Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T00:23:54.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Case of Saint William of York1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2011

Dom David Knowles
Get access

Extract

The complicated series of disputes which followed the York election of 1140–1 is familiar in broad outline to all students of the period. From a small beginning the strife came to involve almost every person of importance in England, and many on the Continent, and lasted, in its ramifications, for some twenty years. Yet the history of this controversy, though it could not fail to receive some notice in any detailed account of the times, has not hitherto been set out in full with complete accuracy. This failure has been due in part to the nature of the records, which are scattered among English chronicles, papal documents and Cistercian sources, and can only be fully used by one who has them all before his eyes simultaneously; many of those who have treated the episode obiter have failed thus to assemble them with completeness. In part also it has been due to gaps in the evidence at more than one crucial point, which have thrown all historians back upon conjecture. These gaps, in part, still exist, but it so happens that within the last few years a number of independent studies have reconstructed much of the narrative that was hitherto dark, and some important documents have come to light; it is therefore possible to arrive at something approaching to a clear view of the whole business.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Historical Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , 1936 , pp. 162 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Voss, Heinrich v[on] B[lois], pp. 41–5, and sources there cited.

3 At Salisbury the legate proposed Henry de Sully, his and the king's nephew; Stephen, however, wished for Philip Harcourt, the Chancellor. See Voss, Heinrich v. B., p. 42, and Böhmer, Kirche u[nd] Stoat [in England], p. 376.

4 All the sources agree in their praise of William, especially Walter Daniel, Vita Ailredi (Powicke, Ailred of Rievaulx [and his Biographer], p. 93), and John of Hexham, p. 317 (vide Appendix (a), p. 212 below). Among the white monks he was venerated as a saint, though never formally canonized. Cf. Peers, Sir Charles in Archaeological Journal, LXXXVI (1929), 20seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Bernard, ep. 353 (autumn, 1143): Propterea sciens zelum vestrum, ne forte plus justo ferveat, temperamentum scientiae non admittens, &c.

6 See especially the tribute of Serlo in Mem[orials of] Fountains, 1, 73.

7 Besides holding the abbacy of Glastonbury while bishop of Winchester, Henry during 1139–41 was administering the sees of London and Salisbury; cf. Voss, Heinrich v. B., p. 44. Henry of Huntingdon, p. 315, calls him: Novum quoddam monstrum… monachus et miles. Bernard's adverse opinion may be seen in his letter to Lucius II (vide Appendix (b), p. 213).

8 See Voss, Heinrich v. B., pp. 42–5, and references.

9 John of Hexham, p. 306: Clerici Eboracenses secundum desideria cordis sui varia et vaga sententia circumacti fuerant toto anno super electione facienda.

10 Vita S. Waldeni in Acta Sanctorum, August, I, 256, c, d. Attention was first called to this important passage by Prof. Powicke, Ailred of Rievaulx, p. 37, note 3. The writer was Jocelin of Furness, c. 1210, but there is no reason to question his statement; he clearly had Cistercian records before him, and could have no motive for fabricating an incident which he only mentions in passing, and of which he gives precise details which, so far as they can be checked, are entirely accurate. Thus he refers to William le Groos as consanguineus of Waldef, a circumstance alluded to by no contemporary source. Waldef was great-grandson of Adelaide, sister of the Conqueror, by Lambert, her second husband. William, earl of Aumâle, was her grandson by Eudes, her third husband. See Complete Peerage (ed. V. Gibbs), I, 350–3, s.v. Aumâle.

11 John of Hexham, p. 306. Hexham wrongly calls Henry de Sully abbot of Caen.

12 John of Hexham, p. 313: Summa vero querela eorum [sc. the appellants] in hoc niti videbatur, quod Willelmus comes Eboracensis in capitulo Eboracensi praecepit ex ore regis hunc Willelmum eligi. For the account given by Innocent II see note 24 infra.

13 We are not told if the minority still held to Waldef as candidate. Roger Howden (Rolls Series), 1, 198, says that Henry Murdac was William's rival, but it is clear that he is amalgamating and confusing the two elections of 1141 and 1147. Dr Poole, St William, p. 277, notes this as probable, which Tout had failed to do in D.N.B., but continues: “[Bernard] exerted himself strenuously in favour of Henry and did not spare his denunciation of William.” This is to anticipate in 1141 the situation of 1147.

14 He appears in John of Hexham, p. 307, as: “magister Walterus Lundoniensis archidiaconus.” For the erroneous identification of him with archdeacon Osbert see Appendix (c), p. 213.

15 John of Hexham, p. 311. Cf. Ailred, in Raine, Priory of Hexham (Surtees Society, 1864), I, 193.Google Scholar

16 For William's genealogy, see Dr Poole's St William, where it is set out very fully. For the spiritual relationship with Henry of Winchester, see Hist[orians of the Church of] York (Rolls Series), II, 272.

17 John of Hexham, p. 317. If we may trust two Selby charters William was treasurer of York under archbishop Thomas II, i.e. ante 1114 (Selby Coucher Book, Yorks. Archaeological Society, 1891, 1, 290, 300).

18 John of Hexham, p. 317; William of Newburgh, I, 80; Mem. Fount., p. 80. The last passage, however, bears traces of interpolation.

19 Cf. letter of Innocent II in Voss, Heinrich v. B. p. 169, and Holtzmann, Papsturkunden [in England], 2, 11, no. 32: Quidam religiosi viri illius terrae [i.e. the Cistercians and Augustinians] in praesentia nostra viva voce asseruerunt quod in provincia ilia Celebris fama est de ipsius incontinentia et incestu. Bernard, ep. 235, speaks of him as one: quern rumor publicae opinionis et operis veritas detestatur. Cf. ep. 240, and above all his statement to Eugenius in 1145 that Imar of Tusculum: tanta jam ut accepimus de homine illo audivit et cognovit ea, ut non possint nares ejus fetorem horribilem sustinere [nijsi tamen desuper ei fuerit data potestas (vide Appendix (b), p. 213). The judgement of Vacandard (Vie de S. Bernard, II, 326) that all this was calumny seems unjustifiable.

20 So Gervase of Canterbury (Rolls Series), I, 123. Gervase wrote c. 1190, but his reference to William as cuidam clerico shows that he was copying an earlier document.

21 Bernard, ep. 346: Archiepiscopus Eboracensis venit ad vos, ille de quo saepenumero scripsimus sanctitati vestrae, homo qui…speravit in multitudine divitiarum suarum…a planta pedis usque ad verticem non est sanitas in ea [sc. causa ejus].

22 Walter Daniel, Vita Ailredi, in Powicke, Ailred of Rievaulx, p. 89. The date, however, must be 1142, not as given by Prof. Powicke (p. 68) 1141. Dr Poole, St William, p. 277, not having noticed this passage, does not distinguish between the two legations to Rome, which are confused also by Mr W. Williams, St Bernard [of Clairvaux], p. 168.

23 Dr Poole, St William, writes: “probably the critical matter was a charge of simony”. Innocent's letter (vide next note) makes it clear that uncanonical intrusion was the main charge. For the personnel, vide John of Hexham, p. 313.

24 Innocent's letter to the legate, first published by Voss, Heinrich v. B. pp. 168–9, and since by Holtzmann, Papsturkunden, 2, II, no. 32, has not hitherto been used in any full account of the affair. It greatly strengthens the case against William. The pope writes: Utriusque partis rationes et testes una cum fratribus nostris [i.e. the cardinals] diutius examinavimus. Gualterus siquidem archidiaconus…duos testes produxit, qui asserebant quod dilectus filius noster S[tephanus] rex Anglorum, frater tuus, per comitem Eboracensem decano [i.e. William of St Barbara] mandaverat ut G[uillelmum] thesaurarium in archiepiscopum sibi assumerent. Qui cum secundum sanctorum patrum institutionem et ecclesiasticam consuetudinem a fratribus nostris diligenter examinarentur de loco, in quo prefatus comes supradictum verbum ex parte regis decano dixit, discordes inventi sunt. The reference in the last sentence is doubtless to Daniel, xiii, 51–9 (Vulgate). Many cardinals, it must be remembered, were anti-Cistercian.

26 Innocent's words are: Communi fratrum nostrorum consilio judicavimus, ut, si decanus cum duabus vel tribus idoneis personis ipsius ecclesiae…juraverit…ipsa electio proprium robur optineat. No alternative is given.

26 Bernard, ep. 235: Hoc autem non ex judicio, sed ex misericordia: sic enim rogaverat ipse. Ep. 236 (to the cardinals): Nee vos latuit quam plena esset sententia, non judicii, sed misericordiae; nimirum cum hoc Willelmus ipse quaesisset. This last letter, written to members of the court which had tried the case only some six months previously, must be accepted as a true account.

27 The trial began on 7 March, and we know that Richard of Fountains returned home, after visiting St Bernard, on the eve of Pentecost, i.e. 23 May (Mem. Fount. P. 75).

28 So Dr Poole, St William, p. 278: a suggestion which Mr W. Williams assumes as a fact in his narrative, St Bernard, p. 169.

29 Bernard, ep. 236 to the Curia (October 1143): Quid enim de eo dicam, quod occultas et vere tenebrosas litteras habuisse se glorietur Willelmus ille? …Et ecce, audierunt filii incircumcisorum: subsannant Romanam curiam, a qua post datam tam manifestam sententiam, furtim datas esse aiunt contrarias litteras. Ep. 240 to Eugenius III (1145): Qui sibi possessionem vindicat furtivarum commercio litterarum, nonne fur est et latro?…Si pro se [sc. Innocentio] liceret loqui, procul dubio diceret huic, quia Ego palam in te dedi sententiam, et in occulto locutus sum nihil.

30 Cf. his words (Voss, Heinrich v. B. pp. 169–70): …causam diligentius inquirentes ex literis predecessoris nostri.

31 John of Hexham, after giving a very correct summary of Innocent's letter, adds: Impetratum etiam fuit, vice decani aliam approbatam personam ad sacramentum posse substitui.

32 Cf. Bernard's letter to Lucius II (Hüffer, Bernard von Clairvaux, p. 234): Decanus namque ab ipso [sc. Henrico] ad prefinitum invitatus juramentum non solum in publico juramentum renuit sed et in contrarium jurare paratus fuit.

33 John of Hexham, p. 315. Actually, unless dispensed ad hoc, the Cistercian abbots would have been at General Chapter.

34 John of Hexham, p. 315, uses the vague words: satisfacturi cum electo et pro electo. Compurgatores did not swear to the innocence of the accused, but to his (general) reliability. Cf. Paul Fournier, Les Officialités au Moyen Âge, III, iii, Le serment purgatoire, p. 266.

35 Gervase of Canterbury, 1, 123, asserts this, but he may be merely safeguarding any possible claims of Canterbury.

36 John of Hexham, p. 315.

37 Bernard, ep. 235 (to the pope), calls William: homo bis intrusus, primo quidem per Regem, deinde per Legatum. In ep. 236 (to the cardinals) he is: incubator ille. Bernard adds: urimur assidue, dico vobis, urimur graviter nimis, ita ut nos taedeat etiam vivere. It is not without piquancy that only a short time before he had written to William of Rievaulx (ep. 353, vide supra, note 4) begging him to curb his zeal.

38 The date of Murdac's election cannot be fixed with certainty; cf. Bernard, ep. 320: dudum misissem. The most likely date is c. January 1144. Richard's obit in the President Book of Fountains is 12 October (1143). He died at Clairvaux.

39 For this letter vide Appendix (b), p. 213.

40 Imar would seem not to have left Rome till December 1144; see Poole, St William, p. 278. Tillman, Päpstl[ichen] Legaten [in England], p. 50, note, seems to favour an earlier date.

41 Bernard, ep. 360: Laboravimus, quantum potuimus, adversus pestem communem … suggessimus domino Tusculano episcopo…et omnino promisit nobis se, nisi aliquid melius fecerit nobis, id saltern omnimodis observaturum, ne tradat ei pallium quod portat, si non juraverit decanus ille, nunc vero episcopus, &c.

42 John of Hexham, p. 317. Dr Poole, St William, p. 279, assumes that Imar visited York, and Mr W. Williams, St Bernard, p. 173, takes it for granted that he held an enquiry, but Tillman, Päpstl. Legaten, pp. 50–1, gives no reference to his presence in northern England, and I have found no allusion to it in the sources.

43 So Bernard, ep. 240: Exstant denique litterae ipsius de eo ad apostolicae Sedis legatum [i.e. Imar, not, as Mr W. Williams, St Bernard, p. 174, supposes, Henry] in quibus manifeste manifestam asserit intrusionem, electionem negat. Cf. also the continuation of ep. 239 quoted above, note 19.

44 Bernard, ep. 238, to Eugenius III (March 1145).

45 So John of Hexham, p. 318: Resumpta itaque confidentia…[et] instantibus in appellatione [Cisterciensibus]. Cf. Mem. Fount. pp. 99–100. I have not, however, found mention of any in England making a move, save Murdac.

46 Bernard, ep. 238. Mr W. Williams, St Bernard, pp. 173–4, confuses epp. 238 and 239.

47 Bernard, epp. 238–40 (all of 1145): idolum illud Eboracense…quo autem impetu, non dico ferienda, sed fulminanda fuerit…vestrae conscientiae derelinquo…non multum interest qua parte arbor infructuosa cadat, dummodo cadat.

48 John of Hexham, p. 318: Adstipulabantur ei instanter suffragia Romani senatus.

49 Cf. the pope's letter to the clergy of York (21 February 1146) announcing William's suspension (Voss, Heinrich v. B. p. 169; Holtzmann, Papsturkunden, 2, II, no. 50): nequiter et maliciose contra formam judicii predecessoris nostri consecratus est.

50 Mem. Fount., p. 101: Abbatem de Fontibus Henricum…strictis gladiis perimere moliti sunt. The attack on Fountains is then described. John of Hexham, pp. 318–19, speaks of the attack as on a grange of Fountains, but Serlo, a monk at the time, can scarcely be in error on this point, and he is supported by the Chronicon de Melsa (Rolls Series), p. 115.

51 William of Newburgh, 1, 56–7: Propinqui quoque depositi…seniorem archidiaconum qui forte in manus eorum incid[it] abscidere minime vere[bantur]. This outrage, which only Newburgh records, doubtless helped to provoke Bernard's ep. 252 to Eugenius III, which hitherto has been taken as referring only to the attack on Fountains, and has been branded by many (following Walbran) as violent and exaggerated. But his words do not necessarily imply that murder had been committed.

52 John of Hexham, pp. 320–1, who says he was consecrated at Trèves. John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, ed. Poole, p. 6, says it was at Auxerre. For Murdac's activity at the council and the earlier decision of Eugenius supported by a minority of the cardinals vide Gervase of Canterbury, I, 134.

53 John of Hexham, p. 320; a passage written before there was any question of canonization, and supported by the account in Annales Wintonienses (Ann. Monastici, Rolls Series, 1, 54). For a somewhat embroidered version, which however refers to Winchester testimony, see Hist. York, II, 272–3.

54 William of Newburgh, I, 79: Tertio [sc. Henrico] jam superstite…spe recuperationis concepta…judicium non accusans, misericordiam humiliter postulavit. Cf. Poole, St William, p. 280.

55 Hist. York, II, 274, 396. See also Chronicon de Melsa, p. 116.

56 Anastasius had been one of his chief supporters (Hist. York, II, 274); the powerful rdinal Gregory of St Angelus favoured him (Will. Newburgh, 1, 79).

57 Mem. Fount. pp. 109–10; Chronicon de Melsa, pp. 116–17.

58 I can find no authority for the statement of Voss, Heinrich v. B. p. 69: doch der Fanatismus der Cisterziensertums glühte noch im geheimen fort.

59 William of Newburgh, 1, 81–2: Robertus decanus et Osbertus archidiaconus…Rogerium…elegerunt, magnisque suffragiis atque terroribus Eboracense capitulum ad consentiendum induxerunt.

60 Cf. the letter of [Theobald to Alexander III, written by] John of Salisbury, ed. Giles, 1, 170, ep. cxxii: In praesentia regis Stephani et episcoporum et baronum Angliae in quodam conventu celebri.

61 John of Salisbury, 1, 170–1: Vix cum summa difficultate, in manu valida et cum indignatione regis et omnium procerum, jam dictam causam ad examen ecclesiasticum revocavimus. This is an interesting confirmation of Dr Brooke's judgement as to Theobald's strength (The English Church and the Papacy, p. 189).

62 G. Foliot, ep. cxiv (ed. Giles, 1, 152–3), says: nullis fulta testimoniis verba funde-[bat]. Theobald, however, implies a mere technical flaw (John of Salisbury, I, 171): Quum…actor…secundum subtilitatem legum et canonum accusationem non posset implere.

63 Salisbury says he failed; Theobald that he preferred to appeal; Foliot is silent.

64 John of Salisbury, ep. cviii (I, 158): Osbertus Eboracensis archidiaconus in purgatione defecit. Quisquis vobis suggesserit aliter non credatis. Giles dates this correctly as [late autumn] 1159. From internal evidence Theobald's letter can be given the same date.

65 Foliot, ep. cxiv: Has quidem [litteras Theobaldi] diligenter inspeximus. It is interesting to find Foliot warmly supporting Osbert's refusal to submit to the king's court.

66 William of Newburgh, I, 80–2.