“Many a mile have I gone, and many did I walk,
But never saw a holier man than Richard of Dundalk”.
_Old Couplet._(32)
§ I. Introduction.
In all the habits of social life many of the early English settlers in
Ireland soon became more Irish than the Irish themselves. In the vigorous
tenacity of their attachment to the Catholic religion some of these
families have ever remained as Irish as the Irish themselves. Having made
our people their people, they became sharers in our grace of faith, so as
to keep ever since our God their God. To the Talbots and the Plunkets we
owe two great archbishops, whose figures stand out prominently even among
the illustrious band of prelates who fought the good fight in the days of
the persecutors. And as our Church reckons Anglo-Irish bishops among her
martyrs, so among her doctors who guarded and enriched the sacred deposit
of faith we may count Anglo-Irish prelates equally illustrious: and of
these the subject of the present notice offers a distinguished example. A
variety of great qualities, rarely united in one individual, gives a
singular attractiveness to the history of Richard Fitz-Ralph, Archbishop
of Armagh. Extraordinary holiness of life—of which proof remains not only
in the popular couplet at the head of this paper, and in the appellation
of St. Richard of Dundalk, by which he was known for centuries, but in the
stronger evidence of a Pontifical commission issued by Boniface IX. to
examine into his miracles with a view to his canonization;—rare
intellectual power exhibited in every branch of theology—erudition both
various and profound—eloquence of a high order, to which his sermons still
extant bear testimony; all these are qualities which, especially when
exercised under the trying vicissitudes of a great controversy within the
Church, could not fail to constitute a remarkable career. Of this career
we now propose to lay before our readers an outline as perfect as the
materials within our reach will allow us to sketch. We do so with the hope
that others, in whom better skill is backed by richer materials, may be
led to supplement from their store our slender contribution to the history
of an illustrious successor of St. Patrick.
§ II. The Fitz-Ralph Family: Richard’s Parentage.
Ralph, founder of the Fitz-Ralph family, held forty-nine lordships in
England in the reign of William the Conqueror. From this stem various
branches issued, and several families of Fitz-Ralphs were to be found in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. To which of these Richard belongs is
a matter of uncertainty. Prince, in his anxiety to enrol him among the
worthies of Devonshire, refers him to the Fitz-Ralphs of Widecomb in the
Moor, who, about the time of Edward I., changed their names and residence,
henceforth calling themselves Stillingford, from their new abode near
Exeter. But this is mere guess work. It is far more probable, in our
opinion, that he belonged to the Derbyshire Fitz-Ralphs, of which family
the Frechevilles and Musards of Staveley(33) became in after times the
representatives. Our reasons are these. Ralph (Musard) Baron Staveley, a
direct descendant of Ralph, the founder of the family, had a daughter
Margaret, who, on his death, became co-heir with her brother Nicholas and
her sister Isabella. Margaret married an Irishman, named in the pedigree
Joannes de Hibernia, and died in the year 1308. Three children were born
of this marriage—John de Hibernia, Ralph, and Alicia. Thus, we actually
have the heir of the Fitz-Ralphs born of an Irish father. As his mother’s
heir John de Hibernia was owner of the third part of the manor of
Staveley, and this property he gave and granted to Ralph de Frecheville,
The evidence taken at an inquisition held at Staveley, in 1316, asserts
that the said John “had no other lands in England”. This would lead us to
conjecture that he had lands in Ireland, and after this time the pedigree
no longer adds the words _de Hibernia_ to any of the Fitz-Ralphs. Now, it
is certain that Richard must have been born about this time; and although
the precise year of his birth is not known, the date of his promotion to
Armagh would allow him to have been the son of this John, or of his
brother Ralph. But, setting conjecture aside, one thing is proved beyond a
doubt, viz., that about the time of Richard’s birth the Fitz-Ralphs of
Staveley had a close connection with Ireland.
§ III. His Birthplace.
An almost universal tradition fixes his birthplace at Dundalk. According
to Wadding, the tradition was, that his parents came to Dundalk from the
well known territory in the north of Ireland, called _Ruta_, or the Route.
Wood states that almost all writers—_auctores pene omnes_—make him an
Irishman. This tradition is also clearly expressed in the appellation of
Richard of Dundalk, by which he was universally known. It was the custom
of the age to designate men by the name of their native place. Of this we
have an excellent example in the name of John Baconthorpius, or of
Baconthorpe, who, as we shall see, was Fitz-Ralph’s professor at Oxford.
Cotton, in his _Fasti_, tells us that “it has been contended, with some
appearance of truth, that this prelate was born in England”. He here
alludes to the opinion maintained by Rev. John Prince,(34) who considers
it probable that our prelate was born in Devonshire, adding, “some tell
us, that he was an Irishman, and born in the town of Dundalk in that
kingdom, and hence called by the name of Richard of Dundalk. Whereas, it
is possible he might be so denominated, not from his birth, but from his
long residence, or his doing some eminent exploit there, or from some
other like occasion there. Others say he was an Englishman, which is not
improbable, for these reasons: that he had his education at Oxford; that
he was chosen commissary of that university; that he was made archdeacon
of Lichfield; and that he was encouraged against the friars by English
bishops”.
These are the only arguments alleged to prove that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph
was born in England. They are of no weight whatever when compared with the
mass of testimony on the other side. 1.—The name of Richard of Dundalk
could not have arisen from the primate’s long residence in that town, for
he resided in his diocese only for about nine years, and certainly did not
spend all his time in Dundalk. 2.—Nor is it told in history that he
performed any eminent exploit here. 3.—It does not make against the Irish
origin of Archbishop Fitz-Ralph that he had his education at Oxford. It is
well known that at the beginning of the fourteenth century there were very
many Irishmen at Oxford. Bale gives the names of several most
distinguished Irishmen who flourished there at that period—in 1310,
Malachias Minorita; in 1320, David O’Buge of Kildare; in 1330, Gilbert
Urgalius, who, _consueto Hibernorum hominum more_, went to Oxford after
completing his rudimentary studies. Besides, among the _nations_ whose
contests in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries so often made Oxford
anything but a quiet abode of learning, the Irish had their place and
generally went with the Southernmen. And the Archbishop himself, in his
discourse at Avignon, relates how he had sent to Oxford four priests of
the diocese of Armagh. 4.—That the appointment of Richard as chancellor or
vice-chancellor of Oxford does not necessarily suppose him to have been an
Englishman, will appear from what we have to say farther on concerning
this office. 5—Nor was it strange that an Irish ecclesiastic should hold
benefices in England. Clement VI., in 1351, granted to John de Briane,
Dean of St. Patrick’s at Dublin, who held at the same time the parish of
Hatfield in Lincoln, permission to retain his benefices during his five
years’ course at a University.(35)
Summing up the evidence, we have, on the one hand, the almost universal
tradition that our prelate was born in Dundalk; we have an established
connexion between the Derbyshire Fitz-Ralphs and Ireland about the time of
his birth. On the other hand, against his Irish origin, we have no
argument stronger than mere probabilities, which, when examined, are found
to have no substance. We conclude, therefore, that Richard Fitz-Ralph was
born in Dundalk. This conclusion receives some confirmation from a
narrative in Fox,(36) where we are told that a copy of the entire Bible,
translated into Irish by Archbishop Fitz-Ralph, was found, many years
after his death, in the walls of his cathedral. Now, if this story be
true, and it is indirectly confirmed by Usher, it is plain that the
Archbishop must have been born in Ireland. It is hard to believe that nine
years, broken as they were by provincial visitations and other labours,
would have been sufficient to make an English prelate master of a language
so difficult as the Irish, and that to the degree of perfection requisite
for a translation of the sacred text.
§ IV. His Studies And University Career.
Richard Fitz-Ralph went to Oxford, and was entered of Balliol College
(then recently founded), where he remained until he had taken his degree
of Master of Arts. The statutes in force at that time required him to
leave Balliol. As soon as he received his degree in Arts, he accordingly
passed to what is now known as University College, but which after 1332
was called _Magna Aula Universitatis_, and which owed its origin to the
liberality of William de Durham, who dying in 1249, bequeathed a sum of
money for the benefit of ten or twelve poor masters. By a decision of
congregation in 1280, four masters, “whoever might be considered fittest
for promotion in Holy Church”, were to be chosen to enjoy these funds,
each master being entitled to fifty shillings sterling yearly for his
maintenance. The same document enjoins that the abovementioned masters,
living together, shall attend lectures on theology, and shall be able, at
the same time, to hear lectures on the decrees and decretals. As to their
way of living and learning, they shall behave as they are directed by some
fit and experienced men appointed by the Chancellor.(37)
His residence at Balliol gave him special opportunities to become
proficient in arts. The college had been endowed to enable sixteen
scholars to study in arts, each scholar receiving a yearly revenue of
twenty-seven marks. His residence in University College enabled him to
cultivate theology. Thus all the materials of knowledge then existing were
brought within his reach. At that date the course of studies had changed a
good deal from the ancient narrow limits of the Trivium(38) and
Quadrivium.(39) Out of the logic of the Trivium the new philosophy was
developed, and the sciences of the Quadrivium became mere preparatory
studies to the Facultas Artium.(40) It is mentioned by Tanner and others,
that Richard Fitz-Ralph attended the theological lectures of the famous
Carmelite John Baconthorpe. This remarkable man was one of the most
illustrious scholars of the day, and exercised a powerful influence on the
mind of his pupil. It has been observed, that when the latter had become
Archbishop of Armagh, and had entered upon his controversy with the
friars, he ever showed a marked affection for the Carmelites.
The early half of the fourteenth century was a season of much agitation in
philosophical and theological opinions. The ancient struggle between the
Nominalists and the Realists entered at this time upon a new phase. The
Realism of St. Thomas of Aquin was opposed by the Nominalism of Occam, and
Fitz-Ralph found Oxford still agitated by the controversies that master
had excited. The Franciscans were generally Nominalists; the secular
clergy, as a body, were Realists. The entire university was divided into
two opposite camps. The “Northern men” declared for Realism, the “Southern
men” for Nominalism.(41) Fitz-Ralph became a leading Realist, and the
marked divergence between his views and those of the Franciscans was
probably not without its influence on the controversy to which hereafter
we shall have occasion to refer.
How deep and how extensive were the studies of Fitz-Ralph shall best be
learned from the list of his works at the conclusion of this notice. It
will be enough for our present purpose to state here, that his labours
cover almost the entire field of Catholic controversy with the Greeks and
Armenians, as well as (by anticipation) with the Reformers. A remarkable
element in his writings, and one the presence of which reveals the form of
scepticism current in his age, is the contribution he has made to the
literature of the Christian Demonstration. He defends the Christian
religion against the Jews by contrasting the sacraments and ceremonies of
the New Law with those of the Jewish dispensation. This line of defence
was called for by the altered method of attack which the Jews about the
twelfth century began to employ against the Church. In the early ages the
controversy turned upon the question whether our Lord was the Messiah. In
the middle ages they had recourse to the scriptural defence of their own
position, and calumnious attacks on Christianity. It is not strange that
he should have combated Mahometanism. It should be borne in mind that the
age of Frederic II. had witnessed the birth of a strange admiration for
Mahometan literature; that Pope Gregory IX. had fought against this novel
danger; that against the Arabian Averroes and his philosophy St. Thomas of
Aquin himself had entered the lists. It is not surprising therefore that
the archbishop’s zeal urged him to provide a remedy for the evil by
proving that the Saracenic law itself confirmed the authority of the books
of the Old and New Testament.
Before 1333 he proceeded to his degree of Doctor of Theology.
§ V. His Preferments In England.
Ware(42) declares that Dr. Fitz-Ralph was made Chancellor of Oxford
University in 1333. On the other hand, Wood asserts in his history that no
record of this chancellorship exists either in the University or the
Episcopal archives. However, the same Wood admits him to have been
Commissarius of the university in that year, or, as we may describe it,
vice-chancellor. Is there any way by which these different statements may
be reconciled? It appears to us that an attentive consideration of the
various phases through which the office of chancellor of Oxford has passed
will supply a very probable solution of the difficulty.
First of all, we must bear in mind that Oxford was not at that time the
seat of a bishop, but was included within the diocese of Lincoln. Next, we
should consider that even during the course of the fourteenth century the
chancellor was an episcopal officer, not an academical one; he represented
the ordinary of the diocese, and from him drew all his jurisdiction and
authority. As the university grew in importance and extent, the position
of the chancellor, as a power extern to the university, became untenable,
and by degrees, the nomination to the office passed from the hands of the
bishop to those of the academicians.(43) For a time the bishop struggled
to retain at least the right of confirming the election, but in the course
of the fourteenth century even this claim was abandoned. The period
1300-1350 forms, therefore, a peculiar epoch in the history of the Oxford
chancellors, marking as it does the transition period between the
chancellors who were episcopal officers, and the chancellors elected by
and out of the university. Now this transition was not effected suddenly,
but almost by way of compromise: there was no sharp separation between the
two classes of chancellors; the one gradually merged into the other. We
should therefore expect to find some confusion in the list of chancellors;
the bishop’s chancellor being considered as the legitimate chancellor by
those who sided with the bishop, whereas the academicians would naturally
look up to their own nominee. Now it is quite certain that Richard
Fitz-Ralph, master of theology, was appointed Chancellor of Lincoln on the
6th of July, 1333, for the appointment is entered under that date on the
register of Bishop Burghers. We may conclude, therefore, either that as
Chancellor of Lincoln he was Chancellor of the University, as the
episcopal officers before him had been, or that his appointment having
fallen upon a time of some dispute about the nomination of the chancellor,
he was styled _commissarius_ only, or that the story of his Oxford
chancellorship took its rise from the fact that he was chancellor of the
bishop in whose diocese Oxford was situated. According to some authors, he
was also Archdeacon of Chester. But he was certainly Dean of Lichfield, at
least from 1337, and held this office until his appointment to Armagh.
Wood relates that shortly before his own time the first window on the
northern side of the choir of Lichfield cathedral contained a picture of
Richard Fitz-Ralph clothed in his sacerdotal vestments, and above the
following inscription: _Richardus Radulphi filius, Armachanus, Hujus
Ecclesiae Decanus._
(TO BE CONTINUED.)