Lord Peter Stein, eminent historian of Roman law, described the interaction of law and theology in the writings of one twelfth-century writer as a kind of ‘universal jurisprudence’. The twelfth-century figure to whom he referred was Master Vacarius (c. 1115/20–c. 1200), well-known English Roman lawyer and Anglo-Norman canonist. While Stein drew this conclusion largely on the basis of an analysis of Vacarius’ strictly ‘legal’ work, the Liber pauperum, I have shown elsewhere, following a systematic study of Vacarius’ other works, dealing with marriage, christology and heresy, that, when seen together, they demonstrate a use of law as a universal heuristic device to resolve conflict in law and theology.

It is the purpose of this paper to test if this same universal use of law might have been used by other comparable figures of the twelfth century. The men who invite such comparison were those who, like Vacarius, displayed evidence of an education, or at least a more than superficial grounding, in Roman law. Additionally, these figures need to have composed works dealing with theological subjects. Further, the period most crucial to tracing this development is that comprising the several generations prior to the appearance of the well-known manual concerning royal juridical procedure composed between 1187 and 1189, On the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom of England, formerly attributed to Ranulf Glanvill (c. 1120s–1190). This marked the period when English law took its first steps towards a ‘common law’ that was distinct from continental legal developments. This paper is the first instalment of an intended comprehensive study of thinkers who satisfy these intellectual and chronological criteria.

In this paper, I will focus on Gilbert Foliot (c. 1105/10–1187) and his letters and charters (acta), written c. 1139–77. The seminal study of Gilbert's correspondence is that of Dom Adrian Morey and C.N.L. Brooke, which was followed by their edition of the letters and charters themselves. Gilbert is a potentially fruitful subject of study when considering the clashes of opposites, as well as the interaction of law and theology. According to Morey and Brooke, Gilbert displayed an enigmatic dualism; he is the object of contradictory historical judgments. On the one hand, his editors – and contemporaries – condemn Gilbert for opposing Thomas Becket in his letter Multiplicem (no. 170), while on the other, he is praised by his abbot at Cluny and his pope, Alexander III (1159–81).