St Anselm and the English investiture controversy reconsidered

The Investiture Controversy in England has generally been viewed as a two-sided contest between king and pope. But in reality the struggle was between three parties — king, pope, and primate. St Anselm, devoted to his duties as God's steward of his office and its privileges, worked against both King Henry I and Pope Paschal II to bring into reality his idea of the proper status of the primate of all Britain. Anselm had a vision of a political model which he conceived as God's ‘right order’ in England, and all his efforts were directed toward fulfilling this vision.The Investiture Contest may be divided into two parts. The first phase began when Anselm was thwarted by Henry I's duplicity in the archbishop's attempt to force the king to accept the decrees of Rome at the height of a political crisis. Anselm may have seen these decrees as beneficial to the Canterbury primacy. From 1101 to 1103, Anselm wavered between supporting either party completely, meanwhile securing from Paschal all the most important privileges for the primacy of Canterbury. Each time Paschal refused to grant a dispensation for Henry, as Anselm requested, he granted Anselm a privilege for the primacy. Thus Anselm's vision of the primate as almost a patriarch of another world, nearly independent of the pope, was fulfilled by 1103.At this point, Anselm abandoned his vacillation between king and pope, and worked seemingly on behalf of Paschal, but in reality on behalf of the Canterbury primacy. During this second phase, Anselm's political adroitness becomes clear by a correlation, never before made, between the church-state controversy and Henry's campaign to conquer Normandy. By careful maneuvering and skilful propaganda, Anselm forced Henry to choose between submitting to the investiture decree or failing in his attempt to conquer Normandy. At the settlement, a compromise was worked out, Henry conceding on investitures, and Paschal conceding on homage. But investiture was only secondary to Anselm. He ended the dispute not when Henry submitted on investitures, but only when he had gained from Henry concessions which made the primate almost a co-ruler with the king, as his political vision demanded. Only after a public reconcilliation with his archbishop did Henry feel free to complete the Norman campaign.Thus the Investiture Controversy was a three-way struggle. Both king and pope compromised, each giving up some of their goals. But Anselm emerged from the contest having won nearly all his political objectives.     

William Rufus: myth and reality

The commonly accepted view of the reign of William II (1087–1100) is a political myth, primarily the work of Eadmer, who depicted the king as the villain against whom St Anselm strove to impose the revolutionary Gregorian reform programme in England. Henry I, moreover, denigrated his brother's regime as a cover for furthering William's harsh but constructive policies. Eadmer's writings were quarried by subsequent twelfth-century writers in the mainstream of the English monastic historical tradition, who added their own literary embellishments. Nineteenth-century historians uncritically accepted these accounts and Henry I's gloss on the reign. They then contributed moral judgements of their own, which passed without qualification into modern secondary works.This paper re-evaluates William II's political and governmental achievements, and his ecclesiastical policy. His character is considered in the light of recent work on twelfth-century intellectual and psychological attitudes, and the accounts of more favourable chroniclers. It is concluded that the king developed his father's strong policies in every direction with considerable success, making possible the more publicized but essentially imitative work of Henry I. William's expansion and consolidation of national frontiers, his legal and financial developments, and his maintenance of royal control over the Church are revealed under the distortions of ecclesiastical and Henrician historiography.     

St Anselm of Canterbury: the philosopher-saint as politician

From the beginning of Anselm's career as abbot of Bec he was a shrewd and skilful politician. Eadmer describes him as using a certain ‘holy guile’, having great psychological insight, and using methods of kindly persuasion supplemented by logical argument to gain his ends.This pattern is reflected in the church-state controversies in England. Anselm outlined this method to his successor at Bec, showing him an effective way of advancing and enriching his monastery.Anselm had a definite program of reform for the English church. From the beginning he had a vision of the archbishop of Canterbury as primate of Britain, a co-ruler of the kingdom. Anselm also claimed certain specific rights: to recognize and contact the papacy; to hold councils for the reform of the church; to receive the archbishopric free from simony; to hold the lands of Canterbury free from the king's control or from extraordinary taxes; and to ban lay investitute.During his rule Anselm accomplished all these goals, one by one, by taking advantage of times when the kings were faced with political crises and pressing his claims just then. He acted shrewdly, at times with ‘holy guile’, at times with skilful negotiation, but always aware of the potent effect of public opinion. Thus Anselm reflected the growing concept of raison d'état in the Anglo Norman state, and thereby used his raison d'église more effectively.     

St Anselm of Canterbury: the philosopher-saint as politician

From the beginning of Anselm's career as abbot of Bec he was a shrewd and skilful politician. Eadmer describes him as using a certain ‘holy guile’, having great psychological insight, and using methods of kindly persuasion supplemented by logical argument to gain his ends.This pattern is reflected in the church-state controversies in England. Anselm outlined this method to his successor at Bec, showing him an effective way of advancing and enriching his monastery.Anselm had a definite program of reform for the English church. From the beginning he had a vision of the archbishop of Canterbury as primate of Britain, a co-ruler of the kingdom. Anselm also claimed certain specific rights: to recognize and contact the papacy; to hold councils for the reform of the church; to receive the archbishopric free from simony; to hold the lands of Canterbury free from the king's control or from extraordinary taxes; and to ban lay investitute.During his rule Anselm accomplished all these goals, one by one, by taking advantage of times when the kings were faced with political crises and pressing his claims just then. He acted shrewdly, at times with ‘holy guile’, at times with skilful negotiation, but always aware of the potent effect of public opinion. Thus Anselm reflected the growing concept of raison d'état in the Anglo Norman state, and thereby used his raison d'église more effectively.     

Richard of Cornwall's candidature for the German throne and the christmas 1256 parliament at Westminster

Some months after the death of the German king William of Holland in 1256, Richard of Cornwall, with obvious help from King Henry III (but not initially with the support of the pope), decided to enter the contest for the German throne. His methods, including the use of his funds on a large scale, are well known, but Richard and Henry also contrived to deceive the English magnates about their plans. They told the barons at a meeting at the end of the year 1256 that Richard had already been elected king (which was manifestly untrue) and that only their consent was missing. This was a device to foil the expected resistance by the magnates, who were already opposing Henry's increasingly costly Sicilian adventure.     

The Anglo-Norman succession debate of II26: Prelude to Stephen's anarchy

On 1 January 1127 Henry 1 made his magnates and prelates swear to accept his daughter Maud as heiress to England and Normandy. In the months prior to the oathtaking, certain identifiable curiales ～ Robert earl of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, and David king of Scots - seem to have been supporting Maud's candidacy. Others, including Roger bishop of Salisbury and his kinsmen, appear to have opposed her and perhaps to have supported Henry's nephew, William Clito, as heir.The factions resurfaced at Henry's death in December 1135. William Clito having died in the meantime, Roger of Salisbury became one of Stephen of Blois' earliest and strongest supporters. Maud's former friends, Robert of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count, were temporarily immobilized by a violent break between Henry and Maud in the closing months of Henry's reign, but they, along with King David, subsequently became Maud's most active and consistent champions.The two factions differed neither in socioeconomic background nor in ideology. It was not a question of old baronial families on one side and newly-risen curiales on the other, but simply of differing personal allegiances originating in the divisions among Henry's courtiers in 1126.     

Richard of Cornwall's candidature for the German throne and the christmas 1256 parliament at Westminster

Some months after the death of the German king William of Holland in 1256, Richard of Cornwall, with obvious help from King Henry III (but not initially with the support of the pope), decided to enter the contest for the German throne. His methods, including the use of his funds on a large scale, are well known, but Richard and Henry also contrived to deceive the English magnates about their plans. They told the barons at a meeting at the end of the year 1256 that Richard had already been elected king (which was manifestly untrue) and that only their consent was missing. This was a device to foil the expected resistance by the magnates, who were already opposing Henry's increasingly costly Sicilian adventure.     

Celestine V,Boniface VIII and the authority of parliament

During the troubled pontificates of Celestine V and Boniface VIII, publicists argued that because general councils of the Church represented the whole congregation of the faithful, they had the power to remove a pope found guilty of crimes ranging from obdurate heresy to personal insufficiency. In 1327, Isabella and Mortimer based much of the justification for their deposition of Edward II on these newly popularized ideas. Nevertheless, since these theories were for them very much rationalizations of the moment, they were quickly abandoned, with the result that Edward III's parliaments look little different from Edward I's, though in more mature form. In 1399, however, Henry IV was forced to rely on the precedent of 1327 when supplanting Richard II. Because the then-prevalent conciliar theories generated by the great schism gave even greater immediacy to the ones which had explained that first deposition, and because Henry's approach was many times to be imitated in the depositions of the fifteenth century, parliament began to take on the character of a corpus mysticum, one which could speak with the authority not just of the king, but of God and the realm. This background may shed light on some of the reasons for Henry VIII's success in using parliamentary statute to break with Rome, and it may even have contributed to some of the parliamentary positions expressed during the seventeenth-century struggles with the crown.     

The coronation charter of 1100: a postponement of decision. What did not happen in Henry I's reign

The charter issued by Henry I on his coronation in 1100 has been regarded since Stubb's time as a prefigurement of Magna Carta, since it restricted the rights of the monarch. It has also been seen as a cunning political manoeuvre designed to strengthen the shaky position of Henry I during the tense days and months following the death of William Rufus. The present article does not set out to undermine either of these two positions. The charter played a part in the discussions between the king, the Church and the barons in 1135, 1154 and 1213. There was no such discussion in 1100 when the charter was formulated. At that earlier date the role of the monarch was predominant, as it had been since 1066. As yet the Church and the barons had no active part to play.     

Archbishop Scrope's Manifesto of 1405: ‘naïve nonsense’ or reflections of political reality?

In 1405 Richard Scrope, archbishop of York, rebelled against Henry IV and was executed. He has been seen by historians as being easily led into rebelling against the king by other rebels and also as rather a fool. Although it survives in no contemporary copy, a Manifesto containing 10 charges against Henry's government was attributed to the archbishop by contemporaries. Contemporary chroniclers and historians alike have disparaged this document as having little to do with political reality and as such reflects the simple-mindedness of its author; Archbishop Scrope. This article discusses six of the charges (grouped in pairs) contained in various versions of the Manifesto that centre on Henry IV's alleged abuses of government, specifically: 1 and 2) that the king had oppressively taxed both his lay and clerical subjects; 3 and 4) that the king had replaced experienced government officials with new men who had lined their pockets and that the king had subverted the appointment to the office of sheriff; finally 5 and 6) that he subverted the selection process for knights of the shire and subverted their rights to ‘act freely’ in parliament. The article demonstrates that the archbishop's charges were not ‘naïve nonsense’ but reflected political reality and resonated with those who read them.     

The Pepys Apocalypse (Cambridge,Magdalene College,MS Pepys 1803) and the readership of religious women

In 1405 Richard Scrope, archbishop of York, rebelled against Henry IV and was executed. He has been seen by historians as being easily led into rebelling against the king by other rebels and also as rather a fool. Although it survives in no contemporary copy, a Manifesto containing 10 charges against Henry's government was attributed to the archbishop by contemporaries. Contemporary chroniclers and historians alike have disparaged this document as having little to do with political reality and as such reflects the simple-mindedness of its author; Archbishop Scrope. This article discusses six of the charges (grouped in pairs) contained in various versions of the Manifesto that centre on Henry IV's alleged abuses of government, specifically: 1 and 2) that the king had oppressively taxed both his lay and clerical subjects; 3 and 4) that the king had replaced experienced government officials with new men who had lined their pockets and that the king had subverted the appointment to the office of sheriff; finally 5 and 6) that he subverted the selection process for knights of the shire and subverted their rights to ‘act freely’ in parliament. The article demonstrates that the archbishop's charges were not ‘naïve nonsense’ but reflected political reality and resonated with those who read them.     

Criticism of Henry II's expedition to Ireland in William of Canterbury's miracles of St Thomas Becket

The long collection of miracles of St Thomas Becket written by William, a monk of Christ Church, Canterbury, between 1172 and c.1179 is, like many other examples of the genre, a rich source for attitudes towards sanctity, relics, and pilgrimage. A far more unusual feature of William's text is the author's criticism of the recent English presence in Ireland. William's comments on this score amount to a loaded stretching of the normal parameters of his textual medium, resulting in an evaluative engagement with current affairs of the sort that we would more normally associate with reflective forms of history-writing. William's criticism focused in particular upon the expedition to Ireland undertaken by King Henry II (October 1171–April 1172), inverting the very rhetoric that Henry had used to justify his Irish adventure. William was not himself Irish, as has sometimes been supposed, nor was he registering his institution's frustrations about its exclusion from the new ecclesiastical order in Ireland, as might be implied by the traditional but questionable ‘Canterbury plot’ interpretation of the much-debated papal bull Laudabiliter. Instead, William was skilfully engaging with current debates about the rectitude of Henry II's Irish expedition, and more broadly contesting emerging prejudices about England's ‘uncultivated’ neighbours, in order to effect a subtle critique of the king's involvement in Becket's murder.     

Charles of Anjou,Pope Gregory X and the crown of Jerusalem

This article seeks to dispel the popular myth that Pope Gregory X (1271–6) wanted to change the government of the kingdom of Jerusalem by putting Charles of Anjou on its throne through the purchase of the claim of Maria of Antioch. A study of the Angevin chancery records – little used by crusade historians – demonstrates that Charles had an interest and influence in the kingdom before Gregory became pope. An examination of Gregory's papal registers shows that he consistently treated Hugh of Lusignan as king of Jerusalem and that the pope had no desire for anything to disrupt the peace in Christendom that he deemed necessary for his crusade.     

Orderic Vitalis and Rober of Bellême

The Norman monastic chronicler Orderic Vitalis's treatment of Robert of Bellême, the twelfth-century Anglo-Norman magnate and overmighty subject of the English kings, William II and Henry I, is discussed and compared with evidence from other sources. A contrast is drawn between Orderic's eagerness to portray Robert as a villain and his apparent acceptance of the misdemeanors of Henry I, who is presented favourably because of the period of relative peace following Henry's deposition in 1106 of his brother, the Norman duke, Robert Curthose. Orderic downplays the work of Henry's predecessors, Robert Curthose and William II, and in Robert of Bellême creates a counterweight to his picture of the just king Henry I. His negative assessment of all Robert's actions therefore needs to be adjusted and it is suggested that other modern interpretations based on his work may need similar re-examination and revision.     

Simon de Montfort,Earl of Leicester,and the utility of sanctity in thirteenth-century England

Almost immediately after his death, Simon de Montfort, the leader of the Barons' Revolt against Henry III, was revered as a saint. Despite the received historical opinion that his cult was local, furtive, and brief, it actually received support throughout England, from the noble and clerical ranks as well as from the peasantry, and lasted into the reign of Edward I. The manifestations of Earl Simon's cult reveal that his revolt was popular as well as noble, that even illegal cults could be profitable for their home shrines, in this case the abbey of Evesham, and that sanctifying a rebel leader was an effective way of justifying both the continuation of a revolt and sympathy for the defeated rebels, in this case the Disinherited. On the hagiographical level, Montfort's cult shows the incredibly rich diversity of expression of devotion in medieval cults, and the more practical concerns with advertisement and profit. On the political level, the cult proves once again that the king did not control all means of political discourse. The merger of political and religious authority, the importance of which has been often demonstrated in studies of the king's touch and the laudes ceremonials, affected rebel leaders as well as kings.     

Duke Richard of York's intentions in I450 and the origins of the wars of the roses

The return of Richard, duke of York, from Ireland in 1450 represents his first overt attempt to remedy certain grievances. His criticism of the Lancastrian régime eventually brought him leadership in the Wars of the Roses. The grivances of 1450 are contained in two bills addressed to Henry VI. At first, the duke harboured personal grievances — fear of attainder and having his claim to the throne bypassed, resentment at his counsel being ignored and his debts unpaid — which were exaguerated by unsertainty and the king's readiness to believe the worst. Richards apreciation of the widespread hostility towards the government and the disarray of the king's Household after Suffolk's murder enabled him to convert grievances into public criticisms in his second bill. He encouraged investigations into official oppression in southeastern England, and his supporters may have stimulated risings there to demonstrate support for him. Compared with Henry's nervous reaction to York's first bill, he firmly checkmated the pretensions of the second, and Yorks achievement in 1450 was limited. But he had taken a first step towards appealing for support by converting personal grievances into a general bid for sympathy. Whether he aid so for personal or public motives — or both — remains an open question.     

Celestine V,Boniface VIII and the authority of parliament

During the troubled pontificates of Celestine V and Boniface VIII, publicists argued that because general councils of the Church represented the whole congregation of the faithful, they had the power to remove a pope found guilty of crimes ranging from obdurate heresy to personal insufficiency. In 1327, Isabella and Mortimer based much of the justification for their deposition of Edward II on these newly popularized ideas. Nevertheless, since these theories were for them very much rationalizations of the moment, they were quickly abandoned, with the result that Edward III's parliaments look little different from Edward I's, though in more mature form. In 1399, however, Henry IV was forced to rely on the precedent of 1327 when supplanting Richard II. Because the then-prevalent conciliar theories generated by the great schism gave even greater immediacy to the ones which had explained that first deposition, and because Henry's approach was many times to be imitated in the depositions of the fifteenth century, parliament began to take on the character of a corpus mysticum, one which could speak with the authority not just of the king, but of God and the realm. This background may shed light on some of the reasons for Henry VIII's success in using parliamentary statute to break with Rome, and it may even have contributed to some of the parliamentary positions expressed during the seventeenth-century struggles with the crown.