CHAPTER XI.

THE LAST YEARS OF ARCHBISHOP THEOBALD.

1156–1161.

All Henry’s endeavours for the material and political revival of

his kingdom had been regulated thus far by one simple, definite

principle:--the restoration of the state of things which had existed

under his grandfather. In his own eyes and in those of his subjects the

duty which lay before him at his accession, and which he had faithfully

and successfully fulfilled, was to take up the work of government and

administration not at the point where he found it, but at the point

where it had been left by Henry I. and Roger of Salisbury: to pull

down and sweep away all the innovations and irregularities with which

their work had been overlaid during the last nineteen years, and bring

the old foundations to light once more, that they might receive a

legitimate superstructure planned upon their own lines and built upon

their own principles. In law, in finance, in general administration,

there was one universal standard of reference:--“the time of my

grandfather King Henry.”

But there was one side of the national revival, and that the most

important of all, to which this standard could not apply. The religious

and intellectual movement which had begun under Henry I., far from

coming to a standstill at his death, had gone on gathering energy and

strength during the years of anarchy till it had become the one truly

living power in the land, the power which in the end placed Henry II.

on his throne. It looked to find in him a friend, a fellow-worker,

a protector perhaps; but it had no need to go back to a stage which

it had long since overpassed and make a new departure thence under

the guidance of a king who was almost its own creation. At the very

moment of Henry’s accession, the hopes of the English Church were

raised to their highest pitch by the elevation of an Englishman to the

Papal chair. Nicolas Breakspear was the only man of English birth who

ever attained that lofty seat; and the adventures which brought him

thither, so far as they can be made out from two somewhat contradictory

accounts, form a romantic chapter in the clerical history of the time.

Nicolas was the son of a poor English clerk[1538] at Langley, a little

township belonging to the abbey of S. Alban’s.[1539] The father retired

into the abbey,[1540] leaving his boy, according to one version of the

story, too poor to go to school and too young and ignorant to earn his

bread; he therefore came every day to get a dole at the abbey-gate,

till his father grew ashamed and bade him come no more; whereupon

the lad, “blushing either to dig or to beg in his own country,” made

his way across the sea.[1541] Another version asserts that Nicolas,

being “a youth of graceful appearance, but somewhat lacking in clerkly

acquirements,” sued to the abbot of S. Alban’s for admission as a

monk; the abbot examined him, found him insufficiently instructed, and

dismissed him with a gentle admonition: “Wait awhile, my son, and go

to school that you may become better fitted for the cloister.”[1542]

Whether stung by the abbot’s hint or by his father’s reproofs, young

Nicolas found his way to Paris and into its schools, where he worked

so hard that he out-did all his fellow-students.[1543] But the life

there wearied him as it had wearied Thomas Becket; he rambled on

across Gaul into Provence, and there found hospitality in the Austin

priory of S. Rufus. His graceful figure, pleasant face, sensible talk

and obliging temper so charmed the brotherhood that they grew eager

to keep him in their midst,[1544] and on their persuasion he joined

the order.[1545] It seems that he was even made superior of the house,

but the canons afterwards regretted having set a stranger to rule over

them, and after persecuting him in various ways appealed to the Pope to

get rid of him. The Pope--Eugene III.--at first refused to hear them;

but on second consideration he decided to give them over to their own

evil devices and offer their rejected superior a more agreeable post

in his own court.[1546] Nicolas, who had already twice visited Rome,

proceeded thither a third time and was made cardinal[1547] and bishop

of Albano.[1548] Shortly afterwards he was appointed legate to Norway

and Denmark, an office which he filled with prudence and energy during

some years.[1549] Returning to Rome about 1150, he apparently acted as

secretary to Eugene III. until the latter’s death in July 1153.[1550]

The next Pope, Anastasius III., reigned only sixteen months, and dying

on December 2, 1154, was succeeded by the bishop of Albano, who took

the name of Adrian IV.[1551]

[1538] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 6 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 109).

[1539] _Gesta Abbat. S. Albani_ (Riley), vol. i. p. 112.

[1540] Will. Newb. as above. Probably he separated from his

wife in consequence of some of the decrees against clerical

marriage passed under Henry I.; that she was not dead is plain

from John of Salisbury’s mention of her as still living in the

days of his friendship with Nicolas. Joh. Salisb., _Metalog._,

l. iv. c. 42 (Giles, vol. v. p. 205).

[1541] Will. Newb. as above (pp. 109, 110).

[1542] _Gesta Abbat._ as above. The abbot’s name is there given

as Robert, but this must be wrong, as Robert did not become

abbot till 1151, and by 1150, as we shall see, Nicolas was at

Rome.

[1543] _Gesta Abbat._ (as above), pp. 112, 113.

[1544] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 6 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 110).

[1545] _Ibid._ _Gesta Abbat._ (Riley), vol. i. p. 113.

[1546] Will. Newb. as above (pp. 110, 111). The church of S.

Rufus (diocese Valence) had between 1145 and 1151 an abbot

named N.... The editors of _Gall. Christ._ (vol. xvi. cols.

359, 360) will not allow that this N. was Nicolas Breakspear,

and of course the date will not agree with the version of his

history in the _Gesta Abbat._; but it agrees perfectly with

that of Will. Newb.; while the _Gesta’s_ dates are confuted by

Nicolas’s undoubted signatures at Rome.

[1547] _Gesta Abbat._ as above.

[1548] Will. Newb. as above (p. 111). Rob. Torigni, a. 1154.

[1549] Will. Newb. as above.

[1550] “A partir de l’année 1150, on trouve la souscription

de _Nicolaus episcopus Albanensis_ au bas des bulles d’Eugène

III.” Delisle, _Rob. Torigni_, vol. i. p. 288, note 2.

[1551] Will. Newb. as above (p. 111). Date from Cod. Vatic.,

Baronius, _Annales_ (Pagi), vol. xix. p. 77.

The English Church naturally hailed with delight the accession of a

pontiff who was at once one of her own sons and a disciple of Eugene,

whom the leaders of the intellectual and spiritual revival in England

had come to regard almost as their patron saint.[1552] Adrian indeed

shared all their highest and most cherished aspirations far more deeply

and intimately than Eugene himself could have done. It was in the

cloisters of Canterbury that these aspirations were gradually taking

definite shape under the guidance of Archbishop Theobald. There,

beneath the shadow of the cathedral begun by Lanfranc and completed

by S. Anselm, their worthy successor had been throughout the last ten

or twelve years of the anarchy watching over a little sanctuary where

all that was noblest, highest, most full of hope and promise in the

dawning intellectual life of the day found a peaceful shelter and a

congenial home. The _Curia Theobaldi_, the household of Archbishop

Theobald, was a sort of little school of the prophets, a seminary into

which the vigilant primate drew the choicest spirits among the rising

generation, to be trained up under his own eyes in his own modes of

thought and views of life, till they were fitted to become first the

sharers and then the continuators of his work for the English Church

and the English nation. Through his scholars had come the revival of

legal and ecclesiastical learning in England; through them had come the

renewal of intercourse and sympathy with the sister-Churches of the

west; through them had been conducted the negotiations with Rome which

had led to the restoration of order and peace; and in them, as Theobald

hoped, the Church, having saved the state, would find her most fitting

instruments for the work of reform and revival which still remained to

be done within her own borders. One by one, as the occasion presented

itself, he began to send them forth to take independent positions in

the Church or in the world. Of the chosen three whom he specially

trusted, the first who thus left his side was John of Canterbury,

who in 1153 succeeded Hugh of Puiset as treasurer of York. Next year

Theobald was able to place another of his disciples in the northern

metropolis in a far more important capacity: he succeeded in obtaining

the royal assent to the appointment of Roger of Pont-l’Evêque as

archbishop of York, in succession to S. William, who had been restored

by Pope Anastasius after Henry Murdac’s death, but died six weeks after

his restoration.[1553]

[1552] John of Salisbury frequently writes of him as “Sanctus

Eugenius.”

[1553] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 298, 299. Gerv. Cant.

(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 158. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 26 (Howlett,

vol. i. pp. 80, 82). Anon. I. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iv.),

pp. 10, 11.

Roger’s history before his entrance into the primate’s household is

so completely lost that even the rendering of his surname is a matter

of some doubt; it may have been derived from the English town of

Bishopsbridge, and if so Roger was now going back as primate to his

own native shire; it seems however more probable that he came from

Pont-l’Evêque in Normandy.[1554] He was evidently some years older

than Theobald’s other favourites, John of Canterbury and Thomas of

London; for we find him and Gilbert Foliot quarrelling, apologizing,

lecturing and forgiving each other with an outspoken freedom and

familiarity possible only between two men of equal standing who have

been friends from their youth.[1555] With Thomas Becket, on the other

hand, Roger was never upon really friendly terms; jealous, no doubt,

of the younger man who seemed likely to supersede him in the primate’s

confidence, Roger lost no opportunity of teasing the “hatchet-clerk”

(as he called Thomas, from the nickname of the man who had first

introduced him to Theobald), and made his life so wretched that he

was twice driven to quit the archbishop’s house and take refuge with

Theobald’s brother, Walter, archdeacon of Canterbury, till the latter

smoothed the way for his return.[1556] On Walter’s elevation to the see

of Rochester in 1148 his archdeaconry was given to Roger;[1557] he also

held some other preferments, all of which he was at one time in great

danger of losing--most likely on account of his share in the famous

“swimming-voyage” to Reims; but his friend Gilbert Foliot secured him

the protection of the Pope;[1558] and the restoration of the archbishop

would naturally involve that of the archdeacon. After six years’ tenure

of his office at Canterbury Roger was called to go up higher. Theobald

had more than one reason for desiring his archdeacon’s elevation. He

wished it for Roger’s own sake; he wished it still more for the sake

of his younger favourite, whom he longed to establish in a position of

dignity and importance, yet close to his own side; above all, he wished

it for the sake of the Church;[1559] for he naturally hoped that in

leaving one of his own foremost disciples seated on the metropolitan

chair of York, he would be leaving at least one prelate of the highest

rank firmly pledged to those schemes of ecclesiastical policy and

organization which he himself had most at heart. His confidence in

Roger was over-great. After all the disputes about the canonical

relations between Canterbury and York which had wasted the energies of

Lanfranc and embittered the last days of S. Anselm, Theobald missed his

opportunity of securing at last a full acknowledgement of Canterbury’s

superior rights, and was rash enough to consecrate Roger without

requiring from him a profession of obedience.[1560] The large-hearted

primate evidently never dreamed that any question of obedience could

arise between himself and one of his spiritual sons, or that Roger’s

loyalty to him could fail to be extended to his successor. He never

discovered his mistake; it was Roger’s old rival, and with him the

English Church, who ultimately had to bear its unhappy consequences.

[1554] There is a bit of evidence on this side in _Thomas Saga_

(Magnusson), vol. i. p. 40, where the writer calls him “Rogerum

Nevstriensem.”

[1555] Gilb. Foliot, Epp. cix.–cxi. (Giles, vol. i. pp.

135–145). This was after Roger became archbishop; the quarrel

went so far that Roger appealed to Rome about it, and carried

his appeal in person. (What can be the date of this?) Gilbert

owns that he had let his sharp tongue run away with him; Roger

lectures him soundly, but ends with “ecce jam in occursum

vestrum vetus festinat amicus,” and a proposal to kill the

fatted calf in celebration of his repentance (Ep. cx. p. 141).

[1556] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p.

16. Cf. Anon I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 9, 10; E. Grim (_ib._

vol. ii.), p. 362; and Gamier (Hippeau), p. 10.

[1557] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 133.

[1558] “Clericus ... dilecti filii vestri domini Cantuariensis

archiepiscopi Magister R. de Ponte Episcopi vestrum adit

urgente necessitate præsidium ut ad tuenda ea quæ canonice

possidet a vestrâ imploret serenitate patrocinium.” Gilb.

Foliot, Ep. xvii (Giles, vol. i. p. 30). The salutation of

the letter runs “Summo Dei gratiâ Pontifici E., frater G.

Glocestriæ dictus abbas”; it looks very much as if written

in the interval between the council of Reims and Gilbert’s

consecration.

[1559] Anon. I. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iv.), p. 10.

[1560] “Sed professionem non fecit” [Roger], significantly

remarks R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 298. Roger was

consecrated at Westminster on October 10, 1154; _ibid._ Gerv.

Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 158.

Immediately after Roger’s consecration Thomas was raised by his

primate to deacon’s orders and made archdeacon of Canterbury.[1561]

A few months later the accession of Henry II. opened the way for his

advancement in another direction. His appointment to the chancellorship

involved a great self-sacrifice on the part of Theobald; for the

chancellor’s duties--at least as conceived by Thomas, and as Theobald

had intended him to conceive them--took him not only quite away from

those of his archdeaconry and from his primate’s side, but very often

out of the country altogether; so that Theobald in giving him up to the

king had condemned himself to pass his declining years apart from the

object of his warmest earthly affections. But the _Curia Theobaldi_ was

by no means deserted; though it had lost its most brilliant star, there

was no lack of lesser lights to brighten the primate’s home-circle;

there was one whose soft mild radiance, less dazzling than the glory

of Thomas, was a far truer and steadier reflex of Theobald’s own calm

and gentle spirit. Yet John of Salisbury had entered the archbishop’s

household within a comparatively recent period. His father’s name seems

to have been Reinfred;[1562] his family connexions were all in or

around the city whence his surname was derived;[1563] but there is some

indication that John himself may have been born in London.[1564] In the

year after the death of Henry I. he went to study in Paris, and there

received his first lessons in dialectics from the greatest scholar of

the day--sitting at the feet of Peter Abelard, and eagerly drinking in,

to the utmost capacity of his young mind, every word that fell from

the master’s lips. Abelard departed all too soon, and John pursued his

studies for about two years under his successors Alberic and Robert,

of whom the latter, although commonly called “Robert of Melun” from

having taught with distinction in that place, was an Englishman by

birth, and will come before us again in later days as Gilbert Foliot’s

successor in the bishopric of Hereford. It must have been precisely

during those two years that Thomas of London also was in Paris for the

first time, striving for his mother’s sake to overcome his dislike of

books; and it was possibly there that the two young Englishmen, who

must have been of nearly the same age, began to form an acquaintance

which afterwards ripened into a lifelong friendship. And it can only

have been about the same time, and in that same wonderful meeting-place

where so many of the happiest and most fruitful associations of the

time had their beginnings, that John of Salisbury first met with

Nicolas of Langley.

[1561] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p.

17. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 168. Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.),

p. 4. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 11. Garnier (Hippeau), p.

10. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 159. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),

vol. i. p. 213, where he is called “Thomas Beket”--apparently

for the first time.

[1562] “Magister B. filius Reinfred peccator, fraterculus

meus,” is named by Joh. Salisb. Ep. xc. (Giles, vol. i. p. 135).

[1563] See his correspondence _passim_.

[1564] There is among John’s letters a most enigmatical

one--Ep. cxxx. (Giles, vol. i. p. 109)--without date, address,

or writer’s name, but very much in the tone and style of John’s

familiar letters--in which a Londoner, or rather a man who

tried to make himself out to be such, is described as “concivis

noster.” It looks very much as if written by John to Thomas.

Thomas went home to the plodding life of a city merchant’s clerk;

Nicolas set out on the long course of wandering which was to bring him

at last to the Papal chair; John, having as he says “steeped himself

to the finger-tips in dialectics, and moreover learned to think his

knowledge greater than it really was,” applied himself for the next

three years to the schools of the grammarians William of Conches

and Richard l’Evêque, with whom he went over again the whole course

of his previous studies, penetrated somewhat deeper into those of

the _quadrivium_ which he had begun under the direction of a German

named Hardwin, and improved some slight notions of rhetoric which

he had acquired at the lectures of a certain Master Theodoric. His

relatives were quite unable to maintain him all this while; like all

poor students of the day, he earned his living and his college-fees

by teaching others, and as he pleasantly says “What I learned was

the better fixed in my mind, because I constantly had to bring it

out for my pupils.” One of these pupils was William of Soissons, to

whom he taught the elements of logic, “and who afterwards contrived,

as his followers say, a method of breaking down the old strongholds

of logic, producing unexpected consequences, and overthrowing the

opinions of the ancients.” John however declined to believe in a

“system of impossibilities,” for which he at any rate was clearly not

responsible; for he had soon transferred his pupil to the care of one

Master Adam, an English teacher deeply versed in Aristotelian lore. It

seems just possible that this Master Adam, who was at this time helping

John in his studies not as a teacher but as a friend,[1565] was the

same who many years before had stood in a somewhat similar relation

to Gilbert Foliot.[1566] He may, however, perhaps be more probably

identified with Adam “du Petit-Pont”--so called from the place where

he lectured in Paris--who in 1176 became bishop of S. Asaph’s.[1567]

After a while John found that with all his efforts he could hardly

earn enough to live upon in Paris; so by the advice of his friends he

determined to set up a school elsewhere.[1568] While sitting at the

feet of the “Peripatetic” doctors on the Mont-Ste.-Geneviève he had

become acquainted with a young native of Champagne, Peter by name,

who was studying in the school of S. Martin-des-Champs.[1569] The two

friends, it seems, settled together at Provins in Peter’s native land,

and there, under the protection of the good Count Theobald,[1570]

laboured and prospered for three years.[1571] Long afterwards, from

his anxious post at the side of the dying Archbishop Theobald, John’s

thoughts strayed tenderly back to the days which he and his young

comrade, with hearts as light as their purses, had spent among the

roses of Champagne: “I am the same that ever I was,” he wrote to

Peter, now abbot of Celle, “only I possess more than you and I had

between us at Provins.”[1572] He returned to Paris, revisited his

old haunts on the Mont-Ste.-Geneviève, and was amused to find his

old school-companions just where and as he had left them. “They

did not seem to have advanced an inch towards disposing of the old

questions, nor to have added one new proposition.” He, in his three

years of healthy meditation in the country, had discovered that

their dialectics, however useful as a help to other studies, were in

themselves but a fruitless and lifeless system; he therefore now gave

himself up to the study of theology under a certain Master Gilbert,

Robert “Pullus”--in whom one is tempted to recognize the Robert Pulein

who had planted the seed of the first English University by his

divinity-lectures at Oxford in 1133--and lastly, Simon of Poissy.

[1565] Joh. Salisb. _Metalog._, l. ii. c. 10 (Giles, vol.

v. pp. 78–80). Adam’s nationality appears in l. iii. c.

3 (p. 129), where he is described as “noster ille Anglus

Peripateticus Adam.”

[1566] See below, p. 492, 493.

[1567] Wright, _Biogr. Britt. Lit._, vol. ii. pp. 245, 246.

[1568] Joh. Salisb. _Metalog._, l. ii. c. 10 (Giles, vol. v.

pp. 80, 81).

[1569] On Peter of Celle see Migne, _Patrologia_, vol. ccii.

cols. 399, 400, and _Gall. Christ._, vol. xii. col. 543.

[1570] Cf. Joh. Salisb. Epp. lxxxii. and cxliii. (Giles, vol.

i. pp. 114, 206); and see also Demimuid, _Jean de Salisbury_,

pp. 26, 27.

[1571] “Reversus itaque in fine triennii.” Joh. Salisb.

_Metalog._ as above (p. 81).

[1572] Joh. Salisb. Ep. lxxxii. (Giles, vol. i. p. 114).

John’s whole career in the schools, after occupying about twelve

years,[1573] apparently came to an end shortly before the council of

Reims. His old friend Peter had already retired into the peace of the

cloister, and about this time became abbot of Celle, near Troyes.

There John, who was utterly without means of living, found a shelter

and a home, nominally, it seems, in the capacity of Peter’s “clerk” or

secretary, but in reality as the recipient of a generous hospitality

which sought for no return save the enjoyment of his presence and his

friendship.[1574] Such a light as John’s, however, could not long

remain thus hidden under a bushel. So felt Peter himself;[1575] and

at that moment a better place for it was easily found. At the council

of Reims, or during his exile after it, the archbishop of Canterbury

probably met the abbot of Celle and his English “clerk”;[1576] he

certainly must have met the abbot of Clairvaux; and S. Bernard, with

his unerring instinct, had already discovered John’s merits. He named

him to Theobald in terms of commendation; and it was he who furnished

the letter of introduction,[1577] as it was Peter who furnished the

means,[1578] wherewith John at last made his way to the archbishop’s

court,[1579] of which he soon became one of the busiest and most

valued members. So busy was he--so “distracted with diverse and adverse

occupations,” as he himself said--that he complained of being scarce

able to steal an hour for the literary and philosophical pursuits

which he so dearly loved. Ten times in the next thirteen years[1580]

did he cross the Alps, twice did he visit Apulia, on business with

the Roman court for his superiors or his friends; besides travelling

all over England and Gaul on a variety of errands, and fulfilling a

crowd of home-duties which left him scarcely time to look after his

own private affairs, much less to indulge in study.[1581] The greater

part of the communications between Theobald and Eugene III. must

have passed through his hands, either as messenger or as amanuensis;

but his name never figures in their diplomatic history; his place

therein was a subordinate one. It was not in his nature to take the

foremost rank. Not that he was unfit for it:--with his gracious, genial

temper; his calm clear judgement, generally sound because always

disinterested; his delicate wit, his easy, elegant scholarship, and his

wide practical experience of the world--John of Salisbury might have

adorned far higher positions in either Church or state than any which

he ever actually occupied. But his own position was a thing of which

he seems never to have thought, save as a means of serving others. His

apology for his unwilling neglect of literature--“I am a man under

authority”[1582]--might have been the motto of his life. He left it to

others to lead; if they led in the way of righteousness, they might be

sure of one faithful adherent who would serve and follow them through

good report and evil report, who would try to clear the path before

them at any risk to himself; who would criticize their conduct and

tell them of their errors with fearless simplicity, while striving to

avert the consequence of those errors and to cover their retreat; who

in poverty and exile, incurred for another’s sake, would make light

of his own sufferings and be constantly endeavouring to relieve those

of his fellow-sufferers, and who would always find or make a silver

lining to the darkest cloud. This was what John did for the possible

acquaintance of his early student-days whom he had now rejoined in

the household of Archbishop Theobald. To the end of his life he was

more than satisfied to count the friendship of Thomas Becket as his

chief title of honour, and to let whatever share of lustre might have

been his own go to brighten the aureole of his friend. It brightened

it far more than he knew. When detractors and panegyrists have both

done their worst, there remains this simple proof of the real worth of

Thomas--that he inspired such devotion as this in a man such as John of

Salisbury, and that he knew how to appreciate it as it deserved.

[1573] Joh. Salisb. _Metalog._, l. ii. c. 10 (Giles, vol. v. p.

81).

[1574] Joh. Salisb. Ep. lxxxv. (Giles, vol. i. p. 117). Pet.

Cell. Epp. lxvii.–lxxv. (Migne, _Patrol._, vol. ccii. cols.

513–522).

[1575] Pet. Cell. Ep. lxx. (as above, col. 516).

[1576] The _Historia Pontificalis_, certainly the work of one

who was present at this council, is attributed to John.

[1577] S. Bern. Ep. ccclxi. (Mabillon, vol. i. col. 325).

[1578] Joh. Salisb. Ep. lxxxv. (Giles, vol. i. p. 117).

[1579] From the Prologue to the _Polycraticus_, l. i. (_Joh.

Salisb. Opp._, Giles, vol. iii. p. 13), it appears that at the

time of writing it John had been twelve years at the court. As

the _Polycraticus_ was written during the war of Toulouse, this

takes us back to 1148. He must in fact have joined Theobald

very soon after the council of Reims.

[1580] He himself makes it twenty years (Joh. Salisb.

_Metalog._, prolog. l. iii., Giles, vol. v. p. 113); but

he cannot possibly have left Paris before 1147, and the

_Metalogicus_ was finished before Theobald’s death in 1161.

Either there is something wrong in John’s reckoning, or in his

copyist’s reading of it, or this passage was added some years

after the completion of the book.

[1581] Joh. Salisb. _Metalog._ as above.

[1582] Joh. Salisb. _Polycrat._, prolog. l. vii. (Giles, vol.

iv. p. 80).

It was however John’s friendship with Nicolas of Langley which in these

years of his residence in the primate’s household made him so valuable

to Theobald as a medium of communication with Rome. We can hardly doubt

that this acquaintance, too, had begun in Paris; now, as the English

cardinal-secretary and the envoy of the English primate discussed

in the Roman court the prospects of their common mother-country and

mother-Church, their acquaintance ripened into a friendship which no

change of outward circumstances could alter or disturb. Nicolas cared

more for John than for his own nearest relatives; he declared in public

and in private that he loved him above all men living; he delighted in

unburthening his soul to him. When he became Pope there was no change;

a visit from John was still Adrian’s greatest pleasure; he rejoiced in

welcoming him to his table, and despite John’s modest remonstrances

insisted that they should be served from the same dish and

flagon.[1583] King and primate were both alike quick to perceive and

use such an opportunity of strengthening the alliance between England

and Rome; while Adrian on his part was all the more ready to give a

cordial response to overtures made to him from the land of his birth,

when they came through the lips of his dearest friend. As a matter of

course, it was John who very soon after the accession of Henry II. was

sent to obtain a Papal authorization for the king’s projected conquest

of Ireland.[1584] Naturally, too, it was John who now became Theobald’s

private secretary and confidential medium of communication with Pope

Adrian. A considerable part of the correspondence which goes under

John’s name really consists of the archbishop’s letters, John himself

being merely the amanuensis. This part of his work, however, was a

relaxation which he only enjoyed at intervals; he was still constantly

on active duty of some kind or other not only at the court of the

primate but also at that of the king; and sorely did he long to escape

from its weary trifling, to find rest for his soul in the pursuit of

that “divine philosophy” which had been the delight of his youth.[1585]

But obedience, not inclination, had brought him to court, and obedience

kept him there. Thomas knew his worth and would not let him go; at

last, to pacify his uneasiness, he bade him relieve his mind by pouring

it out in a book. John protested he had scarce time to call his soul

his own, much less his intellect or his hands.[1586] He was, however,

set free by the removal of the court over sea for the expedition

against Toulouse; and while Thomas was riding in coat of mail at the

head of his troops against Count Raymond and King Louis, John was

writing his _Polycraticus_ in the quiet cloisters of Canterbury.[1587]

[1583] Joh. Salisb. _Metalog._, l. iv. c. 42 (Giles, vol. v. p.

205).

[1584] Joh. Salisb. _Metalog._, l. iv. c. 42 (Giles, vol. v.

pp. 205, 206).

[1585] Joh. Salisb. _Polycrat._, l. i. prolog. (Giles, vol.

iii. p. 13).

[1586] _Ib._ l. vii. prolog. (vol. iv. p. 80).

[1587] _Ib._ l. i. prolog. (vol. iii. p. 16). Cf. _ib._ l.

viii. c. 24 (vol. iv. p. 379).

This book of _Polycraticus on the Triflings of Courtiers and the

Foot-prints of Philosophers_[1588] is a strange medley of moral and

political speculations, personal experiences, and reflections upon men

and things, old and new. Its greatest charm lies in the revelation of

the writer’s pure, sweet, child-like character, shining unconsciously

through the veil of his scholastic pedantries and rambling metaphysics;

its historical value consists in the light which it throws on the

social condition of England with respect to a crowd of matters which

the chroniclers leave wholly in the dark. “Part of it,” says the author

in his dedication, “deals with the trifles of the court; laying most

stress on those which have chiefly called it forth. Part treats of

the foot-prints of the philosophers, leaving, however, the wise to

decide for themselves in each case what is to be shunned and what to be

followed.”[1589] We need not weary ourselves with John’s meditations

upon Aristotle and Plato and their scholastic commentators; they

all come round to one simple conclusion--that the fear of the Lord

is the beginning of wisdom, and the love of Him the end of all true

philosophy.[1590] It is in the light of this truth that he looks at

the practical questions of the day, and reviews those “trifles of

the court” which are really the crying abuses of the government, the

ecclesiastical administration, and society at large. In the forefront

of all he does not hesitate, although dedicating his book to the

chancellor whose passion for hunting almost equalled that of the king

himself, to set the inordinate love of the chase and the cruelties

of the forest-law.[1591] The tardiness of the royal justice and the

corruption of the judges--“_justitiæ errantes_, justices errant are

they rightly called who go erring from the path of equity in pursuit

of greed and gain”[1592]--was also, after seven years of Henry’s

government, still a ground of serious complaint. So, too, was the decay

of valour among the young knighthood of the day--a consequence of the

general relaxation of discipline, first during the years of anarchy,

and then in the reaction produced by the unbroken peace which England

had enjoyed since Henry’s accession. Chivalry was already falling

back from its lofty ideal; military exercises were neglected for the

pleasures and luxury of the court; the making of a knight, in theory a

matter almost as solemn as the making of a priest, was sinking into a

mere commonplace formality;[1593] and the consequences were beginning

to be felt on the Welsh border.[1594] John was moved to contrast

the present insecurity of the marches with their splendid defence

in Harold’s time,[1595] and to lament that William the Conqueror,

in his desire to make his little insular world share the glories of

the greater world beyond the sea, had allowed the naturally rich and

self-sufficing island to be flooded with luxuries of which it had no

need, and thus fostered rather than checked the indolent disposition

which had helped to bring its people under his sway.[1596]

[1588] _Polycraticus de Nugis Curialium et Vestigiis

Philosophorum._

[1589] Joh. Salisb. _Polycrat._, l. i. prolog. (Giles, vol.

iii. p. 13).

[1590] This is the idea which runs through the whole of

_Polycraticus_, and indeed through all John’s writings. It is

neatly expressed in two lines of his _Entheticus_ (vv. 305,

306, Giles, vol. v. p. 248):

“Si verus Deus est hominum sapientia vera, Tunc amor est veri

philosophia Dei.”

[1591] Joh. Salisb. _Polycrat._, l. i. c. 4 (Giles, vol. iii.

pp. 19–32).

[1592] _Ib._ l. v. c. 15 (p. 322). Cf. cc. 10, 11 (pp.

300–311). Pet. Blois, Ep. xcv. (Giles, vol. i. p. 297), makes a

like play on the title of the judges.

[1593] Joh. Salisb. _Polycrat._, l. vi. cc. 2, 3, 5, 8–10

(Giles, vol. iv. pp. 8–12, 15, 16, 20–23).

[1594] _Ib._ cc. 6, 16 (pp. 16, 17, 39, 40).

[1595] _Ib._ c. 6 (p. 18).

[1596] _Ib._ l. viii. c. 7 (p. 238).

The ills of the state had each its counterpart in the Church; the

extortions and perversions of justice committed by the secular judges

were paralleled by those of the ecclesiastical officials, deans and

archdeacons;[1597] and at the bottom of the mischief lay the old root

of all evil. Simony was indeed no longer public; spiritual offices

were no longer openly bought with hard cash; but they were bought with

court-interest instead;[1598] the Church’s most sacred offices were

filled by men who came straight from the worldly life of the court to a

charge for which they were utterly unfit;[1599] although, in deference

to public opinion, they were obliged to go through an elaborate shew

of reluctance, and Scripture and hagiology were ransacked for examples

of converted sinners, which were always found sufficient to meet any

objections against a candidate for consecration and to justify any

appointment, however outrageous.[1600] All the sins of the worldly

churchmen, however, scarcely move John’s pure soul to such an outburst

of scathing sarcasm as he pours upon the “false brethren” who sought

their advancement in a more subtle way, by a shew of counterfeit

piety:--the ultra-monastic, ultra-ascetic school, with their overdone

zeal and humility, and their reliance on those pernicious exemptions

from diocesan jurisdiction which the religious orders vied with each

other in procuring from Rome, and which were destroying all discipline

and subverting all rightful authority.[1601]

[1597] _Ib._ l. v. c. 15 (vol. iii. pp. 327, 328).

[1598] _Ib._ l. vii. c. 18 (vol. iv. pp. 149, 152).

[1599] _Ib._ l. v. c. 15 (vol. iii. p. 329).

[1600] _Ib._ l. vii. cc. 18, 19 (vol. iv. pp. 149–152, 156–158).

[1601] Joh. Salisb. _Polycrat._, l. vii. c. 21 (Giles, vol. iv.

pp. 169–178). It is to be noted that the two orders which John

considers to be least infected with this hypocrisy are those of

the Chartreuse and of Grandmont. _Ib._ c. 23 (pp. 180, 181).

Over against the picture of the world and the Church as they actually

were, the disciple of Archbishop Theobald sets his ideal of both as

they should be--as the primate and his children aimed at making them.

For John’s model commonwealth, built up in a somewhat disjointed

fashion on a foundation partly of Holy Writ and partly of classic

antiquity, is not, like the great Utopia of the sixteenth century,

the product of one single, exceptionally constituted mind; it is a

reflection of the plans and hopes of those among whom John lived and

worked, and thus it helps us to see something of the line of thought

which had guided their action in the past and which moulded their

schemes for the future. Like all medieval theorists, they began at the

uppermost end of the social and political scale; they started from a

definite view of the rights and duties of the king, as the head on

which all the lower members of the body politic depended. The divine

right of kings, the divine ordination of the powers that be, were

fundamental doctrines which they understood in a far wider and loftier

sense than the king-worshippers of the seventeenth century:--which they

employed not to support but to combat the perverted theory that “the

sovereign’s will has the force of law,” already creeping in through the

influence of the imperial jurisprudence;[1602]--and which were no less

incompatible with the principle of invariable hereditary succession.

“Lands and houses and suchlike things must needs descend to the next

in blood; but the government of a people is to be given only to him

whom God has chosen thereto, even to him who has God’s Spirit within

him and God’s law ever before his eyes.... Not that for the mere love

of change it is lawful to forsake the blood of princes, to whom by the

privilege of the divine promises and by the natural claims of birth the

succession of their children is justly due, if only they walk according

to right. Neither, if they turn aside from the right way, are they

to be immediately cast off, but patiently admonished till it become

evident that they are obstinate in their wickedness”[1603]--then, and

then only, shall the axe be laid to the root of the corrupt tree, and

it shall cumber the ground no more.[1604]

[1602] _Ib._ l. iv. c. 7 (vol. iii. p. 241).

[1603] Joh. Salisb. _Polycrat._, l. v. c. 6 (Giles, vol. iii.

p. 278).

[1604] _Ib._ l. iv. c. 12 (pp. 259, 260).

Such was the moral which the wisest and most thoughtful minds in

England drew from the lessons of the anarchy. On a like principle, it

was in the growth of a more definite and earnest sense of individual

duty and responsibility, as opposed to the selfish lawlessness which

had so long prevailed, that they trusted for the regeneration of

society. They sought to teach the knights to live up to the full

meaning of their vows and the true objects of their institution--the

protection of the Church, the suppression of treason, the vindication

of the rights of the poor, the pacification of the country;[1605]

so that the consecration of their swords upon the altar at their

investiture should be no empty form, but, according to its original

intention, a true symbol of the whole character of their lives and, if

need be, of their deaths.[1606] And then side by side with the true

knight would stand the true priest:--both alike soldiers of the Cross,

fighting in the same cause though with different weapons--figured,

according to John’s beautiful application of a text which medieval

reformers never wearied of expounding, by the “two swords” which

the Master had declared “enough” for His servants, all the lawless

undisciplined activity of self-seekers and false brethren being

merely the “swords and staves” of the hostile multitude.[1607] Into a

detailed examination of the rights or the duties of the various classes

of the people no one in those days thought it necessary to enter;

their well-being and well-doing were regarded as dependent upon those

of their superiors, and the whole question of the relation between

rulers and ruled--“head and feet,” according to the simile which

John borrows from Plutarch--was solved by the comprehensive formula,

“Every one members one of another.”[1608] To watch over and direct the

carrying-out of this principle was the special work of the clergy;

and the clerical reformers were jealous for the rights of their order

because, as understood by them, they represented and covered the rights

of the whole nation; the claims which they put forth in the Church’s

name were a protest in behalf of true civil and religious liberty

against tyranny on the one hand and license on the other.[1609] “For

there is nothing more glorious than freedom, save virtue; if indeed

freedom may rightly be severed from virtue--for all who know anything

aright know that true freedom has no other source.”[1610]

[1605] _Ib._ l. vi. c. 8 (vol. iv. p. 21).

[1606] _Ibid._ c. 10 (p. 23). Cf. Pet. Blois, Ep. xciv. (Giles,

vol. i. pp. 291–296).

[1607] Joh. Salisb. _Polycrat._, l. vi. c. 8 (Giles, vol. iv.

p. 21). John’s use of the text is perhaps only a generalization

from S. Bernard’s application of it to Suger and the count of

Nevers, left regents of France in 1149. Odo of Deuil, _Rer.

Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xii. p. 93.

[1608] Joh. Salisb. _Polycrat._, l. vi. c. 20 (as above, pp.

51, 52).

[1609] _Ib._ l. vii. c. 20 (pp. 161–169).

[1610] _Ibid._ c. 25 (p. 192).

How far these lofty views had made their way into the high places of

the Church it was as yet scarcely possible to judge. The tone of the

English episcopate had certainly undergone a marked change for the

better during the last six years of Stephen’s reign. Theobald’s hopes

must, however, have been chiefly in the rising generation. Of the

existing bishops there was only one really capable of either helping

or hindering the work which the primate had at heart; for Henry of

Winchester, although his royal blood, his stately personality and

his long and memorable career necessarily made him to his life’s end

an important figure in both Church and state, had ceased to take an

active part in the affairs of either, and for several years lived

altogether away from England, in his boyhood’s home at Cluny.[1611]

A far more weighty element in the calculations of the reforming party

was the character and policy of the bishop of Hereford, Gilbert

Foliot. From the circumstances in which we find Gilbert’s relatives in

England,[1612] it seems probable that he belonged to one of the poorer

Norman families of knightly rank who came over either in the train of

the great nobles of the conquest or in the more peaceful immigration

under Henry I. His youth is lost in obscurity; of his education we

know nothing, save by its fruits. Highly gifted as he unquestionably

was by nature, even his inborn genius could hardly have enabled him to

acquire his refined and varied scholarship, his unrivalled mastery of

legal, political and ecclesiastical lore, his profound and extensive

knowledge of men and things, anywhere but in some one or other of the

universities of the day. It is curious that although Gilbert’s extant

correspondence is one of the most voluminous of the time--extending

over nearly half a century, and addressed to persons of the most

diverse ranks, parties, professions and nationalities--it contains not

one allusion to the studies or the companions of his youth, not one

of those half playful, half tender reminiscences of student-triumphs,

student-troubles and student-friendships, which were so fresh in the

hearts and in the letters of many distinguished contemporaries. Only

from an appeal made to him, when bishop of London, in behalf of his old

benefactor’s orphan and penniless children, do we learn that he had

once been the favourite pupil, the ward, almost the adoptive son, of a

certain Master Adam.[1613] It is tempting, but perhaps hardly safe,

to conjecture that this Master Adam was the learned Englishman of that

name who in like manner befriended another young fellow-countryman,

John of Salisbury, when he too was studying in Paris.[1614] This,

however, was not till Gilbert Foliot’s student-days had long been past.

Wherever his youth may have been spent, wherever his reputation may

have been acquired, the one was quite over and the other was fully

established before 1139, when he had been already for some years a

monk of Cluny, had attained the rank of prior in the mother-house, and

had thence been promoted to become the head of the dependent priory of

Abbeville.[1615]

[1611] He went there in 1155 (Rob. Torigni, _ad ann._), and

does not reappear in England till March 1159 (Palgrave, _Eng.

Commonwealth_, vol. ii. p. xii).

[1612] See his letters _passim_.

[1613] Gilb. Foliot, Epp. dxv., dxvii. (Giles, vol. ii. pp.

323, 324, 326). The writer of the first is “Ranulfus de

Turri”; the second is anonymous. Both appeal earnestly to

the bishop’s charity and gratitude in behalf of “J. filius

A. magistri quondam vestri, procuratoris vestri, tutoris

vestri.... Hæreat animo sanctitatis vestræ illa M. Adæ circa

vos curarum gravitas, alimoniæ fœcunditas, diligentia doctrinæ,

specialis impensa benivolentiæ. Quis hodie proprios liberos

regit providentius, educat uberius, instruit attentius, diligit

ferventius? Sic pæne amor ille modum excessit, ut vos diligeret

non quasi excellenter, sed quasi singulariter ... qui vos

aliquando pro filio adoptavit” (Ep. dxv.). “Tangat memoriam

vestram illa M. Adæ circa vos curarum gravitas, doctrinæ

profunditas, alimoniæ ubertas, postremo fervens, immo ardens

caritas. Hæreat animo vestro quantâ curâ, quali amplexu, quam

speciali privilegio, illa doctoris vestri, procuratoris,

tutoris, diligens vigilantia vos non modo supra familiares,

verum supra quoslibet mortales adoptaverit, qualiterque ejus

spiritus in vestro, ut ita dicam, spiritu quieverit.” Ep. dxvii.

[1614] See above, p. 482. In any case, Gilbert’s Master Adam

is surely a somewhat interesting person, of whom one would

like to know more. This was the condition of his eldest son,

when commended to the gratitude of Gilbert: “Pater ejus cum

fati munus impleret, filium reliquit ære alieno gravatum,

fratrum numerositate impeditum, redituum angustiis constrictum,

et quibusdam aliis nexibus intricatum.” Gilb. Foliot, Ep.

dxvii. (Giles, vol. ii. p. 326). “Onerant enim eum supra modum

redituum angustiæ, debitorum paternorum sarcinæ, amicorum

raritas, fratrum sororumque pluralitas et reliquæ sarcinæ

parentelæ.” Ep. dxv. (_ib._ p. 323).

[1615] Gilb. Foliot, Ep. cclxix. (Giles, vol. i. p. 366).

In 1139 the abbot of S. Peter’s at Gloucester died; Miles the

constable, the lord of Gloucester castle and sheriff of the county,

and the greatest man of the district after Earl Robert himself,

secured the vacant office for Gilbert Foliot,[1616] who was a family

connexion of his own.[1617] The abbey of S. Peter at Gloucester,

founded as a nunnery in the seventh century, changed into a college

of secular priests after the Danish wars, and finally settled as a

house of Benedictine monks in the reign of Cnut, had risen to wealth

and fame under its first Norman abbot, Serlo, some of whose work still

survives in the nave of his church, now serving as the cathedral

church of Gloucester. Gloucester itself, the capital of Earl Robert’s

territories, was still, like Hereford and Shrewsbury, a border-city

whose inhabitants had to be constantly on their guard against the

thievery and treachery of the Welsh, who, though often highly useful

to their English earl as auxiliary forces in war, were anything but

loyal subjects or trustworthy neighbours. The position of abbot of S.

Peter’s therefore was at all times one of some difficulty and anxiety;

and Gilbert entered upon it at a specially difficult and anxious time.

Stephen’s assent to his appointment can hardly have been prompted by

favour to Miles, who had openly defied the king a year ago; he may have

been influenced by fear of giving fresh offence to such a formidable

deserter, or he may simply have been, as we are told, moved by the

report of Gilbert’s great merits.[1618] The new abbot proved quite

worthy of his reputation. His bitterest enemies always admitted that he

was a pattern of monastic discipline and personal asceticism; and his

admirable judgement, moderation and prudence soon made him a personage

of very high authority in the counsels of the English Church. Holding

such an important office in the city which was the head-quarters of

the Empress’s party throughout the greater part of the civil war, he

of course had his full share of the troubles of the anarchy, whereof

Welsh inroads counted among the least. There is no doubt that in

bringing him to England Miles had, whether intentionally or not,

brought over one who sympathized strongly with the Angevin cause; but

Gilbert’s sympathies led him into no political partizanship. During

his nine years’ residence at Gloucester he consistently occupied the

position which seems to have been his ideal through life: that of a

churchman pure and simple, attached to no mere party in either Church

or state, but ready to work with each and all for the broad aims of

ecclesiastical order and national tranquillity. That these aims came

at last to be identified with the success of the Angevin party was

a result of circumstances over which Gilbert had no control. He was

honoured, consulted and trusted by the most diverse characters among

the bishops. Mere abbot of a remote monastery as he was, Nigel of

Ely was glad to be recommended by him to Pope Celestine, Jocelyn of

Salisbury to Lucius, and Alexander of Lincoln to Eugene III.[1619]

He was treated almost as an equal not only by his own diocesan Bishop

Simon of Worcester, by his neighbour Robert of Hereford, and by Jocelyn

of Salisbury, but even by the archbishop of Canterbury and the legate

Henry of Winchester; and he writes in the tone of a patron and adviser

to Bishop Uhtred of Landaff and to the heads of the religious houses on

the Welsh border.[1620] He seems indeed to have been the usual medium

of communication between the Church in the western shires and its

primate at far-off Canterbury, who evidently found him a trustworthy

and useful agent in managing the very troublesome Church affairs of the

Welsh marches during the civil war.

[1616] Flor. Worc. Contin. (Thorpe), vol. ii. p. 114. _Hist.

Monast. S. Pet. Gloc._ (Riley), vol. i. p. 18.

[1617] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 162.

[1618] Flor. Worc. Contin., a. 1139 (Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 114).

_Hist. S. Pet. Gloc._ (Riley), vol. i. p. 18.

[1619] Gilb. Foliot, Epp. v., xi., xxv. (Giles, vol. i. pp. 12,

22, 37).

[1620] See his correspondence while abbot of Gloucester; _Gilb.

Foliot Opp._ (Giles), vol. i. pp. 3–94.

When at last the storm subsided and a turn of the tide came with the

spring of 1148, Theobald openly shewed his confidence in the abbot

of Gloucester by commanding his attendance on that journey to Reims

which the king had forbidden, and which was therefore looked upon

as the grand proclamation of ecclesiastical independence, as well

as of devotion to the house of Anjou. Gilbert, with characteristic

caution, excused himself on the plea that the troubles of his house

urgently required his presence at home;[1621] but he ended by going

nevertheless,[1622] and when his friend Bishop Robert of Hereford--one

of the three prelates whom Stephen had permitted to attend the council

of Reims--died during its session, the Pope and the primate rewarded

Gilbert with the succession to the vacant see.[1623] For his perjury in

doing homage to Stephen for its temporalities after swearing to hold

them only of Henry Fitz-Empress he may be supposed to have quieted his

conscience with the plea that there was no other means of securing them

for Henry’s benefit;--a plea which Henry, after some delay,[1624] found

it wise to accept. The heads of the Angevin party knew indeed that

Gilbert regarded all homage to Stephen as simply null and void; he had

just written it plainly to Brian Fitz-Count, when criticizing Brian’s

apology for the Empress, in a letter[1625] which, we may be very sure,

must have been handed about and studied among her friends as a much

more valuable document than the pamphlet which had called it forth.

[1621] Gilb. Foliot, Epp. vi., vii. (_ib._ pp. 13, 14).

[1622] He writes--evidently from the spot--a report of the

council of Reims to Robert archdeacon of Lincoln; Gilb. Foliot,

Ep. lxxvi. (as above, p. 92). In July he was at Arras with

Theobald: Ep. lxxiii. (_ib._ p. 89).

[1623] See above, pp. 370, 371.

[1624] Gilb. Foliot, Epp. xc., cxxx. (as above, pp. 116, 170).

[1625] Gilb. Foliot, Ep. lxxix. (Giles, vol. i. pp. 94–102); a

most interesting and valuable letter, being a detailed review

of the whole question of the succession, as well as of Brian’s

“book.” The latter is unhappily lost.

The career of the new bishop of Hereford was but the natural

continuation of that of the abbot of Gloucester. His more exalted

office enabled him to be more than ever Theobald’s right hand in the

direction of the western dioceses. In their secular policy he and

Theobald were wholly at one; whether they really were equally so in

their ideas of Church reform is a question which was never put to the

test; but the tone of Gilbert’s mind, so far as it can be made out

from his letters and from his course in after-years, does not seem to

have altogether harmonized with that which prevailed in the primate’s

household; and the one member of that household with whom Gilbert was

on really intimate terms was precisely the one who, as afterwards

appeared, had imbibed least of its spirit--Roger of Pont-l’Evêque.

Gilbert’s character is not an easy one to read. Its inner depths are

scarcely reflected in his letters, which are almost all occupied with

mere business or formal religious exhortation; we never get from him

such a pleasant little stream of unpremeditated, discursive talk as

John of Salisbury or Peter of Blois delighted to pour out of the

abundance of their hearts into the ears of some old comrade, or such

a flood of uncontrolled passion as revealed the whole soul of Thomas

Becket. Gilbert’s letters are carefully-balanced, highly-finished

compositions; almost every one of them reads as if it had received as

much polishing, in proportion to its length and importance, as the

review of Earl Brian’s book, which, the abbot owns, occupied what

should have been his hours of prayer during two days.[1626] A strong

vein of sarcasm, very clever as well as very severe, is the only

token of personal feeling which at times forces its way strangely,

almost startlingly, through the veil of extreme self-depreciation

with which Gilbert strove to cover it. The self-depreciation is even

more disagreeable than the sarcasm; yet it seems hardly fair to

accuse Gilbert of conscious hypocrisy. There was a bitter, sneering

disposition ingrained in his innermost being, and he knew it. His

elaborate expressions of more than monastic humility and meekness

may have been the outcome of a struggle to smother what he probably

regarded as his besetting sin; and if he not only failed to smother it,

but drifted into a much more subtle and dangerous temptation, still

it is possible that he himself never perceived the fact, and was less

a deceiver than a victim of self-deception. During his episcopate at

Hereford, at any rate, no shadow of suspicion fell upon him from any

quarter; primate and Pope esteemed, trusted and consulted him as one of

the wisest as well as most zealous doctors of the English Church; and

when the young king came to his throne he did not fail to shew a duly

respectful appreciation of Gilbert’s character and services.

[1626] “Et biduo saltem ores pro me, quia biduo mihi est

intermissa oratio ut literas dictarem ad te.” Gilb. Foliot, Ep.

lxxix. (Giles, vol. i. p. 102).

The king’s own attitude towards the religious revival was as yet not

very clearly defined. Henry was not without religious impulse; but it

had taken a special direction which indeed might naturally be expected

in a grandson of Fulk of Jerusalem:--a restless desire to go upon

crusade. He had no sooner mounted his throne than he began to urge upon

the English Pope, newly crowned like himself, the importance of giving

special attention to the necessities of the Holy Land.[1627] Four

years later he proposed to join Louis of France in a crusade against

the Moors in Spain. Louis wrote to the Pope announcing this project

and begging for his advice and support; Adrian in reply assured the

two kings of his sympathy and goodwill, but though praising their zeal

he expressed some doubt of its discretion, advised them to ascertain

whether the Spaniards desired their help before thrusting it upon them

unasked, and reminded Louis in plain terms of the disastrous issue of

his former rash crusade.[1628] The warning was needless, for it was

hardly written before the intending brothers-in-arms were preparing to

fight against each other; and before the war of Toulouse was over the

English Pope was dead.[1629]

[1627] Pet. Blois, Ep. clxviii. (Giles, vol. ii. pp. 116–118).

The letter is headed merely “Tali Papæ talis rex,” but there

can be no doubt that they are Henry and Adrian. The king

congratulates himself and his country--“noster Occidens”--on

the elevation of a native thereof to the Papal chair, and makes

suggestions to the Pope about the work which lies before him.

[1628] Adrian IV. Ep. ccxli. (Migne, _Patrol._, vol.

clxxxviii., cols. 1615–1617; Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._,

vol. iv. pp. 590, 591). Date, February 18 [1159].

[1629] Adrian died at Anagni on September 1, 1159. Alex. III.

Ep. i. (Migne, _Patrol._, vol. cc., col. 70).

His death was a heavy blow to the Church of his native land; and it was

followed by a schism which threatened disastrous consequences to all

western Christendom. Two Popes were elected--Roland of Siena, cardinal

of S. Mark and treasurer of the Holy See, and Octavian, cardinal of S.

Cecilia, a Roman of noble birth. This latter, who assumed the name of

Victor IV., was favoured by the Emperor, Frederic Barbarossa. After a

violent struggle he was expelled from Rome and fled to the protection

of his imperial patron, who thereupon summoned a general council to

meet at Pavia early in the next year and decide between the rival

pontiffs.[1630] Only the bishops of Frederic’s own dominions obeyed the

summons, and only one of the claimants; for Alexander III. (as Roland

was called by his adherents) disdained to submit to a trial whose issue

he believed to have been predetermined against him. He was accordingly

condemned as a rebel and schismatic, and Victor was acknowledged as

the lawful successor of S. Peter.[1631] This decision, however, bound

only the bishops of the Imperial dominions; and its general acceptance

throughout the rest of Christendom, doubtful from the first, became

impossible when Alexander and his partizans published their account

of the mode by which it had been arrived at. Victor--so their story

went--had actually placed his pontifical ring in the Emperor’s hands

and received it back from him as the symbol of investiture.[1632]

The Church at large could have no hesitation in deciding that a man

who thus climbed into the sheepfold by surrendering, voluntarily and

deliberately, the whole principle of spiritual independence whose

triumph Gregory and Anselm had devoted their lives to secure, was no

true shepherd but a thief and robber. Frederic however lost no time

in endeavouring to obtain for him the adhesion of France and England;

and in the last-named quarter he had great hopes of success. Henry had

for several years past shewn a disposition to knit up again the old

political ties which connected England with Germany; friendly embassies

had been exchanged between the two countries;[1633] now that he had

begun to quarrel with France, too, he was likely to be more inclined

towards an imperial alliance. Moreover it might naturally be expected

that Frederic’s bold and apparently successful attempt to revive the

claims of his predecessor Henry IV. on the subject of ecclesiastical

investitures would meet with sympathy from the grandson and

representative of Henry I. Indeed, the official report of the council

of Pavia declares that Henry had actually, by letters and envoys, given

his assent to its proceedings.[1634] But nothing of the kind was known

in Henry’s own dominions;[1635] and it seems that the Emperor was

forestalled by a Norman bishop.

[1630] Radevic of Freisingen, l. ii. cc. 43, 50–56 (Muratori,

_Rer. Ital. Scriptt._, vol. vi. cols. 819, 823–834), largely

made up of official letters. This is the Victorian or

Imperialist version; for the Alexandrine see Will. Newb., l.

ii. c. 9 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 118, 119), and Arn. Lisieux,

Epp. 21, 22, 23 (Giles, pp. 108–122. Arnulf calls the antipope

“Otto.”) It seems quite hopeless to reconcile them or decide

between them.

[1631] Rad. Freising., l. ii. cc. 64–72 (as above, cols.

838–853). Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 9 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 119,

120).

[1632] Arn. Lisieux, Ep. 23 (Giles, p. 118).

[1633] Pipe Roll 4 Hen. II. (Hunter), p. 112. Cf. Rad.

Freising., l. i. c. 7 (Muratori, _Rer. Ital. Scriptt._, vol.

vi. cols. 744, 745). Another embassy from Henry reached

Frederic in Lombardy, in the winter of 1158–1159, immediately

after one from Louis. The object of each king was to secure

Frederic’s alliance against the other, in prospect of the

coming war of Toulouse; Rad. Freising., l. ii. c. 22 (as above,

col. 804).

[1634] Report in Rad. Freising., l. ii. c. 70 (as above, col.

850). But the bishop of Bamberg, also an eye-witness, says:

“Nuntius regis Francorum promisit pro eo neutrum se recepturum

usque dum nuntios Imperatoris recipiat. Nuntius regis Anglorum

idem velle et idem nolle promisit, tam in his quam in aliis”

(_ib._ c. 71, col. 851); which leaves it doubtful whether the

English envoy really echoed the decision of the council, or the

answer of his French brother.

[1635] Not even to Stephen of Rouen, the author of the _Draco

Normannicus_, who has a long account of the schism, curious as

proceeding from a Norman monk whose sympathies are wholly and

openly on the opposite side to that which was formally adopted

by his own sovereign, nation and Church. _Draco Norm._, l. iii.

cc. 6–11, vv. 361–868 (Howlett, _Will. Newb._, vol. ii. pp.

724–739).

Arnulf of Lisieux came of a family which had for more than half a

century been constantly mixed up in the diplomatic concerns of Normandy

and Anjou. Arnulf himself had begun his career about 1130 by writing

a treatise in defence of an orthodox Pope against an usurper;[1636]

he had been chosen to succeed his uncle Bishop John of Lisieux[1637]

shortly before Geoffrey Plantagenet’s final conquest of Normandy, and

had bought at a heavy price his peace with the new ruler;[1638] and

for the next forty years there was hardly a diplomatic transaction

of any kind, ecclesiastical or secular, in England or in Gaul, in

which he was not at some moment and in some way or other concerned.

He had little official influence; he had indeed a certain amount of

territorial importance in Normandy, for Lisieux was the capital of a

little county of which the temporal as well as the spiritual government

was vested in the bishop; but a Norman bishop, merely as such, had none

of the political weight of an English prelate; and Arnulf never held

any secular office. He was not exactly a busybody; he was a consummate

diplomatist, of wide experience and far-reaching intelligence, with

whose services no party could afford to dispense; and his extraordinary

caution and sagacity enabled him to act as counsellor and guide of

all parties at once without sacrificing his own reputation as a sound

Churchman and a loyal subject. In his youth he had come in contact with

most of the rising scholars and statesmen of the day in the schools of

Paris; and as he was an indefatigable and accomplished letter-writer,

he kept up through life a busy correspondence with men of all ranks

and all schools of thought on both sides of the sea.[1639] During the

quarrel between Louis VII. and Geoffrey Plantagenet concerning the

affair of Montreuil-Bellay, Arnulf was intrusted by Suger with a chief

part in the negotiations for the restoration of peace;[1640] the final

settlement in 1151, whereby the investiture of Normandy was secured to

Henry, was chiefly owing to his diplomacy;[1641] he accompanied Henry

to England and was present at his crowning;[1642] and on all questions

of continental policy he continued to be Henry’s chief adviser till he

was superseded by Thomas Becket.

[1636] See his _Tractatus de Schismate_ in his “Works” (ed.

Giles), pp. 43–79.

[1637] In 1141. _Gall. Christ._, vol. xi. cols. 774, 775.

[1638] _Ib._ col. 775.

[1639] One of his fellow-students was Ralf de Diceto, the

future historian and dean of S. Paul’s, to whom he writes

affectionately in after-years, recalling vividly the memories

of joy and sorrow which they had shared in their college days.

Arn. Lis. Ep. 16 (Giles, pp. 100, 101). Another of his early

friends was Robert Bloet, bishop of Lincoln, whose good offices

he earnestly entreated in behalf of the young Duke Henry when

the latter made his expedition to England in 1149. Ep. 4 (pp.

85, 86).

[1640] Suger, Epp. clxvii., clxviii. (Migne, _Patrol._, vol.

clxxxvi., cols. 1428, 1429).

[1641] Arn. Lis. Ep. 5 (Giles, pp. 86, 87). One passage looks

as if the demand for Henry’s investiture had come from England;

it is described as “postulatio Anglorum.”

[1642] Rob. Torigni, a. 1154.

To Arnulf there was nothing new or startling in a schism at Rome; his

experiences of thirty years before enabled him to penetrate the present

case at once, and as then with his pen, so now with his tongue, he

proved the readiest and most powerful advocate of the orthodox pontiff.

Fortunately, Henry was in Normandy; before any one else had time to

gain his ear and bias his mind, before he himself had time to think of

forming an independent judgement on the subject, Arnulf hurried to his

side,[1643] and set forth the claims of Alexander with such convincing

eloquence that the king at once promised to acknowledge him as Pope.

He refrained however from issuing an immediate order for Alexander’s

acceptance throughout his dominions, partly in deference to the

Emperor,[1644] and partly to make sure of the intentions of the king

of France. Louis, like Henry, had sent a representative to the council

of Pavia, but he had taken care not to commit himself to any decision

upon its proceedings.[1645] He was not naturally inclined to favour the

Emperor’s views. The question of the investitures had never been as

important in France as in Germany or in England, and had been settled

by a kind of tacit concordat which the Most Christian King had no mind

to forfeit his title by disturbing; France was always the staunchest

upholder of the independence of the Apostolic see;[1646] and neither

king nor clergy desired to change their attitude. They met in council

at Beauvais some time in the summer of 1160; a similar gathering of the

Norman bishops, in Henry’s presence, took place in July at Neufmarché;

both assemblies resulted in the acknowledgement of Alexander.[1647] The

formal assent of the Churches of England and Aquitaine had still to be

obtained before either king would fully proclaim his decision.[1648]

Archbishop Theobald’s anxious request for information and instructions

concerning the schism[1649] was answered by an exhaustive and eloquent

statement of the case from the pen of the indefatigable bishop of

Lisieux;[1650] and in accordance with his directions the English

bishops in council assembled unanimously declared their acceptance of

Alexander III. as the lawful successor of S. Peter.[1651]

[1643] Arn. Lis. Epp. 18 and 21 (Giles, pp. 103, 104, 111).

[1644] Arn. Lis. Ep. 21 (Giles, p. 111).

[1645] See above, p. 499, note 3{1634}.

[1646] Arn. Lis. Ep. 23 (Giles, p. 120).

[1647] Rob. Torigni, a. 1160.

[1648] Arn. Lis. Epp. 23, 24 (Giles, pp. 120, 129).

[1649] Joh. Salisb. Ep. xliv. (Giles, vol. i. pp. 45, 46).

[1650] Arn. Lis. Ep. 23 (Giles, pp. 116–122). Cf. Gilb. Foliot,

Ep. cxlviii. (Giles, vol. i. p. 197).

[1651] Gilb. Foliot, Ep. cxlviii. (as above). Joh. Salisb. Ep.

lxiv (Giles, vol. i. p. 79).

Alexander’s legates were already in Normandy;[1652] unluckily, however,

the use which Henry made of their presence led as we have seen to a

fresh rupture between him and Louis; and by this the Emperor and the

anti-pope immediately sought to profit. Tempting as their overtures

were to Henry, it does not appear that he ever seriously entertained

them; but the leaders of the English Church, having now learned the

circumstances of the case and grasped the full importance of the

triumph insured to the reforming party by his acceptance of Alexander,

were naturally alarmed lest he should be induced to change his mind.

Their anxiety was increased by the enfeebled state of their own

ranks. The struggles of Bishop Richard of London to clear off the

debts incurred in raising a fine required by Stephen at his election

seemed to have only aggravated the confusion of his affairs, which his

friends the bishops of Hereford and Lincoln were engaged in a desperate

effort to disentangle,[1653] while Richard himself, to complete his

misfortunes, was stricken helpless by paralysis.[1654] Henry of

Winchester had returned to his diocese, after nearly four years’

absence, in 1159;[1655] but by the spring of 1161 he again left the

Church of England to her fate and went back to his beloved Cluny.[1656]

The bishoprics of Chester (or Lichfield), Exeter and Worcester were

vacant;[1657] and, worst of all, Archbishop Theobald was dying.

[1652] Gilb. Foliot, Ep. cxlviii (as above).

[1653] Gilb. Foliot, Ep. cxx. (Giles, vol. i. p. 158).

[1654] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 304.

[1655] See above, p. 492, note 1{1611}.

[1656] R. Diceto, as above.

[1657] Walter of Lichfield died December 7, 1160 (Stubbs,

_Registr. Sac. Ang._, p. 30); Alfred of Worcester, July 31,

1160; and Robert of Exeter some time in the same year (_ib._ p.

31).

The primate’s letters during the last few months of his life shew him

calmly awaiting his call to rest, yet anxiously longing to be assured

of the future of those whom he was leaving behind, and to set in order

a few things that were wanting before he could depart altogether in

peace. Very touching are the expressions of his longing to “see the

face of the Lord’s anointed once again”--to welcome the king back to

his country and his home, safely removed from political temptations to

break away from the unity of the Church.[1658] And there was another

for whose return Theobald yearned more deeply still: his own long

absent archdeacon--“the first of my counsellors, nay, my only one,”

as he calls him, pleading earnestly with the king to let him come

home.[1659] For a moment, indeed, Theobald was on the point of being

left almost alone. Some rather obscure mischief-making in high places

had caused John of Salisbury to be visited with the king’s severe

displeasure; treated as a suspected criminal in England, forbidden to

go and clear himself in Normandy, John found his position so unbearable

that he contemplated taking refuge in France under the protection of

his old friend Abbot Peter of Celle.[1660] He seems, however, to have

ended by remaining in England under Theobald’s protection; before

the winter of 1160, at any rate, he was again at Canterbury, watching

over and tending the primate’s gradual decline;--almost overwhelmed

with “the care of all the churches,” which Theobald had transferred

to him;[1661]--characteristically finding relief from his anxieties

in correspondence with old friends, and in the composition of another

little philosophical treatise, called _Metalogicus_, whose chief

interest lies in the sketch which it contains of its author’s early

life.[1662] John’s disinterested affection and devoted services were

fully appreciated by Theobald;[1663] but they could not make up for

the absence of Thomas. Not only did the old man long to see his early

favourite once more; not only were there grave matters of diocesan

administration dependent on the archdeacon’s office and urgently

requiring his personal co-operation:[1664]--it was on far weightier

things than these that the archbishop desired to hold counsel with

Thomas. In the hands of Thomas, as chief adviser and minister of the

king, rested in no small degree the future of the English Church;

Theobald’s darling wish was that it should rest in his hands as primate

of all England.[1665]

[1658] Joh. Salisb. Epp. lxiii, lxiv,* lxiv** (Giles, vol. i.

pp. 77, 78, 80–82), all from Theobald to Henry.

[1659] “Qui [sc. Thomas] nobis unicus est et consilii nostri

primus.” Joh. Salisb. Ep. lxx. (_ib._ p. 93).

[1660] Joh. Salisb. Epp. lxi., xcvi., cviii., cxii., cxiii.,

cxv., cxxi. (_ib._ pp. 74, 75, 141–144, 158, 160, 161, 164,

165, 169, 170). See Demimuid, _Jean de Salisbury_, pp. 183–188.

[1661] Joh. Salisb. _Metalog._, prolog. (Giles, vol. v. pp. 8,

9), and l. iv. c. 42 (_ib._ p. 206).

[1662] _Ib._ l. ii. c. 10 (pp. 78–81).

[1663] Joh. Salisb. Ep. lxiv.* (Giles, vol. i. p. 80), from

Theobald to Henry.

[1664] Joh. Salisb. Epp. xlix., lxxi. (_ib._ pp. 51, 52, 94,

95), both from Theobald to Thomas. The initial in the address

of lxxi. is clearly wrong. See Robertson, _Becket_, vol. v. p.

11, note a.

[1665] This is distinctly stated by John of Salisbury:--

“Ille Theobaldus qui Christi præsidet aulæ,

Quam fidei matrem Cantia nostra colit,

Hunc successurum sibi sperat et orat, ut idem

Præsulis officium muniat atque locum.”

_Entheticus_, vv. 1293–1296 (Giles, vol. v. p. 280.)

Later writers dilate upon the startling contrast between Becket’s

character and policy as chancellor and as archbishop. That contrast

vanishes when we look at the chancellor through the eyes of the

two men who knew him best; and we find that the real contrast lies

between their view of him and that of the outside world which only

saw the surface of his life and could not fathom its inner depths.

Those who beheld him foremost in every military exercise and every

courtly pastime, far outdoing the king himself in lavish splendour

and fastidious refinement, devoting every faculty of mind and body

to the service and the pleasure of his royal friend:--those who saw

all this, and could only judge by what they saw, might well have

thought that for such a man to become the champion of the Church was a

dream to be realized only by miracle or by imposture. But Archbishop

Theobald and John of Salisbury had known his inmost soul, better

perhaps than he knew it himself, before ever he went to court; and

they knew that however startling his conduct there might look, he was

merely fulfilling in his own way the mission on which he had been sent

thither:--making himself all things to all men, if thereby he might by

any means influence the court and the king for good.[1666] Even his

suggestion of the scutage for the war of Toulouse did not seriously

shake their faith in him; they blamed him, but they believed that he

had erred in weakness, not in wilfulness.[1667] In the middle of the

war John dedicated the _Polycraticus_ to him as the one man about the

court to whom its follies and its faults could be criticized without

fear, because he had no part in them.[1668] Thomas himself does not

seem to have contemplated the possibility of removal from his present

sphere. It was not in his nature at any time to look far ahead; and

Henry seemed to find his attendance more indispensable than ever,

declaring in answer to Theobald’s intreaties and remonstrances that he

could not possibly spare him till peace was thoroughly restored.[1669]

[1666] Joh. Salisb. _Enthet._, vv. 1435–1440 (Giles, vol. v. p.

285).

[1667] Joh. Salisb. Ep. cxlv. (Giles, vol. i. pp. 223, 224).

[1668] Joh. Salisb. _Polycrat._, prolog. (Giles, vol. iii. p.

13).

[1669] Joh. Salisb. Ep. lxxviii. (Giles, vol. i. p. 106).

Thomas was in a strait. His first duty was to his dying spiritual

father; but he could not go against the king’s will without running

such a risk as Theobald would have been the first to disapprove. Thomas

himself therefore at last suggested that the archbishop should try to

move the king by summoning his truant archdeacon to return home at

once on pain of deprivation.[1670] Theobald, unable to reconcile the

contradictory letters of king and chancellor with the general reports

of their wonderful unanimity, steered a middle course between severity

and gentleness, from fear of bringing down the royal displeasure upon

his favourite, whom he yet half suspected of being in collusion with

the king. His secretary, John, had no such doubts; but he too was

urgent that by some means or other Thomas should come over before

the primate’s death.[1671] If he did go, it can only have been for a

flying visit; and there is no sign that he went at all. One thing he

did obtain for Theobald’s satisfaction: the appointment of Bartholomew

archdeacon of Exeter to the bishopric of that diocese.[1672] In April

Richard Peche, on whom the see of Chester had been conferred, was

consecrated at Canterbury by Walter of Rochester, the archbishop

being carried into the chapel to sanction by his presence the rite in

which he was too feeble to assist.[1673] By the hand of the faithful

secretary John he transmitted to King Henry his last solemn benediction

and farewell, and commended to the royal care the future of his church

and the choice of his successor.[1674] A few days later, on April 18,

1161, the good primate passed away.[1675]

[1670] _Ib._ (p. 105).

[1671] Joh. Salisb. Ep. lxxviii. (Giles, vol. i. pp. 105–107).

[1672] Joh. Salisb. Epp. lxx., lxxi., lxxviii. (as above,

pp. 94, 95, 106). On Bartholomew see also Ep. xc. (_ib._ pp.

132–136), where John addresses him as a personal friend.

[1673] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 168.

[1674] Joh. Salisb. Ep. liv. (Giles, vol. i. pp. 56–58). See

the archbishop’s will in Ep. lvii. (_ib._ pp. 60–62).

[1675] Gerv. Cant. as above.

_ERRATA_

Page 50, line 8 from foot, _insert_ “and” _before_ “bore.”

” 158, ” 5, _for_ “in” _read_ “by.”

” 268, ” 18, _dele_ “the following.”

” 274, ” 14 from foot, _for_ “two” _read_ “three.”

” 282, ” 14, _insert_ “and” _before_ “made.”

” 417, lines 3 and 4 from foot, _for_ “husband ... heiress”

_read_ “head.”

” 438, note 5, line 8, _for_ “David” _read_ “Henry of Scotland.”

END OF VOL. I.

_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, _Edinburgh_

INDEX

Aaron of Lincoln, ii. 487

Abelard, i. 480

Abingdon, its customs in 1185, ii. 475–477;

its fair, 481, 482.

_See_ Faricius

Achard, lord of Châlus, ii. 382, 383

Aclea, battle of, i. 102

Acre taken by the crusaders, ii. 319

Adaland, archbishop of Tours, i. 131, 132

Adalbert, count of Périgord, i. 145

Adam, Master, i. 482, 492, 493

Adam de Bruce, ii. 145

Adam de Port, ii. 162

Adela, first wife of Geoffrey Greygown, i. 121, 135

Adela, countess of Chalon-sur-Saône, second wife of Geoffrey Greygown,

i. 121, 134, 135, 199

Adela of France, daughter of Louis VII. and Eleanor, i. 445

Adela, daughter of Louis VII. and Constance, born, i. 468;

betrothed to Richard, ii. 62;

offered to John, 314;

marries the count of Ponthieu, 374

Adela of Blois, daughter of Theobald IV., third wife of Louis VII.,

i. 468

Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror, wife of Stephen-Henry of

Blois, i. 272;

her children, 273

Adela of Vendôme, daughter of Fulk Nerra and Elizabeth, i. 172

Adela, _see_ Hermengard

Adelaide or Blanche, mother of Queen Constance, i. 191, 192

Adelard of Bath, i. 94, 95

Adeliza of Louvain, second wife of Henry I., i. 94;

married to William of Aubigny, 298;

receives the Empress Matilda, i. 309

Ademar, count of Angoulême, ii. 316, 381, 398, 399

Ademar, viscount of Limoges, ii. 220, 230, 381, 382

Adrian IV., Pope, i. 476;

his relations with the English Church and the _Curia Theobaldi_,

477;

friendship with John of Salisbury, 485;

bull for conquest of Ireland, 431; ii. 95, 96, 182;

relations with Henry II., i. 497;

dies, 498.

_See_ Nicolas

Ælendis of Amboise, wife of Ingelger, i. 105, 131

Aerschot, _see_ Arnold

Agnes of Burgundy, her marriages, i. 174, 197–199;

kinship with Geoffrey Martel, 136, 175, 199;

divorced, 212

Agnes of Merania, ii. 395, 401

Agnes of Poitou, daughter of William IV., marries Emperor Henry III.,

i. 176

“Aids” from towns, i. 25, 29;

the Sheriff’s, ii. 15;

_pour fille marier_, 125, 126;

for the king’s ransom, 325

Aileach, kings of, _see_ Donell, Murtogh

Alan Barbetorte, count of Nantes and duke of Britanny, i. 115

Alan III., duke of Britanny, helps Herbert Wakedog against Avesgaud

and Fulk, i. 159, note 4{343};

marriage, 205;

death, 206, 211

Alan Fergant, duke of Britanny, his marriages, i. 328, note 4{930}

Alan, count of Nantes, i. 146

Alan of Richmond, i. 318, 319, 321

Albano, _see_ Henry

Alberic, bishop of Ostia, legate, i. 299, 300

Alberic, count of Gâtinais, _see_ Geoffrey

Albinus or Aubin, S., bishop of Angers, i. 98

Alcuin, i. 181

Aldgate, priory of Holy Trinity at, i. 66

Alençon, i. 208, 209;

treaty of, 217;

surrendered to Henry I., 233;

restored to William Talvas, 236;

won by Fulk V., _ib._

_See_ Robert, William

Alexander II., Pope, i. 220

Alexander III., Pope, i. 498;

acknowledged in France and England, 502;

grants the pall to Thomas, ii. 6;

meets Henry and Louis at Chouzy, 13;

holds a council at Tours, 14;

relation to the Becket quarrel, 29, 50–52;

condemns Constitutions of Clarendon, 42;

returns to Rome, 55;

appoints Thomas legate, 67;

sends commissioners to mediate between Henry and Thomas, 69, 70;

authorizes Roger of York to crown young Henry, 71;

forbids him, 72;

interdicts the Angevin dominions and excommunicates the murderers of

S. Thomas, 79;

sends envoys to Henry, 80

Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, i. 83, 94, 303, 304

Alfhun, master of S. Bartholomew’s hospital, i. 67

Alfonso II., king of Aragon, ii. 133;

helps Richard in Aquitaine, 230, 231

Alfonso VIII., king of Castille, marries Eleanor, daughter of

Henry II., ii. 60;

submits his quarrel with Navarre to Henry’s arbitration, 190

Alfonso Jordan, count of Toulouse, i. 455, 456, 458

Alfred of Beverley, ii. 445, 446

Alice of Maurienne betrothed to John Lackland, ii. 132–134;

dies, 184

Almeric of Montfort, i. 232, 236, 237, 238, 241

Almeric, viscount of Thouars, ii. 395, 427, 428

Alnwick, ii. 161

Amboise, i. 105, 106;

house of the Angevin counts at, 151;

Odo’s last attack on, 163.

_See_ Lisoy, Sulpice

Ambrières, i. 209, 211

Anagni, _see_ John

Andegavi, i. 97

Andely, Isle of, ii. 376, 377;

besieged by Philip, 411, 412;

John’s attempt to relieve it, 413–415;

taken, 416

Andely, Nouvel or Petit, ii. 377;

taken by Philip, 416;

fate of its townsfolk, 417, 418

_Andes_, i. 97, 130

Andrew of London, i. 363

Angareth, wife of William de Barri, ii. 453

Angers (Juliomagus), i. 98;

its position as a border-fortress, 101;

seized by northmen, 103;

relieved by Charles the Bald, _ib._, 104;

its aspect in tenth century, 108;

palace of the counts, 109, 132–134, 165;

of the bishops, 133;

fires at, _ib._, 152;

R. Diceto’s description of, 134;

Henry I. of France at, 213;

betrayed to Fulk Rechin, 220;

Urban II. at, 225;

burghers of, revolt against Fulk V., 234;

Fulk Nerra’s buildings at, 165;

abbeys of S. Aubin and S. Sergius at, 98;

our Lady of Charity (Ronceray), 165;

S. Nicolas, _ib._, 172, 214, 225, 228;

Henry II.’s buildings at, ii. 197, 199, 200;

Henry and his sons at, 224;

given up to Arthur, 389;

seized by his friends, 407;

retaken by John, 428;

bishops, _see_ Albinus, Dodo, Rainald, Raino, Ulger

Angevin March, the, i. 101;

its extent, 130

Angevins, _see_ Anjou

Angoulême, disputed succession, ii. 220.

_See_ Ademar, Isabel, Matilda, Vulgrin, William

Anjou, its geographical position and character, i. 97;

political position, 106, 107;

its character as a marchland, 107;

its golden age, 113;

sources of its history, 126, 127;

county of, “bipartite,” 128, 129, 130;

its extent, 97, 130;

dependence on the duchy of France, 130;

condition at Fulk Rechin’s death, 229;

placed under interdict, 242;

revolts of the barons, 266–267, 343;

rebels in (1173), ii. 136;

condition under Henry II., 194–196;

John acknowledged in, 388;

accepts Arthur, 389;

submits to Philip, 425;

counts of, their origin, i. 105;

character, 108;

palace at Angers, 109, 132–134, 165;

burial-place, 117, note 3{263};

claims upon Nantes, 116, 117;

upon Maine, i. 124, 140–142;

the demon-countess, 143;

house at Amboise, 151;

rivalry with Blois, 145, 150, 188, 271, 279;

extinction of the male line, 214;

decline after Martel’s death, 215, 218;

relations with France, 164; ii. 357;

growth of their power, 187, 188;

career in Palestine, 239;

their work for England, 490, 492.

_See_ Elias, Fulk, Geoffrey, Guy, Henry, Hermengard, Ingelger,

Lambert, Matilda, Odo, Robert, Sibyl, William

Annonain, Pont de l’, ii. 200, 201

Anselm, S., archbishop of Canterbury, i. 8, 9;

his struggle with Henry I., 15–18;

consecrates Malchus to Waterford, ii. 89;

dies, i. 63;

proposal to canonize him, ii. 14

Aquitaine, its relations with France, i. 123, 145, 383, 456, 457;

ii. 202;

extent and history, i. 454;

granted to Richard, ii. 62;

rebels in (1173), 136;

country and people, 201, 203–205;

its importance for England, 201;

relations with Henry II., 203, 205;

risings in, 58, 109, 220;

submits, 230;

proposal to give it to John, 233;

restored to Richard, 247.

_See_ Eleanor, Odo, Richard, William

_Aquitania_, i. 99, 454

Aragon, _see_ Alfonso, Ramirez, Petronilla

Arcelles, _see_ Saher

Archambald, brother of Sulpice of Amboise, i. 194

Architecture, English, in twelfth century, i. 55

Aremburg of Maine, betrothed to Geoffrey Martel II., i. 226;

marries Fulk V., 232;

dies, 245

Argentan, i. 373; ii. 79, 80

Aristotle, study of, in the middle ages, ii. 466, 467

Arles, _see_ Bertha, Burgundy, Provence, William

Armagh, synod at, ii. 105.

_See_ Malachi

Arms, Assize of, ii. 177, 178

Arnold, count of Aerschot, i. 362

Arnulf, bishop of Lisieux, i. 500;

persuades Henry II. to acknowledge Pope Alexander, 501;

advises Henry to appeal against Thomas, ii. 65;

rebels, 140

Arques, i. 342; ii. 405, 406, 425

Arthur, King, i. 33;

Henry II.’s correspondence with, ii. 57 note 2{226}, 447;

invention and translation of, 447, 448;

romances of, 448, 449

Arthur, son of Geoffrey and Constance of Britanny, born, ii. 245;

recognized by Richard as his heir, 295;

in custody of Philip, 370;

joins Richard, 374;

acknowledged in Anjou, Touraine and Maine, 389;

does homage to Philip, 390;

quarrels with Philip and goes to John, 394;

flies, 395;

does homage to John, 397;

knighted, 404;

meets the Lusignans at Tours, 405;

besieges Mirebeau, 406;

captured, _ib._;

imprisoned, 407;

death, 408, 429, 430;

its consequences, 409

Arundel, i. 10, 309.

_See_ William

Assize of Arms, ii. 177, 178;

of Clarendon, 122, 123;

of the Forest, 177;

Great, 122;

Henry Fitz-Aylwine’s, 485;

of Measures, 348;

of _Mort d’ancester_, 172;

of Northampton, 172, 173;

later developements, 338–340

Aubigny, _see_ William

Aubrey de Vere, i. 305

Augustinians, _see_ Canons

_Aulerci Cenomanni_, i. 201, 202

Aumale, _see_ William

Austin canons, _see_ Canons

Austria, _see_ Leopold

Autun, _see_ Lambert

Auvergne, its feudal relations, ii. 202, 203;

attacked by Philip, 252;

Richard gives up his claims upon, 361

Auxerre, Thomas Becket studies at, i. 379

Avesgaud, bishop of Le Mans, i. 159 note 4{343}, 204, 205

Avice of Gloucester betrothed to John Lackland, ii. 184;

married, 282;

divorced, 398

Avranches, ii. 81

Axholm, ii. 152, 155

Azay, conference at, ii. 263

Baggamore, i. 291

“Baille-hache,” i. 353, 354

Bailleul, _see_ Bernard, Jocelyn

Baldwin II., king of Jerusalem, i. 246

Baldwin III., king of Jerusalem, ii. 239

Baldwin IV., king of Jerusalem, ii. 239, 247

Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, takes the cross, ii. 248;

preaches the crusade in Wales, 249;

opposes John’s marriage, 282;

dies, 296, 297;

his proposed college, 437

Baldwin, count of Flanders, i. 235

Baldwin of Clare, i. 318, 320

Baldwin of Redvers, i. 284

Balliol, _see_ Bernard, Jocelyn

Ballon, ii. 394

Bamborough, i. 288

Bar, i. 167

Barcelona, county of, i. 462.

_See_ Raymond-Berengar

Barnwell priory, ii. 463

Barri, _see_ Gerald, William

Bartholomew, bishop of Exeter, i. 506

Bath, i. 35, 296.

_See_ Adelard

Bayeux, i. 11, 307.

_See_ Ralf

Baynard’s Castle, i. 44

Beauchamp, _see_ Miles

Beaugency, council at, i. 392

Beaulieu abbey (Hants), ii. 400

Beaulieu abbey (Touraine), i. 154, 155, 168

Beaumont, _see_ Hermengard

Beauvais, council at, i. 502

Becket, _see_ Gilbert, Rohesia, Thomas

Bedford, i. 320

Bela III., king of Hungary, marries Margaret of France, ii. 235

Bellême, house of, i. 204.

_See_ Robert

Benedictines contrasted with the Cistercians, i. 73

“Bene-work,” i. 57

Berengaria of Navarre, wife of Richard I., ii. 295, 296

Bermondsey, council at, i. 427

Bernard, S., abbot of Clairvaux, i. 70, 72;

his influence, 359;

relations with Rome, 360, 361;

with S. Malachi, ii. 94;

plans for England, i. 364;

pleads for Gerald of Montreuil, 388;

recommends John of Salisbury to Abp. Theobald, 483;

death, 400

Bernard de Balliol, ii. 145, 161

Berry, its feudal relations, ii. 202;

war in, 245, 251, 252

Bertha of Arles, widow of Odo I. of Blois, marries King Robert,

i. 149;

separated, _ib._

Bertha, daughter of Odo of Blois, wife of Alan of Britanny, i. 205;

of Hugh II. of Maine, 206

Bertha, daughter of Conan III. of Britanny, i. 449

Bertrada of Montfort, marries Fulk Rechin, i. 223, 224;

elopes with King Philip, 224;

suspected of contriving her stepson’s death, 228;

her policy, 232

Bertrand de Born, ii. 204, 205;

stirs up revolt in Aquitaine, 209, 220, 366;

his _sirvente_ for Toulouse, 211, 212;

sets the young king against Richard, 222;

submits, 231;

enters a monastery, 371

Bertrand, count of Toulouse and Tripoli, i. 455

Beverley, i. 30, 37, 38.

_See_ Alfred

Béziers, _see_ Raymond

Bigod, _see_ Hugh

Biota of Maine, i. 217, 218, 254

Bishops, English, their political position, i. 20;

appeal against Thomas, ii. 67.

_See_ Church

Blanche of Castille, daughter of Alfonso and Eleanor, ii. 395, 397

Blanche, _see_ Adelaide

Blanchelande, i. 223, 257

Bloet, _see_ Robert

Blois, counts of, their rivalry with Anjou, i. 145, 150, 188;

their character, 150.

_See_ Adela, Bertha, Henry, Odo, Stephen, Theobald, William

Blondel, ii. 324

Bodmin, gild at, ii. 469

“Bogis,” Peter, ii. 421, 422

Bohun, _see_ Humfrey

Bologna, university of, ii. 460;

S. Thomas at, i. 379

Bonmoulins, conference at, ii. 254, 255

Bonneville, i. 307;

council at, ii. 157

“Boon-work,” i. 57

Bordeaux, _see_ William

Born, _see_ Bertrand

Bosham, _see_ Herbert

Boulogne, _see_ Matilda, Matthew, Mary, William

Bourbon, _see_ Hermengard

Bourges, its feudal relations, ii. 202

Bourgthéroulde, battle of, i. 241

Brabantines, ii. 223

Breakspear, _see_ Nicolas

Breffny, ii. 97

Brenneville, battle of, i. 237

Brian Boroimhe, king of Munster, ii. 85

Brian Fitz-Count, i. 243, 328, 396;

his “book,” 369

Bridgenorth, sieges of, i. 10, 429, 430

Brissarthe, i. 103

Bristol, i. 33, 34, 295, 296;

its slave-trade, 35, ii. 87;

Stephen’s attempt on, i. 296, 297;

ill-doings of its garrison, 297;

Dermot of Leinster at, ii. 98, 99;

Henry II.’s charters to, 118

Britanny, i. 99;

its extent under Herispoë, 102 note 1{236}, 130;

civil wars in, 115;

Geoffrey Martel’s dealings with, 211, 212;

claimed by Eudo of Porhoët and Conan of Richmond, 449;

granted by Henry II. to Conan, 451;

Henry’s designs on, 452, 453;

conquered by Henry, ii. 57, 58;

rebels in (1173), 137;

barons of, appeal to Philip against John, 408.

_See_ Alan, Arthur, Conan, Constance, Eleanor, Geoffrey, Herispoë,

Hoel, Juhel, Nomenoë, Odo, Solomon

Broc, _see_ Ralf

Bruce, _see_ Adam, Robert

Brulon, _see_ Geoffrey

Burchard, count of Vendôme, i. 149, 189

Burgundy, kingdom of, granted to Richard I., ii. 331.

_See_ Hugh, Robert, Rudolf.

Cadoc, ii. 416, 421, 425

Cadwallader, brother of Owen of North Wales, i. 435

Caen, surrendered to Henry I., i. 11;

to Geoffrey Plantagenet, 307;

to Philip, ii. 424;

hospital, i. 471; ii. 198;

palace, ii. 196, 197.

_See_ Robert

_Cæsarodunum_, _see_ Tours

Cahors, i. 464, 466

Calixtus II., Pope, i. 237

Cambridge, ii. 462, 463

Camville, _see_ Gerard

Candé, i. 228

Canons, Austin or Augustinian, their origin, i. 64, 65;

character, 43, 66, 357;

in England, 66–69.

_See_ Aldgate, Barnwell, Carlisle, Chiche, Kirkham, Nostell, Oseney,

Oxford, Smithfield

Canons, White, i. 357

Canon law, its effects in England, ii. 18

Canterbury, canons of Laon visit, i. 30;

plot to kill Henry Fitz-Empress at, 403;

Thomas elected at, ii. 3;

privilege of the archbishop to crown the king, 62;

S. Thomas slain at, 79;

Henry II.’s penance at, 159;

Louis VII. at, 216;

Philip of Flanders at, 235;

Richard at, 328;

John crowned at, 400.

_See_ Anselm, Baldwin, Geoffrey, Hubert, John, Ralf, Richard, Roger,

Theobald, Thomas, Walter, William

Capua, _see_ Peter

_Caputii_, ii. 223, 224

Carcassonne, _see_ Raymond Trencavel

Carham, i. 286, 287, 292.

_See_ Wark

Carlisle, i. 36, 37;

S. Godric at, 76;

council at, 300;

Henry Fitz-Empress knighted at, 377;

meeting of Henry and Malcolm IV. at, 462;

besieged by William the Lion, ii. 153, 154;

meeting of William and Henry at, 237;

earldom of, granted to Henry of Scotland, i. 282;

claimed by Ralf of Chester, 314;

see of, 37, 69

Carrick, ii. 109, 111

Carthusians, ii. 435, 436 note 1{2171}

Carucage of 1194, ii. 328, 329, 342;

the Great, 352–354

Carucate, ii. 352

Cashel, metropolis of Munster, ii. 94;

council at, 115

Castille, _see_ Alfonso, Blanche, Constance, Eleanor

Castle Cary, i. 295, 298

Celestine II., Pope, i. 355, 356

Celestine III., Pope, ii. 303, 304, 312, 351

Celle, _see_ Peter

_Cenomanni_ (_Aulerci_), i. 201, 202

Cenomannia, _see_ Maine

Châlus, ii. 382, 385

Champagne, _see_ Henry, Odo, Stephen, Theobald

Chancellor, the, his office, i. 22, 419.

_See_ Geoffrey, Matthew, Nigel, Ralf, Robert, Roger, Waldric,

William

Charles the Bald, Emperor, i. 99, 102, 103, 105

Charles the Fat, king of West-Frankland and Emperor, i. 104

Charles the Simple, king of West-Frankland, i. 104

Charter of Henry I., i. 8;

Henry II., 427;

Stephen, 279, 284

Chartres, _see_ Blois

Château-Gaillard, ii. 375–380;

siege, 416–423;

John’s buildings at, 413, 421, 422

Châteaudun, i. 156.

_See_ Landry

Châteaulandon, _see_ Gâtinais

Château-du-Loir, i. 390.

_See_ Gervase

Châteauneuf-sur-Sarthe, i. 267

Châteauneuf, _see_ Tours

Châteauroux, ii. 211, 213, 245, 251

Châtillon, conference at, ii. 253

Chaumont-sur-Loire, i. 272 note 1{662}, 471

Chef-Boutonne, battle of, i. 215, 252, 253

Cherbourg, siege of, i. 340

Chester, i. 36;

its slave-trade, _ib._, ii. 87;

meeting of Henry II. and Malcolm IV. at, i. 438;

privileges granted to its burghers at Dublin, ii. 484;

earldom of, its peculiar character, i. 313, 314.

_See_ Hugh, Ralf

Chiche, priory of S. Osyth at, i. 68, 80

Chichester, _see_ Hilary

Chinon won by Fulk Nerra, i. 167;

Geoffrey the Bearded imprisoned at, 221;

bequeathed to Geoffrey Plantagenet II., 394, 444;

councils at, ii. 58, 64;

Henry II.’s buildings at, 197, 200;

treasury at, plundered by Richard, 246;

Henry II. at, 263, 267;

given up to John, 388, 395;

taken by Philip, 426

Chouzy, conference at, ii. 13

Christchurch or Twinham, i. 32

Chrodegang of Metz, rule of, i. 65

Chronicle, English, i. 81, 82

Church, English, under Henry I., i. 63;

the Augustinian revival, 64–69;

the Cistercian revival, 69–74;

new sees, 68, 69;

its national character, 80;

political position of the bishops, 20;

condition during the anarchy, 347–360;

relations with Rome, 378;

position at accession of Henry II., 474;

vacant sees (1161), 503;

Henry’s schemes of reform, ii. 17–20;

question of the “two swords,” _ib._ 22, 23;

quarrel of Henry and Thomas, its effects, 46–50;

course of the revival after Theobald’s death, 432;

condition in Henry II.’s later years, 433–438.

_See_ Clergy

Church, Irish, its early glory, ii. 82, 86;

condition in eleventh and twelfth centuries, 91–93;

settlement at Synod of Kells, 94;

submits to Henry II., 115

Circuits, _see_ Justices

Cirencester, i. 330, 333

Cistercians or White Monks, their origin, i. 69, 70;

in England, 71;

work and influence, 74, 358, 359;

quarrel with John, ii. 396, 399, 400;

fall, 434, 435.

_See_ Cîteaux, Clairvaux, Fountains, Newminster, Pontigny, Rievaux,

Tintern, Waverley

Cîteaux, i. 70

Clairvaux (abbey), i. 70; ii. 70, 94

Clairvaux (castle), ii. 222, 224

Clare, _see_ Baldwin, Gilbert, Isabel, Richard, Roger, Walter

Clarendon, council of, ii. 25–28, 44, 45;

Constitutions of, 26, 27;

condemned by the Pope, 42;

Assize of, 46, 122, 123

Cleobury, i. 429

Clergy, their position under Henry I., i. 63, 64;

regular and secular, 64, 65;

attitude in the civil war, 321;

criminal clerks, ii. 19.

_See_ Church

Clerkenwell, council at, ii. 241

Clontarf, battle of, ii. 85

Cogan, _see_ Miles

Coinage, debasement under Stephen, i. 293;

new, in 1149, 402 note 1{1204};

in 1158, 453

Colechurch, _see_ Peter

Cöln, gildhall of its citizens in London, ii. 485.

_See_ Reginald

Colombières, conference at, ii. 265, 266

Commune of Le Mans, i. 222;

Gloucester, ii. 469;

London, 309, 310, 344;

York, 469

Conan the Crooked, count of Rennes and duke of Britanny, i. 121;

his war with Geoffrey Greygown, 122, 137–139;

with Fulk the Black, 146–148

Conan II., duke of Britanny, i. 211, 212, 220

Conan III., duke of Britanny, i. 449

Conan, earl of Richmond, claims Britanny, i. 449;

duke, 451;

dies, ii. 80

Conquereux, first battle of, i. 122, 138;

second, 147, 148

Connaught invaded by Miles Cogan, ii. 184.

_See_ Roderic, Terence

Conrad III., Emperor, i. 361

Conrad, marquis of Montferrat, ii. 320, 321

Consilt, battle of, i. 436

Constables, _see_ Henry, Humfrey

Constance of Arles, wife of Robert I. of France, i. 155;

her parents, 190, 192;

her policy, 160, 164

Constance of Britanny, daughter of Conan IV., betrothed to Geoffrey,

son of Henry II., ii. 57;

married, 233;

marries Ralf of Chester, 369;

imprisoned, 370;

joins Arthur in Anjou, 389;

does homage to Philip, 390;

marries Guy of Thouars, 395;

dies, 404, note 4{2050}

Constance of Castille, second wife of Louis VII. of France, i. 446,

468

Constance of France, daughter of Louis VI., betrothed to Stephen’s son

Eustace, i. 384;

marries him, 394;

marries Raymond V. of Toulouse, 458

Constance, heiress of Sicily, ii. 319

Constantine, Donation of, ii. 95

Constitutions of Clarendon, ii. 26, 27;

condemned by the Pope, 42

Corbeil, _see_ William

Cork, its origin, ii. 83.

_See_ Dermot

Cornwall, _see_ Reginald, William

Coroners, their origin, ii. 338, 339

Councils, _see_ Argentan, Armagh, Beaugency, Beauvais, Bermondsey,

Bonneville, Carlisle, Cashel, Clarendon, Clerkenwell, Chinon,

Geddington, Gloucester, Inispatrick, Kells, Lisieux, London,

Neufmarché, Northampton, Nottingham, Oxford, Pavia, Pipewell,

Poitiers, Rathbreasil, Tours, Wallingford, Westminster,

Woodstock, Würzburg, York

Council, the Great, its character, i. 20

Courcy, _see_ John, William

Coutances, _see_ Walter

Coventry, _see_ Hugh

Cowton Moor, i. 289

Cricklade, i. 335

Cross, S., _see_ Winchester

Crowmarsh, i. 336, 396

Crown, pleas of the, ii. 337

Crusade, the second, i. 361–363;

in Spain, proposed by Louis VII. and Henry II., 453, 497;

the third, ii. 318–321

_Curia Regis_, _see_ King’s Court

Customs, “paternal,” i. 16;

royal, ii. 22, 26, 27;

of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, i. 37

Cyprus, ii. 317, 321

Danegeld, i. 25;

abolished, ii. 16, 44

David I., king of Scots, i. 95;

invades England, 282, 286, 287, 288;

defeated at Cowton Moor, 289–291;

treaties with Stephen, 282, 300;

joins the Empress in London, 323;

escapes from Winchester, 328;

knights Henry Fitz-Empress, 377;

dies, 399

David, prince of North-Wales, marries Henry II.’s sister Emma, ii. 181

David, bishop of S. David’s, ii. 454

David, brother of William of Scotland, ii. 140, 153;

claims on Huntingdon and Northampton, 154

David or Hugh, count of Maine, i. 124, 140

David’s, S., bishops of, _see_ David, Peter

Defensor of Le Mans, i. 202

Denis, S., _see_ Suger

Denmark, _see_ Ingebiorg

Déols, ii. 211

Dermot Mac-Carthy, king of Cork or South Munster, ii. 114

Dermot Mac-Maelnambo, king of Leinster, ii. 87, 88

Dermot Mac-Murrough, king of Leinster, ii. 97;

seeks aid of Henry II., 98;

returns to Ireland, 100;

successes in Ossory etc., 102;

summons Richard of Striguil, 103;

dies, 106

Dervorgil, wife of Tighernan O’Ruark, ii. 97

Devizes, i. 304, 321, 330

_Dialogus de Scaccario_, i. 26

Diceto, _see_ Ralf

Dinan, _see_ Joceas

Dodo, bishop of Angers, i. 109, 133

Dol, ii. 148

Domfront, i. 6, 208, 209

Donatus, bishop of Dublin, ii. 87

Doncaster, earldom of, granted to Henry of Scotland, i. 282

Donell O’Brien, king of Limerick or North Munster, ii. 102, 103, 109,

111, 114

Donell O’Lochlainn, king of Aileach, ii. 90

Donell Kavanagh, ii. 109, 112

Dorchester, _see_ Remigius

Dover, i. 295, 299;

chief mart of the wool trade, 52;

Geoffrey of York arrested at, ii. 305, 306.

_See_ Simon, William

Drausius, S., ii. 65

Dress, English, in twelfth century, i. 56

Dreux, _see_ Robert

Drogo of Nantes, son of Alan Barbetorte, i. 115, 116

Dublin, its origin, ii. 83;

metropolis of Leinster, 94;

taken by Dermot etc., 105;

attacked by wikings, 106;

blockaded by Roderic O’Conor, 109;

Henry II. at, 114, 115;

colonized by Henry, 118;

privileges of the Chester merchants at, 484.

_See_ Donatus, Godred, Gregory, Laurence, Patrick

Dudley, i. 295, 298

Dulcia of Gévaudan, i. 463

Dunstan, S., lives of, i. 80

Dunster, i. 295

Durham, S. Godric at, i. 77;

cathedral, 80;

treaty made at, 300;

customs of the bishop’s estates in 1183, ii. 478–480.

_See_ Hugh, Ralf, Simeon, William

Eadgyth or Edith, S., i. 33

Eadgyth, _see_ Matilda

Eadmer, i. 80, 88

Eadward the Confessor, king of England, his prophecy, i. 1;

his laws demanded by the citizens of London, 324

Eadwulf, prior of Nostell and confessor to Henry I., i. 68;

bishop of Carlisle, 69

Ealdhelm, S., i. 84, 86, 90;

life by Faricius, 81

Earldoms created by Stephen, i. 293

Edith, _see_ Eadgyth

Edmund’s, S., Henry II. at, i. 430;

massacre of Jews at, ii. 289;

its customs, 473, 474;

merchant-gild, 481;

dispute with Ely, 482, 483

Eleanor of Aquitaine, daughter of William IX., marries Louis VII. of

France, i. 383;

divorced, 392;

marries Henry, 393;

claims on Toulouse, 457, 458;

attempt to divorce her from Henry, ii. 61;

turns against him, 129;

imprisoned, 135;

Richard gives up Aquitaine to, 235;

regent for Richard, 273, 282;

arranges his marriage, 295, 296;

negotiates at Rome, 303;

returns to England, 314;

ravages Anjou, and does homage to Philip, 390;

goes to Spain, 396;

retires to Fontevraud, 405;

besieged in Mirebeau, 406;

dies, 426

Eleanor, daughter of Henry II., marries Alfonso of Castille, ii. 60,

189

Eleanor of Britanny, daughter of Geoffrey and Constance, ii. 244, 325,

371

Elias, count of Maine, i. 224, 225;

war with William Rufus, 225, 226;

Le Mans surrendered to, 227;

relations with Henry I., 11, 227, 233;

marriages, 255;

death, 233

Elias of Anjou, son of Fulk V., i. 343

Elias of Saint-Saëns, i. 235

Elizabeth of Hainaut, first wife of Philip Augustus, ii. 217, 234,

note 7{1115}

Elizabeth of Vendôme, first wife of Fulk Nerra, i. 152

Ely, see of, founded, i. 68;

quarrel with S. Edmund’s, ii. 482, 483.

_See_ Geoffrey, Nigel

Emma, daughter of Geoffrey Plantagenet, ii. 181

Emperors, _see_ Charles, Conrad, Frederic, Henry, Otto

Engelram of Trie, i. 467

England under the Angevins, i. 1–3;

relations with Rome, 15;

with Normandy, 23, 24;

invaded by Robert Curthose, 9;

journey of canons of Laon in, 30–35;

its peace under Henry I., 48;

Flemings settle in, 52;

town life in twelfth century, 54, 55;

rural life, 56–62;

revival under Henry I., 64–95;

religious revival during the anarchy, 356–358;

effects of the second Crusade, 362;

rebels in (1173), ii. 138, 139;

loyal barons in, 144, 145;

rebel castles in the north, 152;

royal strongholds, 153;

condition of rural population under the Angevins, 473–480;

fusion of races, 489;

growth of national feeling, 489.

_See_ Church, Literature, Towns, Trade.

_See also_ Eadward, Eleanor, Henry, John, Jane, Matilda, Richard,

Stephen, William

“English” and “French,” i. 24

“English” and “Normans,” different meanings of, i. 23, 24

English and Normans, fusion of, i. 24, 48, 49; ii. 489, 490

Englishry, presentment of, abolished, ii. 489

Essex, _see_ Geoffrey, Henry, William

Este, _see_ Hugh

Euclid, Adelard of Bath’s version of, ii. 95

Eudo, count of Porhoët, i. 449

Eugene III., Pope, i. 361;

deposes S. William and consecrates Henry Murdac, 366;

suspends Henry of Winchester and threatens Stephen, 368;

makes Abp. Theobald legate, 380;

forbids the crowning of Eustace, 391;

dies, 400

Eustace, son of Stephen, king of England, does homage to Louis VI.

for Normandy, i. 286;

knighted, 377;

goes to York, 380;

his prospects, 382;

goes to France, 383;

betrothed to Constance, 384;

attacks Normandy, 385;

receives homage, 391;

proposal to crown him, _ib._;

marriage, 394;

character, 398;

death, 399

Eustace Fitz-John, i. 72, 288

Eva, daughter of Dermot Mac-Murrough, ii. 104

Evreux ceded to Henry I., i. 11, 62;

betrayed to Almeric of Montfort, 236;

fired by Henry I., _ib._, 237;

granted to Almeric, 238;

taken by Philip Augustus, ii. 389;

ceded to him, 396.

_See_ Simon

Exchequer, court of, i. 21;

organization under Bishop Roger, 25–27;

headquarters, 31;

Black Book of, ii. 125;

the Norman Exchequer, 194, 197

Exeter, i. 32, 284.

_See_ Bartholomew

Eynesford, _see_ William

Falaise besieged by Henry I., i. 11;

attacked by Geoffrey Plantagenet, 307;

submits, 338;

treaties at, ii. 165, 166;

Arthur imprisoned at, 407;

submits to Philip, 424

Faricius, abbot of Abingdon, i. 68 note 1{187}, 81

Farringdon, i. 335

Faye, _see_ Ralf

Ferm of the shire, i. 25;

of towns, 29

Ferrers, _see_ Robert

Ferté-Bernard, La, conference at, ii. 257

Finchale, i. 77, 78

Fitz-Alan, _see_ William

Fitz-Aldhelm, _see_ William

Fitz-Aylwine, _see_ Henry

Fitz-Count, _see_ Brian, Richard

Fitz-David, _see_ Miles

Fitz-Duncan, _see_ William

Fitz-Gerald, _see_ Maurice

Fitz-John, _see_ Eustace, William

Fitz-Osbert, _see_ William

Fitz-Peter, _see_ Geoffrey, Simon

Fitz-Ralf, _see_ William

Fitz-Stephen, _see_ Robert, William

Fitz-Urse, _see_ Reginald

Flambard, _see_ Ralf

Flanders granted to William the Clito, i. 243;

trade with England, 30, 51, 52.

_See_ Baldwin, Matthew, Philip, Theodoric

Flèche, La, i. 222, 223, 256, 257

Flemings, their settlements in England and Wales, i. 52, 53;

in England under Stephen, 285;

plot to kill Henry, 403;

expelled, 427;

land in Suffolk, ii. 155;

at Hartlepool, 162

Fleury, abbey, i. 112

Florence, S., of Saumur, i. 162

Florence of Worcester, i. 82, 88, 89, 90

Foliot, _see_ Gilbert

Folkmoot of London, i. 45

Fontevraud, i. 248;

Henry II. buried at, ii. 270–272;

Richard buried at, ii. 386;

Eleanor at, 385, 405

Forest, assizes of, i. 285; ii. 171, 177, 356

Fornham, battle at, ii. 150

Foss-Dyke, i. 40

Foss-Way, i. 38

Fougères, _see_ Ralf

Fountains abbey, i. 71–73;

burnt, 366

France, duchy of, _see_ French

France, kingdom of, character of its early history, i. 144;

condition under Hugh Capet, 145;

under Louis VI., 230;

relations with Normandy, 24, 111;

with Toulouse, 457, 458;

with Rome, 501, 502;

union with Aquitaine, 383;

its developement, ii. 357–361.

_See_ Adela, Constance, Henry, Hugh, Louis, Margaret, Mary, Odo,

Philip, Robert

Frankland, West, northmen in, i. 100.

_See_ Charles, Lothar, Louis, Odo, Robert, Rudolf

Frederic Barbarossa, Emperor, supports antipope Victor IV., i. 498;

relations with Henry II., 499; ii. 55, 60, 238;

banishes Henry the Lion, 238, 257;

takes the cross, 256;

dies, 318

French, dukes of the, extent of their duchy, i. 103, 105;

underfiefs, 105;

claims upon Maine, 124.

_See_ Hugh, Odo, Robert

“French and English,” i. 24

Fréteval, ii. 73, 366

Fritheswith or Frideswide, S., i. 43.

_See_ Oxford

Fulk the Red, first count of Anjou, i. 106;

his neighbours, 109;

political position, 109, 110;

marriage, 110;

death, 113;

chronology of his life, 128, 129, 132

Fulk II. the Good, count of Anjou, i. 113;

his rule, 113, 115;

canon of S. Martin’s, 114;

letter to Louis IV., _ib._;

marriages, 116;

claims upon Nantes, _ib._;

death, 117;

vision of S. Martin, 118;

prophecy made to, _ib._;

its fulfilment, ii. 187, 373

Fulk III., the Black, count of Anjou, his mother, i. 136;

surnames, 143, note 2{294};

character, 144;

significance of his life, 145, 146, 169;

war with Conan of Rennes, 146, 147;

regains Anjou west of Mayenne, 148;

attacks Blois, 149;

rivalry with Odo II., 150;

castle-building, 151;

seizure of the water-ways, 151–152;

first marriage, 152;

first pilgrimage, 153, 192;

founds Beaulieu abbey, 153–155;

marries Hildegard, 154;

second pilgrimage, 156, 192–195;

his oath, 155;

contrives the death of Hugh of Beauvais, _ib._;

sacks Châteaudun, 156;

alliance with Maine, _ib._;

victory at Pontlevoy, 157, 158;

subdues Hugh of Maine, 159;

imprisons Herbert of Maine, _ib._;

invested with Saintes, _ib._, 173;

fortifies Montboyau, 161;

takes Saumur, 162;

besieges Montbazon, 163;

treaty with Odo, _ib._;

his policy and its success, 164;

makes peace between Constance and her son, _ib._;

joins King Henry’s expedition against Sens, _ib._;

his home, 165;

buildings at Angers, _ib._;

third pilgrimage, 166, 195, 196;

rebellion of his son, 166, 195;

wins Chinon, 167;

fourth pilgrimage, 167, 168;

quarrels with his son, 172, 175;

death, 168;

his tomb, _ib._;

his work, 169, 188

Fulk IV. Rechin, son of Geoffrey of Gâtinais and Hermengard of Anjou,

invested with Saintonge, i. 214;

his character, 219;

intrigues against his brother, _ib._;

wins Saumur and Angers, 220;

captures Geoffrey, _ib._;

does homage for Touraine, 221;

cedes Gâtinais to France, _ib._;

his rule, _ib._;

drives Geoffrey of Mayenne from Le Mans, 222;

besieges La Flèche, _ib._, 223, 257;

receives Robert’s homage for Maine, 223;

his marriages, 224;

excommunicated, _ib._;

absolved, 225;

quarrels with his eldest son, 227, 228;

dies, 229;

his reign and its results, _ib._;

his Angevin history, 127

Fulk V., count of Anjou, i. 229;

character and policy, 231, 232;

marries Aremburg, 232;

quarrel with Henry I. and alliance with France, 233;

homage to Henry, 234;

revolt of the burghers against, _ib._;

joins league against Henry, 235;

wins Alençon, 236;

treaty with Henry, _ib._;

goes to Jerusalem, 238;

quarrel with Henry, 240;

offers Maine to Clito, _ib._;

imprisons the legate’s envoys, 242;

marries Melisenda and becomes king of Jerusalem, 246–248;

dies, 361

Fulk the Gosling, count of Vendôme, i. 214

Gaimar, _see_ Geoffrey

Galloway, ii. 164, 179, 237

Gandrea, wife of Theobald III. of Blois, i. 255, 256

Gascony, Richard’s campaign in, ii. 214;

revolt in, 316.

_See_ Guy-Geoffrey, Odo

Gatian, S., bishop of Tours, i. 179

Gâtinais, county of, i. 129;

ceded to France, 221;

counts, 249, 250

Gaubert of Mantes, ii. 415

Geddington, council at, ii. 249

Gelduin of Saumur, i. 161, 162

Geoffrey I. Greygown, count of Anjou, i. 118;

his character, 119;

joins invasion of Lorraine, 120;

his marriages, 121, 134–136;

relations with Britanny, 121, 122, 137–139;

with Maine, 124, 140–142;

war with Poitou, 123, 137, 139;

wins Loudun, 123, 124, 139;

founds church of our Lady at Loches, 153;

dies at siege of Marson, 125

Geoffrey II. Martel, son of Fulk the Black, born, i. 154;

nursed at Loches, _ib._;

count of Vendôme, 172;

quarrel with Fulk, _ib._, 175;

marries Agnes, 136, 174, 197, 199;

war with Poitou, 173–175;

wins Saintonge, 174;

rebels, 166, 195, 196;

count of Anjou, 169;

his character, 170–172;

invested with Tours, 178;

besieges it, 184;

victory at Montlouis, 186;

treaty with Theobald, 187;

its significance, 188;

advocate of see of Le Mans, 205;

imprisons Bp. Gervase, 206;

master of Maine, _ib._;

excommunicated, _ib._;

revolts, 207;

wins Alençon and Domfront, 208;

challenges William and retires, 209;

war with Aquitaine, 210;

besieges Ambrières, 211;

dealings with Nantes, 211, 212;

marries Grecia, 212;

blockaded in Saumur, 213;

joins invasion of Normandy, _ib._, 214;

loses Vendôme, 214;

dies, _ib._;

break-up of his dominions, 215;

dispute over them, 218;

his heirs, 251–252

Geoffrey III. the Bearded, count of Anjou, i. 214;

victory at Chef-Boutonne, 215, 252, 253;

receives Robert’s homage for Maine, 217;

wrongs Marmoutier, 220;

captured by Fulk, _ib._;

imprisoned at Chinon, 221;

released and dies, 228

Geoffrey Martel II. of Anjou, son of Fulk Rechin, betrothed to

Aremburg of Maine, i. 226;

joins Henry I., 11;

quarrel with Fulk, 227, 228;

slain, 228

Geoffrey V. Plantagenet, son of Fulk V. and Aremburg, knighted by

Henry I., i. 244;

marriage, _ib._, 258–260;

his person and character, 261–265;

quarrels with his wife, 266;

with Henry, 269, 270;

invades Normandy, 281, 306, 307;

revolts against, 266, 267, 306, 343, 384;

summoned to England, 330;

treaty with Theobald, 337;

conquers Normandy, 338–342;

recalls his son, 343;

challenge to Stephen, 369;

cedes Normandy to his son, _ib._, 377;

his siege of Montreuil, 384, 386;

treatment of Gerald, 387;

cedes the Vexin to Louis, 388;

death, 389, 390;

burial, 390;

will, 444

Geoffrey of Anjou, second son of Geoffrey and Matilda, born, i. 373;

seeks to marry Eleanor, 393;

rebels against Henry, 394, 395, 444, 445;

count of Nantes, 449;

dies, _ib._

Geoffrey I., duke of Britanny, i. 137, 148

Geoffrey, fourth son of Henry II. and Eleanor, born, i. 453;

acknowledged heir to Britanny, ii. 58;

duke, 80;

revolts, 135;

knighted, 214;

joins young Henry, 225;

submits, 232;

marries Constance, 233;

dies, 243

Geoffrey, son of Henry II., bishop-elect of Lincoln, ii., 155;

takes Kinardferry etc., _ib._;

chancellor, 245;

secures castles of Anjou, 256;

with Henry at Le Mans, 258, 259, 260;

at La Frênaye, 262;

goes to Alençon, _ib._;

rejoins Henry, 263;

his devotion to Henry, 268;

appointed archbishop of York, 274, 278, 302;

early life, 301, 302;

character, 304;

consecrated, 305;

returns to England, _ib._;

arrested, _ib._;

released, 306;

joins John, 307;

enthroned, 313;

quarrel with Hugh of Durham, _ib._, 316;

buys sheriffdom of Yorkshire, 330;

driven from England, 335;

redeems the Lincoln church-plate, 487

Geoffrey (Alberic), count of Gâtinais, marries Hermengard of Anjou,

i. 214, 249, 250

Geoffrey of Brulon, ii. 259

Geoffrey of Chaumont, i. 272, note 1{662}

Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, justiciar, ii. 355, 356;

earl of Essex, 393

Geoffrey Gaimar, ii. 446

Geoffrey of Lusignan, ii. 59 note 1{235}, 136, 250, 405

Geoffrey of Mandeville, i. 334, 335

Geoffrey de Mandeville, earl of Essex, ii. 124

Geoffrey of Mayenne, i. 211;

holds Le Mans for Walter of Mantes, 218;

submits to William, _ib._;

revolts, 221, 222, 224

Geoffrey of Monmouth, ii. 445, 448

Geoffrey of Rancogne, ii. 214, 250, 367

Geoffrey Ridel, archdeacon of Canterbury, ii. 30, 77;

vice-chancellor, 142;

bishop of Ely, 176;

dies, 277

Geoffrey Talbot, i. 294, 296

Gerald de Barri (“Giraldus Cambrensis”), ii. 452–460

Gerald of Montreuil-Bellay, i. 384, 385, 386, 388

Geraldines, the, ii. 108, 183

Gerard de Camville, ii. 280, 298, 299, 300, 329

Gerard la Pucelle, ii. 449

Gerberga, wife of Fulk the Good, i. 116, note 1{258}

Germany, English trade with, under the Angevins, ii. 484, 485

Gersendis of Maine, i. 221, 254–256

Gervase of Château-du-Loir, bishop of Le Mans, i. 205;

imprisoned by Geoffrey Martel, 206;

released, _ib._;

archbishop of Reims, 207

_Gesta Consulum Andegavensium_, its authorship and character, i. 126,

127

Gévaudan, _see_ Dulcia

Gilbert of Sempringham, S., i. 359, 360

Gilbert Becket, i. 50

Gilbert Foliot, abbot of Gloucester, i. 369, 370, 493;

bishop of Hereford, 371, 495;

his earlier history, 492, 493;

career as abbot, 494, 495;

relations with Abp. Theobald and with Henry II., 495, 496;

with Roger of Pont-l’Evêque, 478, 479;

character, 496, 497;

remarks on Thomas’s election, ii. 3, 6;

translated to London, 13, 14;

relations with Thomas, 13, 31, 49;

at council of Northampton, 35, 36, 37, 39;

his attitude in the Becket quarrel, 47–49;

his share in the bishops’ appeal, 67;

excommunicated, 70;

denies the primate’s jurisdiction, _ib._;

absolved, 72;

dies, 277

Gilbert, bishop of Limerick, ii. 92;

legate in Ireland, _ib._, 93

Gilbert de Clare, earl of Pembroke, i. 377, 395, 396; ii. 99

Gilds, i. 29;

under Henry II. and Richard, ii. 469, 470;

leather-sellers’, i. 30;

merchant, i. 29, 36, 40, 43; ii. 481;

weavers’, i. 30, 52; ii. 481

Gildhall, i. 129;

of German merchants, ii. 485

Gilles, St., _see_ Raymond

Giraldus Cambrensis, _see_ Gerald

Gisors, i. 231, 234, 343;

meeting of Henry I. and Pope Calixtus at, 237, 238;

of Louis VII. and Henry II. at, ii. 148, 165;

claimed by Philip, 232, 236

Glanville, _see_ Hervey, Ralf

Glastonbury, invention of Arthur at, ii. 447, 448

Gleeman, the, i. 90

Gloucester, i. 35, 36;

abbey and city, 493, 494;

council at, ii. 170;

commune at, 469.

_See_ Avice, Gilbert, Miles, Philip, Robert, William

Godfrey de Lucy, bishop of Winchester, ii. 277, 288

Godfrey, abbot of Malmesbury, i. 84, 85

Godred, king of Dublin, ii. 88

Godric, S., i. 74–79

“Goliath, Bishop,” ii. 452

Gouleton, ii. 396, 402

Gournay, ii. 403.

_See_ Hugh

Graçay, ii. 213, 361

Grandmesnil, _see_ Ivo, Petronilla

Grandmont, ii. 58, 226;

order of, 435

Gratian, his work on canon law, i. 378

Grecia of Montreuil, second wife of Geoffrey Martel, i. 212

Gregory, archbishop of Dublin, ii. 94

Gregory, bishop of Tours, i. 181

Gué-St.-Rémy, ii. 244

Guerech, bishop and count of Nantes, i. 121, 122, 146

Guimund, prior of S. Frideswide’s, Oxford, i. 43

“Guirribecs,” i. 306

Guy of Anjou (son of Fulk the Red), bishop of Soissons, i. 112, 113

Guy of Anjou, son of Fulk the Good, i. 119

Guy of Crema, _see_ Paschal

Guy, viscount of Limoges, ii. 407

Guy of Lusignan, ii. 59 note 1{235}, 136;

king of Jerusalem, 247;

Cyprus, 317, 321;

ally of Richard, 318, 320

Guy of Thouars, ii. 395, 424

Guy-Geoffrey, count of Gascony, i. 176, 212.

_See_ William VII. of Aquitaine

Hackington, college at, ii. 437

Hainaut, _see_ Elizabeth

Hameline, earl of Warren, son of Geoffrey Plantagenet, ii. 40, 144

Hamo de Massey, ii. 139