¹ The letter is listed in Jaffé, P., Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, ed. Wattenbach, G., Loewenfeld, S., Kaltenbrunner, F. and Ewald, P., 2nd rev. edn, Leipzig 1885–8, no. 4463Google Scholar. Jaffé was only aware of the survival of a fragmentum of the text, about which see n. 65 below. Raine's edition is in The historians of the Church of York and its archbishops, ed. Raine, J., London 1879–94, iii. 5–7Google Scholar. Examples of Raine's amendments of words from fo. 40v of the Magnum Registrum Album include: ‘Romano synodo’ (from ‘Romane sinodo’), ‘cum universaliter’ (from ‘tum uniuersaliter’), ‘sed’ (from ‘set’), ‘in eodem synodo’ (from ‘in eodo synodo’).

² A brief reference to the papal document appears in Cooper, J. M., The last four Anglo-Saxon archbishops of York (Borthwick Papers xxxviii, 1970), 26 n. 134Google Scholar. The note comments on the similarities between the anonymous Vita Ædwardi regis and the papal privilege in their accounts of the events concerning Ealdred's mission to Rome of 1061. However, no mention of Nicholas's privilege is made in Frank Barlow's edition of the Vita Ædwardi (The life of King Edward who rests at Westminster, attributed to a monk of Saint-Bertin), 2nd edn, Oxford 1992Google Scholar, nor did Barlow refer to it in his important publications on the English Church in the eleventh century. The papal document was described as an ‘alleged letter of Nicholas ii’ by Whitelock, Dorothy in Councils & synods with other documents relating to the English Church, I: A.D. 871–1204, ed. Whitelock, D., Brett, M. and Brooke, C. N. L., Oxford 1981, pt i, 560 n. 1Google Scholar, without clarifying the reason for the use of the word ‘alleged’. More recently, Nicholas's privilege for Ealdred has been duly taken into account in an important study on the significance of the pallium in the context of the eleventh-century reform: Schoenig, S. A., ‘Withholding the pallium as a tool of the reform’, in Erdö, P. and Szuromi, Sz. A. (eds), Proceedings of the thirteenth international congress of medieval canon law: Esztergom, 3–8 August 2008, Vatican City 2010, 577–88Google Scholar. For a fuller treatment of the pallium in the Middle Ages see Schoenig, S. A., Bonds of wool: the pallium and papal power in the Middle Ages, Washington, DC 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with references to Ealdred at pp. 321–2, 330, 348, 374, 379.

³ Gresser, G., Die Synoden und Konzilien in der Zeit des Reformpapsttums in Deutschland und Italien von Leo IX. bis Calixt II., 1049–1123, Paderborn 2006, 53–5Google Scholar. The so-called ‘autobiography’ of Bishop Giso of Wells – a member of the English party that accompanied Ealdred to Rome – notes that Giso was ordained by the pope on Easter Day and that he travelled back to England from Rome after the conclusion of a synod held there (‘Nicholao papa ordinatum, die Paschali xvii kalendas Maii [i.e. 15 April 1061]; post peractam ibi sinodum’): Ecclesiastical documents, viz. I: A brief history of the bishoprick of Somerset from its foundation to the year 1174, ed. Hunter, J. (Camden Society viii, 1840), 16Google Scholar; Keynes, S., ‘Giso, bishop of Wells (1061–88)’, Anglo-Norman Studies xix (1997), 203–71Google Scholar.

⁴ On the late Anglo-Saxon practice of going personally to Rome to fetch the archiepiscopal pallium see Tinti, F., ‘The archiepiscopal pallium in late Anglo-Saxon England’, in Tinti, F. (ed.), England and Rome in the early Middle Ages: pilgrimage, art and politics, Turnhout 2014, 307–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Schoenig, Bonds of wool, 243–8.

⁵ See, for instance, Barlow, F., The English Church, 1000–1066, 2nd edn, London 1979, 297, 306–8Google Scholar, and Mason, E., St Wulfstan of Worcester, c. 1008–1095, Oxford 1990, 72–87Google Scholar. On William of Malmesbury's accounts of the events of 1061 see below.

⁶ On the origins and early development of the pallium see Duchesne, L., Origines du culte chrétien: étude sur la liturgie latine avant Charlemagne, 3rd edn, Paris 1903, 384–90Google Scholar; Braun, J., Die liturgische Gewandung im Occident und Orient: nach Ursprung und Entwicklung, Verwendung und Symbolik, Freiburg im Breisgau 1907, 620–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Schoenig, Bonds of wool, 1–14.

⁷ Schoenig, Bonds of wool, 11–13.

⁸ Brooks, N., The early history of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066, London–New York 1984, 216–17Google Scholar; Tinti, ‘The archiepiscopal pallium’, 311–19.

⁹ Tinti, F., Sustaining belief: the Church of Worcester from c. 870 to c. 1100, Aldershot 2010, 53Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Schoenig, ‘Withholding the pallium’.

¹¹ For further details see Stroll, M., Popes and antipopes: the politics of eleventh century church reform, Leiden 2012, 84–9Google Scholar, and Cushing, K. G., Reform and the papacy in the eleventh century: spirituality and social change, Manchester 2005, 68–73Google Scholar.

¹² See n. 22 below.

¹³ Councils & synods, i/1, 548–52, nos 77–8.

¹⁴ Jaffé, Regesta, no. 4427; Acta pontificum romanorum inedita, II: Urkunden der Päpste vom Jahre c. 97 bis Jahre 1197, ed. Pflugk-Harttung, J. v., Stuttgart 1884, 90, no. 125Google Scholar. On the development of the protocols of pallium grants see Schoenig, Bonds of wool, 118–21, 206–12.

¹⁵ A. Ambrosioni, ‘Niccolò II’, Enciclopedia dei papi, 2000, <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/niccolo-ii_%28Enciclopedia_dei_Papi%29/>, accessed 12 March 2018. Moreover, the preamble has several words in common with a formula of the Liber diurnus that was often used for the drafting of pallium grants: see n. 44 below. On the arengae of the pallium privileges from the reform period see Schoenig, Bonds of wool, 294–5, with bibliography cited at n. 53.

¹⁶ It was unusual for papal privileges to feature personal material, but pallium grants represented important exceptions, especially if made under atypical circumstances. An interesting precedent concerns Actard of Nantes, to whom the pallium was granted in 868 following persecution by Vikings and Bretons: Jaffé, Regesta, no. 2904; Schoenig, Bonds of wool, 69, 133. A fairly long narrative section can also be found in the pallium grant that Pope Clemens ii issued for John of Salerno in 1046. As in Ealdred's case, John's translation from his first episcopal see to that of Salerno occupies a substantial portion of the papal letter: Jaffé, Regesta, no. 4143; PL cxlii.586–7; M. E. Sommar, ‘The changing role of the bishop in society: episcopal translation in the Middle Ages’, unpubl. PhD diss. Syracuse 1998, 228–30.

¹⁷ In the eleventh century councils held in Rome became significantly less provincial than they had been in earlier times, as they were now attended by bishops coming from outside the Roman ecclesiastical province. It was also thanks to these larger assemblies that the reform papacy developed a new understanding of the ‘universal Church’. On this point see Robinson, I. S., The papacy, 1073–1198: continuity and innovation, Cambridge 1990, 121–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Miller, M. C., Clothing the clergy: virtue and power in medieval Europe, c. 800–1200, Ithaca–London 2014, 35–6Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Papal approval had become a standard requirement by the late tenth century for episcopal translation to be considered acceptable: Sommar, ‘The changing role of the bishop’, 216.

¹⁹ The translated bishop's state of mind, and in particular the absence of greedy desire for a wealthier see, is given special emphasis in the major medieval canonical collections dealing with episcopal transfer: ibid. passim.

²⁰ On the growing powers of the college of cardinals in the mid-eleventh century see Blumenthal, U.-R., ‘The papacy, 1024–1122’, in Luscombe, D. and Riley-Smith, J. (eds), The new Cambridge medieval history, IV: c. 1024–c. 1098, Cambridge 2004, 8–37 at pp. 32–7Google Scholar.

²¹ Wickham, C., Medieval Rome: stability and crisis of a city, 900–1050, Oxford 2013, 30Google Scholar. Hildebrand was by this time very much running the show, and, according to Benzo of Alba, vigorous opponent of the reforming party, the pope did nothing that was not ordered by the archdeacon. To clarify his point Benzo uses a very telling image, saying that ‘Hildebrand gave fodder to his Nicholas in the Lateran palace, like an ass in a stall’ (‘pascebat suum Nicholaum Prandellus in Lateranensi palacium quasi asinum in stabulo’): Benzo of Alba, Ad Heinricum imperatorem libri VII, ed. Seyffert, H., MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, lxv, Hanover 1996, 596Google Scholar. The translation is from Robinson, I. S., The papal reform of the eleventh century: lives of Pope Leo IX and Pope Gregory VII, Manchester 2004, 373CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² In his Disceptatio synodalis Peter Damian refers to the robbery inflicted on a ‘ducem et archiepiscopum Anglorum’ providing the identity and motives of its perpetrator, as well as the amount of money stolen: Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, ed. Reindel, K., MGH, Briefe d. dt. Kaiserzeit, iv, Munich 1983–93, ii. 566–7Google Scholar. The dux (or earl) accompanying Ealdred was Tostig, about whom see n. 51 below. For a discussion of robberies in the tenth and eleventh centuries, including those affecting pilgrims to Rome, see Murray, A., ‘Money and robbers’, Journal of Medieval History iv (1978), 55–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with detailed treatment of the 1061 robbery at p. 72.

²³ Jaffé, Regesta, no. 4443; Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. Delisle, L., 2nd edn, Paris 1876, xi. 492–3Google Scholar. The letter closes with the words ‘Salutant vos charissimi fratres nostri cardinales episcopi, necnon humilitas filii nostri Hildebrandi’.

²⁴ Jaffé, Regesta, nos 4426, 4429; Kehr, P. F., Italia pontificia, III: Etruria, Berlin 1908, 18–19, 24–5Google Scholar. For the text of the two documents see PL cxliii.1330–2, 1334–6. See also Scampoli, E., Firenze, archeologia di una città (secoli I a.C.–XIII d.C.), Florence 2010, 214Google Scholar, and for a detailed comment on the privilege for San Lorenzo, preserved within the Archivio capitolare of the Basilica of San Lorenzo as ASL 301, see Cocchi, A., Le chiese di Firenze dal secolo IV al secolo XX, I: Quartiere San Giovanni, Florence 1903, 22–6Google Scholar. The mention of Hildebrand appears in both cases in the sanctio at the end of the main text.

²⁵ Cf. the pallium privileges for archbishops Dunstan of Canterbury and Thomas i of York: Jaffé, Regesta, nos 3687, 4693. The former is edited in Councils & synods, i/1, 90–2; for the text of the latter see Cowdrey, H. E. J., ‘Archbishop Thomas i of York and the pallium’, Haskins Society Journal xi (2003), 33–4Google Scholar. On pallium days see Schoenig, Bonds of wool, 254–64.

²⁶ I am grateful to Martin Brett and Steven Schoenig for useful discussion on this point.

²⁷ Kehr, P. F., ‘Scrinium und Palatium: zur Geschichte des päpstlichen Kanzleiwesens im xi. Jahrhundert’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband vi (1901), 70–112 at pp. 90–3Google Scholar. See also Poole, R. L., Lectures on the history of the papal chancery down to the time of Innocent III, Cambridge 1915, 69Google Scholar, and Stroll, Popes and antipopes, 112.

²⁸ See, for instance, Jaffé, Regesta, nos 4417, 4425, 4428.

²⁹ Jaffé, Regesta, no. 4459, dated 27 April and issued in favour of the canons’ community of San Pietro in Sovana: PL cxlii.1355–6. For a critical edition see Carte dell'Archivio di Stato di Siena Opera Metropolitana (1000–1200), ed. Ghignoli, A., Siena 1994, 20–3, no. 7Google Scholar; on the main scribe see Kehr, ‘Scrinium und Palatium’, 91.

³⁰ Schoenig, Bonds of wool, 374–8.

³¹ Ibid. 288–93. For further discussion of papal grants as freely-given gifts see Savill, B., ‘Prelude to forgery: Baldwin of Bury meets Pope Alexander ii’, EHR cxxxii (2017), 795–822 at pp. 798–99Google Scholar. See also Nelson, J. L., ‘Introduction’, and Wood, I. N., ‘The gifts of Wearmouth and Jarrow’, in Davies, W. and Fouracre, P. (eds), The languages of gift in the early Middle Ages, Cambridge 2010, 1–17 at p. 11, 89–115 at pp. 104–5Google Scholar.

³² ‘usque ad mille Papiensis monetae libras appendentia rapuit’: Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, ii. 566–7; Peter Damian: letters, ed. Blum, O. J., Washington, DC 1989, iii. 362–3Google Scholar (with modifications).

³³ Among the earlier eleventh-century English sources referring to the money that was required in exchange for the pallium there are a letter of protest from ‘the bishops of Britain’ preserved in a portable book of Archbishop Wulfstan of York (d. 1023) and a letter that King Cnut wrote to the English people in 1027, following a journey to Rome, where he had complained to Pope John xix that ‘his archbishops were so much oppressed by the immensity of the sums of money which were expected from them when … they came to the apostolic see to receive the pallium’. For a detailed treatment of both texts see Tinti, ‘The archiepiscopal pallium’, 329–32, and for discussion of two separate cases showing that similar practices were still in vogue in the twelfth century see Fletcher, R. A., Saint James's catapult: the life and times of Diego Gelmírez of Santiago de Compostela, Oxford 1984, 204–6Google Scholar, and Christensen, K., ‘The curious case of Becket's pallium: Guernes de Pont-Ste-Maxence and the court of Alexander iii’, in Duggan, A. and Clarke, P. (eds), Pope Alexander III (1159–81): the art of survival, Farnham 2012, 243–56Google Scholar.

³⁴ Tinti, Sustaining belief, 53–65.

³⁵ On the later use and manipulation of the contents of the papal privilege by the Church of York see below.

³⁶ John of Worcester says explicitly that Wulfstan was consecrated bishop by Ealdred because Stigand ‘was then forbidden to exercise his episcopal office by the apostolic lord’: The Chronicle of John of Worcester, II: The annals from 450 to 1066, ed. Darlington, R. R. and McGurk, P. with Bray, J., Oxford 1995, 590–3Google Scholar. For Stigand's irregular position see also Barlow, The English Church, 299–308.

³⁷ Vita Ædwardi i.5, in Life of King Edward, 54–5. On Giso see also n. 3 above. In 1053 the bishops-elect Wulfwig of Dorchester and Leofwine of Lichfield had also sought consecration abroad.

³⁸ Jaffé, Regesta, no. 4457; Councils & synods, i/1, 550, no. 77. This is still preserved as a single sheet at Wells Cathedral as Dean and Chapter, Cathedral Charters no. 2. For differing views as to whether this is the original privilege or a contemporary copy, cf. Kehr, ‘Scrinium und Palatium’, 91 n. 4; W. Holtzmann, Papsturkunden in England, II: Die kirchlichen Archive und Bibliotheken, ii: Texte, Berlin 1936, 131, no. 1; Keynes, Giso, 255; and, more recently, B. Savill, ‘Papal privileges in early medieval England, c. 680–1073’, unpubl. DPhil diss. Oxford 2017, 84–5. Humbert of Silva Candida is also named in the eschatocol of the following papal documents dating from the second half of April 1061: Jaffé, Regesta, nos 4455 (18 Apr.), 4456 (18 Apr.), 4458 (27 Apr.), 4459 (27 Apr.) and 4460 (30 Apr.).

³⁹ Jaffé, Regesta, no. 4461; Councils & synods, i/1, 552, no. 78. Bernard also appears as datarius in Jaffé, Regesta, nos 4464, 4465, 4466, of which the first two are dated 3 May and the last one is dated 4 May: Kehr, ‘Scrinium und Palatium’, 93. See also C. Gennaro, ‘Bernardo’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/bernardo_res-dd970849-87e7-11dc-8e9d-0016357eee51_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/>, accessed 12 March 2018.

⁴⁰ Santifaller, L., ‘Saggio di un elenco dei funzionari e scrittori della cancelleria pontificia dall'inizio all'anno 1099’, Bullettino dell'Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano lvi (1940), 1–865 at p. 177Google Scholar; K.-H. Kandler, ‘Humbert of Silva Candida’, in Religion past and present, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1877-5888_rpp_SIM_10161>, accessed 27 March 2018.

⁴¹ Jaffé, Regesta, no. 4693. As well as the Lansdowne cartulary and the Magnum Registrum Album, the privilege for Thomas also survives in an earlier manuscript of c. 1280: BL, ms Cotton Claudius B. iii, fo. 129r. The closing formula was not included there either. See Cowdrey, ‘Archbishop Thomas’, 32–4.

⁴² Schoenig, Bonds of wool, 34, 364–6.

⁴³ Cf. Cowdrey, ‘Archbishop Thomas’, 34–5, and Schoenig, Bonds of wool, 364–5, esp. n. 7. While Cowdrey considers Alexander ii’s grant for Thomas as the last pallium privilege to rely fully on a Liber diurnus formula, Schoenig discusses its many departures from the Liber diurnus and prefers to regard this grant as a ‘newly revised and streamlined version’ of the formula. For a detailed study of the papal chancery's reliance on the Liber diurnus formulae see Santifaller, L., Liber diurnus: Studien und Forschungen, ed. Zimmermann, H., Stuttgart 1976, 11, 40–3, 57Google Scholar. It should be noted that Santifaller's analysis does not take into account the privilege of Nicholas ii for Ealdred. This is probably due to the fact that he was relying on Jaffé, Regesta, no. 4463, which, in its turn, lists Nicholas's document as just a fragmentum. The bibliographical reference provided in the catalogue reveals that the only portion of the document known to Jaffé was the incipit contained in the mid twelfth-century anonymous Chronicle of the archbishops of York, for which see n. 65 below.

⁴⁴ Liber diurnus romanorum pontificum, ed. H. Foerster, Bern 1958, 103–4. Formula 46 also employs the words ‘uti memineris’, which can be found in the section of the grant for Ealdred listing the days on which the pallium can be worn. See Appendix below.

⁴⁵ Schoenig, Bonds of wool, 379.

⁴⁶ Liber diurnus, 102. In its turn, this probably goes back to 1 Timothy iii.2: ‘Oportet ergo episcopum irreprehensibilem esse.’

⁴⁷ See n. 8 above.

⁴⁸ Schoenig, ‘Withholding the pallium’.

⁴⁹ BL, ms Cotton Tiberius B. iv, fo. 77v: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 6: MS D, ed. Cubbin, G. P., Cambridge 1996, 76Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ The date of composition of this work is a matter of debate: Licence, T., ‘The date and authorship of the Vita Ædwardi regis’, Anglo-Saxon England xliv (2015), 259–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Tyler, E. M., England in Europe: English royal women and literary patronage, c. 1000–c. 1150, Toronto 2017, 143–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵¹ Vita Ædwardi i.5, at Life of King Edward, 52–7. Frank Barlow explicitly manifested his surprise (p. lix) at the ‘disproportionate’ space that this ‘somewhat irrelevant’ account of Ealdred and Tostig's mission to Rome was assigned by the anonymous author.

⁵² ‘Confuse ergo et miserabiliter reuersis Romana pietas indoluit, ueritusque domnus papa maxime clarissimi ducis petitionem, presertim et rememorans gratuitam episcopi confessionem, et eam quam sibi intulerant in degradatione humiliter susceptam confusionem, consultus a Romanis patribus ne et depredatę et insuper confuse a beati Petri pietate spectabile personę in tanto recederent merore, letificauit omnes in episcopi reconciliatione et dato pallii honore, ut scilicet in regno suo in eiusdem apostoli persisterent ampliori fidelitate et ueneratione’: ibid. 56–7.

⁵³ For a more detailed treatment of the parallel structures of the two texts arguing for the anonymous narrative's direct dependence on Nicholas's letter and reinforcing the hypothesis of Folcard of St-Bertin's authorship of the Vita Ædwardi see T. Licence, ‘A new source for the Vita Ædwardi regis’, forthcoming. I am very grateful to Dr Licence for sharing his work in advance of publication. See also Licence, ‘Date and authorship’; cf. Life of King Edward, pp. xliii–lix; Keynes, S. and Love, R., ‘Earl Godwine's ship’, Anglo-Saxon England xxxviii (2009), 185–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tyler, England in Europe, 248–57.

⁵⁴ The other differences between the two texts can be more easily explained bearing in mind the focus and agenda of either source. Earl Tostig, together with his entourage, plays a major role in the narrative text, but is not named in the papal grant, which, by contrast, emphasises the role of Archdeacon Hildebrand in pleading Ealdred's case after the attack. On this point see also Licence, ‘A new source’.

⁵⁵ I have identified two other significant examples of shared vocabulary between the papal letter and the narrative text: ‘condolentes/indoluit’ and ‘uentum esset/inuentum sit’. For further, more nuanced, possible textual relationships see Licence, ‘A new source’.

⁵⁶ Scholz, S., Transmigration und Translation: Studien zum Bistumswechsel der Bischöfe von der Spätantike bis zum Hohen Mittelalter, Köln–Weimar–Wien 1992Google Scholar; M. E. Sommar, ‘The changing role of the bishop’, passim; Leyser, C., ‘Episcopal office in the Italy of Liudprand of Cremona, c. 890–c. 970’, EHR cxxv (2010), 795–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar. While migro was fairly common, conmigro was much rarer, but, as noted by Licence, was used by Folcard of St-Bertin in his Life of John of Beverley: ‘A new source’.

⁵⁷ Licence, ‘A new source’. Part of Licence's argument for attributing the Vita Ædwardi to Folcard, who is known to have been placed under Archbishop Ealdred's protection for some time, is based on the identification of York as the place where the work was written because of the text's uncharacteristic casual reference to an obscure church there, without specifying the name of the city where it stood: Licence, ‘Date and authorship’, 274.

⁵⁸ The chronicle of John of Worcester, 586–91.

⁵⁹ William of Malmesbury, Vita Wulfstani i.10, in William of Malmesbury, Saints’ Lives: Lives of SS. Wulfstan, Dunstan, Patrick, Benignus and Indract, ed. and trans. Winterbottom, M. and Thomson, R. M., Oxford 2002, 42–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ Cf. William of Malmesbury, Gesta pontificum Anglorum iii.115, in William of Malmesbury, ‘Gesta pontificum Anglorum’/The history of the English bishops, ed. Winterbottom, M. with Thomson, R. M., Oxford 2007, i. 382–3Google Scholar, where Tostig's threats to the pope are even more direct and daring. William's representation of this episode is more likely to refer to early twelfth-century conditions. On Peter's Pence see Naismith, R. and Tinti, F., ‘The origins of Peter's Pence’, EHR cxxxiv (2019)Google Scholar.

⁶¹ William of Malmesbury, Gesta pontificum Anglorum iii.115, in William of Malmesbury, ‘Gesta pontificum Anglorum’/The history of the English bishops, i. 382–3

⁶² This is not to say that the papacy would have approved of Ealdred's pluralism; in fact, Nicholas ii ordered him to appoint another bishop to the Worcester see, and the two papal legates who participated in the process through which Wulfstan became bishop of Worcester were most likely sent to make sure that the pope's directions in this respect were duly followed.

⁶³ The historians of the Church of York, ii. 312–87.

⁶⁴ See Hugh the Chanter, The history of the Church of York, 1066–1127, ed. Johnson, C., rev. Brett, M., Brooke, C. N. L. and Winterbottom, M., Oxford 1990, p. xixGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁵ The historians of the Church of York, ii. 346–7. This opening passage from Nicholas's privilege is the only extract of which Jaffé was aware when he listed it as a fragmentum in his Regesta.

⁶⁶ Charters of northern houses, ed. Woodman, D., Oxford 2012, no. 11Google Scholar. Edward's forged royal diploma is dated 1065.

⁶⁷ For a more detailed treatment of these events see Williams, A., ‘The cunning of the dove: Wulfstan and the politics of accommodation’, in Barrow, J. S. and Brooks, N. P. (eds), St Wulfstan and his world, Aldershot 2005, 23–38Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ ‘Wigornensem aecclesiam sui iuris esse clamabat: dominatum illius legitima successione sibi competere, antecesserom suorum fuisse’: William of Malmesbury, Vita Wulfstani ii.1, in William of Malmesbury, Saints’ Lives: Lives of SS. Wulfstan, Dunstan, Patrick, Benignus and Indract, 60–3.

⁶⁹ Williams, ‘The cunning of the dove’, 27–31. The bibliography on the primacy dispute is vast; among the classic studies see Southern, R. W., ‘The Canterbury forgeries’, EHR lxxiii (1958), 193–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barlow, The English Church, 234–6; Richter, M., ‘Archbishop Lanfranc and the Canterbury primacy – some suggestions’, Downside Review xc (1972), 110–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gibson, M., Lanfranc of Bec, Oxford 1978, 116–31Google Scholar; and Hugh the Chanter, The history of the Church of York, pp. xxx–xlv.

^a initial N missing R

^b No mark of punctuation after the intitulatio R

^c imperpetuum R

^d…d dispensatio uoluit R

^e Final letter is not clear L

^f Corrected from ex L

^g…g Added in margin through signe-de-renvoi L

^h Omitted R

^i…i karissime confrater R

^j…j apostolica auctoritate R

^k L has pu with mark of abbreviation over u added above patrum, probably an error

^l eodo R

^m Corrected from reuerentiam L; reuerentem R

ⁿ Corrected from coeperunt L

^o Central letter s erased R

^p consolaretur L

^q unquam R

^r supplicationem R

^s ac R

^t Heldeprandi R

^u palleum R

^v Omitted R

^w Omitted L

^x abitu L

^y Omitted L

^z pellei L

^a2 Pasca L

^b2 L has Asscensione with superscript c after ss

^c2 Pentecostes L

^d2 semper R

^e2 Omnium R

^f2 nec R

^g2 Added above the line by later scribe L

^h2 auctoritate R

ⁱ² Corrected from asperare L

^j2 Corrected from camonice L

^k2 irreprehensibilem R

^l2 exibere L

^m2 qua R