Chapter 13
No aspect of the career of William the Conqueror is of more interest – or of more importance – than the part he played in the history of the western Church between 1066 and 1087. His policy in this respect thus invites particular attention, but if his personal contribution to the ecclesiastical life of his age is here to be appraised, it must be viewed in its totality and placed in its contemporary setting. Thus the enduring results of his work on the Church in England cannot be explained without reference to the earlier and continuing ecclesiastical development of Normandy; and neither the Church in Normandy nor the Church in England at this time can be properly envisaged unless they are also to be seen as integral parts of the Church in Europe. William's victory in 1066 had brought together under a single temporal domination the three ecclesiastical provinces of Rouen, Canterbury, and York; and also two parts of the western Church which in Normandy and England had hitherto responded to different influences. The Conquest was thus to alter the political balance of western Christendom which at this same time was itself under papal direction, passing through a crisis.
The ecclesiastical consequences of the Norman conquest were thus to be widespread, and need to be considered against a background of conflicting loyalties. Between 1066 and 1087 the ecclesiastical influence on the province of Rouen was in England brought to bear on a Church which cherished its own individual traditions. Again, William, as king, showed himself resolute not only to retain his royal rights in the Church, but also to discharge what he conceived to be his ecclesiastical duties. And he was to do this at a time when the papacy, sponsoring the reforms which had already permeated the province of Rouen, was also seeking to free the Church from secular control. Finally (as must be emphasized), this same Norman king of England, and all his subjects both Norman and English, lived in a world in which the Church was recognized as an all-embracing unit whose claims to spiritual authority were unquestioned. For William, as for his contemporaries, the conception of Christendom was neither a pious aspiration nor a threat to national independence. It was a factor of practical politics.
These contrasting loyalties, sincerely held and courageously sustained, colour the ecclesiastical politics of this age, and the inherent interest of William's policy in respect of them is further enhanced if reference be made to the chief personalities it was to involve. Thus the papacy which since 1049 had emerged from political eclipse was, during these years, occupied by two men who could not be ignored. Alexander II (1061–1073) was a vigorous pontiff whose activities were widespread, whilst Gregory VII (1073–1086) must on all grounds be adjudged to have been one of the most dominating personalities ever to occupy the chair of Saint Peter. Again, in 1066 the archbishopric of Rouen passed to John, bishop of Avranches, a cadet of the Norman ducal house whose previous career had been distinguished, and who was to leave his mark, both on the politics and on the literature of his age.1 Finally, in 1070, as an inevitable consequence of the Conquest, the schismatic Stigand was deposed from the see of Canterbury, and there replaced by Lanfranc, now abbot of Saint Stephen's, Caen, who had already by his previous career at Le Bec, and elsewhere, won for himself an acknowledged reputation as one of the outstanding ecclesiastical figures of the age. He had previously refused the see of Rouen, and his appointment to Canterbury was undoubtedly due in the first instance to William himself.2 Henceforth, their association was to be so close that it is always difficult, and sometimes impossible, to decide whether the policy, which, in England, they jointly implemented, was inspired by the one or the other.
The great king was thus matched by a great archbishop.3 When he reached Canterbury, Lanfranc was not less than fifty-five years of age, and famed as a lawyer, a controversialist, a diplomatist, and a teacher. His greatest achievements were, however, still to come. His character is best displayed in his acts, but his letters, which are models of their kind, reveal something of the man who wrote them.4 Concise and decisive, they are informed with authority, and inspired with sound judgment. Though tenderness and affection are not lacking, these letters more frequently convey advice with prudence, admonition with severity, or commands with force. An authoritative and intensely able man stands revealed, a prelate in power who with all his knowledge of the management of men was himself sincere. Nor does Lanfranc's public life, taken as a whole, belie this impression. His monastic vocation was undoubtedly genuine, and there is no reason to question the sincerity of his expressed reluctance to be archbishop. Nevertheless, after 1070, though still a monk and a friend of monks, it was as a statesman that he shone. Contemporaries were impressed by his sagacity, his political sense, and his capacity for leadership. He could ruthlessly chastise political rebels or contumacious monks,5 but his sense of justice was constant, as was his devotion to the Church. He could adapt his policy to changing circumstances, but it was pursued with inflexible purpose. His association with William the Conqueror was thus in the conditions of the time to entail far-reaching results in England. ‘It may be doubted’ – remarks a modern authority – ‘whether of all the eminent men who filled the see of Canterbury between Augustine and Cranmer any individual save only Theodore of Tarsus had a greater share than Lanfranc in organizing the Church in this country.’6
The policy which in conjunction with the king he was to implement in England depended directly upon the development of the Church in Normandy, which has been noted as having taken place during the Conqueror's Norman reign. The special character of the province of Rouen had already been fixed before the Norman conquest, and when in 1066 its influence was extended overseas by force of arms it underwent no essential change. The Norman episcopate, for example, continued throughout most of this period to be dominated by men who had risen to power before the Conquest. The appointment of John of Avranches to Rouen in 1067 merely gave greater scope to the activities of a notable prelate; and the bishoprics of Bayeux and Coutances were held until after the death of the Conqueror by Odo and Geoffrey, though both of these extraordinary men now devoted most of their energies to the secular affairs of England. Hugh of Lisieux was to survive, honoured and respected, until 1072, and was succeeded by Gilbert Maminot of Courbépine, a member of a substantial Norman family of the middle rank, whilst on the death of Yves, the bishopric of Sées, wrested at last from the family of Bellême, passed to a brother of Eudo the steward.7 The appointment of Baldwin, one of the duke's chaplains, to Évreux in 1066 was an innovation inspired by English example, but Baldwin's successor in 1071 was another man of illustrious Norman connexions.8 In short, after 1066 as before, the Norman episcopate was overwhelmingly representative of the Norman secular aristocracy.9 William Bonne Ame, himself, who in 1079 passed from the cloister to become an admirable archbishop of Rouen was a nephew of Gerard Fleitel, and the son of a former bishop of Sées.10
A similar continuity can be seen in the monastic life which continued to supply the greatest element of distinction to the Norman church. There were, it is true, fewer new foundations, and not all the appointments to abbacies were happy. But some of the great figures from the past survived. John of Fécamp did not end his astonishing career until 1079, and Le Bec had still to reach the zenith of its greatness under Saint Anselm. And there were some other monasteries in the province which were not wholly unworthy to be associated even with Le Bec. The picture painted by Ordericus Vitalis of Saint-Évroul as a home of piety and learning in his time is both convincing and attractive. In short, though there were to be both episcopal and monastic scandals in Normandy between 1066 and 1087, as elsewhere in the Church, and though reforms were both needed and undertaken, it remains true that the high prestige of the province of Rouen was enhanced rather than diminished during these years. The bishops carried on an efficient administration for the benefit of their sees. Conciliar activity was, as will be seen, vigorous and constant. And the continuing momentum of that astonishing monastic revival which had marked the reign of William as duke may be judged by the fact that between 1066 and 1087 Norman monasteries were to give no less than twenty-two abbots and five bishops to England.11
The province of Rouen was not, however, unaffected by the Conquest. Its material resources were much increased. There is no doubt, for instance, that both Odo and Geoffrey brought wealth from England to enrich their sees, and before 1086 more than twenty Norman monasteries, of both ducal and private foundation, had received land in twenty-five English shires.12 Some of these endowments were small, but the English lands acquired, for instance, by Fécamp, Grestain, Saint-Wandrille, Saint-Évroul, Troarn, and the two houses at Caen were in bulk considerable. At the same time the ecclesiastical power of the secular ruler over the Norman church was fortified, in being now exercised by a consecrated king. In Normandy every appointment to a bishopric between 1066 and 1087 was directly dependent on William's decision, and throughout all the canons of the council of Lillebonne in 1080 there runs the assertion of the ultimate authority of the duke who had become a king.13 In England the situation was the same, though the circumstances were very different. Ecclesiastical appointments remained in the king's hands, and the prelacy which he was to establish in the land he conquered was brought ever more closely under his control by being subject to the feudal obligations he was to impose.
In England, moreover, the king's ecclesiastical dominance was to be exercised in such close association with Lanfranc that the essential preliminary to the policy which they were jointly to base on Norman example was the assertion by Lanfranc of primacy over the whole Church in England. The famous controversy between Canterbury and York which this assertion was to involve began in fact within four years of the battle of Hastings.14 In May 1070 the king gave the archbishopric of York, made vacant by the death of Aldred, to Thomas, a canon of Bayeux, on the understanding that he should later receive consecration from Lanfranc. Lanfranc's own consecration as archbishop of Canterbury took place on 29 August 1070, but when Thomas came south to be consecrated Lanfranc refused to perform the rite unless he was given a written profession of obédience from Thomas.15 Thomas, pleading the privileges of his own church, at first refused to supply this. According to some accounts, he furthermore appealed to the king who, after some hesitation, supported Lanfranc.16 At all events, Thomas at length submitted, albeit with some reservations, and was duly consecrated. This was, however, by no means the end of the matter. In the autumn of 1071 both archbishops went to Rome to receive theirpallia, and when at the papal court Thomas not only reopened the question of the primacy but claimed that the sees of Worcester, Dorchester, and Lichfield belonged to the northern province. The pope referred the matter to an English council, and at Winchester in 1072 the whole matter was formally debated. At length, judgment was given in favour of the archbishop of Canterbury on all essential points.17 The disputed bishoprics were assigned to the southern province; the right of the archbishop of Canterbury to a profession of obedience from the metropolitan of York was held to be established; and Lanfranc was recognized as primate of England. Lanfranc had in fact made good his claim. Only formal confirmation by the papacy was needed to make his victory complete. But this, as will be seen, he was never to obtain.
The details of this notable controversy (which has here been very briefly summarized) are, however, of far less importance than the issues which were involved, and the manner in which Lanfranc's case was presented and sustained. The king's own interest in the matter became apparent at a very early stage. William had been able to appreciate, as duke, the advantage of ruling over a country which was a single ecclesiastical province, and the division of England into two such provinces he could only regard as a source of weakness. Indeed, it is not impossible that his support of Lanfranc may, in the circumstances of 1070, have been due in part to his apprehension that a metropolitan archbishop of York, acting as head of an independent province not yet fully under Norman control, might seek to buttress his own position by crowning a rival king – perhaps a Scandinavian prince or a member of the Old English royal house – as a legitimate ruler in the north of England.
But such considerations, weighty as they may seem, only touched the fringes of the issue. What was far more significant was that Lanfranc, supported by the Norman king, here saw fit to base his case on English tradition. He found at Canterbury strong claims to primacy, and he appealed to English precedent, citing in his favour the writings of Bede, the acts of early English church councils, and a long series of early papal letters. Some of these letters were undoubtedly forgeries, and Lanfranc's complicity in their concoction has been much debated.18 Most scholars would now acquit him of the charge, and it is more probable that he relied (perhaps too readily) upon a brief which had been prepared for him by the monks of his cathedral church at Canterbury. The matter need not here be reconsidered. What is in point is the character of Lanfranc's argument, and the nature of William's support of it. In order to give effect to an essentially Norman policy, this Norman prelate of Italian birth utilized an English tradition to which he gave fresh vitality. The character of the Norman impact upon England could hardly be better exemplified.
Western Christendom was also involved. Lanfranc's assertion of primacy entailed rights comparable to those which had in the remote past been exercised, for instance, by sees such as Milan, Carthage, and Toledo. But the whole policy of the centralizing papacy in the latter half of the eleventh century was directed against such superiorities. It is true that in 1079 Gregory VII sought for the benefit of Gebuin to erect the archbishopric of Lyons into a primatial see with jurisdiction over Sens and Rouen.19 But the scheme, which was successfully resisted, was not really a deflection of papal policy in this matter, since it was inaugurated in the interest of a particular individual, and was assumed to be revocable at any time by papal action. The claims of Lanfranc were of a wholly different nature, for they challenged at a vital point the policy of popes who were striving with some success to make the ecclesiastical province, and not the kingdom, the essential unit of the church. It is not surprising, therefore, that William and his archbishop failed to obtain formal confirmation of the Canterbury primacy at Rome. Indeed the nature of the situation was clearly revealed in the sequel. It was not for a new grant that the appeal had been made, but for the recognition of an existing right, and when that recognition was refused, the right was none the less continuously exercised. Linking his position to the fullest imperial pretensions ever made by the Old English monarchy which the Norman king had acquired, Lanfranc asserted an authority which could be extended over all England and even beyond its bounds.20 It was thus a matter of right that he later intervened in the ecclesiastical affairs of Ireland and still more notably, through Saint Margaret the Queen, in those of Scotland.21
In these circumstances, and through this agency, the Norman impact on the Church in England was made, and there is no mistaking either its nature or its force. During the reign of William the Conqueror the church in England underwent changes whose effects endured, and while the results of these changes have been diversely judged, the source of their inspiration is not to be questioned. The expressed policy of the Conqueror was here ‘to sustain in England the same usages and laws which he and his ancestors had been wont to observe in Normandy’,22 and the statement aptly summarized the transformation which took place in his time. The earlier development of the Church in Normandy we have found to have been achieved under ducal control: the changes which overtook the church in England during his reign as king were royal in direction and Norman in inspiration.
The process was marked in the first instance by a change in the prelacy of England comparable to that which had taken place in the secular aristocracy. Stigand, who had held the sees of Canterbury and Winchester in plurality was, of course, destined for deposition, and his replacement by Lanfranc at Canterbury in 1070 might be regarded as an inevitable political consequence of the Norman conquest. But many of the other English bishops were in hardly better case. Æthelmær of Elmham was Stigand's brother; Æthelric of Selsey had been closely associated with him; and Leofwine the married bishop of Lichfield was to be condemned by Lanfranc.23 It is thus hardly surprising that all three were to vacate their sees before 1070, Æthelric and Æthelmær by formal deposition, and Leofwine by resignation.24 In the north, Aldred of York was a prelate of a very different type, but he died on 11 September 1069, and left the way open for a new appointment, whilst the confusion of the see of Durham also invited drastic action. From the early years of his reign, therefore, William found himself in a position to begin the Normanization of the episcopacy of England, and this policy he was consistently to pursue. By 1080 Wulfstan of Worcester was the only bishop of English birth left in England, and, of the remaining occupants, all save one25 were of Norman birth or training.
The same policy was adopted in respect of the English abbeys. In 1066 there were thirty-five independent Benedictine houses in England, and many of the greater abbots were to show themselves hostile to William from the start. Ælfwig of New Minster in Winchester who was Harold's uncle fell on the field of Hastings. Leofric of Peterborough, who was cousin to Edwin and Morcar, also died as a result of wounds received in the battle, and his successor Brand, who was uncle to Hereward the Wake, made immediate overtures to Edgar Atheling on his appointment.26 Æthelsige of Saint Augustine's, Canterbury, helped to organize the Kentish resistance, and William had good reasons for suspecting the disaffection of Æthelnoth of Glastonbury, of Godric of Winchcombe, of Sihtric of Tavistock, and of Wulfric, Ælfwig's successor at New Minster.27 It was natural, therefore, that within six years of William's coronation all these men should have been removed, and their places were filled in every case by men from overseas.28 Such acts were, moreover, part of the Conqueror's general policy. Of the twenty-one abbots who attended the council of London in 1075, only thirteen were English, and only three of these remained in office at the time of the Conqueror's death.29
The Normanization of the prelacy in England was a cardinal feature of the Conqueror's rule, and it is not difficult to assess the motives which inspired it. The prelates of England were, as of right, among the closest counsellors of the king. The bishops were great servants of state by reason of their office, and though the monasteries varied in importance many of them were extremely rich, and together they possessed perhaps a sixth of the landed wealth of England.30 Moreover, the prelates themselves were soon to become among the most important of the king's tenants-in-chief responsible for a large section of the feudal array. William, as has been seen, had already before 1066 subjected many, but not all, of the Norman monasteries to knight-service, and now in, or shortly after, 1070 he imposed the same tenure on the bishoprics and on most of the abbeys of England, adopting the same methods as he had employed in the case of his lay magnates. The quotas imposed varied greatly in size. The sees of Canterbury and Winchester and the abbeys of Peterborough and Glastonbury had each, for instance, to provide sixty knights, whilst the bishopric of Chichester was assessed at only two and the wealthy abbey of Ramsey at only four. These assessments were moreover to prove final; generally speaking, they were not subsequently altered; and what is more remarkable, abbeys founded after the Conqueror's reign do not appear to have been subjected to the obligation at all.31
William himself must thus be held responsible for imposing on the Church in England this burden which in its totality was to prove very heavy. At first, as on many of the lay lordships, the obligation was discharged by stipendiary knights, but widespread sub-infeudation rapidly took place and the consequences were far-reaching. Bishops and abbots were at once involved more closely than ever before in secular affairs, and in the case of the abbeys a division was normally made between the land of the abbot and that of the monastery, so that the abbot as a great feudal lord became removed from the life of his monks.32 The full implications of this were not to be revealed until after the Conqueror's death. But the imposition by him of tenure by knight-service on the bishoprics and abbacies of England must, none the less, be regarded as one of the most important – and perhaps the most deleterious – results of his ecclesiastical policy in England.
In these circumstances it was clearly impossible for William to retain in high ecclesiastical office men who had committed themselves to the régime he had supplanted, or who were personally hostile to himself; and it was natural that he should turn for their successors towards the province from which he came. It would, none the less, be wrong to conclude that the Conqueror was here guided solely by motives of political expediency. William had some excuse for believing that a transportation from Normandy, and particularly from the Norman monasteries, would be of benefit to the Church in England; and he is known to have taken ecclesiastical advice in this matter from prelates of high repute, such as Hugh, abbot of Cluny, and John, abbot of Fécamp.33 Nor did he act here without discrimination. The most notable occupants of English sees at the beginning of his reign were Giso of Wells, a Lotharingian, and Leofric of Exeter, who had been educated in Lorraine, together with the more outstanding prelates of English birth – Aldred, archbishop of York, and Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester. All of these were retained in office until death, and the Englishmen, in particular, received much of the Conqueror's favour. Nor would it be easy to criticize very severely the Norman appointments to English bishoprics which he made. The gift of the see of Lincoln to Remigius of Fécamp was a return for political service, and William was to continue the earlier English practice of rewarding with bishoprics clerks from the royal scriptorium.34 But Remigius served Lincoln well, and of the household officials only Herfast was a discreditable bishop. For the rest, the bishops whom the Conqueror established in England were, generally speaking, hard-working men, good administrators, and often great builders, and many of them left a fine reputation behind them. Osmund of Salisbury (later to achieve canonization), Gundulf of Rochester, and Walcher of Durham were remembered for their personal sanctity, whilst Robert of Hereford was renowned for his learning. All of these left a permanent mark on the sees they ruled.
Similar conclusions may also be drawn concerning the Conqueror's monastic appointments. With the exception of Æthelwig, abbot of Evesham, who was honoured by William and kept in office until his death in 1077,35 the English abbots as a body were undistinguished at the beginning of William's reign36 – some of them like Sihtric of Tavistock were disreputable37 – and their replacement by monks from the reformed Norman monasteries could be defended for ecclesiastical as well as political reasons. There were here of course some serious mistakes. Turold from Fécamp, successively abbot of Malmesbury and Peterborough, was a soldier rather than a monk and no friend to the monasteries over which he presided, whilst Thurstan from Caen who became abbot of Glastonbury treated his monks with such violent harshness that he provoked a scandal.38 These were, however, exceptional, and the majority of William's abbots in England discharged their duties with distinction. The future greatness of Saint Albans dated from the time of Abbot Paul from Caen, who was a nephew of Lanfranc. Simeon from Saint-Ouen who was set over Ely won the admiration of his monks for his administration of their affairs through a period of difficulty. Serlo, who came from Le Mont-Saint-Michel to Gloucester, not only rebuilt the abbey-church but introduced a new spirit of devotion into his monastery. But perhaps none of the English abbeys was better served in this period than the Confessor's own foundation of Westminster. Nothing but good is known of Vitalis, who arrived there from Bernay in 1075, and his successor Gilbert Crispin, a member of a great Norman family who came from Le Bec in 1085, must on all grounds be adjudged as one of the outstanding abbots of the age.39
These Norman abbots brought to England ‘a new discipline and a new or at least a revitalized, observance’,40 and the character of their influence can be illustrated by reference to the ‘constitutions’ which Lanfranc himself drew up for the guidance of his monks at Christ Church, Canterbury.41 In these consuetudines the monk-archbishop embodied what he found to be best in the reformed Norman and continental usage, and adapted this to the particular needs of England. The consuetudines of Lanfranc were never to be imposed as a code, but they came throughout England to be highly influential on the activities of the new Norman abbots. It was thus in relation to the general tone of English monastic life rather than through any multiplication of houses that the Norman influence is here to be discerned.42 William, it is true, founded the abbey of Battle to commemorate his victory, and filled it with monks from Marmoutier, whilst between 1078 and 1080 William of Warenne established at Lewes the first Cluniac monastery in this country.43 But apart from these, there were few important new foundations in England at this time. On the other hand, there is little reason to question the general belief of contemporaries that during these years there occurred a quickening of the momentum of English monastic life. The opinion might, indeed, be further supported by reference to the remarkable monastic revival which took place in the north during the Conqueror's reign. This was due in the first instance to Reinfrid, a Norman knight who had become a monk at Evesham, and to Eadwine, an English monk at Winchcombe. They settled with a few followers at Bede's ruined church at Jarrow, and in 1083, after diverse experiences, their community, which now numbered twenty-three persons, was transferred to Durham by Bishop William of Saint-Calais to take charge of his cathedral church.44
The Norman influence on the English bishoprics was scarcely less remarkable. Its most notable feature was the transference of English sees to the cities, where they were to remain for centuries. Already in 1050 Leofric had transferred his see from Crediton to Exeter, and in 1075 the council of London authorized the removal of the sees of Lichfield, Selsey, and Sherborne to Chester, Chichester, and Salisbury.45 A few years earlier Herfast had removed the see of Elmham to Thetford, whence it was soon to be transferred to Norwich, while Remigius moved his own see from Dorchester to Lincoln.46 Scarcely less important than this was the remodelling of the cathedral constitutions of England. Here Lanfranc found two principal types of organization in being. On the one hand, by an arrangement which was almost unique, four of the English cathedrals – namely Canterbury, Winchester, Worcester, and Sherborne – were served by monks.47 On the other hand, in several cathedrals where regular monks had not been introduced an attempt had been made to compel the canons to live a communal life under a rule which enjoined not only celibacy but the use of a common dormitory and refectory. How far this practice had been extended is not wholly clear, but several English cathedrals had by 1066 been affected by it.48
For the former of these practices Lanfranc had great sympathy, although it was different from anything he had known in Normandy. He was himself a monk, and he watched with approval the appointment of monks as bishops in England, and now the number of monastic cathedrals in England was likewise to be increased. Norwich under Herfast, Rochester under Gundulf, and Durham under William thus all received monastic constitutions in his time.49 By contrast the see of Sherborne lost its monastic constitution after its removal to Salisbury, but after a brief dispute Winchester remained monastic, and before the end of the reign there were thus six monastic cathedrals in England.50 In respect of the secular cathedrals the development was equally striking. Full emphasis has been given to the manner in which the cathedral chapters and the cathedral dignitaries were established in Normandy in the decades immediately preceding the Conquest.51 Now this same type of organization was to be brought to England, and in the case of the secular cathedrals it replaced any communal constitutions that may previously have existed. In due course there thus came to be nine English secular cathedrals served by chapters and dignitaries similar to those which had existed in Normandy before the Norman conquest. These were Salisbury, London, Lincoln, York, Exeter, Hereford, Lichfield, Chichester, and Wells; and they were later to be known as cathedrals of the ‘Old Foundation’.52
The manner in which this took place is, however, somewhat obscure. It was once thought that the constitution characteristic of English secular cathedrals based upon the four greater dignitaries of dean, precentor, chancellor, and treasurer had been imported to England from Bayeux, where Thomas I, archbishop of York, had been a canon.53 It would, however, appear unlikely that either Bayeux or Rouen in the eleventh century could have supplied the precise model for this constitution.54 None the less the basic principles of the constitution of the English secular cathedrals of the Middle Ages derived from changes brought about by the Norman conquest. It is true that the earliest definite evidence of this secular organization is not earlier than 1090–1091 when Osmund of Salisbury, Remigius of Lincoln, and Thomas of York reconstituted their chapters, but these prelates had all been appointed by William, and they must have derived their general ideas on this matter from the duchy from which they came. At all events, as a result of changes introduced under the Conqueror, the organization of the bishoprics of England, both secular and monastic, was within a generation of William's death to assume the form it preserved until the Reformation.
The position of the bishop within the English polity was thus substantially modified during the Conqueror's reign. He had been brought under the closer supervision of his metropolitan, and as a great feudal lord he had been absorbed into the military structure of the land. At the same time, the redistribution of the sees and the reorganization of the chapters had given great scope for his administration. A notable feature of this was, for example, the emergence at this time in England, as in pre-Conquest Normandy, of the archdeacon as the bishop's regular agent in all matters of discipline and justice. Within six years of the battle of Hastings a council at Winchester ordered all bishops to appoint archdeacons,55 and in view of the earlier Norman development the command is significant. It marked a change. Archdeacons were not unknown in England during the reign of Edward the Confessor,56 but references to them are rare; and it was not until after the Norman conquest that they became, in England as previously in Normandy, a normal part of the administrative hierarchy of the Church. Here, therefore, may be seen another illustration of the importation of Norman organization into England, and other changes in the conduct of ecclesiastical justice followed naturally as a consequence of the same tendency. The famous writ issued by William in, or shortly after, 1072 removing ecclesiastical pleas from the hundred courts was avowedly inspired by his conviction that the litigation which it fell to bishops to conduct had not previously been properly administered in England.57 Henceforth, spiritual pleas were to be heard not in the hundred courts but by bishops and their archdeacons in their own courts, and the resulting conditions might be aptly compared with those envisaged in the regulations concerning episcopal jurisdiction set out in 1080 in the canons of the council of Lillebonne.58
The expansion of Norman influence on the Church throughout William's dominions, and the character of its effect upon England, could not in fact be better indicated than by reference to the ecclesiastical councils which were held in Normandy and in England at this time. The conciliar history of this age will not be written with confidence until the completion of investigations now proceeding of the manuscript evidence upon which it is based. In particular some of the dates generally assigned to these assemblies may stand in need of revision. But in the meantime a comparison of the material printed by Bessin for Normandy59 and by Wilkins for England60 may prompt some interesting reflections. There may have been conciliar activity in the Confessor's England, but there is no evidence of it, and at this time the metropolitan authority of Canterbury was notoriously weak. On the other hand, there is abundant testimony to show that councils were regularly held in Normandy from 1040 to 1080, and in England provincial councils became, after 1066, a regular feature of English church life. The point is sufficiently important to deserve a brief illustration. Councils were held at Rouen about 1046, at Caen in 1047, at Lisieux in 1054 or 1055, at Rouen in 1063, and again at Lisieux in 1064 – and this at a time when no comparable activity is recorded for England.61 After 1066 the Norman councils continue with equal regularity, at Rouen for example in 1069–1070, again in 1072, and apparently also in 1074, and at Lillebonne in 1080.62 But now the Norman activity was fully reflected in England. Councils met at, as it would seem, Winchester in 1070 and 1072, at London in 1075, and at Winchester again in 1076. And while no record of their acts has survived, Lanfranc is known to have held at least three other councils before the end of the reign, at London in 1077–1078 and at Gloucester, both in 1080–1081 and in 1085.63 Making all allowance for evidence still to be discovered, or freshly appreciated, it is surely impossible to escape the conclusion that under Norman influence there occurred after 1066 a marked revival of conciliar activity in England.
The significance of this conclusion is, moreover, much enhanced if reference be made to the matters discussed in these councils. In the first place it deserves more emphasis than it usually receives that there was in this respect no break in 1066 in the province of Rouen. It is surely noteworthy that Archbishop Mauger, a prelate generally condemned for his mundane activities, should have convoked a reforming council at Rouen at least seven years before Leo IX launched his own reforming programme at the council of Rheims, and the same preoccupation with the reforms continued in Normandy without interruption. The canons of the council of Rouen in 1072 are expressly referred to those enacted at Lisieux in 1064, and the council of Lisieux in 1080 made direct reference to conditions established in the time of William as duke.64
Equally significant in this respect was the closer relationship between the enactments of the Norman and English councils during the reign of William as king. Between 1066 and 1087 the Church in England and the Church in Normandy were faced in common with western Europe by similar problems in respect of the reforms, and adopted similar measures for solving them. Prominent among the abuses which called for redress was, for instance, that of ‘simony’; that is to say, the traffic for money in ecclesiastical offices – and here a remarkable parallel is to be observed between Normandy and England. In Normandy, simony had been attacked as early as the time of Archbishop Mauger, and now simony became the object of vigorous legislation alike at Rouen between 1072 and 1074 and at London in 1075.65 A similar unity of purpose can be seen in respect of the burning question of ecclesiastical celibacy which occupied so much of the attention of the reforming party, and which met with such resistance both in England and in Normandy.66The council of Rouen, assigned to 1072, repeated and hardened the orders on celibacy made in 1064 at the council of Lisieux,67 and in 1076 the council of Winchester issued important decrees relating to this matter in England.68 In England, however, there was apparently some concession to earlier custom. The rule was to be strictly enforced on canons and the higher clergy, and it was commanded that in the future no priest should be ordained without a declaration of celibacy. But parish priests who were already married were not compelled to put away their wives. Here clearly there was an effort at compromise, but none the less the spirit of the regulations was the same in England and Normandy, and even in England a strict interpretation of them was sometimes attempted. The stark alternative presented by Bishop Wulfstan to the married clergy of the diocese of Worcester to choose between their churches and their wives is in strict conformity with the 13th canon of the council of Rouen of ‘1072’.69
The wide scope of the ecclesiastical legislation on both sides of the Channel during William's reign also calls for comment. As has been seen, the judicial powers of the bishops were reviewed in much the same sense at Winchester in 1076, and at Lillebonne in 1080. But in the middle years of the reign conciliar legislation was concerned more especially with the lower ranks of the hierarchy, and even with the laity. The simoniacal practices denounced at Rouen between 1072 and 1074 were referred, particularly, not to bishoprics but to archdeaconries and parish churches, and more than half the conciliar activity in Rouen during these years was devoted to the parochial clergy.70 Similarly, the concern of the council of Winchester in 1076 with the concubinage of parish priests formed part of a policy which aimed at strengthening the parochial organization of the Church in England. The protection of the parish priest against his manorial lord whose rights in the revenues of the manorial church were recognized was particularly necessary at a time when a new secular aristocracy was assuming power in the country, and it was equally necessary in a time of change to safeguard the parish priest against those who might intrude upon his spiritual functions.71 These enactments have, moreover, to be viewed against a wider background. In many parts of England wide areas were still served by communities of priests attached to ancient minster churches, but during these years further progress was made towards replacing this system by parishes each served by a single priest, supported by revenues of a single church and normally coincident with the villages of which they were the ecclesiastical counterparts.72 Thus was the reign of William the Conqueror to witness a significant stage in the evolution of the English parish.
The interconnexion between the ecclesiastical affairs of Normandy and England during these years in the matter of reform is in part to be explained by the great reforming decrees which were issuing from Rome at this time, and which, particularly after 1073, were naturally reflected in the legislation of the Church on each side of the Channel. But this continuous activity which found expression year after year, now in Normandy and now in England, was also inspired by the common concerns of a Church which was now under a single secular domination, and which was administered by a hierarchy which was throughout predominantly Norman. Apart from their joint acceptance of common doctrine and of papal direction, the chief connecting link between the Churches of Normandy and England during these years was William himself, and any survey of the councils of the time indicates how closely he was personally responsible for their activities. He attended their meetings whether they were held in Normandy or England. Thus in 1070 he took a prominent part at the council of Winchester, and in 1072, once more at Winchester, he presided over the meeting which settled the dispute between Lanfranc and Thomas.73 Again, the council of Rouen which is assigned to 1074 is expressly stated to have met under his presidency, and he was likewise present at the council of Winchester of 1076.74 Perhaps, however, it was in 1080 that his interest in the affairs of the church in both parts of his realm was most notably displayed, for at Pentecost in that year he presided over the great council which met at Lillebonne, while seven months later the council of Gloucester met in connexion with the session of his Christmas court. Finally, the ecclesiastical council of Gloucester in 1085 was held in connexion with the meeting of the royal court which planned the Domesday survey.75
William's personal supervision of the ecclesiastical councils of Normandy and England at this time is in every way notable. He alone was present at these assemblies on both sides of the Channel. Lanfranc never attended a provincial council in Normandy after he became archbishop, and there is no evidence that an archbishop of Rouen was ever in England during the Conqueror's reign. Odo of Bayeux and Geoffrey of Coutances, being closely connected with the king's secular administration, passed frequently with him between England and Normandy, but no other Norman bishop is known to have witnessed a royal charter in England between 1070 and 1087,76 and no occupant of an English see attended a Norman ecclesiastical council during these years. The two hierarchies, although both predominantly Norman in origin, remained distinct so far as ecclesiastical councils were concerned. When Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, attended the council of London in 1075 he was pointedly described as a ‘bishop from overseas’, and his presence on that occasion was probably due to the fact that he was the recognized agent of the king deputed to supervise any transference of property that might be decreed.77
It was the king – and the king alone – who both in Normandy and in England took part in this connected series of ecclesiastical councils whereat a reforming programme was successively decreed in canons which were alike in spirit, and often alike even in the words in which they were expressed. William was in fact an active and co-ordinating agent in promoting the reforms throughout the Church in his conjoint realm. He assumed responsibility for the welfare of the Church throughout all his dominion, and he claimed also full authority as king in directing its affairs.
The ecclesiastical authority exercised by William both in Normandy and England was pervasive. In the duchy it derived from earlier conditions which the Conquest altered, if at all, only in the Conqueror's interest. In the kingdom it was buttressed not only by Norman precedent but also by William's royal consecration as the Confessor's legitimated heir. Prelates on both sides of the Channel were after 1070 subject to him as feudal lords, and no episcopal or important abbatial appointment during his reign was made except at his command, or at least with his consent. Again, while the jurisdictional rights of bishops were strengthened, as at Winchester in 1076 and as at Lille-bonne in 1080, it was assumed that these should be exercised by virtue of the royal ‘concession’.78 It was the king who should intervene if episcopal justice was lax or ineffective, and it was the king, likewise, who might, and who did, decide in his own court disputes between prelates, or disputes between prelates and laymen.79 When, in 1073, controversy broke out between John, archbishop of Rouen, and Nicholas, abbot of Saint-Ouen, both prelates were summoned to the royal court, and the ensuing riots in the city were quelled by the vicomte.80 Similarly, in 1079 a dispute between Bishop Robert of Sées and the canons of Bellême was heard in the first instance in the royal court before William and Matilda, and a few years later the litigation between William, abbot of Fécamp, and William of Briouze respecting land in Sussex was decided at a meeting of the royal court held at Laycock.81
The dominant position occupied by William in the Church throughout his conjoint realm, and the extent to which he used this to foster the reforms, goes far to explain the special nature of his relations with the papacy between 1066 and 1087. Indeed, those relations derived naturally from earlier Norman policy and its later application to England. The king did not differ from his contemporaries in recognizing the ecclesiastical cohesion of western Christendom under papal leadership. Moreover, the close interdependence between papal and Norman policy which had already been achieved in secular affairs had created a situation from which neither party could escape. The papacy had since 1054 come to rely on Norman support in its relations with the eastern empire, and the Normans had gained solid advantages by posing as the champions in a holy war. The English expedition had itself been made to fit into this pattern, and it had moreover given to the Norman duke a kingdom whose own previous relations with the papacy had been close, and which was particularly characterized, along with Poland and the Scandinavian lands, by the annual payment of ‘Peter's Pence’.82 It is not surprising therefore that immediately after the Conquest a close harmony should have prevailed between the papacy and the Norman duke who had become king. His new status, hallowed by consecration, was to be specially proclaimed by papal legates. In 1067 Alexander's approval was given to the promotion of John of Avranches to Rouen, and in 1070 not only did the deposition of Stigand take place in full accord with papal policy, but the transference of Lanfranc from Caen to Canterbury was effected with the pope's support. And when at the end of 1071 the new archbishop visited Rome for his pallium he was received with exceptional honour.83
This underlying accord deriving from earlier Norman policy, and implicit in the circumstances of the Conquest, deserves some emphasis, for though it was later to be strained almost to breaking-point, it always persisted, and it was never, during the Conqueror's reign, to be disrupted. The crucial point of contact lay in the reforms, and the new Norman king had therefore some justification in claiming that after 1066 he was the proper agent for promoting the reforms which he had previously sponsored in Normandy, and which the papacy was now assiduously fostering throughout western Christendom. As time went on, however, the papacy, particularly in the person of Gregory VII, came to insist with ever greater precision that the reforms could never be made effective unless the Church itself was to be freed from secular control in the matter of appointments, and unless the hierarchy should be submitted to the papacy not only in all spiritual but also in many temporal matters. The ultimate merits of this policy need not be debated. But it is fair to remark that in the third quarter of the eleventh century it represented an innovation on existing practice. William between 1066 and 1087 claimed no ecclesiastical powers that he had not previously exercised in Normandy to the benefit of the Church, and no rights which had not been asserted, for example, by Henry III in the empire, or indeed by Edward the Confessor in England. There was certainly ground here for controversy, but the implication of such disputes as arose should be clearly envisaged. Before 1089 such differences as occurred between the Norman king and the papacy can for the most part be legitimately regarded as concerning the means by which might best be implemented a reforming programme which, generally speaking, they held in common.
The latent tensions were thus only gradually to be displayed. The advent of Gregory in 1073 imparted a new precision to papal policy, and it was soon apparent that the Canterbury primacy was not going to be confirmed by Rome. Nor should the sequel be viewed out of relation to political events. It was between 1076 and 1080 that Gregory VII advanced through Canossa to the peak of his political power. And it was precisely during these same years that, as has been seen, William suffered his greatest reverses. A dispute about the see of Dol occurred within weeks of William's defeat outside its walls,84 and the most intransigent of Gregory's demands were made in the months following the Conqueror's reverse at Gerberoi. It was in fact between 1079 and 1081 that the issues between the pope and the king became formidably acute. William was determined to assume responsibility for the Church within his dominions, and to prevent his bishops from becoming subject to a dual claim upon their loyalty. The pope was equally determined to override divisions within the Church, and to exercise, either directly or through his legates, a detailed supervision of all matters of ecclesiastical discipline and appointments. During these thirty months, therefore, when Gregory was reaching the climax of his power he made a concerted effort to overthrow the barriers which William set up around the Anglo-Norman church. It was made, moreover, in three principal directions. Gregory sought to enforce the regular attendance at Rome of the prelates of Normandy and England. He endeavoured to diminish the authority of the metropolitan see of Rouen. And finally he attempted to establish a claim of fealty to the papacy from William as king of England. These three endeavours were all part of a single policy, which it was William's aim successfully to resist.
The demand for the regular attendance of the Anglo-Norman prelates at Rome was made in a series of letters which beginning on 25 March 1079 continued with increasing severity until at last Lanfranc was himself threatened with deposition.85 These letters were ineffective, but a breach between king and pope was none the less avoided. William, though firm in his refusal, acted with commendable caution, and the pope, though indignant, refrained from putting his threats into execution. A similar situation arose in connexion with the move made by the papacy about this time to diminish the jurisdictional authority of the see of Rouen. As has been seen, in April 1079 Gregory, curiously claiming to be reviving the institutions of imperial Rome, sought to confer on Gebuin, archbishop of Lyons, a primacy over the three ancient Roman provinces of the Lyonnaise, namely Lyons, Rouen, and Sens.86 The motives which animated the pope in this matter were complex, and the scheme was probably as impractical as it was ambitious. Its inception, however, imperilled William's authority in Normandy by menacing the structure of the Norman church which had always been closely knit under the control of the duke and the metropolitan see. It is small wonder that the papal plan was rejected out of hand by William, who naturally also found no difficulty in preventing the Norman bishops from conforming to it. The scheme in fact never, became operative.87
It had, however, one immediate result. Gebuin, the archbishop of Lyons, by virtue of the primatial authority conferred upon him, saw fit in 1079 to depose both Arnold, bishop of Le Mans, and Juhel, abbot of La Couture in the same city, in consequence of a quarrel between them.88 There was no doubt that conditions in Le Mans at this time were such that the action could be justified, and on general grounds it could hardly be resisted with conviction. But it none the less offered a challenge to William. He could not allow without protest an archbishop of Lyons, with or without papal approval, to depose a prelate in his own realm without his consent, and the matter was complicated by the fact that Arnold, who had originally been appointed as the Norman nominee in opposition to Anjou, had always shown himself one of William's most zealous supporters.89 The matter therefore was one of great delicacy, and it was further exacerbated by the situation which now developed at Rouen. As early as 1078 John the archbishop was stricken with paralysis and unable properly to carry on his duties.90 The pope, therefore, had here some reasons for complaint, and after John's death on 9 September 1079 he hesitated to recognize William Bonne-Ame whom the king nominated to the see.91 It seemed an impasse, but once again no overt rupture was allowed to take place. Early in 1080 William sent a conciliatory mission to Rome, and the pope evidently thought it inadvisable to break with the reforming king of England. The bishop and the abbot at Le Mans were both reinstated by papal order, and William Bonne-Ame received recognition as archbishop of Rouen.92
Finally, it was probably in 1080 that Gregory made – or repeated – his famous demand that William should do him fealty in respect of the kingdom of England.93 The demand was apparently conveyed verbally on the pope's behalf by the legate Hubert of Die, and it was made, as it would seem, not specifically in virtue of the pope's spiritual authority, which was recognized in England as elsewhere, but rather on certain other grounds, alleged to relate especially to England. Weight may have been given in this respect to the ‘False Decretals’ now receiving increasing attention in Rome, and more especially to the ‘Donation of Constantine’. More importance was, however, probably attached to Peter's Pence which, it was asserted, represented tribute and denoted dependency. But the main reason for the demand was undoubtedly connected with William's own application for papal support in 1066.94 The king stated that on that occasion he had never proffered homage to the pope in the event of his success, but this disclaimer was not accepted in Rome, and here it is important to note that Gregory's demand was in this respect no novelty since a similar claim had as it seems been previously made by Alexander II.95 Gregory's action, however, brought the vexed question to an issue, and William's reply was clear, terse, and final. He admitted the obligation to Peter's Pence, and promised that henceforth it should be paid with greater regularity. But he denied that this payment betokened temporal subjection, and he concluded:
Your legate … has admonished me to profess allegiance to you and your successors, and to think better regarding the money which my predecessors were wont to send to the Church of Rome. I have consented to the one but not to the other. I have not consented to pay fealty, nor will I now because I never promised it, nor do I find that my predecessors ever paid it to your predecessors.96
It was explicit and decisive. Nor was the issue raised again during the remainder of William's reign. After 1081, indeed, Gregory was hardly in a position to revive the matter even if he had wished to do so. In January 1081 he revoked the sentences of suspension passed on the Norman bishops by his legates at the council of Saintes, and thereafter he was to find himself ever more disastrously engaged in his struggle with the emperor until his death in exile from Rome in 1085.97
Interesting as they are, the disputes which occurred in 1079 and 1080 must not be regarded as typical of the relations between the Conqueror and the papacy, for, speaking generally, those relations were constructive and co-operative. Nothing occurred after the Conquest to mar the close association between William and Alexander II, and in 1073 William had found no difficulty in sending immediate congratulations to Gregory on his succession. It was to be remembered that Hildebrand as archdeacon had made a personal contribution to William's success in 1066, and if he was perhaps prone to exaggerate the debt that the king had thereby incurred, he never seems to have considered that his support on that occasion had been misplaced. His first letter to William as pope in 1074 was cordial, and even in 1080 at the height of their disagreement he could refer to the Conqueror as a ‘jewel among princes’.98 On at least two occasions he restrained his legates when they acted against the king of England, and he was quick to distinguish William from his fellow rulers in Europe by virtue of the king's prudence, probity, and justice. The authentic expression of his attitude to William, and of the quality of their relationship, is indeed to be found in a confidential letter which the pope sent to two of his legates within a year of William's rejection of his demand for fealty, and both the date and the words of this missive deserve careful attention:
Although in certain matters the king of the English does not comport himself as devoutly as might be wished, nevertheless he has neither destroyed nor sold the Churches of God; he has taken pains to govern his subjects in peace and justice; he has refused his assent to anything detrimental to the Apostolic See, even when solicited by certain enemies of the cross of Christ; he has compelled priests on oath to put away their wives and the laity to forward the tithes they were withholding from us. In all these respects he has shown himself more worthy of approbation and honour than other kings….99
It was an accurate summary of the underlying accord which, despite difficulties, persisted between the reforming pope and the reforming king.
William the Conqueror and Gregory VII stand out from among their contemporaries as the two great constructive statesmen of the age. Both were men of iron determination; both were sincere; and together they were among the makers of medieval Europe. The wonder is not that there was a clash between their dominant personalities, but that they worked together so much in unity for a common purpose. The extent of their co-operation does credit to both of them, and it is not perhaps too much to assert that they recognized each other's greatness across the welter of lesser rulers by whom they were surrounded. William never ceased to foster the reforms that were the special concern of the papacy, and as late as 1082 he was asking Gregory for advice respecting the affairs of the see of Durham.100 Gregory on at least two occasions rescinded the acts taken by his legates against William. How much controversy was in fact avoided can be guessed by a comparison between the Anglo-Norman kingdom and the rest of western Europe. The papal decree against lay-investiture which was published in Rome in 1074 did not enter England before the end of the eleventh century, despite the fact that every bishop appointed in Normandy and England between 1070 and 1087, except only Ernost and Gundulf of Rochester, received his pastoral staff from the king.101 There was never an ‘investitures contest’ in the Anglo-Norman kingdom during the reign of William the Conqueror.
William's own conception of his rights as king within the Church were to be aptly summed up in the ‘customs’ which a writer of the next generation attributed to him.102 As king he would perform his duty of securing the welfare of the Church within his dominions, and as king he would resist any division of loyalty among his subjects. Thus in the case of a disputed papal election no pope was to be recognized within his realm without his consent; no papal letter was to be received withuot his permission; no ecclesiastical council within his kingdom was to initiate legislation without his approval; and no bishop must excommunicate any of his officials or tenants-in-chief without his leave. It was a clear-cut position, but it was traditional rather than anti-papal. When Lanfranc about 1081 stated in a letter to Gregory, ‘I am ready to yield obedience to your commands in everything according to the canons’,103 he was perfectly sincere, and he was voicing the views of his royal master. But the canons, as interpreted by Lanfranc and by William, were different in emphasis from the canon law beginning to be propounded at Rome by Gregory VII. William took his stand on a theory of royalty, and of its obligations, which had been current in the previous century, and to which expression had been given at his coronation. The king had his special duties towards the Church, and he would fulfil them. William's ecclesiastical policy was thus throughout (in the admirable phrase of Professor Z. N. Brooke) ‘entirely natural and regularly consistent’.104
In view of the theory of royalty which he embodied, and in view also of the practical use he made of it with regard to the Church, William must himself be held very responsible for the ecclesiastical changes which marked his reign. As has been seen, most of those changes took place in Normandy before 1066, whilst in England they occurred after that date when the king's policy was influenced and sometimes modified by Lanfranc. It would be wrong, however, to distinguish between William's ecclesiastical policy as expressed before and after 1066. In this respect, also, it was ‘regularly consistent’. William had been brought up in the midst of an ecclesiastical revival in his duchy which he had some share in promoting. He carried its principles to England to such purpose that between 1070 and 1087 the Church in England was made to conform to the continental pattern and subject to the reforming ideas which were permeating western Europe. Thus William, who ‘never tried to create a national or independent church’, ‘brought the English church out of its backwater into the regular current once more’.105
It is no part of the present study to pass judgment on the condition of the late Old English church, the more especially as scholars find themselves much divided on the subject. Some commentators are still disposed to give credence to the adverse criticisms made, for example, by William of Malmesbury,106 whilst others, though properly cautious of accepting them at their face value, are none the less chary of eulogy.107 By contrast an emphatic and erudite protest has been made against the notion that the Church in England between 950 and 1050 was ‘decadent’ or that it stood in any special need of reforms imported from overseas.108
The matter may here, therefore, properly be left in suspense with the remark that it was inevitable that such widespread changes as have been outlined in this chapter should have entailed loss as well as gain. The feudalization of the church in England was in the future to produce unhappy consequences, and whatever may be thought of the discipline, the organization, and the spirituality of the late Old English church, it cannot be regarded as having been ineffective in the sponsorship of art and literature. In this respect, at least, England in 1050 was in no sense a backward country. Her metal-work was famous, and her coinage was fine. English embroidery was particularly esteemed, and English book production, particularly that of the Winchester school, of outstanding excellence.109It has even been asserted that in respect of the minor arts the Norman conquest was ‘little short of a catastrophe’, and if the glories of the Romanesque architecture which the Normans brought to England are apparent to any traveller, it would be rash to disparage the ecclesiastical building which took place in England during the earlier half of the eleventh century, most of which has failed to survive.110 Finally, it needs no emphasis that in the decades preceding the Norman conquest, England was continuing to produce a literature in the vernacular, which in this respect was without parallel in contemporary Europe.111
This vernacular culture, between 1066 and 1087, received a lethal blow, and its place was taken in England by a culture which drew its inspiration in art and literature from the vivid intellectual interests of Latin Europe, which had already permeated the province of Rouen. Henceforth for more than a century, with rare exceptions, whatever was thought and written by Englishmen was thought and written in Latin, and the English contributions to philosophy and theology were to form part of controversies which were common to the Continent. Despite the irreparable damage that had been inflicted upon the earlier indigenous endeavour, England had therefore been brought by political events in a special sense into the main stream of European development. And this had occurred at a propitious time of reformation and revival. For thereby England was, in the near future, enabled to take her full share in the renaissance of the twelfth century which has been justly described as marking one of the brightest epochs in the history of European civilization. She was to make her notable and highly individual contribution to all those great movements in art, in literature, in scholarship, and in education, which were characteristic of western Christendom at the zenith of its medieval achievement.
A final assessment of the gain and loss that was here involved is probably impossible. Certainly, it has still to be made. There can, however, be no doubt that between 1070 and 1087 the Church both in Normandy and England was brought ever more firmly under the control of ‘a ruler who was resolved of set purpose to raise the whole level of ecclesiastical discipline in his dominions’.112 Nor can there be much question of William's success in implementing that resolve. During these years he carried the revival, which had previously marked the Norman duchy, to its logical conclusion, and he gave to the Church in England the character it was to retain for the remainder of the Middle Ages. At a time of revolutionary ecclesiastical change in Europe he acted, moreover, with such circumspection, and with such regard for tradition, that he postponed for his lifetime any crisis in the relations between temporal and spiritual authority within his realm. Nor can his ecclesiastical policy be regarded as other than sincere and constructive, for although he was of necessity occupied incessantly with the acquisition and retention of power, he never allowed himself to be wholly immersed in secularity. His motives were undoubtedly mixed, but he made his own enduring contribution to the movement of ecclesiastical reform that marked the age, and which was itself a potent factor in the formation of medieval Europe.
1 Gall. Christ., vol. XI, cols. 31, 32; and above, pp. 122–124.
2 Milo Crispin, Vita Lanfranci (Giles, Lanfranci Opera, vol. I, p. 291).
3 On Lanfranc, see A. J. Macdonald, Lanfranc (ed. 1944), and Knowles, Monastic Order, pp. 85–145.
4 They are edited in Giles, Lanfranci Opera, vol. II, and in Pat. Lat., vol. CL. They are here cited by number as given in Pat. Lat., or from the translations (by G. W. Greenaway) given in E.H.D., vol. II, nos. 89–106.
5 Acta Lanfranci (Earle and Plummer, Two Saxon Chronicles Parallel, vol. I, p. 220); AS. Chron., ‘E’, s.a. 1075.
6 Knowles, op. cit., p. 143.
7 Gall. Christ., vol. XI, cols. 681, 770; Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 311; Hommey, Diocèse de Sées, vol. II, p. 331; Douglas, Domesday Monachorum, p. 29.
8 Gall. Christ., vol. XI, cols. 571, 572.
9 The chief exception is Avranches which in 1067 was given to Michael, an Italian, with apparently no Norman connexions.
10 Ord. Vit., vol. II, pp. 64, 213, 336.
11 Knowles, op. cit., p. 704.
12 See D. Matthew, The Norman Monasteries and their English Possessions.
13 L. Valin, Duc de Normandie, p. 72; Haskins, Norman Institutions, p. 32.
14 On this see Böhmer, Kirche und Staat, pp. 86–126; Z. N. Brooke, English Church and the Papacy, pp. 112–126; Macdonald, op. cit.; and R. W. Southern, ‘The Canterbury Forgeries’ (Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. LXVIII (1958), pp. 193–226).
15 Acta Lanfranci.
16 Hugh the Chanter (ed. Johnson), pp. 2–7; Will. Malms., Gesta Pont., p. 40.
17 Wilkins, Concilia, vol. I, p. 324; Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 657.
18 The whole controversy is surveyed by Southern (op. cit.).
19 Fliche, Réforme gregorienns, vol. II, pp. 230–232. Also below, pp. 338, 339.
20 Southern, op. cit.
21 Epp. nos. 36, 37, 38, 51; Acta Lanfranci; A. Gwynn, Irish Eccl. Rev., vol. LVII, p. 213.
22 Eadmer, Hist. Novorum, p. 9.
23 Will. Malms., Gesta Pont., p. 150; Freeman, Norman Conquest, vol. II, pp. 414, 557.
24 Wilkins, Concilia, vol. 322; Knowles, op. cit., p. 103.
25 Giso, bishop of Wells, who was a Lotharingian. Peter of Lichfield would seem to have been a Norman and so was probably the physically afflicted Hugh of Orival, who succeeded to the see of London in 1075 (Will. Malms., Gesta Pont., pp. 145, 308).
26 Knowles, op. cit., pp. 103, 104.
27 Mon. Ang., vol. I, p. 3; vol. II, pp. 297, 430.
28 Thurstan at Glastonbury; Galland (probably a Norman) at Winchcombe; Ruallon (possibly a Breton) at New Minster; and Geoffrey at Tavistock.
29 Wilkins, Concilia, vol. I, p. 364; Stenton, op. cit.
30 Corbett, Camb. Med. Hist., vol. V, p. 509.
31 Round, Feudal England pp. 221 et sqq.; Chew, Ecclesiastical Tenants in Chief (1932); Knowles, op. cit., p. 609.
32 Knowles, op. cit., pp. 395–411, 614.
33 Pat. Lat., vol. CXLIX, cols. 923, 927; Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, p. 1.
34 Remigius had apparently made a contribution of ships to the expedition of 1066 (Giles, Scriptores Willelmi, p. 22).
35 On him, see R. R. Darlington, in Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. XLVIII (1933), pp. 1–22, 177–198.
36 Stenton, op. cit., p. 652.
37 He left his abbey to join the sons of Harold in piracy (Will. Malms., Gesta Pont., p. 204).
38 AS. Chron., ‘E’, s.a. 1083; Knowles, op. cit., p. 114.
39 Liber Eliensis, pp. 253, 261; Will. Malms., Gesta Pont., p. 293; Robinson, op. cit., pp. 1–8.
40 Knowles, op. cit., p. 121.
41 Edited in 1956 with a translation and a critical commentary by M. D. Knowles, The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc, from which is derived what here follows.
42 The houses of Shrewsbury, Wenlock, Tewkesbury, and Selby ought, however, here to be mentioned.
43 Early Yorkshire Charters (ed. C. T. Clay), vol. VIII, pp. 59–62.
44 Knowles, op. cit., pp. 165–172.
45 Wilkins, Concilia, vol. I, pp. 363, 364.
46 J. W. F. Hill, Medieval Lincoln, pp. 76–81.
47 Knowles, op. cit., pp. 129, 619.
48 Darlington, Eng. Hist. Rev. vol. LI (1936), pp. 403–404.
49 Knowles, op. cit., pp. 131–134.
50 Canterbury, Winchester, Worcester, Durham, Rochester, Norwich. Wells (with Bath) and Lichfield (with Chester) stand by themselves.
51 Above, pp. 122, 123.
52 Edwards, English Secular Cathedrals, p. 12.
53 Bradshaw and Wordsworth, Statutes of Lincoln Cathedral, vol. I, pp. 33–36, 101–113; G. W. Prothero, Memoir of Henry Bradshaw, p. 345.
54 Edwards, op. cit., pp. 14–17, based on material supplied by L. C. Loyd.
55 Wilkins, Concilia, vol. I, p. 363.
56 Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, p. 530.
57 Stubbs, Select Charters (ed. 1913), pp. 99–100.
58 Bessin, Concilia, pp. 67–71, esp. canons III and XLVI.
59 Concilia Rotomagnensis Provinciae (1717). This book is a kind of new edition, much augmented, of the Sanctae Rotomagensis Ecclesiae Concilia, produced by Jean Pommeraye in 1677.
60 Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, 4 vols. (1737). For the relation of this to earlier work on the subject, see F. M. Powicke, ‘Sir Henry Spelman and the “Concilia” ’ (Brit. Acad., Proceedings, vol. XVI, 1930).
61 Above, pp. 130–132.
62 Bessin, Concilia, pp. 52–72.
63 Wilkins, Concilia, vol. I, pp. 323, 325, 362–370. A valuable commentary on the arrangement of this material is given in the footnotes to Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 657–659.
64 Bessin, Concilia, p. 56; Haskins, Norman Institutions, pp. 30–35.
65 Bessin, Concilia, p. 64; Wilkins, Concilia, vol. I, p. 363.
66 Archbishop John was stoned by the canons of Rouen when he bade them put away their concubines (Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 171).
67 Bessin, Concilia, p. 56 (canons XIII, XVII); Delisle, Journal des Savants (1901), pp. 516–521.
68 Wilkins, Concilia, vol. I, p. 367.
69 Vita Wulfstani (ed. Darlington), pp. 53, 54; Bessin, Concilia, p. 56.
70 Bessin, Concilia, pp. 54–56.
71 Stenton, op. cit., p. 661.
72 Cf. Douglas, Domesday Monachorum, pp. 7–12.
73 Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 199.
74 Wilkins, op. cit., vol. I, p. 369.
75 Acta Lanfranci; Darlington, op. cit.
76 Hugh, bishop of Lisieux, perhaps escorted Queen Matilda to England in 1068 (Round, Commune of London, pp. 30–35), and Baldwin, bishop of Évreux, was present at the Conqueror's court at Winchester in the next year (Regesta, vol. I, no. 26), but these were exceptional events and they were not to be repeated.
77 Wilkins, Concilia, vol. I, p. 363; Stenton, op. cit., p. 658.
78 Wilkins, Concilia, p. 363; Bessin, Concilia, pp. 65–71.
79 Will. Poit., pp. 124–126; Bessin, Concilia, pp. 71, 77 (canon III).
80 Gall. Christ., vol. XI, cols. 23, 34.
81 Hommey, Diocèse de Sées, vol. II, p. 145; Regesta, vol. I, no. 127.
82 E.H.D., vol. II, nos. 74–76; Southern, Making of the Middle Ages, p. 27.
83 Macdonald, op. cit., p. 64; Eadmer, Hist. Novorum, p. 11.
84 In 1076 Gregory wrote to the king announcing the deposition, for good reason, of Bishop Juhel, who was a partisan of William. The king resisted the deposition, and in consequence Juhel, though excommunicate, was still in precarious possession of his see a year later (Jaffé, Monumenta Gregoriana, pp. 318–320, 541).
85 Ibid., pp. 377, 494.
86 Ibid., p. 370; Fliche, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 230–232.
87 Fliche, loc. cit.
88 See letter of Gebuin to Raoul, archbishop of Tours (Rec. Hist. Franc., vol. XIV, p. 668).
89 Latouche, Comté du Maine, pp. 79, 86, 87.
90 Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 310.
91 Jaffé, Monumenta Gregoriana, pp. 315, 380.
92 Rec. Hist. Franc., vol. XIV, p. 648; Gregory's letter to William of 1081 (Jaffé, op. cit., p. 469) implies that the recognition had already been given. See further, Brooke, English Church and the Papacy, p. 140.
93 In this matter I follow Brooke (op. cit., pp. 139–142), who there summarizes and supplements the conclusions of his classic article on the subject (Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. XXVI (1911), pp. 225–238). The dating of Gregory's demand in 1080, though extremely probable, is perhaps not finally determined (cf. Stubbs, Constitutional History, vol. I, p. 285, note 1).
94 Brooke, op. cit., p. 142.
95 Ibid., p. 141.
96 E.H.D., vol. II, no. 101.
97 Macdonald, Hildebrand, pp. 227–241.
98 Jaffé, Monumenta Gregoriana, pp. 89, 414.
99 E.H.D., vol. II, no. 102.
100 Simeon of Durham (Opera, vol. I, p. 121). It should be noted that in 1084 Lanfranc, although with some detachment, declined to endorse the criticisms of Gregory made by the supporters of the anti-Pope Clement (E.H.D., vol. II, no. 106).
101 Brooke, op. cit., p. 138; Macdonald, Lanfranc, p. 212.
102 Eadmer, Hist. Novorum, p. 9.
103 E.H.D., vol. II, no. 103.
104 Brooke, op. cit., p. 134.
105 Ibid., p. 136.
106 Will. Malms., Gesta Regum, p. 305.
107 Brooke, loc. cit.; Knowles, Monastic Order, p. 94.
108 R. R. Darlington, ‘Movements of Reform in the late Old English Church’ (Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. LI (1936), pp. 385–428); cf. also History, vol. XXII (1937), pp. 1–13. See also the judicious survey now supplied by Professor F. Barlow in The English Church, 1000–1066 (1963).
109 See generally R. W. Chambers, ‘The Continuity of English Prose’ (Early English Text Soc., vol. 186), and more particularly the fine essay by Professor F. Wormald on ‘Style and Design’ in The Bayeux Tapestry (ed. Stenton), pp. 25–36.
110 A. W. Clapham, English Romanesque Architecture before the Norman Conquest, esp. p. 117.
111 Chambers, op. cit.; K. Sisam, in Review of English Studies, vol. VII, p. 7; vol. VIII, p. 51; vol. IX, p. 1.
112 Knowles, op. cit., p. 93.