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.     

Facing the past: Walter Benjamin's antitheses1

This paper examines some of the work of Walter Benjamin in the philosophy of history. It suggests that his work, including the famous “Theses on the Philosophy of History” contains important insights of interest to those engaged in reflections on history. Benjamin was concerned to argue against what he saw as the distorting effect of certain views in the philosophy of history and a belief in progress which he saw as having damaging practical effects. In this he was quite right. However, the importance of his work lay primarily not in philosophy of history in an analytical sense of the term, but in the substantive sense, that is, the sense in which claims are made concerning the directionality of the historical process. Benjamin sought to show that in this sense of the term, it was important to avoid belief in the necessity of progress. However, I argue that he overstated his case in his determination to avoid a philosophy of history committed to belief in progress. His implicit claim that a merely negative philosophy of history is possible proves to be an illusion because (whether negative or positive), a philosophy of history makes presuppositions about the directionality of history (or its absence) which go beyond the empirical evidence.     

The farming out of manors: a new look at the evidence from Canterbury cathedral priory

In the mid-thirteenth century the cathedral priory of Christ Church, Canterbury, was still farming out its manors for either a fixed money rent or a composite bundle of goods and money, but using its own monks as farmers. Although Prior Thomas Ringmere stopped this practice at a time of great indebtedness, his main concern was to improve monastic discipline by keeping the monks within the confines of the cloister. The adoption of direct management did not immediately lead to any increase in revenues. After the Black Death, Christ Church, like other monastic houses, was very unsure of what path to take and switched back and forth between farming out its manors and keeping them in hand, before finally moving over to wholesale leasing in the 1390s. As earlier, the form of management, whether direct or leasing, did not make any significant difference to the amount of money available to the central treasurers. What may have finally persuaded the monks of the advantages of leasing was the willingness of some local lords, who served as farmers, to lend the convent money and then repay themselves out of their farm.     

Household appointments and dismissals at the court of Louis XIII

This article looks at the impact on court office-holding ofone of the most celebrated royal favourites of the seventeenthcentury, Charles d'Albert, duc de Luynes, who was in favourfrom 1617 until 1622. During these five years, he was responsiblefor appointing forty-two noble men and women to high officein the households of Louis XIII, his queen Anne of Austria andhis brother Gaston d'Orléans. They were his dependentsappointed for their personal loyalty and political usefulnessto him, including influencing opinions, providing information,acting as messengers and go-betweens and helping him to getrid of rivals and enemies. Half of them left office within fiveyears of his death in December 1621, and three-quarters withinten years, a much higher departure rate than in the generalhousehold population. More than half of them were dismissedby Richelieu after he came to power in 1624 because he loathedLuynes and regarded his household appointees as untrustworthy.There is clearly a need for more studies of the political tiesand activities of royal household members during this period.     

The farming out of manors: a new look at the evidence from Canterbury cathedral priory

In the mid-thirteenth century the cathedral priory of Christ Church, Canterbury, was still farming out its manors for either a fixed money rent or a composite bundle of goods and money, but using its own monks as farmers. Although Prior Thomas Ringmere stopped this practice at a time of great indebtedness, his main concern was to improve monastic discipline by keeping the monks within the confines of the cloister. The adoption of direct management did not immediately lead to any increase in revenues. After the Black Death, Christ Church, like other monastic houses, was very unsure of what path to take and switched back and forth between farming out its manors and keeping them in hand, before finally moving over to wholesale leasing in the 1390s. As earlier, the form of management, whether direct or leasing, did not make any significant difference to the amount of money available to the central treasurers. What may have finally persuaded the monks of the advantages of leasing was the willingness of some local lords, who served as farmers, to lend the convent money and then repay themselves out of their farm.     

Walter Taylor and the history of American archaeology

Walter Taylor’s place in the history of archaeology is well secured. Not only is he noted for his uncredited anticipation of the theoretical and methodological innovations of the 1960s and 1970s in his infamous book A Study of Archeology, but he is also well-known for committing professional suicide by short-sightedly attacking numerous key figures in American archaeology for their methodological shortfalls, and yet never publishing a report utilizing his controversial method. Although these statements have inundated the historical literature on American archaeology, they are received wisdom rather than the reality of Taylor’s contributions to the field. Many aspects of Taylor’s conjunctive approach were at odds with the stated aims of processual archaeology. Although Taylor did not live up to his critics’ (or his own) demands for a grand display of his approach, he did on several occasions demonstrate its potential. The irony of Taylor in the history of archaeology is not that he was uncredited for his prescience or that his attacks on the archaeological establishment were a naïve failure; but rather that he receives too much credit for what he didn’t do, and not enough for what he did.