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.     

The Bruce dynasty,Becket and Scottish pilgrimage to Canterbury,c.1178-c.1404

In 1187 Alfonso VIII of Castile and his queen, Leonor of England, founded a Cistercian nunnery, Santa Maria Regalis de Las Huelgas, on the outskirts of Burgos. Despite the clear allegiance of the foundation to the Cistercians from the outset, the idea that the abbey was inspired by and even modelled on the nunnery of Fontevraud in Anjou is an encroaching commonplace in accounts of medieval Spanish history and art history around 1200. This study re-evaluates the arguments for that perception and puts forward a different reading of the early years of Las Huelgas, not as a foreign importation but as a peculiarly Iberian, even Castilian, institution.     

The Bruce dynasty,Becket and Scottish pilgrimage to Canterbury, c.1178-c.1404

This paper seeks to question the assumption that the outbreak of prolonged Anglo-Scottish war in 1296 brought an abrupt decline in Scottish interest in St Thomas, his shrine at Canterbury and the great abbey dedicated to him in Scotland at Arbroath. A survey of Scottish devotion to Becket after 1296 reveals that in fact the interest of the monarchy and certain sections of Scottish society intensified. For the two Bruce kings, devotion to Becket developed a double importance although in very different political contexts. For Robert I (1306-29) St Thomas, Canterbury and Arbroath served as both a focus of personal faith and of strategic observances in the struggle against England. However, for David II (1329-71), captured in battle against England in 1346, such observances also became a central feature of attempts to persuade his subjects of the value of closer Anglo-Scottish relations: David's reign was marked by a surge in pilgrimage to Canterbury by Scottish royals, nobles, clerics and ordinary lay folk. Had David lived longer and/or produced a Bruce heir, continued Scottish devotion to Becket might have formed the basis of far more amicable Anglo-Scottish relations than would be the norm under Stewart kings of Scots after 1371.     

Thomas Fitzherbert's reason of state

Thomas Fitzherbert's two-part Treatise concerning Policy and Religion (1606, 1610) was a rebuttal of unidentified Machiavellians, statists or politikes and their politics and policies. The work was apparently still well-regarded in the following century. Fitzherbert's objections to ‘statism’ were principally religious, and he himself thought the providentialist case against it unanswerable. But for those who did not share his convictions, he attempted to undermine Machiavellism on its own ground. Like both ‘Machiavellians’ and their opponents, he argued by inference from historical examples, but with a particularly copious knowledge of historians ancient, medieval and modern to draw on. Equally, however, he deployed the principles of speculative (principally Aristotelian) ‘political science,’ as well as theology and jurisprudence, to demonstrate that the kind of knowledge that Machiavellians required to guarantee the success of their ‘reason of state’ policies was simply unobtainable. A particularly striking strategy (perhaps modelled on that of his mentor and friend Robert Persons) was Fitzherbert's attempt to demonstrate, on the Machiavellians’ own premises, that they advocated policies which were very likely to fail, and would be visited with divine punishments sooner as well as later, whereas policies that were compatible with faith and morals were also much more likely to succeed, even judged in purely human and ‘statist’ terms.