et secunda Pentecostes.! Rex electo nostro et quibusdam? de nostris loquebatur, bene promittebat. Deinde conueniunt ad regem episcopi et 150)

abbatesetmonachi Cantuarienses, multa offerentes, |plura quam facile quis credere uelit promittentes, archiepiscopatum quoque quamdiu uellet in propria manu tenere sine querela eorum concedentes, ut Cantuariensem ecclesiam stare faceret sicut pater eius reliquerat. Coartatus rex aliquantum ‘Nescio’ inquit (quomodo id facere possim, cum electo archiepiscopo et omnibus Eboracensibus bene semper promiserim non eos cogere nec a iusticia declinare, set saltem utrique ecclesie ex equo me habere. Vos autem scitis? quod dominus papa propter huius cause descisionem, me mandante, legatum suum‘ legauerit. Qui si causam hanc suppressam uiderit, forsitan me in corde suo de fraude uel leuitate redarguet, et se delusum reputabit.’ ‘Bene,’ inquiunt, ‘domine, potestis facere, nec erit inhonestum nec difficile, quoniam quod pater uester, rex bonus et sapiens, in regno suo stabiliuit et carta et sigillo suo firmauit, stabile et firmum seruare debetis, nec Cantuariensem ecclesiam in discrepacionem trahere unde sub regibus, patre uestro et fratre, inuestita fuit. Et carta quidem presto est. Quando uobis placebit, in medium proferetur. Legato dicetis rem diligencius perscrutatam^ et melius conditam" aliter esse quam putaueratis, neque, ut speramus, uoluntati uestre contraire conabitur. Postremo Ans(elmus) archiepiscopus noster, in infirmitate qua defunctus est, nobis prohibendo

mandauit ne Eboracensi

electo communicaremus nisi Cantuariensi ecclesie profiteretur; cui, ac si superstes esset, in hoc uolumusf obedire Hiis itaque suggestionibus, persuasionibus, instigacionibus, magis autem muneribus magnis et pollicitacionibus maioribus et multimodis, rege distracto, ex occasione carte et communicacionis prohibicione, Fauonius noster in* procellosum Aquilonem conuersus est. Cartam uero illam rex antea? multum inprobauerat, de * quibusdam edd.; quibus A; quibuslibet Ra. > sitis A add. A, inexplicably 4 perscrutam A * Perhaps cognitam nis A ® noster in repeated in A ^ anna A

* datam longe f uolumi-

1109]

HUGH THE CHANTER

41

Canterbury came to meet him, making great offers and greater promises, urgently beseeching him not to suffer the dignity of the church of Canterbury to be impaired. The king told them to wait till Whitsun. At Whitsuntide there assembled at court our archbishop elect, bishops and abbots, princes and lords, clerks and monks, and many others. The cardinal also had come there at the king's command on the first two days of Whitsun.! The king talked to our elect and to some of us, and made fair promises. Then came to the

king the bishops and abbots, and the monks of Canterbury, making

great offers, and promising more than anyone could easily believe, even granting that he might keep the archbishopric in his own hands as long as he liked without any complaint from them, if only he would let the church of Canterbury stay as his father had left it. The king was somewhat embarrassed. ‘I do not know how I can do that,’ he said, ‘since I have always promised the archbishop elect and all those of York not to force them, nor to act unjustly, but at all events to be impartial to both churches. But you know that our lord the pope has sent his legate at my request to decide this case. If he sees this cause quashed, he will perhaps in his heart charge me with deceit or fickleness, and consider himself cheated.’ ‘My lord,’ they said, ‘you can manage it well: it will neither be dishonourable nor difficult; since what the king your father, a good and wise king, established in his realm and confirmed by his charter and seal, you ought to keep stable and firm; you ought not to bring the church of Canterbury into dispute over rights with which it was endowed by two kings, your father and brother. We have the charter to support us. Whenever you please it shall be produced. You may tell the legate that, on more careful examination and better reflection, the case is not as you had thought; and we hope that he will not try to oppose you. Last of all, Archbishop Anselm, in his last illness, forbade us to communicate with the elect of York unless he should make his profession to Canterbury; and on this point, we will obey him as if he were still living.’ These suggestions, arguments, and pressure, or rather the great gifts and even greater promises of all kinds which accompanied them, so shook the king that, by occasion of the charter and the

excommunication, our favouring breeze was turned into a stormy tempest. The king had previously rejected the charter, once he had ! 13-14 June 1109.

42

THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF YORK

surrepcione eius ueritate per nos accepta. In crastino mandauit rex electo nostro per episcopos et per comitem de Mellent,! primo blandiens, demulcens, deprecans ut ab episcopis consecracionem suscipiens ecclesie Cantuariensi professionem faceret, sine preiudicio ecclesie sue et successoribus suis, propter amorem suum et pacem regni, et propter illam siue prohibicionem siue excommunicacionem quam Ans(elmus) archiepiscopus fecisse dicebatur. Mirati sumus uehementer de tam subita et inopina mutacione. Hesterno enim bene promiserat. Audito regis mandato misit elec-

tus ad eum S(tephanum), uenerabilem Eboracensis monasterii abbatem," mandans, supplicans, suum, quatinus, sicut promiserat professione illa in presencia eius et iudicium canonicum subire. debere, nec ipse rex et patronus

obsecrans ut dominum regem et inceperat, sic staret, dicens de et legati in causam uelle uenire, Aliter profiteri nec uelle nec ecclesie sue debeat eum cogere.

Istud uero interdictum seu anathema Ans(elmum) archiepisco-

pum fecisse ficticium erat, et magis tacendum quam eloquendum. Quod si uerum, nemini nociuum, quia irracionabiliter factum. ‘De carta illa patris uestri uere scimus quod sine consciencia et assensu

regis et T(home) archiepiscopi facta fuit. Et si placet dignitati uestre, inquirat a Rann(ulfo) Dunelmensi episcopo et a Gilberto Westmonasterii abbate' (ibi tunc erat curia), ‘et firmiter precipiat et adiuret ut ueritatem inde dicant. Sciunt enim bene; et iste tunc £77

temporis L(anfranci) archiepiscopi monachus et familiaris erat, et ille |sigillum patris uestri sub Mauricio cancellario custodiebat.? Ad quod rex indignanter respondit non esse homines istos quibus de hoc credi deberet. Preter sibi iniuncta? abbas et alia addidit, quantum ausus est et illi uisum est oportere.

Paulatim fautores regi dicebant quod (non)^ esset bonus heres si

patris statuta destitui sineret. Et quidam de episcopis,* turpiter assentator, se uidisse testatus est quod nec ipse nec alius nec

simile huic usquam uiderat, scilicet quod quando T(homas) * preter sibi iniuncta attached by Ra. to the previous sentence

> Supplied by Ra.

! Robert of Meulan was a principal adviser of Henry I in secular and ecclesiastical matters until his death in 1118. See e.g. Orderic, v. 298-9, 314-17; Eadmer, HN, pp. 163, 170, 191, 207, 235; CS i/2. 703; WMGR ii. 482-3; for an account of his extensive lordship see D. Crouch, The Beaumont Twins (Cambridge, 1986) ? Abbot c. 1080-1112 (Heads, p. 84). ? But see above, pp. 10-11 (and references cited there), where the same witnesses are invoked to prove that William I had repudiated the Canterbury ‘forgery’ of the original

1109]

HUGH THE CHANTER

43 heard from us the truth about its forgery. The next day the king sent orders to our elect by the bishops and the count of Meulan,!

beginning with flattery, coaxing, and prayer, that he should accept consecration by the bishops, and make his profession to the church of Canterbury, without prejudice to his own church or to his successors, for love of the king, for the peace of the realm, and on account of the prohibition or excommunication which Archbishop Anselm was said to have made. We were astonished at such a sudden and unexpected change. For the previous day the king had made fair promises. On hearing the king’s orders, the archbishop elect sent to him Stephen, the reverend abbot of York,’ to bid, beseech, and adjure the king as his lord to stand by his promises and go on as he had begun, saying that he wished to proceed to trial over the profession before the king and the legate and be judged by canon law. He neither wished nor was bound to make his profession on any terms, nor ought the king, the patron of his church, to compel him. It was a lie that Anselm had made that interdict or anathema, one that it was better to suppress than to publish. And if it were true, the curse could hurt nobody, because it was unreasonable. ‘As to that charter of your father’s, we know that it was made without the knowledge and consent of the king and of Archbishop Thomas. May it please your majesty to inquire of Ranulf, bishop of Durham, and of Gilbert,

abbot of Westminster’ (where the court then was), ‘and firmly order and adjure them to speak the truth on the matter. For they know well: the latter being at the time one of Archbishop Lanfranc’s monks and a member of his household, while the former kept your father’s seal under Maurice, the chancellor.’ To which the king indignantly replied that these were not credible witnesses to this. Apart from his brief, the abbot added as much as he dared

and thought necessary. Step by step, the king’s flatterers told him that he would not be a good heir if he suffered his father’s decisions to be repealed. And one of the bishops,’ with disgusting subservience, bore witness

to having seen what (or the like of which) neither he nor anyone else had anywhere seen, namely that when Thomas consecrated agreement shortly before his death. By 1072 Gilbert may already have been summoned to England by Lanfranc (pp. 10-11 n. 1), but Flambard can scarcely have been in a position to have any trustworthy recollection of the events of that year. 4 Sampson of Worcester, the father of Thomas, according to Eadmer, HN, p. 208; cf. EA 465. For Anselm's consecration see above, pp. 12-15.

44

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Ans(elmum) consecrauit, consecrato professionem fecit; de quo

magis ridendum esse* quam respondendum estimo. Set tantum regi dictum est a nobis quod quicunque hoc dixerat, in caput suum mentitus fuerat. Misit iterum rex ad nos qui dicerent quod de statutis patris sui in disceptacionem non ueniret, neque quemquam duceret, set si? professionem faceret, amorem eius haberet; si non, in finem perderet, et ipsum et omnes sibi genere propinquos de tota terra sua exterminaret: ac si de industria rex cogitasset: sicut pater fecit patruo, filius faciet nepoti. Inducias ad hoc

respondendi (quesiuimus), que* usque mane indulte sunt.

Nobis uisum est nobis decere consilium cardinalis? requirere. Missi sunt ad eum duo ex nobis, set quasi furtiui,’ et dixerunt ei:

*Si noster electus ad beatum Petrum uel ad dominum papam pertingere posset, pedibus eorum prouolutus, consilium et auxilium et misericordiam precaretur; quia uero non potest,’ quod per se non audet propter regem (et nos quidem latenter uenimus), uos, qui uices apostolicas hic habetis, per nos, uestris, tanquam beati Petri uel domini pape, pedibus prostratus suppliciter et lacrimabiliter requirit. Rex subito et inopinate transuersus est. Hesterno sperabamus eundem habere, hodie perdidimus. Sic et sic mandauit, talibus et talibus minarum tonitribus exterret. Ipse uero Tnichil ignorabatt excellenciam uestram consilium postulat quod

Romanam ecclesiam suam non dedeceat. Et scitote quod (nec)^ amore nec timore Tquomus ne int‘ quo modo nec alterius consilio uestrum derelinquet.’ Tunc paululum meditatus, satis humiliter et religiose respondit. ‘Ego’ inquit ‘modo debeo missam cantare, ubi Spiritum Sanctum inuocabo quatinus michi dignetur inspirare quale melius et honestius consilium possim dare. Ite modo, et cras reuertimini.’ Nimirum de bono homine bene promittente/ bona spes haberi solet. In crastinum reuertentibus, nulla usus ambage, locutus est. *Ego quidem non ueni consilium dare, set contencionem unam inter duas ecclesias precepto domini pape definire. Que si in causam ueniret, facerem propter quod missus sum. Deus det uobis bonum consilium.' Cepit quoque narrare suas comminaciones illi factas, de separacione eciam huius regni ab ecclesia Romana, si * esse edd.; est A > si D; si per A * quesiuimus, que edd.; quas A; om. Ra., who reads inducie 4 cardinali A * uobis A f furtim Ra. 7 quia... potest repeated inA h^Supplied by Ra. ! quominus nec in Ra.; perhaps merely nec (cf.p. 6o nec dampno neque quo modo), quomus ne being ananticipation of what follows ! promittente edd.; promittere A

. 1109]

HUGH THE CHANTER

45

Anselm, he made his profession: a story I judge deserving laughter rather than refutation. But all that we said to the king was that whoever had said that lied in his teeth. The king again sent mes-

sengers to us to say that he would not discuss his father's decisions

nor produce any witness, but that if [Thomas] would make his profession, he should have the king's love; if not, [the king] would eventually ruin him, and banish him and all his kinsmen from all his lands: just as though the king had deliberately thought ‘As the father did to the uncle, so shall the son do to the nephew.’ We asked for respite for our reply, and it was granted till next morning. We thought the proper course was to ask the cardinal's advice. Two of us were sent, almost by stealth, and said to him: ‘If our archbishop elect could make his way to St Peter, or to our lord the pope, he would prostrate himself at their feet and implore their counsel, help, and mercy. But as he cannot, he casts himself humbly and tearfully at your feet, as though at those of St Peter and the pope, and through us makes to you, who represent the pope here, the request that, because of the king, he does not dare make in person (and we have come in secret). The king has suddenly and unexpectedly changed sides. We hoped yesterday that we had him; today we have lost him. He sent such and such messages: he terrifies us with such and such thunderous threats. The archbishop elect . . . asks your Excellency for counsel worthy of your own Roman church. And you may be sure that neither for love nor for fear nor for any reason(?), nor on any other man's advice will he depart from yours.' The cardinal thought for a moment, and answered humbly and piously. ‘I must now’, he said, ‘sing a mass, in which I shall call upon the Holy Ghost to inspire me as to what is the best and most honourable counsel I can give. Go now, and return to-

morrow.’ There is usually good hope of a good man when he makes a good promise. We returned on the morrow, and he spoke plainly. ‘I did not come to give advice, but by the pope’s orders to settle a dispute between two churches. If the case should come into court, I should fulfil my mission. God give you good counsel.’ He then began to tell of the threats which had been made to him, threats even of the separation of this realm from the Roman church, if he should show the letters he had brought from the

46

It gp

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

litteras domini pape quas attulerat ostenderet, si in hoc regi contradiceret. ‘Et scio" inquid ‘modo in Anglia siue? quando Deo placebit egressurus, habeo mecum fratrem et nepotes, quibus, etsi non modo, contumeliam et iniuriam inferri timeo si regi contradixero." Inputabat decano nostro quod sepius inquirenti ab eo de uoluntate regis Eboracensem electum beneuolenciam eius habere dicebat, quod nunc in contrarium relapsum erat. Et tamen? ex litteris quas rex misit domino pape, et ipse cardinalis uidit, perpendere potuit decanum nichil aliud quam quod credebat dixisse. Quicquid legatus dicebat prior Diuionensis attes|tabatur. Hiis* aliis fortasse legato ligamentis? ligato, nichil consilii ab eo elicere potuerunt; nichil electo nostro reportauerunt. Quid ergo faceret? quo se uerteret? In angustiis erat. Consilium defecerat a quo sperauit habere et debebat. Qui cum illo prius erant amodo aduersus illum. Cum torrente omnes currebant; nullus obluctabatur. Sampson Wigornensis episcopus et Ric(ard)us Baiocensis,° pater et frater illius, hic fratrem, ille filium carnaliter amantes, et regem timentes, illum archiepiscopio/ carere nolebant, regem exasperare® non audebant; sicque monendo," consulendo ut regis uoluntatem faceret, quasi uim inferebant. De parentela eius aliquanti probi uiri, qui illic aderant nobis, qui cum

eo (ex)! ecclesia nostra, tres aut quatuor, et tristes et timidi, aderamus, inproperabant modicum curare si archiepiscopatum perderet. Mutabantur quibus equidem, dum possessiones retinerent, professus aut liber tantidem/ erat. A rege quoque nobis tanquam maiestatis reis mine contumeliarum et exilii nunciabantur, ideo

quod dolere uel minimum

obloqui uidebamur. Temptauit et

Dunelmensis episcopus ex sua parte si posset regis animum pecu-

nia reuocare, pollicens illi* mille marcas argenti et centum regine pro eo ut iusticiam et iudicium canonicum Eboracensi ecclesie consentiret. Set non audiuit rex bene callidus quid inter pondus et pondus, numerum et numerum distaret. Sic ergo angariatus et districtus, mestus et gemens, nobis nec concedentibus nec contradicentibus (demencia enim esset), * in Anglia siue Jo.; siue in Anglia A ^ tantum A © Perhaps add et 4 legamentis A * Baiocensis D; Baic’ A * archiepiscopio edd.; archiepiscopo A; archiepiscopatu Ra. * exaspere A ^ monendo edd.; mouendo A

! Supplied by Ra.

/ tantidem J.; tandem A

! The text is uncertain, but this seems to be the sense.

k ei Ra.

. 1109]

HUGH THE CHANTER

47

pope, or if he opposed the king in this matter. ‘And I know’, said he, ‘that now in England, or when I quit it, as it pleases God, I have with me brother and nephews, who may, I fear, be subjected to contempt and wrong, though not now, if I oppose the king." He blamed our dean for having told him, in answer to his frequent enquiries as to what the king wished, that the archbishop elect of York was in favour, though the opposite was now the case. And yet, from the letter which the king sent to the pope, and which the cardinal saw, he might have reflected that the dean had said nothing but what he believed to be true. Whatever the legate said, the prior of Dijon confirmed. There may have been other bonds too which tied the legate's hands; but our envoys could get no advice from him, and brought no message back to our archbishop elect. What was he to do? Whither to turn? He was cornered. Counsel from the man from whom he had hoped and deserved to have received it had failed him. Those who had been with him were now against him. Everyone went with the stream: no one resisted it. Sampson, bishop of Worcester, and Richard, bishop of Bayeux, his father and brother, from their natural affection to a brother and a son and their fear of the king, were unwilling that he should lose the archbishopric, but dared not enrage the king? So by urging

and advising him to do what the king wished, they practically forced him to comply. Some respectable kinsmen of his, who were present there with us, reproached the three or four of us, sad and frightened, who were with him from our church, with not caring much if he lost his archbishopric. All those were changing sides to whom it was the same whether he professed or remained free so

long as they kept their possessions. We were told how the king was threatening us as if we were traitors with disgrace and exile,

because we seemed to grieve and object even a little. The bishop of Durham, for his part, tried to recall the king's intention by a bribe,

promising him a thousand marks of silver, and a hundred to the queen, if he would consent to justice and a judgement by canon law for the church of York. But the king would not listen, well knowing which side could bid the higher.

Under such compulsion and duress, with sighs and groans, without either our consent or refusal (for it would have been ? Above, p. 25 n. 6; for Richard, bishop of Bayeux 1107-33, see Orderic, v. 210-11 and n., vi. 428-9.

48

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

tandem facere consensit quod, ut uerum? estimo, nullatenus fecis-

set si exilii et fatigacionis et ceterarum incommoditatum corpus paciens haberet; set corpulentus erat, et pinguior quam oporteret.! Proxima die dominica a Lundonensi episcopo et coepiscopis in ecclesia beati Pauli consecratus est,’ professione facta noua et barbara, personali, set nulli persone (quis enim Cantuariensis futurus esset archiepiscopus soli Deo notum erat), salua obediencia et fidelitate domini pape et regis Anglie, et saluo iure Eboracensis ecclesie.° Professio determinata est que non habuit exemplum, nec puto habituram exemplar. Set qualiscunque fuit, Cantuarie pro maximo erat. Nil mirum si torta que extorta. Proclamatum autem fuit a Herberto Norwicensi episcopo in

plena ecclesia, precepto regis, quod hoc quod T(homas) Eboracensis hic faciebat non iudicio set iussu regis et uoluntate erat. Quod Dunelmensis episcopus, altius ascendens, melius suppleuit, dicens: 'Eboracensis electus Cantuarie aut Eboraci consecrari debet; quod modo hic consecratur et profitetur, non iudicamento set uoluntate regis et imperio quadam dispensacione factum est,

nec uult rex Eboracensi ecclesie nec successoribus T(home) hoc esse in preiudicium nec Cantuariensi in exemplum. De hoc appello uos omnes qui auditis in testimonium. In huius rei testimonium rex litteras istas fieri et sigillo suo sigillari precepit.

Henr(icus) Dei gracia rex Anglorum, episcopis et baronibus

tocius regni* Anglie salutem. Sciatis quod professio illa, quam T(homas) secundus Eboracensis archiepiscopus fecit Cantu-

ariensi ecclesie defuncto Anselmo, hoc modo facta est. Voluntas

mea et consilium quorundam meorum fidelium fuit propter

quasdam necessitates, quamquam ipse T(homas) Eboracensis

archiepiscopus et Eboracensis ecclesia per priuilegia sua parati essent disracionare quod facere non deberet. Effecit? igitur eam de sola persona sua, precepto meo coactus, salua prius obedien£.8

cia Romani |pontificis et fidelitate mea, eo uidelicet tenore, ut

^ Perhaps uere

^ Ra. fails to punctuate here 4 effecit A, Jo.; fecit D, Ra., probably rightly

* regni D; regem

A

* Cf. WMGP, p. 263 n. 2, and Richard of Hexham, Pp. 50-4. ? On 27 June 1109; cf. Eadmer, HN, pp. 210-11. For the text of the petition of the canons of York and the profession of Thomas, as preserved at Canterbury, see Richter, Canterbury Professions, pp. lxxi-lxxiii, 37, 116. The profession includes a reservation of fealty to king and pope, but is not explicitly personal, nor does it reserve the rights of

1109]

HUGH THE CHANTER

49

madness to refuse), Thomas at length consented to do what I really think he would never have done, if his body could have borne exile,

weariness, and all the other discomforts. But he was full-bodied, and fatter than he should have been.! On the next Sunday he was

consecrated by the bishop of London and his brother bishops in St Paul's church? He made a strange and uncouth profession, personal, but to no person (for God alone knew who would be the next archbishop of Canterbury), saving his obedience and fealty to the pope and the king of England, and saving the rights of the church of York. It was a profession without precedent and, I imagine, one not likely to be repeated. But such as it was, the Canterbury people made much of it. No wonder that an extorted pro-

fession should be distorted.

But it was proclaimed by Herbert, bishop of Norwich, on the king'sorder, in a packed church, that what Thomas of York was here

doing was not the result of a judicial sentence, but was at the order and will ofthe king. The bishop of Durham, speaking from a pulpit, was more explicit, and said: “The archbishop of York ought to be consecrated at Canterbury or at York. That he is now consecrated and makes his profession here is not done by virtue of a judgement, but by the king’s will and command, by way of dispensation, nor does the king wish it to prejudice the church of York or the successors of Thomas, or to be a precedent in favour of the church of Can-

terbury. Of this I call upon all of you my hearers to bear witness.’ In witness of this the king ordered the following letter to be made and sealed: Henry, by the grace of God king of the English, to the bishops and barons of all the realm of England, greeting. Know ye that that profession which Thomas II, archbishop of York, made to the church of Canterbury after the death of Anselm was made in the following manner. It was my will and the counsel of some of my lieges, for certain necessary reasons, although Thomas archbishop of York and the church of York were prepared to prove by their privileges that he was not bound to make it. He made it therefore in his own person only, compelled by my order, saving beforehand his obedience to the pope and his fealty to me, expressly stipulating that the church of York shall not at any York. Christ Church later claimed to have the cope presented by Thomas I or II at his profession, ‘de rubeo panno diasperato, cum tasselis nigris rotundis brudata’ (Dart, as p. 21 n. 3, Appendix, p. v.).

THE

50

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Eboracensis ecclesia libertatem aliquam uel priuilegia, que ipsa iuste habere debeat, per hoc scriptum meum uel ipsius factum nullo tempore perdat, et si aliquando de eadem re inter illas ecclesias uel archiepiscopos earum placitum fuerit, quod illa uice mea uoluntate et precepto factum fuit, Eboracensi ecclesie uel archiepiscopis eius ad disracionandum* libertatem suam nullo modo noceret. Valete.! Et ne professio illa propter presenciam nostram plus auctoritatis habere uideretur, interesse noluimus.^ Set quidam amici* discedentes Eboracam uenerunt, capitulo ut gestum erat nunciantes;

qui audientes de mutacione regis mirati sunt, de professione doluerunt, set propter angariam et districcionem minus ei inputauerunt. Consecratus archiepiscopus recessit Eboracam, adducens secum cardinalem palleum deferentem, quibus qua decuit honorificencia susceptis, archiepiscopus accepto palleo missam celebrauit, et tunc Turgotum, qui fuerat prior Dunelmensis ecclesie, episcopum Sancti Andree de Scocia presente cardinali consecrauit. Foderoch? uero, predecessor eius, quia fuerat a Scotis ordinatus, consilio et imperio regis Malcon et regine Margarete uenit ad primum T(homam) satisfacere et reconsiliari, atque Eboracensi ecclesie et T(home) archiepiscopo et successoribus suis canonicam subieccionem professus est, et in Eboraca, iubente archiepiscopo, ecclesias dedicauit. Quod fortasse cum de primo Thoma agerem dixisse debueram.’ Post pallei suscepcionem, factis ibi tribus diebus, archiepisco-

pus cardinalem,

magnifice

donatum

iuxta facultatem

suam,

honorifice et accurate reduxit usque ultra flumen Treentam. Cumque digredi deberent, cardinalis precepit archiepiscopo ex auctoritate sancte Romane ecclesie, diem illi statuens, quatinus domino pape presenciam suam exhiberet, super hoc satisfacturus quod contra statutum beati Gregorii et contra sentenciam curie Romane professus erat. Quod ille egre ferens, cum regem id se mandare dixisset, cardinalis precibus eorum qui aderant, et regis amore siue timore, tandem inuitacionem illam remisit, sicque ? disracionandum A (diraciocinandum DJ; -dam Ra.

mus A

* amia A

4 Foderoch D; Fod hoc A

> noluimus 7o.; uolu-

* regi A

! Regesta, ii, No. 916; the text is known only from Hugh or copies derived from him, and the form is quite unlike that of any other authentic surviving royal charter. The circumstances, however, were exceptional.

1109]

HUGH THE CHANTER

SI

time lose any liberty or privileges to which it is justly entitled by this my letter or by his own act, and that if at any future time this matter should be brought to trial between these churches and their archbishops, what has on this occasion been done by my will and command should not in any way prejudice the church of York and its archbishops in claiming their liberty. Farewell.! And lest this profession should seem to have moré authority because of our presence, we declined to take part in it. But some of our friends went off to York and related what had happened to the

chapter, who were astonished at the king's change of front, re-

gretted the profession, but blamed the archbishop less because of

the pressure and duress.

|

When the archbishop had been consecrated, he retired to York, taking with him the cardinal bearing the pallium. They were wel-

comed with becoming deference, and the archbishop, having received the pallium, celebrated mass, and then, in the cardinal's presence, consecrated Turgot, formerly prior of Durham, as

bishop of St Andrews in Scotland. His predecessor, Foderoch, because he had been ordained by the Scots, came on the advice and command of King Malcolm and Queen Margaret to Thomas I to make satisfaction and be reconciled, and made profession of his

canonical subjection to the church of York and to Archbishop Thomas and his successors, and dedicated churches in York by the archbishop's orders; a fact which I ought perhaps to have men-

tioned when dealing with Thomas I.” After receiving the pallium and spending three days at York, the archbishop conducted the cardinal, to whom he had given as handsome a present as his means permitted, with all honour and due ceremony right beyond the Trent. As they were about to part, the cardinal, by the authority of the Roman church, ordered the

archbishop, naming a day, to present himself before the pope to answer for having made his profession, contrary to the ruling of St Gregory and the sentence of the Roman court. On his resenting this and saying that the king had ordered him to do so, the cardinal, at the prayer of those present and out of love (or fear) of the 2 Foderoch (or Fothadh or Modach) had probably been consecrated before 1070 and died in 1093. For his profession see above, p. xlix; Hugh's text follows it pretty closely. Turgot, who had been monk and prior (1087-1109) of Durham, was nominated to St Andrews in ?1107; for his death see below, p. 59 n. 5. He had served St Margaret of Scotland, and is probably the author of her Life (Heads, p. 43; Fasti, ii. 33; Watt, Fasti, p. 290; above, pp. xlix-l).

52

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

ualedicentes amicabiliter digrediuntur, archiepiscopus ad sua, ille ad regem, ut ab eo licencia et benedicione quam desiderabat

accepta inde Romam regrederetur.’ T(homas) iste Michaelem, hominem sanctum, Glesguensi ecclesie ordinauit episcopum, qui Eboracensi ecclesie et T(home) archiepiscopo et successoribus suis canonicam obedienciam profitendo scriptam tradidit? Hic aliquamdiu cum archiepiscopo conuersatus, iussu illius in diocesi nostra ecclesias dedicauit, et ordines fecit in ecclesia de Morlund, in qua felici fine ad Deum migrans, sepultus requiescit. Huius antecessores Magsuen et Iohannem Kinsinus Eboracensis archiepiscopus episcopos? consecrauit, sicut a uiris ueracibus accepimus qui se hoc uidisse testabantur;! set propter hostilem inpugnacionem et desolacionem et barbariem terre diu ecclesia sine pastore fuit, donec Dauid comes, postea rex Scocie, predictum Michaelem episcopum constituit,

(et)* T(home) archiepiscopo consecrandum transmisit.

Rad(ulphu)m uero, urbis Eboracensis presbiterum, in ecclesia

sancti Petri ab Orcadensibus electum T(homas) Orcadum insularum ordinauit episcopum, cuius predecessores ab archiepiscopis

nostris ordinati fuerant, a primo T(homa) Rad(ulfu)s, a Gir(ardo) Rogerus Witebiensis monasterii monachus.* Ecclesie sancti Petri duas prebendas fecit? Hagulstaldensem

f.8Y

ecclesiam | constituendis ibi canonicis regularibus tradidit, et aliquas circum terrulas dedit Prebendis canonicorum Sancte Marie de Sutwella eandem libertatem a rege Henr(ico) optinuit

quam nostre et Sancti Iohannis Beuerlacensis et Sancti Wil-

fridi de Ripon prebende habent; et, quod ad ipsum pertinebat, ab^ episcopali consuetudine et exaccione in ecclesiis et terris liberas eas et quietas concessit et confirmauit. Aldredus bone memorie, ultimus Angligena archiepiscopus, prebendas illas de * scilicet add. Jo. 4 omni add. VD

^ episcopos

om. Ra.

* Supplied Mi

0. from D ace

! CS i/2. 707: “Widely though Hugh and Eadmer [HN, pp. 199-211] differ in their accounts of these events, in both the cardinal’s conduct appears distinctly ineffective. It is uncertain whether this is to be attributed more to the strength of opinion in England or to the pope’s reluctance to force a conflict with King Henry so soon after his surrender on investitures and just as he was forging a marriage alliance with Henry V, the new king of Germany, on whom Paschal might still hope to exercise some influence’ (EA 451-2, u ; ASC, p. 34; K. Leyser, Medieval Germany and its Neighbours (London, 1982), pp. 201-4). ? For Michael and the early history of the diocese of Glasgow see Watt, Fasti, pp. 143-4, N. F. Shead in Scottish Historical Review, 48 (1969), 220-5, and above, pp. I-li.

HUGH THE CHANTER

53

king, at length revoked the summons. So they parted friends and went their ways, the archbishop to his own place, the cardinal to the king, to receive from him the leave and blessing which he wished for, and return to Rome.! This Thomas ordained as bishop of Glasgow a holy man, Michael, who professed canonical obedience in writing to the church of York and to Archbishop Thomas and his successors. He stayed some time with the archbishop, dedicated churches on his authority in our diocese, and conferred orders in Morland church, where he lies buried, happily departed to God. Archbishop Cynesige consecrated his predecessors in the bishopric, Magnus and John, as we have been told by truthful men, who bore witness that they saw this.’ But owing to the attacks of enemies,

and the desolation and barbarism of the land, that church was long without a shepherd, until Earl David, afterwards king of Scotland,

appointed the said Michael bishop, and sent him to Archbishop Thomas io be consecrated. Thomas also, in St Peter’s church, consecrated as bishop Ralph, a priest of the city of York, who had been elected by the men of the Orkneys; his predecessors had been consecrated by our archbishops, Ralph by Thomas I, Roger, a monk of Whitby, by Gerard.‘ He made two prebends in the church of St Peter.5 He gave the church of Hexham to the regular canons to be established there, and some small lands thereabouts.® He obtained from King Henry the same liberty for the prebends of the canons of St Mary’s, Southwell, as our prebends and those of St John of Beverley and St Wilfrid of Ripon have; and (what lay in his own power) granted and confirmed that they should be free and quit of episcopal custom and exaction in their churches and lands. Ealdred of happy memory, the last English-born archbishop, made those prebends 3 Magsuen (or Magnus or Macsuein) and John were consecrated at York 1055 X 1060, perhaps to act as suffragans of York in the north-west, but their connection with Glasgowis very doubtful; a Scottish Bishop Johr. died as bishop of Mecklenburg in 1066 (Watt, Fasti, p. 144; above, p. xlv). ^ Ralph I was consecrated on 3 Mar. ?1073, Roger in 1100 X 1108 (probably 1107 X 1108), Ralph Nowell (or Novell) in 1109 X 1114, perhaps c. 1112; he appears regularly from now on as an assistant to the archbishop, end may never have secured possession of his see. For the sources and difficulties in the Orkney succession see above, pp. xlvii-xlix. 5 They cannot be identified with certainty: EEA v, No. 8; Clay, Fasti, ii, p. v n. 3; for the York prebends see ibid., pp. v-vi and passim. 6 For Thomas II’s refoundation of the old minster at Hexham as a priory of canons regular in 1112 X 1113 see Richard of Hexham, pp. 54-6 and 220, Simeon, ii. 247, 304; Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 46-8.

THE

54

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

terra exempticia fecit, set regias consuetudines uel exacciones ab illis emere non potuit quibus uendere non licebat.! Vixit T(homas) iunior in archiepiscopatu annos quinque et menses fere nouem, et obiit xi. kalendas Marcii, iuuenis adhuc etate,^ mundus carne, quem nemo cognouit feminam cognouisse.’ Post decessum Anselmi archiepiscopi non fuit usque tunc archiepiscopus Cantuarie. Ad proximas Rogaciones translatus est in eam Radulphus Rofensis episcopus, ante Sagiensis monasterii abbas, qui si tantum sanctitate profectus est quantum dignitate, nouit ille quem nichil potest latere? Ecclesia nostra usque ad Assumpcionem sancte Marie uacauit. Dixit quidam, ‘O multum ante alias infelix littera teta.’* Solebant enim gentiles frontibus dampnatorum, ad notam infamie, figuram O° littere calido ferro inprimere, unde et Persius: ‘Et

potis es nigrum? uicio prefigere O.5 Apud Grecos ©, apud Latinos elementum illud T nuncupatur. De primo in secundum, de secundo in tercium, quorum nomina per T litteram incipiunt, propter professionem hanc tempestatis! grando grandis grauiter grassata est, hoc est de Thoma in Thomam, de illo in Thurstinum. Gir(ardus) enim archiepiscopus, licet in eum huius grandinis aliquis horror intonuit, quia episcopus translatus per consecracionem coartari non potuit, facilius et sine lesione A

* empticia VD 4 caligo A

> etate D; etati A * morum A

© On each occasion © is glossed teta in f Better deleted

' For grants by Edward the Confessor and William I to Ealdred for Beverley see CS i/1. 555-7, EYC i, Nos. 88-9. Henry I confirmed the liberties of York and Beverley before 1109 (since it says ‘tempore Thome archiepiscopi! of Thomas I) in a writ given ‘per Thurstinum capellanum’, possibly the earliest known link of the later archbishop with the north (EYC i, No. 129 — Regesta, ii, No. 681). For Thomas II as first

provost of Beverley see above, pp. 24-5, EEA v, No. 83 and n., and Memorials ofBeverley, ed. A. F. Leach (Surtees Soc., 1897), p. xxxv. Henry's earliest surviving confirmation of privileges for Southwell (EYC i, No. 130 — Regesta, ii, No. 1382) was dated by Farrer c. 1115 X 1123, but could possibly be of the time of Thomas II. Both exempticia in the manuscript of Hugh and Digby's empticia are held to mean ‘bought’ rather than ‘exempt’; cf. MLD s.vv. On this view, Hugh is making the obvious point that men who were free to dispose of their estates could not grant a freedom from royal exactions which they did not themselves enjoy. If we understand ‘exemptitia’ as ‘exempt, he is making the more striking observation that men who had such freedoms on their land could not transfer them to others by sale. We have adopted the more conservative position.

* The date of the death of Thomas II is uncertain. Hugh’s date is internally inconsistent, since Thomas was consecrated on 27 June 1109, and on 19 Feb. he would have been archbishop for five years and almost eight months, not nine. Florence, ii. 67

HUGH THE CHANTER

.

55

on purchased land, but could not buy the king’s customs or taxes from those who had no power to sell them.! Thomas the younger lived five years and almost nine months as archbishop, and died 19 February [1114], still young in years, chaste, not known to anyone to have known a woman.? After the death of Archbishop Anselm there was not till that time any archbishop of Canterbury. At the following Rogationtide Ralph, bishop of Rochester, formerly abbot of Sées, was translated to be archbishop there, but whether he was as much advanced in holiness as he was in dignity, He knows from whom nothing is hidden? Our church was vacant until the Assumption. Someone has said: ‘Most hapless of all letters theta. ^For the gentiles used to brand with a hot iron the letter Theta on the foreheads of condemned criminals as a mark of infamy. Hence Persius says: ‘And a black Theta you can brand on vice.5 The letter is called O in Greek and T in Latin. Of those archbishops whose names begin with T, on account of this profession, the heavy storm of hail has swept from the first to the second, from the second to the third: from Thomas to Thomas, and from him

to Thurstan. For Archbishop Gerard (though some of the horror of this hailstorm thundered against him) who, being translated as

a bishop, could not be coerced by refusal of consecration, escaped more easily and unhurt; being also helped by the king, (followed by Simeon, ii. 248) gives Tuesday 24 Feb.; the Durham chronicle of the archbishops (HCY ii. 525) agrees with Richard of Hexham, p. 57, that he died at Beverley on 16 Feb., called a Tuesday again but in fact a Monday.J.Leland, Itinerary, ed. L. Toulmin Smith, v (London, 1910), p. 135, appears to give ‘1113 5 idus Mart.’ from an inscription on his tomb. The weight of this testimony is uncertain, for Leland gives the date of Gerard's death although he says clearly that the inscription was missing; if there were an inscription which has been misread as v id. for vi k., then this would confirm Florence's date. For the tombs see also The Fabric Rolls of York Minster (Surtees Soc., 1859), pp. xvi-xviii. 3 Son of Seffrid d'Escures; abbot of St Martin, Sées 1089-1108; bishop of Rochester 1108-14; elected archbishop 26 Apr.; enthroned 16 May 1114; received the pallium 27 June 1115; died 19 Oct. 1122 (Orderic, iv. 168-71, vi. 46-9; Eadmer, HN, pp. 221—30; Fasti , ii. 3-4). Another northern source describes him as ‘quasi regis dextera, regis cor, regis ocellus’ (HCY ii. 262). This is a poem printed from a 15th-cent. copy by Raine, but apparently written much earlier by one Hugh, monk of Pontefract (ibid., p. 260). All except the last couplet covers the same ground as the History, and there are innumerable verbal echoes of its text. It is perhaps conceivable that it is actually by Hugh the Chanter himself; if so he may have shared his archbishop's retirement to Pontefract, rather than dying in office in 1139 as suggested above, p. xxiii. ^ Ennius, Spur. frag. 10 (The Annals ofQ. Ennius, ed. O. Skutsch (Oxford, 1985), pp. 138, 790), cited in Isidore, Etymologies, i. 3. 8. 5 Persius, Sat.,iv. 13, cited in Isidore, Etymologies, xxiv. 1.

56

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

euasit, auxilio quoque regis qui Ans(elmo) archiepiscopo contrarius erat, et prelacionem eius amplius extendi non curabat.!

THVRSTINVS

In crastino Assumpcionis Sancte Sanctarum suscepit ecclesiam nostram Turstinus regis capellanus, Lundoniensis ecclesie sancti Pauli canonicus, clericus litteris admodum eruditus, in secularibus prudens et industrius, in prouidendis et apparandis et agendis domi et milicie et peregre necessariis soluendis* strenuus et curi-

aliter efficax? Propter que regi W(illelmo) iuniori domesticus et carus fuerat, regi Henr(ico) familiaris et acceptus et secretarius erat, et apud ipsum plurimum poterat. Per illum rex, bene credens

illi, presens et absens, in Anglia et Normannia plurima disponebat, distribuebat, et efficiebat; que prudenter et liberaliter agendo, infra et circum principibus et ceteris notus et dilectus habebatur. In deferendo et faciendo honorem aduenis et ignotis, religiosis et secularibus, largus et hillaris, et benigne seruiens et decenter. Et hec quidem fuerunt illi et honori et commodo in locis pluribus. Et tempore oportuno? dimissione facta ab episcopo cuius erat canonicus, in nostrum illum suscepimus. Cogitans uero, ex hiis que audierat et uiderat de predecessoribus suis, quod professio ab eo exigeretur, locutus est regi, dicens incongruum esse metropolitanum duas professiones facere, alteram Romano pontifici, quam denegare non poterat, alteram

alteri metropolitano, quod beati Greg(orii) statutis aduersatur, et

in aliis regnis nusquam erat; et si contencio aliqua inter regem et f.9 Cantuariensem episcopum oriretur, illi magis eum obedire |oporteret cui professione obligatus esset. Hiisdem uerbis cum comite de Mellent, qui erat consiliarius regis, habitis, ita rem esse, sicut * soluerunt A * aduersantur A

* et tempore oportuno attached by Ra. to the previous sentence

! Gerard was translated to York, and so had already made a profession to Anselm at his consecration to Hereford in 1096. According to Eadmer (HN, pp. 186—7), in 1107 Gerard had promised to observe the same subjection at York as he had professed at Hereford, and a note to this effect attached to his profession in BL Cotton Cleopatra E i is printed in Canterbury Professions, No. 53. The Digby chronicle (HCY ii. 365-6) denies the story. ? 16 Aug. ? For Thurstan’s origins see Nicholl, Thurstan, Pp. 1-14; above, pp. xxvii-xxviii. Thurstan himself became a canon of St Paul's probably after 1100, since he had been

. 1114]

HUGH THE CHANTER

57 who was opposed to Archbishop Anselm, and not anxious that his

superiority should be enlarged.!

THURSTAN

On the morrow of the Assumption of the most holy Virgin,” the king's chaplain, Thurstan, canon of St Paul's, London, took over our church, a learned clerk, prudent and diligent in worldly affairs, energetic and courteously efficient in providing, preparing, and acting in domestic and military matters, and in necessary payments

abroad. For these reasons he was a favourite member of the household of William II, and a trusted adviser of King Henry, with whom he had great influence. The king, having full confidence in him, whether present or absent, used him both in England and in Normandy to make arrangements and payments, and do business of all kinds. His prudence and free-handedness in this made him known and beloved by gentle and simple in and around. In welcoming and doing honour to foreigners and strangers, religious and secular, he was lavish and cheerful, serving them kindly and becomingly. This too added to his honour and advantage in many places. At the right time he was released by the bishop whose canon he was, and we took him to be ours. But thinking, from what he had heard and seen of his predecessors, that a profession would be demanded from him, he spoke to

the king, saying that it was inconsistent that a metropolitan should make two professions, one to the pope, which he could not refuse, the other to the other metropolitan, a practice contrary to the rulings of St Gregory, and nowhere existing in other realms; and that if any dispute should arise between the king and the archbishop of Canterbury, he ought rather to obey that one to whom he was bound by his profession. He used the same words to the count of Meulan, who was the king's counsellor, and was told that the preceded in his stall by Osbert, and Osbert by William Giffard, who was nominated as bishop of Winchester in Aug. 1100, though not consecrated until 1107 (Fasti, i. 36, 43). The earliest royal charters attested by Thurstan the chaplain who may be the future archbishop are Regesta ii, Nos. 652, 817 of 1101 X 1107 (cf. above, p. 54n. 1). For his enjoyment of other patronage see Brett, p. 109 and n. 4. He may have been associated with Thomas II at Hexham already in 1112, to judge by John of Hexham in Simeon, ii. 304; see further EEA, v, pp. xxvi-xxx. His nomination took place at Winchester (Florence, ii. 67, and Richard of Hexham, p. 57, both giving 15 Aug.; Eadmer, HN, p. 224), at a time when the king was making a number of ecclesiastical appointments before crossing to Normandy.

58

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

dicebat, intellexit. Rex primo se non eum cogere profiteri respondit.

Subdiaconus erat, et in proximo Decembre a Will(elmo) Win-

toniensi episcopo diaconus ordinatus est.’ Eodem mense rex in Normanniam transiuit.2 Diaconus ab archiepiscopo uel a suffraganeis suis in sacerdotem ordinari refugit, ne ideo plus iuris in eo posset reclamare. Veniens Eboracam, sicut dignitatis huius mos exigit in nostrum* susceptus, a Roberto Cestrensi episcopo intronizatus est.’ Deinde placuit ei Dunelmensem episcopum et Haugustaldensem ecclesiam? uisitare.* Eo pergens cum predicto episcopo et ceteris probis uiris, inuenit Dunelmi Turgotum, episcopum sancti Andree de Scocia, in infirmitate iacentem, de qua non conualuit;? qui de eius prouectu atque aduentu non modice gauisus,^ tradidit se in manus eius, eum patrem et metropolitam? suum recognoscens, et, si Deus eum sospitati restitueret, se ei deuote obediturum promittens. Diebus aliquot apud Hestoldesham factis, Eboracum reuersus est, et episcopo Cestrensi ad propria regresso, in parochia sua aliquantulum conuersatus. Quadam (die)* in capitulo congregatis, quesiuit a nobis consilium de professione quam ab eo exigendam non dubitabat. Habito inter nos seorsum consilio contulimus, et uisum est nobis nos illi profitendi uel minime nullum dare consilium. Alterum experti eramus esse contra regem et fere totam Angliam; alterum erat contra decretum beati Greg(orii) et consuetudinem ecclesiasticam. Alterum erat tranquillitatis et pacis; alterum erat timoris et socordie et preuaricacionis. Vtrum horum ei suaderemus quorum uterque/ in dubio nobis erat? Animum eius ex modica conuersacione nondum cognosse poteramus. Ex consulto igitur illi respondimus a nobis de hac re nullum habere consilium. ? nostra A > ecclesias A * Supplied by Ra. (more may have fallen out) struction of this sentence is unclear

* grauisus A 4 metropolitanum Ra. * Correctly utrumque € The con-

! William Giffard, a younger brother of the earl of Buckingham (J. H. Round, Feudal England (London, 1895), pp. 469-70); nominated bishop of Winchester 1100, consecrated 1107, died 1129 (Fasti, ii. 85). Thurstan had succeeded him in his stall at St Paul's (above, pp. 56—7 n. 3). ? The chronology here presents a problem, for if Hugh were right in saying that Thurstan was ordained deacon in Dec., it would leave very little time for him to visit York, Durham, and Hexham in midwinter, and still be back in the south by Christmas (below, pp. 60-1). According to ASC, p. 37, the king set out for Normandy on21 Sept., and

1114]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

59

case was as he had stated. The king at first answered that he was not compelling him to make the profession. Thurstan was a subdeacon, and was ordained deacon the fol-

lowing December by William, bishop of Winchester.! In the same month the king went over to Normandy. As a deacon, Thurstan refused to be ordained priest by the archbishop or his suffragans, lest the former should be able to claim more right over him on that account. He came to York, was received as ours as the custom of his office

requires, and was enthroned by Robert, bishop of Chester? He then chose to visit the bishop of Durham and the church of Hex-

ham.’ Travelling there with the bishop and other worthy men, he found at Durham Turgot, bishop of St Andrews in Scotland, lying in what proved to be his last illness? He rejoiced extremely at Thurstan’s promotion and his visit, put himself in his hands, recognizing him as his father and metropolitan, and promising, if God restored him to health, his devout obedience. After a few days at Hexham, Thurstan returned to York, and when the bishop of

Chester had gone home, spent some time in his diocese. One day, as we were assembled in chapter, he asked our advice about the profession which he felt sure would be required of him. We retired to discuss the matter among ourselves, and decided to give him no advice whether to make his profession or not. We knew from experience that one course meant opposing the king and almost all England; the other was contrary to the decree of St Gregory and the custom of the church. One was the path of tranquillity and peace(?); the other that of fear, cowardice, and evasion. Which of them should we advise him, when we were ourselves in doubt about both? The little acquaintance we had with him was

not enough for us to know his mind. We therefore deliberately answered him that we had no advice to give him about it. He was it may well be that Thurstan had been ordained before then; cf. Florence, ii. 67. 3 Robert, bishop of Chester/Coventry 1085/6-1117 (ASC, p. 8; Florence, ii. 70).

^ Above, pp. 53 n. 6, 56—7 n. 3. 5 According to the short sketch of Turgot's life inserted in the Durham Historia Regum, Simeon, ii. 202-5, but not found in the early independent abbreviations of it (M. Brett in The Writing ofHistory in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to R. W. Southern, ed.

R. H. C. Davis and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford, 1981), pp. 119-22), he reached Monkwearmouth on his last journey from Scotland on 28 June 1115, and died at

Durham that year after an illness of two months and four days. The date of his death,

31 Aug. 1115, is not in dispute (Watt, Fasti, p. 290). If the rest of the Durham narrative is

trustworthy, Hugh has misplaced this interview by a year.

THE

60

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Litteratus erat; decreta legerat; canones sciebat; que cui persona profiteri debeat, non ignorabat: set si quid honestius et iustius agens ab archiepiscopo uiolenter eiceretur, id ei pollicebamur, nos alium nec metu nec dampno neque quo modo, nisi precepto summi pontificis, recipere. Quod audiens, consilium suum aperuit, nolle profiteri, set uelle Romam proficisci, et domini pape consilium et preceptum sequi. Et nos igitur, ut de nostra pollicitacione cercior esset, et ad bene agendum magis animaretur, illi, licet nondum episcopo, nondum sacerdoti, subiecctionem et obedienciam canonicam ultro promisimus. Nec multo post, electis quos de nostris secum ducere placuit, et de eleccione sua litteris ad^ dominum papam acceptis, ad mare tendit.

Rad(ulphus) archiepiscopus? iam ante* illi mandauerat, et in

f.9"

profeccione hac citra mare ei colloquens dixerat, quatinus Cantuariam ueniret et sacerdos ordinari et archiepiscopus consecrari. Cui quod iustum et decens uidebatur respondens, neutrum uoluit. Post Natale? Domini, quod prope erat, in Normanniam transiuit, licencia regis inde Romam profecturus; set archiepiscopus misit post eum ad regem recia aurea et obices argenteas, quibus retento Romam properanti uia obstrueretur.! Prohibitus est igitur Romam ire. Eo tempore Cono Prenestinus episcopus, uir uenerabilis, uerax et iustus et constans, in Francia et Normannia sedis Apostolice legacione fungebatur? Huic uero rex mandauit consilium dari sibi quid de Eboracensi |electo eum agere oporteat, quem Cantuariensis archiepiscopus absque subieccionis professione consecrare nolebat, et ipse modo cum eo erat necdum quidem sacerdos

ordinatus. Regi legatus remandauit ut ab aliquo suffraganeo suo, si quis illic adesset, eum presbiterum ordinari faceret, ordinatum ad ipsum mitteret, et ipse eum ad dominum papam cum litteris suis, ut eum consecraret, et consecratus palleum acceptum deferret. Quorum alterum fecit, alterum uero non consensit. Erat cum rege Ranulphus Dunelmensis episcopus; ab illo precepto regis in a acuA

® archiepiscopus Jo.; episcopus A

Natale edd.; primo natale A; primo Natali Ra.

* antea Ra.

4 post

© obstruetur A

! Eadmer, HN, pp. 237-8. * Joint founder of the influential house of regular canons at Arrouaise c. 1090, cardinal bishop of Palestrina 1108 X 9—1122, and regularly employed as papal legate in the Holy Land, France, and Germany. He celebrated a series of councils at this time, at Beauvais on 6 Dec. 1114, at Soissons on 6 Jan. 1115, at Reims on 28 Mar. He was in Cologne on

I1I4-15]

HUGH THE CHANTER

61

an educated men, he had read the decrees, he knew the canons; he knew who should make his profession to whom. But if for any just or honourable action of his own he should be forcibly deposed by the archbishop, we promised him not to accept any other for fear, or through loss, or for any other reason except a direct command from the pope. On hearing this, he told us his own plan: he would make no profession, but go to Rome and follow the pope's advice

and orders. And we, to confirm our promise and encourage him to

right action, freely promised him our submission and canonical obedience, though he was not yet a bishop or even a priest. Soon afterwards he chose those of us whom he wished to take with him, was given a letter to the pope about his election, and took his way to the sea. Archbishop Ralph had previously ordered him by letter, and now personally told him before he crossed the sea on his journey, to come to Canterbury to be ordained priest and consecrated archbishop. He made a just and proper reply, but would do neither. After Christmas day, which was near, he crossed to Normandy, intending, with the king's leave, to proceed thence to Rome. But the archbishop sent after him to the king golden nets and silver bolts to catch him and block his way to Rome.! So he was forbidden to go there. At that time Cono, bishop of Palestrina, a venerable, truthful, just, and steadfast man, was acting as legate of the apostolic see in France and Normandy.’ The king sent to him to get advice what he should do about the elect of York, whom the archbishop

of Canterbury would not consecrate without his making his profession of submission. He was now with the king, and had not yet even been ordained priest. The legate sent back word to the king to have him ordained priest by one of the archbishop's

suffragans, if one were there, and send him after ordination to himself. He would then send him to the pope with a letter, so

that the pope might consecrate him, and he might then take home his pallium. One of these things he did; but he did not consent to the other. Ranulf, bishop of Durham, was with the king; by him at the king's command, [Thurstan was ordained priest] at 19 Apr.; by July he was back in France to celebrate a council at Chálons-sur-Marne. This saw a serious crisis, with the legate excommunicating the Norman bishops for failure to attend (Schieffer, pp. 198-203; Nicholl, Thurstan, pp. 60-1; R. Somerville, Traditio, 24 (1968), 493-503; Hüls, pp. 113-16; CS i/2. 710).

62

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Pentecoste ...! dicens se haut longe post uenturum pacem inter archiepiscopum et ipsum componere, et de eius consecracione, Deo adiuuante, bene disponere. Post Pentecosten reuersus est, et rex ad proximum festum sancti Iohannis.? Quia uero inter archi-

episcopum et electum (de)* consecracione non erat concordia, qui

episcopale officium non poterat, sacerdotale deuote faciebat, et iuxta scienciam et facultatem suam interiora et exteriora strenue gerebat, dolens quod plene non poterat ad quod destinatus erat. Circa festum sancti Michaelis conuocauit rex apud Londoniam episcopos et abbates, principes et primores regni sui, cum eis de

pace, de statu regni, de negociis? acturus.? Inter quos diuersi ordinis plurimi affuerunt. Ibi rex electo nostro de dilacione consecracionis sue conquerenti, astante comite de Mellent et Nigello de Albaneio,' consilium dedit quatinus proborum uirorum testimonio

archiepiscopum

conueniret,

et ab eo consecrari

humilite(r)

requireret. Quod si antequam faceret, aliquid quod iniustum uideatur exigeret, in sentenciam et uoluntatem domini* inde? se ponere diceret. Letus de consilio, et secum adhibitis Gaufrido Rotomagensi archiepiscopo, Iohanne Lexouiensi* episcopo? Rannulfo Dunelmensi, et multis clericis et monachis et quibusdam laicis, archiepiscopum coram plurimis de suo numero cuiusque ordinis suppliciter requisiuit ut eum consecraret. Cui ille Libenter! inquit ‘faciam si feceritis quod debetis.’ Et Eboracensis: ‘Ex iure ecclesiarum nostrarum, quarum archiepiscopi sese debent inuicem consecrare, a uobis? consecrari postulo. Si quid deinde ecclesie uestre uel persone me debere uel^ canonice monstrare poteritis, exhibere non recuso. Tunc Rotomagensis archiepiscopus ‘Non est’ inquit tantarum personarum uti duplicitate uerborum. Quid ab alterutro exigat, uel alterutro deneget, aperte uterque denunciet.’ * Supplied by Ra. ^ Perhaps add aliis * papae add. Ra. 4 inde Jo.; in A * Luxouiensi AD (ef. p. 210) f plurimis edd.; pluris A; pluribus Ra. * nobis A ^ uel may be sound (cf. p. 130 uel personaliter); alternatively, perhaps transpose to precede ecclesie

! There is a lacuna here, and it is far from clear who the subject of ‘dicens’ is; the king probably, possibly the legate. The Digby chronicle is too abbreviated to help restore the text, but it shows that Thurstan was made priest by Bishop Ralph at this time, at

Bayeux. Both Thurstan and Ranulf had strong connections with the town (HCY ii. 373-45 above, pp. xxvii—xxviii). ? Apparently the Nativity of St John the Baptist, 24 June; Florence, ii. 68 gives midJuly (cf. ASC, p. 37). ? For the council, which opened on 16 Sept., see CS i/2. 709-10.

1115]

HUGH THE CHANTER

63

Whitsuntide. . .'saying he would come back soon to compose the difference between him and the archbishop, and, with God's help, to arrange for his consecration. He returned after Whitsuntide, and the king at the next feast of St John? But because the archbishop and the elect were not agreed about the consecration, the latter, not being able to do duty as a bishop, devoutly did it as a priest, and worked hard to the best of his knowledge and power, inwardly and outwardly, grieving that he could not fully carry out the work to which he had been appointed. About Michaelmas, the king summoned to London the bishops and abbots, princes and nobles of his realm, to treat with them of peace, of the state ofthe realm, and of other business.? Many of different ranks were present. There, in the presence of the count of Meulan and Nigel d’Aubigny,’ the king advised our elect, who complained of the delay in his consecration, to approach the archbishop, with proper witnesses, and humbly desire to be consecrated by him. But if the archbishop, before doing so, should make any apparently unjust demand, he should say that he put himself on the sentence and will of his lord. Rejoicing in this advice, he took with him Geoffrey archbishop of Rouen, John bishop of Lisieux,’ Ranulf bishop of Durham, many clerks and monks, and some laymen, and in the presence of many of his followers of both orders humbly begged the archbishop to consecrate him. The archbishop replied: *Willingly, if you will do what you ought.’ The elect of York answered: ‘I demand to be consecrated by you according to the right of our churches, whose archbishops ought each to consecrate the other. If then you can show anything to be due to your church or yourself by canon law, I

do not refuse to perform it.’ The archbishop of Rouen then said: ‘It does not become persons of such dignity to be ambiguous. Let each openly state what he demands of, or refuses to, the other.’ 4 Above, p. 42 n. 1; Nigel d’Aubigny had been endowed by Henry I after the battle of Tinchebrai in 1106 with the great complex of lands which became the honour of Mowbray (Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, 1107-1191, ed. D. E. Greenway (London, 1972), pp. xvii-xxvi; for Hugh’s references to him see ibid., p. xxv). Greenway describes him as justiciar of Yorkshire c. 1107—«. 1118; but he may also have been in office in the 1120s. 5 Geoffrey Brito, formerly dean of Le Mans, archbishop of Rouen 1111-28 (Orderic, iii. 94-5; v. 236-7 and n. 3 with refs.; vi. 172-3, 388-9). John, formerly archdeacon of Sées, head of the Norman Exchequer, bishop of Lisieux 1107-41, uncle of Bishop Arnulf (Orderic, vi. 142-5, 550-1; Letters ofArnulf ofLisieux, ed. F. Barlow (Camden 3rd Ser., lxi, 1939), pp. xi-xiii; J. Le Patourel, Normandy and England (Reading, 1971);

PP. 32-3).

64

f. 10

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

‘Non loqar tambicionet,”* ait Cantuariensis; ‘nisi professione^ prius tradita nequaquam illi manus inponam.’ Ad quod electus: “De hoc in sentenciam et consilium domini pape paratus sum me ponere." Et ille: ‘Non ita iuuenis, non sum adeo leuis, nec sic agilis nec sic apparatus, ut modo tantum iter agrediar. Et adiecit:* ‘Si dominus papa michi ore ad os preciperet ut uos deposita? professione consecrarem, de hoc minime obedirem.' Quod multi qui aderant pensantes, nec canonice nec sapienter dictum reputauerunt. Electus apud archiepiscopum nichil assecutus, peticionem suam et responsum eius, et excessum in matrem suam, sanctam Romanam ecclesiam, regi retulit. Quod ille indecenter dixisse cognoscens, tamen nec graue nimium nec bene multum accepit. Noster electus, perse et per quoscunque poterat, regi insistebat, deprecans, supplicans, obsecrans, ut dominum et regem suum, ut ei Romam ire permitteret, |ostendens ecclesie sibi commisse et persone sue in Tbonorum7* et detrimentum esse, et in periculum magnum anime, fructus archiepiscopi recipere et officium episcopale non facere,! et quod appellabatur non esse. De tanta uero dilacione et propter quod f minime mandata apud apostolicam sedem accusari et ex iusticia redargui et grauiter iudicari posse, nec regem nec regnum hoc decere. Quapropter exorabatuteum ire£uel saltem mittere beniuole concederet, ut quid regi, quid sibi super hoc agendum esset a domino papa acciperet. Set rex neutrum hac uice concessit, set nec pro utraque ecclesia se missurum promisit. Sic oportune et inportune electus regi insistebat;? archiepiscopus uero regem interpellare et insimulare omnimodis non desistebat, nec eum abire uel mittere sineret, set ut ad profitendum cogeret, accusans quoque eum quod rege inconsulto ad apostolicam sedem illum inuitauerat,

quod huius regni consuetudo" non extitit, rem sic aggerando super fratrem suum, et coepiscopum designatum aggrauare desiderans. Et ipse quidem ignorabat quod consilio regis hoc fecerat, quamquam et ipse rex postmodum, fortasse non recolens, illis eciam quibus presentibus sic consiliatus erat negauit. Set, si opus fuisset, testimonium illi non defuisset. A

* Sense clear, word uncertain (perhaps ambigue) * adiecit D; adierunt A; addidit Ra.

requires something like damnum have dropped out after mandata

^ professione D; professionem 7 seposita Ra. * The sense

f quod Ra.; quid A, Jo.; a verb like impleuit seems to * irem A ^ consueto A

! If Thurstan had any specific texts in mind they were probably C. Chalcedon, c. 25, and a letter attributed to Damasus in Burchard, Decretum ,i. 24—5 (PL 140. 555-6), and

1115]

HUGH THE CHANTER

65

"To be quite plain,’ said the archbishop of Canterbury, ‘on no account will I lay hands on this man unless he first gives his profession.’ The elect replied: ‘On this point I am ready to put myself on the sentence and counsel of our lord the pope.’ The other said: ‘I am not young enough, light enough, supple enough, or prepared enough to enter upon such a journey now.’ And he added: ‘If our lord the pope were’to order me face to face to consecrate you without a profession, I should not obey him.’ Many who were there, on reflection, thought this remark neither good law nor good sense. The elect, having got nothing from the archbishop, reported to the king his petition and its answer, and the insult to his mother the holy Roman church. The king admitted that the archbishop had spoken unbecomingly, but took the matter neither too seriously nor very well. Our elect, both in person and by anyone else he could, pressed the king by prayer, supplication, and conjuration, as his lord and king, to let him go to Rome, showing that it was both a material damage to the church committed to his charge and to himself and a great danger to his own soul if he received an archbishop’s income without doing a bishop’s duties,! and was not what he was called. He might justly be charged and severely judged at the apostolic see for so long a delay and for not having obeyed orders, and this did not become the king or the kingdom. He therefore prayed that the king would graciously permit him to go, or at least to send, so that he might hear from the pope what the king, and he himself, ought to do. But the king granted neither of his requests on this occasion, nor did he promise himself to send on behalf of both the churches. The archbishop elect thus pressed the king both in and out of season.” But the archbishop did not cease to harass the king and make all sorts of false accusations. He should not [said he] let Thurstan either go or send, but compel him to make his profession. He also accused him of having summoned him to appear before the apostolic see without consulting the king, contrary to the custom of the realm; thus piling up the charge against his brother with the intention of injuring his fellow-bishop designate. He did not know that it was by the king’s advice that the elect had done this, though the king himself afterwards denied having done so (perhaps he had forgotten) to the very persons in whose presence he had given the advice. But, had it been necessary, there would have been no lack of witnesses. to Pelagius in Ivo, Decretum, v. 135-6 (PL 161. 369). For the background see R. L. Ben? Cf.2 Tim. 4:2. son, The Bishop-Elect (Princeton, 1968).

66

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Littere uero quas supradiximus a nobis eum de eleccione sua

accepisse, non statim, set transacto toto anno et eo amplius, ad

proximum Natale! tandem summo pontifici et pio patri Paschali perlate sunt, paternitatem et misericordiam eius deprecantes quati-

nus eleccionem nostram apostolica auctoritate confirmaret, ostendentes quoque conquerendo quod Cantuariensis archiepiscopus a consecrando eum manum retrahebat pro eo quod ei professionem

exhibere recusat, quia hoc et beati Greg(orii) et Honorii decretis obuiat, et id a metropolitanis soli Romano pontifici deberi non ignorat.? Id eciam apud regem optinuit, ut apostolicam sedem adire non permittat, et sic consecracio eius diutius iusto differebatur.? Auditis reuerendus papa peticione et querimonia, illi benigne annuens, huic^ pie condolens, pro utraque scripsit quibus debuit et sicut decuit, clero scilicet Eboracensi de eleccionis confirmacione,

Rad(ulph)o archiepiscopo mandando precipiens ut electum consecraret absque professionis exaccione. Que littere in Quadragesima in Angliam peruenerunt. Quas misit clero, hee sunt:4 P(aschalis) episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, dilectis filiis Eboracensis ecclesie clericis, salutem et apostolicam benedic-

cionem. A beato Greg(orio), qui^ per ampliorem Dei graciam gentis uestre apostolus factus est, nouimus institutum ut post Augustini obitum ipse inter metropolitanos Anglie primus haberi debuisset qui prius consecrari meruisset. Si qui^ ergo hanc institucionem* conantur euertere, dominica sunt increpacione redarguendi. ‘Quare’ inquit ‘transgredimini precepta

Domini propter tradicionem* hominum?" Nos igitur eleccionem

quidem electi uestri! actam canonice, ut a uobis accepimus, confirmamus; ceterum subieccionis professionem, que soli/ Romane debetur ecclesie, aut exigi ab eo aut reddi omnimodis prohibemus. Quod autem* a Thoma quondam archiepiscopo presumptum siue surreptum quam grauiter predecessor noster, sancte! memorie Vr(banus) papa, pertulerit, ex ipsius litteris quas ad eum misit potest euidenter agnosci. Nos igitur id” ipsum ratum

habentes electum uestrum, si Cantuariensis episcopus" pro consuetudine ecclesiarum ipsarum noluerit co(n)secrare, ab *toto ... amplius edd; et eo amplius toto anno A > differabatur A * huic edd.; hunc A a Letter also in MRA i,f. 48 (a) and BL Lansdowne 402, f. 103" (L) qui aL; quodA : qui aL; quodA * constitu L (and tion conceivabl em y A) h e

tradiciones aL ' uestri autem rightly omitted by aL ? archiepiscopus L k

aL;

nostri A ! sancte aL; se A

soli

aL; sole A ™ id aL; ad A, Ra.

1115—16]

HUGH THE CHANTER

67

But the letters, which, as we said before, he received from us about his election, were not transmitted to the supreme pontiff and holy father Pope Paschal at once, but more than a year later, at Christmas.! They besought him, as a merciful father, to confirm our election by apostolic authority, and also complained that the archbishop of Canterbury was holding back his hand from consecrating him, ‘because he refuses to make his profession to him, since this is contrary to the decrees of St Gregory and of Honorius, and he well knows it is due from metropolitans to the bishop of Rome only’.’ The archbishop had also got the king not to allow [our elect] to approach the apostolic see, and so his consecration was being unduly delayed, The pope heard our petition and complaint, graciously granting the former and sympathizing with the latter, and in both cases wrote in the fitting manner to the proper persons, namely to the clergy of York, confirming the election, and to Archbishop Ralph, ordering him to consecrate the elect without exacting any profession. The letters reached England in Lent. This is the one to the clergy: Paschal, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved sons the clergy of the church of York, greeting and apostolic blessing. We know that the blessed Gregory, who by the abundant grace of God was made the apostle of your nation, ordained that, after the death of Augustine, that one of the metropolitans of England should be regarded as the first who had first received consecration. Whosoever therefore attempts to break this ordinance must be rebuked by the reproof of our Lord. ‘Why’, said he, ‘do you transgress the commandment of God because of the tradition of men?” We therefore confirm the election of your elect, which, as you assure us, was canonical. But we altogether forbid the profession of subjection, which is due to the church of Rome only, to be exacted from or given by him. How seriously our predecessor Pope Urban of holy memory regarded what was obtained by browbeating or by trickery from the late Archbishop Thomas, can be plainly seen from the letter which he sent to him. We therefore, confirming the same, order him to be consecrated by the suffragans of your church, if the [arch]bishop of Canterbury refuses to consecrate him in accordance with the ! i.e. Christmas 1115; the letters were those written late in 1114 (above, pp. 60-1). 2 See above, pp. 60-1, and cf. Eadmer, HN, p. 238. 3 Matt. 15: 3 (adapted).

68 f. 10”

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

ecclesie uestre suffraganeis precipimus |consecrari. Porro cum ad nos uenerit, nos ei per Dei graciam affeccione debita quod

nostri est officii conferemus; set cercius nouerit nichil a nobis

per intermissas personas nisi presens affuerit impetrandum. Dat’ Laterani nonis Ianuarii.! In ea Quadragesima, rex apud Salesbiriam de cuiuscunque* dignitatis et ordinis hominibus consilium magnum conuocauit. Ad quod cum electus noster et quidam ex nobis pergeremus, obuiam uenit qui predictas litteras attulit. Dominica qua cantatur 'Iudica

me, Deus, et di(scerne) c(ausam) m(eam) de (gente) n(on) s(ancta)’, que dicitur prima dominice passionis," consilium sedit. Ibi de electo nostro iudicium conciliatum est. Tercia die passio" eius fuit, in qua audierat introitum* ad missam 'Expecta Domi-

num, uiriliter age et con(fortetur) c(or) t(uum), et s(ustine) D(ominum)’. Que secuta est prophetica lectio, ‘Conuenerunt Babilonii ad regem'? Sicut in Prouerbiis habetur, ‘Vir maliuolus fodit’,* tantum archiepiscopus ante? foderat, tantum ibi fodit, tanta

dedit, tanta promisit, quod regem aduersus eum aperte insurgere fecit. Mandauit ergo illi; non per ecclesiasticas personas, ut

conueniens esset, set per duos consules et duos proceres, Robertum

comitem de Mellent, Will(elmu)m comitem de Warrenna, Wilkelmum) archicamerarium suum, et Nigellum de Albeneio,° primo pretendens ei quod frater suus et ipse eum educauerat, plurimum dilexerat, priuatum sibi fecerat, ad quod erat exaltauerat; fidelitatem et* usus suos et consuetudines iurauerat; ne turbaret regnum nec ecclesiam scandalizaret; set, sicut antecessores sui fecerant, subieccionem profitens consecracionem susciperet.

Quibus ille ait: Beneficia que enumeratis cuncta recognosco, et domino meo regi gracias habeo. Fidelitatem quam feci, Dei auxilio, bene seruabo; usus et consuetudines suas non iuraui,

nec quicquam nisi saluo ordine meo feci. Non est regni turbacio,

* cuiuscunque edd. (cf. p. 118); cuius A; cuiusuis jo. ^ Passionis Ra. © introitum 7o.; introiuitA 4 antea Ra. © in Ra. (but see below: Fidelitatem ...5 usus et consuetudines . . .)

f jurari A

! Not in JL. ? Passion Sunday, 19 Mar. 1116. The introit is from Ps. 42 (43): 1. Eadmer, HN,

pp. 237-8, says the council opened on 20 Mar.; Florence, ii. 69, in a passage drawing otherwise extensively on Eadmer, agrees with Hugh on 19 Mar. Simeon, ii. 249-50,

while based on ‘Florence’, breaks off his account to give a defence of Thurstan’s case.

> Ps. 26: 14 (27: 14); Dan. 14: 27 (Bel and the Dragon, 28), the beginning of the passage set for the epistle on the Tuesday of Passion Week.

1116]

HUGH THE CHANTER

69

custom of the churches. Furthermore, when he comes to us, we shall by God's grace bestow on him with due affection that which pertains to our office. But he may be sure that nothing can be obtained from us through an intermediary unless he is himself present. Given at the Lateran, 5 January [1116]. In Lent of that year, the king called a great council at Salisbury of every rank and order. As our elect and some of us were on our way there, we were met by a man bringing the above letter. The council sat on the Sunday on which is sung: Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy’, the Sunday which is called the first of our Lord's Passion. At this council judgement was considered about our elect. Thurstan's ‘passion’ was on Tuesday, when he had heard the introit ‘O tarry thou the Lord's leisure: be strong and he shall comfort thine heart; and put thou thy trust in the Lord', followed by the lesson from the prophets, “The men of Babylon assembled before the king"? It is written in Proverbs ‘An ungodly man diggeth up evil’;* the archbishop had dug up so much beforehand, dug up so much now, gave so much, promised so much, that he made the king openly attack Thurstan. He sent to him, not as would have been proper, by clergy, but by two earls and two nobles, Robert, count of Meulan, William, earl of Warenne, William his arch-chamberlain, and

. Nigel d'Aubigny? He represented, first, that he and his brother had brought Thurstan up, had shown much affection for him, had made him their confidant, and raised him to the position he now held; he had sworn fealty and the king's uses and customs; let him not then disturb the realm and disgrace the church, but make his

profession and receive consecration as his predecessors had done. Thurstan’s reply was: ‘I acknowledge all the benefits which you recount and am grateful to my lord the king. The fealty which I swore I will, God helping me, honestly keep. I never swore to “his uses and customs”, and did nothing without “saving my order”. It is no 4 Cf. Prov. 16: 27. 5 For Robert and Nigel see above, pp. 42-3, 62-3. William II de Warenne was restored to the earldom of Surrey in 1103, stood high in the king's favour thereafter, and died in 1138 (Clay in EYC viii. 7-12; C. W. Hollister, Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London/Ronceverte, 1986), pp. 140-4). William the chamberlain is presumably William de Tancarville, a frequent witness to royal writs from 1082 to his death c. 1129 (G. H. White in CP x, Appendices, pp. 47-54, esp. 52; J. Le Patourel, as p. 63 n. 5, pp. 37-8).

THE

70

non

HISTORY

OF THE

est ecclesie scandalum,

CHURCH

OF YORK

ecclesie cui me

preesse uoluit,

(supra)* quam nulla in regno esse debet et regii diadematis dimidium est, suum ius defendere; quod ipsius regis agere esset, uel saltem, ut bonum et iustum a(d)uocatum, equaliter se tenere. Qui scandalum iniuste mouet et facit, attendat quis est qui dicit, “Ve homini illi per quem scandalum uenit".! Profiteri uero nec debeo nec audeo, quia hoc decreto beati Greg(orii) et Honorii et Vrbani paparum redargucioni? aduersari non ignoro Si quid predecessores mei inconsulte uel coacti fecerunt, hereditate non possideo sanctuarium Dei? Set suppliciter deprecor dominum meum regem meum* ut ecclesie, cui me uel quam michi tradidit, rectitudinem et iudicium iustum consenciat.’ ‘Ad regem redeunt, sic ordine rem referentes.' Inimici iudices? nostri erant. Archiepiscopus enim et complices sui erant cum rege. Noster in capella quadam cum paucis remanserat, nec quemlibet de nostris adesse uoluit,* ne, si regi contradiceret, ipse illis imputaret. Premunitus fuerat ab aliquo amico talem assultumf illi fieri. Qui prius uenerant redeunt uerbum regis adbreuiatum nun-

ciantes, et ipsi quidem testes, quoniam illum diligebant? ‘Rex’ inquiunt “de professione causam non ingredietur, nec ingredi consenciet, set alterum erit e duobus, aut uos professionem facere aut® regis odium incurrere, nec quenquam uobiscum^ consanguinitate: propinquum in tota terra sua remanere.'

In arcto res sita erat. Pauca premeditatus, a Deo consilio accepto, sic ait: 'Graue quidem michi est regis odium sempiternum habere, grauius |autem Deum et Romanam ecclesiam scienter offendere; ut uero neutrum faciam, quod rex michi dedit eligo potius dimittere. Ite, si uobis placet, et regi sic nunciate.’ Euntes renunciauerunt. Archiepiscopus et quidam de assistentibus non credebant. Quibus comes de Mellent ait: ‘Si bene noui hominem, non dixit quod facere nolit; set, ut audiatur a pluribus ex ore ipsius, coram ueniat.’ Mandatus/ ad regem uenit, et relato ab

internunciis quod detulerant, plene concessit. Manum igitur porrigenti et ipse, manu in manum, quod ei donauerat regi dimisit. * Supplied by jo.

haps to be deleted

> redargucioni edd.; redargucionem A

? judici A

* noluitA

petuum add. D (cf. odium sempiternum below)

! sanguinitate A ! Matt. 18: 7.

3 Cf. Ps. 82: 13 (83: 12).

mandatis A

© meam A; per-

f assubeum A

8 per-

^ nobiscum A

? Above, pp. xxxi-xxxii, 10-11.

1116]

HUGH THE CHANTER

71

disturbance ofthe realm or disgrace to the church for me to defend

the rights of the church of which he wished me to be the head, of

which no church in the realm ought to take precedence, and which is the half of the king's crown; a task which should be the king's own, or else he should at least hold the balance even, as a good and just patron. Let him who provokes and causes an offence unjustly consider who said: “Woe to that man by whom the offence cometh." But I neither ought nor dare to make my profession, knowing well that this is contrary to the decree of St Gregory and to the rebuke of popes Honorius and Urban Whatever my predecessors may have done in ignorance or under compulsion, I do not take to myself the houses of God in possession.? But I humbly beseech my lord and king to grant a righteous and just judgement for the church to which he gave me, or which he gave to me.’ The messengers returned to the king and reported the proceedings. Our enemies were our judges;* for the archbishop and his fellow-plotters were with the king. Our elect had remained in a chapel with a few attendants: he would not have any of us present, lest, if he opposed the king, he should lay the blame on them. He had been warned by one of his friends that such an attack would be made. The first messengers came back with a terse message from the king, and were themselves witnesses, since they loved him “The king’, they said, ‘will not open the question about the profession, nor allow it to be opened. It must be one of two things. You must either make your profession, or incur the king's hatred—in which case none of your kindred may remain in all his lands.’ There was no escape. He thought a little, took counsel with God, and replied: ‘It is a dreadful thing for me to have the king's everlasting hatred, but even more dreadful knowingly to offend God and the church of Rome. To avoid doing either, I prefer to resign what the king gave me. Pray go to the king and tell him so.’ They did so. The archbishop and some of those present were incredulous. The count of Meulan told them: ‘If I know my man, he means what he said; but let him come, so that more may hear it from his own mouth.’ At the king's order, he came to him, and when the messengers had reported the result of their mission, fully confirmed what they said. The king offered his hand, and the elect, grasping it, resigned what the king had given him. 4 Cf. Deut. 32: 31. The previous sentence is a hexameter, unidentified. 5 Possibly echoing Jos. 24: 22.

72

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Omnes fere qui uiderunt lacrimati sunt. Rex eciam, quamuis crimen? faceret, suspirauit et fleuit. Solus archiepiscopus non plorasse dicitur (credo cor eius religione? induratum fuisse),! set Eboracensem clerum cepit coram rege insimulare quod per eos archiepiscopatum dimiserat. E contra noster electus, nunc uero eiectus, illos excusare, et de sciencia et honestate et probitate satis laudare. Et adiciens *Nichil inquit habeo modo in Eboracensi ecclesia preter fraternitatis amorem, et nunc quidem, Dei auxilio et eorum, paratus essem causam illam de professione canonice defendere contra quicunque inde uellent canonice agere. Ad quod nemo fuit qui responderet. Qui cum eo de nostris uenerant, quid et qualiter actum esset necdum sciebant. Scientibus uero meror, pietas, gaudium simul oborta sunt: de amisso pastore meror, de angaria in qua? fuerat pietas, de uigore et constancia gaudium; et dolore et pietate et gaudio amare (...).°? Nec gestu tristicie signum dedit, set more solitof iocunde et iocose agebat, ac si nichil contrarii contigisset; quod omnes suos modice consolabatur.

Verbum hoc per Angliam et Normanniam cito diuulgatum est. Quod plerique pensantes uehementer admirati sunt, clericum scilicet curialem, et de mensa regia nutritum, et sic familiarem, tantum illi restituisse, quia indebitum poscebatur, tanto honori renunciasse. Quibus uero bonitas et uigor mentis inerat, eum

uiriliter egisse" testabantur,! et ei^ magnifice in laudem ascribebant. Litteras domini pape, quas supradictum est eum paulo ante suscepisse, Rad(ulph)o archiepiscopo, cui mittebantur, non tradidit; non enim modo habebat cui consecraretur. Hee tamen hic

subscripte sunt?

Carta prememorati domini pape Paschalis

(Paschalis)! episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, uenerabili fratri, R(adulpho) Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Inter Cantuariensem et Eboracensem episcopos" consuetudinem a beato Honorio nouimus institutam, ut * crimen Jo.; eiu A * religione 7o.; relig’e A. The reading is highly uncertain © de professione edd.; pro defensione A 4 qua edd.; quam A * Supply e.g. adfecti sumus f subito A ® restitisse Ra. Perhaps add et ^ egesse A ! et ei edd; ei et A / Letter also in MRA i,f.42 (a) * Pelagii A ! Pas™ archiepiscopos à chalis a; om. A

1116]

HUGH THE CHANTER

73

Almost all the spectators were in tears. The king too, though it was his own wrongdoing, sighed and wept. Only the archbishop is said

to have refrained. I believe his heart to have been hardened by his being a monk.! Instead he began to accuse the clergy of York before the king of having caused the elect to resign the archbishopric. In answer, our elect, now ejected, excused them, and spoke in praise of their learning, honour, and uprightness. He added: ‘I have now no share in the church of York except the love of the brotherhood. And now I would be ready, by God’s help and theirs, to defend the cause concerning the profession according to canon law against all who might choose to act against them canonically.’ There was no reply. Those of us who had come with him did not yet know what had happened, or how. When we knew, we were overcome by grief, pity, and joy, all at once: grief at the loss of our shepherd, pity for the distress in which he had been, and joy at his energy and steadfastness. And by grief, pity, and joy [we were] bitterly [moved].” Nor did he show any sign of sadness, but was as merry and jocose as usual, as though nothing had happened to him; which was some poor consolation to us all. The story was quickly spread far and wide throughout England and Normandy. Most people who thought it over were astonished that a clerk of the court, fed at the king’s table, and so near a member of his household, should have given back so much, should have renounced so great an honour because more than was due was demanded from him. But those with good and stout hearts protested that he had shown himself a man,’ and set it greatly to his credit. He did not present the pope’s letter, his recent receipt of which was mentioned above, to Archbishop Ralph, the addressee, for there was now nothing for him to be consecrated to. However, here it is:

Letter ofthe aforesaid Pope Paschal Paschal, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brother, Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury, greeting and apostolic blessing. We know that there is a custom established by the blessed Honorius between the archbishops of Canterbury and of ! A provisional translation of Johnson's suggested reading. ? 'The text is evidently incomplete, and the meaning is conjectural. 3 Cf. the introit above (p. 68 and n. 3).

74

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

alter consecretur ab altero. Ceterum professionis exaccio nec a

beato Greg(orio) instituta est, nec iusticie racione conceditur,

unde et a predecessoribus nostris eam prohibitam nouimus. Nos quoque te, frater karissime, ne ab Eboracensi archiepiscopo in consecracione professionem exigas prohibemus, et illi ne faciat interdicimus.* Quod si propter hoc te ab eius consecracione subtraxeris, nos aliis ut eum consecrent precipiemus. Etsi enim prioris locum optineas, non tamen aut ecclesie tue suffraganeus est aut tibi obedienciam debet.’ Qui de nostris cum electo archiepiscopo uenerant, ab eiecto? licencia accepta, domum tristes regrediuntur, quomodo actum sit nunciantes. Qualiter inde nobis uisum fuerit ex subiectis litteris quas paulo post’ illi misimus agnosci potest.

Littere capituli Eboracensis ad suum electum quasi repulsum per regem? Eborace metropolis* archiepiscopo electo |et dilecto, et nunc

quoque dilectissimo, T(urstino), capitulum eiusdem ecclesie salutem et amiciciam et deuote subieccionis obedienciam. Egregia probitatis tue magnificencia tibi gloriam, amicis tuis leticiam, aduersantibus contulit confusionem,‘ et nostrum copiosius erga te accendit amorem. Omnibus fere de prouidencia uestra communis est sentencia in te benediccionis et laudacionis. Colloquentes de te inuicem gratulantur; plerique pre gaudio, alii pietate tue destitucionis lacrimantur; et si qua aduersus eos, quod nequaquam fecisti, non facienda fecisses, pro huius facti tui honestate de cordibus eorum diluta et penitus deleta forent. Gloriari potes, set in Domino gloriare.? Etenim si non est in Deo gloriacio, uanitas est et elacio. Vt quidam sapiens ait: 'Aurum magna inflacio.? Qui uero de se humiliter senciens, diuine efficacie ascribit quod facit, et facilius perficit"

quod intendit, et a Deo premium recipit, set non aliunde requirit. Hec autem superflue dixisse uidemur, modestiam et humilitatem tuam cognoscentes. Quia ergo pro ecclesie libertate ? jnterdiximus à

» ab eiecto edd. (cf. p. 72 electus ... eiectus); abiecto A

* post edd.; uero A; ante Ra. © metropoli A

^ perficit edd.; proficit A

4 This rubric follows the previous letter in A

f confessionem A

® ut edd. (cf. p. 28); et A

! Not in JL. Undated, but the letter of Gelasius (below belongs to the beginning of 1116, with that given above on iru Wi

i sS

1116]

HUGH THE CHANTER

15

York, that one should be consecrated by the other. But the exaction of a profession was not instituted by the blessed Gregory, nor is it permitted on the score of justice; wherefore we know it to have been forbidden by our predecessors. We also therefore, dearest brother, forbid you to exact a profession from the arch-

bishop of York at his consecration, and we command him not to make it. But if you, on this account, refuse to consecrate him, we shall order others to do it. For even though you are the senior, he is not a suffragan of your church, nor does he owe you any

obedience.!

Those of us who had come with the archbishop elect sought permission to depart from him now that he had been ejected, and went home in sorrow, with news of what had passed. What we thought of it may be seen from the following letter, which we sent him a little later.

Letter ofthe chapter of York to its archbishop elect as being rejected by the king To Thurstan, elect and beloved archbishop of the metropolitan city of York, now especially beloved, the chapter of the same church, greeting and friendship, and the obedience of devout submission. The unusual splendour of your uprightness has brought glory to yourself, joy to your friends, and confusion to your enemies, and kindled our love towards you in fuller measure. The almost universal feeling is one of blessing and praise for your foresight. Those who speak of you congratulate each other; many weep for joy, but others in pity for your displacement. And if you had acted unfitly to them (which you never did), that would have been washed away and erased from their hearts by your honourable conduct now. You may well boast, but do so in the Lord.’ For if your boast be not in the Lord, it is vanity and pride; ‘gold puffeth up’, says a wise man.? But he who is humble of heart, and ascribes his deeds to God’s doing, both succeeds better in his aims and receives his reward from God, without looking for it from elsewhere. But to us, who know your modesty and humility, it seems needless to say this. Therefore, because you have fought so stoutly for the freedom of the church, or 2 Ch Roms: 10. 3 Source untraced; cf. pp. 6-7, 28-9.

76

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

nter tuenda, uel magis pro eiecta dignitate restituenda, consta

decertasti, nichil nos separabit a tua obediencia, et spirituali quam super nos suscepimus paternitate. Et quidem non essemus ecclesie filii, set priuigni, si aliqua persuasione uel comminacione alium te uiuente super nos pateremur induci, nisi forte iudicio aut precepto cui iure non liceat refragari. Ex hoc enim tua prelacio, uel si dici debet dominacio, nobis est amabilis et desiderabilis. Viriliter egisti. Confortetur cor tuum: et nostrum quidem bene confortatum est.! Spem enim habemus per regem Anglorum nobis cum honore et gaudio tue restitucionis. Archiepiscopus archiepiscopatum nostrum diucius uacare nolens, ne mora aliqua destitutus restitueretur, regi suggessit ut alteri daret qui patri suo et suis usibus et consuetudinibus contumaciter non refragaretur. Scriptum habebat in corde suo cui dare uolebat, iuste et religiose de restitucione cogitans. Cui non recta* petenti rex recte respondit: ‘Non sic estimo archiepiscopatum liberum esse. Pro amore meo quod potuit michi dimissum fecit. Aut cicius aut serius aliud forsitan quam putetis audiemus.’ Post modicum rex mare transiens in Normanniam, quinque annos fere continuauit.’ Exul noster cum eo transiuit, quem satis honorifice secum habebat, nec uolebat quod quilibet eum nisi archiepiscopum? uocaret, dissimiliter faciens et dicens, et contra quod fecerat alios dicere uolens." Cumque ibi moraretur, recogitans se regi dimittere non potuisse nisi quod a rege acceperat, neque regem recepisse nisi quod dederat, et dominus papa eleccionem eius litteris suprascriptis confirmauerat/ Romam

eundi (licenciam)? a rege quesiuit, cui sepe per se et per® alios instanti rex non a(d)quieuit. Ab Anglia longa cathena retentus in Normannia‘ quasi sub custodia detinebatur. Ille nec de itinere suo furtum facere nec regem adhuc exasperare uolebat. Exoniensis

episcopus, a rege contra nos Romam transmissus, iam redierat;

qui, nichil adeptus, Cantuariensi archiepiscopo consilium dando

: * recta edd.; erecta A * archiepiscopatum A * uolens edd.; nolens A Supplied by Fo. * per om. Ra. f Normanniam A "is Ps. 26: 14 (27: 14), and the introit above » P. 68 n. 3; also Ps. 30: 25 (31: 24); Deut. 31:6. ? The meaning hereis obscure, for the subject must be Archbishop Ralph; the sentence Day be ironic or misplaced. The king sailed for Normandy soon after Easter (2 Apr.) .) 11 1116, and did not ret i until 25 Nov. 1120 (ASC, pp. 38-41, Orderic, vi. 294-6). oo pm.

1116]

HUGH THE CHANTER

27;

rather for the restoration of its lost dignity, nothing shall separate us from obedience to you and the spiritual fatherhood to which we have submitted ourselves. And indeed we should not be children, but step-children of the church, if through persuasion or threats we should allow another to be set over us while you live, except perhaps by a judgement or command which we could not lawfully resist. On this account, your presidency, or perhaps better, your lordship, is loved and desired by us. You have acted manfully. Let your heart be comforted; ours is of good comfort.! For we hope that you may be restored to us with honour and joy by the king of England. The archbishop was unwilling that our archbishopric should any longer be vacant, lest during any delay the displaced elect should be restored. So he suggested to the king that he should give it to another who would not obstinately oppose his father [William I] and his uses and customs. He had it written in his heart to whom he wished to give it, with just and pious thoughts of restitution? But the king gave the right answer to his unrighteous request: ‘I do not consider the archbishopric free to that extent. The elect, for love of me, resigned to me what was in his power to resign. Sooner or later we shall perhaps hear something you are not expecting.’ A little later the king crossed to Normandy and stayed nearly five years.’ Our exile crossed with him, and the king treated him with sufficient honour, and refused to let anyone call him anything but archbishop, contradicting his own acts by his words, and wishing others to use words conflicting with his own acts. And while Thurstan stayed there, he recollected that he had had no power to resign to the king any more than he had received from him, and that the king had not received more than he had himself given; and the pope had confirmed his election by the letter above written.’ So he asked leave of the king to go to Rome; but though he pressed his request in person and through others, the king would not agree. He was kept in Normandy, away from England, as if under guard on a long chain. He would not ‘steal away’, or further exasperate the king. The bishop of Exeter, who had been sent to Rome by the king to plead against us, had now returned without success, and had advised the archbishop of Canterbury by letter to petition the 4 Above, pp. 66-9; Eadmer, HN, pp. 238-9, naturally gives a much less favourable account of Thurstan’s motives.

78

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

mandauerat, ut ipsemet sine dilacione dominum papam requireret.! Cui adquiescens sic se facere dixit et parauit. Transacto trium mensium spacio, communicato nostro cum proborum* uirorum de prouincia nostra consilio, idoneum et factu

oportunum? uisum est, regem |(de)* archiepiscopo ab illo nobis

tradito et suscepto requirere. Duobus archidiaconis de ecclesia nostra, et uni canonico Beuerlacensis ecclesie, et monacho uni Eboracensis monasterii obediencia hec iniuncta est.? Paratis commeatibus, mari transito, peruenerunt ubi rex erat, (nunciato)" aduentu, et quod ei uolebant loqui. Prius per quendam de suis* eos accusatus est quod sine licencia sua illuc transierant. At illis respondentibus non estimare se esse huius momenti quod de hac re licenciam querere deberent, ille subiunxit: “Rex ad presens non potest loqui uobis, set iubet ut expectetis/ eum, usque tunc et illic’, diem et locum designans. Sic ter et quater de termino in terminum,

de loco in locum protrahens, audire nos? protelauit. Prestolabatur eum cuius aduentum presto esse audierat, Cantuariensem archiepiscopum, de quo que uerba aut que alia afferret scire uolebat antequam^ illos audiret. Interim cum illo propter quem uenerant

morabantur omnes uel duo uel unus, quibus eque liberaliter inpendebat ac si archiepiscopi redditus ei detulissent, uel sibi seruari sperasset. Adueniente archiepiscopo et cum rege locuto,? tunc demum et nostris cum rege loquendi dies certus et locus prefixus est. Ad quem uenientes, premissa salutacione ex parte nostra et benigne reddita, sic aiunt: "Eboracensis ecclesia uos! dominum et regem

suum, humiliter requirit quatinus restituatis illi archiepiscopum quem dedistis. Nos illum suscipimus? sicut de eo nobis bene promisistis, quantulum inter nos conuersatus est, et nos inuenimus. Precepto (uestro) nostre* ecclesie? diaconus et sacerdos ordinatus est; obedienciam et subieccionem, sicut animarum

nostrarum preposito, illi promisimus; si inco(n)sulte uel coac-

tus ecclesiam dimisit, quanti ponderis esse debeat prudenciam

* cum proborum edd.; comproborumA > orportunumA * Supplied by Fo. 4 Supplied by edd. (Ra. supplied nuntiatis after suis below) * prius ...suis attached by Ra. to the previous sentence f exspectetis Jo.; expectans A 7 uos A

s quam A

! nos A

vious para.)

* uestro nostre edd.; nostro A

/ Perhaps suscepimus (cf. the past suscepto in the pre-

* William Warelwast, bishop of Exeter 1107-37, frequently appears in Eadmer's HN as an envoy of William II and Henry I to the papacy. He was already blind before he

1116]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

79

pope in person without delay.’ The archbishop agreed, said he was ready, and made his preparations. 1 After three months, having exchanged counsel with worthy men of our province, we thought it right, and a suitable occasion, to petition the king about the archbishop whom he had given us and we had received. The task was enjoined on two archdeacons of our church, and a canon of Beverley, and a monk of the monastery of York.? They made their preparations, crossed the sea, and came to where the king was, having previously announced their arrival and their wish to speak with the king. The king first accused them

through one of his courtiers of having come without his leave. But when they answered that they did not consider themselves of sufficient importance to need to ask leave, he replied: ‘The king cannot speak with you now, but bids you wait for him, until such and such a place and time', which he named. He thus put off hearing us three or four times, adjourning it from time to time and from place to place. He was waiting for the coming of the archbishop of Canterbury, which he had heard was near, wanting to know what message or what else he brought before giving our messengers a hearing. Meantime all, or two, or one of them stayed with the man for whose sake they had come; and he treated them as liberally as if they had brought him the revenues of an archbishop, or he had hoped they were being saved up for him. When the archbishop came and had spoken with the king,’ our messengers were at last given a fixed day and place for their interview. They came with our greeting, which was politely returned, and said: “The church of York humbly requests you, her lord and king, to restore to her the archbishop whom you gave. We accept him. In the short time that he was with us we found him to fulfil the good promise which you made to us of him. At your bidding he has been ordained deacon and priest of our church.* We have promised him obedience and submission as to one given the care of our souls. We have no doubt you know, in your wisdom, what weight should be was sent to Rome late in 1115 to protest at the conduct of the legate Cono and other matters (Eadmer, HN, p. 234), but his diplomatic career was far from over. ? None of these envoys can be identified. 3 Archbishop Ralph left England after 8 Sept. 1116, and found the king at Rouen (Florence, ii. 70; Eadmer, HN, p. 239). For the conduct of his embassy to Rome see

D. Bethell, JEH 19 (1968), 150-4. 4 The transmitted text is clearly corrupt; it is conceivable that the canons meant ‘by your command he was ordained . . . to your church’.

80

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

uestram nosse non ambigimus. Potuit autem potestati uestre dimisisse que de liberalitate* regum et principum et ceterorum ecclesie donata sunt; alia non potuit.! Nemo est preter summum pontificem qui nos a iugo subieccionis sue absoluere queat. Nisi per illum non possumus alium recipere, utpote deinceps honore

carituri et infamia notandi.”® Adhibuerant secum Ranulphum Dunelmensem episcopum et

quosdam ecclesie nostre amicos. Respondenti regi quod bene consuleret ecclesie nostre et pro quo petebant, et illi subdiderunt: *Oporteret, domine rex, et bene et celeriter, etenim nec parochia nec diocesis, nedum prouincia sine graui periculo diu uacare

fe12Y

potest. Et quia in regno uestro ad nutum uestrum* cuncta procedunt, ac^ cor regis in manu Dei est,’ et? uobis magis incumbit melius prouidere. Bene et celeriter se prouisurum pollicitante, licencia accepta discesserunt, et cum exule nostro locuti, quamcicius repatriantes ad propria reuersi sunt. Preter emulos nostros nemo fuit qui requisicionem hanc iusticie et honestati nobis non annumerasset. Quem Cantuariensis eici fecerat, faciebat adhuc et detineri ne Romam iret. Ipse uero paratus uenerat illuc ire. Expoliatus noster ad regem ueniens dixit se nolle longius? remanere, set de statu suo et de consilio anime sue apostolicum consulere. Rex uero, isto constanter et diu negante et renitente, precibus, blandiciis, promissis uix optinere potuit ut remaneret quousque archiepiscopus redisset, firmiter ei uerbo pasciscens quod quicquid ipse |detulisset, ad nichil eum cogeret, donec et ille Romam pergens ex ore domini pape audisset. Dixit quoque noster se audisse a familiaribus suis illum, non impetrato quod querebat, nuncquam redditurum, set Ierosolimam adire. Cui rex ait: "Etsi ipse ierit lerosolimam, et ego uos Romam

ire permittam.”

Romam proficiscens, iuste oracionis causa apostolorum limina uisitare desiderans, dixit se euntem cornua emere, quoniam Rome * liberalitate edd.; libertate A > uocandi A * Perhaps eo f Cantuariensem A * longitius A

* in add. A

7 ad A

! The chapter here is reflecting contemporary debate on the distinction between regalia and other aspects of ecclesiastical office; the dramatic confrontation between Pope Paschal and Henry V of Germany in 1111-12 had given it new urgency and precision, See particularly M. Wilks, Studies in Church History, 7 (1971), 69-85; J. Fried, Deutsches Archiv, 29 (1973), 466-95; C. Servatius, Paschalis II. (Stuttgart, 1979), provides a modern account of the background.

1116]

HUGH THE CHANTER

81 given to his having resigned the church unadvisedly and under compulsion. He had the power to resign into your hands whatever was given to the church by the generosity of kings, princes, and others, but nothing more.! There is no one but the pope who can release us from the yoke of submission to him. Except by his means we cannot receive another, since henceforth we would lose our

honour and be branded with infamy.’ They had brought with them Ranulf, bishop of Durham, and some friends of our church. When the king replied that he would take good counsel for our church and for him on whose behalf they prayed, our friends added: “That should be done well and quickly, lord king; for neither a parish nor a diocese, not to speak of a province, can be vacant for long without grave danger. And because in your kingdom all things obey your nod, and because “the king’s heart is in the hand of God"? it is the more your duty to make better provision.’ As the king promised that he would provide well and quickly, they took their leave and departed, and after speaking with our exile went home as quickly as they could. Everybody but our rivals gave us credit for a just and honourable petition. The archbishop of Canterbury managed to have the man whom he had displaced still further hindered from going to Rome. He had, however, come prepared to make the journey himself. Our victim came to the king and said that he would stay no longer, but wished to consult the pope about his position and his soul's health. But the king, in the face of his steadfast and prolonged refusal and resistance, only just succeeded, by prayers, coaxing, and promises, in persuading him to stay till the archbishop should return, making a definite bargain that, whatever answer the archbishop brought back, he would not compel him to anything until he also had gone to Rome and had his answer from the pope's mouth. Our elect also said that he had heard from those about him that the archbishop, if he failed in his request, would never come back, but go to Jerusalem. And the king replied: 'Even if he does go to Jerusalem, I shall

allow you to go to Rome." As the archbishop set out, desiring to visit the thresholds of the Apostles for his duty of prayer there, he said that he was going to ? Cf. Prov. 21: 1. 3 Eadmer (HN, pp. 239-43) and Hugh diverge here even more widely than usual. For Eadmer, Ralph's chief preoccupation was the legation of Anselm of St Saba (below, pp. go-1 and CS i/2. 716-17).

82

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

omnia uenalia erant. Vtrum propter cornua uel alia emenda, scimus quod cum sit Cantuariensis possessio opulens* et redditibus fecunda, archiepiscopus professionis huius adipiscende causa de thesauro ecclesie aliquantum uenundedit; de terris uero aliquas dedit, aliquas in uadimonium posuit. Pauper tamen? de paupere loco propter resistendum iniurie nec dedit nec uendidit (nec) inuadiauit, Deo ei necessaria adminiculante. Erant cum archiepiscopo in profeccione hac Herbertus Norwicensis episcopus, et Hugo Certesiensis abbas et medicus, et Will(elmu)s de Corbolio Dorouernensis canonicus, postea regularis canonicus et prior sancte Oside, qui et Radulfo in archiepiscopatum successit." Mouentibus illis iter? nec adhuc multum progressis,? archiepiscopus morbo grauiter tactus in Francia in lectum decidit, unde post longum et uix, nec bene conualescens, ceptum iter cum suis arripuit. Transcensis Alpedibus in Lumbardia Herbertus episcopus, egritudine ualida percussus, ulterius tunc ire non ualuit? Fortasse de ambobus ideo Deo sic placuit, quod ambo sic’ cornua empturos superbe dixerant, et erecto collo nec ignoranter aduersus iusticiam eius? currebant.* Abbas medicus, quasi” Deo illos pro magniloquio suo castigante, salutem seruare nequiuit. Deo postea miserente,! de restituenda forsitan adiuuit. Episcopo diebus aliquot expectato, nec conualescente, archiepiscopus cum reliquis suis Romam uenit. Cornuum uenditorem nullum ibi inuenit. Beneuenti tunc degebat sanctus et uerus pater apostolicus, Symonis Petri uicarius,> Symonis Magi aduersarius. * optilens A ^ pauper tamen edd.; paupertatem A (perhaps nec uadiauit) ? iter edd.; inter A; interim Ra.

f Perhaps se

® eius edd.; e^ A; esse Ra.

"ren vi

* Supplied by edd. * progressus A ! misereate A

! Sallust, Bell. Jug. 8. 1. Charges of venality at Rome became more frequent and even conventional as the post-Gregorian pontiffs began to intervene more widely in the affairs of the church at large. See in generalJ. Benzinger, Invectiva in Romam (Lübeck/ Hamburg, 1968), pp. 68—118; for a savage example of the polemic it could arouse, Tractatus Garsiae, ed. R. M. Thomson (Leiden, 1973); for a well-documented example of its practice R. A. Fletcher, St James’s catapult (Oxford, 1984), pp. 204-6; for the ambiguities involved J. T. Noonan in Proceedings ofthe Seventh International Congress ofMedieval Canon Law, ed. P. Linehan (Vatican, 1988), pp. 197—203. : Herbert Losinga, prior of Fécamp, abbot of Ramsey 1087-90 X 1, bishop of East Anglia 1090 X 1-1119, moved his see to Norwich and founded the cathedral priory there (Heads, p. 62; Fasti, ii. 55; B. Dodwell, TRHS 5th Ser., 7 (1957), 1-18; J.W. Alexander.

Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 6 (1969), 115-232). Hugh was abbot of Chertsey 1107-28 (Heads, p. 38). William of Corbeil, the future archbishop of Canterbury, had

been a clerk of Ranulf Flambard of Durham and tutor to his children at Dion. and

1117]

HUGH THE CHANTER

83

Rome to buy horns, since at Rome everything was for sale. Whether he really meant to buy horns or something else, we know that though the temporalities of Canterbury are rich, and bring ina good income, he sold some of the treasure of the church for the sake of obtaining Thurstan’s profession. As to the lands, he sold some and gave others in pledge. But Thurstan, a poor man from a poor place, neither gave nor sold nor mortgaged in the cause of resistance to injury: God provided what was necessary. The archbishop’s companions on this journey were Herbert, bishop of Norwich, Hugh, abbot of Chertsey, a physician, and William of Corbeil, canon of Dover, afterwards a canon regular

and prior of St Osyth’s, who succeeded to Ralph’s archbishopric.’ On their way, before they had gone very far, the archbishop fell seriously ill in France and took to his bed. It was after a long time and with difficulty that he resumed his journey with his companions, still in poor health. They crossed the Alps, but in Lombardy Bishop Herbert fell very ill and could go no further for the moment.’ Perhaps God so willed in both cases, because both had proudly said they would buy horns, and were stiff-neckedly and knowingly hastening against His justice. The abbot, their physician, was unable to keep them well, as though God were punishing both of them for their boasting; he may possibly have helped them to recover, when God afterwards took pity on them. They waited some days for the bishop; but, as he got no better, the archbishop and the others came on to Rome. He found no seller of horns there. The holy and true apostolic father, the vicar of Simon Peter,’ the adversary of Simon Magus, was then staying became first prior of the house of regular canons founded by Bishop Richard of London at St Osyth, 1121-3. He was archbishop 1123-36. Hugh is the only authority for his canonry; he could mean the house of canons at St Gregory, Canterbury, founded by Archbishop Lanfranc, though he never elsewhere calls Canterbury *Dorovernia'; alternatively he means the wealthy secular college at Dover (the *Dorovernum' of p. 94), where Flambard had been dean earlier. William had associations with both places (Heads, pp. 87, 158, 183; Fasti, ii.4;Bethell, JEH 19 (1968), 145-59 (esp. 150 n. 4); Memorials of StAnselm, ed. R. W. Southern and F. S. Schmitt (London, 1969), p. 266; and below, passim). 3 Ralph fell ill for a month at La Ferté, and Herbert collapsed at Piacenza (Eadmer,

HN, pp. 239-41).

4 Echoing Job 15: 26. 5 For the pope as vicarius Petri—a common phrase in the 11th and rath cents.—see M. Maccarrone, Vicarius Christi (Rome, 1952), pp. 59-70, 85-6. Ralph reached Rome by 12 Mar. (Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs (RS, 1879-80), ii. 378). The pope was at Benevento from mid-March until at least 15 May, but his letter to King Henry on behalf of Canterbury is dated 24 Mar. (JL 6545-6; Nachrichten von der kónigl.

84

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Versus Beneuentum non habens archiepiscopus bonum uentum, non exhibuit suum aduentum, neque quem querebat inuenit euentum.! Quo si uenisset, cornua uenalia nulla illic inuenisset. Loquens igitur ad dominum papam per internuncios sepe missos

et remissos, et temptata curia et retemptata, nec prece nec precio

neque quolibet modo optinere potuit quod petebat: responsumque est illi quod pro camera sua auro et argento plena professionem

ecclesie nostre illi non concederet. Set ne nichilo effecto pudibunde rediret, dedit ei dominus papa litteras, quibus mandando precipiebat quatinus haberet quicquid iuste et canonice predecessores sui possedisse dinoscebantur; quod nullus contraibat nec

calumpniabatur. Redeunte in Normanniam, facies eius, sicut Moisi, non apparuit cornuta, nec multi uidentes eum exterriti sunt.’ Set sepe recogitaui que cornua empturum se iactauit. Sunt cornua Dei, de quibus

Abacuc dicit, ‘Splendor eius ut lux erit; c(ornua) i(n) m(anibus)

eius." Sunt cornua diaboli, de quibus in Apocalipsi: bestia habebat *decem cornua, et cauda eius trahebat terciam partem stellarum celi'? Sunt et cornua iustorum et cornua reproborum, de |quibus

Psalmista in eodem uersu, ‘Et omnia cornua peccatorum con(frin-

gam), et ex(altabuntur) c(ornua) ius(ti). 5Horum alia cornua

desideranda sunt, et precio multo, si uenalia essent, comparanda; alia uiriliter confringenda uel studiose cauenda. TCornua duorum mala expugnant; cornua bona inpugnant.]^ Litteris domini pape quas archiepiscopus detulerat regi et quibus utrique placuit expositis,^ dictum est ei quod in Anglia uel Normannia remansisse melius et honestius fuerat. Ipse uero proposuit? necdum in Angliam reuerti. Vetus prouerbium est, ‘Quod rex loquitur stabile debet esse.? Turstinus presbiter uenit ad regem dicens: ‘Domine, archiepiscopus rediit. Quantum uobis placuit expectaui. Tempus est modo et me Romam ire.’ At illi T Corrupt. Read something like cornua iusti mala . . . cornua (peccatorum) * posuit A positis A

5 op-

Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Phil. Hist. Klasse (1900), pp. 403-5; Eadmer, HN, p. 243). For the pope's difficulties at the time see C. Servatius (p. 80 n. 1), pp. 79-

84, 332-5 and references there. ! Hugh indulges in characteristic word-play—'Beneuentum ... bonum uentum ... aduentum . . . inuenit euentum. ? The pope’s letter to the king on Canterbury’s behalf is quite as general as Hugh suggests, so much so that it is unclear whether it refers to the primacy or to the sending of legates contrary to Canterbury’s claims (Eadmer, HN. » Pp. 242-3,JL 6547).

1117]

HUGH THE CHANTER

85

at Benevento. The archbishop having no good wind for Bene-

vento, made no ‘advent’ there, nor did he find the ‘event’ he

expected.! Had he got there, he would have found no horns for sale. He conversed with the pope by means of go-betweens constantly passing backward and forward; he tried the papal court again and again; but neither by prayer nor for a price nor by any other means could he obtain what he sought. The answer was that the pope would not grant him the profession of our church for his room full of gold and silver. But lest he go away ashamed at having gained nothing, the pope gave him a letter in which he gave command that he should have whatever his predecessors were known to have possessed justly and by canon law; things which nobody opposed or disputed.” When he returned to Normandy, his face did not appear to have horns, like that of Moses, nor were many afraid when they saw him.’ But I have often thought over the question, what were the horns which he said he was going to buy. There are the horns of God, of which Habakkuk says ‘And his brightness will be as the light: horns shall come out of his hand.’ There are the devil's horns, of which we hear in the Revelation: the beast had ‘ten horns ... and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven’.> There are also the horns of the just and the horns of the wicked, of which

the Psalmist speaks in the same verse: ‘And I will break all the horns of sinners: and the horns of the just shall be exalted.'$ Some

of these horns are to be desired and bought at a great price, if they were for sale; others to be manfully broken or diligently avoided. The horns of the just overcome evil: the horns of sinners attack good.’ When the pope’s letter which the archbishop had brought was shown to the king and to such as both of them wished, the archbishop was told that it would have been better and more honourable for him to have stayed in England or in Normandy. But he was not minded to return to England even now. It is an old proverb ‘The king’s word must be sure. Thurstan the priest came to the king and said: ‘My lord, the archbishop has come back. I have waited for as long as you wished. Now, it is time for me too to go to Rome.’ But when the king was still unwilling and exhorted him 3 Cf. Exod. 34: 29-30.

^ Hab. 3:4.

5 Rev. 12: 3-4.

7 The translation involves a conjectural emendation of the text.

5 Untraced.

$ Ps. 74: 11 (75: 10).

THE

86

HISTORY

CHURCH

OF THE

OF YORK

nondum uolenti, et (ut)? adhuc aliquantum expectaret exhortanti,”

respondit: ‘Vos scitis, domine, salua reuerencia uestra loquor, quid michi pepigistis.’ Nescio qua pocione obliuionis uel contradiccionis archiepiscopus regem potauerat, set prorsus et hac uice licenciam eundi denegauit. Putabat enim facile eum a papa consecrandum, quod et rex nolebat et archiepiscopus nimium metuebat, nec ille adhuc uoluit regem offendere, expectans tempus miserendi eius. De qua re consilium a nobis requirenti litteris istis mandauimus illi.

Secunde littere eiusdem capituli ad eundem electum

Dilecto et electo domino et patri suo T(urstino) canonici sancti Petri et sui, de bono incepto medium continuum ad honestum finem. Hoc uobis, uenerande sacerdos, suggerere,° persuadere et deprecari uolumus, ut quantum potestis, salua fidelitate Iesu Christi et sancte ecclesie libertate et uestro honore, uel eundo uel huc redeundo uel quicquid faciendo, studeatis regis beneuolenciam retinere. Qua retenta si Romam ieritis, quem uel quos de nobis uobis placebit mandabitis: si uero aliter, tamen sit in consilio uestro, quo semper in hac re sapiencius et utilius usi? estis quam alieno. Hoc ideo uobis dicimus, quia si cum* ira regis discesseritis et aliqui de nobis uobiscum, leuius erit euntibus quam remanentibus, si non possent defendere eos non misisse. Scimus

uere quod quando Will(elmu)s de Beuerlie! Romam iuit, rex magno scrutinio scrutatus est si nostra missione uel consilio isset.

Misimus et illi alias litteras, set occulte, quas deferret domino pape, si Romam iret, et de eius eieccione, et per quos (et de qua) causa diu retentus fuerat; que et hic subscripte sunt.

Littere eiusdem capituli pro eodem electo eidem domino pape transmisse Patri beato et reuerendo domino pape, Dei gracia summo pontifici, clerus Eboracensis salutem et debite ac deuote subieccionis * Supplied 4 usus A

by jo. > exornanti * si cum edd.; sicut A

A

* suggerere f Supplied by Ra.

Jo;

surgere

A

! Canon of York, and later archdeacon, of unknown title; he occurs as canon 1109 X

1135 and 1112 X 1114, and as archdeacon c. 1121 X 1135. He may or may not be identi-

cal with William son of Toli, who also occ. without title r121 X c. 1128, and as arch-

deacon ¢.1125 X 1133 and c.1125 X 1135 (EEA v, Nos. 19, 27, 73; Nos. 31, 70, 74,

HUGH THE CHANTER

87

to wait yet a little longer, he replied: ‘You know, my lord, saving your reverence, what you promised me.’ I know not with what draught of forgetfulness or contradiction the archbishop had drugged the king; but this time too he denied him leave to go. For he thought Thurstan might easily be consecrated by the pope, which the king did not wish and the archbishop dreaded exceedingly; nor did Thurstan yet wish to offend the king, but waited the time when he would take pity on him. He asked our advice about this, and we sent him the following letter:

Second letter ofthe chapter to the archbishop elect To their beloved and elect lord and father, Thurstan, St Peter’s and his canons, from a good beginning a steadfast continuing to an honourable end. We wish to suggest to you, persuade and pray you, reverend priest, in going, or returning here, or whatever you do, to do your best to keep on good terms with the king, saving your faith in Jesus Christ, the freedom of holy church, and your own honour. 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 more 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 are assured 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.

We sent him another letter, but secretly, to take to the pope if he went to Rome, both about his displacement and by whom, and why, he had been kept so long from coming. This is also annexed.

Letter ofthe same chapter sent to the lord pope on behalf ofthe said elect To our blessed and reverend father the lord pope, by the grace of God supreme pontiff, the clergy of York, greeting and the and pp. 124-5). If Hugh is to be taken strictly as meaning that this and the following letter were written at the same time, they belong to late 1117, and William may have been responsible for securing the bulls of Paschal given below on pp. 90-3, one of which is dated in April. Alternatively, he could have been the messenger who was in Rome at Christmas 1115-16 (above, pp. 66-9).

HISTORY

THE

88

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

obsequium. Eboracensis ecclesia, pari dignitate Cantuariensi ecclesie a beato Greg(orio) gentis Anglorum apostolo instituta, noua institucione exigitur illi subiacere et cartam professionis tradere. Que quidem exactio contra apostolicam sedem est inuasio, et, si recipitur, usurpacio facienti quoque non sine periculo. Soli etenim Romane ecclesie metropolitanorum debetur professio. Hanc uero professionem quia electus noster, beati

pape instituta et apostolice sedis dignitatem (et)* suam seruare uolens, facere timuit, consilio, persuasionibus, actu Cantuariensis archiepiscopi et suffraganeorum suorum, ab ecclesia ad quam est electus iniuste quasi |eiectus, sicque per annum et dimidium in exilio multas passus est molestias et tribulaciones;! et nos, populus eius, sumus quasi oues disperse et errantes. Propter quod cum Romam adire et a paternitate uestra consi-

lium uellet requirere, supradictorum callida machinacione quasi sub custodia detentus est, donec Roma redisset qui contra’ Romam ire parabat, arbitrans ipse et sui electi nostri professionem, licet indebitam, a summo pontifice pecunia se posse emere, aperiens os suum in blasphemias? contra Romam, affirmantes omnia esse uenalia Rome; set a sanctitate uestra nil nisi iustum et canonicum impetrare* ualuit. Pro hac igitur integritate ueritatis et iusticie, Francia, Normannia, Anglia nomen uestrum

predicant et benedicunt, et statutis illius deinceps magis contraire uerebuntur.* Nos uero inter alios et super alios beatitudini

uestre gracias agimus, et in bonitate sanctitatis et iusticie uestre

certam spem habemus. Hunc ergo dilectum nostrum T(ursti-

num), uirum uenerabilem, religiose conuersacionis,? de cuius concordi eleccione audistis et litteris uestris confirmastis, ad uos ut ad dominum et patrem dirigimus, et quasi pedibus pietatis uestre prostrati lacrimabiliter supplicamus ut tali uiro sic electo et recepto, et hac occasione eiecto, quod dignum est excellencie uestre faciatis. Elegimus potius exilium pati quam super hunc nobis alium introduci. Comperto Rome electum nostrum sic esse eiectum, et ne Romam ueniret retemptum, dominus papa et tota* curia grauiter * Supplied by Ra. sacioni A

^ Perhaps add eum

* et tota D; tota et A, Ra.

* impetrate A

! Written, therefore, in the autumn of 1117 (above, pp. 68-9). ? Rev. 13: 6. 3 Cf. above, pp. 80-3.

4 conuer-

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

89

obedience of due and devout submission. The church of York, which was founded by St Gregory, the apostle of the English, of equal dignity with the church of Canterbury, is now by a new constitution required to be subject to that church and to deliver it a charter of profession. This demand is a trespass against the apostolic see, and if it is admitted, a usurpation not without danger to the aggressor also. For the profession of metropolitans is only due to the church of Rome. But because our elect, in his wish to observe the institutions of the blessed pope, the dignity of the apostolic see, and his own, has been afraid to make this profession, he has unjustly, by the advice, persuasion, and action of the archbishop of Canterbury and his suffragans, been virtually ejected from the church to which he was elected, and thus for a year and a half has endured in exile many discomforts and tribulations;' and we, his people, are like sheep scattered and strayed. When he wished to come to Rome for this reason, to ask the counsel of your fatherhood, by the cunning contrivance of those men he was detained as though under guard until the return of him who was preparing to go against Rome, he and his party thinking that he could buy from the pope the profession of our elect, though none was owed; uttering blasphemies against Rome,’ and saying that everything there was for sale.’ But he could obtain nothing from your Holiness but what was just and lawful. For this integrity of truth and justice France, Normandy, and England proclaim and bless your name, and will henceforth be the more afraid to transgress its statutes.‘ Among others, indeed more than others, we give thanks to your beatitude, and have a sure hope in the goodness of your holiness and justice. We therefore send our beloved Thurstan, a reverend and religious man, of whose unanimous election you have heard, and have confirmed it by your letter, to you as our lord and father. And, as though prostrate at the feet of your pity, we beseech you with tears to deal as befits your excellence with such a man, so elected and received and on this account displaced. We would rather suffer exile than have another brought in over him. When it became known at Rome that our elect had thus been cast out and prevented from coming to Rome, the pope and his 4 The reference of ‘illius’ is unclear, possibly Rome.

THE

90

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

tulerunt. Erat tunc in Normannia Anselmus nepos Anselmi archiepiscopi, qui modo est abbas sancti Eadmundi, missus ab apostolica sede ut in Anglia legacione fungeretur.' Set rex donec et ipse rediret secum detinuit, blandiciis et beneficiis in Normannia sic ligatum quod Anglia non uidit eum legatum. Huic itaque dominus papa litteras misit, quarum unam regi traderet de eiecti

restitucione, alteras Rad(ulpho) archiepiscopo de restituti consecracione. Vtrarumque exempla hic? inserta sunt.^

Littere domini pape Paschalis? ad regem Fenricum) misse pro eodem electo Paschalis? episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, dilecto filio* H(en-

rico), illustri Anglorum regi,’ salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Nos auctoritate Dei’ de probitate tua non tantum bona

set eciam meliora confidimus. Idcirco monemus excellenciam tuam ut diuine gracie memor semper^ existas, que tibi et regni

pacem et iusticie noticiam! tribuit. Honorem igitur Dei et ecclesiarum eius in regno tuo diligenter (obserua et iusticiam diligenter) exequere, quia per honorem Dei tuus profecto honor

augebitur. Audiuimus electum Eboracensis ecclesie, uirum quidem* sapientem et strenuum, sine iudicio ab Eboracensi ecclesia sequestratum, quod nimirum iusticie diuine! et sanctorum patrum institucionibus aduersatur. Nos quidem neque Cantuariensem ecclesiam minui nec” Eboracensem uolumus preiudi-

cium pati, set eam constitutionem que a beato Greg(orio),

Anglice gentis apostolo, inter easdem ecclesias constituta est firmam censemus" illibatamque seruari. Idem ergo? electus, ut

iusticia exigit, ad suam ecclesiam omnimodis reuocetur. Si quid autem questionis inter easdem ecclesias agitur, presentibus utriusque? partibus in nostra presencia pertractetur, ut patrocinante? Deo utraque ecclesia finem sue iusticie" consequatur.

(Data Beneuenti nonis Aprilis.)”

? huic A

> Letter also in MRA i,f. 48 (a), BL Cotton ClaudiusA i,f. 40° (S. xii; F), Eadmer, HN p. 244 (E) and William ofMalmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, pp. 263 —4 (W); me give a select apparatus * Pascasii A 4 (P\ascasius A © dilecto filio om. a f Anglie regia; regi Anglorum W * auctore Deo a FEW ^ semper memor FE ' normam à / obserua et iusticiam diligenter (efficaciter FE W) aFEW; om. A * quidem om. FEW ! diuine iusticie FEW ™ nec A; uel Qo; neque FEW " constitutionem ... censemus om. q (then illibatam) ? igitur Ra. P utrisque FEW 1 prestante FE (W omits ut . . . consequatur) * justicie sue a * Date supplied from FE

1117]

HUGH THE CHANTER

91

whole court took it very ill. Anselm, nephew of Archbishop

Anselm, who is now abbot of St Edmund's, was then in Normandy, sent by the apostolic see to be legate in England.! But the king kept him with him until his own return, so bound by flattery and gifts that England never saw him as legate. The pope accordingly sent

him letters, one to be given to the king about the restoration of the displaced archbishop, the other to Archbishop Ralph about his consecration when he should have been restored. Copies of both are annexed.

Letter ofPope Paschal to King Henry on behalf ofthe said elect Paschal, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved son Henry, illustrious king of the English, greeting and apostolic blessing. We, by God's authority, trust not merely in good but even in better things from your righteousness. We therefore admonish your excellency always to remember the divine grace which bestows on you peace in your realm and the knowledge of justice. Take heed, then, of the honour of God and of His churches in your realm, and diligently execute justice, because

by honouring God your own honour will surely be increased. We have heard that the elect of the church of York, a wise and active man, has been removed from the church of York without judgement, contrary to divine justice and the constitutions of the

holy Fathers. Now we neither wish the church of Canterbury to be made less, nor that of York to be prejudiced; but we rule that the decision made by St Gregory, the apostle of the English, between the two churches be kept firm and unbroken. Let the elect, therefore, by all means be recalled to his church, as justice demands. And let any question pending between the churches be dealt with in our presence and that of the parties, that by God's help both churches may receive full justice.

Given at Benevento, 5 April [1117]? ! Nephew of St Anselm; monk of Chiusa; abbot of St Saba at Rome; legate to England in 1115 and again in 1116, when, however, he got no further than Normandy, where

he lingered till 1120; abbot of Bury from 1121 to his death in 1148, though briefly bishop elect of London 1136-8. Innocent II quashed this election, in part at least at Thurstan’s urging (CS i/2. 708-9, 716-17; Heads, p. 32; Ralph de Diceto, Opera Historica, ed. W. Stubbs (RS, 1876), i. 248—52; Fasti, i. 1). H. Thurston, The Month, 103 (1904), 571-2 translates a brief life of Anselm from BL Harley MS 1005. ? JL 6552; Eadmer and F provide the date. The letter was written only twelve days later than the colourless letter on the privileges of Canterbury (above, p. 84 n. 2). Unless

THE

92

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

«(Paschalis)^ |episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, uenerabili fratri R(adulpho) Cantuariensi episcopo, salutem et apostolicam

f.14

benediccionem. Quanto amplius de uestre* dileccionis sinceritate confidimus, tanto amplius ammiramur quod ea uidearis exigere que Romane solum competere uidentur" ecclesie. Nosti

enim, frater karissime, beati Greg(orii) ad Augustinum uerba ita

in eius epistola de Eboracensi episcopo esse disposita: ‘Post obitum tuum episcopis quos ordinauerit* presit, ut Londonien-

dicioni subiaceat. Sit uero inter

sis episcopi nullo modo

Londonie et Eborace ciuitatis (episcopos)! in posterum ista honoris distinccio, ut ipse prior habeatur qui prius? fuerit ordinatus.! Quo igitur modo, qua racione ab electo Eboracensis ecclesie professionem exigitis," et propter hoc ei manum imprescriptam/ beati ponere detractatis/ cum, secundum

Greg(orii) constitucionem, nullo modo dicioni tue debeat subiacere? Precipimus* ergo ut pro uestrarum ecclesiarum con-

suetudine eum (debeas)! secundum sanctorum scita canonum consecrare omni subieccionis exaccione deposita. Alioquin nos eum iuxta communem ecclesiarum morem ab Eboracensis ecclesie suffraganeis precipimus consecrari. Etsi enim" prioris locum optineas, nec ecclesie tue suffraganeus est nec tibi

obedienciam debet.? Litteris domini pape rex" acceptis, et consilio ab hiis qui cum eo

erant episcopis et ceteris quesito, et ab illis quoque qui in Anglia erant, utrorumque consilio accepto? domino pape de hac reuocacione obedire (Deo gracias et domino pape!) restitutus est. Ipse

uero habebat litteras supradictas de eius consecracione Ra(dulpho) archiepiscopo directas. Set non fuit ei consilium eas illi in Normannia? tradere, bene scienti quod non (eum) consecraret donec ad ecclesiam rediret. Credebat quod ei dictum fuerat, archiepiscopum in Angliam indilate transiturum. Set credo quod * Letter also in MRA

i, f 48 (a)

4 uidentur edd.; uidetur Aa

^ Paschalis

a; om. A

* ordinauerit a, Bede; ordinauit A

* tue à f epis-

copos 0, Bede; om. A ® prius A corr. (omitted by first hand), Bede; prior à engis a ! detractas a ! prescriptam Q;; scripta A * precipiamus a

debeas a; om. A, Ra. (who then reads consecretis)

™ eum à

ng

rege Ra. (but cf. p. 102 cognita apostolicus ... qualitate). The sentence is anacoluthic

? accepit A repeats non

? Normannia Ra; Normanniam A, Jo.

4 Supplied by jo. A

the date is wrong, the bull cannot have been issued in response to the letter of the clergy of York given above on pp. 86—9, for that was drafted after Archbishop Ralph had

HUGH THE CHANTER

93

|The pope's letter to the archbishop of Canterbury] Paschal, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brother, Ralph, [arch]bishop of Canterbury, greeting and apostolic blessing. The more fully we trust in the sincerity of your love, the more we marvel that you should appear to demand what is only appropriate to the church of Rome. For you know, dearest brother, that the words of St Gregory to Augustine in his letter about the bishop of York run as follows: ‘After your death let him be the head of the bishops whom he has ordained, and be in no way subject to the bishop of London. But let this distinction of honour in futurebe between the bishops of the cities of London and York, that whichever is first ordained be regarded as first."! How then, and with what reason, do you demand a profession from the elect of York, and refuse to lay your hand on him on this account, when, according to the constitution of St Gregory, he should in no way be subject to your jurisdiction? We therefore order that, in accordance with the custom of your churches, you must consecrate him as directed in the holy canons, without any demand for submission. Otherwise, we order him to be consecrated according to the common usage of churches by the suffragans of the church of York. For, although you hold the first place, he is not a suffragan of your church and does not owe you obedience.’ When the king had received the pope's letter, and had asked the advice of the bishops and the others who were with him and of those in England, and had been advised by both to follow the pope's advice about recalling Thurstan, thanks be to God and the pope, our man was restored. He had in his possession the aforesaid letter about his consecration, addressed to Archbishop Ralph. But he thought it better not to present it to him in Normandy, knowing well that he would not consecrate him until he returned to his church. He had been told, and believed, that the archbishop would cross to England without delay. But I believe that he delayed all returned to Normandy. This and the following letter may have been secured by William of Beverley (above, pp. 86—7 n. 1). ! Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, i. 29, and the letter of Urban II (above, pp. xxxi and IO-11). ? JL 6553. Cf. the terms of Paschal's earlier letter (above, pp. 72-5), which was not delivered.

94

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

plus ideo differebat quod nostrum litteras illas habere et eas illi traditurum premunitus erat. Reuocatus noster ad nos regreditur, et cum gaudio magno suscipitur, et multo ampliori quam prius honore et reuerencia dignus iudicatur.! Euoluto aliquot mensium circulo, et Ra(dulpho) archiepiscopo ex industria morante ne precepto pape electum nostrum con-

secraret, uenit ad nos qui diceret papam P(aschalem) obiisse, et Iohannem cancellarium, in papam Gelasium creatum, iam in Galliam peruenisse.? Quo audito, electus noster et nos omnes de tam bono patre et iusto patrono grauiter in? iure quidem constristati sumus, set de nouo spem bonam et confidenciam in Deo habebamus. Ipse enim causam nostram multum iuuerat aduersariis

nostris aduersatus. Multis uero credibile erat quod R(adulphus) archiepiscopus et sui nec illum doluerunt decessisse nec istum letati sunt successisse.

Secundum rerum mutaciones et consilia (mutare)? oportet. Consiliatum est electo nostro* transmarinis et citra, et sibi quidem hoc potissimum uidebatur, in Normanniam? regredi, deinde ad* nouum papam tendere. Id quidem occulte fieri decebat. Comperto rex forsitan inhiberet. Consilio paucis reuelato, cum litteris nostris et quos elegit, quasi propter alia facienda Londoniam uenit. Ibi diuisione facta, ipse uiliter indutus, et equitans non cognoscendus cum/ parte suorum Dorouernum, quam cito potuit transfretauit. Reliqui apud Hestingas transierunt. Deus autem sic disposuit quod qui primi in Normanniam uenirent, ad locum designatum expectare iussi, non amplius una nocte exspectantes adunati sunt. Fuit qui regi diceret Eboracensem electum Anglia latenter egressum per exteras regiones ad papam | perrexisse, set rex minime credens, illo post modicum ad eum ueniente, uerum non dubitale* habuit. Et iam quidam beniuolus noster ad papam pergens apud urbem lanuam ei occurrerat? Per quem, si quid erat de statu nostro quod non cognouisset, edoctus, scripsit regi et archiepiscopo, nostro quoque electo, sicut prudencie sue uisum est cuique conuenire. Que littere subscripte sunt.^ * Perhaps et > Supplied byRa. * Perhapsadd in or a 4 Normannia A * et Ra. "A adds patre (perhaps parua?) ® dubitabile Ra. ^ Letter also in Cambridge UL Kk 4. 6,f. 279 (7) and BL Hariey 633, f. 7o (Q) ! Thurstan returned ‘about February’ 1118 (Eadmer, HN, Pp. 244).

1117-18]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

95 the longer just because he had been warned that our elect had that letter and would present it to him. Our elect on his recall came back to us and was received with great joy, and thought worthy of much more honour and reverence than before.! After some months, while Ralph deliberately delayed, so as not to have to obey the pope's orders and consecrate our elect, someone came to us and said that Pope Paschal was dead, and that John the chancellor, now Pope Gelasius, had already arrived in France? On hearing this, our elect and all of us, sorry as we

rightly were to lose so good a father and just patron, had good hope of the new pope and trusted in God. For John had been of great help to our cause in opposing our adversaries. But many of us thought that Archbishop Ralph and his friends had not mourned the late pope or rejoiced at the accession of the new one. A change of circumstances involves a change of plan. Our elect was advised, both from abroad and at home, and himself thought it best to go back to Normandy, and then go on to the new pope. But that had to be done secretly: if the king heard it, he might perhaps forbid it. Few people were told: with our letter and those of us whom he chose, he came to London as though on other business. There we separated. He put on common clothes, rode in disguise with a few of his party to Dover, and crossed as quickly as he could. The others crossed at Hastings. But God so disposed that those who got to Normandy first, with orders to await the others at the place appointed, did not have to wait more than one night to be joined by the others. Someone told the king that the elect of York had secretly left England and gone through foreign parts to the pope. The king did not believe it; but when the elect soon afterwards came to him, he knew the certain truth. By this time a certain friend of ours had gone to the pope and met him at Genoa; and the pope, having been told by him whatever he did not know of our position, wrote to the king and the archbishop and to our elect as seemed wisest to him in each case. The letters follow. 2 Paschal II died at Rome on 21 Jan. 1118; John of Gaeta, monk of Montecassino, cardinal deacon (and papal chancellor since 1089), was elected pope 24 Jan. 1118; for his death at Cluny see below, pp. 100-1 (Hüls, pp. 231-2). 3 The pope fled from Rome at the end of August; he dedicated a church in Genoa on 10 Oct. (JL. i. 778).

96

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Littere Gelasii ad eundem regem pro eodem electo Gelasius episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, dilecto filio H(en-

rico) illustri Anglorum regi, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem.

Et persone

uestre

et regno

uestro

non

parum

detrimenti esse cognoscitur quod ecclesie tamdiu* manent solacio destitute: quod Eboracensi ecclesie accidisse perpendimus et dolemus. Vnde nobilitati uestre precipimus ut si Cantuariensis episcopus Eboracensem electum," secundum domini pre-

decessoris nostri sancte memorie P((aschalis) pape preceptum,"

et litterarum nostrarum mandatum, consecrare noluerit, utrumque simul ad nostram presenciam dirigatis, quatinus que inter eos causa iactatur, ante nos, auctore Deo, apostolice sedis

iudicio decidatur.!

Littere eiusdem Gelasii pape ad eundem archiepiscopum Cantuariensem pro eodem electo

*Gelasius episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei,’ R(adulpho) Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem.* Pro tue religionis specimine quod filii nostri" abbatis? relacio apud nos maxime commendauit, predecessor noster sancte memorie P(aschalis) papa, me potissimum suggerente, in promocione seu translacione tua a rigore iusticie declinauit.

Ceterum que (de)! te concepta est’ spes, nos decepisse et confudisse perspicitur." Vere siquidem religionis est! Christi uestigia imitari," de quo scriptum est, 'Humiliauit se" ipsum, factus obe-

diens usque ad mortem’. Et de se ipso ipsemet dicit: *Discite? a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde. Hanc? humilitatis formam in religione tua non inueniri, frater karissime, condolemus. Cum enim predictus dominus noster suis te litteris monuisset ut Eboracensem electum, illa indecenti professione deposita, * seruus .. . benediccionem] Henrico Anglorum regi JQ

^ episcopali add JQ,

rightly © episcopum 7 ? domini ... preceptum] domini preceptum sancte memorie P. p. predecessoris 7; preceptum domini nostri sancte memorie Pas-

chalis pape predecessoris Q * Letter also in MRA i,f. 42 (a) and the Cambridge and Harley MSS used for the previous letter f Dei om. a * seruus . . . benediccionem Aa; Radulfo Canturiensi salutem J; Radulfo episcopo Cantuariensi salutes 0 ^ Anselmi add. JO ‘de aJQ; om. A les à * prospicitur à !est om. ajQ ™ insectari J, rightly (insectaris Q) ^-semet JO ? discite 0.70; dicite A P humilis... hanc A47Q; om. à. 3? seposita JQ

1118]

HUGH THE CHANTER

97

Letter of Gelasius to the king on behalf ofthe same elect Gelasius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved

son, Henry, illustrious king of the English, greeting and apostolic blessing. It is known to be damaging to your person and your realm that churches remain so long disconsolate. We have learned to our distress that this has happened to the church of York. Wherefore we direct your nobleness that if the [arch]bishop of Canterbury will not consecrate the elect of York, according to the order of our predecessor, Pope Paschal, of blessed memory, and the command of our letters, you shall send both of them together to our presence, that whatever cause is pending between them may be decided before us, by God’s authority, by the judgement of the apostolic see.!

Letter ofPope Gelasius to the archbishop of Canterbury on behalf ofthe same elect

Gelasius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury, greeting and apostolic blessing. On account of the excellence of your religion, which was highly commended to us by the report of our son the abbot [Anselm],? our predecessor, Pope Paschal, of holy memory, largely at my suggestion, departed somewhat from strict justice in your promotion or translation. But it is clear that the hope we had of you deceived and confounded us. True religion indeed is to follow Christ’s footsteps, of whom it is written ‘He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death.? And He says of Himself ‘Learn of me; for I am meek and humble of heart." We grieve, dearest brother, that this form of humility is not found in your vocation. For though our said lord had admonished you in his letter to consecrate the elect of York without exacting that unfit profession? ! JL 6669. At Rouen on 7 Oct. the legate Cono had appealed to Henry I and his bishops for support against Henry V and his antipope Maurice (Orderic, vi. 202-3; below, pp. 140-1 n. 4). The Harleian and Cambridge manuscripts, in which these texts are also found, are two slightly differing copies of a version of the Liber Pontificalis assembled by William of Malmesbury (R. Thomson, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae ,16

(1978), 93-112). 2 3 ^ 5

The legate (above, pp. go-1, and Eadmer, HN, p. 228). Phil. 2: 8. Matt. 11: 29. Above, pp. 72-5.

98

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

consecrares, ecce iam triennio (facere) contempsisti, (et)?

humilitatis et obediencie* oblitus? in eadem adhuc pertinacia

perseueras. Vnde nos fraternitatem tuam iteratis apostolice sedis (litteris commonemus ut ab hac tandem duritia desinas, et

Eboracensis electi consecracionem secundum communis iusticie* institucionem! et apostolice sedis mandatum, Domino largiente, perficias. Quod si etf nunc contemptor extiteris, nos tibi ex apostolice sedis) auctoritate precipimus ut cum electo eodem nostro te conspectui representes, quatinus que? inter uos causa iactatur, ante nos, auctore Deo, apostolice sedis auctori-

tate’ decidatur.’ iLittere eiusdem pape ad eundem electum Gelasius episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, dilecto filio T(urs-

tino) Eboracensi electo, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem.! Questionem de professione illa inter te et Cantuariensem archiepiscopum" tamdiu durare miramur, quia iusticie (ueri-

tas)" manifesta est. Idcirco fraternitatem tuam litteris presentibus uisitantes precipimus ut, si archiepiscopus Cantuariensis?

in eiusdem professionis adhuc exaccione persistit, tuP ab ea omnino desistas,? et" uel cum ipso uel sine ipso ad nostram

presenciam (uenias).* (Data Ianue vi. (idus) Octobris.)? Electus noster interrogatus a rege, licet rem bene arbitrante, cur uenisset, respondit: ‘Nec dignitati nostre nec metropoli nostre utile est neque decorum, persone uero mee ualde inhonestum est, ibi manere ubi archiepiscopus esse debeo et nominor, nec quic-

.quam episcopale facio. Nec clam me est dominum Cantuariensem ideo retardasse, quod sciebat me pape P(aschalis) litteras habere,

precipientes ei de mea consecracione. Duo bona facit, et suam ecclesiam et nostram archiepiscopi re(gi)mine destitutam. Equale * facere aO; om. A, Ra. > et JO; om. Aa, Ra. © Christi add. JQ 4 ne add. a * communis iusticie a; beati Gregorii JQ f siet Q; etsi af, Ra. * litteris ... sedis om. A ^ neg ! iudicio JQ, rightly (cf. p. 96) ! Letter also in MRA i,f. 48' (o) and BL Harley 633, f. 69- 7o (Q) * pape om. Jo. ! seruus ... benediccionem] dilecto filio Turstano Eboraco electo salutes Q ™ episcopum Q ? justicie ueritas Q; iusticie A; iusticia a, Ra. ? episcopus Cant. ecclesie QO P tu AQ; tua a ? disistas à "et om. a * presenciam uenias o0Q; presencias A * Date supplied from Q; idus was added by W. Levison, Neues Archiv 35 (1910), 412

1118]

HUGH THE CHANTER

99

lo! for three years you have disdained to do so, and even now you persist in your obstinacy, forgetful both of humility and obedience. We therefore repeat to you, brother, by a letter ofthe apostolic see, the admonition to cease at last from your hardness of heart and complete the consecration of the elect of York by God's grace, according to the demands of common justice! and the order ofthe apostolic see. If you are contumacious even now, we command you by apostolic authority to appear before us with the said elect, in order that the cause pending between you may be decided, as God wills, by the authority of the apostolic see.?

Letter ofPope Gelasius to the elect of York Gelasius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our beloved son, Thurstan, elect of York, greeting and apostolic blessing. We are surprised that the question between you and the archbishop of Canterbury concerning the profession lasts so long, since the justice is manifest. We therefore approach you by this letter and direct you, brother, that if the archbishop of Canterbury still persists in exacting the profession, you should take no steps in the matter, but should come into our presence either with him or without him. Given at Genoa, 10 October.’ Our elect was asked by the king (who knew the answer quite well) why he had come. He replied: ‘It is neither profitable nor becoming to our dignity nor to our metropolitan church, and it is extremely disgraceful to me personally, for me to stay where I ought to be, and am called, an archbishop, yet' can exercise no episcopal functions. And it does not escape me that the archbishop of Canterbury has purposely delayed [his return] because he knew that I have Pope Paschal's letter giving him orders as to my consecration. He is killing two birds with one stone: he has deprived both his own church and ours of archiepiscopal government. It is ! The variant reading ofJand Q is curious and can scarcely be a mere scribal error. A case can be made for either version; Ralph's refusal to consecrate Thurstan could be said to be contrary to the rules of common justice since it was a means to secure an otherwise unexampled profession of obedience. Alternatively, it was contrary to the ruling of Gregory I on the equal dignity of the sees (above, p. xxxi). Both phrases reappear together on pp. 156—7 below, and in the privilege of Calixtus II (below, pp. 168-71). ? Not in JL.

? Not in JL.

100

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

est pene ac (si)* reg|num uestrum nullum haberet archiepiscopum. Iccirco ueni nouo pape presenciam meam exhibiturus, ut saltem de hac cura me absoluat; set id sine consciencia et licencia uestra

nolui.' Rex expectare iussit eum in proximo quid inde uellet illi dicturus. Prope erat Natale Domini. Litteras domini pape

G(elasii) rex acceperat.

Infra Natale electus noster, adductis? secum bonis uiris, uenit ad archiepiscopum in hospicium suum, et ipse tunc aliquantum

paciebatur, et litteras pape G(elasii) illi tradidit? Quibus acceptis ‘En,’ ait (porrexit et alias), ‘hee sunt littere pape P(aschalis), quas debui uobis tradidisse, si, sicut debuistis, in Angliam uenissetis.’

‘De litteris! inquid defuncti pape nichil modo habeo facere’, nec suscepit eas. 'Istas uidebo et crastina uobis respondebo." Quibusdam uerborum interieccionibus hinc et inde eiaculatis, noster cum suis dicessit. Commonefactus ab aliquo archiepiscopus non bene fecisse quod litteras pape P(aschalis) accipere neglexerat, ad nostrum remisit ut eas illi remitteret, quas remisisse plerisque molestum fuit. Postea archiepiscopus respondit, quan(do) in prouincia sua esset, si quis eum requireret, facturum quod deberet. Pro-

posuerat in animo usque in longum tempus Angliam non intrare. Post Epiphaniam audito papam Turonis* regi Francorum mandasse ut illic die designato ei occurreret? sacerdos noster obnixe? regi supplicabat quatinus eum illuc ire dimitteret; set nullatenus uoluit. Vtrum archiepiscopus noluit uel non potuit, nec ipse iuit. Vtrique* rex concessit quos uellent mittere. Rex Francie regaliter cum archiepiscopis, episcopis et nobili clero et procerum comitatu summo pontifici obuiam ibat, et cum eo legati nostri, quia electum nostrum satis diligebat. Cum autem uenissent ad castrum Nantho-

nis, nunciatum est regi papam G(elasium) defunctum esse et Cluni-

aci sepultum, et ab episcopis et cardinalibus, qui cum eo uenerant, Guidonem Viennensem archiepiscopum, inuitum et renitentem, in papam raptum, et Calixtum appellatum.* Quod audientes rex et * Supplied by edd. * uterque A

adductus A

© Turum A

4 obimple A

! Theking was much preoccupied by civil war in Normandy and alonghis frontiers; in Dec. he made an unsuccessful effort to relieve the siege of Alencon (Orderic, vi. 206—9). ? Archbishop Ralph had been in ill health since his journey to Italy in 1116 (above, pp. 80-5). He suffered a serious stroke on 11 July 1118 or 1119, and never wholly recovered (Orderic, vi. 318; WMGP, pp. 129, 131-2; below, pp. 182-3). A Canterbury tradition first recorded in the 14th cent. similarly asserted that Ralph died three years after

1118-19]

HUGH THE CHANTER

IOI

almost the same as if your kingdom were without an archbishop. I have accordingly come to present myself before the new pope, that he may at all events release me from this cure; but Idid not wish this to take place without your knowledge and permission. The king ordered him to wait for the answer he would shortly give him.! It was near Christmas. The king had received Pope Gelasius’s letter. At Christmas time our elect, taking some friends with him, called on the archbishop at his lodging (the archbishop was somewhat indisposed), and gave him the letter of Pope Gelasius? When he had received this, ‘See’, said he (producing another), ‘this is Pope Paschal’s letter, which I should have given you, if you had come to England, as you ought to have done.’ ‘With a letter of a dead pope’, said the archbishop, ‘I have nothing to do now’, and he refused it. “This letter I will look at, and answer you tomorrow.’ After a sharp exchange of words, our elect and his friends left. T'he archbishop was warned by someone that he had been wrong in refusing Pope Paschal's letter, so he sent to our elect to have it sent back. Most people regretted that he sent it back. The archbishop

afterwards replied that when he should be in his province, he would do his part, if anyone requested it of him. He had made up his mind to be a long time in returning to England. After Epiphany, hearing that the pope was at Tours and had sent to the king of the French instructing him to meet him there on the day appointed,’ our priest earnestly besought the king to let him go

there; but the king would have none of it. Whether the archbishop would not or could not, he did not go either. The king allowed

each of them to send whomever they wished. The king of France went to meet the pope in royal state with archbishops, bishops, the superior clergy, and a company of nobles, and with him our envoys, because he loved our elect well. But when they came to the town of Nantes, news came to the king that Pope Gelasius was dead and buried at Cluny; and that Guy, archbishop of Vienne, had been seized upon by the archbishops and cardinals who came with him, made pope in spite of his refusal and resistance, and called Calixtus. Hearing this, the king and most of his company an attack of palsy (‘Birchington’ in Anglia Sacra, ed. H. Wharton (London, 1691), i. 7; for the author see Chronica Johannis deReading, ed.J.Tait (Manchester, 1914), p. 63). ? Suger, who arranged the meeting, says it was to be at Vézelay (Vie deLouis VI le Gros, ed. H. Waquet (Paris, 1929), p. 202). 4 Gelasius died on 28 or 29 Jan. 1119; Guy, archbishop of Vienne—the sponsa, ‘She’, of the verses below—since 1088, was elected at Cluny on 2 Feb. (U. Robert, Histoire du pape

102

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

plurimi reuersi sunt. Quidam ad eum transierunt. Ipse uero, deappellatus officio, parum agere uoluit donec ab illis qui Rome erant quod isti fecerant confirmatum accepit. De cuius translacione quidam sic ait: (Sponsum) sponsa suum dimisit," filia matri: Mater eum rapiens? fecit eam uiduam. Alter habebit eam forsan uiuente priore, Nec de quatuor hiis uilus® adulter erit.!

Confirmatus papa perambulabat Burgundiam et Aquitaniam uersus Hispanias, et Narbone concilium tenuit? Cognita apostolicus multorum relacione nostre habitudinisf qualitate, uidelicet professionis exaccione, consecracionis denegacione, eieccione, reuocacione in Normanniam, reditu, et per quem

et quamobrem ad predecessores suos ueniendi retinaculis, misit litteras R(adulpho) archiepiscopo, in quibus eum superbum uocat, et de contemptu preceptorum predecessorum P(aschalis et)

G(elasii) acriter redarguit, ideo quod de consecracione Eboracensis electi nichil eis obedientie uel reuerencie detulerat. Intelligens ergo apud papam et curiam se nichil gracie habere, set plurimum exosum esse, licenciam a rege quesitam ut se excusatum iret facile habuit; et ire uoluit, set non potuit, a rege Francorum et comite

Andegauensi illi suisque conductu denegato et aduentu prohibito.? ‘Qui fodit foueam, incidet in eam; et qui uoluit lapidem, reuertetur ad eum." Quia ergo^ ipse uenire uel idoneos legatos mittere non potuit, occulte modicum uernulam has appologeticas deferentem transmisit.

Littere eiusdem archiepiscopi Cantuariensis ad eundem papam | Calixto Dei gracia summo pontifici frater R(adulphus), indignus

sancte Cantuariensis ecclesie sacerdos, debitam subieccionem et

* Verses also in Lambeth Palace 451, f. 80° (D), as printed in PUE, i. 195, late 12th cent., and

Cambridge, Emmanuel College 38, f. 2 (E), early 13th cent. ^ sponsum * concessit EP 7 rapuit EP * nullusA f bitudinisA ^ igitur Ra. tulerant A

om. A 8 de-

Calixte II (Paris/ Besancon, 1891), pp. 43-7). He had exercised a legatine commission briefly a England in 1100, and more recently in France (CS i/2. 655; Schieffer, pp. 195-8). ! H. Walther, Initia carminum et versuum medii aevi posterioris Latinorum (Gottingen,

1959), No. 18542.

1119]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

103

returned home. Some went on to the pope. But he, having been called away from his office [as archbishop], would do but little, until he heard that what these men had done was confirmed by those who were at Rome. Here is an epigram on his translation: She yields her husband to her mother And must her widowhood begin; If, while he lives, she wed another, None of the four commits a sin.!

After confirmation, the pope went through Burgundy and Aquitaine towards Spain, and held a council at Narbonne When the pope had learned from many informants the nature of our predicament, namely the demand ofa profession, the refusal of consecration, the dismissal, the recall to Normandy, the return, and the author and reason of the restraints from approaching his predecessors, he sent a letter to Archbishop Ralph, calling him proud, and bitterly reproaching him for flouting the orders of his predecessors, Paschal and Gelasius, because he had shown neither obedience nor respect to them in the matter of the consecration of

the elect of York. So, gathering that he was out of favour with the pope and his court and thoroughly hated, he asked and easily obtained leave from the king to go and apologise. He wished to go, but could not, because the king of the French and the count of Anjou refused him and his men a safe conduct and forbade their coming.’ ‘Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein; and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.” So, because he could not come himself or send suitable envoys, he secretly sent a humble underservant bearing this apology:

Letter ofthe archbishop of Canterbury to the pope To Calixtus, by the grace of God supreme pontiff, brother Ralph, unworthy priest of the holy church of Canterbury, due submission and faithful services to the best of his power, if he be ? Apparently a mistake for Toulouse, where Calixtus celebrated a council on 8 July (JL i. 783-4; Robert, Histoire, pp. 54—6). 3 The war on the borders of Normandy continued unabated until May 1119, when King Henry proposed the marriage of his son William to the daughter of the Count of Anjou (Orderic, vi. 224-5). Peace was not made with King Louis until 1120 (below, pp. 160-1); Luchaire, pp. 103-39; Orderic, vi. 282-95; Liber Monasterii de Hyda, ed. E. Edwards (RS, 1866), pp. 309-19). ^ Prov. 26: 27.

104

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

fidelia pro posse, si dignetur, seruicia. Per condicionem, domine pater, uisum est michi mea? uobis offerre seruicia, quia uenit ad aures nostras preualuisse super me uerba iniquorum! apud Christianitatem uestram. Vocatus enim sum litteris uestre sanctitatis sigillo signatis superbus et antecessorum uestrorum P(as-

chalis et) G(elasii) contemptor preceptorum, de consecrando uidelicet Eborace ciuitatis electo," cum nullus illorum, nec uerbo nec scripto nec legato, hoc uel semel in tota uita sua michi

preceperit.° Quod si forte ab aliquo maliuolo estimetur quod legatum deferentem consecracionis preceptum non receperim, aut litteras precipientes uidere contempserim, nouit Deus et nouit? anima mea quia prorsus immunis* est ab hoc transgressionis neuo tota consciencia‘ mea. Iccirco, quia priusquam diuine dignacionis miseracio uos communi ecclesie sue prefecerit patrem, ego, per illius pietatis clemenciam, considerata uestre sublimitatis humilitate ac utili dulcis consilii delectacione, me ipsum coram Deo sanctitati uestre totum effuderam, et omnes infirmitates tam corporis quam anime in te, sicut preelecto patri et sapienti medico," consulendas et refouendas ostenderam. Commonefaciendum! duxi, non arguendo quidem, set humiliter, ut seruus domino, suggerendo, miram quam in uobis credidi clemencie sublimitatem scripture illius que dicit, Priusquam interroges, ne uituperes quemquam." Mirum forsitan uidebitur quod tanto patri per tantillum famulum excusacionis mee litteras mitto, set teste Deo, prohibente multarum enormitate infirmitatum, nec per me, quod multum desideraui et iam bis facere temptaui, ad uos uenire, nec idoneos legatos mittere ualui propter prohibicionem regis Francie et comitis Andegauensis. Porro quia dominus Angliacensis abbas,’ quem ad nos conducendos misistis, usque ad breue temp(u)s ad uos redditurus est, si interim, quod semper optaui, uester esse potero, aut nos aut legatos

nostros ad (uos) Deo sanitatem et potestatem michi conce-

dente, perducet. Precarer sane, nisi temerarium uideri timerem,

ut per hunc puerulum,

quem

michi notum

et familiarem

. ? mea om. Ra. ^ electa A * precepit Ra. 7? uiuit ... uiuit 4 * immunus A f cum sciencia A 7 utili Ra.; utilis A ^ modico A 1 commonefaciendum edd. (cf.p. 114 ad captandum. . .beniuolenciam ); commune facien? Supplied by Ra. dum A ! Ps. 64: 4 (65: 3). ? "Ecclus: 1x: 7.

1119]

HUGH THE CHANTER

105

thought worthy. I have thought fit, my lord and father, to offer you my services thus conditionally, because it has come to my

ears that the words of the wicked have prevailed over me! with your Christianity. For in letters under the seal of your holiness I have been called proud and a despiser of the commands of your predecessors Paschal and Gelasius, namely in the matter of the . consecration of the elect of York, though neither of them in all his life commanded it of me, even once, by word, writing, or by his legate. But if any of my ill-wishers considers that I refused to receive a legate bringing an order to consecrate, or disdained to look at letters conveying such an order, God knows, and my soul knows, that my conscience is entirely clear of the spot of such a trespass. Now, before God in his mercy made you the father of the church universal, through His pitiful kindness, considering your humility in your lofty position and the pleasure and profit of your sweet counsel, I poured out my soul before your holiness in God's presence, and revealed all my infirmities both of body and soul to you as my chosen father and wise physician for your advice and treatment. I therefore thought I should, making not an accusation but, as servant to master, a humble suggestion, remind you of the excellence of kindness (which I believed you to share) of the text ‘Before thou enquire, blame no man.” It will perhaps seem strange that I should send my excuses to so great a father by so mean a servant; but (God be my witness) owing to my many serious infirmities, I have neither been able to come myself to you, which I longed to do, and have already twice attempted, nor yet to send suitable messengers because of the ban of the king of France and the count of Anjou. Moreover since the abbot of Saint-Jean-d’Angély,’ whom you sent to bring me, will be returning to you shortly—if, in the meantime I can enjoy your favour, as I have always wished—God giving me health and strength, he will bring with him to you either me or my messengers. I should beg, if] did not fear to be overbold, that until I am able to send more important and confidential envoys, you would let me know by letter, by the hand of this lad whom you 3 Henry, a kinsman of the dukes of Aquitaine and King Henry; bishop of Soissons c. 1087; prior of Souvigny; prior of Cluny c. 1100-3; abbot of St Jean d'Angély 1104-31; abbot of Peterborough 1127-32. He was a legate to England at the time of the election of Archbishop William in 1123 (C. Clark, EHR 84 (1969), 548-60; Heads, p. 60; CS i/2.

725).

THE

106

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

esse nouistis, quousque alciores et secrecioris consilii ad uos* uiros mitterem, litteris uestris certificaretis quantum de dulcedine miseracionis uestre confidere possim. Credibile est uirum religiosum et sic iurantem uerum dixisse estimare, set scio aliquos pro uero? credere quod litteras pape G(elasii) adhuc eo uiuente susceperit. Cur autem‘ litteras pape P(aschalis) in uita sua non uiderit, cause suprascripte? sunt. Sane nec multum mirandum est eum uel litteras uidere neglexisse uel uisis non obedisse, cum in audiencia magne dignitatis personarum et aliorum multorum se domino pape non obediturum edixerit, si ei ore ad os p(re)ciperet ut Eboracensem electum absque professione con-

secraret. Rescriptum domini pape Calixti) litteris suprascriptis. Littere eiusdem pape ad eundem archiepiscopum

f. 16

Cal(ixtus) episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, uenerabili fratri R(adulpho) Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Per condicionem scripsisti Christianitati nostre, per condicionem tibi sicut per Dei graciam Christiano* breuiter respondemus. Si, quemadmodum a tuis predecessoribus factum est, in nostra et Romane ecclesie obediencia et fidelitate permanseris, nos te, sicut predecessores nostri fecisse noscuntur, diligere |ac, patrocinante Deo, curabimus honorare. Alioqui “pax nostra reuertetur

ad nos".! Quod nobis suggerere’ uoluisti, nos iam fecisse credimus, uidelicet ne ante interrogacionem quenquam uituperemus, cum tamen neminem uituperasse credamus. Interrogauimus enim et

diligenter quesiuimus, et tandem (quod), de consecrando

Eboracensis ciuitatis" electo domini predecessores! nostri, sancte

memorie P(aschalis) papa et G(elasius), scripserant ad plenum inuenimus, et scriptum fraternitati tue mandamus. Signa ergo, frater karissime, signa cor tuum, et ad te ipsum redi, neque in celum os tuum ponas aut transgrediaris terminos a patribus constitutos.? *Non est discipulus super magistrum, nec seruus maior domino suo.? Nos quidem, quia de affeccione tua confidenciam habebamus, super causa illa fraternitati tue scripsimus, ne inde a * nos A scripte A ^ ecclesie Ra.

> uere A * Christiani

* aut A

A

' predecessoris A(2)

7 suprascripte edd. (after Jo.); subfsuggere A * Supplied by Ra.

1119]

HUGH THE CHANTER

107

know to be my known and trusty servant, how far I may confide in the sweetness of your compassion. It might be thought that a devout man thus swearing was telling the truth; but I know that some people are assured that he received the letter of Pope Gelasius in that pope’s lifetime. The reasons why he did not see the letter of Pope Paschal in his lifetime have already been given. It is surely no great wonder that he either omitted to look at the letters, or to obey them when he had looked, since he gave out in the hearing of very distinguished persons, and of many others, that he would not obey the pope, even if he ordered him face to face to consecrate the elect of York without receiving his profession. The reply of.Pope Calixtus to the above letter:

Letter ofthe pope to the archbishop Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brother Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury, greeting and apostolic blessing. You wrote to our Christianity ‘conditionally’; we reply to you also conditionally, as to one by God’s grace a Christian, and in brief. If you remain, as your predecessors fealty to us and the church of Rome, we predecessors are known to have been, to protection, to honour you. But if not,

did, in obedience and shall be careful, as our love, and, under God’s ‘our peace will return

to us’.! We believe that we have already done the thing which you wished to suggest to us, not to blame any one till we have examined; though we believe we have blamed nobody. We did examine and diligently inquire, and have at last found, and send to you, our brother, in full, what our predecessors, Paschal and Gelasius of holy memory, wrote about consecrating the elect of the city of York. Cross your heart, therefore, cross it, dearest

brother, and return to yourself, nor set your mouth against the heavens, or transgress the bounds set by the fathers. “The disciple is not above the master, nor the servant greater than his lord.? We, trusting in your affection, wrote to you on this matter, brother, not therein to depart from the love of the apostolic see: ! Matt. ro: 13 (adapted). ? Cf. Ps. 72 (73): 9; Prov. 22: 28. 3 Matt. 10: 24, combined with John 13: 16, 15: 20.

108

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

dileccione sedis apostolice declinares: tu uero nichil pene nobis reuerentie reseruasti. Certe si rem grandem dixisset tibi propheta,! facere debuisti.

Sicut electo nostro ad papam P(aschalem) et G(elasium) ire non

licuit, sic et ad Cal(ixtum) eundi licenciam a rege sepius quesitam et suppliciter postulatam nequaquam optinuit, per quem prius et nunc retentus. Et quidem rex Francie et comes Andegauensis benigne eum tum direxissent, quia et eum diligebant et super aduersitate eius misericordia mouebantur. Quanto papa propius

Franciam accedebat, tanto ne noster electus ipsum adiret R(adul-

phus) archiepiscopus plus timebat. Institit ergo regi monitis et precibus ut eum faceret in Angliam reuerti. Quadragesima tunc erat. Istud uero summopere conanti ante Pascha se non regressurum respondit, dicens: ‘Non est,’ inquid, ‘domine, honestum ecclesie cui preesse debeo nec persone mee illic adesse quando crisma,? quod tempus imminet, non potero consecrare, nec sanctum Pascha, sicut decet metropolim et metropoliten, sollempniter facere. Et in aliquo forsitan profore potero, si quousque et uos? redeatis ipse remansero.? Mandauit ergo ei rex quatinus eum ueritatis assercione assecuraret se post Pascha iturum. Et ille: ‘In Dei consilio et regis inde me ponam.' Cui aliquis de internunciis episcopus quidem‘ satis urbane et episcopaliter reddidit: ‘De Dei consilio dimissum facite, set absolute in regis consilio uos positum dicite.' Ad quod, sicut et^ alii qui aderant, ipse subridens ‘Semper’

ait ‘communi consilio* Dei preponam.' Hiis ita regi relatis, nec multo post, sicut dominus papa archiepiscopis Francie, Germanie, Burgundie, Aquitanie, Prouincie, sic et in Normanniam Rotomagensi archiepiscopo, Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, Eboracensi electo litteras singulis singulas misit, mandando precipiens quatinus cum suffraganeis suis episcopis et abbatibus, omni occasione reiecta, consilio generali interessent, quod in proxima sancti Luce festiuitate Remis celebrare disposuerat.’ Apud Clarum Montem, que ciuitas est in Aruernia, diem Pentecostes sollempniter celebrans, sicut Romana consuetudo ? ad add. fo. * Perhaps add consilium

" nos

A © Perhaps * proponam Ra.

quidam

4 et om. Ra.

! Cf. 4 (2) Kings 5: 13.

? JL 6706. * 30 Mar.; the ceremonies of Holy Week, including the blessing of the chrism, are

found in the contemporary Pontifical ofMagdalen College, ed. H. A. Wilson (Henry Brad-

. i119]

HUGH THE CHANTER

109

but you had scarcely any reverence left for us. Surely if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing,! you should have done it. Just as our elect could by no means get leave to go to Popes Paschal and Gelasius, he quite failed to get it to go to Pope Calixtus, though he repeatedly begged and prayed the king for it, being held back by the same person as before. And the king of France and the count of Anjou would have given him kindly escort on that occasion, for they loved him and were moved to pity at his wretchedness. The nearer the pope came to France, the more did Archbishop Ralph fear lest our elect should approach him. He therefore earnestly advised and prayed the king to make him return to England. It was now Lent. Though the king made every effort, Thurstan replied that he would not return before Easter, saying: 'It does not become either the church over which I ought to preside or myself that I should be there at a time, now very near, when I shall be unable to consecrate the chrism, or to celebrate the holy feast of Easter as befits a mother church and its metropolitan. And I may be able to be of some use if I stay until you also return.”

The king sent word to him that he must give his solemn assurance that he would go after Easter. He replied: ‘I shall abide by the counsel of God and the king.' One of the messengers, a bishop, made a witty and episcopal retort: ‘Let God's counsel be, but say that you abide absolutely by the king’s.’ He smiled at that, as did others who were present, and said: ‘I shall always put God's counsel before the world’s.’ After this had been told to the king, but only a little later, the pope sent to Normandy a letter each to the archbishop of Rouen, the archbishop of Canterbury, and the elect of York, as he had done to the archbishops of France, Germany, Burgundy, Aquitaine, and Provence, ordering them with their suffragan bishops and abbots to take part without fail in the General Council which he had arranged to celebrate at Reims on St Luke's day next.^ He was crowned at Clermont, a city in Auvergne, while celebrating shaw Soc., xxxix, 1910), pp. 155-70, 286. Cf. Le Pontifical romano-germanique ,ed. C. Vogel and R. Elze (Vatican, 1963-72), ii. 56—75. 4 The only extant summons to the Council of Reims on 18 Oct. 1119 (described below, pp. 118-23), is dated 4 May (JL 6693, but cf. JL 6688). For the council see CS i/2. 718-21; the chief Anglo-Norman sources are Hugh, Simeon, ii. 254-7, and Orderic, vi. 252—77. For the archbishop of Rouen see above, p. 63 n. 5.

IIO

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

exigit, coronatus est.! Inde pluribus personis pro regimine ecclesiarum scribens, et regi nostro et Cantuariensi archiepiscopo pro electo nostro litteras subiectas direxit.*

Littere eiusdem pape ad eundem regem Calixtus)

episcopus,

seruus

seruorum

Dei, karissimo

in

Christo filio H(enrico) illustri regi Anglie, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Questio que tamdiu de professione illa

inter Cantuariensem archiepiscopum et Eboracensem |electum

f. 16"

agitatur, et sedi apostolice grauis est, et Eboracensi ecclesie non modicum ingerit. detrimentum. Eapropter nobilitatem tuam rogamus ut eosdem fratres nostros ad concilium pro quo eos uocauimus, sicut aliis iam litteris rogauimus, uenire permittas, quatinus, auctore Deo, in nostra et fratrum nostrorum presencia

diutina (illa) questio finem debitum? sorciatur. Si quis eciam eorum antea nos uisitare uoluerit, eandem ei tribuas facul-

tatem.?

* Littere eiusdem pape ad eundem archiepiscopum Cal(ixtus) episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, uenerabili fratri R(adulpho) Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Super sapiencia et religione tua non parum, frater karissime, mater tua sancta Romana miratur ecclesia, quod Eboracensem ecclesiam tanto facias tempore sine pastoris regimine permanere. Si non tibi hoc fraterne caritatis compassio suaderet, frequens tamen apostolice sedis commonicio et preceptum dileccionem tuam debuit compulisse, ut, beati

Greg(orii) distinccione contentus, eiusdem electum ecclesie

consecrares. "Tuam itaque fraternitatem, repetita sedis apostolice precepcione,? monemus, ut, omni^ iam tandem professionis

exaccione seposita, eidem! electo, patrocinante Deo, manum consecracionis imponas. Si quid autem aliud in eius causa tibi estimas uendicandum, concilii generalis tempore, quod in * Letter also in MRA i, f. 48" (a) ^ Anglorum regi a 4 debitam à * Letter also in MRA i,f. 49 (a), up to imponas superne A f percepcione a ^ omni a; omnia A

! eidem om. a. ]

* illa a; om. A f fraterne a; ! deposita a

18 May. For the ceremony see H.-W. Klewitz, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für

. 1119]

HUGH THE CHANTER

Dr

Whit-Sunday, as the Roman custom demands.! He wrote thence to a number of persons on ecclesiastical business, and sent to the king and the archbishop of Canterbury the following letters on behalf of our elect:

Letter ofthe pope to the king Calixtus, bishop, servant ofthe servants of God, to his dearest son in Christ, Henry, illustrious king of England, greeting and apostolic blessing. The question of the profession which has so long been in dispute between the archbishop of Canterbury and the elect of York is grievous to the apostolic see and causes serious injury to the church of York. For this reason we ask your majesty, as we have done in other letters, to allow these our brethren to come to the council for which we have summoned them, so that, by God's help, that lengthy dispute may attain its due end in the presence of ourselves and our brethren. Also, if either of them wishes to visit us earlier, pray give them the same leave.”

Letter ofthe pope to the archbishop Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brother, Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury, greeting and apostolic blessing. Dearest brother, your mother, the holy Roman church, greatly marvels that, with your wisdom and piety, you cause the church of York to abide so long without a shepherd. If your brotherly charity did not move you, the repeated monitions and orders of the apostolic see should have forced you to consecrate the elect of that church, satisfied with the distinction given by St Gregory. We therefore repeat to you, brother, the order of the apostolic see that, finally refraining from exacting a profession, you should, under God, lay the hand of consecration on the said elect. But if you deem you have any other claim to make in his cause, let it be determined at the time of the General Council, which we have planned to celebrate, by the grace of Rechtsgeschichte ,Kan. Abt., 30 (1941), 96—130, citing Hugh's evidence at p. 101. The customary occasions are first listed by Albinus towards the end of the century in Le Liber Censuum de /église romaine, ed. P. Fabre (Paris, 1905), ii. go. For the general background to the history of papal ceremonial in these years see B. Schimmelpfennig, Die Zeremonienbücher der romischen Kurie im Mittelalter (Tübingen, 1973), esp. pp. 6-16. ? JL 6722.

THE

II2

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

proxima beati Luce festiuitate Remis per Dei graciam celebrare disposuimus, auditis diligenter utriusque racionibus terminetur.!

Cui nimirum consilio personam tuam, sicut aliis quoque litteris preceptum est, omni remota occasione interesse precipimus.? Quibus uero ad electum nostrum scripsit, et hic subscripte sunt.

Littere eiusdem pape ad eundem archiepiscopum

Cal(ixtus) episcopus, seruus" seruorum Dei, uenerabili fratri T(urstino) Eboracensi electo, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Et tibi et Eboracensi ecclesie, ad cuius regimen* per Dei graciam electus es, debita affeccione compatimur, quod tamdiu pro’ illius professionis exaccione tam grauia* incommoda susti-

netis. Vnde confratri uestro R(adulpho)/ Cantuariensi archiepis-

copo? scripsimus, precipientes ut iam tandem resipiscere debeat, et tibi," professionis exaccione’ seposita, manum consecracionis imponat. Si nos audierit, Deo gracias referemus/ Sin autem, fraternitati tue omnino per presencia scripta precipimus ut ei nullam* professionem exhibeas, set, sicut aliis tibi litteris mandatum est, ad concilium uenias, quod per Dei graciam in proxima beati Luce festiuitate Remis celebrare disposuimus, quatinus, auctore! Deo, questio hec mediante iusticia terminetur.

Dat’ apud Clarum Montem xvi. kalendas Iunii.™ Misit et dominus rex legatos suos ad apostolicum, quibus etsi fuit iniuncta? contra Eboracensem electum petere et impetrare uoluntas, non est data impetrandi facultas; et si aliquis aliquid se impetrasse sperans gauisus est, de quo postmodum deceptum fuisse comperiens, egre tulit. Idem uero electus in animo diem prefixerat, ante quam contra beniuolenciam regis Normannia ad papam non egrederetur, ulterius autem tardare nolle nisi capcione uel infirmitate detineretur. Hoc precogitans de sociis suis unum post unum, et de suis rebus in Franciam premisit, quam cicius posset oportune secuturus.° Licencia tanquam de integro quesita, et rex ab eo mandando exegit sibi pacisci ne? ab apostolico consecracionem * Letter also in MRA i, f. 49 (a) (to exhibeas) and BL Lansdowne 402, f. 28 (L) > seruus om.15 * regnum L 7 pro aL; per A * grauia aL; grauida A; grandia Ra. f confratri uestro R. L; Ra (deleted) cum fratri uestro R. (R. above

the line)A;Rado confratri nostro a. Cf. below, p. 126.

om. Q ! actore L urus A

* episcopo L

^ et tibi

‘ causa à / conferemus (or -imus) L * nullam ei aL ? Januarii L ? iniunctum A ? secuturus Orlandi; sec? pacisci ne Orlandi (potissime ne Ra.); patissime A

1119]

HUGH THE CHANTER

113

God, on St Luke's day next at Reims, after carefully hearing the arguments on both sides.! We accordingly order you, as we did by other letters, to be present in person at this council without fail? The letter he wrote to our elect is as follows:

Letter ofthe pope to the archbishop of York Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brother, Thurstan, elect of York, greeting and apostolic blessing. We grieve, as is due, with you and with the church of York, to the government of which you were by God's grace chosen, that you have so long borne such serious discomforts because of the exaction of the profession. That is why we have written to your brother, Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury, bidding him at last to come to his senses and lay upon you the consecrating hand without exacting any profession. If he listens to us, we shall give thanks to God. But if not, we absolutely forbid you, brother,

by this present letter, to make him any profession, but, as you were ordered in other letters, to come to the Council which we have planned by God's grace to celebrate on St Luke's day next

at Reims, in order that by God's help this question may be justly determined. Given at Clermont, 17 May [1119]? The king also sent his ambassadors to the pope. But although they were charged with the will to petition successfully against the elect of York, they got no opportunity; and if anyone rejoiced in an imaginary success, he was bitterly disappointed when he found out later that he had been deceived. Now, the elect had privily determined a date before which he would not leave Normandy to go to the pope against the king's good will, but beyond which he would not delay unless detained by imprisonment or illness. With this in mind he sent some of his companions, one at a time, and of his goods before him to France, intending to follow as soon as he conveniently could. When he made a fresh application for leave, the

king demanded a guarantee that he would not receive consecration ! CS i/2. 718-19. ? Not in JL. Presumably written at the same time as the next letter. 3 Not in JL.

114

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

susciperet. ‘De hoc’ inquid ‘paccionem nullam faciam, set Deo sensum meum dirigente ita me agam quod que sunt “Dei Deo, et que regis regi reddam”.”! Presul uero Exoniensis, |ab apostolico nouissime reuersus,’” regi dixerat non esse opus detinere eum; sciebat enim quod ab eo non consecraretur. Videns igitur rex quod eum longius retinere conuenienter non poterat, quia dominus papa et archiepiscopum et illum ad concilium uocauerat, et ei mandauerat ne eos remoraretur, si uterque

uel alter antea ad illum uenire uellet, et propter uerbum Exoniensis episcopi, licenciam abeundi concessit. Ille, non diutina dilacione procrastinans, Carnotum uenit, ubi quos premiserat* expectantes eum quasi capcionem euasisse gaudio magno gauisi sunt. Inde profectus quarto die Turonis Romam inuenit. Ibi summus pontifex, et idem uir summe nobis dignus? nobilitate et excellencia sua, et curia, honorifice eum suscipientes, aduenisse letati sunt. Turonis, in metropoli ecclesia sancti Mauricii, in die festiuitatis illius, domino pape et curie comes iunctus, per dimidium annum ab eorum comitatu nec integra die est seiunctus.? Dedit quoque Deus illi graciam in conspectu regis Francie, episcoporum, principum, procerum, et cuiuslibet dignitatis personarum ad quos ille ueniebat, uel qui undique ad papam confluebant. Omnes eum diligebant, seruicia sua deuote offerebant, et cognita causa illius inimicis eius inimici erant, et pro causa illius dominum papam et curiam diligencius interpellebant. Ad captandum eorum beniuolenciam nemo magis promptus, nemo magis facetus? morem cuique gerere, et quod maxime amicicias conciliat, iuxta illud Ecclesiastici, ‘non’ erat illi ‘manus ad accipiendum porrecta, et ad

dandum collecta, set quod (ad)'eum contra. Si quis forte aliquod ei

seruicium faciebat, non segniter aut parce retribuebat; si quis ei aliquid dabat, non pariter set uberius reddebat. Veniente papa ad Blesense castrum, duo archidiaconi ecclesie nostre et scolasticus? qui cum electo nostro uenerant, uoce et litteris * promiserat A 4 diligenter Ra.

^ digne A. Perhaps dilectus. * fascetus A * Supplied by Jo.

* offerebat A

' Cf. Matt. 22: 21. Eadmer and the sources dependent on him lay great stress on Thurstan's undertakings before the council; cf. HN, p. 255; John of Worcester, p. 14; Malmesbury in WMGP, pp. 264-5. Simeon, ii. 254, here departs from Eadmer, whom he has been following, to describe Thurstan’s departure for the pope ‘uix quandoque licentia a rege impetrata’; Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 64. ? William Warelwast; cf. above, pp. 78-9 n. I. * The pope reached Tours from Angers by r5 Sept., and remained there till at least

1119]

HUGH THE CHANTER

IIS

from the pope. ‘About this’, said he, ‘I will make no bargain, but under God's direction I will so act as to *render unto God the things that are God's, and unto the king the things that are the king’s”.”’ But the bishop of Exeter, who had just returned from the pope,’ had told the king that there was no need to detain Thurstan, for he knew that he would not be consecrated by the pope. The king saw that he could not decently keep him any longer, because the pope had summoned both the archbishop and Thurstan to the council, and had commanded him not to delay them, if either or both of them wished to come to him before. And so, relying on what the bishop of Exeter had said, he gave him leave to depart. He made no delay and came to Chartres, where those whom he had sent before were waiting for him and greatly rejoiced at his virtual escape from prison. Three days later he

found ‘Rome’ at Tours. There the pope, himself supremely worthy in our eyes for his nobility and excellence, and his court received him with honour and rejoiced at his coming. He joined the company of the pope and his court at Tours, in the metropolitan church of St Maurice, on St Maurice's day [22 September], and remained with them for six months, without leaving them for a whole day.’ God also gave him grace in the sight of the king of France and the bishops, princes, nobles, and persons of all ranks whom he visited, or who flowed in to the pope from all quarters. Everyone loved him. They devoutly offered their services, and when they had heard his case, his enemies were their enemies, and they diligently approached the pope and the court in his behalf. No man was readier to gain their goodwill,no man more polite and con-

siderate; and (a thing which according to Ecclesiasticus is a chief factor in friendships) he did not have a hand 'stretched out for receiving, and closed for giving". On the contrary, ifanyone did him aservice he was neither slow nor sparing in repaying it, while if anyone made him a present, he gave back, not the same, but more. When the pope came to the town of Blois, the two archdeacons and the master of the schools? of our church, who had come with 24 Sept. (JL 6739-45); Thurstan arrived on 22 Sept., and left the curia in mid-March 1120 (below, pp. 148-51).

^ Cf. Ecclus. 4: 31 (36). 5 For the use of scolasticus for the Master of the Schools—the dignitary later called chancellor—see D. Greenway in Tradition and Change (p. xxiv n. 4), pp. 82-7. The visit of Calixtus to Blois is otherwise unknown. The pope was moving north along the edge

116

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

peticionem fecerunt ad dominum papam ut eum consecraret. At

ille benigne respondit se fratribus suis inde collocuturum.

Cum autem Parisius uenisset, idoneum uisum est magistro nostro! et suis iterum dominum papam requirere. Quo egrediente de monasterio Sancti Martini de Campis, ubi missam cantauerant, clerici nostri, quorum supra memini, allaterati sunt illi, Deo prouidente illis oportunitatem et spacium loquendi, quantum uisum est

illis satis esse,? omnibus remotis. Casu ita contingente, dominus noster Parisius remanserat sanguinatus. Illi uero, ueritatem dicendo fauorem eius captare uolentes, sic aiunt: Audito, domine pater, dig-

nitatem uestram ad hunc apicem promotam esse, multi gauisi sunt gaudio magno ualde, clerici quidem maxime, quia, quod diu monachi, modo clericus Romane ecclesie presidebat,’ et pro generis nobilitate, dicentes summum sacerdocium summe nobilitati oportune concedere; habentes quoque fiduciam bonam in uobis* de iusticia et patrocinio, eo quod, et in prelacione archiepiscopali et in legacione qua fungebamini, uiriliter et" digne Deo moderacio uestra officium debitum exercuerat. Eboracensis ecclesia nichil esitauit bonum successorem a uestigiis bonorum predecessorum P(ascha-

lis) el G(elasii) non deuiare. Quocirca* paternitati uestre, cui per Dei graciam uniuersalis ecclesie cura commissa est, supplicamus quatinus de consecrando electo nostro, Romane ecclesie seruo,

sicut ecclesie nostre |necessarium est, mature prouideat.’ Ille uero ad omnia pene que dixerant modeste nec sine aliquo dolore sic reddidit: ‘Fratres et amici, de promocione mea quicunque gauisus sit uel gaudeat, ego nec gauisus sum nec gaudeo. Scio equidem Romane sedis pontificatum omni honore excellenciorem esse. Settanti honoris honus’ est grauissimum: gloria ista tribulacio michi

uidetur et miseria. Et nunc quidem quamdiu sum in partibus istis bene michi esse uidetur. Quando uero Rome ero, quot cardinales, tot principes, quot ciues, tot domini erunt. Nec michi incognitum est inter quos habito. Hoc dicendo per uices respiciebat, ne de Romanis quilibet approximaret. ‘Honor’ inquit ‘Vienensis ecclesie * illis satis esse edd.; illi satis est A; perhaps illi fati sunt. In what follows Ra. punctuated strongly after contingente. ^ quoque fiduciam repeated in A © nobis A 4 viriliter et edd.; uiri liceret A; uiriliter Jo. * quod circa A f bonus A of a war-zone. From Tours he set off for Chartres, but turned back to Orleans c. 1 Oct.

on hearing of the attack on the city by Louis VI, returning from the siege of Breteuil; Thurstan is listed among those at the dedication of the church of Morigny on 3 Oct. (Chronique de Morigny, ed. L. Mirot (Paris, 1909), pp. 31, 33).

1119]

HUGH THE CHANTER

117

our elect, petitioned the pope, both by word of mouth and by letter, to consecrate Thurstan. He graciously answered that he would consult with his brethren about it. But after the pope had come to Paris, it seemed good to our master! and his friends to ask him again. So, as he came out from the monastery of Saint-Martin-des- Champs, where they had been saying mass, those clerks whom I mentioned approached him, God giving them (as it seemed to them) sufficient opportunity and room for a talk without any others present. As chance would have it, our lord had stayed in Paris after being bled. But they, trying to gain the pope's favour by speaking the truth, said: ‘Many, our lord and father, greatly rejoiced when they heard of your promotion to the peak of dignity, but especially the clerks, because though monks have long governed the Roman church, now a clerk does;

they were pleased too, because of your high birth, saying how proper it was that the highest priesthood should go to the highest ranks; and they had full trust in your justice and favour, because both as an archbishop and in the legation which you held you exercised the control of your office manfully and worthily of God. The church of York has never doubted that a worthy successor would not depart from the footsteps of his worthy predecessors, Paschal and Gelasius. Wherefore we beseech your fatherhood to whom, by God's grace, the care of the universal church is committed, to provide in due time for the consecration of our elect, the servant of the church of Rome, as our church needs.’

But he replied to almost all that they had said, modestly and not without pain: ‘Brethren and friends, whoever may have rejoiced or rejoices in my promotion, I neither have rejoiced nor do. I know that the bishopric of the see of Rome excels every honour; but the burden of so great an honour is heavy indeed; its

glory seems to me tribulation and wretchedness. And now, all seems well with me so long as I am here; but when I am in Rome, every cardinal will be a prince, every citizen one of my masters. Nor am I unaware of what people I live among.’ As he said this he looked around from time to time, lest any of the Romans should be approaching. ‘The honour’, he continued, ‘of the church of Vienne 1 Thurstan; cf. pp. 118-19. The only known bull dated at Paris during this visit is dated 8 Oct. (JL 6747); calculation from below, pp. 118-19 and n. 2, suggests that this interview occurred on 7 Oct. 2 Calixtus was the first pope since Alexander II (1061-73) who had not been a monk at some point in his career.

118

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

non multis possessionibus diues est, uerum michi sufficiebat; et ideo maxime, quia quocunque? tenderem nunciusque? uenirem uix quemcunque alicuius nominis hominem in tota terra Burgundia inueniebam qui michi uel nepos uel consanguineus propinqus uel meus homo non esset.! Erga ecclesiam uestram et electum uestrum certe bonum animum etbonam uoluntatem habemus, quod in proximo concilio, per Dei consilium et fratrum qui aderunt, opere demonstrabitur.’ Gracias Deo et illi agentes discesserunt, et propter regem Francorum qui obuiam ei ueniebat, et propter Romanos qui sequentes appropiabant. Et illos quidem satis dixisse, et illum bene dixisse uidebatur. Parisius ad hospicium redeuntibus, et hiis magistro suo relatis, exhilaratus et confortatus est. Post dies undecim uentum est Remis, tercia die ante concilium. Eadem die uenerant*? illuc Ra(dulphus) Orcadensis episcopus, et quidam archidiaconus noster. Sabbatum erat.” Paulo post, in ipso lucis et noctis confinio, mandauit dominus papa electo nostro, nichil adhuc de hac re opinanti, ut cum clericis suis ad eum ueniret. Qui adueniens, et Orcadensem episcopum et predictum archidiaconum cum ceteris secum adducens, antequam audiret aliud uel diceret, ait: “Ecce, domine, iste est ecclesie nostre episcopus, iste uero archidiaconus.' Quibus in osculo? susceptis hiisdem uerbis inquit: ‘Deus augeat numerum uestrum!" Ceteros iam bene nouerat. Erant cum eis solummodo cardinales, qui interrogauerunt clericos nostros^ si quid petebant. At illi dixerunt: Romanam ecclesiam, dominum papam, et uos, domini cardinales, de consecracione electi nostri requirimus. Post paulum more, apostolicus dixit electo nostro: "Vade, frater, prepara te, et anima et corpore, crastino, Deo annuente, consecracionem suscepturus.' Prostratus‘ pedibus et qui cum eo erant gracias agentes recesserunt. Quam bene tam breui spacio potuit, anima et corpore se preparauit. Ipse uero ad papam mandatus ante concilium consecrari non opinabatur. In crastinum uenit in ecclesia metropoli beate Marie consecrandus. Erant ibi archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates, et cuiuscunque dignitatis et ecclesiastici ordinis multi, qui et uocati ad concilium generale conuenerant? Certum habebat apostolicus ^ quorumcunque A * uenerat Ra. 7 occulo A, Jo.

^ tendere nunciumque A. The text is doubtful. * uestros A f prostratis A

! The pope was the son of one count of Burgundy and brother to another; other brothers were or had been counts of Macon and Galicia. Among his brothers-in-law were Odo I, duke of Burgundy, and the counts of Montferrat and Savoy (U. Robert,

1119]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

IIQ

is not rich in many possessions, but it was enough for me; especially because wherever I went, or arrived as an envoy, I scarcely found anyone of consequence in all Burgundy who was not my nephew, or blood relation, or one of my own men.! To your church and your elect we have a good heart and good will, as will be effectively shown, by the counsel of God and of my brethren who shall be present, at the next council.’ Our friends thanked God and the pope and so departed, both on account of the king of France, who was coming to meet him, and of the Romans who followed him and were coming nearer. And it seemed that they had spoken well enough, and that the pope had given a good answer. When they returned to their lodging at Paris, and reported to their master, he was cheered and comforted. Eleven days later we came to Reims, two days before the council. There had come there the same day Ralph, bishop of Orkney and one of our archdeacons. It was Saturday.’ A little later, at twilight, the pope sent to our elect, quite unexpectedly, to come to him with his clerks. He came, taking with him the bishop of Orkney and the archdeacon and the others, and before anything else was said either to him or by him, said: ‘My lord, this is a bishop of our church and this other an archdeacon.’ The pope gave them the kiss of peace and said: ‘God send more of you.’ He already knew the others well. Only cardinals were present, and they asked our clerks whether they had any petition. But they said: “We are asking the church of Rome, our lord the pope, and you, lords cardinals, for the consecration of our elect.’ After a short interval, the pope said to our elect: ‘Go, brother, prepare yourself in mind and body, to be consecrated, God willing, tomorrow.’ The elect fell down before him, and he and his companions gave thanks

and retired. He prepared himself as well as he could in so short a time, both in soul and body. But when sent for by the pope, he had not expected to be consecrated before the Council opened. He came the next day to the metropolitan church of St Mary to be consecrated. There were there archbishops, bishops, abbots,

and clergy of every dignity and order, who had been summoned and had come to the General Council.’ The pope was assured that Histoire du pape Calixte IT (Paris/Besancon, 1891), pp. 1-4; there is a convenient table in M. Bur, La Formation du comté de Champagne (Nancy, 1977), facing p. 277). ? Saturday 18 Oct.: Thurstan was consecrated on Sunday 19 Oct., and the council effectively opened on the Monday. For the bishop of Orkney see above, pp. 52-3. 3 The Digby chronicle (HCY ii. 376) and Simeon, ii. 254, give a total attendance of 424 prelates, close to the 427 of Hesso scholasticus in MGH, Libelli de Lite, iii. 28.

I20

f. 18

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

quod Cantuariensis archiepiscopus, licet ad concilium uocatus, et pro contencione inter suam et nostram ecclesias, nec uenerat nec ueniret, nec canonicam excusacionem mitteret, nec personas que pro eo agerent. Solus archidiaconus suus? calumpniatus est illi, et nec canonice nec composite. Cui ille modeste dixit: ‘Quod facio, semper salua iusticia Cantuariensis ecclesie, si qua est, facio.' Ipse uero consecrando et consecraturo" multa a rege comminatus est.! Quapropter et ille quidem contumeliis non illatis |non recessisset, si in ecclesia non esset; aliquibus tamen conuiciis et exprobracionibus a Romanis pulsatus exiuit. Electus noster, astantibus et assencientibus et coadiuuantibus tot et tantis personis, domini pape saltem* tanquam beati Petri manibus, archiepiscopus consecratus est. Cui super humeros textus ewangelii apertus impositus dum consecraretur, sicut mos est, cum a domino papa respiceretur, uiso uersu obstupescens

assistentibus ait: “Eia uideto: "Sicut nouit me Pater, et e(go) a(gnosco) P(atrem), et a(nimam) m(eam) po(no) pro o(uibus) m canonis A

* ecclesiam A

7 Paschali et

Gelasio edd.; Paschalis et Gelasii Ra. (if this is right, a dative must have dropped out)

* preceptus A

f canonicam Jo. (cf.p. 120); canonemA * quis (or quid)... uindicandum edd. (cf. p. 110); quid ... iudicandum A ^ illis A; perhaps illi ! deprecanbantur A / consecracionem A * habebat Ra.

1119]

HUGH THE CHANTER

129 about making peace between them, pointing out the many evils which had arisen from their dissension: devastation, widespread poverty and begging, wretchedness and massacres; besides which, if it lasted, it was to be feared that more would follow. Our king set forth the wrong done by the king of France and his own righteousness, and answered quietly and humbly, like a wise and modest man: ‘I am sorry about the quarrel, I want peace; as always, I am anxious to do willingly whatever the duke of Normandy owes to

the king of France.”! The cardinals, since the pope was conferring privately with the king and had not called them in, on the advice of Cardinal Cono,

who was very fond of our archbishop, left the church somewhat vexed, and also, I think, for fear the pope should yield to the king and consent to our making a provisional or personal profession. They were called back, and all further proceedings were publicly approved. After some conversation about the estate and honour of holy church, and its rest or unrest in various places, partly serious, and partly decently merry, our archbishop became the subject. The pope and cardinals and most of those present praised his wisdom, uprightness, modesty, and love of his lord. They abused the

archbishop of Canterbury, because the church of York had been so long deprived of its shepherd owing to his demand for a profession not due to him. Further, he had shown no obedience to the late Popes Paschal and Gelasius nor to the commands of Calixtus in the matter of the consecration of the elect of York; he had been called to the council and had not come, and had not sent anyone to act for him, or a canonical excuse.’ Wherefore, as befitted the dignity of the Roman church, [the pope] had consecrated [Thurstan] without prejudice to anybody who might consider he had a lawful claim against him, and would have the case decided by canonical and irrefragable judgement, in the presence of both parties, after a careful hearing before the Roman curia. Meanwhile, the pope and cardinals besought Henry, as a good king and a loyal son of the church of Rome, to receive his archbishop, consecrated as though

by the hands of St Peter, with peace and affection for the love and honour of God and the holy Roman church, and to suffer him to remain quietly in his church and do the work of God. For they had heard that the king had forbidden him entry into all his lands and ! For the war see above, p. 103 n. 3; for Louis's movements, Luchaire, pp. 121-33. 2 Cf. Ivo, Panormia, iv. 105, 107 (PL 161. 1203-6).

130

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

tocius terre sue ingressum illi interdixerat, et de archiepiscopio* iam disuestierat. ‘Set apud districtum iudicem districte punietur, cuius culpa ecclesia illa tamdiu pastore destituta est et deinceps destituetur.’ Rex, excusato prius Cantuariensi archiepiscopo quod pre infirmitate ad consilium uenire non potuit, et aliquibus regni sui consuetudinibus enarratis, sic ait: ‘Domine papa, domine pater, et uos, domini cardinales, quod petitis, de recepcione uidelicet Eboracensis archiepiscopi, legitime facere nequeo; fidem enim spospondi quod permissione mea regnum Anglie non intrabit, nisi uel? personaliter R(adulpho) archiepiscopo professus fuerit, ita quidem quod nec ille nec successores eius R(adulpho) neque successoribus suis ulterius unquam profiteantur; et hoc litteris domini pape et nostris confirmatum esse uolo et postulo; et sic, sine | lesura fidei mee, cum amore meo, ad ecclesiam suam transire et quiete poterit permanere." Cui papa: ‘Fili dulcissime, uice beati Petri, cuius ego uicarius sum, quamuis indignus, ab hac promissione te absoluo.! Fides enim contra iusticiam minime est obseruanda,’ et illa quidem professio indecens est et iniusta. Et ille ‘Aliter’ inquit 'inconsultis episcopis et primoribus Anglie facere non possum. De archiepiscopatu non eum’ disuestiui.' Sophistice uerum erat. Nondum enim littere per quas spoliatus fuit illuc usque fuerant prolate, set ad deferendum iam tradite, quod et? pape sic indicatum est. Archiepiscopus* hiis non interfuerat, remotus in partem. Venerunt quidam ad eum, sub optentu amicicie fortassef magis pro rege, persuadentes ei ut quod predecessores eius fecerint, et ipse pro amore regis modo personaliter faceret, et pro pace et quiete ecclesie sue et successoribus suis in sempiternum habenda. Quibus ille: ‘Si hoc fecisse uellem, non necesse michi fuisset dominum papam et Romanam ecclesiam requirere, set iamdudum ab archiepiscopo Cantuariensi consecratus, possem in ecclesia nostra cum illa decora uel indecora pace et quiete permanere? Qui de antecessoribus meis professi sunt, tristes et coacti fecerunt, et personali-

ter; du(m) de persona in personam Cantuarienses extorqueant, nil * archiepiscopio edd.; archiepiscopo A; archiepiscopatu Ra.

* est A 4 etiam Ra. sense suggests sed

* archiepiscopo A

! For ‘Petri... uicarius’ see above, p. 83 n. 5.

> See p. 62 n. h f Apparently corrupt; the

1119]

HUGH THE CHANTER

131

had deprived him of his archbishopric. ‘But that man by whose fault the church has been so long, and is henceforth, deprived of its shepherd shall be severely punished before a strict judge.’ The king first excused the archbishop of Canterbury as having been unable to come to the council owing to illness, and explained some of the customs of his kingdom; then he said: ‘My lord pope and father, and you, my lords cardinals, I cannot lawfully do what you ask by receiving the archbishop of York, because I have given my word that he shall not enter the realm of England with my leave, unless he makes his profession personally to Archbishop Ralph, on the understanding that neither he nor his successors shall ever make any further profession to Ralph or his successors; and I wish and demand to have this confirmed by letters of the pope and myself; and thus, without any breach of faith by me, he may go over to his church with my approval and stay there in peace.’ The pope answered: ‘Sweetest son, in the name of St Peter, whose vicar I am, though unworthy, I absolve you from this

promise.' For faith is not to be kept contrary to justice,’ and that profession is improper and unjust.’ The king replied: ‘I cannot do otherwise without consulting the bishops and magnates of England. I have not deprived him of his archbishopric.’ This was technically true. For the letters by which he was despoiled had not yet been published there, though they had been handed over for delivery, as was also explained to the pope. The archbishop had taken no part in these proceedings, but had stood aside. Some people came to him, ostensibly as his friends, but perhaps more on behalf of the king, persuading him to act now as his predecessors had done, and make his personal profession for love of the king, and for the peace and quiet of his church and his successors for ever. To them he said: ‘If I were willing to do this, I need not have sought out the pope and the Roman church, but should have long ago been consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury, and might be abiding in our church in graceful, or disgraceful, “peace and quiet"? Those of my predecessors who made their profession, made it in sorrow, under compulsion, and personally; so long as the Canterbury party can extort it from one person after another, they ask no more. I will not be a precedent for 2 Cf. the authorities cited on p. 123 n. 4 above. 3 Cf. above, pp. 58-9.

I32

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

amplius querunt. Successoribus nostris exemplum non ero, quia nec ecclesie nec persone profitebor nisi canonico iudicio fuerit terminatum. Dominus uero Cantuariensis archiepiscopus, qui nec ad concilium uenit nec ad colloquium istud, a quo non nimium longe erat remotus, si professionem istam quocunque modo lucrari putasset, que eum tenebat inualitudo non detinuisset.”! Nec blandimentis nec prece nec absolucione dominus papa apud regem pro archiepiscopo nostro quicquam impetrans, animum suum tamen compressit, nolens ei hac uice acrius insistere, nolens imperiose agere nec apostolica uti potestate, cogitans esse decencius eminus iaculo pugnandum quam modo cominus gladio feriendum, et de amico congressu inimicum fieri digressum. Sic ergo regi et suis facta benediccione digrediuntur. Multi uero asscripserunt ei cordis inbecillitati quod non asperius et iustius egerat pro archiepiscopo a se nuper consecrato et hac de causa archiepiscopatu spoliato. Et plerique? de Normannis et Anglis finiuerunt,? arbitrantes quod tota Christianitas in terra regis prohiberetur, si ipse Eboracensem archiepiscopum cum pace non reciperet? Ille autem quamuis de colloquio quod plurimum continuauerat aliter quam sperasset accidit, non tamen a spe penitus decidit, inter se dicens: ‘Michi autem adherere Deo bonum est,

p(onere) i(n) D(omino) D(eo) s(pem) m(eam).? Et dominus papa

blande et confortatorie locutus est illi, admonens ne diffideret, ne desperaret, dicens Romanam ecclesiam illi non defore necessaria ministrando, donec per Dei auxilium ad sua reuocaretur. Dominus uero rex a colloquio? reuersus statim in Angliam* misit qui archiepiscopum dissaisirent, in hoc nobiliter et regaliter agens quod clericos qui cum archiepiscopo erant nichilo spoliauit, intendens, licet archiepiscopo iratus, legitime et canonice agentes. Ceteri qui domi erant nimis tristes fuerunt et exterriti. Orcadensis episcopus et predictus archidiaconus uix regi reconciliari potuerunt quia consecracioni interfuerant, quamquam uellent, et

liquido possent, iurare se non ideo ad concilium uenisse. Erant cum domino papa de Romanis Cono Prenestinus episco-

f. 20

pus, Lamb(ertus) Ostiensis episcopus, |post illum papa effectus,

$ plerisque 4 colloqui A above, p. 124)

A

^ Corrupt; perhaps * Angliam Jo; Anglia A

timuerunt © prohibetur A f dissaisirent D; dissairent A (df.

! Above, p. roo n. 2. ? Hugh must mean that an interdict was already expected; see below, pp. 136—7, 172-7.

1119]

HUGH THE CHANTER

133

my successors; I will not make a profession either to the church or to the person, unless the question is settled by canonical judgement. But the lord archbishop of Canterbury, who did not come either to the council or to this conference, though he was at no great distance, would not have been detained by his illness! if he had thought he could by any means have obtained this profession. Neither by coaxing nor by prayer nor by absolution was the pope able to obtain anything from the king for our archbishop; but he restrained his feelings, not wishing on this occasion to press harder, to command, or to use his apostolic power. He thought it more proper to fight with darts from a distance than to strike this time hand to hand with the sword, and to turn a friendly conference to a parting in anger. So he gave his blessing to the king and his followers, and they parted. But many people charged him with weakness in not acting more firmly and justly in behalf of an archbishop whom he had himself consecrated so lately, and who had on that account been robbed of his archbishopric. And many of the Normans and English were afraid(?), thinking that the practice of the Christian religion would be forbidden in all the land if the king would not peaceably receive the archbishop of York.’ But though the conference, long as it had been, had turned out otherwise than he had hoped, he did not lose hope altogether, saying to himself: “But it is good for me to hold fast by God, to put my trust in the Lord God.? And the pope spoke to him kindly and comfortably, bidding him not to lose confidence or despair, saying that the Roman church would not fail to supply his needs until by God's help he should be recalled to his own. But the king, returning from the conference, immediately sent men to England to disseise the archbishop. He was noble and kingly enough not to deprive the clerks who were with the archbishop, angry as he was with him, for he saw they were acting lawfully and canonically. The others who were at home were very sad and frightened. The bishop of Orkney and the archdeacon already

mentioned 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. Ofthe Romans, there were with the pope Cono, bishop of Palestrina, Lambert, bishop of Ostia, his successor in the papacy, 3 Ps. 72 (73): 28.

134

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

Gresog(onus) cancellarius, Iohannes Cremensis presbiter cardinalis, Petrus Petri Leonis diaconus cardinalis, Gregor(ius) diaconus Siluestri diaconi aduersus

sancti Angeli, Petrus Ruffus diaconus cardinalis sancti qui fuerat nepos pape Pascalis, et alii presbiteri et et subdiaconi et clerici, omnes fere contristati quod regem indulgencius egerat. Confortatus a papa et car-

dinalibus exilium suum, tunc demum et manifestum et uerum, Deo et sancto Petro, de cuius ecclesia eiectus ad ipsum refugiebat, committere^ cepit. Quod ei a principio aduentus sui ad illos alacriter fecerant, nunc quidem maiori complectebantur^ amore et copiosius honorabant. In consiliis et causis et iudiciis erat inter illos quasi unus ex illis? et a nullis eorum fere segregatus secretis. Clerici sui tanquam domini pape clerici, famuli quasi de famulis* ipsius. Plurimi uero clam et? coram dicebant ei, et quasi precabantur, ne quam pateretur indigenciam; si quid sibi uel suis deesset, ne eos celaret, et de suo alii dono, alii mutuo large

offerebant. Aduentus Domini Dominica prima uenerunt Ferrarias ad quandam abbaciam. Eo rex Francie et regina,? que erat pape proneptis,’ ad eum uenerunt, qui deuote pro nostro exorabant archiepiscopo, et si episcopatus aut archiepiscopatus in regno suo uacaret, concessu domini pape se libenter ei concedere asserebant. Habitis inter se sermonibus multimodis coram archiepiscopis et episcopis et multis aliis, ut uerba eius plene exprimam, ita rex inquid: ‘In causa Eboracensis archiepiscopi Roma aut honorata erit aut multum dishonorata. Et certe in colloquio cum rege Anglorum habito pro archiepiscopo, uestris tanquam beati Petri manibus consecrato, et propter hoc quasi execrabilif exterminato, minus seuere et minus iuste actum* est.’ ^ cum mittere A ^ complectebantur Ra. (amplectebantur D); complectebant A, fo. * famuli A “clam et Jo; et clam A; perhaps et clam et

* regine A

* execrabili edd.; inexecrabili A; perhaps in execrabili (modo)

* auctum A

! For Cono, above, pp. 60-1 n. 2; for John of Crema and Lambert, below, p. 123 nn. 5-6. Chrysogonus had been cardinal deacon of S. Nicola in Carcere since 1116 X 17; appointed chancellor by Gelasius II 1 Mar. 1118; left office, and probably died, late in

1122 (Hüls, p.240). Peter Pierleone, cardinal deacon of SS. Cosmas and Damian c. 1112-12 June 1120, cardinal priest of S. Maria in Trastevere from 1120 to his election as the antipope Anacletus II on 13 Feb. 1130, died 25 Jan. 1 138. A member of one ofthe most influential Roman families ofthe time, he was legate for France and England in r121, and for France again 1123-4; Schieffer, pp. 214-18, Hüls, Pp. 225, 189-91; CS i/2. 723-5. Gregory, cardinal deacon of S. Angelo in Pescheria from before May 1116 until his elec-

1ir19]

HUGH THE CHANTER

135

Chrysogonus the chancelloJohn r, of Crema, cardinal priest, Peter

Pierleone, cardinal deacon, Gregory, [cardinal] deacon of S. Angelo, Peter Rufus, cardinal deacon of St Sylvester, who had . been Pope Paschal's nephew,! and other priests, deacons, subdeacons, and clerks, almost all grieved that the pope had acted too indulgently towards the king. Encouraged by the pope and the cardinals, Thurstan began to cast his exile, now real and obvious,

upon God and St Peter, out of whose church he had been expelled and with whom he took refuge. As they [the pope and the others] had eagerly done from his first coming to them, they now showed him more love and more abundant honour. In councils, trials, and judgements, he was, as it were, one of themselves,” and in almost all their secrets. His clerks were as the pope's clerks, his servants as the pope's servants. Many people privately and publicly said to him, indeed almost prayed him not to want for anything; if he or

his needed anything he was not to hide it from them. Some of them freely offered gifts, others loans. On the first Sunday in Advent they came to Ferriéres to a certain abbey. The king of France and the queen, who was the pope's great-niece,^ came to the pope there, and besought him devoutly on behalf of our archbishop, and said that if any bishopric or archbishopric in their kingdom should be void, they would gladly give it him, if the pope permitted. After a long discussion in the presence of archbishops and bishops and many others, the king said (to give his words in full): ‘In the archbishop of York's case Rome will either be honoured or much dishonoured. And certainly, in the conference with the king of England on behalf of the archbishop, a man consecrated by your hands, as it were by the hands of St Peter, and on this account exiled as though accursed, the matter was handled with too little severity, too little justice.’ tion as Innocent II on 14 Feb. 1130, shared the legations of Peter Pierleone in France in 1121 and 1123-4 (Schieffer, utsup. ,Hüls, pp. 223-4). Peter Rufus, cardinal deacon of S. Adriano from 9 Mar. 1118 to after 17 Apr. 1121, became cardinal priest of SS. Martino e Silvestro 1121 X 1123 (hence presumably Hugh’s slip), and was in England, perhaps as . Innocent’s legate, in Sept. 1131; he last occurs on 5 Dec. 1131 (Brett, pp. 49-50; Hüls, pp. 220-1, 193). 2 Gf, Ecclus. 32:1. 3 30 Nov. 1119; the pope's itinerary is given most fully in Chronique de Morigny, pp. 33-5, though only Hugh supplies the date for the meeting at Ferriéres-en-Gatinais. Here King Louis and his queen took leave of Calixtus; see also Luchaire, pp. 127-32. 4 Either Hugh or the scribe has slipped, for Queen Adelaide was the pope's niece, not great-niece; Suger (as p. ror n. 3), p. 204.

136

f. 20"

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

Erat ibi Gaufridus Rotomagensis archiepiscopus, qui, negocium habens, ad dominum papam uenerat. Cui paulo post* coram rege et omnibus assistentibus sic locutus est: ‘Hoc fraternitati uestre iniungendo precipimus, quatinus uerbis nostris regi uestro aliquibus uobiscum adiunctis sic dicatis. In colloquio inter nos nuper habito de recepcione^ Eboracensis archiepiscopi, quod iusticia et racio exigebat, et honor ipsius erat, nichil apud eum nec precibus nec blandiciis obtinui. Et quoniam supra dileccionem* coniugium, adhuc illi parcens nolui eum exasperare, nolui apostolica uti auctoritate; uerum hoc illi mandamus, quod nisi ad presens eum susceperit, et in ecclesia cui consecratus est cum pace fecerit permanere, Romana ecclesia nullatenus potest dimittere quin canonice seueritatis iusticiam exequatur.' Quod per obedienciam iniunctum archiepiscopus dicere suscepit, estimo non dictum reliquit. Cumque de Ferrariis ad Senonicam urbem tenderent,? placuit domino pape et curie dominum Cononem? remittere, ut sicut? antea in Francia‘ et Normannia legacionem haberet? Ex quo nimirum archiepiscopus noster et sui ualde contristati sunt: illum etenim erga se quatuor istis, iusticia et ueritate et fide et dileccione, quadratum experti erant. Set discedens dominum papam cum lacrimis orabat ut archiepiscopum ita remitteret sicut ex iusticie racione et apostolice sedis honore decebat." Seorsum autem cum fratribus cardinalibus supplicabat, manu eum in manus tradens, ne illi deessent;! pro illo domino pape suggererent; et quod de longinquo ille non poterat, ipsi pro confratre suo presentes supplerent. Quibus bene per omnia promittentibus ad regem Francorum, qui | non longe aberat/ reuersus est. Cum autem Autisiodorum* peruenissent,! dominus papa duos

presbiteros cardinales, Petrum Pisanum et Gregor(ium) Senem; * post edd; primo A; prius Ra. 4 canonem A

* sic Ra,

> rescripcione A

* dileccione A

f antea in Francia edd.; in Francia antea A; in

Francia Anglia Ra. * ex parte A * Antisiodorum A / oberat A

^ dicebat A

! deessenti A

! For the archbishop see p. 63 n. 5; at pp. 146—7 below he is joined with the archbishop of Tours in threatening the suspension of Archbishop Ralph and an interdict. ? The pope was at Sens by 4 Dec. (JL 6790). * For Cono's legatine activity in France in the following months, see Schieffer, pp. 207-11. The corrupt text has been emended on the assumption that the pope renewed Cono's commission for France and Normandy (above, pp. 60-1 n. 2). Raine's

1119]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

137

Geoffrey, archbishop of Rouen,! was there, having come to the pope on business. And the pope said to him a little later, in the presence of the king and of all the others: *We command and enjoin on you, brother, that taking other persons with you, you give your king the following message in my name. In the conference we lately had about the reception of the archbishop of York, I failed to get from him by prayer or by persuasion what justice and reason and his own honour demanded. And because union is more important than affection, I have spared him till now and would not make him angry: I would not use my apostolic authority. But we send him this message, that if he will not immediately receive him and permit him to abide in peace in the church to which he was consecrated, the church of Rome can by no means omit to execute justice with all the rigour of the canon law.’ The message which the archbishop was enjoined by his obedi- © ence to deliver, I judge he must have left unspoken. And, as they were going from Ferrieres to Sens,” it pleased the pope and the curia to send back cardinal Cono to be legate, as previously, in France and Normandy.’ Our archbishop and his company were greatly saddened at this; for they had found him four-square in justice, truth, faith, and affection. But as he left, he besought the pope with tears to send back the archbishop in such a way as befitted justice and the honour of the apostolic see. He also privately handed him over to his brother cardinals, begging them not to desert him, to speak for him to the pope, and, being present, to supply for their brother what he, at a distance, could not. When they gave favourable promises, he returned to the king of France, who was not far away. _ When they had come to Auxerre,’ the pope received with joy two cardinal priests, Peter of Pisa and Gregory the Elder,’ reading ‘Anglia’ (n. f) has misled scholars into making Cono legate for England. There is no evidence that he sought to exercise powers in England.

4 By 7 Dec. (JL 6793). 5 Peter of Pisa, cardinal deacon of S. Adriano from before 16 Oct. 1113, became cardinal priest of S. Susanna before the death of Paschal II. A supporter of Anacletus II in the schism of 1130, he last occurs on 15 Dec. 1145. Gregory, cardinal priest of S. Lorenzo in Lucina, occurs 1116-25; he was employed as a legate in Italy and at Basle. Apparently independently Johnson (by implication) and H.-W. Klewitz, Reformpapsttum und Kardinalkolleg (Darmstadt, 1957), p. 129, emended the ‘senem’ of the manuscript to *Senensem'. There is no other evidence to associate Gregory with Siena or for him as ‘the Old’. Both Peter and Gregory had been in Italy when Calixtus was elected (Hüls, pp. 219—20, 210-11, 182).

138

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Guidonem Pisanum archidiaconum,! ab urbe Roma ad se uenientes, gaudiose suscepit. Hic uero Petrus clericus erat bonus,

castus et religiosus, canonum et decretorum et legum scriptarum non mediocriter peritus. Qui, audita ex ordine archiepiscopi nostri exilii causa, pie condoluit, et mutua collocucione et rerum aliquarum inter eos collacione, et pro honesta eius in curia conuersa-

cione, ei amore non modico in breui conglutinatus est. Id uero testimonii apud eos qui eum nouerant optinebat, ut nemo de illo diffideret cui auxiliari promittebat.^ Quem archiepiscopo nostro et suis uisum est Dominum illis pro uenerando* Conone reddidisse. Hic enim, quantum poterat, suggerendo, supplicando, arguendo, oportune inoportune pro archiepiscopo nostro faciebat. Pisanus archidiaconus clericus erat sapiens et honestus, et inter Romanos opinionis bone; qui eum non modice dilexit. Postea uero Tiburti-

nus? episcopus effectus est. Quamdiu dominus papa archiepiscopum nostrum secum retinuit, in missarum celebracionibus, in altarium consecracionibus

eum proximum et collateralem, ut cardinalem uel capellanum, habebat. Si duo altaria in ecclesia una consecraturus erat, alterum illi,* tradito uno uel duobus episcopis, consecrare precipiebat. Si uero ecclesiam dedicare debebat, quodcunque fieri iubet ordo intus

et extra,

cuncta

illi usque

ad consecracionem

altaris,

adiuncto aliquo quasi suffraganeo episcopo, facere iniungebat. In sollempnibus processionibus equitando factis, quando more apostolico coronatus fuit, sicut in die Natiuitatis Dominice Augustoduni/ et die Epiphanie Cluniaci,’ dominus Ostiensis qui magister inter eos et dignior erat, eum sibi comparem esse uoluit, et peracto" tante solempnitatis et dignitatis officio, archiepiscopus, sicut cardinales, bisancios aureos, quod presbiterium ab ipsis appellatur, a domino papa suscepit, quod cardinalibus et clericis suis, unicuique secundum quod ordinatum est, apostolicus die

coronacionis sue distribuit? * conduit A

> promittebat

4 Tiburtinus 7o; Liburtinus A

Augustini A, Ra.

Jo;

permittebat

* illi D; alteri A

* Cluniaci D; Cluniatici A

A

* uenerande

A

f Augustuduni D;

^ peracto D; peracte A

! There were at least two successive archdeacons called Guy at Pisa in these years, and possibly more. It is fairly certainly this Guy who occurs several times in 1118-19, once during the visit of Gelasius to Pisa in 1118 (Carte dell’ archivio capitolare di Pisa, ed. M. Tirelli Carli, iv (Rome, 1969), esp. Nos. 83, 87-8, 92; Regesto della chiesa di Pisa, ed. N. Caturegli (Rome, 1938), No. 280). He became bishop of Tivoli in 1123 X 1125, and died in 1139; Guy and his predecessor, Manfred, were the only holders of the see of

1119-20]

HUGH THE CHANTER

139

and Guy, archdeacon of Pisa,! who came to him from Rome. This Peter was a good clerk, chaste and religious, and more than usually skilled in the canons, decrees, and written laws. When he heard the details of the reason of our archbishop's exile, he kindly sympathized, and after conversing and comparing notes with him, and because of his honourable behaviour at court, soon became extremely attached to him. His reputation among his acquaintance

. was that of a man who could be implicitly trusted by anyone he promised to help. The archbishop and his company thought that the Lord had given him to them in place of their revered Cono. He did all he could for our archbishop, suggesting, praying, and reasoning, in season and out of season. The archdeacon of Pisa was a wise and honourable clerk, and of good repute among the Romans, and he thought highly of him [Thurstan]. He was afterwards made bishop of Tivoli. As long as the pope had our archbishop with him, he kept him close by his side, like a cardinal or chaplain, in celebrating mass and in consecrating altars. If he was to consecrate two altars in one church, he bade him consecrate one of them assisted by one or two bishops. But if he had to dedicate a church, he enjoined on him, with some bishop as a sort of suffragan, to do everything which the ceremony requires, within the church and without, up to the consecration of the altar. In the solemn mounted processions, when the pope wore his crown in the apostolic manner, as on Christmas day at Autun, and at Epiphany at Cluny, the lord of Ostia,’ the master and most distinguished of the cardinals, chose him for his companion, and after this solemn function, the archbishop, like the cardinals, received from the pope the golden besants, which they call priest-money (presbyterium), which the pope distributes to his cardinals and clerks, to each according to rule, on the days

when he wears his crown.? Tivoli to be reckoned unambiguously among the cardinal bishops (Hüls, pp. 4, 138). 2 The pope was at Autun on 25 Dec., at Cluny from 1 Jan. to 7 Jan. (JL i. 791-2; PL 166. 845); for the ceremonial of church dedication see Le Pontifical romain au moyen-áge, ed. M. Andrieu (Vatican, 1938-40), i. 176-95; for papal coronations, above, pp. 110-11 n. 1; the bishop of Ostia was Lambert, later Honorius II, for whom see p. 203 n. 6below; he was among the most recently appointed of the cardinal bishops, so the leading place Hugh assigns him is either personal or that traditionally assigned to his see (H.-W. Klewitz, Reformpapsttum und Kardinalkolleg (Darmstadt, 1957), pp. 26—9; a quite different principle is asserted in another context below on pp. 148-51). 3 The distribution of the presbyterium at papal crown-wearings is described by Cencius in Liber Censuum, ed. P. Fabre (Paris, 1905), i. 291-2; cf. ii. 128.

I40

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

Ad Purificacionem beate Marie fuit dominus papa Vienne, ubi

archiepiscopus fuerat, nec adhuc alter? successerat;! in qua tres septimanas faciens prouidebat et preparabat qualiter secure posset? sponsam suam spirituali matrimonio sibi desponsatam, sanctam scilicet Romanam ecclesiam, nondum uisam, uisitare. Defuncto enim beate memorie papa Pascali, sicut supradictum est, Iohannes cancellarius in papam Gel(asium) eleuatus est, set propter Alemagnicum regem, qui Romanam ecclesiam persequebatur, Rome se credere non ausus, per mare nauigans urbi Ianue appli-

cuit, demum Cluniacum peruenit? Exaugustus uero Henr(icus),

f-21

Cesar Teotonicus, immo Cedar? totus iniquus, sancte ecclesie inimicus, Burdinum archiepiscopum degradatum per quosdam Rome fautores maliciosos antipapam et anti-Petrum, aut potius anti-Christum, Rome constituit, propter quod in urbe et ecclesia dissensio et turbacio magna fuerat, nec tunc quidem penitus sedata erat.’ Ipse tamen Burdinus per Dei amicos ab urbe pulsus Sutrie degebat, et merito heresis sue multis bonis egebat, et contra Ihésum Christum et suos nequicias et iniquitates multas agebat: quem Deus postea per proprium sal destruxit. Radulphus archiepiscopus non adhuc archiepiscopum nostrum persequi cessabat, nec a professionis exaccione |destiterat,? set in hac perseuerans, regem compulit ut ad papam remitteret, temptans si quo modo apud ipsum et curiam efficere posset ut nostrum -cogerent profiteri." Sciebant bonum Cononem? contra iniuriam conantem non adesse, cuius absencia facilius impetrare putabant. Cumque dominus papa a* Vienna recederet, cor lapideum habuit qui ipsius summi patris et multorum suspiria, gemitus, et lacrimas aspexit, si non ad condolendum et collacrimandum motus fuit. Relinquebat ecclesiam cuif a iuuentute sua archiepiscopus prefuerat, relinquebat natalem patriam, nepotes, consanguineos, et homines suos, nunquam redditurus ad illos. Illi uero simili dolore ^ alter edd;

4 canonem A

aliter A; alius Ra.

* in A

f qui A

^ et add. A, Ra.

* cum sanguineis A

© profituri A

! There is just room for Hugh's three weeks at Vienne between the pope's presence at Lyons on 23 Jan. and at Romains-sur-Isére on 1 3 Feb. He is otherwise known to have been at Vienne 2-10 Feb. (JL 6809-14). His successor as archbishop of Vienne, Peter, first occurs before Apr. 1124 in JL 7122-3. ? Above, p. 95 n. 3. ? Cf. Isa. 21: 16-17. ^ Maurice, bishop of Coimbra 1099-1108 X 9, archbishop of Braga 1108 X g—1114, elected as (antipope) Gregory VIII 8 or 9 Mar. 1118, captured and deposed Apr. 1121.

1120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

I4I

At Candlemas the pope was at Vienne, where he had been archbishop and no one had as yet succeeded him.' He stayed there three weeks making provision and preparation how he might safely visit his spiritual spouse, the Roman church, which he had not yet seen. For after the death of Pope Paschal of blessed memory, John the chancellor, as we have related, was raised up as Pope Gelasius; but dared not trust himself to Rome on account of the king of the Germans, who persecuted the Roman church, but put to sea, landed at Genoa, and at last came to Cluny.’ For the ex-emperor Henry, a German Caesar, or rather Kedar,’ all iniquity, the enemy

of the church, by means of some of his wicked partisans in Rome, set up Burdinus, a degraded archbishop, at Rome as antipope and anti-Peter, or rather Antichrist, which gave rise to great dissension and tumult in the city and church, which was not yet entirely subdued. However, Burdinus had been driven out of the city by God's friends, and was living at Sutri, and, as his heresy deserved,

was much in want, and was doing much wickedness and injustice to Christ and His people. God afterwards destroyed him through his own wit. Archbishop Ralph still continued to pursue our archbishop, and to try to exact his profession.? With this object he forced the king to send again to the pope and try whether he could somehow get him and his court to compel our archbishop to make his profession. They knew that the good Cono was not there striving against wrong, and thought they would obtain their request more easily in his absence. And when our lord the pope was to leave Vienne, that man

must have had a heart of stone who beheld the sighs, groans, and tears of our holy father himself and of many others and was not moved to grieve and weep with them. He was leaving the church

over which he had presided from his youth up as archbishop, he

was leaving his native land, his nephews, kindred, and men,

never to return. And they were afflicted with the like grief, seeing

‘Burdinus’ was a by-name, possibly derived from ‘burdo’ (cf. modern Spanish ‘burro’), a donkey. On him see esp. C. Erdmann, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken ,19 (1927), 205-61; Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne (Paris, 1886— 1957), ii. 326, 347-8; JL i. 821-2; P. David, Études historiques sur la Galice et le Portugal (Lisbon/ Paris, 1947), pp. 441—501. 5 Ralph returned to England on 4Jan. 1120. Shortly afterwards he produced his elaborate defence of Canterbury's claims in a letter to the pope (Eadmer, HN, p. 259; HCY ii. 228-51; above, p. xlii).

I42

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

afficiebantur, uidentes patrem suum et dominum eos deserere, quem non ulterius sperabant? uidere. Misit ergo cum muneribus Exoniensem episcopum, qui apud Valenciam dominum papam inuenit.! Quod audiens fidelis Cono confratribus suis cardinalibus scripsit, ut peticioni* regis Anglie de professione Eboracensis archiepiscopi nullatenus consentirent; archiepiscopo quoque misit litteras que subscripte sunt.

Littere domini Cononis4 cardinalis et legati ad Eboracensem archiepiscopum Cono: Prenestinus episcopus et sancte Romane ecclesie legatus,

domino uenerando et fratri in Christo dilecto T(urstino) Ebora-

censi Dei gracia archiepiscopo, Spiritus Sancti Paracliti consolacionem. Audiuimus quod rex Anglorum iterum misit nuncios suos ad dominum papam ut uidentes per non uidentes decipiat, scilicet ut dominus noster et alii fratres nostri uos ad hoc cogant, ut contumaci et presumptuoso suo adulterinam? faciatis profes-

sionem; et eciam, sicut (a)/ quibusdam amicis et familiaribus intelleximus, gaudet multum ipse rex de nostra absencia, quia iactat se per fratres nostros posse perficere omnia que in curia nostra uoluerit; unde uestram monendo exoramus fraternitatem quatinus hoc nunquam fieri permittat. Eciam si angelus de celo? aliud annunciauerit quam id quod iusticie et auctoritatis est,

nunquam faciatis! Memor eciam estote illius quod legitur in libro Regum de Nabad, uiro glorioso, qui magis uoluit mori quam uineam suam, hoc est paternam hereditatem, impio regi et idolatro Achabh ad ortum suum faciendum uel dare uel uendere.^ Omnipotens Dominus; dilectissime frater, qui est iustus iudex, faciat uobis et nobis de iniuria uobis illata iusticiam, et uos semper incolumes custodiat! De statu uero uestro et prosperitate, atque de curia uestra, et quomodo se habeat, et quid de Anglia uobis est nunciatum, nobis litteris uestris significate. Fratres nostros qui uobiscum sunt, clericos uestros, dulciter ex nostra parte salutate, et confortate ne desperent, quia Domini est bellum, et ipse suos non derelinquit;? et leuius est uictoria nisi iusticia et Christus est in causa. 4 disserere A * sperabam A * onus (corr. to Conus) A f Supplied by Ra.

© peticionis A ® Deus Ra.

4 Coni

A

1120]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

143

their father and lord desert them, and having no hope of seeing him again. The king, therefore, sent the bishop of Exeter with gifts, who found the pope at Valence.! On hearing this, the faithful Cono wrote

to his brethren the cardinals that they should by no means consentto

the petition ofthe king of England about the profession ofthe archbishop of York. He also sent the archbishop the following letter:

Letter ofthe cardinal and legate, Cono, to the archbishop of York Cono, bishop of Palestrina and legate ofthe holy Roman church, to the venerable lord and beloved brother in Christ, Thurstan, by the grace of God archbishop of York, the consolation of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter. We have heard that the king of England has again sent his messengers to our lord the pope to deceive those who see by means of the blind, namely that our lord the pope and our other brethren may compel you to make an adulterous? profession to his contumacious and presumptuous [archbishop]. The king also rejoices greatly, as we have heard from some of our friends and household, at our absence, because he boasts that by means of our brethren he can effect whatever he wills in our curia. Wherefore we pray and warn you, brother, not to allow this ever to happen. Even if an 'angel from heaven? should bring you any message inconsistent with justice and authority, do not ever do it. Remember too what is read in the book of Kings about Naboth, that glorious man, who preferred to die rather than to give or sell his vineyard, his father's inheritance, to the impious and idolatrous King Ahab, to make a garden of it. May the almighty Lord, dearest brother, who is a just judge, do you and us justice for the wrong done to you and keep you safe for ever! Let us know by your letters of your health and welfare and of your curia and its state, and what news you have from England. Give our kind greetings to our brethren who are with you, your clerks, and encourage them not to despair, because the battle is the Lord's and He does not desert his own;? and victory is a poor thing unless justice and Christ are on our side. ! He was at Romains until 17 Feb., at Valence from 18 Feb. to 2 Mar. (JL 6818-27). ? Probably adulterous as unfaithful to his spouse, York (cf. above pp. 102-3).

3 Cf. Gal. 1: 18.

^ Cf. 3 Kgs. (1 Kgs.) 21.

5 Cf. 1 Kgs. (1 Sam.) 17: 47, 12: 22.

144

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Parum uidentes dixit dominus Cono propter predictum episcopum, qui cecus oculis nec litteratus erat;! set ideo rex noster et

antea et modo illum legauerat quod a fratre suo rege Will(elm)o ad papam Vrbanum et papam P(aschalem) sepe legatus fuerat, et strenuus et uafer Romanos et eorum mores bene nouerat. Sepe tamen, eciam cum uideret, Anglie imputatum est quod penuria? litteratorum in ea legabatur, nunc autem dupliciter, quod non litteratus et non uidens. Muneribus regis ab archiepiscopo? domino pape et curie diuisis, peticionem facit* quatinus pro amore regis et pro pace ecclesie in regno suo Eboracensem archiepiscopum profiteri Cantuariensi preciperet, et legacionem super Britanniam 4

in |sulam? illi concederet.? Vt breuiter dicam, nec dona in graciam illi concepta* nec peticio est exaudita. Inuehebanturf episcopo plures de curia et alii, cecitatem sibi exprobrantes,® quod in nocumentum exulis aduenerat; et quidam uolebant illum in eundo uel redeundo disturbare si scirent hoc illi placere. Noster uero nichil mali illi accedere? uelle dicebat, quia mandata regis et domini sui exequebatur. _ Vitra Valenciam papam prosecutus, alia quam’ petiuit forsitan impetrauit. Cui in dicessu dominus papa precepit ut diceret domino suo et regi fideliter intimans quatinus Eboracensem archiepiscopum reciperet ‘Nunc’ inquit ‘pauper et exul nos sequitur, et Romana ecclesia ei non deficiet, quando Deo placebit, restituendo. Set sciat rex quod nisi ipse dominum suum diligens nec malum pro malo reddere uolens obstitisset, iam iuste seueri-

tatis districcio illata foret Discedens episcopus extor(r)i nostro

aliquid compassionis et humanitatis liberaliter exhibuit, existimans quod dominum papam usque Romam prosequeretur. Sabbato in capite Ieiunii uenit dominus papa Vapinoqum, que est ciuitas in Prouincia.* Ibi iter archiepiscopi uersus Romam interruptum est. Ibi enim, iudicio curie et multorum qui aderant, ^ penuriam A very uncertain.

> Ra. punctuates legabatur. Nunc... uidens, ... The wording is * One expects fecit or faciebat ?^ Britanniam insulam edd.

(cf. p. 146 super Angliam); -nia -lam A; -nia -la Ra.

gratia(m)

recepta

* exprobantes A

finuehebantur

^ Better accidere

* Dubious; contrast p. 194 in

edd. (inuehebant

! que A

* William Warelwast of Exeter; above, pp. 78-9 n. 1.

Ra);

inueniebant

/ recipiet A

A

? 'The words ‘regis ab archiepiscopo’ are very odd; read probably ‘episcopo’, for the bishop of Exeter. Alternatively here, as elsewhere, the scribe has misread ‘archiepiscopio’, and Hugh is suggesting that the king’s gifts were derived from the confiscated revenues of the archbishopric of York (above, pp. 46 n. f, 124 n. c, 130 n. a).

1120]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

145

Cardinal Cono said ‘blind’ because of the bishop named, who was a blind man and no scholar; but the king had sent him as ambassador previously, and this time also, because he had often been sent by his brother King William to Popes Urban and Paschal, was energetic and cunning, and well knew the Romans and their ways. Yet, even when he had his sight, England was often reproached with the few scholars it had as ambassadors, but doubly so now, because the bishop was both illiterate and blind. Distributing the king's gifts from the archbishop? between the pope and the curia, he begged the pope, for love ofthe king and for the peace of the church in his realm, to order the archbishop of York to make his profession to the archbishop of Canterbury, and grant the latter the post of legate over all Britain.’ To be brief, the gifts were not graciously accepted nor the petition heard. Many of the curia, and others also, taunted the bishop with his blindness and abused him for coming to injure an exile; and some would have impeded his coming or return, if they were sure it would please Thurstan. But our archbishop said he would have no evil happen to him, because he was carrying out the orders of his king and lord. The bishop followed the pope beyond Valence, and perhaps got an answer that he had not bargained for. For, as the pope left, he commanded him to speak to his lord and king and faithfully tell him to receive the archbishop of York. ‘He is now’, said he, ‘following us, poor and an exile, and the church of Rome will not fail him, and will restore him when it pleases God; but let the king know that unless the archbishop had protested, out of love for his master and being unwilling to return evil for evil, the sternest measure of justice would have been taken against him.’ As the bishop left, he generously showed our exile some compassion and kindness, thinking that he would follow the pope to Rome. On the first Saturday in Lent [6 March 1120], the pope came to Gap, a city in Provence.’ There the archbishop’s journey to Rome was broken. For it was there decided by a judgement of the curia 3 Canterbury had long claimed that no legate should act in England except the archbishop. This is the first undoubted evidence that efforts were being made to secure an explicit papal grant of the legateship (H. Tillmann, Die papstlichen Legaten in England bis zur Beendigung der Legation Gualas (Bonn, 1926), pp. 30-2; Brett, - 35-40). d Lp shows the pope at Gap 6—11 Mar.; by the 15th he was at Embrun on his way over the Alps; by the 28th he was at Asti (JL i. 793-4).

146

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

definitum est Eboracensem ecclesiam ab illa indecenti professione solutam et liberam esse, et hoc apostolico priuilegio confirmari debere, et sic factum.' Dedit quoque dominus papa litteras archiepiscopo nostro ad Turonensem archiepiscopum et Beluacensem episcopum, precipiens quatinus litteras quas regi Anglorum mittebat ipsi deferrent: que hic subscripte sunt.*

Littere eiusdem pape ad archiepiscopum Turonensem pro archiepiscopo Eboracensi

Calix(tus) episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, uenerabili fratri G(ilberto), Turonensi archiepiscopo, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Quia deuocionis tue dileccionem et fidelitatis constanciam in beati Petri seruicio sepius probatam agnouimus, eius tibi negocia potissimum duximus committenda. Siquidem?

prudenciam tuam pro uenerabilis fratris nostri T(urstini) Eboracensis archiepiscopi causa, ex fratrum nostrorum consilio, nostra uolumus legacione perfungi, in quo^ quanta nobis et Romane ecclesie iniuria irrogetur, ipse, ut credimus, non ignoras. Tuam itaque, frater karissime, sollicitudinem exoramus

atque precipimus (ut)? illas, quas pro eodem fratre nostro T(urstino)* dirigimus litteras? in Normanniam ad regem Anglicum deferas, et post earum tradicionem’ regem ipsum uice

nostra tu et confrater uester, G(aufridus) Rotomagensis* archiepiscopus, quem in huius allegacionis execucione tibi socium

exhibemus,

(conuenire) diligentissime^ studeatis, eumque!

instancius deprecemini ut in predicti fratris nostri restitucione ita matris sue Romane ecclesia preces exaudiat quatinus uerus

filius eius* uideatur.* Que ad Beluacensem episcopum eandem sentenciam contine-

bant. Scripsit et domino Cononi™ mandans ut litteras quibus R(adulpho) archiepiscopo scribebat per aliquem illi mitteret, si Eboracensis archiepiscopus per litteras regi transmissas in ecclesia sua non

susciperetur.” Legacionem super Angliam uoluit illi committere, * Letter also in MRA i,f. 50 (a)

> siquidenciam o

© quo Aa; qua Ra.

4 ut a; om. A * T. a; uel A f post . . . tradicionem edd.; primo . . . tradicionem Aq; prima... tradicione Ra. 7 uicem nostram et cum fratre nostro G. Rotomagensi A ^ conuenire diligentissime a; diligentissime A; diligentissime

conuenire Ra.

uideatur) à

' cumque Aa

! continuebant A

i deprecimini Aa ? canoni A

* eius filius (om. ? suscipetur A

1120]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

147

and many assessors that the church of York was absolved and free from that improper profession, and that this should be confirmed by a papal privilege; and this was done.! The pope also gave our archbishop a letter to the archbishop of Tours and the bishop of Beauvais, bidding them take to the king of England the letter which he was sending to him, as follows:

Letter ofthe pope to the archbishop of Tours on behalf ofthe archbishop of York Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brother G[ilbert], archbishop of Tours, greeting and apostolic blessing. Knowing by frequent proof the warmth of your devotion and the constancy of your fidelity in the service of St Peter, we have thought his business should be entrusted to you most of all. On the advice of our brethren, we will that you act in your prudence as our delegate in the case of our venerable brother Thurstan, archbishop of York, in whom, as we believe, you are not unaware how great a wrong is being done to us and to the church of Rome. We therefore pray your attention, dearest brother, and bid you take to the king of England, in Normandy, the letter which we are sending him on behalf of our said brother Thurstan,’ and that, after you have delivered it, you and your brother, Geoffrey, archbishop of Rouen, whom we appoint your fellow in the execution of this legation, take good heed to interview and earnestly exhort the king in our stead, that by restoring our said brother he may so hear the prayers of his mother the church of Rome as to appear her true son." The letter to the bishop of Beauvais was to the same effect. He also wrote to Cardinal Cono, bidding him send to Archbishop Ralph, by some messenger, the letter which he was writing to him, in case the archbishop of York should not be received in his own church by virtue of the letter sent to the king. He also wished to entrust to him [Thurstan] the office of legate over England, ! The privilege proper is JL 6831, below, pp. 168-73. Two further consequential letters are below on pp. 174-7, given on the same day; cf. below, n. 3. 2 Gilbert, archbishop of Tours 1118-25, Peter of Dammartin, bishop of Beauvais 1114—¢. 1133 (Gallia Christiana, xiv. 76-8, ix. 720-1). 3 The letter below on pp. 174-5, copied into the MRA immediately after this one. 4 JL 6773, though there misdated.

148

1:22

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

quod et antea optulerat, precipiens ei ut susciperet, set nunc sicut et tunc pedibus eius prouolutus misericordiam postulauit ne ei iniungeret per quod regis animum iam aduersum se* . . . persone ipsius semper parceretur; quod uidentes dicebant ei quod supplicacionibus retorquebat, |et exilium sibi protelabat. Hoc tamen* illi a probis uiris et fidelibus fidelitati et probitati eximie innotabatur. Alias uero litteras scripsit regi, quibus eum? scire uolebat quid R(adulpho) archiepiscopo interdicebat, et alias clero et populo Eboracensis parochie.* Aduenerat Vapincum quidam clericus generosus et probus, Gepennensis ecclesie prepositus, infra ordines, immo ante omnes ordines eidem ecclesie electus episcopus,! set consideracione hoc erat ei indultum, ideo quod ad hoc magis obediencia erat coactus

quam se ingerens uel intrusus; quoniam Te(u)tonicus rex, in Remensi concilio excommunicatus, unum de suis festinabat contra Deum et dominum papam intrudere, qui excommunicato communicaret,’ nec beatum Petrum nec Christum reuereretur.? Cuius uiolencie iste melius resistere poterat, quia tocius regionis illius clericis diuiciis et amicis potencior et forcior erat. Hunc electum precepit dominus papa archiepiscopo nostro in presencia sua feria quarta? hostiarium, lectorem, exorcistam, acolitum, crastina uero subdiaconum ordinare, proximo Sabbato ab ipso papa diaconum ordinandum et presbiterum, et in crastinum episcopum con-

secrandum. Aderat ib(i) domnus Bernardus Sancti Dauid episcopus.? Sicut ibi tunc didicerunt, Romane ecclesie! consuetudo est omnibus diebus Quadragesime et in ieiuniis Quatuor Temporum quinque ordinibus ordinare.* Scriptum priuilegium domino pape allatum est. Quo perlecto, ipse manu sua scripsit.? Deinde Ostiensis episcopus subscribens sic

ait: 'Spacium proxime (post) dominum papam ad ascribendum * Some words have dropped out € PEE A * communicare A (sic) ii A; kalendas (-dis 7o.) Maii Ra.

* Dubious * tum A 7 cum A ® reuertetur A ^ feria iiii D; ka ! ecclesia A ? Supplied by Ra.

! Humbert de Grammont, bishop of Geneva 1120-1 135 X 6 (L. Binz,J.Emery, and

C. Santschi, Helvetia Sacra, Sect. 1, iii (Berne, 1980), 75-6).

? It is clear on every ground that the day meant is Wednesday 1o Mar. * Royal clerk and chancellor to Queen Matilda, bishop of St Davids I115—48, and a regular visitor to the papal curia from now on (J. Conway Davies, Episcopal Acts. . . relating to Welsh Dioceses, i (Cardiff, 1946), 134-45; C. N. L. Brooke, The Church and the Welsh

1120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

149

which he had previously offered him, bidding him undertake it. But now, as before, he prostrated himself at the pope's feet and besought him not to enjoin on him a task as a result of which [he would further irritate] the king, who was already hostile ... his person would always be spared. Those who saw this told him that he was contradicting his petitions and prolonging his own exile. But honest and loyal men took it as a mark of his own exemplary honesty and loyalty. The pope also wrote a letter to the king, letting him know what he was forbidding the archbishop of Canterbury to do, and another letter to the clergy and people of the diocese of York. There had come to Gapawell-born and honest clerk, provost of the church of Geneva, who had been elected bishop of that church, though not in holy orders or in any orders at all.! But this was pardoned him because he had been compelled to it by his obedience rather than himself intruding or being thrust in. For the king of the Germans, having been excommunicated in the Council of Reims, made haste to thrust in one of his followers, in opposition to God and the pope, who should communicate with an excommunicate and reverence neither St Peter nor Christ. The bishop elect was the better able to resist his violence because thanks to his wealth and friends he was more powerful and stronger than the clergy of all that region. The pope bade our archbishop to ordain this elect in his presence door-keeper, reader, exorcist, and acolyte on Wednesday,’ and on the morrow subdeacon. He was to be ordained deacon and priest by the pope himself on the following Saturday, and consecrated bishop on the morrow. Bernard, bishop of St Davids, was present.’ As those there then learned, it is the custom

of the Roman church to ordain to the five minor orders on any day in Lent and on the Ember days." A written bull of privilege was brought to the pope, who read it and signed it with his own hand. The bishop of Ostia then subscribed it, and said: ‘I leave the next place after our lord the pope blank for the subscription of the bishop of Palestrina, since Border (Woodbridge, 1986), pp. 28-30; Brett, pp. 239-45). For his own struggle for independence from Canterbury see below, pp. 206-7 n. 2. 4 Le Pontifical romano-germanique, ed. C. Vogel and R. Elze (Vatican 1963-72), i. 8. 5 Cf. below, pp. 180-1 and n. 3; there is a detailed discussion of the technicalities of a papal privilege under Calixtus II by B. Katterbach and W. M. Peitz in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle ,iv (Vatican, 1924), 188-93, with facsimiles opposite p. 176.

I50

[1225

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

domino Prenestino reseruo, quoniam prior meus est." Subscripserunt et alii quotquot aderant? presbiteri cardinales et diaconi. Priuilegio subscripto cum ceteris litteris accepto, archiepiscopus? rogauit dominum papam ut ei de sanctorum reliquiis? et de balsamo donaret. Cui benigne annuens de utroque donauit, dicens: *Et certe, si nostro sanguine opus haberes, non tibi conferre* denegarem.’ Vsum uero pallei, quamdiu in exilio esset, illi concessit, illis diebus et officiis quibus in prouincia sua ex predecessorum suorum consuetudine uteretur) Etenim extra® prouinciam uel regnum absque permissione summi pontificis metropolite palleo uti non licet; unde et in curia Romana aliquociens inter se contulerunt R(adulphum) archiepiscopum excessisse, quod in alio regno et in capellis et locis non decentibus palleatus cantabat. Apostolica benediccione accepta, ipse et qui cum eo erant clerici in osculo et lacrimis discesserunt. Plerique uero cardinalium et episcoporum et clericorum qui ibi erant eos longe extra ciuitatem prosecuti sunt, quibus abinuicem digredientibus utrimque a‘ singultu et fletu pauci? se continuerunt. Iam enim cohabitacione^ et dimidii anni comoracione quasi confratres et contuberniales' esse uidebantur. Regredientes per cunctas fere ciuitates, castella, et oppida per que uenerat/ ab episcopis et ab abbatibus, clericis et laicis cum gaudio susceptus est, et se excusantes querebantur non eum ante pro multitudine et sumptuosa procuracione domini pape cum quanta debuerant honorificencia suscepisse. Tot et tantos et tales in huius exilii transmigracione ei notos esse et eos nosse contigit, in primis quidem, quod precipuum et maximum fuit, dominum papam et curiam Romanam, deinde archiepiscopos, abbates, clericos, monachos, principes, proceres, milites, |et cuiuslibet generis et A adherant episcopus... ;

iuxta A

cione A

A

^ Ra. punctuates: diaconi priuilegio ... accepto. Archi* conferre D; estferreA 4 illi AD; ei Ra. * extra D; ; NER : | à om. Jo. . . * paucis A ^ cohabitacione edd.; eo habitai Sic A / venerant Jo.

5

: This passage is of some importance for the seniority principle and papal diplomatic

at the time; it is, however, not as clear as one would wish. The only surviving text of this

date attested by Cono and Lambert is the York privilege printed below (pp. 168—73). Cono was almost certainly not present at Gap; on pp. 136—7 above Hugh described the painful parting between Thurstan and the legate at Sens, early in December, and Cono wrote to the curia from afar when it reached Valence in late Feb. (above, pp. 142-3). Cono, though senior to Lambert, was not the longest serving cardinal-bishop; if Hugh's narrative and the York bull are trustworthy, then the space was left for Cono to add his

1120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

ISI

he is senior to me." All the other cardinals present, both priests and deacons, also subscribed. When the privilege had been subscribed and received, together with other documents, the archbishop asked the pope to give him some relics of saints? and some balm. The pope graciously consented and gave both, saying: ‘Yes,

if you needed my blood, I would not refuse it you.’ He also granted him the use of the pallium, during his exile, for the days and offices in which, by the custom of his predecessors, he would have used it in his own province. For the metropolitan may not use his pallium outside his province or realm without the pope's permission. Accordingly, in the curia too they sometimes discussed archbishop Ralph's transgressions in singing mass in another realm, in chapels and in unfit places, clothed in his pallium. After receiving the pope's blessing, he and the clerks with him departed with kisses and tears. But most of the cardinals, bishops, and clerks who were there escorted them a long way out of the city, and when they parted few on either side refrained from sobbing and weeping. For now, after living and dwelling together half the year, they seemed to be colleagues and messmates. As they went back through almost all the cities, boroughs, and towns through which he had come, he was received with joy by bishops, abbots, clerks, and laymen; and they excused themselves for not having received him with due honour

before, complaining of the crowd and the lavish expense of entertaining the pope. In the wanderings of his exile he came to know and be known by so many great and distinguished people: first and most important the pope and the Roman curia, then archbishops, abbots, clerks, monks, princes, nobles, knights, and men of every attestation some time later. Shortly afterwards Thurstan was seeking the legate at Reims, and they met at Soissons in April (below, pp. 152-3). The case is discussed in

full by M. Cheney in JEH 31 (1980), 429-39. For the general issue of seniority see Hills, pp. 77-88, with a citation of this passage at p. 66. 2 A 13th-cent. list of relics, printed in Fabric Rolls of York Minster, ed.J.Raine (Surtees Soc., 1859), p. 152 (also HCY iii. 109), notes the presence of ‘reliquiae quas apportauit beatus Willelmus et Henricus archiepiscopus et Thurstinus archiepiscopus, scilicet de ossibus apostolorum Simonis et Iude...’. 3 Privileges cast in a form which lists the occasions on which the pallium could be used were already becoming obsolete; those for Thomas I and Gerard of York (HCY iii. 9710, 26-8, Nos. 4, 11) were among the last of their kind. The privilege for Thurstan (below, pp. 168-9) is characteristic of the simplified later type. For the general principles governing the grant and use of the pallium, see C.-B. von Hacke, Die Palliumverleihungen bis 1143 (Marburg, 1898).

152

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

condicionis homines; et apud eos Deus illi tantam graciam contulit ut uere ex hoc exilii infortunio et infelicitate fortunatus magis et felix debeat reputari; maius est enim quam quod sit cuiquam credibile qui non uiderit, quam magnam infra sue exterminacionis terminum beniuolenciam sibi contraxit. In Franciam perueniens, ad Blesensem comitissam, corde eciam quam* genere nobiliorem, et ad filium suum comitem

Teobaldum diuertit| A quibus hilariter et acurate suscepto, quamdiu in terra eorum uel transeundo uel perhendinando esse placuit, nichil ei defuit. Sororem domini sui regis et nepotem quasi dominam et dominum habebat, et ipsi eum ualde diligebant, et de eius exilio fratri et auunculo suo minime fauebant. Que fecerat,

que^ deferebat, non omnia eos celauit. Ad regem Francorum uenire diffugit, prudent(er) agens, quia inter ipsum et regem nostrum grauis adhuc discordia durabat. Cum uero Remis uenisset querens dominum Cononem, Remensis archiepiscopus R(adulphus), qui cognominatus est Viridis? alacriter eum suscepit, qui eciam illi et clericis et famulis quos secum habebat in uictu et uestitu humanitatis obsequia dum

exularet qualia sibi suisque se (e)xhibiturum: liberaliter optulit.

Cui nimirum gracias inde magnas egit. Apud Suesionem domino Conone? inuento, ad alterutrum satis gratulati sunt. Interrogatis et responsis de prosperitate domini pape et cardinalium, et unde ab.eis dicesserat, quid profecerat, que quibus scripta detulerat, enarrauit. Tunc, prout illis melius uisum est, rem parauerunt. In proximo erat Pascha, in quo rex Francie Siluanectis curiam magnam habere debebat tum pro

solempnitate, tum pro filio suo ab archiepiscopis et episcopis et baronibus Francie facienda fidelitate? Ibi Turonensem et Beluacensem conueniret de proferendo litteras domini pape ad regem. Nolens archiepiscopus propter odium inter reges illi curie interesse, uno de suis clerico cum legato relicto, ipse ad * qua A

^ quod Ra.

* The text can hardly be sound

4 canone A

' Adela, daughter of William the Conquerer, married Count Stephen of Blois (d. 1102); her entry into the priory of Marcigny is described below. She died in 1137. Of her many children one son, Count Theobald of Blois (1 102-52) and (after 1125) Champagne, was King Henry's closest ally in these years; another son, Stephen, became count of Mortain by the grant of King Henry, count of Boulogne by marriage, and king of England in 1135; a third, Henry, abbot of Glastonbury (1 126—71) and bishop of Winchester 1129-71 (Orderic, iii. 116-17, vi. 42-5; H. D’Arbois de Jubainville, Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne, ii (Paris, 1860), 168ff.; J. Brundage, Traditio, 16 (1960),

1120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

153

sort and degree. And God gave him so much grace with them that as a result of the misfortune and misery of his exile he ought rather to be counted fortunate and happy; for the goodwill he acquired during the period of his exile is more than anyone could believe who had not seen it. When he came to France, he turned aside to the countess of Blois, whose heart was even nobler than her birth, and her son,

Count Theobald. They received him joyfully and with due honour, and he lacked for nothing while he chose to journey or stay in their land. He regarded the sister and the nephew of his king as his lord and lady, and they loved him well and were less well disposed to their brother and uncle respectively on account of his exile. He did not entirely conceal from them what he had done and what he carried. He avoided approaching the king of France out of prudence, because there was still serious strife between him and our king. But when he came to Reims in search of Cardinal Cono, the

archbishop, Ralph, whose surname was Viridis,? received him with joy, and freely offered him and all his clerks and servants, during his exile, all the services in the way of food and clothing that he would have allowed himself and his own men. Thurstan naturally gave him hearty thanks. He found Cardinal Cono at Soissons, and they exchanged greetings. After questions and answers about the welfare of the pope and cardinals and where he had left them, he told him how he had fared, and what letters and to whom he had brought away. They then made such preparations as they thought best. Easter was coming, when the king of France was to hold a great court at Senlis, both for the feast, and for the archbishops, bishops, and barons of France to do fealty to his son.? He would there approach the archbishop of Tours and the bishop of Beauvais to arrange for the delivery of the pope's letters to the king [of England].* But the archbishop [of York] was unwilling to attend that court because of

the strife between the kings; so he left one of his clerks with the 380-95; M. Bur, La Formation du comté de Champagne (Nancy, 1977), pp. 231-5; R. H. C. Davis, King Stephen (London, 1967), pp. 7-10). ? Ralph le Verd, former provost of Reims, elected archbishop in 1106, d. 1124 (Gallia Christiana, ix. 80—2).

3 18 Apr. (Luchaire, p. 134, No. 287, who does not cite Hugh, the only source for the date).

4 Above, pp. 146-7.

I54

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

comitissam rediit. Cum ea diebus aliquot demorato, de conuersione domine et dextere excelsi in ea mutacione est contrectatum,

quod paulo post fuit ad finem tractum.! Die Pasche apud Columbias? primum cum palleo cantauit; tercia die uenit ad castrum quod Domnum Martinum? uocant, et legatus obuiam illi; et relato quod nec Turonensis nec Beluacensis propter multas occupaciones et impedimenta legacionem hanc mature perficere non poterant, deputati sunt huic negocio duo religiosi, alter regularium canonicorum abbas, alter alterius ecclesie prior. Dum sic ageretur, archiepiscopus ad comitissam reuersus, eam cum aliis episcopis et abbatibus usque ad Ma(r)ciniacum produxit. Que, spretis seculi diuiciis et pompis, ibi monialis effecta est. Qua quidem, testimonio regis Ludouici et principum tocius Francie, nulla prudencior nec melius composita nec magis uirilis uirago ex multa retro etate in tota Gallia extiterat. Ipse uero quendam clericum suum reliquerat, qui, audito quid litteris domini pape rex respondisset, redeunti sibi renunciaret. Abbas et prior litteras domini pape regi retulerunt, quibus quod

eis iniunctum erat et quod sibi uisum est oportere racionabiliter | £23 suppleuerunt. Earum exemplum est hoc.

Littere eiusdem pape ad regem Anglie pro eodem archiepiscopo Calix(tus)

episcopus,

seruus, seruorum

Dei,

karissimo

in

Christo filio H(e)n(rico), illustri regi Anglie, salutem et apos-

tolicam benediccionem. Causam uenerabilis fratris nostri T(ur-

stini), Eboracensis archiepiscopi, tanto facilius tecum ad pacem et concordiam reducere sperabamus, quanto et manifestius eum sincera te diligere dileccione comperimus; unde in colloquio inter nos habito, tecum micius egimus, et quod exigente iusticia precipiendum fuerat, precum instancia optinere conati sumus. Verum si necdum exauditi simus, adhuc tamen a spe nostra nequaquam decedimus. Et spirituali enim? et carnali affeccione coniungimur, et peticio nostra plena iusticia? et racione ? enim om. Ra.

^ justicia edd.; iusticie A

! Cf. Ps. 76: 11 (77: 10); for her entry to Marcigny see below. ? The form Columbias suggested Colombes to Johnson, though he does not specify which one he had in mind. It is more likely that Hugh means the Benedictine abbey of Coulombs (Columbas), on the Eure near Dreux.

? The Dammartin intended is probably that in cant. Houdan (dép. Yvelines, formerly

Seine-et-Oise).

1120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

155

legate and returned to the countess. He stayed with her for some days, discussing her entry into religion and the change of the right hand of the Almighty therein, which was soon afterwards accom-

plished.’ On Easter day [18 April] at Coulombs,’ he first sang mass in his pallium. T'wo days later he came to the town called Dammartin? and the legate met him; and on their being told that because of much business and other difficulties neither the archbishop of Tours nor the bishop of Beauvais could speedily perform this mission, two regular clergy were deputed to the task, one an abbot of regular canons, the other prior of another church. While this was going on the archbishop returned to the countess and, with other bishops and abbots, brought her to Marcigny,

where, despising the riches and pomp of this world, she became a nun.‘ Than her, witness King Louis and the princes of all France, no more prudent, better constituted, or more virile woman had been in all Gaul for many an age.

He had left one of his clerks behind to hear what answer the king had made to the pope's letter, and to report to him on his return. The abbot and the prior brought the pope's letter to the king, and added a reasonable account of what had been their instructions and what they thought should be done. Here follows a copy of the letter:

Letter ofthe pope to the king of England on behalf ofthe archbishop Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his dearest son in Christ, Henry, illustrious king of England, greeting and apostolic blessing. We had hoped it would be the easier for us,

with your help, to bring the case of our venerable brother Thurstan, archbishop of York, to a peaceful and agreed conclusion, the more clearly we saw that he was sincerely attached to you. We therefore dealt somewhat mildly with you, in the interview which we had, and attempted to obtain by prayer what we ought to have commanded in the name of justice. But even though our prayers have not yet been heard, we have still in no way departed from our hope. We are joined to you both by spiritual and natural affection, and our petition is fully supported by justice * Hugh is the only authority for the date of the countess's withdrawal, which is generally placed later (Orderic, vi. 44—5, n. 2).

156

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

fulcitur. Quippe neque communis ecclesie consuetudo permittit ut archiepiscopus archiepiscopo professionem exhibeat, que* soli Romano debetur pontifici, et egregius ille? in regno uestro

Christiane fidei propagator, papa Greg(orius), ad Augustinum

scribens,

Cantuariensem

(et)' Eboracensem

archiepiscopos

pares post eundem Augustinum instituit." Cuius auctoritatem domini predecessores nostri, felicis? memorie Pascalis et Gelasius, ecclesie Romane pontifices, imitantes, predictum fratrem

nostrum T(urstinum) professionem Cantuariensi archiepiscopo facere penitus prohibuerunt. Sane a fidei sponsione, quam’ in prefato colloquio pretendebas, nos te presentem? presentes

(auctoritate)! apostolice sedis absoluimus^

In ea caritate

Tquoque Christus? est, sicut filium karissimum te rogamus, et apostolica tibi auctoritate precipimus, ut sepedictum fratrem nostrum, T(urstinum) archiepiscopum Eboracensem, nostris tanquam beati Petri manibus consecratum, suscipias, et in com-

missa sibi Eboracensi ecclesia quiete facias inposterum permanere, nec tot Christi oues diucius proprii pastoris carere solacio paciaris, ne ipsarum periculum a te districcius a summo iudice requiratur, qui eas luporum dentibus laniandas exponis, dum ad earum custodiam pastorem* proprium accedere non permittis.? Misit et dominus Cono litteras suas, quibus mandando pre-

monuit et quasi premuniuit, necnon omnimodis (hortatus est, ut)! dominum papam audiret. Auditis rex litteris domini pape et legati, se, prius habito cum suis consilio, dixit responsurum. Et cum hoc semel et iterum et tercio procrastinaret, abbas et prior dixerunt illi: "Domine rex, utile et decorum consilium accipite, sciens pro certo quod non pro hac re deinceps litteras precatorias uidebitis.’ Tandem rex dixit se uelle legato colloqui et eius consilium sequi. Tamen propter aliquas causas precedentes non sese inuicem amabant. Abeuntes legato sic renunciauerunt. Ille bene animosus homo se non curare regis colloquium respondit;et illi: (Fortasse ex astucia dixit, quod uos nolle uenire credebat, quatinus ex hoc sumpta occasione domino pape obicere queat ideo precepto suo non ? quoque A P iiA * Supplied by Ra. 7 instituetA * felicis Ra. (cf. p. 174); felicis bone A; felices bone Jo. f qua A 7 de A ^ per add. Jo. * Inserted here by edd. for the sake of the rhythm, after sedis by Ra. ! Perhaps que Christus or que in Christo; Ra. punctuates strongly after est * pastorem 7o.; pastor est A ! Supplied by Ra.

1120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

157

and reason. For the common custom of the church does not permit an archbishop to make that profession to an archbishop, which is due only to the bishop of Rome. And Pope Gregory, the noble planter of the Christian faith in your land, writing to Augustine, appointed the archbishops of Canterbury and York equals after Augustine himself! Following his authority, our predecessors, Paschal and Gelasius, of happy memory, pontiffs of the church of Rome, entirely forbade our brother Thurstan to make his profession to the archbishop of Canterbury. From the pledge of faith which you used as an objection in our interview, we absolved you face to face by the authority of the apostolic see.” In Christ's charity we ask you as our dearest son, and command you by apostolic authority, to receive our said brother Thurstan, archbishop of York, consecrated by us as if by St Peter, and cause him to abide peaceably henceforth in the church of York, which is committed to him. Nor shall you any longer suffer so many of Christ's sheep to lack the comfort of their own shepherd, lest their danger be rigorously required by the supreme Judge of you, who are exposing them to be torn

apart by the teeth of wolves, in that you do not allow their own shepherd to go to guard them.? ! Cardinal Cono also sent his own letter, in which he gave him instructions, forewarning and as it were ensuring that he by all means listen to the pope. After hearing the letters of the pope and the legate, the king said that he would reply after first consulting his council. And when he put off doing so, once, twice, and thrice, the abbot and the prior said to him: ‘My lord king,

take our profitable and honourable advice, and be assured that these are the last letters of request that you will receive on this

matter.’ At last the king said that he would talk with the legate and follow his advice. However, owing to previous causes, they were not on good terms. The envoys went away and reported this to the legate. He, being a man of spirit, said he did not care to have an interview with the king. They replied: ‘Perhaps he said this out of cunning, because

he thought that you would refuse to come, in order to be able to make use of the pretext to answer the pope that he had not obeyed ! Above, p. 99 n. 1. ? Above, pp. 130-1, below, pp. 158-9. 3 JL 6832.

158

$1323!

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

obedisse, quod legatus suus loqui ei dedignatus, cum ipse uelle consilium eius inde habere mandauerat; et pro tempore aduersum se aliquid? pro amico suo agendum est. Ex uestra collocucione per Dei auxilium amico uestro archiepiscopo restitucio et pax prouenire potest.’ Sic illis persuadentibus, eo adquiescente, destinatum est colloquium apud Vernonem, Dominica post Ascensionem,! rege mandante quod archiepiscopus sic prope esset quod, si responderet,° ad eos mandatus breui peruenisse posset? Archiepiscopo de Marciniaco regresso, clericus quem reliquerat cuncta illi per ordinem enumerauit. Quibus auditis Deo et |domino pape gracias egit. Dehinc ad legatum peruenit. Prope erat dies colloquio decretus, ad quod uenerunt rex et episcopi cum militum magna multitudine, legatus cum episcopo uno et aliquanta clericorum bonorum societate. Proposuit rex de litteris domini pape, quod precepto ei obedire nequibat* propter fidei sue promissionem, nisi Eboracensis archiepiscopus Cantuariensi uel personalem uel temporalem faceret professionem, et papa regem ad fidem ledendam cogere non debebat. Ipse archiepiscopus iamdudum redierat? in Angliam. Opposuit legatus professionem illam esse indebitam, nec exhibendam fidem, si uerum esset, intra iusticiam precipitatam,! nec tenendam, et dominus papa inde eum absoluerat et absoluebat. Illi uero et ecclesie Romane iniuria magna illata erat quod archiepiscopus manibus eius consecratus ideo spoliatus exulabat. Eapropter saltem nunc demum ei obediendum erat, cum nichil nisi iusticiam perciperet;* alioquin que sentencia sentiretur,’ et uelociter, ei non reticuit. Vtrinque sermonibus multis placide? et iracunde positis et appositis, rex tandem assensit quod de archiepiscopatu eum reuestiret,’ tantum ut ad tempus ab ingressu Anglie abstineret, et hoc legatum exorabat ut concederet. Quod cum legatus id se facere nec uelle nec debere responderet, insinuatum est regi ut, ipsum archiepiscopum requirens, eum precaretur ut concederet, et de * aliqne 4(2); perhaps aliquando ^ Hardly sound (unless it could mean ‘were appropriate’); perhaps (e.g.) respondere deberet © nequinebat A 4 redierit A * The text of this clause is uncertain; perhaps preciperet f Perhaps sequeretur (cf. p.

164)

® plaude A

! Vernon (dép. ? 'The meaning ? The meaning for lack of justice

^ Perhaps oppositis

Eure). is obscure. is far from clear; the sense seems to be that the oath was hasty, either or because the case was continuing.

1120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

159

his order because his legate had disdained to speak with him, when he had sent word that he wanted to have his advice. And on occasion a man must put himself out for his friend’s sake. By God’s help, an interview with you may result in restitution and peace for your friend the archbishop.’ So, by their persuasion and the legate’s consent, an interview was arranged at Vernon on the Sunday after Ascension day [30 May],' the king ordering that the archbishop should be near enough for him to join them when sent for, at short notice, supposing an answer needed to be given? When the archbishop returned from Marcigny the clerk whom he had left told him all this from beginning to end. On hearing it he gave thanks to God and the pope, and then came to the legate. The day appointed for the conference was near. To it came the king, the bishops, and a crowd of knights, and the legate with one bishop and a considerable number of worthy clerks. The king led off with the pope's letter. He could not obey the pope's command without breaking his word, unless the archbishop of York made personal or temporary profession to the archbishop of Canterbury; and the pope ought not to force the king to break his word. The archbishop had long ago returned to England. The legate countered that the profession was not due; the king should not have (if he truly had) given his word while the matter was sub judice? nor should he keep it; the pope had absolved him, and still did absolve him from it. A great wrong had been done to him and to the Roman church, in that an archbishop, consecrated by his hands, had on

that account been robbed of his see and exiled. For that reason he ought now at least to obey, when he would receive nothing less than justice; he told him plainly what sentence he would otherwise incur, and that soon. After much discussion, sometimes calm and sometimes angry,

the king at last agreed to restore* the archbishopric to him, provided that he would refrain for the time from returning to England. This he besought the legate to grant. But when the legate answered that he neither would nor should do that, it was suggested to the king that he should send for the archbishop and beg him to grant it, ^ Hugh's use of the word ‘reuestire’ for ‘restore’ here and on the next page echoes, intentionally or not, the earlier debates on the king's right to invest with temporalities. It was the temporalities presumably which the king had seized. Cf. above, p. 8o n. I.

160

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

concessu suo apud legatum intercederet, mandans quod erga se melius ei inde contingeret.* Colloquio ipse non intererat, set castellum paulo ante ingressus, donec mandaretur alibi expectabat. Vnde requisitus per probos et honestos uiros, quamquam ei absurdum? et contra se uidetur, uolens tamen? bono malum uincere, propter amorem domini sui concessit, et ut ipse concederet domino legato humiliter supplicauit. Quam supplicacionem non sensatam nec sanam esse ei obiectans, tamen quia ei? sic postulabat consensit. Venerunt ergo uterque ad regem; legatus pro parte ipsius archiepiscopi eam quidem conuencionem,® quia rex predixerat ne faceret quod dominus papa ei preceperat usque ad festum sancti Michaelis, celare se dixit.! Tunc uero rex et legatus amici facti, cum essent prius aliquantulum inimici, et archiepiscopo licuit Normanniam ingredi et regredi. Digrediuntur rex et legatus, et archiepiscopus in Franciam cum legato, relictis quibusdam de suis qui de reuestitura archiepiscopatus in Angliam afferrent. Quod rex suum archiepiscopum recepit, bene fecit; quod uero ab Anglia adhuc eum detinuit, non sibi in sinistrum recidit. Ille enim per dominum Cononem et per archiepiscopos et episcopos et primores Francie de pace componenda inter reges studiose curauit; que non longo post tempore, eo potissimum contrectatore et mediatore (et cui de Normannis rex Francorum magis inde credidit), multis hinc et illincf allegacionibus, per Dei graciam, ad bonam finem perducta est. Quia ergo rex hac impediente discordia a regno suo diu afuerat,? pace composita, quamcicius commode posset, rebus in ducatu bene dispositis, in regnum redire desti-

nauit. Ad festum sancti Michaelis uoluit archiepiscopus in Angliam transire, sicut inter regem et ipsum conuenerat; set rex precibus et blandiciis et causa negociorum donec ipse iret detinuit. Qui et hac uice detentus, regi et archiepiscopo et episcopis Normannie in aliquantis officiosus et utilis extitit. Cum enim dominus Cono concilium, quasi Remensis concilii anniuersarium, * contingeret Ra.; contigeret A, Jo. ^ obsurdum A * tamen edd.; in A; cum Ra. * Corrupt; read ei quia or quia ille * eam... conuencionem edd.; ea ... conuencione A; but the text is highly uncertain filinc Jo; illic A ® afuerat Jo.; affuerat A

! The text seems corrupt, and the sense can only be recovered by conjecture, but it is clear from the next paragraph that it was agreed that Thurstan should accompany the king at his intended return to England at Michaelmas. Simeon, ii. 258, also stresses the

1120]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

161

and intercede with the legate to that effect, with a message that it would put him on better terms with the king. He [the archbishop of York] had taken no part in the conference, but had entered the town a little before, and was waiting elsewhere to be sent for. Now he was summoned by good and

honourable messengers. Although it seemed to him absurd and inconsistent, yet wishing to overcome evil with good, he consented, out of love for his master, and humbly besought the legate to consent also. The legate protested that the request was neither sensible nor sane, but consented because the archbishop asked. Both of them therefore came to the king; the legate, on behalf of the archbishop, said that he was concealing the agreement, because the king had already said he would not do what the pope

had ordered until Michaelmas.! The king and the legate then made friends, in spite of their having been somewhat ill-disposed

to each other before, and the archbishop was given permission to enter Normandy and leave it again. The king and the legate separated, and the archbishop went to France with the legate, leaving behind some of his company to bring news into England of his restoration to the archbishopric. The king did a good deed in receiving his archbishop, but in still keeping him out of England did him no harm. For the archbishop took great pains to procure a peace between the two kings by means of Cardinal Cono and the archbishops, bishops, and nobles of France. And this by the grace of God was brought to a good end not long afterwards after much bargaining on both sides, mainly by his

diplomacy and mediation, he being the man on the Norman side in whom the king of the French had the most confidence. As the king had been kept a long time out of his realm by this dispute, he decided, after making peace and regulating the affairs in the duchy, to return to his kingdom as soonas possible. The archbishop wished to cross to England at Michaelmas, as had been agreed between him and the king. But the king detained him by prayers and coaxing and for reasons of business until he should go himself. Being once again kept back, he was obliging and useful in certain matters to the king and the archbishop and the bishops of Normandy. For Cardinal Cono having summoned a council of his whole legation at Beauvais, as if for the anniversary of the Council of importance of Thurstan’s mediation, but supposes the king made no decision on his recall before his return to England.

162

f. 24

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

de tota legacione sua apud Beluacum conuocasset, rex dimissionem |de suis episcopis et abbatibus quesiuit, set non nisi in amphibologia assecutus. Et cum die predicta concilium sederet, nec de episcopis et abbatibus Normannie ullus adesset, a legato et archiepiscopis et episcopis Remensis et Senonensis prouincie prouisum est eos ante solucionem concillii pro contemptu et inobediencia excommunicare? debere. Quo per aliquem notificato, rex archiepiscopum festinanter Beluacum misit. Quo uiso legatus est et? ex parte subtristis. Intellexit enim propter quod uenerat. Set quid multa? Amicicia, precum instancia tamen^ pro rege, pro se

maxime, sentencia illa mutata est. Siquidem Rad(ulphus) Remen-

sis archiepiscopus dixit ei: «Certe, frater, si non uenisses, Normanni excommunicati forent.' Difficillimum esset eo tempore, nec petitu nec obtentu dignum, quo archiepiscopus noster petito a legato et episcopis Francie, non optento recessisset.? Siquidem in duplicis sue eieccionis exilio nemo omnium quos nouerimus, apud excelsos et humiles, apud religiosos et seculares, apud monachos et moniales, largiendo, seruiendo, honore preueniendo, tantam amiciciam uenatus est. Rex eciam per archiepiscopum legato mandauerat quatinus, si ei molestum non esset, ad se Gisorcium, quod non longe distabat, ueniret. Cupiebat enim loqui illi priusquam transfretaret. Legatus

adducto secum Will(elm)o Catalaunensi* episcopo et Siluanec-

tensi/ episcopo? et aliis personis illuc aduenit; ubi a rege graciarum accionibus legato exhibitis, et sermonibus plurimis de Deo, de sancta ecclesia, de negociis et iocis inuicem habitis, rex illi episcopos et abbates suos commendauit, ipsi uero et qui cum eo uenerant omnibus fere dona dedit. Legatus uero de archiepiscopo suggessit, intimauit, et inculcauit ut sic faceret quod dominus papa grates illi haberet. Quo bene se facturum pollicente, data illi benediccione,* ad presens transiturum Deo commendans, in osculo et

amicicia dicessit. Post dicessum eius rex coram episcopis Normannie et quibusdam Anglie sic ait: ‘Melius fuisset nobis quingentas

marcas

perdidisse

quam

* excommunicare A, Jo.; -ari Ra., perhaps rightly haps factus est

Eboracensi

archiepiscopo

^ est et can hardly be right; per-

* Corrupt; perhaps instancia, pro rege, tamen pro se

cessisset Jo.; recessit A © Catalanonensi A; Catalauonensi Ra. nectensi A ® benediccionem A

d re= f salua

! For the Council of Beauvais in Oct. 1120 see esp. Chronique de St. Pierre-le-Vif de Sens, ed. R.-H. Bautier and M. Gilles (Paris, 1979), pp. 184, 188; MGH Scriptores,

1120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

163

Reims, the king asked for the release of his bishops and abbots, but only obtained an ambiguous consent.! And when the council sat on the appointed day, and none of the bishops or abbots of Normandy was there, it was determined by the legate and the archbishops and bishops of the provinces of Reims and Sens that they must be excommunicated before the council closed for contempt and disobedience. On receiving notice of this, the king sent the archbishop to Beauvais in haste. The legate was a little sorry to see him, for he knew the reason for his coming. To be brief, the sentence was altered out of friendship and owing to his earnest prayers, for the king's sake but especially for his own. Indeed Ralph, archbishop of Reims, said to him: ‘If you had not come, brother, the Normans would have surely been excommunicated.’ It would have been a most difficult thing at that time, something improper both to ask and to obtain, for our archbishop to ask it of the legate and the bishops of France, and go away without obtaining it. Indeed, in the exile of his double ejection,” nobody we know of won such friendship from high and low, religious and secular, monks and nuns, by liberality, service, and courtesy. The king had also sent word by the archbishop to the legate to come to Gisors (at no great distance) if it was not inconvenient to him. For he wished to speak with him before crossing. The legate came accompanied by William, bishop of Chàlons, and the bishop of Senlis and others.’ The king thanked the legate, and after a long conversation about God, Holy Church, and matters of business and mirth, commended to him his bishops and abbots. He also gave

presents to him and almost all who were with him. The legate hinted, intimated, and urged that he should act in the archbishop's case in such a way as to secure the pope's gratitude. When he had promised to do so, the legate blessed him, commended him to God for his coming crossing, and with a kiss of friendship departed. When he had left, the king said, before the Norman bishops and some of the English: 'It would have been better to have lost five xv. 902; Schieffer, pp. 209-10. The issue of the attendance of the Norman bishops was the same which had disturbed King Henry so gravely at the Council of Chálons in 1115 (above, pp. 60-1 n. 2). : 2 The ‘double ejection’ means perhaps his failure to enter his diocese, and his exile; alternatively it refers to his first loss of his diocese as elect, and now the king’s refusal to allow him to take up his office. 3 William, bishop of Chálons-sur-Marne 1113-1121 X 2; Clarembald, bishop of Sen-

lis 1115-1133 X 4 (Gallia Christiana, ix. 877-8; x. 1397-9).

164

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

caruisse.' Cui aliquis de audientibus, etsi quidam uiderent, bene et urbane subiunxit: ‘Dignum est igitur ut inde ei melius sit hic.’ Ad mare rex pedetentim tendit. Archiepiscopum cum eo transire uolentem et sperantem amicabiliter adhuc deprecatus est quatinus in Normannia expectaret quousque in Anglia in Natale Domini archiepiscopo et episcopis collocutus esset, et unum de suis clericis cum illo mitteret per quem remandaret. Ille nec in hoc illi adhuc aduersari uolens, sicut petebat, se facturum dixit, et usque ad mare cum eo perrexit. Set antequam transfretaret remisit eum ad legatum qui erat Carnoti? propter negotium suum. Cui ibi inuento uerba regis locutus. Eo discedente filius eius, rex et dux iam designatus, naufragio perierat, et uniuersi qui naue eadem uehebantur, quod eum uehementer contristauit.! Nam preter domini sui regis filium et domi-

num futurum multos amicos amiserat. Rex autem nimirum graui et inmoderato dolore percussus, tandem per se, sicut sapiens homo, et per comitem Teobaldum, qui cum eo uenerat, et per alios consolatus est. Sicut promiserat proximo Natali Cantuariensem archiepiscopum et episcopos? suos conuenit, Litteras domini pape de recepcione Eboracensis ostendit, et nisi reciperetur, que sentencia post modicum sequi debebat edocuit. |Estimo regem aliqua precipitacione fidem spospondisse, condicionaliter tamen, in licencia Cantuariensis archiepiscopi et permissione. Intelligens archiepiscopus sagittam hanc prius in se infigi, episcopi uero ignominiam regi reputantes^ in regno suo Christianitatem interdici, ut eum reuocaret et concesserunt et consiliati sunt. Post octabas Theophanie nuncius uenit Rotomagensis? ad archiepiscopum cum" litteris regis iubentibus eum uenire. Qui gaudens de exilio reuocatus, paratis que opus erat, triduo ante Purificacionem sancte Marie transfretauit. Deinde ad regem ueniens eum Windesoris inuenit; a quo et a regina, quam nuper duxerat,° et aliquantis episcopis et proceribus et de curia multis gaudenter susceptus.? * Carnoti Jo.; carnon A > ipsos A * duxerat Jo.; dixerat A 4 quam A

* reputantes Jo.; reputantis A

! The White Ship went down on 25 Nov. 1120; see Orderic, vi. 294-307, citing the other chief authorities. The dead included William, Henry I’s only legitimate son; cf. above, pp. xxi—xxii. ? The reading of the manuscript is clear, but Thurstan was certainly in Normandy at the time (cf. above); it seems likely that Hugh meant that he was at Rouen when the

1120-1]

HUGH THE CHANTER

165

hundred marks than not to have had the archbishop of York.’ One of his hearers, regardless of being seen, well and wittily added: "After that, he deserves to be better treated here.’ The king moved gradually to the coast. The archbishop wished and hoped to cross with him, but the king still begged him, as a friend, to wait in Normandy till he should have conferred in England at Christmas with the archbishop [of Canterbury] and the bishops, and to send with him one of his clerks by whom he could send back word. The archbishop, still unwilling to oppose him, said he would do as the king wished, and accompanied him to the sea. But before crossing, the king sent him to the legate, who was at Chartres, on

business. He found him there and repeated the king’s message. As the king left Normandy, his son, the king and duke designate, and all who were with him in his ship perished by shipwreck, which caused the archbishop much sorrow.! For he had lost many

friends, as well as his lord the king’s son and his future lord. The king was of course smitten by deep and unrestrained grief, but like a wise man he consoled himself, and was consoled by Count Theobald, who had come with him, and by others. The following Christmas, as he had promised, he interviewed the archbishop of Canterbury and his bishops. He showed the

pope’s letter about receiving the archbishop of York, and told them what sentence must quickly ensue unless they received him. I reckon that the king must have pledged his faith somewhat hastily, but not unconditionally, depending upon the licence and leave of

the archbishop of Canterbury. The archbishop, understanding that the arrow would pierce him first of all, and the bishops, considering the disgrace to the king if his kingdom were placed under interdict, granted and advised that he should recall Thurstan. After the octave of the Epiphany [13January], a messenger came to the archbishop at Rouen’ with the king’s letter bidding him come. Rejoicing in his recall from exile, he made the necessary prepara- tions, and crossed the Channel two days before Candlemas [31Jan.]. He then came to the king and found him at Windsor, and was joyfully received by him and the queen whom he had lately married, by a number of bishops.and nobles, and many of the court.’ messenger came. It is not obvious why we should be told the immediate point of departure of the messenger. 3 King Henry married Adela, daughter of Godfrey VII, count of Louvain, on 29 Jan. at Windsor (Eadmer, HN, pp. 292-3; Orderic, vi. 308-9; Simeon, ii. 259; John of Worcester, p. 16.).

166

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Modicum ibi pernoctans ad sponsam suam presencia ipsius diu uiduatam, Eboracensem scilicet ecclesiam, properauit. Cumque ciuitatem appropinquaret, tantus concursus* factus est ei obuiam exeuncium clericorum, monachorum, procerum, militum, uirorum ac? mulierum, equitancium et peditum, ut quibusdam ex hoc ad mentem reduceretur quod de beato Iohanne scriptum est:

*Occurrit beato Iohanni ab exilio reuertenti o(mnis) p(opulus) uirorum) a(c) m(ulierum) c(lamancium) et d(icencium,) “Bene(dictus)? q(ui) u(enit) i(n) n(omine) D(omini)."" In ecclesia uero,

sicut decebat archiepiscopum tamdiu pro libertate eiusdem ecclesie exulatum, Dominica qua cantatur, ‘Esto michi in Deum protectorem’,’ in amplexibus sponse sue cum exultacione et tripudio receptus est; et in tanta audiencia lecto et exposito de libertatis ecclesie reformacione apostolico priuilegio, omnes congratulati sunt et Deo gracias reddiderunt? In cathedra repositus, tercia die sollempnitatem beati Petri, que Cathedra eius appellatur, in ecclesia ipsius beati Petri festiue celebrauit. Crastina uero die, que fuit capud leiunii, putrida membra, que pro merito peccatorum suorum mater ecclesia a se abicit, pastor pie feriens, cineres capitibus imponens, Sathane tradidit, in interitum carnis, ut spiritus saluus fieret. In proxima Cena Domini, crismate sollempniter consecrato, sex* denarios de singulis ecclesiis parochialibus et quatuor de capellis, quos‘ ex antiqua consuetudine quoque anno pro crismate redde-

bant, liberaliter remisit et perpetuum remittendos* decreuit? Precium quoque pro sepultura uel pro unccione infirmorum uel pro baptisterio! exigere uel accipere, nisi spontanee datum, omnimodis

interdixit. Exemplar priuilegii hoc est. ? occursus Ra. > et Ra. * The words that follow are presented in A in abbreviated form; they were supplemented by Ra. with some help from the rather fuller version of D. 4 bene(dictus) D (cf. Matt. 21: 9); b(eatus) Ra. * vii D f quos D; quorum A * in add. D ^ remittendos D; remittenda A ! pro baptisterio D; probasterio A

" Cf. Matt. 21: 9; Mk. r1: g-1o. Raine identified this as a quotation from a Life of St

John Chrysostom, and expanded the abbreviations partly from Digby. He gave no reference to his source, which we have not been able to trace. In the unique manuscript Simeon, ii. 260, reports the presence of a bishop ‘Hom’ Sancti Ebroini' in the north with Thurstan and Ranulf of Durham very shortly afterwards. It is possible that this is a corrupt reading for Audoen of Evreux, the archbishop’s brother, and that he had accompanied him to his diocese. ? The introit for Quinquagesima (20 Feb.), Ps. 30 (31): 3. * For the public reading of papal privileges see H. Fichtenau, Beitrage zur Mediavistik (Stuttgart, 1975-86), i. 145—82.

1121]

HUGH THE CHANTER

167

He passed a few nights there, and hastened to his spouse, the church of York, which had long been widowed of his presence. And when he approached the city such a crowd came out to meet him of clerks, monks, nobles, knights, men and women, on horseback and on foot, that some of them remembered what is written about St John [Chrysostom]: "There came to meet St John as he returned from exile the whole people, male and female, crying and

saying “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.””! But

in the church, as befitted an archbishop who had so long been in exile for the freedom of that church, he was received with exultation and rejoicing in the arms of his spouse, on the Sunday on

which is sung, “Be thou unto me a God, a protector’;? and when the apostolic privilege as to the restoration of the church's freedom was read and explained in the hearing of so many people, all rejoiced together and gave thanks to God? Two days later, enthroned once more in his chair, he celebrated the feast called ‘St Peter's Chair’ [22 February] in St Peter's own church. On the morrow, being Ash Wednesday, the shepherd, religiously lopping the rotten limbs which Mother Church casts away from her as their sins deserve, he sprinkled ashes on their heads and delivered them unto Satan to the death of the flesh, that the

spirit might be saved." On Holy Thursday [7 April], after solemnly consecrating the chrism, he generously remitted, and decreed to be remitted for ever, the six pence from each parish church and four from every chapel, which they rendered annually by ancient custom for the chrism.? He also forbade the exaction of fees for burial, anointing of the sick, or baptism, or the acceptance of them unless freely offered.

Here follows a copy of the privilege. * 22-3 Feb.; the Ash Wednesday ceremonies are described in Pontifical of Magdalen College, pp. 153—4, and Pontifical romano-germanique ,ed. C. Vogel and R. Elze (Vatican, 1963—72), ii. 14—23; for Holy Week cf. above, pp. 108-9 n. 3. 5 Payment for chrism had been condemned by Calixtus II in his councils of Toulouse and Reims in 1119, and was to be so again at the Council of Westminster in 1125 (CS i/2. 738 and n. 3). It was, and long remained, customary in England (Brett, pp. 164-6, esp. on York and Thurstan, p. 165). There is independent testimony in EEA v, No. 13 that chrism dues were levied in the diocese of York at 64. from each church a little earlier. 6 For the drafting and grant of this privilege see above, pp. 146-9, below, pp. 180-1. Its authenticity was defended against earlier criticism by M. Cheney (above, p. lix n. 3). A further argument may be developed from its form, for this arenga, to 'ecclesiis impertiri’ below, was used by the papal chancery for solemn grants and privileges over a brief period only. It is first recorded in Paschal II's pallium privilege and general confirmation for Besancon in 1105, and recurs in similar bulls for Narbonne, Bamberg, Bari,

168

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

"Calixtus episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, uenerabili fratri Thurstino Ebor(acensi) archiepiscopo eiusque successoribus canonice substituendis in perpetuum. ""Karitatis bonum est proprium gaudere prouectibus aliorum, unde et Apostolus tunc ait: ‘Viuimus si uos statis in Domino’,! et iterum: ‘Que est enim nostra spes aut gaudium aut corona glorie? Nonne uos ante Dominum nostrum lesum Christum?" Hoc igitur caritatis debito prouocamur, et apostolice sedis auctoritate compellimur, honorem debitum fratribus exhibere, et sancte Romane ecclesie dignitatem pro suo cuique modo ceteris ecclesiis impertiri. Proinde, karissime frater et coepiscope Turstine, tibi tuisque successoribus et per uos Eboracensi ecclesie, cui cooperante Deo per manus nostre imposicionem preesse cognosceris, imperpetuum confirmamus uniuersos Eboracensis metropolis suffraganeos, et quicquid parochiarum uel episcopali uel metropolitano iure ad eandem cognoscitur ecclesiam pertinere, pallei quoque usum, pontificalis uidelicet officii plenitudinem, fraternitati tue ex liberalitate" sedis apostolice confirmamus, diebus illis qui in ecclesie uestre priuilegiis distinguntur.^ Antiquam preterea? Eboracensis ecclesie dignitatem integram conseruari auctore Domino‘ cupientes, et predecessorum nostrorum sancte recordacionis Vrbani, Pascalis et GelasiifRomanorum pontificum sentenciis adherentes, auctoritate apostolica prohibemus ne ulterius aut Cantuariensis archiepiscopus ab Eboracensi professionem quamlibet exigat, aut Eboracensis

Cantuariensi exhibeat, neque, quod penitus a beato Gregor(io)

prohibitum est, ullo modo Eboracensis Cantuariensis dicioni subiaceat, set iuxta eiusdem patris constitucionem "ista inter eos honoris distinccio imperpetuum conseruetur, ut prior habeatur

qui prior fuerat ordinatus"? Sane si Cantuariensis archiepiscopus

ab Eboracensi electo consecracionis manum subtraxerit, quam uidelicet, iuxta ecclesiarum suarum morem ab Honorio apostolice sedis pontifice? institutum, inuicem sibi debent, liceat eidem * [Not in A.] From a i, f. 42"; L ff. 1127-113; H (= BL, Harley 1808, s. xiv, register of York) f. 48; U. Robert, Bullairedupape CalixteII(Paris, 1891), i. 125-6, No. 86 (= Y), from Rouen, Bibliothéque municipale, Y 27 (1405), s. xii, incomplete. We give a select ap-

paratus. b-b om, H gorii L

* libertate a 2 pontifice om. aH

4 preterea om. H

* Deo HY

f Gre-

and Lyons. Gelasius II employed it for Toledo, and the York privilege is its last known example JL 6056, 6157, 6291, 6314, which survives as an original, 6510, 6657). The arguments for inserting the text here are set out above on pp. lviii-lix.

1120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

169 Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brother Thurstan, archbishop of York, and his legitimate successors for all time. It is characteristic of charity to rejoice in the successes of others. Hence the apostle said on one occasion, "We live, if ye stand fast in the Lord’,! and on another, ‘For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ?? Therefore, prompted by this debt owed to charity and compelled by the authority of the apostolic see, we give due honour to our brothers and grant to other churches in appropriate measure the dignity of the holy Roman church. Accordingly to you, dearest brother and fellow bishop Thurstan, and to your successors, and through you to the church of York, over which, with God's help, you are known to preside thanks to the laying on of our hand, we confirm in perpetuity all the suffragans of the metropolitan see of York, and whatever dioceses are known to belong to that same church by episcopal or metropolitan right; further we confirm to you, brother, the use of the pallium, that is, the fullness of pontifical authority, in accordance with the generosity of the apostolic see, on those days which are marked out in the privileges of your church. Desiring further, under the Lord, that the ancient dignity of the church of York be preserved unimpaired, and cleaving to the decisions of our predecessors of holy memory, Urban, Paschal, and Gelasius, pontiffs of Rome, we decree by apostolic authority that in future the archbishop of Canterbury shall not demand any profession from him of York, nor the archbishop of York make one to him of Canterbury, nor—something wholly forbidden by the blessed Gregory— be in any way subject to the jurisdiction of him of Canterbury; rather, according to the constitution of the same father, ‘this distinction of honour should always be maintained between them, that whichever is first ordained be regarded as first"? Ifthe archbishop of Canterbury withholds from the elect of York the hand of consecration—which they owe each other in turn according to the custom oftheir churches laid down by Pope Honorius'—the elect of York may be consecrated by his own suffragans, according to the common usage of the church, and the ! 1 Thess. 3: 8.

2 1 ‘Thess. 2:19.

3 Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, i. 29 (ed. Colgrave and Mynors, pp. 104-7).

^ bid. ii. 18 (pp. 198-9).

170

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Eboracensi, secundum communem ecclesie consuetudinem et

predicti patris nostri Greg(orii) sanccionem et domini nostri sancte memorie Pascalis pape mandatum, a suis suffraganeis consecrari. *-Ad hec antiquas libertatis consuetudines, et possessiones quas uel in presenti legitime obtinetis uel in futurum, largiente Deo,’ poteritis adipisci, Eboracensi* ecclesie presentis priuilegii auctoritate firmamus, statuentes ut nullus eas auferre uel? minuere uel temerariis audeat uexacionibus infestare, set omnia

integra conseruentur, eorum pro quorum sustentacione et gubernacione concessa sunt usibus omnimodis profutura.* Illud quoque capitulo presenti subiungimus ut ecclesie Sancti Andree Haugustaldensis, Sancti Iohannis Beuerlacensis, Sancti Wilfridi de Ripun, Sancte Marie de Suthewella, Sancti Oswaldi de Gloecestra, cum omnibus earum possessionibus et libertatis consuetudinibus, uobis uestrisque successoribus, necnon et Eboracensi ecclesie, integre semper et quiete permaneant.-*! Si qua igitur in futurum ecclesiastica secularisue persona, hanc nostre constitucionis paginam sciens, contra eam temere uenire temptauerit, secundo tercioue commonita, si non satisfac-

cione congrua emendauerit, potestatis honorisque sui dignitate careat, reamque se diuino iudicio existere de perpetrata iniquitate cognoscat, et a sacratissimo corpore et sanguine Dei et Domini Redemptoris" nostri Iesu Christi aliena fiat, atque in extremo examine districte ulcioni subiaceat. Cunctis autem eidem ecclesie iusta seruantibus sit pax Domini nostri lesu Christi, quatinus et hic fructum bone accionis percipiant, et apud districtum iudicem premia eterne pacis inueniant. Amen.-®2

Ego Ego Ego Ego Ego

Calixtus catholice ecclesie episcopus subscripsi Cono Prenestinus episcopus subscripsi? Lambertus Hostiensis episcopus subscripsi Boso cardinalis presbiter* Sancte Anastasie subscripsi Greg(orius) cardinalis! tituli"? Lucine subscripsi

Ego Petrus presbiter cardinalis tituli Sancte Susanne subScripsi

** om. Y sis L

** om. H 4 uel om. a

> L adds iuste, probably rightly

|t sea

"n om. H ^ Redemptoris om. à pr. card. L ! presbiter L used the formula tituli Lucine.]

© Eboracen-

. " Gloucestria H; de Gloucestra twiceL

! Yends / subscripsi om. HL passim ” L adds Sancte; not in aH [Gregory commonly

! For Hexham, Beverley, Ripon, and Southwell see above, pp. 52-5 and notes. For St

1120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

17I

rule of our father Gregory, and the order of our lord Pope Paschal, of holy memory. In addition, by the authority of this present privilege, we confirm to the church of York the ancient customs of liberty and possessions which you lawfully hold at present or may in future obtain with God's help, laying down that no one shall dare to remove, diminish, or temerariously plunder them; instead they

shall all be preserved unimpaired, to further all the uses of those for whose sustenance and direction they were granted. This too we add to the present clause, that the churches of St Andrew at Hexham, St John at Beverley, St Wilfrid at Ripon, St Mary at

Southwell, and St Oswald at Gloucester, with all their possessions and customs of liberty, shall always remain, wholly and without disturbance, in the possession of you and your succes-

sors and the church of York.! If in future any person, religious or lay, knowing the terms of this our constitution, shall temerariously attempt to thwart it, and despite two or three warnings fails to make proper satisfaction, he shall lose the dignity of his power and rank, knowing that the wickedness he has done makes him guilty before God the judge, and he shall be cut off from the most blessed body and blood of our Lord and God, the Redeemer Jesus Christ, and be subject to rigorous vengeance at the last judgement. But on all

who maintain the rights of the church be the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they may in this world receive the fruits of their good works, and in the presence of the severe Judge find the rewards of eternal peace. Amen.’ I Calixtus, bishop of the catholic church, have subscribed I Cono, bishop of Palestrina, have subscribed? I Lambert, bishop of Ostia, have subscribed I Boso, cardinal priest of St Anastasia, have subscribed

I Gregory, cardinal of the title of Lucina, have subscribed I Peter, cardinal priest of the title of St Susanna, have subscribed Oswald of Gloucester see J. H. Denton, English Royal Free Chapels 1100—1300 (Manchester, 1970), pp. 51-3; F. Barlow, English Church 1000— 1066 (2nd edn., London, 1979), D. 75 n. 5. York's exercise of rights over Hexham and Gloucester was of relatively recent origin. 2 The sanction here is in common form; of the bulls cited above at pp. 167-8 n. 6, cf. e.g. JL 6157, 6510. 3 For the attestation of Cardinal Cono see above, pp. 150-1 and n. 1.

172

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Ego Petrus diaconus cardinalis Sanctorum Cosme et Dami-

E ani subscripsi Ego Petrus diaconus cardinalis Sancti Adriani subscripsi Data Vapinci per manum Grisogoni* sancte Romane ecclesie diaconi cardinalis ac bibliothecarii,’ quinto idus Marcii, Indiccione xiii, incarnacionis dominice anno Mcxx, pontificatus autem domini Calixti pape secundi? anno secundo.!

447 ittere ejusdem pape ad Cantuariensem archiepiscopum pro Eboracensi electo Calix(tus) episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, uenerabili fratri Rad(ulpho) Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Licet te sicut fratrem in Domino diligamus, Romane tamen ecclesie diuturnam iniuriam et contemptum* preterire silencio non debemus. Siquidem dominus predecessor

noster, sancte memorie P(aschalis) papa, missis ad te litteris precipiendo mandauit ut uenerabilem fratrem nostrum T(ursti-

num) Eboracensem electum, omni professionis exaccione deposita, consecrares. Eo defu(n)cto, successor eius, dominus noster papa Gel(asius), similiter de consecracione precepit, illud adiciens, ut cum electo pro cause decisione ipsius te conspectui presentares./ Id ipsum et nos fecisse meminimus, set in causa illa nichil apud te dileccionis, nichil reuerencie potuimus inuenire. In Remensi concilio, ad quod inuitatus a nobis fueras, ques-

tionem super eadem professione, quamf£ uidelicet contra beati

Greg(orii) constitucionem ab Eboracensi archiepiscopo exigis, f.25

decidere sperabamus; uerum cum nec ipse ue|nires nec personas que uices tuas agerent destinares, nos habito fratrum nostrorum tam cardinalium quam archiepiscoporum et episcoporum, qui

multi aderant, consilio, predictum fratrem nostrum T(urstinum) electum in Eboracensis ecclesie archiepiscopum consecrauimus. Consecrato^ autem, quia exaccioni tue in professione illicita non

consenserat, omnino non licuit ad sedem propriam remeare. In quo quantum ipse beatum (Petrum) et nos, qui licet indigni

locum eius in ecclesia optinemus, offenderis, tam Romana quam Gallicana ecclesia non ignorat. Etenim postquam idem frater a * Crisogorii L ^ dia’ card’ ac bibliothecarius a * uero L 4 secundi pape L 7d. A resumes. Some words of transition to the following letters may also have fallen out. * conceptum A f presentaris A 7 quaA ^ consecrata A ! Supplied by Ra. quod A

1120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

173

I, Peter, cardinal deacon of St Cosmas and St Damian, have subscribed I Peter, cardinal deacon of St Adrian, have subscribed Given at Gap, by the hand of Chrysogonus, cardinal deacon and librarian of the holy Roman church, on 11 March, in the thirteenth indiction, in the year of our Lord 1120, and the second year of the pontificate of the lord Pope Calixtus II.!

Letter ofthe pope to the archbishop of Canterbury on behalf ofthe elect | of York Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brother Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury, greeting and apostolic blessing. Though we love you as our brother in the Lord, we ought not to pass over in silence your long continued wrong to and contempt of the Roman church. Our predecessor Pope Paschal, of holy memory, sent you letters in which he ordered you to consecrate our venerable brother, Thurstan, elect of York, without exacting any profession. After his death, his successor, our lord Pope Gelasius, gave the same orders as to his consecration, adding that you should present yourself before him with the elect for the decision of the case. We remember that we ourselves did likewise, but in that case we could find in you neither affection nor reverence. We hoped to decide the question about the profession which you demand from the archbishop of York contrary to the constitution of St Gregory, at the Council of Reims to which we had invited you. But since you

neither came yourself nor sent persons to act for you, after taking counsel with our brethren, both cardinals and archbishops and bishops, many of whom were present, we consecrated our elect brother Thurstan archbishop of the church of York. But he was not allowed to return to his own see after consecration, because he had not consented to your exaction of an unlawful profession. How far you have by this offended St Peter, and ourselves who, unworthy as we are, occupy his place in the church, is well known to the Roman church and the Gallican as well. For after our said brother had been made archbishop ! JL 6831 (HCY 86, 154).

iii, No. 23, U. Robert, Bullaire du pape Calixte II (Paris, 1891), i, Nos.

174

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

sede apostolica per manus nostre imposicionem archiepiscopus factus est, mox ecclesia spoliatus est quam electus antea* optinebat. Pro tanta ergo et tam graui^ contemptus pertinacia, nos tibi episcopale atque sacerdotale officium interdicimus, et in matrici Cantuariensi ecclesia diuina celebrari officia prohibemus, nisi infra mensem unum post harum litterarum accepcionem predictis frater noster in Eboracensi ecclesia suscipiatur et manere

quiecius dimittatur.!

*Cal(ixtus) episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, karissimo in Christo filio, H(enrico),/ illustri et glorioso Anglie* regi, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Sepe iam dileccionem tuam pro uenerabili fratre nostro, T(urstino) Eboracensi archiepiscopo, uerbis et litteris monuisse meminimus, et nichil adhuc in eius negocio de honore Dei et ecclesie apud te ualuimus impetrare; unde grauiori profecto correccionefdignus fueras. Set quia duplici te dileccione complectimur, persone tue ad presens in execucione iusticie

duximus indulgendum. Ceterum confratris? nostri, R(adulphi) Cantuariensis archiepiscopi, contemptum omnino diucius tole-

rare non possumus. Et a dominis enim felicis memorie P(aschali)

et Gel(asio), predecessoribus nostris, et a^ nobis ipsis commoni-

tus, nec electo Eboracensis ecclesie absque professionis exaccione manum imponere, nec pro eodem negocio nostre (se)! uoluit audiencie presentare. Et ipsi igitur* episcopale atque sacerdotale officium interdicimus, et in matrici Cantuariensi ecclesia, necnon et Eboracensi, cum! propria parochia tota, diuina omnia celebrari officia et sepulturam mortuis prohibemus, preter infantum baptisma et moriencium penitencias, donec pre-

dictus frater noster T(urstinus) Eboracensi ecclesie restitutus, manere in ea quiecius dimittatur. Si enim" predictus dominus noster Pascalis papa eum adhuc in eleccione positum ab Eboracensi abesse" ecclesia nullatenus passus est, nos, consecratum iam per Dei graciam nostris tanquam beati Petri manibus, exulare prorsus pati nec possumus nec debemus. Dat’ Vapinci v. idus Marcii.” ^ antea edd; anna A (cf. p. 40 n. h); annulo Ra. * Letter also in MRA i,f. 50 (a) (starting at seruorum)

> graui edd.; grauis A 4 nem add. A above line;

uere Jo. * Anglorum à f correpcione a * confratris a; cum fratris A; tamen fratris Ra. ^a om. à ! Supplied by Ra. ? noluit à k

ergo à

" aba

1

cum om. o

° Date omittedina

: " . ™ si= enim Q; set enim A; set eciam cum Ra.

. i120]

HUGH THE CHANTER

175

by the apostolic see by the imposition of our hands, he was immediately robbed of the church which had been conferred on him before as elect. For such grave obstinacy in contempt, we forbid you the episcopal and sacerdotal office, and prohibit the celebration of divine service in the mother church of Canterbury, unless our said brother is within one month after receipt of this letter received in the church of York, and allowed to abide

there undisturbed.!

Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his dearest son in Christ, the illustrious and glorious Henry, king of England, greeting and apostolic blessing. We remember having admonished you, by word and by letter, on behalf of our venerable brother, Thurstan, archbishop of York, and have so far failed to obtain any of our requests in this case for the honour of God and the church; a thing which certainly made you deserve severe correction. But because you are doubly dear to us, we have thought proper in the execution of justice to indulge you personally for the present. However, we can no longer in any way endure the contemptuous behaviour of our brother, Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury. He was admonished by our predecessors Paschal and Gelasius, of happy memory, and by ourselves, and yet would neither lay his hands on the elect of York without exacting a profession, nor present himself to our audience about the matter. We therefore forbid him the episcopal and sacerdotal office, and prohibit in the mother church of Canterbury, and York also, and the whole of their respective provinces, the celebration of all divine service and the burial of the dead (excepting only the baptism of infants and the penance of

the dying) until our said brother Thurstan has been restored to the church of York, and is allowed to abide there in quiet. For if our said lord Pope Paschal in no wise suffered him, while still only elect, to be absent from the church of York, we cannot and

ought not let him be an exile now that he has by God's grace been consecrated by our hands, as though by those of St Peter.

Given at Gap, 11 March [1120]? ! Not in JL; this and the following letter are paraphrased in Simeon, ii. 262. ? JL 6774 (misdated); the letter originally entrusted to the archbishop of Tours and bishop of Beauvais, above, pp. 146-7.

176

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Littere eiusdem pape ad eundem regem Anglie pro eodem archiepiscopo Eboracensi?

*Cal(ixtus) episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, clero et populo per Eboracensem parochiam constituto, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Matrem uestram," Eboracensem ecclesiam, tanto tempore sponsi sui carere presencia paterne pietatis affectu dolemus uehemencius et grauamur. Et quidem" in parte

hac, (licet)* uos inculpabiles existatis, quamdiu tamen alicuius uiolencia sponsum abesse contigerit, cum filii sponsi sitis, lugere uos conuenit et merere, sicut et de ipsius gaudere presencia, iuxta illud euuangelicum,! debebatis. Apostolica igitur auctoritate, tam in uestra matrice Eboracensi ecclesia quam in propria ipsius ubique parochia, sepulturam et alia omnia diuina officia, preter infantum baptisma et moriencium penitencias, celebrari penitus prohibemus, donec uenerabilis frater noster, T(urstinus) archiepiscopus, nostris tanquam beati Petri manibus consecratus, in ea suscipiatur et manere quiecius dimittatur.

(Datum Vapinci v. idus Marcii.)

Harum exemplaria/ (archiepiscopo/ recepto tradere opus non f.25' fuit) in ecclesia nostra |adhuc bullata habentur? Quod, sicut pre-

notatum est, ad ecclesiam suam rediit Dominica in Quadragesima

qua cantatur ‘Esto michi in D(eum) p(rotectorem) et in (domum) r(efugii), u(t) s(aluum) m(e) fa(cias)’, arbitrati sunt aliqui pacis esse pronosticum et quietis propter figuram quinquagenarii, cuius numeri annus iubeleus erat.’ In tempore gracie dies quinquagesimus sacratus est, ideo quod die* illo post resurreccionem Domini Spiritus Sanctus! super discipulos apparuit. Nondum tamen, nec propter litteras quas sibi scriptas esse non ignorabat, passus est Radulphus" archiepiscopus archiepiscopum nostrum habere de professione hac iubileum nec proteccionem nec refugium nec saluacionem; et quod iste non est professus, ille eum apud regem non est infestare defessus ex occasione quorundam priuilegiorum Romanorum de dignitate et * This heading should precede the previous letter

BL Lansdowne 402, f. 103 (L) * licet om. A sponsi

* nostraAa add que ™ Rado A

> Letter also in MRA i,f. 50" (a) and

© nostram Aa. sitis L; sponsi sitis et a, Ra.;

_” Datesupplifrom ed aL (in L thescribe first wrote Maii) / archiepiscopus A * die Jo; de A

4 quidam A sponsis suis A

! Perhaps ' sancti A

. 1120-1]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

177

[Letter ofthe pope to the clergy and people of York on behalf ofthe archbishop| Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to the clergy

and people throughout the province of York, greeting and apostolic blessing. In virtue of our paternal affection we are sorely grieved and pained that your mother, the church of York, is so long deprived of the presence of her spouse. And although you are without blame in this matter, yet so long as the bridegroom is taken away from you by force, it behoves you as children of the groom to mourn and weep, as much as, according to the gospel, you ought to have rejoiced in his presence.! We therefore absolutely forbid, by apostolic authority, both in your mother church of York and everywhere in its province, burial and all other divine service to be celebrated, except the baptism of infants and penitence of the dying, until our venerable brother, Archbishop Thurstan, consecrated by our hands as if by those of St Peter, be received in it and allowed to abide there in quiet. Given at Gap, 11 March [1120].” The originals of these letters (which it was unnecessary to deliver now that the archbishop had been received) are kept in our church, with their ‘bulls’ still attached.? The fact (already recorded) that Thurstan returned to his church on the Sunday in Lent [Quinquagesima] on which is sung, ‘Be thou unto me a God, a protector,

and a house of refuge, to save me’, was thought by some to be an omen of peace and quiet on account of the number ‘fifty’, which is the number of the year of Jubilee." In the years of grace the fiftieth day [Pentecost] is sanctified, because on that day after the Resurrection of the Lord the Holy Ghost appeared over the disciples. Not yet, however, not even on account of the letter which he well

knew had been written to him, did Archbishop Ralph allow our archbishop to have a jubilee, nor protection, nor refuge, nor salvation in the matter of this profession; and because he had not professed, he did not cease to molest him before the king in connection with certain bulls of privilege concerning the dignity 1 Cf. Matt. g: 15. ? Not in JL. 3 i.e. with their leaden papal seals attached; cf. below, pp. 194-5 n. 1. ^ Above, p. 166 n. 2. On the year of Jubilee, deriving from Lev. 25: 10-11, see G. Lambert, Nouvelle revue théologique, 72 (1950), 234-51; R. Foreville, Le Fubilé de S. Thomas Becket (Paris, 1958), pp. 29-36.

178

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

primatu Cantuariensis ecclesie, que monachi nuper inuenerant uel cogitauerant. Vt faber extinctum prope follibus excitat ignem,’

sic Cantuariensis tacfensiobust regem accendit, et impulit quatinus nostrum cogeret profiteri. Quibusdam* antea uero sicut aliquociens regi persuadebant regni decus esse magnum primatem habere, nec regnum quod coronam habeat esse sine primate. Quod ueritate refelli potest. Regnum Lumbardorum unum tantum, Mediolanensem scilicet, habet metropolitanum; hic uero nec primas est nec primatem habet. Episcopus Papiensis eciam, qui de prouincia illius est et ei conterminus,° palleo utitur et crucem sibi preferri facit, neque metropolite subiectus est. Quare nichil mirandum est duos metropolitas in regno uno? alterum alteri non subesse. Set iuxta rusticorum prouerbium, *Qui asinum non uidit,

de camelo miratur." Treueris quoque in Teutonico regno prima sedes antiquitus fuit; set, sicut in curia pape Cal(ixti) episcopus noster et sui a quodam uenerabili eiusdem ciuitatis archiepiscopo acceperunt, supra nullam modo primatum habet.? Mense Augusto premandauit rex archiepiscopo nostro quod ad presens uideret quantum pro eius amore facere uellet. Ad festum sancti Michaelis conuocauit colloquium magnum de episcopis et baronibus regni.* Mandauit et archiepiscopo nostro ut cum personis ecclesie et clericis senioribus et sapientioribus illuc conueniret, quo, si quid ibi ageret, eorum assensu ratum firmaretur. Iam ei comminacionem tonitrus intonuerant aut profiteri aut denuo exulare. Eo noster archiepiscopus cum suis uenit. Rad(ulphum) archiepiscopum pridie uel nudius tercius ante infirmitas inuaserat, qua detentus colloquio interesse impotuit Rex Cantuariensi agens per episcopos et proceres archiepiscopo nostro mandauit

quatinus Rad(ulph)o archiepiscopo pro pace ecclesiarum, pro amore suo personaliter profiteretur. Quibus archiepiscopus: ‘Quod ideo, quia contra iusticiam uidebatur, ante priuilegium

* What follows is corrupt; the translation presupposes e.g. Quidam uero, sicut aliquociens antea, ... ^ Mediolanensan silet A * cum terminus A 4 una A * Presumably read non potuit * Perhaps add pro (cf. p. 182 pro illis agente)

! Pp. ? 3

Source untraced. For the Canterbury forgeries see above, p. xxxvii and below, 192-5. Source untraced. Bruno, archbishop of Trier r101 X 2-1 124, had been at the curia over Christmas

1121]

HUGH THE CHANTER

179

and primacy of the church of Canterbury, which the monks had lately found or thought up. As smith with bellows wakes the sinking fire,!

so did he of Canterbury blow up the king’s anger with ..., and urged him to compel our archbishop to profess. Some endeavoured to persuade the king, as they had sometimes tried before, that it is a great glory to a kingdom to have a primate, and that no kingdom possessing a crown is without one. That argument may be refuted by the facts. The kingdom of the Lombards has only one metropolitan, him of Milan; but he is not a primate and has no primate. The bishop of Pavia also, who is of that province and adjoins the other, wears the pallium and has his cross carried before him and is not subject to a metropolitan. So there is nothing wonderful in there being two metropolitans in one kingdom, one of whom is not subject to the other. But as the country saying goes, “The man who has never seen a donkey is astonished at a camel.” At Trier also, in Germany, there was of old a primary see; but, as our bishop and his men were told by a venerable archbishop of that city at the court of Pope Calixtus, he now has primacy over no other [metropolitan] see.? In August, the king sent word to the archbishop that he should shortly see how much he was willing to do for him. At Michaelmas he summoned a great conference of the bishops and barons of the realm. He commanded our archbishop to come with the dignitaries of his church and his elder and wiser clerks, in order that

whatever he did there might be confirmed by their assent. He was already receiving thunderous threats that he must either profess or go again into exile. Our archbishop came to the conference with his friends. Archbishop Ralph had had an attack of sickness a day or two before, and so was unable to take part in the conference. The king, acting on behalf of the archbishop of Canterbury, sent orders through his bishops and nobles to our archbishop to make his profession to Archbishop Ralph personally for the peace of the churches and his affection for the king. The archbishop rejoined: ‘What I shrank from doing before receiving my bull of privilege, 1119 to defend the rights of his see against the claims of Mainz (JL 6798-9). For the earlier claims of Trier to primacy see H. Fuhrmann, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt., 40 (1954), 12-14, 35 ff.; 41 (1955), 104-11, 129-31. 4 29 Sept.

180

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

acceptum facere abhorrui, eo accepto magis abhorrendum et periculosum existimo.* Et dominus meus rex a me exigere non debet quod priuilegium meum infringens gladio anathematis scienter me percuciam." Quibus renunciatis, rex nec sine minis et excercitacionibus remandauit quatinus ei promitteret se Cantuariensi? professurum, si apud apostolicum assequi posset ut concederet ei et ei preciperet. Set nichil ab eo nec minis extorquere nec blandiciis elicere potuit, nisi quod si dominus papa ei^ contra priuilegium suum facere preciperet quod iuste debere intelligeret, et ipse faceret. Et mandauit ei quod, si sibi placeret, uellet cum domino suo et rege familiariter loqui. Qui, rege mandante, ad eum |uenit, contrascriptum priuilegii sui in manu sua. Quo regi ostenso et perlecto, astantibus cum eis tantum R(anulpho) Dunelmensi episcopo et

Nigello de Albeneio,? uidens rex quod hoc (quod)? precipiebat apostolicus sub anathemate interdicebat, et propter quedam amicitie et fidelitatis erga se habite uerba que ille* regi rememorabat, ipse pene lacrimari coactus est. Nigellus uero tunc et paulo ante multum lacrimatus est, ideo quod archiepiscopo nostro post recepcionem suam pacem habere sperante modo omnia commota et conturbata esse cernebat, et ipse uero in angaria ista pro ecclesia nostra fideliter stetit. Rex modo pietate regali aliquantulum compunctus consuluit archiepiscopo nostro quatinus episcopis, qui plurimi aderant, per aliquos de suis priuilegium ostenderet. Quod

cum illi, archiepiscopo remoto, coram rege legere uel ad legendum prebere uoluissent, episcopi nec legere nec audire uoluerunt, set unus ex illis eructauit uerbum non bonum, quia neque uerum nec pro bono eiaculatum, scilicet quod apostolicus priuilegium illud

neque umquam uiderat neque fieri iusserat. Cui quidam de nostris obiecit, dicens: ‘Domine, si uobis placet, scio quod illud fieri

precepit, et ego oculis meis aspexi illud ei afferri; quod allatum ipse perlegit, et perlecto manu propria lineam unam faciens ipse subscripsit? Cui nichil illis contradicentibus nostri ad archiepiscopum suum discesserunt. * estimo Ra. * illi 4

^ Cantuariensem A

* ei om. Ra.

4 Supplied by Ra.

! This is clearly a reference to the solemn privilege (above, pp. 168-9), for the other letters of Calixtus which Hugh included do not contain a prohibition of a profession in the future (above, pp. 172-7). ? Above, pp. 10-11, 63-4 and nn.

1121]

HUGH THE CHANTER

181

because it seemed to me unjust, I regard, now that I have received

the bull, as the more abhorrent and dangerous. And my lord the king has no right to ask me to infringe the privilege and knowingly expose myself to the sword of anathema." On receiving this reply

the king sent back a demand, not without threats and pressure, that he should promise to make his profession to the archbishop of Canterbury if he could prevail on the pope to grant him leave and

order him to do it. But all that he could get from him by threats or persuasion was that if the pope should order him, despite his privilege, to do what he should acknowledge to be justly due, he would do it. The king then sent word that, if he pleased, he might talk the

thing over informally with his lord and king. On the king’s message, he came to him with a transcript of his bull of privilege in his hand. When this had been shown and read to the king in the

presence of Ranulf, bishop of Durham, and Nigel d'Aubigny,? and no one else, and when he saw that he was ordering something which the pope forbade under pain of anathema, and also because of sundry expressions of affection and fealty to himself of which the archbishop reminded him, he was almost driven to tears. Nigel, too, wept copiously both then and a little earlier, because he saw that, though the archbishop had hoped to have peace after being received, all was now upset and disturbed: though, in this distress,

he stood up faithfully for our church. The king now felt some royal compunction, and advised our archbishop to show the privilege, by means of some of his company, to the bishops of whom many were at court. But when they, without the archbishop, would have read it in the king's presence, or offered it to be read, the bishops would neither read it nor hear it. But one of them gave vent to a disgraceful speech (for it was neither true nor well meant), namely that the pope had never seen that privilege nor ordered it to be written. This was countered by one of our people, who said: 'Begging your pardon, Sir, I know that he ordered it to be made, and I saw it brought to him with my own eyes. He read it when it was brought to him, and after reading it he drew a line with his own hand and subscribed it.? As there was no reply, our people went away to their archbishop. ? See above, p. 149 n. 6. It was the custom of Calixtus to draw at least the horizontal line on the cross in the rota, and write his own subscription. Such elaborate features are peculiar to privileges not mandates.

182

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Ille uero et sui qui timide? ad curiam uenerant, et illic contra

inimicos meticulosi^ egerant, Deo et sancto Petro pro illis agente confortati et hilares domum reuertuntur. Fuere tunc qui de^ controuercia harum ecclesiarum inter se conferentes dicebant Cantuariensis archiepiscopi exaccionem iniustam uideri; quociens enim in Eboracensem ecclesiam acrius insurgebat, morbo aliquo quasi uirga Dei tangebatur: reminiscentes illius quo in Romano itinere uexatus est, et eius quem? in Normannia aliquamdiu passus est,! nouissime autem et huius, quo prepediente colloquio quod contra archiepiscopum nostrum conuocari fecerat adesse non ualuit. Illis quoque uidebatur Eboracensem ecclesiam bonum angelum a tot et a tantis insurgentibus in eam custodem et defensorem habere. Sequenti anno, circa idem temporis, Rad(ulphus) archiepiscopus obiit? de cuius morte archiepiscopus noster et sui nichil

gauisi sunt, iuxta id Salomonis, ‘Noli gaudere de mortuo inimico. Siquidem illi sperabant eum pre infirmitate, pre tedio, pre diffidencia impetrandi, a sua impugnacione de reliquo cessare. Quis autem et quando archiepiscopus substituendus esset certum non habebant.* Paululum ante Aduentum Domini uenit quidam de urbe Roma litteras domini pape deferens utrique archiepiscopo Anglie; set quod alteri non potuit, nostro sibi missas tradidit, precipientes ei quatinus, omni seposita occasione, concilio adesset quod per Dei graciam Dominica qua cantatur ‘Oculi mei semper’ in urbe celebrare disposuerat. Non defuit qui latenter? regi diceret archi-

episcopum litteras domini pape de uoc(ac)ione ad concilium

f. 26"

habuisse, quod ex regni consuetudine absque consciencia et licencia regis suscepisse non debuerat; unde rex aliquantum commotus mandauit ei quatinus super hoc rectitudinem facturus in proxima Purificacione sancte Marie ad curiam ueniret, et literarum baiulum ad se adduceret. Ipse uero nesciebat quis esset, neque quorsum acceptis ab eo litteris de|uenerat. In predicta festiuitate apud Gloecestriam rex de omnibus ecclesiasticis personis concilium magnum mandauerat pro archi? timede A 4 quem edd;

quam

^ meticulose Ra., perhaps rightly A * habebant 7o; habebat

* latenter edd.; latore A; delator Jo.

! See above, pp. 82-3, 100-1.

? 19 or 20 Oct. 1122 (Fasti, ii. 3-4).

© qui de Jo.; quidem A A f uterque. A

1121-2]

HUGH THE CHANTER

183

But he and his friends, who had come to court with apprehension and had there fearfully opposed their enemies, now by the favour of God and St Peter returned home encouraged and merry. Some people, discussing the dispute between the churches, said that the demand of the archbishop of Canterbury was clearly unjust; for as often as he pressed his attack against the church of York, he was struck down by some illness as if by God’s rod. They recalled the sickness which came upon him during his journey to Rome, and that which he suffered for some time in Normandy,! and also this last, by which he was prevented from attending the conference which he had caused to be convoked against our archbishop. They also thought that the church of York possessed a good angel to keep and defend it from so many great adversaries. About the same time the next year, Archbishop Ralph died. Our archbishop and his friends took no joy in his death: as Solomon says, ‘Rejoice not over thy enemy being dead.” Their hope rather was that from illness, weariness, and distrust in the success of his petitions, he would in future cease from his attack. But who would replace him as archbishop, and when, they were uncertain. A little before Advent, a messenger came from Rome with the pope’s letters to both archbishops of England. But as he could not deliver them to one, he gave ours the one addressed to him, order-

ing him without fail to attend the council which he had arranged by God's grace to celebrate at Rome on the Sunday on which is sung, ‘Mine eyes are ever toward the Lord." There did not lack someone to tell the king privily that the archbishop had had the pope's letter of summons to the council, which by custom of the realm he should not have accepted without the king's knowledge and leave. Wherefore the king, somewhat moved, commanded him to come to court at Candlemas next to clear himself on this point, and to

bring to him the bearer of the letter. But Thurstan did not know who the man was, nor whither he had gone when the letter had been delivered. The king had summoned a great council of all the clergy at 3 Ecclus. 8: 8. 4 Ps. 24 (25): 15, the introit for the Third Sunday in Lent, 18 Mar. 1123. The only surviving summons (JL 6977) is dated 25 June 1122; the general summons is mentioned by Simeon, ii. 266. For the First Lateran Council, and the English participants and manuscripts, see CS i/2. 728-30 and M. Brett in Proceedings ofthe Sixth International Congress of Medieval Canon Lam (Vatican, 1985), pp. 13-28.

184

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

episcopo Cantuariensis ecclesie eligendo.! Ante illam? triduo archiepiscopus ad regem ueniens satis letabundo susceptus est, nec de satisfaccione pro litteris acceptis nec de portitoris earum adduccione rex archiepiscopum causatus est, et ad festiuitatem Gloecestriam simul uenire (iussit).° In qua rex archiepiscopum satis laudatum multum honorauit, et episcopos eum honorare commonuit. In crastinum inter episcopos et monachos Cantuarie de eligendo archiepiscopo altercacio grandis existit Episcopi enim archiepiscopum nisi clericum habere nolebant, monachi monachum deprecacionibus et persuasionibus apud regem contendebant. Set rege episcopis plus fauente, monachi, ad quos

plurimum pertinebat eleccio, inuiti quidem, Will(elmum) de Corboleio, priorem Sancte Oside, archiepiscopum tandem susceperunt. De quo quis esset archiepiscopus et Adeboldus prior Sancti Oswaldi? a rege antea interrogati, satis eum de sciencia et honestate et religione laudauerant. Episcopi archiepiscopum nostrum eleccioni illi interesse non curauerunt, ideo quod a professione subtractus quasi de illis non esse uidebatur. Sciens rex inter Eboracam et Cantuariam alterne consecracionis consuetudinem, mandauit nostro, requirens si episcopis electum suum archiepiscopum consecrare interdiceret. Cui ille respondit: ‘Ex consuetudine ecclesiarum nostrarum consecracio illius michi

debetur.' Set internunciis inculcantibus quatinus regi mandaret si interdiceret, ille, cum hiis quos secum habebat consilio habito, regi remandauit pro amore suo nullo modo facere interdictum, set hoc et ipsum et episcopos scire uolebat, quod eum consecrare paratus erat; et se id facere offerebat, quoniam ex consuetudine a papa Honorio instituta ecclesie sue competebat. Eadem die et electo mandauit per

Gaufridum Eboracensis monasterii abbatem, et per Adewoldum priorem Sancti Oswaldi, et quosdam de nostris, archidiaconos et canonicos, presente Ric(ardo) Londoniensi episcopo, quatinus

eum consecrare uolebat, sicut debebat, et humilitatis (et)? amicitie

* diem add. Ra. * letabundo A, Jo.; -bunde Ra., perhaps rightly (cf. p. 200 gratu* Supplied by Fo. 4 et Di om.A labunde) 1 2 Feb. 1123; for the election of Archbishop William see D. Bethell, EHR 84 (1969), 674-81; CS i/2. 725-7; Fasti, ii. 4. For William see also above, pp. 82-3 n. 2. ? A similar debate preceded the election of Archbishop Ralph in 1114 (CS i/2. 707-8; Brett, pp. 73-4). The claim of the bishops of the province of Canterbury to elect the archbishop, which was to lead to many disputes later in the r2th and early in the 13th cents., seems to have originated in the vacancy after Lanfranc’s death, 1089/93 (see above, p. xxv n. 1).

| 1123]

HUGH

THE CHANTER

185

Candlemas at Gloucester, to elect an archbishop of Canterbury.!

Two days before, the archbishop came to the king and was right joyfully received, nor did the king trouble him about receiving the letter or bringing its bearer, [but bade] him come with him to the festival at Gloucester. There the king praised him and gave much honour, and admonished his bishops to do likewise. On the next day there was a great debate between the bishops and the monks of Canterbury about the election of an archbishop.? For the bishops were unwilling to have anyone but a clerk for their archbishop; but the monks pressed the king with prayers and blandishments for a monk. But as the king took the side ofthe bishops, the monks, who had a particular concern in the election, at last unwillingly accepted William de Corbeil, prior of St Osyth's, for archbishop. The archbishop and Adelold, prior of St Oswald’s,’ had been previously asked by the king who he was, and gave him an excellent character for learning, honour, and religion. The bishops were none too well pleased at our archbishop's being concerned in the election, because, now that he was relieved of profession, they did not regard him as one of themselves. The king, being aware of the custom of alternate consecration by the archbishops of York and Canterbury, sent to our archbishop, asking whether he would forbid the bishops by interdict to consecrate their archbishop elect. He replied: ‘By the custom of our

churches I have the right to consecrate him.’ But when the messengers pressed him to send word to the king whether he would forbid them, after taking the advice of those about him, he sent

back a message to the king that for his sake he would not issue an interdict, but would have him and the bishops know that he was ready to consecrate, and offered to do it as befitted his church by the custom established by Pope Honorius. On the same day he sent word to the elect by Geoffrey, abbot of [St Mary's], York, and

by Adelold, prior of St Oswald's, and some of our archdeacons and canons, in the presence of Richard, bishop of London, that he was

willing to consecrate him, as was his duty;* and out of humility and 3 Adelold or Adelulf, first prior of St Oswald, Nostell, c. 1114-1153; first bishop of Carlisle, c. 1133-c. 1157. He is said to have been King Henry's confessor (Heads, p. 178; Fasti, ii. 19; Torigni in Chrons. of the Reigns ofStephen .. ., ed. R. Howlett (RS, 1884-9), iv. 123). 4 Lon abbot of St Mary's, York, c. 1119. 1138, from whose regime the first monks of Fountains were to escape in 1132 (Heads, p. 84; Nicholl, pp. 151-91). Richard de Belmeis I, bishop of London 1108-27, had formerly been Thurstan’s bishop; he had

196

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

causa, hac uice, salua ecclesie sue dignitate, id se in Cantuariensi

ecclesia facere offerebat. Quibus ille: Aliter modo res est quam solebat: ecclesie diuise sunt.’ Ad hec nostri: ‘Eiusdem regni et diadematis est utraque. Non est diuisio cuique ius suum habere. Ex iure autem utriusque archiepiscopis eorum uicissim consecracio debetur; quam facere, et uice contingente suscipere, ex parte archiepiscopi nostri et Eboracensis capituli offerimus. Quo et Londoniensi episcopo dicentibus quod ad presens sic esse non poterat, ad archiepiscopum redeunt, sic renunciantes: ‘Quando electus fuit archiepiscopus uester, minutus et aliquantulum paciens iacebat, set antequam discessisset huiusmodi? et alia cum

eo? uerba locutus est."! Regi uero archiepiscopus noster dixit se per litteras domini pape ad concilium predicto termino uocatum, et ab eo licenciam quesiuit eundi: quem ipse aliquantulum iter^ suum differre rogauit, donec Cantuariensis ad requirendum palleum iret; ipse uero cum litteris suis premitteret qui domino pape renunciarent eum a rege detentum paulo post cum Cantuariensi uenturum. Archiepiscopus tandem regi concessit; et rex, sicut promisit, premisit, duos scilicet episcopos Normannie et clericum unum,’ quem, episcopis a concilio recedentibus, Rome remanere iussit quousque archiepiscopi uenissent. Archiepiscopo et electo rex precepit quatinus

prima Dominica Quadragesime apud (W)odestoc |adessent, inde profecturi. Interim Cantuariensis electus, peticione facta ut in primatem tocius Britannie consecraretur, a Londoniensi episcopo et ceteris coepiscopis consecratus est, Eboracensi ecclesie iniuria irrogata.4 Quod quidem plerisque absonum uisum est consecrari, ne dicam quod non debebat, in id quod non erat nec adhuc est, nec ullus de antecessoribus suis fuerat preter unum, et ille quidem eo iure quo

supradictum est;? et in (tam)* celebri et tam sacro officio diuino, in

quo Spiritus Sanctus inuocari et cooperari debet, falsitas et ficcio abicienda sunt. Sicut eis preceptum fuerat et die statuto, (W)odestoc uterque ? huius A; perhaps hec > cum eo seems corrupt; the whole message is mysterious * iter Jo.; in A 4 irrogata D; arrogata A * Supplied by edd.

also been responsible for appointing William as first prior of St Osyth’s (Fasti, i. 1; D. Bethell, Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, 3rd Ser., 2 (1970), 299-328). ! The translation is conjectural, for there may well be a lacuna in the text.

| 1123]

HUGH THE CHANTER

187

friendship, on this occasion, saving the dignity of his church, he offered to do it in the church of Canterbury. The elect replied: "Things are different now: the churches have been divided.’ Our messengers answered: “Both belong to the same kingdom and crown. There is no division in each church having its own rights. By the rights of both churches, it is the duty of the archbishops to consecrate each other in turn. We are offering, on behalf of the archbishop and the chapter of York, to consecrate and to accept consecration in our turn.’ But when the elect and the bishop of London both said that it was impossible for the present, they returned to the archbishop with the following report: ‘When your archbishop was elected, he had been bled and lay in some pain, but before he left us he said this, and more to the same effect.”! However, our archbishop told the king that he had been summoned by the pope’s letter to the council at the aforesaid term, and asked his leave to go. But the king asked him to put off his journey for a little, until the elect of Canterbury should go to ask for his pallium; he would himself send messengers ahead with his letter to tell the pope that he had been kept by the king and would come shortly with the archbishop of Canterbury. The archbishop at last gave way to the king, and he sent, as he had promised, in advance, to wit two of the Norman bishops and one clerk,” whom he ordered to stay in Rome when the bishops left the council, and wait till the archbishops came. The king ordered the archbishop and the elect to be at Woodstock on the first Sunday in Lent [4 March], ready to set out from there. Meanwhile a petition was presented for the consecration of the elect of Canterbury as primate of all Britain, and he was consecrated by the bishop of London and his brother bishops, and a wrong was done to the church of York. Most people thought it incongruous, not to say irregular, to consecrate him to a title he did not hold and does not now hold, and which none of his predecessors had held, except one; we explained earlier how he acquired it? And in so important and holy a divine service, in which the Holy Ghost must be invoked and must take part, all falseness and pretence must be cast aside. On the day appointed, as they had been ordered, both arch2 The clerk seems to have been Canon Jeremy (below, pp. 188—9). 3 William was consecrated on 18 Feb. at Canterbury (Fasti, ii. 4). The only recognized primate is presumably Lanfranc (above, pp. xxxiv-xxxix).

188

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

archiepiscopus affuerunt. Ibi rex nostro per episcopos et proceres mandauit ne Rome contra Cantuariensem aliquid iniuste peteret, neque in peticionibus iustis illi nocumento set adiumento esset. Quod sic se facturum plene pollicitus est: non enim rogabat nisi quod et non rogatus ille faceret. Hinc* iter Romanum agrediuntur.' Cantuariensis nostrum precedere uoluit et sperauit; noster uero, (illo)? Sutrie inuento et de suis aliquos per alteram uiam uenientes expectante, tribus^ diebus ante illum Romam peruenit.? Iam ante de eius eleccione Rome satis cognitum erat; que, quantum ad

ipsum pertinuit, absque ambicione et spe facta fuit. Noster uero a domino papa et cardinalibus, cum quibus per dimidium annum conuersatus fuerat, et per illos ab omnibus reliquis honorificentissime susceptus est. Demum uenit dominus Cantuariensis habens secum domnum Bernardum episcopum Sancti? Dauid, et dom-

num Anselmum abbatem Sancti^ Eadmundi, et domnum Sigefridum Glestoniensem abbatem, postea Cistertrensem episcopum, et alios bonos et honestos clericos et monachos.? Venientibus ad curiam dominus Bernardus qui erat archiepiscopi prolocutor et proorator, premissa salutacione domino pape ab imperatore, a rege, ab episcopis Anglie, a capitulo Cantuarie, missas a singulis litteras seorsum obtulit, quas illis resalutatis cancellario suo recipere iussit. Dehinc post modicum dicens se litteras uisurum et per consilium fratrum responsurum, archiepiscopum cum suis ad hospicium secedere precepit. Erat ibi archiepiscopus noster cum suis, et Ieremias Rotomagensis

ecclesie canonicus,

quem rex

archiepiscopos expectare fecerat; qui, licet statura breuis, nec sensu nec sciencia nec eloquencia* erat exilis,f et ipse ualde archiepiscopum nostrum et suos diligebat et diligebatur. Lectis litteris de archiepiscopi eleccione, de persone commen? huic A

^ noster uero, illo edd.; nostro uero A

ambiguous symbol; sex Ra.

4 set A

© loquencia A

* tribus edd.;Agives an

f ex illis A

! Archbishop William set out on 13 Mar. (Ungedruckte Anglo-Normannische Geschichts-

quellen, ed. F. Liebermann (Strassburg, 1879), p. 5). ? The text as it stands in the manuscript must be corrupt. From what follows it is clear that William had reached Sutri before Thurstan, but waited there for some of his companions, while Thurstan pressed on ahead. ASC, p. 44, and Simeon, ii. 272, agree

that Thurstan arrived first, and ASC says by only three days. * For the Canterbury contingent see above, pp. 148-9 n.3 (Bernard), 91 n.1 (Anselm), 120 n. 1 (Seffrid). The party also included Archdeacon John of Canterbury (above, p. 120 n. 1) and Giffard, a royal chaplain. It is said that the pope would not see William at all for a week (ASC, p. 44).

1123]

HUGH THE CHANTER

189

bishops were at Woodstock. There the king, by his bishops and nobles, ordered our archbishop not to make any petition at Rome unfair to the archbishop of Canterbury, and by just petitions not to injure him but rather to help him, which our archbishop absolutely promised to do. For the king was not asking anything which he would not have done without being asked. They then set out on their journey to Rome. The archbishop of Canterbury wished and hoped to get there first. But our archbishop, finding him at Sutri waiting for some of his company who were coming by another road, arrived in Rome three days before him? William’s election was already well known in Rome, being, so far as he himself was concerned, neither sought nor expected. But our archbishop was received by the pope and cardinals, who had had six months of his company, and through them by all the rest, with the highest honours. At last came the archbishop of Canterbury, having with him Bernard, bishop of St Davids, Anselm, abbot of St Edmund's, and Seffrid, abbot of Glastonbury, afterwards bishop of Chichester, and other good and honourable clerks and monks.’ When they came to the court, Bishop Bernard, who was the archbishop's spokesman and orator, after greeting the pope, from the emperor,’ the king, the bishops of England, and the chapter of Canterbury, presented separate letters from them, which the pope, returning their greetings, ordered his chancellor to receive. Soon after, saying that he would look at the letters and answer by the advice of his brethren, he bade the archbishop and his company retire to their lodging. Our archbishop was present with his company, and Jeremy, a canon of the church of Rouen; whom the king had made wait for the arrival of the archbishops. He, though short in stature, was lacking in neither learning, sense, nor eloquence; and he

greatly loved our archbishop and his men, and was loved by them. When the letters about the archbishop's election, his personal 4 The Emperor Henry V, Henry I’s son-in-law, who had recently been reconciled with the pope by the Concordat of Worms of 1122. This passage is discussed by K. Leyser, Medieval Germany and its Neighbours, 900 —1250 (London, 1982), pp. 209-15. 5 In his discussion of the career of Jeremy (or Jeremiah), canon of Rouen and archdeacon of Cleveland, who died in 1189, Sir Charles Clay assumed that he could not be - identical with this Jeremy of 1123; he reckoned it more likely that it was the younger Jeremy who composed the original Lay Folks Mass Book (Clay, ‘Archdeacons’, pp. 41215). However, there are a number of cases of cathedral dignitaries in the century who held office for a very long time, presumably because they were appointed very young; cf. for example, the career of Osbert (above, pp. liii-liv) with Brett, p. 203. It is just possible that there was only one Jeremy.

190

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

dacione, de pallei requisicione, et precibus imperatoris et regis pro

eo, cardinales et curia tota per dies aliquot conferentes et inter (se)*

disceptantes, tandem non esse canonicam, set illum de quatuor capitulis impetendum censuerunt, uidelicet quod non a quibus neque de quibus neque ubi debuit fuit electus, neque a quo debuit consecratus; quinto a quibusdam adiuncto, quod clericus monachis preerat.! Hiis ergo obiectis et reiectis, uolutis et reuolutis, decisum est, papa quidem uolente, eum pallium non habere, set ex indulgencia posse episcopatum unum obtinere. Hoc uero archiepiscopo nostro minime celato, ipse dominum papam pro eo deprecatus est, dicens eum bonum clericum esse, et simplicem uirum et religiosum; qui si modo repelleretur, fortasse rex ex iracundia ecclesiam diucius uacare sineret. De isto omni canonice et bene illi consuluisse existimabat; apud curiam quoque deuote pro eo intercessit. Ille autem, per suos et per alios dominum papam et curiam requirens, per | dies quindecim non habuit (responsum), expectacione suspensus et tedio aliquantum affectus. Volens ergo dominus papa imperatoris et regis quas litteris

eorum acceperat" peticionibus fauere, curiam conuenit, humiliter et obnixe deprecans quatinus pro amore imperatoris, qui nuper ecclesie Romane reconciliatus erat, et regis, eiusdem ecclesie filii et fide-

lis,7 a iusticie rigore condescenderent, et Cantuariensi palleum dare concederent. ‘Et quidem* Eboracensis, amicus noster, hoc ipsum et efflagitat, et personam eius sciencia et uite honestate ualde commendat.' Patris et domini sui supplicacionibus non annuere durum esse reputantes, domino pape assenserunt. Mandatum est ei ad curiam uenire responsum accepturo. Tunc ipse papa in plena curia sic exorsus est: “De eleccione Cantuariensis archiepiscopi tractantes, aliqua in ea non canonice facta inuenimus"; et, predicta capitula enumerante, Cantuariensis nec/ uerbum unum fecit; ‘set

quoniam’ inquit ‘sedis huius pontifices canones fecerunt, et ipsorum est eos, urgente necessitate uel utili dispensacione, moderari.? ? se D; om. A * quidam A

> Supplied by Ra. f ne Ra.

* accipiat A

4 fideles A

! Simeon, ii. 272, expands on four of these charges: William was elected in the royal court, and without the consent of the monks; he refused consecration by Thurstan, and

he was the first archbishop of Canterbury since Augustine who was not a monk. The differences reflect no doubt the sympathies of monastic Durham. In describing William's election (ii. 268-9) he reports that the bishops had forced the monks to choose from a short-list of four candidates, which may explain Hugh’s ‘from the proper persons’. Cf. Bethell in EHR 84 (1969), 678-80.

1123]

HUGH THE CHANTER

IQI

character, and the request for the pallium, and the prayers of the king and the emperor on his behalf had been read, the cardinals and curia spent some days conferring and disputing among themselves. They finally decided that the election was uncanonical, and that he should be impeached on four grounds: that he had not been elected by the proper persons, nor from the proper persons, nor in the proper place, and that he had not been consecrated by the proper authority. Some made a fifth objection, namely that a clerk was presiding over monks.’ After all these objections had been made and refuted, and argued backward and forward, it was at length decided, with the pope's approval, that William should not have the pallium, but might by indulgence hold a bishopric. Our archbishop knew all about this and besought the pope for William, saying he was a good clerk and a simple and devout man, and that if he were now rejected the king might be angry and allow the see to be void for a long time. In all this he considered that he was lawfully acting in William's interest. He also devotedly interceded with the curia on his behalf. But William, approaching the pope and curia through his friends and others, and having no reply for a fortnight, was kept in suspense and got somewhat tired of it. The pope therefore, wishing to favour the petitions of the emperor and the king, contained in their letters, assembled the curia,

humbly and earnestly praying them for love of the emperor, who had lately been reconciled with the church, and of the king, a faithful son of the same church, to mitigate the rigour of the law, and grant the archbishop of Canterbury the pallium. “Our friend, the archbishop of York,’ said he, ‘is asking for this, and highly commends him personally for his learning and honourable life.' The court, considering it hard not to consent to the petitions of its father and lord, gave the pope its assent. The archbishop was bidden to come to the curia and receive his answer. The pope then, in full court, began as follows: ‘On considering the election of the archbishop of Canterbury, we found some points in it which were uncanonical.’ He named the points, and the archbishop of Canterbury answered not a word. ‘But since’, he went on, ‘the bishops of this see made the canons, they also have the right, in urgent necessity or by a profitable dispensation, to modify them.’ 2 A familiar theme, expounded at length in the preface of Ivo of Chartres, printed in Decretum (PL 161. 47-60), and in Gratian, C. 1, q. 7; for the general issue see S. Kuttner

in Studia Gratiana, 14 (1972), 55-86, reprinted in The History ofIdeas and Doctrines of Canon Lam in the Middle Ages (London, 1980).

192

THE

HISTORY

OF

CHURCH

THE

OF

YORK

Quia ergo personam illius, que per Dei graciam honesta est et religiosa, ecclesie profuturam confidimus, et pro amore filiorum nostrorum regis et imperatoris, amici quoque nostri Eboracensis archiepiscopi, eleccionem illius confirmamus, palleum ei concedimus." Tunc noster illi gracias agens pedibus eius prostratus est; similiter et Cantuariensis, et qui cum eo erant. Et tunc demum illi, sicut archiepiscopo, sedes^ in loco digniori data est." Vnum pro certo existimo, quod nisi Eboracensis? Cantuariensem adiuuisset, palleum tardius accepisset; si uero ei nocere uoluisset, hac uice omnino non habuisset.* Palleo accepto cepit aduersus Eboracensem de primatu et professione questio et contencio, quamquam nec propter hoc uenerant nec uocati fuerant. Proposuit dominus Bernardus querelam et clamorem ex parte Cantuariensis archiepiscopi et epis-

coporum Anglie aduersus archiepiscopum nostrum, quod de (iure)! Cantuariensis ecclesie subtraxerat, rogans et deprecans dominum papam et curiam Romanam quatinus audirent que munimenta et priuilegia de eius dignitate et primatu habebant; non tamen quod modo causaliter nec iudicialiter* agere uellent (hiisdem enim uerbis usus est). Et noster archiepiscopus *Nec ego' inquid ‘ueni ut in causam uel iudicium ingrediar; ad concilium ueniebam,

set dominus

meus

rex me

detinuit

Et dominus

Bernardus, praue hec^ intelligens uel deprauare uolens, ‘Satis

competenter paratus (sum)" ait dominum regem defendere, eum

non pro malo uos detinuisse. Ast dominus papa, aliquantulum indignanter, ad eum: ‘Bone domine, non dixit, “pro malo eum

detinuerit”, set quod "detinuit", et uerum dixit, quoniam ita michi

mandauit. leremias uero quod/ rex eum detinuerat donec cum Cantuariensi ueniret. Cui Iohannes Cremensis:! ‘Benedicaris a Deo! Tu enim in tempore locutus es.’ Et dominus Bernardus

aliquantisper confusus* test uenitt.

Iussa sunt legi priuilegia predicta. Erant! quidem Romanorum pontificum" nominibus pretitulata, set stilum Romanum nichil

sapiebant." Quibus perlectis, et illo ad ultimum beati Greg(orii) ad

? condimus A > sedis A * et add. Ra. 4 et add. A © huisset A * Supplied by Jo. ® judicaliter A ^ hoc Ra. ! Supplied by Ra. ’ quem A. A verb of speaking may have dropped out. * aliquantisper

confusus Ra.; aliquantis proconfusus A; aliquanti perconfusus 7o. A ™ pontificum D; pontifici cum A

! erant D; erat

1123]

HUGH THE CHANTER

193

Therefore because we trust that this person, who by God's grace is honourable and devout, will be profitable to the church, and for the love of our sons, the king and the emperor, and of our friend

the archbishop of York, we confirm his election and grant him the pallium." Then our archbishop fell down at his feet to thank him: likewise

the archbishop of Canterbury and his followers. Then at last he was assigned a more honourable seat as an archbishop. Of one thing I feel certain, that had not the archbishop of York aided the archbishop of Canterbury, he would have been longer in getting his pallium. And if he had wished to injure him, he would not have got it at all on this occasion. After the receipt of the pallium, question and contention arose against the archbishop of York about the primacy and the profession, although they had not come on that account nor had been summoned on it. Bishop Bernard set forth the plaintand claim on behalf ofthe archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of England against our archbishop, that he had infringed the privileges ofthe church of Canterbury, asking and praying the pope and the Roman curia to hear what muniments and privileges they had concerning its dignity and primacy; though they did not mean at this time to ‘take judicial proceedings about them' (for these were his words). Then said our archbishop: ‘I too did not come to enter into judicial proceedings; I was coming to the council, but my lord the king kept me back.' And Bishop Bernard, misunderstanding this, whether wilfully or not, said: ‘I am quite prepared to defend the king from the charge of wrongful detention.' Butthe pope, somewhatindignant, said to him, *My good sir, he did not say ^wrongfully detained", but *detained", and he spoke true, for [the king] sent word to me that he had.’ And Jeremy [said] that the king had kept him back till he could come with the archbishop of Canterbury. John of Crema! said ‘God bless you! You have spoken a word in season.' And Bishop Bernard was for a while thrown into confusion. 'The said privileges were ordered to be read. T'hey were headed with the names of popes of Rome, but had no trace of the style of the Roman chancery.? When they had been read, ending with the ! The legate of 1125, for whom see below, p. 203 n. 5. 2 Presumably the ‘Canterbury forgeries’, for which see above, p. xxxvii. Since these were largely created by interpolating genuine documents, their style was less manifestly inappropriate than Hugh suggests.

I94

f. 28

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

Augustinum de distinccione duorum metropolitanorum Anglie, interrogauerunt quidam de Romanis Cantuarienses si |priuilegia illa? bullas haberent: at illi dixerunt? bullata in ecclesia reliquisse, et eorum exempla detulisse. Et quia priuilegiis aut cartis non bullatis uel non signatis non necesse est fidem adhiberi, sciscitati sunt si uellent iurare horum exemplaria bullata habere. In partem cesserunt. Consultantes inuicem dixerunt inter se bullis carere. Aliquis tamen alicui persuadere® uoluit ut pro causa ecclesie sue

iuraret. Sanum quidem concilium et legale! Cui nequaquam

adquiescentes, priuilegia illa periurio bullare timuerunt. Consilium eorum fuit ut coram redeuntes dicerent bullas consumptas uel perditas esse. Quibus sic dicentibus, alii subriserunt, alii nares corrugauerunt, alii cachinnum emiserunt, illudendo dicentes mirum esse plumbum consumptum fore uel perditum, et pergamenum durare. Fortasse ficticium hoc esse cuiquam uideatur et qui scripsit hoc nugator, set tam uerum est quam ficticium uidetur. Dixerunt postea? forsitan eo tempore bullas non fieri: set

Romani a tempore beati Greg(orii) bullas fuisse testati sunt, et adhuc (in)? Romana ecclesia aliqua ipsius priuilegia bullata seruari.! Non habentes quid de hoc aliud dicerent, turbati discesserunt, nec priuilegia illa cum credulitate nec uerba eorum in laude nec in gracia recepta sunt. Non tamen adhuc destiterunt professionem nostram precio taxare. Erat nunc camerarius quidam? subdolus et nequam, familiaris et potens apud dominum papam; et^ per illum efficere conati sunt, magna domino pape et ipsi pollicentes, ut primatus Cantuariensis ecclesie concederetur. De curia nullus eis fauebat,

tribus exceptis,' et illis quidem/ modice inter ceteros auctoritatis. Omnium fere ciuium, nobilium, et proborum beniuolenciam non habebat. Dominus papa mandauit archiepiscopo nostro quatinus, si qua haberet munimenta, coram afferret. Ille uero respondit se * ila D; ills A ^ se add. D, more correctly © persuadere Jo; peradere A 4 post ei A * in D; om. A f gratiam D (6f. p. 144 n. e) ® destiterunt edd.; destituerunt A ^ papam; et edd; et papam A 1 acceptis A / quod A ! Before the r1th cent. papal privileges were written on very large sheets of papyrus. They had been sealed with a leaden bulla from remote times. The earliest surviving example of a detached bull is one of Pope Deusdedit (615-18). The earliest document which still has its bull attached is JE 2606 of 850. See E. Kittel, Siegel (Brunswick, 1970), pp. 383-8; J.-O. Tjader, Die nichtliterarischen lateinischen Papyri Italiens (Lund, Stockholm, 1955—82), i. 44-8, 59-61; in general, H. Bresslau, Handbuch

. n3]

HUGH THE CHANTER

195

j letter of St Gregory to Augustine about the separation of the two . metropolitans of England, some of the Romans asked the Canter-

- bury party whether the privileges had bulls attached. But they said - that they had left the originals with their bulls in their church and

brought copies of them. And because privileges and charters are not valid evidence unless they have bulls or seals attached, they were asked whether they would swear that they had originals in their possession with bulls. They retired, and consulting together said among themselves that they had no bulls. One tried to persuade another to swear for the sake of their church: sound and canonical advice indeed! But they were by no means willing, and were afraid to attach the missing bulls by perjury. They made up their minds to come back and say that the bulls had either perished or were lost. When they said this, some smiled, others turned up their noses, and others laughed aloud, making fun of them and saying that it was a miracle that lead should perish or be lost and parchment survive. Some may think that this story is made up, and the writer trifling with him, but the thing is as true as it seems false. They afterwards suggested that perhaps bulls were not used so early. But the Romans bore witness that there had been bulls from St Gregory's time, and that some privileges of his with bulls were preserved in the church of Rome.! Having no more to say, they retired in disorder; their privileges were disbelieved, and their speeches neither praised nor kindly received. They did not, however, give up hope of obtaining our profession by paying its price. The present chamberlain? was a cunning and wicked man, intimate and influential with his master, and they tried to get a grant of primacy for the church of Canterbury by his means, making lavish promises to the pope and to him

personally. Only three of the curia were on his side, and those not highly considered there. He was popular with almost none of the citizens, nobles, and honest people. The pope told our archbishop to produce any documents he had. He answered that he der Urkundenlehre ,2nd edn., ii (Leipzig, 1931), pp. 479-97, 608-11; R. L. Poole, Lectures on the History of the Papal Chancery (Cambridge, 1915), pp. 98-122. 2 This is an important passage for the history of the emergence of the chamber as an independent agent of papal finance. In 1119 the papal chamberlain had been Stephen of Besancon, ‘the cruellest and most grasping of men, by whose advice the private chamber—priuata curia—was governed’ (Chronique de Morigny, ed. L. Mirot,

p. 32). He is not recorded in Rome, and at about this time two further chamberlains appear, Guy and Albanus (K. Jordan, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 25 (1933/4), esp. pp. 99-101, discussing Hugh's testimony; J. Sydow, Deutsches Archiv, 11 (1954/5), 18-73).

N

196

THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF YORK

Um

nulla attulisse, quia non ad causam set ad concilium uocatus -

uenerat. In qua solum Cantuarienses confidebant, de* camera nostri aliquantum diffidebant. Vnde et quibusdam cardinalibus — dixerunt: ‘Nos non timemus curiam, set cameram. Quibus illi:^. f ‘Per sanctum Petrum, si camera contra curiam uel motum unum ~ mitti retemptauerit,° audiet que noluerit. Sicut dominus papa mandauit, si qua habetis munimenta, coram legere ne timueritis.’ Tunc archiepiscopus noster: «Litteras aliquas socii nostri, non rogati, secum fortuitu detulerunt, non bullatas, et priuilegii nostri exemplum. ‘Et illas; inquiunt, coram allatas, legite. Consilio eorum ita fieri concessum est. Altera die archiepiscopus noster ueniens ante dominum papam et curiam predixit, quoniam sic eis placebat, litteras quasdam, quas socii sui detulerant, libenter ostendere, non quidem? modo in causam intrare. Si enim ad hoc uocatus fuisset, et cleris et scriptis aliter? et bene munitus uenisset. De Cantuariensibus nec unus

quidem aderat. Lecta? est igitur primo epistola beati Greg(orii) ad Augustinum, quam? illi priuilegiorum suorum nouissime legerant. De (qua)! quibusdam inter se disceptantibus illam nobiscum, nichil uero cum illis facere tandem eis uisum est. Deinde epistola Honorii pape ad Paulinum Eboracensem et Honorium Cantuariensem archiepiscopos de palleorum missione, et de uicaria inter metropolitanos consecracione.! Post, illam lecte sunt littere pape f. 28"

Vrb(ani) ad "Thomam archiepiscopum de | redargucione/ professionis iniuste. Postea uero littere pape Pascalis et Gel(asii) et presentis Cal(ixti) ad Rad(ulphum) Cantuariensem et Tur(stinum) Eboracensem, illi prohibentes ne professionem illam exigeret, huic ne exhiberet; que suprascripte sunt. Nouissime autem priuilegium quod ipse papa Cal(ixtus) archiepiscopo nostro fecerat.^ Scrutinium de litteris istis factum est nullum, si bullas haberent; omnes enim bene nouerant. Auditis eorum et nostris munimentis, nisi quod uterque pretenderat se non in causam uenisse de controuersia sua, inter Cantuariensem et Eboracensem

iusto iudicio secundum uoluntatem nostram decisum foret. . Videntes clerici qui erant cum Cantuariensi quod nichil pro*^ Ra. punctuates: uenerat; in . . . confidebant. De... ^ ille Ra. temptauerit Ra.; mitti temptauerit Jo. The phrase is uncertain.

* alter A f quod A / redarguicione A

5 leta A

^ qua A

* mittere 4 quod A

! Supplied by edd.

E OE ,

iy RS

[4251

E. 1123]

v3 V

HUGH THE CHANTER

197

_ had brought none, because he had been called to a council and not

a trial. Our party rather distrusted the papal camera, the only hope of the Canterbury party, and this made them say to some of the cardinals: “We are not afraid of the curia, but the camera.’ They replied: “By Saint Peter, if the camera tries to make any move against the curia, it will hear something it would rather not hear. As the pope has ordered, do not fear to read before him any documents you have.’ Then our archbishop said: ‘Our companions, without having been asked, happen to have brought with them some letters, without bulls, and a copy of our privilege.’ ‘Bring them,’ they said, ‘and read them in public.’ By their advice it was granted that this should be done. On the next day our archbishop, appearing before the pope and the curia, began by saying that he gladly exhibited some letters which his companions had brought, because the court wished it, but that he was not now opening a case. Forifhe had been summoned for that purpose, he would have come differently, well equipped with clerks and documents. Of the Canterbury party not one appeared. First, then, was read the letter of St Gregory to Augustine, which the Canterbury party had read last of their privileges. Some of them discussed this amongst themselves, but finally decided that it supported us, not the other side. Then came the letter of Pope

Honorius to Paulinus archbishop of York and Honorius archbishop of Canterbury about sending pallia, and about the alternate consecration by the metropolitans.’ After that was read the letter of Pope Urban to Archbishop Thomas reproving him for the undue profession. Then the letters of Popes Paschal and Gelasius and the present Pope Calixtus to Ralph of Canterbury and Thurstan of York, which are written above, forbidding the one to exact and the other to offer the profession. Last of all the privilege which Pope Calixtus had made for our archbishop.’ These letters were not examined to see if they had bulls, since everybody was familiar with them. When both the Canterbury documents and ours had been heard, a just judgement could have been given between the archbishops of Canterbury and York in our favour, had it not been for the fact that both sides had disclaimed any legal proceedings. When the clerks with the archbishop of Canterbury saw that ! Above, pp. xxxi-xxxii. ii 2 Above, pp. 10-13, 66—9, 72-5, 92-3, 96-9, 110-13, 172-5. For the privilege see above, pp. 168-73.

THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF YORK ficerent clericis nostris a rege minas inferebant. Quibus illi: Quia. modo neque in iusticia neque in pecunia confiditis, ad minas con-.uersi? estis. Set potens est Deus defendere nos, et rex nichil mali | reddet inmeritis cum archiepiscopo suo pro ecclesia sua resistenti- — bus. Archiepiscopo quoque dictum fuit quod non ideo quod — 198

archiepiscopus erat iustum esse poterat quod antea sua ipsius atestacione iniustum fuerat. Denique uterque^ archiepiscopus simul ad curiam uenerunt. Quibus, precepto domini pape, dictum est quod, quia se non in causam uocatos uenisse predixerant, inde-

finita eorum contencione4 recederent; set (ad)* eam definiendam

diem, si uellent, ille statueret. Diem uero archiepiscopus noster accipere uoluit. Cantuariensis autem, rege inconsulto, noluit? Accepta a domino papa licencia, ipse cum litteris istis rediit.

Littere? eiusdem pape ad suffraganeos et clerum prouincie Cantuariensis Cal(ixtus) episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, uenerabilibus fratribus Cantuariensis ecclesie suffraganeis," clero et populo Cantuariensi,' salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Venientem ad nos (fratrem nostrum Guillelmum, antistitem uestrum, paterne

caritatis affectione)! suscepimus, et super causa eius una cum fratribus,* episcopis et cardinalibus diu tractauimus, et quedam! minus canonice perpetrata fore repperimus. Nos autem quia de

honestate persone, que per Dei graciam religiosa est et nulla prorsus macula" notatur infamie, ualde confidimus, et magnum

ex ea utilitatis fructum uestre ecclesie profuturum speramus, karissimi filii nostri Henr(ici) regis etuestre peticioni” annuimus, et quod de ipso factum fuerat confirmauimus.? Palleum uero? pontificalis? uidelicet officii plenitudinem, illi iuxta consuetudinem ecclesie" concessimus. Ipsum itaque ad uos cum nostre gracie habundancia remittentes, uniuersitatem uestram rogamus,* monemus, atque precipimus ut eum reuerenter suscipiatis, affeccione precipua diligatis, eique tanquam patri et pastori * proficeret A > cum uersi A * uterque repeated in A 4 contencione Ra.; contempcione A, Jo. * Supplied by Ra. f statuerent A * Letter also in the 12th-cent. BL Cotton Cleopatra E i,f. 32 (B), Cotton ClaudiusE v, f. 254 (K), and Hereford P i. 5, f. ii (M), as well as in later copies. We have used these mitnesses to improve Hugh 5 defective text at a.number ofpoints. ^ et delectis filiis add. BKM i Cantuarie BKM ! Supplied from BKM (om. Ra.) * nostris. add. BKM quedam BKM; que A, Ra. (who added correximus after repperimus) ™ macula

.— — y?

1123]

|

HUGH THE CHANTER

. 199

they were making no progress, they threatened our clerks with the king. They replied: ‘Now that you no longer trust in justice nor in money, you have turned to threats. But God is strong to defend us, and the king will do no hurt to innocent men standing up for their .— church with their archbishop.’ The archbishop [of Canterbury] also was told that his having become an archbishop did not make that just which he had previously testified to be unjust.! At last both archbishops came together to the curia. By the pope's orders, they were told that because they had claimed that they had not been summoned to trial, they must go away with their case undecided; but he would, if they wished, appoint them a day to decide it. Our archbishop wished to accept. But the archbishop of Canterbury refused to do so without consulting the king.’ So he took leave of the pope, and went home with this letter: t d.

Letter ofthe pope to the suffragan bishops and clergy ofthe province of Canterbury Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable

brethren the suffragans of the church of Canterbury, and to the clergy and people of Canterbury, greeting and apostolic blessing. We have received with paternal affection our brother, your bishop William, when he came to us, and have with our brethren the bishops and cardinals treated at length of his case, and have found certain things in it to be uncanonical. But, being satisfied that he is an honourable man, and by God's grace a devout one, and of unspotted reputation, and hoping that he will be highly profitable to your church, we accede to the petition of our dearest son King Henry, and yours, and have confirmed what had been done in his case. We have also granted him the pallium, that is the fullness of pontifical office, according to the custom of the church. We therefore send him back to you with the abundance of our grace, and ask, admonish, and direct you all to receive him reverently, love him exceedingly, and humbly obey BKM; miracula A ? peticioni BKM; peticionis A; peticionibus Ra. ? confirmamus B (before correction) KM, as rhythm demands P quoque BKM 4 pontificalis -BKM; pontificale A T uestre add. BKM, rhythm supporting 5 rogemus fo.

! Cf. below, pp. 220-1. ? Hugh's account may be disingenuous; cf. below, pp. 200-1 n. 2.

THE

200

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

uestro humilitate atque obediencia pareatis, quatinus per ips curam salutem in uobis omnipotentis Dei gracia operetur, etuos.

de eo gaudium et ipse de uobis coronam immarcessibilis glorie

recipere mereatur.

(Data Laterani xii. kal. Iunii.)*! Archiepiscopus noster cum plenitudine gracie domini pape et tocius curie et litteris hiis ad regem digressus est.

Littere eiusdem pape ad eundem regem pro eodem archiepiscopo Eboracensi Calixtus) episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, karissimo in Christo

filio Henr(ico), illustri et glorioso Anglorum regi, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Ad apostolorum limina et nostram

presenciam uenientem dilectum fratrem nostrum T(hurstanum) Eboracensem archiepiscopum? debita dulcedinis et caritatis affeccione suscepimus; qui^ dum apud nos per aliquantulum quorum? dierum spacium moraretur, multa nobis de te bona sapienter ac* fideliter retulit, et pro tui regni statu et exaltacione instantissime apud Romanam ecclesiam intercessit. Qua de re

nos et amplius te diligimus et preces tuas, in quibus oportunum| f. 29

est, libenter admittimus. Pro ipso ergo dilectissimo nobis fratre nostro egregiam magnificenciam tuam rogamus, ut eum deinceps

pro amore Dei et nostro maiori diligencia! complectaris.? Veniente prius Cantuariensi archiepiscopo in Normanniam, quidam de sociis suis quedam aliter quam res esset regis auribus instillauerunt, et de archiepiscopo nostro, quod eis fuerat in nocu-

mentum. Secutus paulo post Eboracensis, a rege gratulabunde et socii sui suscepti sunt. Et domnus abbas Anselmus et Ieremias, qui

a rege Romam missi cum archiepiscopo nostro redierant, rei ueritatem ei plenius intimauerunt, et quod Eboracensis Cantuariensi bene ualuerat, testantes plene quod si ei nocere studuisset, palleum illa uice non detulisset. Noster uero nichil apud regem * Daie supplied from BKM * archiepiscopus A x Som and perhaps to be deleted; quoque Ra. * et Ra

* ea

Ka.

© qui edd; quod A * diligenciam A

! JL 7136; other bulls for the English delegation dated between 15 and 25 May are listed in Brett, p. 241. * Not in JL. Hugh omits another letter from the York archives dated 24 May, in which Calixtus informed the English clergy that the new archbishop of Canterbur y had

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

201

- him as your father and shepherd, that by his care the grace of almighty God may work salvation in you, and that you may deserve to have joy in him, and he to receive from you a crown of glory that fadeth not away. . Given at the Lateran, 21 May [1123].! - . Our archbishop went away to the king with the fullness of the grace of the lord pope and his whole curia, and the following letter. .

Letter ofthe pope to the king on behalf ofthe archbishop of York Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his dearest son in Christ, Henry, illustrious and glorious king of the English, greeting and apostolic blessing. We received our beloved brother, Thurstan, archbishop of York, on his coming to the thresholds of the apostles and to our presence, with the sweetness and loving affection that he deserves. During the few days of his stay with us, he wisely and faithfully reported much good of you, and earnestly interceded with the church of Rome for the welfare and exaltation of your kingdom. For which reason we love you the more, and freely accept your prayers so far as is suitable. We therefore ask your most excellent majesty in behalf of our beloved brother, that you will henceforth cherish him more diligently for the love of God and of ourselves.” The archbishop of Canterbury arrived in Normandy first; and some of his company dropped into the king’s ears a false account of the state of affairs, and asserted that our archbishop had done them harm.’ The archbishop of York with his company followed soon after, and was graciously received by the king. And Abbot Anselm and Jeremy, who had been sent by the king to Rome with our archbishop and had now returned, told the king the whole truth, and

that the archbishop of York had done good service to him of Canterbury, fully witnessing that if he had tried to injure him, the archbishop of Canterbury would not have brought back his pallium this time. But our archbishop made no complaint to the king of the raised before him the issue of the primacy. Since York had not been summoned to _ defend its claim and neither party had come adequately prepared, he had appointed a day for both archbishops to receive a final decision on the primacy in his presence (PUE ii, No. 6). According to Simeon, ii. 273, the pope agreed to send legates to England to determine the issue ‘in a council of the clergy of all England’. 3 The king was in Normandy from 11 June 1123 to 11 Sept. 1126 (Simeon, ii. 273, 281;

cf. John of Worcester, pp. 17, 22).

202

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

conquestus est illos sibi quantum potuerant obstitisse, cum de | Glesguensi* et episcopis Scocie clamaret quod se Eboracensi . ecclesie subtrahebant; quod regis Anglie dignitati aduersabatur. Archiepiscopi, apud regem quantum ei placuit commorati, in —

A

Angliam repatriauerunt.’

Proximo Septembre dominus papa Cantuariensi archiepiscopo

ita scripsit." Littere eiusdem pro eodem

Cal(ixtus) episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, G(uillelmo)* Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et uniuersis suffraganeis eius, salutemet apostolicam benediccionem. Quisquis a Deo gloriam sempiternam et honorem indeficientem consequi desiderat, honore dignos uenerari non negligat. Vnde uniuersitati uestre mandamus et precipimus quatinus uenerabilem fratrem nostrum

T(hurstanum)

Eboracensem

archiepiscopum,

—honestum

utique, sapientem, atque religiosum uirum, pro nostri amoris reuerencia diligatis, et, ut impleatur in uobis illud apostolicum, "honore inuicem preuenientes’,’ mutue fraternitatis diligencia ueneremini, nec ullam ei prerogatiuam,’ quam predecessores eius habuisse noscuntur, in aliquo subtrahatis.' Sequenti anno misit dominus papa Iohannem Cremensem presbiterum cardinalem ut in Anglia legatus esset, quem* dominus rex in Normannia propter aliqua negocia aliquamdiu detinuit? Adhuc

eo illic morante, Cal(ixtus) papa in Aduentu Domini obiit, et Lambertus Ostiensis episcopus, clericus sapiens et iustus homo, in

papam Honorium substitutus! est.° Ipse uero legacionem a predecessore suo Iohanni iniunctam litteris suis confirmauit. Iste est quartus papa sub quo T(hurstanus) Eboracensis archiepiscopus passus est. Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis, meliorem successum repperire existimans apud nouum papam;? clamorem renouauit de primatu * Glesuensi A (cf. p. 124) > Letter also in MRA i, f. 49 (a) 4 prorogatiuam A * quod A f substitutus D; substitus A

* G. om. à ® pape A

! There is no other evidence that the issue of the Scottish bishops was discussed at Rome in 1123, but Thurstan had secured a number of bulls on the point early in 1122, without effect (above, p. lii). It would be surprising had he not raised the matter when in Rome the next year. ? Archbishop William returned to England before 22 July (John of Worcester, p. 17). 3 Rom. 12: ro. ^ Not in JL.

En23-4]

^

HUGH THE CHANTER

203

. other party's having opposed him as much as they could when he complained that the bishop of Glasgow and the other Scottish bishops were withdrawing their obedience from the church of York, to the prejudice of the dignity of the king of England.! So the archbishops remained with the king as long as he wished, and then returned home to England In the following September the pope wrote as follows to the archbishop of Canterbury:

The pope's letter on behalf ofthe archbishop of York Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to William, archbishop of Canterbury, and all his suffragans, greeting and apostolic blessing. Whosoever desires to obtain from God eternal glory and unfailing honour, let him not neglect to reverence those worthy of honour. Wherefore we command and direct you all to love our venerable brother Thurstan, archbishop of York, an honourable, wise, and devout man, in reverence of our love; and, that the word of the apostle may be fulfilled in you, ‘in honour preferring one another’? respect him as brothers should, and do not in any way withhold from him any prerogative which his predecessors are known to have enjoyed.’ In the following year [1124], the pope sent John of Crema, cardinal priest, to be legate in England, but the king kept him some time

in Normandy for matters of business.? While he still delayed there, in Advent, Pope Calixtus died; and Lambert, bishop of Ostia, a wise clerk and just man, replaced him as Pope Honorius. He confirmed by his letters the legation which his predecessor had enjoined on John. This is the fourth pope in whose time Thurstan, archbishop of York suffered. The archbishop of Canterbury, hoping to have better success with a new pope, renewed his claim for the primacy which he 5 Cardinal priest of S. Grisogono since 1116 (Hüls, pp. 176-8). He reached Normandy before 1 June 1124; for his legation see Brett, pp. 42-7; CS i/2. 730-2 citing further literature. At about this time the king summoned Archbishop William to Normandy; by the following Lent Thurstan was there too (John of Worcester, pp. 18-19). 6 A former archdeacon of Bologna; cardinal bishop of Ostia since 1115 X 1117, and active in securing the Concordat of Worms in 1122; elected pope after a disputed election 15 Dec. 1124, crowned 21 Dec., died 13 or 14 Feb. 1130 (Hüls, pp. 106-7; JL i. 824, 839). For the effect of a pope's death on the authority ofa legate see C. R. Cheney, Revue de droit canonique , 28 (1978), 84-96, esp. 88. The letters areJL 7201, 7203-4, from Simeon, ii. 276-8.

204

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

4

ee

quem* super ecclesiam nostram habere debebat, petens ut causam -

hanc in Anglia a legato suo iuberet terminari; set non in presencia sua uoluit. Legatus in Quadragesima in Angliam transiuit. Circa Pentecosten misit dominus papa utrique archiepiscopo litteras —

quatinus in proxima beate Marie Purificacione suam? illi exhi- *

berent presenciam,! ille sicut de querela et clamore quem* fecerat. acturus,/ noster uero sicut responsurus. Archiepiscopo nostro misse hic scripte sunt.*

Littere domini Honorii pape prime ad eundem Eboracensem archiepiscopum Honorius episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, uenerabili fratri, T(hurstano), Eboracensi archiepiscopo, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Ad hoc in celsa Romane ecclesie specula, disponente Spiritu Sancto, promoti sumus, ut ecclesiarum paci et quieti£ paterna uigilancia prouidentes conseruare ius suum f. 29"

unicuique debeamus. Querelam siquidem fratris uestri," G(uillelmi) Cantuariensis |archiepiscopi, de primatu aduersus te et ecclesiam tuam accepimus. Dignum ergo duximus ut tantarum ecclesiarum et tanti negocii causa in nostra presencia pertractetur, ideoque fraternitati tue mandamus ut in proxima beate Marie Purificacione/ ad nostram presenciam uenias, de eodem negocio responsurus.

(Dat Laterani idibus Aprilis.)

Legatus tota fere Anglia circuita et perambulata usque prope Scociam,’ in Natiuitate beate Marie concilium Londonie celebrauit, quod in tempore regum utriusque Will(elmi) Romanus legatus nunquam fecerat. Vna huius concilii dierum dominus Bernardus episcopus ab archiepiscopo nostro ueniam postulauit,! se peccasse confitens quod tantum contra ecclesiam nostram institerat. Inde ambo archiepiscopi, prouisis ad iter necessariis, in Normanniam transeunt Romam ituri. Legatus legacione sua expleta paulo

post eo secutus! est. Transierunt et Alex(ander) Lincolniensis * quem Jo.; quod A > suam D; sua A © quem edd.; quod A; quos Ra. 4 tacturus A * Letter also in BL Lansdowne 402, f. 104 (L) f quieti L; quod A, Ra. ® igitur L ^ uestri om. L ! ut L; in A / purificatione L; purificacionis A * Date supplied from L ! secutas A ! Whitsun was 17 May 1125; ‘Candlemas next’, 2 Feb. 1126. ? Not in JL; cf. above, pp. 200-1 n. 2.

—

i

y

| uas]

HUGH THE CHANTER

205

i

ought to have over our church, begging him to order the cause to Ji +t be determined in England by his legate. But he was not willing to have it tried in the pope's presence. The legate crossed to England in Lent. About Whitsuntide the pope sent letters to both arch_ bishops to appear before him at Candlemas next, the one to prosecute the plaint and claim he had made, and the other to answer. The letter sent to our archbishop follows:

|

First letter ofPope Honorius to the archbishop of York Honorius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our venerable brother, Thurstan, archbishop of York, greeting and apos-

tolic blessing. We have-been raised, by the disposition of the Holy Ghost, to the lofty watch-tower of the church of Rome,

that we may provide for the peace and quiet of the churches by our fatherly vigilance, and should preserve for each its rights. We have received the complaint of your brother William, archbishop of Canterbury, against you and your church about the primacy. We have therefore thought proper that a cause concerning such great churches and so important a matter should be discussed in our own presence. We therefore command you, brother, to appear before us at Candlemas next to answer on that matter.

Given at the Lateran, 13 April [1125]. The legate having gone about and through most of England almost to the Scottish border,’ celebrated a council in London on the Nativity of Our Lady [8 September], a thing which no Roman legate had ever done in the time of either King William. On one of the days of this council Bishop Bernard begged our archbishop's pardon, confessing that he had sinned in being so hot against our church. Then both archbishops, having made the necessary

preparations for the journey, crossed to Normandy on their way to Rome. The legate followed them soon after, having fulfilled his legation. There also crossed Alexander, bishop of Lincoln,

3 In fact the legate entered Scotland and had an interview with King David at Rox-

burgh, which Thurstan may have been summoned to attend (Simeon, ii. 278; PUE ii.

tor; above, p. lii n. 4). * See H. Tillmann, Die pápstlichen Legaten in England bis zur Beendigung der Legation Gualas (1218) (Bonn, 1926), pp. 27-30; Brett, pp. 42-4; CS i/2. 733-41. For the possible significance of Bishop Bernard's repentance see below, pp. 206-7 n. 2; for his background cf. above, pp. 148-9 n. 4.

206

THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF YORK

—

episcopus et Iohannes Glesguensis et Gaufridus abbas Sancti

Albani et abbas de Schireburnia, cum Cantuariensi archiepiscopo

profecturi, non opinante archiepiscopo nostro quod rex de. facienda professione uel subieccione ulterius eum angariaret, set — totum iudicio uel disposicioni sedis apostolice reseruaret. Man-dauit ei tamen per episcopos et proceres quatinus ecclesias sic esse dimitteret sicut sub patre suo fuerant; alioquin nec fidelitatem quam ei iurauerat bene seruaret, et odium eius semper haberet. Ille, prius de periurio et infidelitate se excusans, dixit se gratanter dimittere ecclesias? sic stare sicut sub patre suo, Aldredo uiuente, ultimo Angligenarum Eboracensi archiepiscopo, steterant. Ait ille:

‘Nequaquam’, set statu quo pater eius illas reliquerat. Et ille “Non possum hoc’ inquit ‘nisi priuilegium meum destruendo facere: et ad hoc uterque archiepiscopus uocati sumus, ut in audiencia domini pape contencio nostra sedis apostolice iudicio terminetur." Preter equitatem et consuetudinem fuit ut pro causa qua ad apostolicam sedem quisquam uocatus sic coartaretur, nec demum ut, pro eadem causa uocatus, regem sic alium coartare compulisset.? Quoniam sic inter archiepiscopos pax stabiliri non poterat, alia uia per regem et alios mediatores^ cogitata? est, ut Cantuariensis archiepiscopus de prouincia sua magna Eboracensi archiepiscopo tres episcopatus concederet, Cestrensem, Pangornensem, et tercium inter hos duos medium set pro uastitate et barbarie

episcopo uacantem;? hac quidem‘ conuencione quod Tur(stinus) archiepiscopus Cantuariensem archiepiscopum solo uerbo in primatem susciperet, successores autem eius Cantuariensibus obedienciam seu reuerenciam qualis primati debetur manu in manum promitterent, in misericordia quidem? et uoluntate domini pape. Hoc^ autem concilio multo, persuasionibus plurimis, pro pace, pro' quiete missionibus, rege quoque et legato ad hoc obnixe ? ecclesia A 4 cogitatum AD A € quod A

> compilisset A © mediatores * Pangornensem AD; -gorensem Jo. ^ hic A ! et Ra.

D;

meditatores A f quidem D; quod

! Alexander, nephew of Bishop Roger of Salisbury and one of his archdeacons, was bishop of Lincoln 1123-48 (Fasti, iii. 1-2; D. M. Smith in EEA, vol. i, p. xxxiv). Geoffrey

de Gorron was abbot of St Albans 1119-46 (Heads, p. 67). Sherborne had recently been raised from a priory to an abbey; Thurstan, formerly prior, became abbot in 1122 and left office between 1129 and 1142 X 1145 (Heads, p. 7o; E. J. Kealey, Roger of Salisbury Ves at Angeles/London, 1972), pp. 252-5). For John of Glasgow see above, p. lii. ? This curious scheme to divide the Welsh church may have had something to do with Bishop Bernard's repentance (above, pp. 204—5), for then or later he was the central

|

EE

7

amb

"7n

i: ;

P usi

A.

if

j

Es

HUGH THE CHANTER

207

3 John, bishop of Glasgow, Geoffrey, abbot of St Albans, and the _ abbot of Sherborne, intending to go with the archbishop of Can-

.. terbury.' Our archbishop did not think that the king would trouble . him further about his profession and subjection, but that he would . leave the whole matter to the disposition and judgement of the apostolic see. The king, however, sent him orders by bishops and nobles that he should leave the churches as they were under his . father; otherwise he would not be keeping well the fealty which he had sworn to him, and would always be hated by him. He, after rebutting the charge of perjury and breach of faith, said that he would gladly let the churches stay as they had been under his father in the lifetime of Ealdred, the last English archbishop of York. But the king said, No, but as his own father had left them. ‘I cannot do that', said Thurstan, *without destroying my privilege; and both of us archbishops have been summoned to have our difference determined in the pope's hearing by the judgement of the apostolic see.’ It was inequitable and contrary to custom that any man summoned to the apostolic see should be so coerced, and still more that one party so summoned should force the king so to coerce another. Since peace between the archbishops could not be established in that way, another plan was thought of by the king and other mediators; namely, that the archbishop of Canterbury should grant to the archbishop of York out of his large province three bishoprics, those of Chester, Bangor, and another which lies between

these two, but is now vacant, owing to the desolation of the country and the rudeness of the inhabitants. By the terms of this agreement Archbishop Thurstan was to accept the archbishop of Canterbury as primate by word of mouth only; but his successors were to promise the archbishops of Canterbury the obedience and reverence due to a primate by solemn handclasp, if the pope should mercifully permit them. But in spite of much debate, many arguments, many missions to secure peace and quiet, and the strenuous efforts of the king and the legate, it was only just possible figure in the first serious attempt to separate the Welsh church from the province of Canterbury and make his own see of St Davids the seat of an archbishopric. This campaign got under way between 1125 and 1130 and was doubtless inspired in part by Thurstan’s; see the literature cited above on pp. 148-9 n. 4 and M. Richter in JEH 22 (1971), 177-89. The bishopric between Chester and Bangor was that of Powys, then or later the see of Llanelwy or St Asaph (C. N. L. Brooke, The Church and the Welsh Border (Woodbridge, 1986), pp. 12-13).

x

THE

208

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

laborantibus, uix ab utroque concedi extortum est. Nolebat enim —

noster nec in minimo subici illi, nec ille pro primatu de suo tantum | partiri. Existimo quod noster nullatenus concessisset si Romanam 5 ecclesiam non consentire non credidisset. Hec conueniencia ab —i ipso legato descripta est ab eodem Romam perferenda.” D Rex de preterito penitens, de futuro precauens ne Romanum legatum in regno suo denuo reciperet, persuasit et precepit Cantuariensi archiepiscopo quatinus legationem (peteret). Precatus est _ ut illi de hoc in consilium et auxilium fideliter adessent, et illi ~ f.30

annuerunt. Abeuntibus archiepiscopis prohibendo imperauit, |si dominus papa concordiam inter se prouisam concedere et confirmare nollet, ne inde placitarent; sin autem, ad ecclesias suas non

reuerterentur. Cantuariensis cum suis iter agreditur, noster uero assumpto sibi fratre suo Ebroicensi^ episcopo quorum societatem omine

infausto et diro infortunio legatus elegit. Siquidem (tam)* multam pecuniam in cophinis et bulgiis et loculis portabat quod de illo prouerbium istud dici poterat? "Depredari desiderat qui publice thesaurum in uia portat, Et ipse, quod quibusdam in itinere odiosus erat, eapropter per auia, per aspera, per ardua, per abrupta, per uias quibus de patria nostra nemo Romam ambulauit. Vitabundi,’ disturbati, capti, redempti aduersa tanta noster et sui perpessi sunt ut, si non alia* pro repellenda professione indebita, ista nimium et plus’ nimio fuissent. lamque Cantuarienses Rome tres septimanas fecerant cum nostri illuc peruene-

runt,’ nec de negocio! aliquo quicquam temptauerant, legatum et archiepiscopum nostrum expectantes. Cantuariensem uero non

modice penitebat hanc concessionem* fecisse, iam audito incepto et modo pacis inter archiepiscopos prouise. Aliquantum Romani

indignabantur regem se ad hoc ingerere quod nichil eum attin-

gere uidebatur. Legatus a nostris ante! digressus paucis post

(diebus)? aduenit.

Tunc Cantuariensis archiepiscopus primo uoluit de legacione requisicionem fieri, ceteri uero prius de pace perficienda dignum * credissetA © Supplied by Fo.

* ila

Ra.

One

,Peruenerunt iene p. 14

^ perferenda edd. (cf. D's perlata); proferendo is proferenda fo. 4 Ebor. A * Supplied by edd. f uagabundi Ra.

expects

alia

(paterentur)

Jo; perueniant A Jo.; confessionem A

'or the like.

ide negocio ! antea Ra.

^ plus

om. jo.

jo; denegacio A ™ Supplied by edd. (cf.

a p

1125-6]

f

7

HUGH THE CHANTER

. 209 | | a to extort the consent of both archbishops. Our archbishop was unwilling to be subject in the very least; nor would the other give up so large a part of his see to secure the primacy. I reckon that our archbishop would not have given way had he not believed that the . Roman church would refuse its consent. The agreement was drawn up by the legate himself to be carried by him to Rome. The king, repenting what had happened, and taking care for the future not to receive another Roman legate in his kingdom, persuaded and directed the archbishop of Canterbury to [apply for] the legation.! He prayed the others faithfully to support him with counsel and help; and they agreed. As the archbishops were leaving, he forbade them, if the pope should refuse to grant and confirm the agreement arranged between them, to go to law on the subject. Butif they did, they should never return to their sees. The archbishop of Canterbury and his company started on their journey. Our archbishop took with him his brother [Audoen], the bishop of Évreux/ and, inauspiciously and by dire misfortune, the legate chose to travel with them. He took with him so much money in boxes, bags, and purses that the proverb,’ “The man who openly carries treasure on a journey is asking to be robbed’, fitted him exactly. Also, because there were enemies of his on the road, he went to Rome by roadless, rough, steep, and broken ways, by which nobody

from our country had ever travelled. Our archbishop and his company, furtive, confused, captured, and ransomed, suffered such adversity as would have been too much and more than too much for | them, had they not been enduring yet more in repelling an undue

profession. When our party got to Rome, the men from Canterbury had been there three weeks, but they had taken no steps about any business, as they were waiting for the legate and our archbishop. The archbishop of Canterbury, however, sincerely regretted having given way, now that the scheme and manner of the peace arranged between the archbishops had been heard. The Romans were somewhat indignant at the king's interference in a matter which seemed to be no business of his. The legate had left our party earlier, and arrived shortly after. Then the archbishop of Canterbury wanted the request for the legation to be made first, but the others thought that for the 1 and ? 3

Cf. above, pp. 144-5; for the grant of the legation to Canterbury see CS i/2. 741-3 the literature cited there. Above, p. xxvii n. 4.

Source untraced.

210

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

duxerunt. Legatus igitur et uerbo et scripto allato concordie -

(modum) enarrauit. Set’ Will(elmu)s archiepiscopus de tercio

episcopatu sine nomine nec mencionem se audisse constanter negauit. Miratus est legatus et multi qui aderant et hoc audierant, et ipse iurare optulit pro ueritate testificanda et pro pace facienda sic esse conuentum, et scripto presenti inde facto coram rege et utroque archiepiscopo et archiepiscopo Rotomagensi et episcopo Lexoui-

ensi*! et de Anglia et Normannia nonnullis? sic esse recordatum* et concessum. Similiter Eboracensis? archiepiscopus. Ipse tamen nichilominus in negando persistebat. Qui cum eo erant, licetueritatem non ignorantibus, archiepiscopo suo aperte contradicere molestum erat. Visum est quibusdam quod in quo consenciebant confirmaretur, reliqum uero testimonio regis et aliorum qui affuerant reseruaretur. Set de dubio et contencioso priuilegium firmare absurdum erat: ire uero etredire propter regis testimonium deferendum uia longa et labor aliquantus. Ad audienciam domini pape peruentum est. Ibi legatus scripto relicto ex parte regis dominum papam et curiam postulauit quatinus concordiam hanc concederent et confirmarent, et quod ita disposita et concessa fuerant iurare se presentauit. Dominus papa, accepto consilio, dixit, querela et responsione eorum auditis, in hiis queque? honestum esset regem exaudire, sicut filium et fidelem Romane ecclesie. Consilio inde habito, pensantes quod eos in causam trahere uolebant," et ex altera parte regis prohibicionem, petiere inducias.? Date sunt illis, et prohibicio regis non erat ignota Romanis. In angustiis/ erat Cantuariensis, hinc propter regis interdictum, quod transgredi formidabat, inde quod clamore! suo uterque uocatus uenerat, ipse ad agendum, ille* ad respondendum, et nisi prosequeretur metuebat ne a causa defecisse et cecidisse iudicaretur. Noster uero non habebat nisi

tacere, si non impeteretur. Set quid (de)! hiis longius? Multorum

1.201

intercessionibus et de die in diem dilacionibus et suspensionibus * modum D; om. A o> si A * Luxouiensi AD (cf. p. 62) 4 non nullus A * concordatum 4 before correction, perhaps rightly f Ebroicensi(s) D * Corrupt (quoque quod Ra., quodeumque [sic] Jo.); the whole sentence is highly doubtful ^ uolebant edd.; ualebant A ' angustiis Jo.; auxilio A; perhaps ambiguo / clamare A * ille ad agendum ipse A ! Supplied byRa.

! See above, p. 63 n. 5. ? Above, on p. 208 the scribe confused the archbishop of York with his brother, the bishop of Évreux (Ebroicensis). The Digby chronicle (HCY ii. 383) seems to have understood this passage as also referring to the bishop of Évreux, and it is very probably right. ? The Latin is obscure and may be corrupt; the translation is necessarily tentative.

.

1125-6]

HUGH THE CHANTER

211

establishment of peace more important. The legate therefore explained the method of the agreement both by word of mouth and by the document which he brought with him. But Archbishop William stoutly denied having heard even a mention of the third unnamed bishopric. The legate was astonished, and so were many present who had heard it; and the legate, wishing to testify to the truth and to make peace, offered to make oath that it had been so agreed, and that this document about it was made in the presence of the king, of both the archbishops, the archbishop of Rouen, the bishop of Lisieux,' and sundry others of England and Normandy, and the agreement so recorded and granted. So also did the archbishop of York But William none the less persisted in his denial. Those who were with him; though they knew the truth, could not decently contradict their archbishop openly. Some people thought that the agreement should be confirmed so far as both sides

agreed, the rest being reserved for the witness of the king and the others who had been present. But it would have been absurd to establish a privilege in a doubtful and contentious matter; yet it would be a long and troublesome journey to go and get the king's evidence and come back with it. So it came to the hearing before the pope. Thereupon the legate, abandoning the document, sought, on the king's behalf, that the pope and curia should grant and confirm the agreement, and offered to swear that those were the terms in which it had been couched and agreed. Our lord the pope, after taking counsel, said that once their plaint and answer had been heard, it would be right to hear any lawful request of the king, as a faithful son of the church of Rome. After consultation,

reflecting that it was Canterbury who wished to draw them into a lawsuit, and on the other hand considering the king's prohibition, they [York] asked for an adjournment.’ That was granted, and the Romans were aware of the king's prohibition [on further litigation]. The archbishop of Canterbury was in a strait, on the one hand, on account of the king’s prohibition, which he was afraid to transgress, on the other, because the parties had appeared at his instance, he to sue, the other to answer, and he feared that if he did not pursue his claim, he might be adjudged to have defaulted and so lost his case. Our archbishop need only be silent if he were not sued. But why say more? After many had intervened on their behalf, after adjournments from day to day and suspensions of

judgement, and with great difficulty, the parties were permitted to

212

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

uix obtentum est ut salua cuiusque causa eos’ regredi liceret. Nam de concordia descripta nec uerbum deinceps audire uoluerunt. De legacione iam antea dominus papa^ archiepiscopum nostrum consuluerat, quid sibi de committendo eam Cantuariensi

archiepiscopo laudaret. Ille uero dixit quod nesciebat cui melius illam committere posset. Erat enim clericus bonus, et homo sim-

plex et iustus. Propter precem et preceptum regis noluit illum dehortari. Quod si ex studio noluisset, archiepiscopus non legatus in Angliam foret relegatus. Tandem requisicionibus crebris, sicut inter dominum papam et ipsum conuenit, nec multis de cardinalibus nec archiepiscopo nostro et paucis de suo numero asistentibus, legacio illi super Britanniam commissa est.! Quia modo archiepiscopus noster domnum Iohannem Glesguensem episcopum in curia uidebat, de eo tacere non fuit consilium. Clamauit ergo quod ipse Iohannes in Eboracensi ecclesia sicut suffraganeus eius electus,^ et per litteras suas a papa Pascali

consecratus, postea nec propter litteras eiusdem pape? P(ascalis) neque Cal(ixti) quas ibi recitari fecit quicquam obediencie uel reuerencie® uoluit exhibere. Quibus litteris intellectis ipse ideo ad aliquantulum ligatus intelligebatur. Similiter et de episcopis Scocie conquestus est. A principio aduentus eorum a quibusdam domino pape persuasum erat Scociam non esse de regno Anglie. Volebant enim requirere palleum episcopo Sancti Andree, et sic archiepiscopum creari. Set archiepiscopus noster et secreto et palam in curia ostendit Scociam de regno Anglie esse, et regem Scottorum de Scocia hominem esse regis Anglie; quod debuit dominus papa sic esse credidit? Glesguensis episcopus querele’ archiepiscopi nostri respondit se non uocatum uenisse, set in legacionem domini sui regis Scocie; itaque iudicio decretum est eum modo non debere cogi respondere, set diem illi statuere et absentes per litteras domini pape summonere. Cantuariensis et sui, quantum poterat? odio professionis denegate, contra nos erant, totam Britanniam prouinciam sibi usurpando clamantes; unde dominus papa” subridendo et capud mouendo uni eorum sic dixit: ‘Frater * eos AD; eis Ra., perhaps rightly AD; dictus Ra. 4 pape D; papa A A

* Perhaps poterant

^ propter add. A (del. Jo.)

* ei add. D

? Britanniam add.A

* electus f querele D; querere

! JL 7284, the bull conferring the legation, is dated 25 Jan.; cf. John of Worcester, p. 22. ? Above, pp. li-lii.

1125-6]

HUGH THE CHANTER

213

return home without a decision against either. For thenceforward the court would not hear a word about the written agreement.

Even before that, the pope had consulted our archbishop about the legation, and had asked his opinion about committing it to the archbishop of Canterbury. He replied that he knew of nobody to whom he could better entrust it. For he was a good clerk and a simple and honest man. Because of the king's prayer and directions he was unwilling to give contrary advice. But if he had deliberately chosen to do so, the archbishop would not have been sent back to England as legate. At last, after many requests, as was agreed between him and the pope, the legation to England was committed to him, in the absence of many of the cardinals and of our archbishop; and only a few of his own company were present.! Because our archbishop now saw John, bishop of Glasgow, at the court, he was not minded to keep silence about him. He complained that John, being elected his suffragan in the church of York, and consecrated by Pope Paschal by means of his letters, would not after that give him any obedience or reverence, either for the sake of Pope Paschal’s letter or those of Pope Calixtus, which he there caused to be read.” On the consideration of the letters, it was felt that John was bound in some degree. He made a similar complaint against the Scottish bishops. When they first came, the pope had been advised by some people that Scotland was no part of the realm of England. For they tried to demand a pallium for the bishop of St Andrews, and that he should thus be made an archbishop. But our archbishop showed the pope both privately and in open court that Scotland was part of the realm of England, and that the king of Scots was the king's man for Scotland; which the pope duly believed.’ The bishop of Glasgow answered our archbishop's plaint, saying that he had not come because he had been summoned, but on a legation from his lord the king of Scotland. It was therefore decided he should not be compelled to answer now, but that he should be appointed a day and that absent parties should be summoned by the pope's letters. The archbishop of Canterbury and his company were against us as far as they could out of hatred because of our refusal of the profession, and claimed to themselves the whole of Britain as their province. At this the pope smiled and nodded and said to one of them: 3 The issue was, and remained, much disputed. For the arguments which York might have deployed see A. A. M. Duncan in Scottish Historical Review, 37 (1958), 132-5.

THE

214

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

indulgeattibi.’ Fuit autem ibi quidam clericus sapiens et causidicus? famosus, Gillebertus, cognomento Vniuersis^ uel pocius Vniuer-

salis, iusticiam inuersare contendens, a nostris auersus et factus aduersarius. Qui cum archiepiscopo nostro secum uenire promisisset, et per litteras suas semel et iterum mandasset, postea Cantuariensi adhesit, sperans se tanto copiosius accepturum quanto archiepiscopatus ille nostro copiosior diuiciis habundat. Set, Deo pauperes adiuuante, nec illi profuit nec nostro obesse ualuit, et spes sua eum aliquantum decepit, et a quibusdam in curia Curio appellatus est, de quo Lucanus: Audax uenali* comitatur Curio lingua.”

Sicut prouisum fuerat, dominus papa archiepiscopo nostro et Glesguensi episcopo diem statuit a proxima Quadragesima in alteram! Iohanni episcopo sic dicens: ‘Frater, quibus beate

memorie papa* Cal(ixtus) te ligauit, nos te non absoluimus.' Episcopos'/Scocie ad diem designatum per litteras suas uocare disposuit. Sic? ergo factis negociis et infectis Cantuariensis archiepiscopus legacione suscepta rediit, et Eboracensis qualis meauerat, set aliquanto forcior et hillarior, remeauit. Dominus^ papa misit has litteras pro eo ad regem.

Littere domini Honorii pape ad eundem regem pro archiepiscopo

Eboracensi |

He Bl

Honorius episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, karissimo (in)! Christo filio Henr(ico), illustri Anglie et glorioso regi, salutem et apostolicam benediccionem. Quanto desiderio quantoque deuote humilitatis affectu sanctam matrem tuam Romanam ecclesiam dilexeris et honoraueris quamplurimis cognouimus

argumentis/ Quocirca te, tanquam specialissimum beati Petri alumnum,* apertis caritatis uisceribus amplexamur, et regnum magnificare'largiente Domino exoptamus. Obsecramus autem in Domino quatinus pro reuerencia beati Petri et nostra caritate ca-

rissimum nostrum T(hurstanum) Eboracensem archiepiscopum * et add. A 4 lingue A si A

* alium A

^ Vniuersus Ra., perhaps rightly * papa D; pape A ^ dominus repeated in A

* uenalis A(?)

f episcopos D; episcopo A 8 sic D; ! Supplied by Ra. / augumentis A

! Perhaps magnificari

! An eminent biblical scholar, one of the authors of the Glossa Ordinaria, later bishop

1125-6]

HUGH THE CHANTER

215

‘Your brother must excuse you.’ There was also there a wise clerk, a famous advocate, Gilbert, surnamed ‘Universe’, or rather ‘Universal’,' striving to reverse justice, averse from us, and become our adversary. He had promised to come with our archbishop, and more than once confirmed this by letter. But he afterwards joined the archbishop of Canterbury, hoping to be as much better paid as that archbishopric is richer than ours. But, since God helps the poor, it did him no good and our master no harm. His hopes were deceived, and some in the curia nicknamed him ‘Curio’, of whom Lucan wrote: Bold Curio follows with his venal tongue.”

As had been arranged, the pope appointed a day to our archbishop and the bishop of Glasgow in the Lent after next,’ saying to Bishop John: ‘Brother, we do not absolve you from the bonds with which Pope Calixtus of blessed memory bound you.’ He arranged to summon the Scottish bishops by his letters for the day appointed. When all this had been done, or not done, the archbishop of Canterbury went home with his legation, and the archbishop of York as he had set out, but somewhat stronger and merrier. The pope sent the king the following letter on his behalf:

Letter ofPope Honorius to the king on behalf ofthe archbishop of York Honorius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his dearest son in Christ, Henry, illustrious and glorious king of England, greeting and apostolic blessing. We know by very many proofs

with what love, what devout and humble affection, you have cherished and honoured your holy mother the church of Rome. We therefore embrace you, as a special nurseling of St Peter, with tender charity, and desire the increase of your kingdom by God’s bounty. But we beseech you in the Lord that in reverence of St Peter and for love of us you revere and love our dearest Thurstan, of London 1127-34 (B. Smalley, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 7 (1935), 235— 62; 8 (1936), 24-60; Fasti, i. 1).

? Lucan, Phars. ,i. 269. 3 Lent 1126 began on 24 Feb., almost all the bulls for the English delegation are dated 5—20 Jan. (Brett, pp. 242-3), so the summons was presumably for Feb./Mar. 1127. Cf below, pp. 216-19.

216

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

uenereris et diligas, et nullis grauaminibus uel iniuriis inquietari

permittas.!

Rex adhuc in Normannia morabatur.? A quo archiepiscopis per aliquot dierum spacium detentis, Cantuariensis archiepiscopus* prior ad ecclesiam suam reuersus est; nec multo post noster rediens et apud Witsand transfretans, per Cantorberiam transiuit, ubi

archiepiscopus eum uoluit acc(u)rate suscipere et honorifice pro-

curare. Set noluit, estimans eum et suos aduersus ipsum rancorem habere, quod eum minime fallebat. Dixit autem archiepiscopo nostro et de archiepiscopi et legacionis officio per consilium suum uelle plurimum agere. Cui noster promisit se illi secundum sciencie sue facultatem fideliter consiliaturum et adiuturum; et si qua ex consilio suo odia, blasphemie, dampna, incommoda illi prouenirent, patienter et libens secum omnia pateretur. Sic quasi amice digredientibus noster in Natali Apostolorum domum digressus est.’ Proximo Septembre rex in Angliam rediit.* Adueniente Natali Domini archiepiscopus noster uenit ad curiam regis, paratus inde Romam pergere propter placitum, quod prediximus inter ipsum et Ioh(annem) Glesguensem episcopum et episcopos Scocie a domino papa in proxima Quadragesima statutum fuisse. Cantuariensis archiepiscopus mandauit regi quod curie sue non adesset si Eboracensis ibi crucem sibi preferri faceret, uel ad eum coronandum manum mitteret) Quod rex grauiter ferens, archiepiscopo sic mandauit, deprecans eum ut ad hospicium suum remaneret, ne in tanta solempnitate et curia sua turbacio fieret. Erant tunc ad curiam Dauid rex Scottorum et Conanus comes Britannorum. Archiepiscopus, hoc ex ore regis audire uolens, ad eum iuit, et sic audiuit;

et ecclesie sue et sibi iniuriam irrogari, regi quoque dedecus fieri non? tacuit, set ‘Modo’ inquid ‘nolo curiam uestram per me turbari." Recedens statim per suos archiepiscopum requisiuit si sic regi mandauerat. At ille recognouit; factum enim erat sibi intelligi hoc nichil ad eum pertinere. ? episcopus A

^ uero A(?)

! Not in JL.

? Above, p. 201 n. 3.

3 Presumably SS Peter and Paul, 29 June.

* c. 11 Sept. (Simeon, ii. 281; cf. ASC, p. 47). * Cf. John of Worcester, p. 22, who describes Thurstan’s claim as rejected by universal condemnation. In 1128 Honorius commanded that Thurstan be allowed his ancient right to carry his cross in the southern province and to share in royal coronations (JL 7226, redated in PUE ii. 105). Later ir the century Archbishop Roger of Pont l'Évéque claimed to have a privilege of Honorius confirming such rights to Thurstan and his suc-

1126-7]

HUGH THE CHANTER

217

archbishop of York, and suffer him not to be disturbed by any

grievance or injury.! The king was still staying in Normandy.” He kept the archbishops for some days. The archbishop of Canterbury was the first to return to his church. Soon afterwards our archbishop crossed from Wissant on his return and passed through Canterbury, where the archbishop was ready to receive him with due respect and entertain him honourably. But our archbishop was unwilling, because he thought that he and his company had a grudge against him. The archbishop of Canterbury was aware of this. But he told our archbishop that he wished to act mainly on his advice both as archbishop and legate. Our archbishop promised to advise and help him faithfully to the best of his knowledge, andpatiently and gladly suffer with him any hatred, blasphemy, loss, and inconvenience which might arise from his advice. So they parted as apparent friends, and our archbishop went home on the birthday of the Apostles. In the following September the king returned to England.‘ When Christmas came, our archbishop came to the king’s court ready to set out for Rome for the plea between him and John of Glasgow and the Scottish bishops, which, as we said before, had been fixed by the pope for next Lent. The archbishop of Canterbury sent word to the king that he would not attend the court if the archbishop of York had his cross borne before him there or had any hand in crowning him. The king was annoyed, and sent to tell the archbishop [of York], and requested him to stay at his lodging, lest there should be any disturbance of the solemnity of his court. (There were then at court David, king of Scots, and Conan, count of Brittany.) The archbishop [of York], wishing to hear this from the king's mouth, went to him and heard it, and did not refrain from saying that his church and he were being wronged, and that it was a disgrace to the king. ‘But’, said he, ‘I do not wish your court to be disturbed by me. He withdrew at once, and by his messengers demanded of the archbishop [of Canterbury] whether he had sent that message to the king. He acknowledged that he had; for he had been given to understand that he [Thurstan] had no business to take part in the ceremony. cessors (JL 12530). The issues vexed relations between Roger and Thomas Becket in the 1160s (A. Heslin, Dr Duggan, Studies in Church History, 2 (1965), 165-78; F. Barlow, Thomas Becket (London, 1986), pp. 97, 204-7). 6 Conan III, duke of Brittany c 1119-48, who married King Henry’s illegitimate daughter Matilda, and held wide estates in Yorkshire (CP x. 790; EYC iv. 84-91).

218

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

Facto Natali? Domini Windesoris, ubi curia erat, crastina uenit Londoniam, regem illuc quinta die uenturum expectans, et ad iter agendum se preparans. Eo rex adueniens, rege Scottorum secum adducto, quadam concordie prouisione inter archiepiscopum nostrum et episcopos Scocie, concessu quoque regis Dauid, nostro

mouere parato persuasit quatinus iter? suum ad presens differens* legatos Romam mitteret, petentes ex parte regis? et sua super hac causa dari sibi inducias usque ad alteram Quadragesimam, et interim inter eos concordandi licenciam. Quibus ita concessis*

archiepiscopus/ misit, et has inducias difficulter impetrauit.! fice

Londonie Cantuariensis archiepiscopus nostro colloqui uoluit; noster uero, quia sic aduersus eum egerat, loqui |ei renuit, neque poste(a) usque in longum tempus locutus fuit. Decurso aliquot dierum interuallo, placuit Cantuariensi ex iure legacionis consilium conuocare.’ Statuti® sunt dies et locus, Ascensio Domini et Londonia. Mandauit itaque archiepiscopo nostro et apostolica auctoritate precepit quatinus concilio interesset; set

prope diem legati, quos Romam miserat, redeuntes, tale quid? ei detulerunt per quod, sicut nec uoluit, nec interfuit. Vnde cum Cantuariensis apud regem conquereretur quod quasi dedignatus erat ad suum uenire concilium, rex ait: “Et merito. Magnum enim dedecus illi‘ in curia mea fecistis, michi/ uero non minus.’ Et dominus papa pro iniuria et contumelia ista ad Cantuariensem ita scripsit:*

Littere eiusdem Honorii pape ad eundem archiepiscopum Cantuariensem pro eodem episcopo Eboracensi Honorius episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei, Will(elmo) Can-

tuariensi archiepiscopo. Vere fraternitatis sincera dileccio tanto! moderamine debet honorem et dignitatem suam in sui status prerogatiua seruare ut in nullo fraterna caritas offendatur uel reuerencia minuatur. Ceterum, sicut accepimus, tu in plaga septentrionali constitutus nec maiorem nec parem sustinens, quos amare et honorare debueras opprimis, et ut quocunque modo eminencior apparere ualeas elaboras. Karissimum ? natalis A > inter A (and D before correction) * differens D; differrens A ? regis D; regi A * concessis D; confessis A f Romam add. D ® statim A ^ quod A !ili AD; ei Ra. | michi D; nichil A

* Letter also in MRA i,f. 49 (a) ! Ra. punctuates: archiepiscopo uere . . . dileccio. Tanto (adding episcopus after debet)

. 1126-7]

HUGH THE CHANTER

219

. After spending Christmas at Windsor, where the court was, he came next day to London, waiting four days there for the king and preparing for the journey. The king came, bringing with him the king of Scots, and by planning a compromise between our archbishop and the bishops ofScotland with King David's concurrence, persuaded him, though ready to set out, to put offhis journey for the present, and send envoys to Rome, to request on the king's and his own behalf that the case be adjourned to next Lent, with leave to settle the case in the meantime. This being agreed, the archbishop sent and, with difficulty, obtained an adjournment.! At London the archbishop of Canterbury wished to confer with ours, but the latter, because of his past opposition, refused to speak to him, and did not do so for a long time afterwards. After some days it pleased the archbishop of Canterbury, by his right as legate, to convoke a council? The date and place were fixed, Ascension day, at London. The archbishop accordingly sent to our archbishop, and bade him by apostolic authority to take part in the council. But, near the day appointed, the envoys whom he had sent to Rome came back, bringing news which prevented him

from attending the council or wishing to do so. When the archbishop of Canterbury complained to the king that he had, as it were, disdained to come to the legate's council, the king said: ‘It serves you right. You treated him disgracefully at my court, and me

too.’ And the pope wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury about this insult and wrong as follows:

Letter ofPope Honorius to the archbishop of Canterbury on behalf ofthe archbishop of York Honorius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to William,

archbishop of Canterbury. Sincere brotherly love ought to use such moderation in preserving its own honour and dignity in its excellence, as not to offend against brotherly charity or fail in respect. But, as we have heard, when you are in the north you can bear no superior or equal, crush those whom you ought to have loved and honoured, and strive to appear more important by all possible means. For you violently pursue our dearest ! See Brett, pp. 23-4, and above, p. liii. 2 At Westminster, 13-16 May 1127 (CS i/2. 743-9). Ascension Day actually fell on 12 May.

220

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

CHURCH

OF YORK

namque fratrem nostrum, T(hurstanum) Eboracensem archi-

episcopum, uehementer infestas, et refrigerata mutua caritate totis nisibus satagis oppugnare. Preterita enim sollempnitate

Natalis Domini ipsum, cui (tum)? pro reuerencia beati Petri et

nostra, tum? pro sue honestate persone honor est maximus deferendus,^a corona regis, ubi pariter tecum esse debuerat, tanquam religionis et caritatis inmemor exclusisti. Quocirca tibi mandamus ut de cetero honorem suum minuere non presumas. Si autem hoc? ueridica relacione rursus? aures nostras pulsauerit, tantum et tam immoderatum excessum non preteribimus impunitum. Dat’ Laterani idibus Marcii.! Vnum est quod honoribus obicitur improborumf quod quasi in prouerbium dicitur: "Honores mutant mores." Non enim in melius set in deterius mutare dictum est. Licet archiepiscopus noster

Will(elmu)m,; modo Cantuariensem (archiepiscopum), antea sicut bonum et religiosum clericum et canonicum, amasset, et dicior

et potencior eum honorasset, et ille quidem/ predecessoris/ sui Rad(ulphi) archiepiscopi causam aduersus nos sepius improbans, nostram esse iustam comprobasset, ad hunc* promotus apicem, quod plurimum fuisse ipsius consilio et laudacione apud regem nec ille ignorabat, in exigendo tamen quod ante improbauerat perstitit, etnostrum acriter odio insectatus est, quod a defendendo non destitit ubi nunc temporis uera religio sedem habeat! Pauci uero" facile dinoscere possunt quod plura? fuere aduersa quam que scriptura ista continentur, set uel obliuione preterita uel metu et tedio prolixitatis intermissa; quorum omnium causa fuit indebite professionis iniusta exaccio, et ad exhibendum potens et

proterua coaccio. Contra que Tur(stinus) archiepiscopus pro defensione uel reparacione libertatis iuste et uiriliter reluctando? imperterritus et indefessus perstitit. Quod si quis ad uocabulum alludere uelit, non iniuria Turstinus nomen habuit, quia contra graues assultus et iacula tanquam turris stetit.?

Hec? autem i(c)circo scripta esse decreuimus, ut posteri |ecclesie

f.32

* cui tum @; cui (i on erasure) A; cui cum Ra.

^ tum a(2); cum A

© defendus a 7 heca * uersus Ra. f jn bonorum A * Wil(lelmu)s A ^ Supplied by Ra. ! quidem edd.; quod A; perhaps quoque / predecessores A * hunc Jo.; hoc A ! Perhaps habet ? uero Jo.; ue (or ne) A ? quod plura edd.; plura quod A; plura que Ra. P hoc A(2)

Jo.

? luctando

! Not in JL. Hugh appears to associate this letter with the quarrel over William's summoning Thurstan to his legatine council in May, 1127. If so it would have to be

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

221

. brother, Thurstan, archbishop of York; your brotherly love has cooled, and you make every effort to attack him. Last Christmas, regardless of religion and charity, ycu shut him out, a man honourable not only out of respect for St Peter and ourselves, but also in his own person, from the king's wearing of his crown, where he had as much right to be as yourself. We therefore order you not to dare to disparage him in future. If you shall be truthfully reported to us to have done so again, we shall not leave your unrestrained excess unpunished. Given at the Lateran, 15 March [11277]. There is one objection made to the raising of bad men to honour, which is almost a proverb: ‘Honours alter manners." For the alteration is not for the better, but for the worse. Although our archbishop formerly loved William, now archbishop of Canterbury, as a good and devout clerk and canon, and honoured him when he was himself richer and more powerful; and although William had often attacked his predecessor Archbishop Ralph's case against us, and acknowledged ours to be just; yet being raised to this height, which he too knew to be mainly due to our archbishop's advice and praise of him to the king, he persisted in demanding the profession he had previously scouted, and pursued our archbishop with fierce hate, because he did not cease his defence in the place where true religion now has its seat. Few people can easily perceive that there were more evils than those related in this treatise, but either forgotten or omitted from fear of wearying the reader by prolixity, all of which were due to the unjust exaction of an undue profession, and the forcible shameless compulsion to make it. Against all these did Archbishop Thurstan fearlessly and unweariedly persist in his just and manful struggle for the defence and restitution of freedom. And, if a play upon words is permissible, Thurstan was rightly so named, because he ‘stood’ like a ‘tower’ against assault and missiles alike.? Our purpose in writing is that future bishops and clergy of our placed in Mar. 1128. However there are no other references to events in 1128 in the History, and the bull only mentions the dispute over Thurstan's right to participate in the king's crown-wearing at the Christmas court of 1126/7. No other known bulls for York were dated in Mar. in either 1127 or 1128. ? An ancient proverb: see H. Walther, Lateinische Sprichworter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters ,ii/2 (Gottingen, 1964), No. 11125. 3 A more elaborate version of this word-play on “Turstanus’, ‘turris’ recurs in the poem printed in HCY ii. 261—5 at lines 19-22 (above, p. 55 n. 3).

222

THE

HISTORY

OF

THE

CHURCH

OF

YORK

nostre pontifices et clerici hiis qui de partibus nostris professioni huic consenciendo, uel consilii seduccione uel pacis amore uel potestatis terrore et exilii formidine ad tempus cesserunt, quasi ueniam dantes, ne defunctis? succensendo? improperent, eos uero qui restiterunt^ imitentur et laudent. Post epistolam" beati Greg(orii), et Vrbani pape redargucionem, reuerendorum patrum

Pascalis, Gel(asii) et Cal(ixti) prohibitorias de exigendo priuilegium, quarum* legentes tanto grauius quanto non inscienter preuaricari timeant, sit eciam illis confortacionis et uigoris exemplum quod Tur(stinus) archiepiscopus pro persecucione et exilio suo per Romanam et Gallicanam ecclesiam apud omnimode dignitatis personas magis notus et dilectus et celebrior factus est, adeo quod melius illi fuit, et ipse quidemf restitutus maluit et sibi commodius reputauit tantum exulasse quam in ecclesia sua cum pace et quiete integra permansisse usque ad annum ab introitu eius in archiepiscopatum decimum tertium, a consecracione uero illius octauum. Hec ita gesta sunt quinque annis et duobus mensibus.! Modo exul, modo in patria sine consecracione fuit, propter impedimenta superius descripta. A consecracione illius usque ad prefatum Cantuariensis legati concilium anni* septem et menses

fere totidem.? Potest autem^ (non)! incongrue libellus iste quodammodo Libertus! intitulari, ideo quod ostendit qualiter ecclesia

nostra per Tur(stinum), eiusdem ecclesie quartum ex Francigenis archiepiscopum, a iugo professionis illicite ad pristinam libertatem, Deo auxiliante, reuocata sit. ‘Quanta audiuimus et cognouimus, ea patres nostri narrauerunt nobis, filii qui nascentur et

exurgent et narrabunt filiis suis.” Tu autem, Domine, miserere nostri! ? defunctus A » successendo A * restituerunt A ? epistolam edd.; epistola A; epistolas Ra. (but cf. p. 196) * quoque A(2); perhaps quas * quidem edd.; quod A; perhaps quoque * annos Ra. h aut A ! Supplied by edd. (cf. p. 16 non incongruum) i} Perhaps Liberatus

HUGH

THE

CHANTER

223

church may forgive those in these parts who by bad advice, for love of peace, for fear of higher authority, or dread of exile, gave way and for a time consented to this profession, and not angrily reproach the dead, but imitate and praise those who resisted. After reading St Gregory's letter, Pope Urban's rebuke, and the prohibitions of the exaction of the profession by Popes Paschal, Gelasius, and Calixtus, and being the more afraid of transgressing them because they cannot plead ignorance, let them take comfort and strength from the fact that Archbishop Thurstan by his persecution and exile became better known and loved and more celebrated among men of all ranks in the Roman and Gallican churches, so that it was all the better for him; and when he was restored he preferred and deemed it better to have been so long in exile, than to have stayed in peace and quiet in his church up to the thirteenth year from his entry on the archbishopric, and the eighth after his consecration. These affairs took five years and two months.! At one time he was an exile, at another at home but unconsecrated,

because of the difficulties mentioned. From his consecration to the Canterbury legate's council was seven years and almost as many months.’ This book might properly be christened “The Man Set Free’, because it shows how our church was with God’s help recalled from the yoke of an unlawful profession to its ancient freedom by Thurstan, the fourth French archbishop. ‘Such things as we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us, the chil-

dren who will be born and rise will also tell unto their children.” But do Thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us.’ ! Between Thurstan's election on 15 or 16 Aug. 1114 and the council of May 1127 there were twelve years and nine months. "These affairs' clearly refer to the period of five years and two months from Thurstan's election to his consecration on 19 Oct. 1119, and there may be a lacuna in the text.

? 19 Oct. 1119 to 12 or 13 May 1127.

3 Ps. 77: 3, 6 (78: 3, 6-7).

^ Ps. 40: 11 (41: 10).

UIT SUMf egy a

Hu;

ei

rea het

ic

weM

egt HWrcun US ier Pepe

pn ie SE

CONCORDANCE

:

In this concordance the page in the present edition is that on which the first word of the page in Raine (1886) and Johnson (1961) will be found. Raine (1886) Johnson (1961) This edn. 98 I 2 99 2 5

100

Raine (1886) Johnson (1961) This edn. 143 49 8o 144 50 82

3

4

6

146

102

5

oe

147

54

88

103

627

IO

148

55

go

IOI

4

145

51

52, 53

84

86

104, 105

8

12

149

56

92

106

9

16 18 20

150, I51

57

94

109 110 III 112, 113 114 IIS 116 117 118 II9 120, I21

IO II 12

14

13, 14 15 16 17 18 I9, 20 21 22 23, 24 25

22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

154 155 156 157 158 159, 160 161 162 163 164 165

62 63 64 66 67 68 69, 70 71 72 73

100 102 104 106 108 IIO I12 I14 116 118 I20

123 124 125 126, 127 128

27, 28 29 30 31 32

44 46 48 50 52

168 169 170 I7I 172, 173

76 77 78 79, 8o 81

129

34

56

174, 175

83

107 108

122

26

42

33

54

58, 59 60 61

166,167 — 7475

124 126 128 130 132

134

136

131, 132 133

36, 37 38

60 62

177 178

85 86

140. 142

135 136

40 41, 42

66 68

180, 181 182

89 9o

146 148

137

138

43 44

7o

m

183

bI

is

74

184 185

46, 47

76

95

154

141

186

93> 94

139, 140 142

45

48

64

78

179

187

84

122

35

39

176

82

96 98

130

134

58

152 153

87, 88

92

96

138

144

152

156

158

226

CONCORDANCE

Raine (1886) 188 189, 190 IQI 192

Johnson (1961) This edn. 97 160 98, 99 162 100 164 IOI 166

193 194 195 196

102 103 104, 105 106

172 174 176 178

197 198 199 200 201 202

107 108 109 IIO, III 112

180 182 184 186 188 188, 190!

203 204

113 114

190 192

Raine (1886) 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212, 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220

Johnson (1961) This edn. 115, 116 194 117 196 118 198 IIQ 200

120 121, 122 123 124

202 204 206 208

125 126, 127 128 129 130 131, 132

210 212 214 216

! The first word of Raine, p. 202, overlaps pp. 188, 190 of this edition.

218 220 222

INDEX

OF QUOTATIONS ALLUSIONS

. BIBLICAL

34: 29-30

ALLUSIONS 76: 11 (77: 10)

Exodus

84-5

AND

77: 3; 6 (78: 3, 6-7) 82: 13 (83: 12)

154-5 222-3 70-1

Leviticus

25: IO- II

Deuteronomy 31:6

3223t

' 176-7

Proverbs

16: 27

68-9

76-7

20: 2 DIST 22: 28

80-1

7O-1

26: 27

6-7

106-7 102-3

Joshua

24: 22

Ecclesiasticus

4: 31 (36) 8:8 II:7 a2:

1 Kings (1 Samuel)

12222 17:/477

114-15 182-3

104-5 134-5

3 Kings (1 Kings)

Isaiah 21: 16-17

3: 1 (2: 46) 21

4 Kings (2 Kings) 5: 13 Job I5: 26

Psalms 7 1

24 (25): 15

26: 14 (27: 14-v. 16 in Prayer Book)

30 (31): 3

30: 25 (31: 24) 40: 11 (41: 10)

42 (43): 1 64: 4 (65: 3) 72 (73): 8 72 (73):9 72 (73): 28

74: 11 (75: 10)

140-1

Ezekiel

108-9

I3: 5

82-3

Daniel 14: 27 (Bel and the Dragon 28)

34-5

Habakkuk

182-3

68-9, 72-3 166-7, 176-7

76-7

222-3 68-9

104-5 38-9 106—7 132-3

84-5

3:4 Matthew 9: I5 10: 13 10: 24 II: 29 15:3

18: 7 21:9 22: 2I 23: 2374

I20—I

68-9

84-5

176-7 106-7 106-7

96-7

66-7 70-1 166-7 II4-I5 24-5

228

INDEX

OF

QUOTATIONS

Mark II: 9-IO

166-7

John IO: 15 13: 16

120-1 106-7 106-7

15: 20

AND

ALLUSIONS

Philippians 2.8

96-7

2:21

1 Thessalonians 2: 19 a: 8

6-7

168-9 168-9

2 Timothy

Romans

5: 11 12: IO

74-5 202-3

Galatians 1: 18

142-3

42

Revelation

12: 3-4

B. CITATIONS AND

10-11, 168-9

—, — ii. 18 168-9 Ennius, Spur. frag. 10 54-5 Isidore, De sinonimis 122-3, 130-1 Isidore, Etymologiae, i. 3. 8, xxiv. 1 54-5 122-3, 130-1

Ivo, Panormia, iv. 104, 107 Lucan, Pharsalia, i. 269 Persius, Saturae, iii. 83-4

—, — iv. 13

13: 6

84-5

88-9

FROM CLASSICAL, PATRISTIC MEDIEVAL SOURCES

Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, i. 29

Ivo, Decretum, xii. 12

64-5

128-9 214-15 24-5

54-5

Publilius Syrus, see Walther Sallust, Bell. Jug. 8. 1. —, — 113.1

82-3 6-7

H. Walther, /nitia carminum et versuum

medii aevi posterioris Latinorum 102-3 (Góttingen, 1959), no. 18542 H. Walther, Lateinische Sprichworter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters , ii/2 (Góttingen, 1964), no. 11125 220-1! —, —, ii/5 (1967), no. 32963, attributed to Publilius Syrus 28-9

! For an unrecorded proverb see pp. 178-9.

GENERAL

INDEX

Persons and places named in the text are indexed in the form given in the translation, usually their modern English equivalent. Most medieval personal names are indexed under Christian names; most after 1500 under surnames. Abelard xxvi, xxviin. Adela, countess of Blois

xiv, xvi; and St Augustine's Canter-

xxviii-xxix,

152-5 Adela, queen of England, wife of Henry I

164-5

a

Adelaide, queen of France 134-5 Adeliza, countess of Burgundy 127n. Adelold, prior of Nostell, later bishop of

Carlisle 184-5 /Elfheah (St), archbishop of Canterbury xxxii fEthelheard, archbishop of Canterbury xxxvi JEthelnoth, archbishop of Canterbury xxxiiin.

Agatho, Pope xxxviin. Ahab, King 142-3 Albanus, papal chamberlain 195n. Aldborough (Yorks) 24-5 Alengon roon. Alexander, bishop of Lincoln 204-5, n. Alexander I, king of the Scots 1-lii Alexander

II, Pope xxxvi-xxxviii,

8n.,

117n. Allen, Thomas lvii

Alps lix, 82-3, 145n. Anacletus II, see Peter

Anastasius IV, Pope xlix Anger or Anskar, canon of St Paul's London xxvii Angers 114n. Anjou, count of, see Fulk

'

Anne, mother of Archbishop Gerard 21n. Anselm (St), archbishop of Canterbury, previously abbot of Bec 12-13; appointment as archbishop xxiv; consecration xxxix, 26-9, 44-5; as primate of all Britain, and primacy issue xxxix, xlivn., 12-17, 28-31; and

legateship xxxixn.; and Eadmer xiii-

bury xxxviii; and investiture 22—3, 30-1; returns from exile (1100) 20-1; and council of Westminster (1102) 22-3; (1106) xlviin.; his death 38-9,

5475 and Thomas I of York 28-9, 34-7; and Gerard 30-1, 56-7; and Thomas II 30-7; story that he excommunicated Thomas II 38-43 correspondence xxxi; letter of xlvii, 39n.; letters to 32-5; and human salvation xxviii Anselm, nephew of St Anselm, monk of Chiusa, abbot of S. Saba, Rome, legate to England 8rn., go-1, 96-7;

later abbot of Bury 9rn. 188-9, 200-1; bishop-elect of London gin. Aquilo (tempest) 40-1 Aquitaine 102-3; archbishops of 108-9; duke of rosn. Arnulf, bishop of Lisieux 63n. Arrouaise, abbey of 6on. Asti 145n. Audoen, bishop of Evreux, previously canon of St Paul’s London xxvii, 166n., 208-9, 210n. Augustine (St), archbishop of Canterbury xxxi-xxxii, xxxviii, xli, 66-7, 92-3,

116-17, 156—7, 190n., 194-5 Auten xxii, 138-9 Auvergne 108-9 Auxerre xxii, 136-7 Bamberg, bishop of, and pallium 8-9n., 167n. Bangor, bishop of, see Hervey; see of 206-7 Bari, archbishop of, and pallium privilege 167n.

230

GENERAL

INDEX

Bartholomew, archdeacon of Richmond

Caen, St Stephen, abbot of, see Lanfranc

livn. Basle, papal legate at 137n. Bath, cathedral priory xxv Bayeux xxvii-xxviii, 62n.; bishops of, see

Caesar 140-1 Caithness xlvi Calixtus II, Pope, formerly Guy, archbishop of Vienne 116-19, 140-1; elected pope (1119) 100-1; and

Odo, Richard; treasurer, see Thomas Beauvais 162-3; bishop of, see Peter;

Council of (1114) 60n.; Council of (1120) 160-3; pope at and bull dated at 124-7 Bec, abbot of, see Anselm

Bede xiii, xxxvi, xli-xlii Benevento 82-5, 9o-1

Bernard, bishop of St Davids 188-9, 192—3, 204—5, 206n. Besancon,

archbishop

148-9,

of, and pallium

privilege 167n. besants 138-9 Beverley 54n.; St John's minster xxivn., 170—1; canons and prebends of 52-3, 78—9; provost, see Thomas II Birsay, and Christ Church xlvi-xlvii Blois 114-15; count of, see Stephen, Theobald; countess, see Adela Bóhmer, H. lvii Bologna, archdeacon of, see Honorius

Boniface (prob. IV), Pope xxxvii Boso, cardinal priest of St Anastasia

170-1 Boulogne, count of, see Stephen Braga, archbishop of xliiin; and see Maurice Bremen xlvi-xlvii, and see Hamburg Brémule, battle of xix Breteuil 116n., 124n. Bridlington priory, canons of 125n. Britain, primate of all, see Anselm, Can-

terbury; British bishops (6th-7th centuries) xxxi; province(s) of and Canterbury 212-13 Brittany, count of, see Conan; countess,

see Matilda Bruno, archbishop of Trier 178n. Buckingham, earl of, see Walter bulla, papal, see Rome, chancery Burdinus, see Maurice

Burgundy xxii, 102-3, 118-19; archbishop(s) of 108-9; counts of 118n., and see Rainald; countess Adeliza; duke of, see Odo

of, see

Bury St Edmunds, abbot of, see Anselm

chrism 166-7; and Thurstan xv, xxixxii, liii, 112—203 passim, 222-3; and

Trier 178-9 (1119) letter from archbishop of Can-

terbury 102-7; summons to Council of Reims 108-13; at Tours and Blois 114-15; at Orleans 116n.; at Paris 116—19; at Reims 118-23; consecrates Thurstan xviii, 118-21; near Chaumont 126-33; at Sens 136-7; at Autun 138-9; (1120) at Cluny 138-9; at Tournus 125n.; at Lyons and Romains 140n.; at Vienne 140-1; at Valence 142-3; at Gap 144-9, 172-7; at Embrun 145n.; at Asti 145n. (1123) receives the two archbishops 188—99; (1124) dies 202-3 and Scots bishops li-lii, liv, 124-7,

212-15 letters of 106-13, 124—7, 146—9, 154-7, 172-7, 196—203; privilege for York xliii, lix, 148-9, 168-73, 180-1, 196-7; his signature 148-9, 170-1, 180-1 canon law 22-3, 34-5, 42-3, 46-7, 60-3,

72-3; 84-5, 136-7, 190-1

CANTERBURY,

visits to for consecra-

tion 6-7, 14-15, 26-7, 30-1, 36-7, 186-7, 187n.; Thurstan invited 60-1,

makes visit (1126) 216-17 church of: archbishops of, see /Elfheah, JEthelheard, /Ethelnoth, Anselm, Augustine, Ceolnoth, Cuthbert, Dunstan, Ealdwulf, Lanfranc, Oda, Ralph, Stigand, Theobald, Theodore, Thomas, William; consecration, tradition of 184-5, and see Honorius I; as primate of all Britain xxxiv, xxxix, xliv, 4-5, 12-13, 28-9, 186-7; issue of primacy and profession xxx-xlv and passim; (under Lanfranc) xvii, xxxiii-xxxix, xli, 4-13; agreement of 1072, xxxiv-xxxv, 8-9, 40-3; (Anselm) xvi, xxxix-xli, 12—15,

20-3, 26-39; (1109) 38-51; (Ralph)

xli, 60-183 passim; (William) xliii, 184-221 passim; papal privileges

(Canterbury

forgeries’)

—xiv-xv,

GENERAL

231

INDEX

192-7; province, bishops of xxvn., I4—15, 184—7, 198-9; Councils of xliv archdeacon of, see John

Cluny, Gelasius II visits 140-1; dies at 100-1; Calixtus II visits xxii, 138-9; prior of, see Henry

cathedral, Christ Church, archbishops buried in xvi; and Eadmer xiv;

Coimbra, bishop of, see Maurice

manuscripts from lviii; monks of xxxviin.; (1119) 130-1; (and election

of 1123) 184-5, 189; and Dunfermline xlix; and forgery xv, and see archbishops, privileges above; and 'ThomasI 6-7; and agreement of 1072 8-9; monk, see Eadmer; precentor, see Osbern St Augustine's

abbey

xvi,

xxxvin.,

xxxviin.; St Gregory's priory 83n. ‘city’ of, as see, 106-7 Carlisle li; bishop of, see Adelold; see of xlv, liii-liv

cathedral chapters xxiv—xxvii, and see esp. Canterbury cathedral, York cathedral Celestine I, Pope 33n. celibacy xxvi Ceolnoth, archbishop of Canterbury xxxvi Chalcedon, Council of 64n. Chálons-sur-Marne, bishop of, see William; Council of (1115) 61n., 163n. Chartres, 114—15, 116n., 164—5; bishop of,

see Ivo

Chaumont-en-Vexin 126—7 Chertsey, abbot of, see Hugh Chester or Coventry (formerly Lichfield),

bishop of, see Robert; see of 206—7 Chichester, bishop of, see Ralph, Seffrid Chiusa, Sagra di San Michele, monk of,

see Anselm chrism 108-9, 166-7

Christina, princess xviii Christina of Markyate, and Life of xxviiixxix Chrysogonus, papal chancellor and librarian,

cardinal

deacon

of S.

Nicola in Carcere 134-5, 172-3 Chrysostom, see John Cicero 20-1 Clarembald, bishop of Senlis 162-3 Clark, Cecily xxx Clay, Sir Charles xx, 189n. clerks versus monks, see monks

Clermont 108-13 Cleveland, archdeacons Jeremy, Ralph

of, see Hugh,

Cologne 60-1n. Compostela, (arch)bishops of and pallium 8-9n. Conan, count of Brittany 216-17 concubines xxvi-xxviii Cono,

cardinal

bishop

of Palestrina,

papal legate in Holy Land, Germany, France, Normandy, and England, (1114-15) 60-1, 79n.; (1119)

124-5, 128-9, 132-3, 136-7; (1119-

20) 138—9, 15on.; (1120) 156-65 passim; letter 142-3; his signature 148-51, 170-1 Cormac, bishop of Dunkeld Corsica, bishops of xliiin. Coulombs abbey 154-5

140-7, 152-3, to Thurstan on privilege 1

Councils, see Beauvais, Chálons, London, Narbonne, Reims, Rome, Salisbury, Soissons, Toulouse Coventry, bishop and see of, see Chester;

cathedral priory xxv Curio 214-15 Cuthbert, St xlv; shrine of xxxii

Cuthbert, archbishop of Canterbury xvi Cynesige, archbishop of York xlv, 52-3 Daimbert, archbishop elect of Sens xxxiiin. Damasus, Pope 64n. Dammartin 154-5 Danes 4-5; Danish wars xxxii David I, king of Scots 204-5, 216—19; as earl li, liii Deusdedit, Pope 194n. d'Ewes, Sir S. lviin. Digby chronicle lvii; see also xix, xxiiin., xlvin., xlviin., 1n., lix, 2n., 22n., 25n., 37n., 56n., 62n., 119n., 166n., 210-11 Digest, glossed lvi Dijon, Saint Bénigne, prior of, see Geoffrey Domesday survey lvi Dorchester (Oxfordshire), see of, later Lincoln xxxiv-xxxvi, 14-15 Dreux 154n. Driffield (Yorks) 24-5 Dunfermline abbey xlix Dunkeld, bishop of, see Cormac

232

GENERAL

Dunstan (St), archbishop of Canterbury xvi, xxxii Durand, archdeacon of York xxv, 12-13

Durham 58-9; bishops of xlv, 11, and see Ranulf, William; cathedral priory

INDEX Ernulf Sottewaine I, canon of York xxiii, xxix; Ernulf Sottewaine II xxiii, xxix Evreux, bishop of, see Audoen Exeter xxxvin.; bishop of, see William

xxv, xlix-l, r9on.; archives xxn.; lands of xlviiin.; Liber Vitae xxvii;

Fauonius (favouring wind) 36-7, 40-1 Fécamp abbey xl; prior of, see Herbert

prior, see Turgot; history of the archbishops from lviii, 25n.; and St Cuth-

Ferriéres-en-Gátinais xxii, 134-7 Ferté, La 83n. Flanders xxxn.

bert xxxii, and see Simeon

Foderoch, Fothadh or Mothad, bishop of Eadmer, monk of Christ Church, Can-

terbury, biographer and companion of St Anselm xiv, xxiv, xliv; his Historia Novorum xiv—xvi, xviii, xxxi, xxxix, xli; use of first person xviii,

xx-xxi; comparison with Hugh the Chanter xiii-xix, esp. xvii, 52n., 77n., 81n., 114n., 121n.; on Archbishop Gerard 56n.; on proprietary church xiv; as bishop-elect of St Andrews xv, xviii, li-lii Eadwulf, bishop of Lindsey xxxvi Ealdred, archbishop of York xxivn., xxxii, 2—3, 20n., 52-3, 54n.; previously bishop of Worcester 2-3, 18- 19 Ealdwulf, archbishop of Canterbury xxxvi East Riding, archdeacon of, see Ranulf Ecclesiasticus 114-15 Edith, see Matilda Edmund, canon of St Paul's London xxvii

Edward (the Confessor), king of England n. Edwin, king of Northumbria xxxii Elmham, bishop of (see Thetford, Norwich), see Herfast Ely, bishop of, see Hervey; cathedral chapter xxv Embrun 145n. England 72-3, 88-9, 124-5, 132-3, 142-3, 216-17; abbots of 40-1, 62-3; bishops of 16-19, 40-3, 48-9, 62-3, 120-3, 180-1, and see Canterbury kings of, see Edward, Henry, Stephen, William; royal chancellors, see Gerard, Herfast, Maurice,

Robert;

keepers of royal seal, see Ranulf;

nobles of 62-3, 210-11; Norman Conquest of 2-5 England and Scots kingdom 212-13; and Thurstan 100-1, 158-61; few English scholars used as ambassadors 144-5

St Andrews xlix, 50-1 Fontevrault abbey xxix forgery 42-3, and see Canterbury Fountains abbey xxv, 185n. France,

Francia (used of northern France, esp. royal domain and Blois) 88-9, 108-9, 112-13, (Blois in) 152-3; archbishops and bishops of 108-9, 160-1; legates in ro2n., 134-5n., and see Cono; Gelasius II in 94-5

king of, see Louis; court of 114-15,

152—3, 160-1; and duke of Normandy 128-9; nobles 160-1; queen, see Ade-

laide Francigena applied to Norman archbishops of York 222-3; French origin suggested for Hugh the Chanter xxix; French people 114-15 Francis, St, and his companions xiv Fulk V, count of Anjou (later king of Jerusalem) 102-5, 108-9; his daughter (Matilda) 103n. Furness abbey, monk of, see Wimund Gale, Thomas, dean of York lvii Galicia, count of 118n. Gamaliel, bishop of Man xlvin. Gap xxii, lix, 144-9, 150n., 176-7; bulls of

Calixtus II dated at 172-5 Gaul, Gallie 2-3; tota Gallia 154-5; Gallican church, Gallicana ecclesia 172-3,

222-3 Gelasius II, Pope, formerly John of Gaeta, monk of Montecassino, cardinal deacon and papal chancellor 28-9, 95n., 140-1; as pope 94—103, 106-9, 116-17, 128-9, 138n., 140-1, 156-7,

168—9, 172—5, 222-3; letters of quoted 96-9; appoints papal chancellor 134n.; and pallium privileges 168n.; his death roo-r

GENERAL Geneva, bishop and provost of, see Humbert Genoa 94-5, 98-9, 140-1 Geoffrey (de Gorron), abbot of St Albans Geoffrey, abbot of St Mary's York 184-5 Geoffrey (Brito), archbishop of Rouen, formerly dean of Le Mans 62-3, 108—9, 120-1, 136—7, 146-7, 210-11 Geoffrey, prior of Saint Bénigne, Dijon

38-9, 46-7

Gerard, archbishop of York, formerly royal chancellor 20-1; and bishop of Hereford 20-1, 56n.; his translation xli, 20-1; as archbishop 20-7, 54-7; and pallium xlix, lviii, 22-3; and

chapter of York xvi; and Council of Westminster (1102) xxvi, 22-3; and Council of London (1108) 28-31; and

the bishop of Orkney xlvii, 52-3; and frontiers of sees of York and Lincoln 15n.;

writs

for xviin.;

his

death

xlviin., 24-5 Germany, Germans 60on.; archbishop of

108-9; and primacy 178-9; king of, see Henry Gibson, M. xxxviin. Giffard 118n. Gilbert (Crispin), abbot of Westminster, previously monk of Bec 10-11, 42-3

Gilbert,

archbishop

of Tours

145n.,

146-7, 152-5

Gilbert, precentor of York xxv, 12-13 . Gilbert (the Universal), bishop of London

214-15 Gisors 126—7, 162-3 Glasgow, bishops and bishopric of xlv, l-lii,

and

see

John,

Magsuen,

Michael Glastonbury, abbots of, see Henry, Seffrid

Gloucester 182-5; church of St Oswald 170-1 Godfrey, count of Louvain 164—5 Godred (Crovan), king of Man xlvi Gregory, bishop of Moray 1 Gregory, cardinal deacon of S. Angelo in Pescheria 134-5; as papal legate 135n.; later Pope Innocent II 9rn., 135n. Gregory (the Elder (?)), cardinal priest of S. Lorenzo in Lucina 136-7, 170-1; as legate 136n. Gregory I (St, the Great), Pope, and his

INDEX

233

ruling on relations of British metropolitans xxxi-xxxii, xxxvii-xxxviii,

xl, 10-11, 28-9, 50-1, 56-9, 66-7, 70-1, 74-5, 90-3, 99M., 110-11, 156—7, 168—73, 194-7, 222-3; and foundation of York 88-9; his Register 28-9 Gregory II, Pope xxxvii Gregory VII, Pope xxxviii Gregory VIII, see Maurice Guisborough priory, canons of 125n. Guy, archbishop of Vienne, see Calixtus II Guy, archdeacon of Pisa, later cardinal bishop of Tivoli 138-9 Guy, papal chamberlain 195n. Habakkuk 94-5 Hakon, earl of Orkney xlvii-xlviii Hamburg/Bremen, archbishops of xlvi Hamo, precentor of York xxn. Hamundr, son of Iola, bishop of Man xlvi n. Heloise xxvi, xxviin., xxviii

Henry (of Blois), abbot of Glastonbury and bishop of Winchester 152n. Henry, abbot of Saint-Jean-d'Angély, previously bishop of Soissons, prior of Souvigny and Cluny, papal legate, later abbot of Peterborough 104-5 Henry I, king of England, his accession 16—19; coronation 16-17, 20-1; (1101)

167n.; and Anselm 22-3; and Gerard xli, 54-5; and Thomas II (1108-9) 36-53, letter of 48-51; and Thurstan xxviii, (1114) xiv, 56-61; (1115-16) 60-73, 76-81; (1117) 84-7, 90-1; (1118—19) 96—7, 100-3; (1119) 108-11,

114-17, 122-33; (1120) 146-9, 154-65,

174-5; and White Ship xxi-xxii, 164-5; (1121) 178-81; (1123) 182-9, 198—9; (1125-6) 210-11; (1126) 214I9

and crown-wearing 216—17, 220-1; and

Fulk of Anjou 103n.; and Louis VI xvii, xix; and privileges of Beverley, etc. 52-3; related to Calixtus II 105n.; his queens, see Adela, Matilda; and the Scots lii-liii; meet-

ing with King David liii, 216—19; and York prebends 25n.; and William, bishop of Exeter 78n.

234

GENERAL

Henry V, king of Germany, Emperor 52n., 8on., 97n., 148-9, 188-9, 192-3 Herbert (Losinga), bishop of Thetford and Norwich xl, 12-13, 23n., 30-1, 48-9, 82-3; formerly prior of Fécamp, abbot of Ramsey 82n. Herbert, royal chamberlain xxv Hereford xli; bishop of, see Gerard Herfast, bishop of Elmham and Thetford, formerly royal chancellor xxxiv Herman of Tournai xxi Hervey, bishop of Bangor, later bishop of Ely 12-13 Hexham, and priory of St Andrew 52-3, 57n., 58-9, 170-1 Holy Land, Cono legate in 6on. Honorius I, Pope, and alternate consecration of Canterbury and York xxxii, xxxv, xxxvli, 4-5, 12-13, 70-5, 168—9, 184-5, 196-7

of Bologna 203n.; as Lambert, cardinal bishop of Ostia 132-3, 138-9, 148-50, 170-1; becomes pope 202-3; (1125-6) liii, 204-5, 210-11; (1126) 214—21; and legation for Archbishop William 212-13; and Scottish church liv; renews privilege for York (1128) xliii Hubert, papal legate xxxiv Hugh, abbot of Chertsey 82-3 Hugh, archbishop of Lyons xxxiiin., 1617 Hugh

archdeacon

(diocese

of York),

probably not Hugh the Chanter xx, xxiii Hugh, dean of York xxv, 12-13, 26-9,

34-7 46-7

Hugh,

monk of Pontefract (possibly Hugh the Chanter) xxvii, 55n. HUGH THE CHANTER, Hugh Sottewaine,

Sottovagina,

passim;

his

career xix—xxiii; his family and surname xxiii, xxix-xxx; his seal xxn.,

xxx; as canon of York xx; as archdeacon of Cleveland xx, xxii-xxiii; as precentor of York (‘Chanter’) xxii as author of History xiii-xix; as eyewitness, and ‘we’ passages xviii, xxi

xxii, 26—7, 34-5, 40-7, 56-61, 68-71, 72-5, 78-81, 94-5, 118-19, 220-3; purpose and themes xvi, xxix; compared with Eadmer xiii-xix, esp. xvi,

INDEX xxxi, 52n., 81n.; MSS of xix, lv-lxi; editions lix-lxi; papal bulls in xl, lviii-lix, and see Calixtus, Gelasius, Honorius, Paschal, Urban; on Louis

VI xviii; on the Canterbury forgeries xxxvii, 192-5; see Lanfranc; xxviii, xlvin., xxv-xxvi; end

on Archbishops

on Lanfranc xxxv, and on Scots church xviii, xlvii; on York chapter of book liv

Thomas

I, Gerard,

Thomas II and Thurstan xix, and see

Gerard, Thomas, Thurstan his verses xxiin., 28n. 55n. Humber, river xxxv Humbert (de Grammont),

provost and

later bishop of Geneva 148-9 Husthwaite (Yorks) xxiiin. Icelandic annals xlviii Innocent II, see Gregory interdict threatened 132-3, 136n., 172-5 investitures

xli, li, 16-17, 30-1,

52n.,

159n.; Ivo’s views on 22-5 Iona xlix Ireland xlvi Isles, Scottish xlvi; bishopric, see Man

Italy 1oon., 137n. Ivo, bishop of Chartres xxxiii n., xlii, 22—5, I9ID. Jaffé, P. xviiin. Jeremy, Jeremiah, canon of Rouen and later archdeacon of Cleveland (possibly two men) 188-9, 192-3, 200-1 Jerusalem lii, 16-17, 80-1 John (Thoresby), archbishop of York lvi John, archdeacon of Canterbury, later bishop of Rochester 120-1 John I, bishop of Glasgow (?) 52-3 John II bishop of Glasgow li-liii, 124—5,

202—3, 206-7, 212-17 John, bishop of Lisieux, formerly archdeacon of Sées 62-3, 210-11 John, bishop of Mecklenburg 53n. John (of Crema), cardinal priest of St Chrysogonus, papal legate xliiin., liin., 134-5, 192-3, 202-9 John, St, Chrysostom 166-7 John of Hexham lvi John of Worcester 216n. Johnson, C. Ix-lxi Jubilee 176-7 Jumiéges 3n.

GENERAL Kedar 140-1 Kelly, S. E. xxxviiin. Kilham (Yorks) 24-5 Kings, book(s) of 142-3 Kirkwall cathedral xlvii-xlviii

19; (1108) Council of 28-31; (1115)

Council at 62-3 Westminster,

archbishop 4-5; and the primacy dispute—and Thomas I—xxxiiixxxix, xli, xliii, 4-13, 18-19, 28-9, 36—7, 186-7; his canonical collection 33n.; his correspondence xxxi; his death 12-13 1 and cathedral chapters xxiv; and charters xliv; and church councils xliv; xiv, xvi; and Gilbert

Crispin 10-11, church xlvii

42-3;

435

coronation at 16-17; Council of 18-

Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, formerly abbot of Caen 4-5; appointed

and Eadmer

INDEX

and

Scots

Laon 82n., 122n.; canons of xxi

Laughton-en-le-Morthen (Yorks), church and prebend 24-5 Laurence, see Siurus Leeds priory (Kent) xliv legates, see Rome Leland, John 55n. Leo I (St, The Great), Pope 33n. Leo III, Pope xxxvii Leo IX (St), Pope xxxvii Lichfield, bishop of, see Peter; bishopric, later Chester and Coventry xxxivxxxvi, and see Chester Lincoln, bishops of, see Alexander, Remigius, Robert; bishopric, formerly Dorchester, xxix, 14-15, 23n., and see Dorchester; cathedral 14-17; cathedral chapter xxiv Lindsey xxxiv, 14-15; bishop of, see Eadwulf Lisieux, bishops of, see Arnulf, John liturgy, and crown-wearing xlv; of Ash Wednesday 167; of Holy Week 109 Llandaff, bishop of xliiin., and see Urban Llanelwy, see St Asaph Lombards, kingdom of 178-9; Lombardy 82-3 London, bishops of, see Anselm, Gilbert, Maurice, Richard; bishopric xxxixxxii, xxxvii, 24-7, 36n., 92-3; Cathedral, St Paul's xxiii; canons of, see Anger, Audoen, Edmund, Osbert, Ralph, Thurstan, William;

(1075) council at xliv; (1100) Henry I’s

abbot

of, see Gilbert;

Council of (1102) xxvi, xliv; (1125) 167n.; (1127) 218-19 Louis VI, king of France (1119) xvii-xix, 100-5, 108-9, 114-15, 116n., 118r9, 126-9, 134-5; (1120) 152-3; and peace with Henry I 160-1; and countess of Blois 154—5; his son, see Philip

Louth (Lincs) 14-15 Louvain, count of, see Godfrey

Lucan 214-15 Lucca, bishop of and pallium 8-9n. Luke, St and Acts xviii Lyons 16n.; archbishop, see Hugh; archbishopric and pallium privilege 168n.; primacy xxxviii, xxxixn., xliixliii; canons of xxiii Macon, count of 118n. Magnus (St), earl of Orkney xlviii

Magnus, king of Norway xlviii Magsuen, Magnus (or Macsuein), bishop of Glasgow (?) 52-3 Mainz, archbishop of and primacy 179n. Malcolm III, king of Scots xlix, 50-1 Man, Isle of xlvi; bishops of, see Gamaliel, Hamundr, Roolwer, William, Wimund; chronicle of xlvi; kingdom

xlvi; king, see Godred Manfred, cardinal bishop of Tivoli 138n. Mans, Le, dean of, see Geoffrey MANUSCRIPTS: Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College 449/390 lviin.; Trinity College O. ro. 35, lvii; Dur-

ham B.ii.35 (V) lviii; London BL Cotton Cleopatra E i, xxxvin., 56n.; Harl. 108, lviin.; Harl. 1708, xlviin; Lansdowne

402 (L) lviii; Oxford,

Bodl. Digby 140 (D) lvii, and see Digby; York Minster Library, L2/1, Registrum Magnum Album (A) lvlxi and passim Marcigny priory xxviii-xxix, 154—5, 158-9 Margaret (St), queen of Scots xlix, 50-1; her Life s1n. Martin, St 20-1

Mary, St, miracles of xxi Matilda, countess of Brittany 217n. Matilda, Queen, wife of William I xxxiv

236

GENERAL

Matilda (Edith), Queen, wife of Henry I xviii, 25 n., 46—7, 148n. Matilda, daughter of Fulk V, count of

Anjou 103n. Matthew Sottewaine xxiii Maud, concubine of Ralph, son of Algod xxvii-xxviii Maurice, bishop of Coimbra, archbishop of Braga, anti-pope Gregory VIII

97n., 140-1 Maurice,

bishop

of London,

formerly

royal chancellor 10-11, 42-3 Mecklenburg, bishop of, see John Meulan, count of, see Robert

Michael, bishop of Glasgow | Milan, archbishop of 178-9 Modach, see Foderoch monks versus clerks xxiii-xxiv, 8-9, 26-7,

116-17, 184-5, 190-1 Monkwearmouth sgn. Montecassino, monk of, see Gelasius Montferrat, count of 118n. Moore, William lviin.

INDEX Norway, kings of xlviii, liii, and see Magnus, Sigurd; Norwegians 4-5 Norwich, previously Thetford, bishop of, see Herbert; cathedral priory xxv Nostell priory, canons of 125n., and see Robert; foundation of 6n.; prior, see

Adelold Oda, archbishop of Canterbury xxxvi Odalric, cardinal priest, formerly scholasticus of Reims 38-47, 50-3 Odo, bishop of Bayeux xxviii, 2n. Odo, duke of Burgundy 118n. Orderic Vitalis xiii, xxi Orkney(s), bishops and bishopric of xlvixlviii, li, 52-3, and see Ralph, Rodulf, Roger, William; earl of, see Hakon,

Magnus, Paul, Thorfinn Orkneyinga Saga. xlvii Orleans 116n. Osbern, monk and precentor of Christ Church, Canterbury xxxviin. Osbert, archdeacon of Richmond liii-liv

Mortain, count of, see Stephen

Osbert, canon of St Paul's London 57n. Osbert, father of Archbishop Gerard 21n. Osmund, bishop of Salisbury ron. Ostia, cardinal bishop of, see Honorius

Moses 84-5

Oxford, scholars of xxvi

Naboth 142-3 Nantes 100-1 Narbonne, archbishop of, pallium privilege 167n.; council of (probably for Toulouse) 102-3 Newark (Notts) 14-15 Newbald (Yorks) xxiiin. Nicholl, Donald xxv Nidaros, province of xlix Nigel d'Aubigny 62-3, 68-9, 180-1 Norman Anonymous xliii Norinandy (1108) 30-1, 38-9; (1114-15) 57n., 58-61; (1116) 72-3, 76-7; (111718) 84—5, 92-3; (1119) xxii, 102-3, 108-9, 112-13, 132-3; (1120) 146-7, 160-1, 164-5; (1121-2) 182-3; (1123) 200—1; (1126) 204-9; and Rome 88—9;

Palestrina, Praeneste, cardinal bishop of,

Moray, bishop of, see Gregory Morigny abbey 116n. Morland (formerly in Westmorland) 52-3

Cono

legate in 60-1, 136-7; Nor-

mans and Lanfranc 4-5; William I dies in 10-11; bishops of 61n., 120-3, 160-1, 186-7; dukes of, 128-9 and see Robert; nobles 210-11 Northumbria, king of xxxvii,

Edwin

and see

see Cono pallium 8-11, 167-8n., 196-7; for Canterbury (Lanfranc) xxxi; (1123) 1903; for St Andrews lii, 212-135; for York (Thomas I) xxxiv, xl, 1o- 11; (Gerard) xlix, 22-3; (Thomas II) 36-9, 5o-1; (Thurstan) 60—1, 124—7, 150-1, 154-5 Paris, abbey of Saint-Martin-desChamps 116-17; cathedral chapter xxvi; Calixtus II at 116—19; scholars at xxvi, xlviiin. Paschal II, Pope xli; and Anselm 16-17;

and Gerard 15n., 22-3; and Thomas II 36-9, 44-5, 48-9; and Thurstan 60-1, 64-5, 82-9; his letters 66-9, 90-3, his death 94-5; later references to him 96-109, 116-17, 128-9, 134-5, 156—7, 168—75, 222-3 and Henry V s2n., 80n.; and Ivo of Chartres xlii; and pallium privileges 167-8n.; and Scots bishops li, 21213; and Urban II’s letter xl; and Wil-

liam bishop of Exeter 144-5

GENERAL Paul, earl of Orkney xlvii Paulinus, (arch)bishop of York xxxii, lvii, 196—7 Pavia, bishop of and pallium 8-9n., 178-9 Pelagius, Pope 65n. Persius 24-5, 54-5 Peter, St (and Rome) 32-3, 44-5, 128-9,

134-5, 146-9, 156—7, 172-7, 220-1;

the pope as his vicar 82-3, 130-1; and papal camera 196-7 Peter, anti-Peter 140-1 Peter (Damian), St xxviii Peter, archbishop of Vienne 140n. Peter (of Dammartin), bishop of Beauvais

146-7, 152-5, 175n.

Peter, bishop of Lichfield xxxvn. Peter, brother of Archbishop Gerard 21n.

Peter (Pierleone), cardinal deacon of SS. Cosmas and Damian, later cardinal priest of S. Maria in Trastevere and antipope Anacletus II 134-5, 172-3; as legate 134n.; as Anacletus II 137n. Peter (Rufus), cardinal deacon of S. Adriano, later cardinal priest of SS. Mar-

tino e Silvestro legate 135n. Peter

134-5,

172-3; as

(of Pisa) cardinal priest of S. Susanna, formerly cardinal deacon

of S. Adriano 136-9, 170-1 Peterborough, abbot of, see Henry Philip, prince, son of Louis VI 152-3 Phillips, Derek xxix Piacenza 83n. Picard dialect xxx Pickering (York) 24-5 Pisa 138n.; archdeacon of, see Guy Pocklington (Yorks) 24-5 Pontefract priory xxiiin.; monk of, see Hugh Popelina xxvii Powys 2077. Praeneste, see Palestrina

presbyterium, priest-money 138-9 Preston (Lancs) liii

primacy xxxi; and Canterbury and York xxx-xlv and passim; and see Canterbury profession, see Canterbury and York; and bishop of St Andrews 1 Provence, archbishop(s) of 108-9 Pseudo-Isidore xxxviii, xliv, 33n. Rainald I, count of Burgundy 127n.

INDEX

237

Raine, James, the younger, canon of York xx, lvi, lix-lxi, 55n. and passim (in apparatus) Ralph (d'Escures), archbishop of Can-

terbury, formerly abbot of Sées and bishop of Rochester 36-7, 54-5, 184n.; as primate xliv; and Scots li; and Eadmer xvi and York case (1114-15) 60-7; (1116)

70-3; (1117) 82-5, go—3; (1118) 96-9;

illness (1117-19) 82-3, 100-1; (1119)

102-13, 120—3, 128-33; (1120) xxxvii, xlii, lix, 140-1, 146-9, 150-1, 172-5;

plan to make him legate 144-5; and use of pallium 150-1; (1121) 178-9; (1122) his death 182-3; later references 196—7, 220-1 Ralph (le Verd), archbishop of Reims, formerly provost of Reims 152-3, 162Ralph (de Baro), archdeacon of Cleveland xxn.

Ralph, bishop of Chichester 12-13 Ralph I, bishop of Orkney 52-3 Ralph II (Nowell) bishop of Orkney xlviii-xlix, liii, 52-3; (1119) 118-19,

122-3, 132—3; papal letter addressed to 124-7 Ralph, son of Algod, canon of St Paul’s London xxvii Ramsey, abbot of, see Herbert Ranulf (Flambard), bishop of Durham, and his family as canons of St Paul’s London xxvii-xxviii; as royal chaplain and keeper of royal seal 10-11, 42-3; alive when Hugh the Chanter wrote xvii, 10-11; ordains Thurstan priest 60-1; papal letter addressed to

124—7; other references 46-9, 58—63, 80-1, 82n., 122-3, 166n., 180-1 Ranulf, treasurer of York and archdeacon

of the East Riding xxv, 12-13 regalia 8on. Reims, archbishop of, see Ralph; cath-

edral of St Mary 118-21; scholasticus of, see Odalric; Councils of (1115) 6on.; (1119) invitations to 108-13; Calixtus II in Reims and proceedings of Council xxi, 118-23, 128-9, 132-3, 160-3, 167n., 172-3; and the Emperor 148-9; Thurstan's visit to Reims (1120) 151n., 152-3 relics of saints 150-1

238

GENERAL

Remigius, bishop of Dorchester and Lincoln xxxiv, 14-17 Richard, bishop of Bayeux 46-7 Richard (de Belmeis I), bishop of London

xxvii, 36-7, 48-9, 184-7 Richmond (Yorks) liii; archdeaconry of liii-liv; archdeacons, see Bartholomew, Osbert

Ripon 16-17; minster of St Wilfrid 170-1; prebends of 52-3 Robert, bishop of Chester 23n., 58-9 Robert (Bloet), bishop of Lincoln 14-17; formerly royal chancellor 14n. Robert, bishop of St Andrews, formerly canon of Nostell and prior of Scone lii-liii Robert, count of Meulan 42-3, 56-7, 62-3, 68-71 Robert I, duke (a/. count) of Normandy 127n. Robert II (Curthose), duke (24. count) of Normandy ro-11, 16-17 Rochester, bishops of 36n., and see John, Ralph Rodulf, bishop of Orkney xlvii Roger (of Pont l'Évéque), archbishop of York xxix, 216-17n. Roger, bishop of Orkney, previously

monk of Whitby xlvii-xlviii, 52-3 Roger, bishop of Salisbury 206n. Roger, cardinal deacon and legate xl, 1213

Roger the hermit xxviii Romains-sur-Isére 140n., 143n. ROME, Church of, and Papacy, papal curia, (1093-4) 10-11; (1098-9) 1617; (1101-2) xlix, 22-3; (1108) 28-39;

(1109) 44-5,

50-3;

(1115) 64-5;

(1116) 66-7, 70-1, 76-5; 79n., 80-1;

(1117) 84-91;

(?1117) 86-7; (1118)

95n.; (1119) 110-11, 114-19, 128-9,

134-5; (1120) 144-7, 150-1, 156-9,

INDEX gius, Urban, Vitalian; as Vicar of St Peter, see Peter; antipopes, see Maur-

ice, Peter; papal crown-wearing 10811; other papal rituals 108-11, 138-9, 148-9; papal reformers and Lanfranc xxiv; and Scots bishops lii-liii, and see Scotland; and Osbert of Bayeux livn. chamber and chamberlains, 194-7, and see Albanus, Guy, Stephen chancery and chancellors, see Gelasius; chancellor and librarian, see Chry-

sogonus; authentication of xxxvii, 192-7; lead bulls 194-5; quoted lviii; JL 6552, go-1; 92—3; 6669, 96—7; 6706, 106—9;

bulls bulls 6553, 6722,

110-11; 6773, 146-7; 6774, 174-5;

6785, 124-7; 6831, 168-73; 6832, 156-7; 7136, 198-201; not in JL: (Urban II) 10-13; (Paschal II) 66-9, 72—5; (Gelasius IT) 96—9; (Calixtus IT) 110-13, 172—7, 200-3; (Honorius II) 204-5, 214-21; dated at Lateran 68—9, 200-1, 204-5, 220-1; legates 84n., 144-7, 204-5, and see Anselm, Cono, Gregory, Hubert, John, Peter,

Roger; archbishop of Canterbury as 144-5, 208-9, 212-13, 218-19; legates’ authority on pope’s death 203n. Papal councils, Rome (679) xxxvin.; I Lateran (1123), summons

to 182-3;

council 192-3, 196-7, and see esp. Reims (1119) : St Saba, abbot of, see Anselm Rome, city of 116-17 Roolwer, bishop of Man xlvi Rouen 79n., 97n., 164-5; archbishop of xliii, and see Geoffrey; canon of, see

Jeremy; diocese of 126-7

Roxburgh 205n. Rushen abbey, monk of, see Wimund

172-3; (1123) liv, 188—201; (1125-6) xvii, liv, 204-5, 208—17; (1127) 222-3; and Louis VI xviii-xix; cardinals, 100-1, 116—19, 128-31, 150-1, 172-3, 196-7, and see Boso, Chrysogonus, Cono, Gregory, Honorius, John,

St Albans, abbot of, see Geoffrey St Andrews, bishops of xlix-l, 212-13, and see Foderoch, Robert, Turgot; bishop-elect (Eadmer) xv, xviii, lilii; pallium sought for lii; consecra-

Odalric,

xlv-xlvi, li-liii St Asaph (Llanelwy), see of 206—7, 210-11 St Davids, bishop of, see Bernard; see of

Peter,

Roger;

popes,

see

Agatho, Alexander, Anastasius, Boniface, Calixtus, Celestine, Damasus, Deusdedit, Gelasius, Gregory, Honorius, Innocent, Leo, Pelagius, Ser-

tion without profession liii; see of xv,

206—7n.

Saint-Denis, abbot of, see Suger

GENERAL

INDEX

239

Saint-Jean-d'Angély, abbot of, see Henry St Maughold xlvi St Osyth, prior of, see William Salisbury, bishops of, see Osmund, Roger; cathedral chapter xxiv; royal

Soissons 60n., 120n., 151n., 152-3; bishop of, see Henry

Council at (1116) 68-9 Sallust xiii Sampson, bishop of Worcester 3n., 25n.,

surname xxix-xxx; and see Thomas Southern, Sir

36n., 39n., 43n., 46-7

Savoy, count of 118n. Schism, Great xv Scone priory, later abbey 1; prior of, see Robert Scotland, Scots 4-5; bishops and church

of xviii, xxviii, xxxii n., xxxv, xlv-liii, 23N., 50—3, 124-5, 202—3, 212-19, and see Glasgow, St Andrews, Moray, Orkney, Whithorn; kings and royal house of xlv-liv, 212-13, and see Alexander, David, Malcolm; queen, see Margaret Scandinavian perimeter of xlvi; John of Crema visits Scotland and border 204-5; Scots invasion of 1138, xxii seal, papal, see Rome, chancery; royal (William I) xxxiv, 8-9; of Hugh the Chanter xxxn. Sées, St Martin’s abbey, abbot of, see Ralph; monk, see Seffrid Seffrid (d’Escures), monk of Sées, abbot of Glastonbury, bishop of Chichester xliiin., 120n., 188-9

Seffrid d'Escures, father of Ralph and Seffrid 55n. Selby abbey 24-5 Senlis 152-3; bishop of, see Clarembald Senonais 126-7 Sens xxii, 136—7, 150n.; archbishop of xlii, and see Daimbert; archbishopric,

stan

Siena 137n. Sigurd, king of Norway xlviii Simeon of Durham, Historia Regum attributed to xliin., 68n., 160-1n., 19on.

Simon Magus 82-3 simony 24-5, 166—7 (or Laurence) Master Schools of York xxvi Skye, bishop of xlvin. Snaith (Yorks) 24-5

of Hugh the Chanter xxn., the family, xxiii, xxix—xxx, Ernulf, Hugh, Matthew,

Richard xiii, xviiin., xxxvii Southwell, 25n.; minster of St Mary 54n., 170-1; prebends of 52-3 Souvigny, prior of, see Henry Spain 102-3 Standard, battle of the xxii

Stephen, abbot of St Mary’s York 42-3, and see Stephen the monk Stephen, count of Blois 152n. Stephen, count of Boulogne and Mortain, later king of England 152n. Stephen of Besancon, papal chamberlain 195 Nn. Stephen the monk, possibly = Stephen, abbot of St Mary’s York 32-3 Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury xxxiii, 2-5 Stow (Lincs) 14-15 Strathclyde, kingdom of |-li, liii Stubbs, T. lvii, lix Stutz, U. xiii Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis 1o1n. Surrey, earldom of 69n. Sutri 140-1, 188-9 synodal dues xxn. Teviotdale xlv Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, as primate xliii-xliv Theobald, count of Blois and Champagne

152-3, 164-5

24n. Sergius, Pope xxxvii Sherborne, abbot and prior of, see Thur-

Siurus

Solomon 182-3 Solway firth li Sottewain (Sottewame), Sottovagina, etc.,

of the

Theobald of Étampes xxivn. Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury xxxii 'Thomas (Arundel), archbishop of Canterbury, formerly archbishop of York

Xv Thomas (Becket), archbishop of Canterbury 217n. Thomas I (of Bayeux), archbishop of York, uncle of Thomas II 24-7, 54-5; his family 6-7; previously treasurer of Bayeux 2-3; appointed arch-

bishop xxxiii, 2-3; and profession to

240

GENERAL

Thomas I (of Bayeux), (cont.)

Lanfranc xxxiii-xxxix, 4-11, 28-9,

36-7; letter from Urban II 10-15, 66—7, 196-7; and Anselm xxxix-xli,

12-17, 34-7, 42-33 summary of career 18-21; his death 20-1

and Hugh the Chanter xix; and Scots bishops xlvii, xlix, 50-1; other refer-

ences xliv-xlv Thomas II, archbishop of York 24-57; previously provost of Beverley 24-5, 54n.; his election xx, 24-7; letter

from York chapter 26-31; and Anselm 32-3, 38-43; issue of primacy and profession xlii, 40-51; consecrated 48-9; returns to York 50-1; founds Hexham priory 52-3, 57n.; and Scots bishops xlvin., xlviii, 1, lii,

50-3; work for York, etc. 52-3; and Hugh the Chanter xvi; other reference xxv; his death 54-5 Thomas, son of Ralph, son of Algod xxvii Thomas Sottewaine, canon of York xxiii, xxix "Thomas Stubbs, see Stubbs Thorfinn, earl of Orkney xlii, xlvi

Thucydides xiii Thurstan, abbot of Sherborne, formerly

prior 206—7 THURSTAN, archbishop of York, previ-

ously royal chaplain to William II and Henry I and canon of St Paul’s London 54n., 56-7, 68-9; his family and early life xxvii-xxviii; (1114) appointment and election as archbishop xiv, xvii, xxxi, 56-7; and issue of profession and primacy xvi-xvii,

xlii-xliv, 56-223 passim; ordained deacon and enthroned at York 58-9; (1114-15) ordained priest 60-3; (1115-16) 62-81; (1116) Thurstan’s ‘passion’ and resignation of see 68— 73; (1117) not allowed to visit Rome 80-91; letters of support from chapter 86—9; letters of Paschal II quashing resignation and ordering consecration 90-3; (1118) negotiations with Gelasius II 94—101; (1119) seeks to visit Gelasius 100-1; negotiations with Calixtus II 102-9; summoned to Council of Reims 108-13; allowed to visit curia 114—19; consecrated at Reims xviii, 118-21, 172-3,

INDEX 222-3; his pallium 60-1, 124-7, 150-1, 154-5; at Council of Reims 122—3; travels with curia xxii, 124—39; disseised by Henry I 132-3; (1120)

with curia until March 138-53; Calixtus’ privilege lix, 168-73; and other letters 172-7; with Countess Adela 152-5; with Cardinal Cono 153-5; negotiations with Henry I 154-9; Henry restores archbishopric to him 158-65; (1121) allowed to return to England xliii, 164-7; renewed argument on profession 178-83; (1123) and election of Archbishop William 184-7; both archbishops visit the curia liv, 188—201; discussion of Can-

terbury privileges 192-5, and the York case 196-9; (1123-4) 200-3; (1125) first letter of Honorius II and legation of John of Crema 204-9; (1125-6) both archbishops again go to curia xvii, liv, 208-15; issue of

bishop of Glasgow discussed in curia 212-13; (1126-7 (?)) letters of Honorius II 216-21; (1127) and Archbishop William’s

legatine council

218-19;

final success and summary of career liv, 220-3; retires to Pontefract pri-

ory xxiiin. and Hugh the Chanter xvi and passim; and Digby chronicle lvii; carrying cross, 216-17; plan to make legate 146-7; as patron of canons 125n.; and of Christina of Markyate xxviii-xxix; relations with Scots bishops xxviii, xlvin., li-liv, 212-15, and see Scotland Tivoli, cardinal bishop of, see Guy, Manfred Toledo, archbishop of, and pallium privilege 168n. Toulouse, Council of (1119) 103n., 167n. Tournus 125n. Tours 100-1, 114-15; archbishop of, see Gilbert; cathedral of St Maurice

114-15 Trent, river 50-1

Trier, archbishop of, see Bruno; arch-

bishopric and primacy 178-9 Turgot, bishop of St Andrews, previously prior of Durham xlix-1, 50-1; dies li,

58-9

GENERAL Urban, bishop of Llandaff 120n. Urban II, Pope 16n.; and investiture 16— 17; and letter on Canterbury and York, xl, 7n., 10-13, 28-9, 66—7, 70-1, 168-9, 196—7, 222-3; and William,

bishop of Exeter 144—5 Valence xxii, 142—3n., 144-5, 150n. Vernon 158-61 Vézelay torn. Vienne, archbishop of, see Calixtus, Peter; Calixtus II at xv, xxii, 140-1;

Church of 116-17 Virgil 20-1 Vitalian, Pope xxxviin. Walkelin, bishop of Winchester xxiv, 12-

13320. ' Walloon dialect xxx Walter (Giffard), earl of Buckingham 58n. Water, Thomas lv Westminster, see London

Whiby, monk of, see Roger White Ship xxi, 164-5 Whithorn, see of liii

Wight, Isle of 8-9 William (de Corbeil), archbishop of Canterbury, previously clerk of Ranulf Flambard, canon of Dover, prior of

St Osyth 82-5, 184-7; elected archbishop xxvn., 105n., 184-5; discussion of his consecration xlii, 184—7; his pallium 186-7, 190-3, 198—201; and primacy issue xliv; (1123) expedition to Rome 188-99; returns to Normandy 200-1; (1125) 202-9; (1125-6) 210-13; (1126) 214-17; and carrying of cross 216-17; (1127) on crown-wearing, etc. 218-21; as legate xliv, 212-13, 216-19, 222-3 William (St, William Fitzherbert), arch-

bishop of York liv; previously treasurer of York xxv William, bishop of Chálons-sur-Marne 162William (of St Carilef), bishop of Durham

xl William (of Ste-Barbe), bishop of Durham, previously dean of York xxiiin., xxv William (Warelwast), bishop of Exeter 39n., 76-7, 78n. 114-15, 122-5, 142-5

INDEX

241

William, bishop of Man xlvin. William (‘Senex’), bishop of Orkney

xlvii-xlix William (Giffard), bishop of Winchester, previously canon of St Paul's Lon-

don 391., 57n., 58-9 William (son of Ralph, son of Algod), canon of St Paul's London xxvii William (II), earl of Warenne, al. Surrey

68-9 William I, king of England, and Norman Conquest 2-3; and Archbishop Ealdred 54n.; and Archbishop Thomas I and primacy issue xxxiii-xxxv, 2-5, 30-1, 40-1, 42n.; his chancellors, see Gerard, Maurice; his signum xxxiv; and papacy xxiv William II, king of England, succeeds ro11; and Anselm xiii-xiv, 12-13; and Carlisle xlv, li; and frontiers cf sees

of Lincoln and York 15n.; and Thurstan 56—7; and Urban II xl; and William bishop of Exeter 78n., 144—5; his chancellor, see Gerard; his death 16-17 William, prince, son of Henry I ro3n., 126—7; dies (1120) xxi, 164-5 William de Tancarville, royal chamberlain 68-9 William of Beverley, archdeacon and canon of York 86—7, 93n. William of Malmesbury xliin., 97n. William, son of Toli, archdeacon of York

86-7

Wimund, bishop of Man, formerly monk of Furness and Rushen xlvin. Winchester, 57n.; bishops of, see Henry, Walkelin, William; Council of (1072) xxxiv; (1076) xliv Windsor xxxiv, 164—5, 218-19 Wissant 216-17

Woodstock 186-9 Worcester 32-3; bishops of, see Ealdred, Sampson, Wulfstan; see of xxiv,

xxxiv-xxxvi, 18-19 Workington (Cumbria) liii Wulfstan (St), bishop of Worcester 2-3; his signum xxxiv Wulgrin the chanter xxiin. YORK xlvii, lii, 8-9, 50-1, 58-9, 166—7;

archbishops, formerly bishops, of, see Cynesige, Ealdred, Gerard, John,

242

GENERAL

INDEX cathedral chapter and clergy xvi, xix, xxi, xxiii-xxvi, xxix, xl, 12-13, 18-21,

YORK (cont.) Paulinus, Roger, Thomas, Thurstan, and see pallium; issue of primacy and profession xxx-xlv, and passim, see

25n.; (1108) 32-3; (1114-16) 58-9, 72-3; (1120-3) lix, 142-3, 178-9, 184-7; letters from 26-31, 34—5, 74-7, 86-9; letters to 66-9; archives lvii, lix; dignitaries: dean 18-19, and see Gale, Hugh, William; Master of the

under 'Thomas I, Gerard, Thomas II,

Thurstan; York's victory xv, xliiixliv, liv, 220-3; privileges passim, see esp. Calixtus II; relations with Scots bishops xlv-lii, 23n., 50-3, 88-93, 124—7, 202-3, 212-17; Glasgow xlvxlvi, l-liii, 52-3, 202-3, 212-17; Man

xlvi; Orkney

xlvii-xlix,

52-3;

Schools xxv, 18-19, 114-15, and see Siurus; precentor 18-19, and see Gilbert, Hamo, Hugh, (?) Wulgrin; provost 18-19; treasurer 18-19, and see Ranulf, William; liberties and

St

Andrews xlix-l, 50-1; Whithorn liii;

province, clergy of 176—7; and councils xliv

archdeacons of 18-19, 32-3, 78-9, 114IS, 118-19, 132-3, 184-5, and see Durand, Hugh, William, see also Cleveland, East Riding, Richmond cathedral, minster, of St Peter, burnt in

11th century 2-3, 18-19; Norman cathedral xxix, 18-21; Gothic xxiv;

dormitory

and

refectory

privileges 48-51, 54n., and see above under archbishops; prebends 52-3, and see Laughton priest of, see Ralph St Clement’s convent (nuns) xxix; St Mary's abbey xxn.; abbots, see Geoffrey, Stephen; monk of 78-9 Yorkshire, 217n.; Domesday survey for lvi; Yorkshiremen 4-5

18-19;

lo55321. THEO! LOGY LIBR ee n

CiLAREMONT,

CALI