Imágenes de páginas

century does it appear to have become customary for them to be invested with legatine powers as soon as their election was recog

William of Malmesbury, Hist. Nov. Book II § 471: Lectum est primo in concilio decretum Innocentii papae, quo jam a Kalendis Martii, si bene commemini, partes sollicitudinis suae idem apostolicus domino episcopo Wintoniensi jure legationis in Anglia injunxerat. Cf. also John of Salisbury, Epist. 89, Ann. de Wintonia (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 36) II, 50, John of Hexham (Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 75) II, 300.] The legation of Henry of Winchester was extinguished by the death of Innocent II (1130-43) and was not renewed by the following popes, Coelestin II (1143–44), Lucius II (1144-45) and Eugenius III (1145-53). The last mentioned, in or before 1150, bestowed the office on archbishop Theobald. Becket, who came next (consecrated in 1162), did not receive the commission in his first years of office. But in connexion with his quarrel with the king, the latter succeeded in inducing the pope to send him, though with reservations, a document conferring legatine authority on Roger, archbishop of York. The actual conferment of legatine powers did not, however, take place. (See below, note 18.) On 24th April, 1166, Becket was appointed legate, but even then the province of York was excepted from the exercise of. his powers. The document appointing him is in Materials for the History of Becket; Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 67; V, 328: nos tibi legationem totius


Angliae, excepto episcopatu Eboracensi, benigno favore concedimus. Cf. further the-separate-conferment of the primacy in the bull of Alexander III to Becket (printed in Materials for Hist. of Becket; Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 67; V, 324 and Wilkins, Conc. I, 446; the bull bears the date 8th April, 1167; on the questions whether this date is false and whether the bull is to be assigned to 1166 or 1167 see Robertson in Materials, l.c., note a and Stubbs, note 1 to Ralf de Diceto, Ymagines Historiarum, Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 68, I, 330): Thoma archiepiscope, de fratrum nostrorum consilio tuis justis petitionibus debita benignitate duximus annuendum, atque praedecessorum nostrorum felicis recordationis Paschalis et Eugenii, Romanorum pontificum, vestigiis inhaerentes, tam tibi quam tuis legitimis successoribus Cantuariensis ecclesiae primatum ita plenum concedimus sicut a Lanfranco et Anselmo aliisque ipsorum praedecessoribus constat fuisse possessum (Cf. for similar, earlier conferments, note 20, below.) On the following archbishop of Canterbury, Richard of Dover, the legation was bestowed directly after his coronation, apparently only for the province of Canterbury, the right of primas being conferred separately. (Report of bishop designate of Bath to Henry II, 5th May, 1174, in Benedict [Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 49] I, 69: domini papae duritia adeo est emollita, quod domini Cantuariensis electi electionem solemniter in praesentia omnium confirmavit; eumque etiam confirmatum, Dominica sequenti consecravit. Consecrato pallium die tertia dedit, et modici temporis spatio excurrente primatiam addidit. Nos praeterea desiderantes ipsum habere plenissimam potestatem vindictam ecclesiasticam exercendi in homines regni vestri multa sollicitudine

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

obtinuimus quod dominus papa eidem provinciae suae legationem indulsit.) The succeeding archbishop Baldwin likewise became at once papal legate. He, like Richard I, took part in the crusade, leaving England on 6th March, 1190. William Longchamp, bishop of Ely, was in March, 1190, appointed chief justiciar and regent, on 5th June in the same year he was also made papal legate for all England (bull in Rad. de Diceto, Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 68, II, 83). The death of pope Clement III (end of March, 1191) put an end to his legation. On the questions whether Coelestin III renewed the commission and how long Longchamp remained legate see Stubbs, in Epistolae Cantuarienses, Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 38, vol. II, p. lxxxiii, note 1. Archbishop Baldwin died on the crusade. The following archbishop of Canterbury, Reginald Fitz Jocelin, died a few weeks after his appointment to the see. After him Hubert Walther (consecrated 1193) became archbishop, but did not receive the legation-it was for all England-until 18th March, 1195 (bull in Rad. de Diceto, l.c. II, 125 and Hoveden, Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 51, III, 290) and

in Rome.16 The countermeasure of the archbishops of York was to endeavour to induce the pope to confine the legation of the archbishops of Canterbury to the province of Canterbury; moreover, some archbishops of York even in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries obtained legatine powers for themselves, 18 and, after John of Thoresby (archbishop of York from 1352 to 1373) had been ap

only remained legate up to the death of Coelestin III (1198). Stephen Langton, the successor of Hubert Walther, was appointed to the legatine office. In 1221 he received from Honorius III (1216-1227) the promise that after the recall of the legatus a latere Pandulf, no other such legatus should be sent to England during his (Langton's) lifetime. Annales de Dunstaplia (Ann. Monastici ; Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 36) III, 74: Eodem anno (1221) Stephanus, Cantuariensis archiepiscopus, Romam profectus, cum gloria et honore reversus est. Et impetravit quod legatus in vita ipsius nequaquam in Anglia mitteretur. Pandulf was recalled in the summer of 1221.-Cf. also the ordinance of Clement IV (1265-68) in Lib. Sextus I tit. XV c 2: Legatos, quibus in certis provinciis committitur legationis officium. ordinarios reputantes, praesenti declaramus edicto, commissum tibi a praedecessore nostro legationis officium nequaquam per ipsius obitum exspirasse. 16 Stubbs, Const. Hist. III, 308 c 19 § 380.

[ocr errors]

17 Compare e.g. above, note 15 in regard to Becket (totius Angliae, excepto episcopatu Eboracensi) and Richard of Dover (provinciae suae legationem). In the appointment of Hubert declaration is made that it is to hold good in spite of privilege of York conflicting therewith.

18 When pope Alexander III refused Henry II the confirmation of the constitutions of Clarendon, the king again demanded the confirmation of them and the nomination of the archbishop of York as legate of all England. The pope rejected the former request; not to make the king too angry, he sent him, however, a legatine appointment for the archbishop of York, but caused the king's envoys to promise him that the appointment should only be delivered to the archbishop upon receipt of papal consent. At the same time the pope wrote on 27th February, 1164, to Becket, that if the king should deliver the commission without consent given, he (the pope) would exempt the archbishop of Canterbury and his province from the scope of the legation. Henry sent the commission back to the pope on the ground that it had not been desired by the royal envoys upon the condition specified. The pope-whose position, meanwhile, had been secured by the death of the antipope Octavian (20th April, 1164)— kept the document and gave no new legatine appointment. Letters of Alexander III to Becket, Mat. for Hist. Becket, l.c. V, 85 and 87. Reports of Becket's agent at the papal court, l.c. V, 80 and 94. Letter of the bishop of Poitou to Becket, l.c. V, 112. Roger de Hoveden (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 54) I, 223. Gervasius, Chronic. (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 73) I, 181.—It is not quite clear whether Roger was subsequently, on the ground of the appointment never delivered, regarded nevertheless by the pope as legate. He is not designated legate, e.g. in letters of Alexander III to him in 1166 (Materials, l.c. V, 323) and 16th Sept. 1170 (l.c. VII, 364); on the other hand he is for the most part so designated in letters of 1170 and afterwards (e.g. Alexander III to Roger, 18th Feb. 1170, Materials VII, 213; Becket to Roger, 1170, Materials VII, 263, 324; Roger to the bishop of Durham and others, 1171, Materials VII, 504; Alexander III to Roger, 1175-6, Materials VII, 568; Alexander III to Roger, 1176, Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. II, 244). The legation in Scotland was apparently only conferred on him in 1181 (Haddan and Stubbs II, 254, from Hoveden II, 211 and Benedict I, 263). In 1188 the pope gave the Scottish bishops the assurance (aimed especially against the archbishop of York) that in future no one but a Scotchman or a special envoy from the entourage of the pope should be entrusted with the office of legate in Scotland. (Cf. § 10, note 11.)—Archbishop Walter de Gray of York (1215-55) is designated apostolicae sedis legatus in a MS. printed in Wilkins, Conc. I, 698.

pointed to the office, they almost all held it,19 so that the claim of the archbishops of Canterbury to superiority lost from this time even such weight as it possessed in virtue of the papal commission.

But the archbishops of York were not content with denying that the archbishops of Canterbury were their superiors; they claimed, positively, equal rank and equal privileges. The archbishops of Canterbury had at the end of the eleventh century assumed the title of primates of Britain. Apparently they could in respect to this title and the precedence implied by it appeal with greater justice to old grants than in respect to the official superiority to which they also pretended. Moreover, their right to the title had been, from the beginning of the twelfth century, repeatedly confirmed by the popes.20 As early as Thomas I and Gerard of York opposition had been offered to this claim of the archbishops of Canterbury. The events of 1126 alluded to above had not settled the question of rank. The dispute turned, in the main, on the right to assist at the coronation of the king, to fill the place of honour at assemblies, and to have the archiepiscopal cross borne in front even in the neighbour's province.22 The controversy


19 According to Stubbs, Const. Hist. III, 310, note 1 c 19 § 380 the constant conferment from 1352 of the legatine office on the archbishops of York is perhaps connected with the settlement of the dispute then reached (cf. below, note 25).—According to Wilkins, Conc. III, 662, Thomas Rotheram and Thomas Savage were not legates.

20 Letter of Paschal II to Anselm, 15th April, 1102 (Jaffé 5908, Wilkins, Conc. I. 379 f.): .. Quem [scil. primatum]... ita fraternitati tuae plenum et integrum confirmamus, sicut a tuis constat praedecessoribus fuisse possessum; hoc personaliter adjicientes, ut quamdiu regno illi religionem tuam divina misericordia conservaverit, nullius unquam legati, sed nostro tantum debeas subesse judicio. Paschal II to Anselm, 16th Nov. 1103 (Jaffé 5955, Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 154): Quondam Cantuariensis ecclesiaeprimatum ita tibi plenum concessimus, sicut a tuis constat praedecessoribus fuisse possessum. Nunc autem, petitionibus tuis annuentes, tam tibi quam tuis legitimis successoribus eundem primatum, et quicquid dignitatis seu potestatis eidem sanctae Cantuariensi seu Dorobernensi ecclesiae pertinere cognoscitur,... confirmamus, sicut a temporibus Beati Augustini praedecessores tuos habuisse apostolicae sedis auctoritate constiterit.-Eugenius III (1145-53) to Theobald in Registr. Cant. A 34 (quoted Materials, Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 67 V, 324); Alexander III to Becket and Richard of Dover (above, note 15).


According to Eadmer, Hist. Nov. (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 81) p. 42, in the document setting forth the election of archbishop Anselm, the see of Canterbury had been designated totius Britanniae metropolitana; but in consequence of the opposition of archbishop Thomas I of York, this had been changed to totius Britanniae primas. According to Hugo Cantor, l.c. 104, 113, the phrase originally ran primas totius Britanniae; but Thomas ultimately consecrated Anselm only as metropolita (archiepiscopus) Cantuariensis.-On Gerard see note 7. "In connexion with these disputes as to rank the following circumstances are to be mentioned:


Immediately after the return from Rome, Christmas, 1126, a dispute arose upon occasion of a royal coronation. Gervasius, Act. Pontificum (Rer. Brit.· Ser. No. 73) II, 382: Willelmus archiepiscopus in Angliam reversus in Nativitate Domini regem coronavit Henricum apud Windlesore, ubi cum Eboracensis episcopus aequalitate Cantuariensis archiepiscopi regem vellet coronare, judicio omnium repulsus est, et ad eum coronam regni non pertinere una omnium sententia concorditer promulgatur. Lator insuper crucis, quam in .



lasted until the middle of the fourteenth century. Meanwhile the

regis capellam se coram fecit deferri, extra capellam cum cruce ejectus est. In similar words Gervasius, Gesta Regum (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 73) II, 70. According to Hugo Cantor, l.c. 217, the archbishop of York yielded of his own accord.

In 1163 the archbishop of York appealed to the pope, because Becket had sought to prevent him erecting his cross in the southern province. (Letter of Becket to pope Alexander, Materials for Hist. Becket, Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 67, V, 44. Cf. l.c. V, 47, 60, 67, 68, 69, 82, 131.)

The question of precedence was discussed without result at the council of London (Westminster) 1175 (Benedict, Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 49, I, 89. Hoveden, l.c. No. 51, II, 77). The archbishop of York therefore again appealed to the pope against the archbishop of Canterbury. The king, however, arranged in 1175 at Winchester, the legate Hugo being present, a year's peace between the archbishops, within which time the archbishop of Rouen and the neighbouring French bishops were to arbitrate. (So Benedict I, 104 in the text approved in the Rer. Brit. Scr. edition. But according to another reading and to Hoveden [Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 51] II, 86 the five years' peace was then concluded; they then repeat the same in the next year.) Nevertheless, in the following year at the council held at London by legate Hugo, the two archbishops contended for the post of honour. [Violence was used; the details are given variously. Compare e.g. Gervasius, Chronic. (Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 73) I, 258, Acta Pont. l.c. II, 398; Benedict, l.c. I, 112; Hoveden, l.c. II, 92; William of Newburgh (Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 82) I, 203; Rad. de Diceto (Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 68) I, 405.] There was again an appeal to the pope, but the quarrel was again, for the present, settled by the king, this time at an assembly of clergy and laity at Winchester, 1176, and a five years' peace was concluded between the archbishops until the issue of the decision of the arbiters (Benedict, l.c. I, 118. Hoveden, 7.c. II, 99). In March, 1192, Geoffrey of York bore his cross in the southern province; the bishops of that province threatened, if he should continue to do so, to break the cross, and the bishop of London Novum Templum, in quo archiepiscopus hospitatus fuerat, a divino suspendit officio et a campanarum sonitu (Benedict, Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 49; II, 238); in the spring of 1194 the archbishops were at variance, first because the archbishop of Canterbury bore his cross in the northern province, then because the archbishop of York bore his in the southern. The archbishop of Canterbury appealed to the pope (Hoveden, Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 51, III, 239, 250, cf. 246).

On the papal bulls of the twelfth century, according to which seniority in respect of ordination should determine rank, see notes 11 and 14; on the bulls -hard to reconcile with the preceding--by which primacy was to belong to the archbishops of Canterbury, see note 20.

In 1221 Langton received a papal privilege, Annal. de Dunstaplia (Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 36; Ann. Monastici) III, 74: Eodem anno (1221) Stephanus, Cantuariensis archiepiscopus, Romam profectus, cum gloria et honore reversus est. Et, ne Eboracensis extra provinciam suam in Anglia crucem portaret, impetravit;

On the dispute as to precedence at the council of London held by legate Otho in 1237, see Matth. Paris (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 57) III, 416.

In 1279, after a long respite, the controversy was revived. Archbishop Wickwane of York, on his return from Rome, caused his cross to be carried before him on his progress through the province of Canterbury. The archbishop of Canterbury's servants tore the cross with violence from the bearer and broke it; the archbishop of Canterbury forbade the sale of provisions to the archbishop of York. Annales de Oseneia and Chron. Thom. Wykes (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 36; Ann. Monastici) IV, 281; Flores Historiarum (the so-called Matth. Westmonasteriensis; Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 95) III, 52 in the Merton MSS.; mandate of the rural dean of Brading (Brathing) to the clergy of his deanery, March, 1280: upon the authority of the official of Canterbury, if the archbishop of York passed through their parish bearing his cross erect, then all such places in the

archbishops of York had also taken the title of primas.23 On the 20th of April, 1352 or 1353,24 the then archbishops, Islip of Canterbury and Thoresby of York, with the king's mediation concluded an agreement, for themselves and their successors, as to the bearing of the cross in each other's province and as to precedence. The

archdeaconry of Middlesex were to be placed under ecclesiastic interdict; no one was to sell to him, or communicate with him in any way, or beg his blessing or ring the bells to greet him (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 61, p. 59); report of Wickwane to the pope, 1st April, 1280 (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 61, p. 60). Similar orders of the archbishop of Canterbury, 24th Dec. 1284, to the archdeacon of Canterbury (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 77; III, 869), 12th April, 1285, to the official of the bishop of Chichester (Rer. Brit. Scr. III, 893), 12th June, 1285, to the archdeacon of Canterbury and the commissary for the exempt deaneries, also to the commissary of Canterbury (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 77, III, 906, 908); similar mandates of 26th March, 6th and 11th April, 1286 (Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 61, pp. 82, 83), of 7th May, 1287, to the bishop of Worcester (Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 77, III, 945), of 8th March, 1288, to the archdeacons and other ecclesiastical officials of Canterbury, London and Rochester (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 77, III, 955).

Letter of the archbishop of Canterbury, of the same purport as the above, 25th Jan. 1301, to the bishop of Lincoln, respecting the forthcoming appearance of the archbishop of York at the parliament of Lincoln (Wilkins II, 264); letter of similar purport of the archbishop of Canterbury (1306) to his commissary (Wilkins II, 284). Compare also letters of Edward I, 31st Dec. 1304, to the pope and the cardinals in favour of the claim of York (Rymer, Foedera 4th Ed. I, 969).

In 1312 the pope (without settling the dispute in principle) allowed the archbishop of York, returning from the council of Vienne, to have his cross carried before him on his way back through the province of Canterbury. Baronius, Annal. 1312, No. 26, Ed. 1864-83, XXIII, 542.

In the year 1314 king's order to archbishop of York not to cause difficulties to the archbishop of Canterbury on his way to the parliament of York for erecting his cross (Wilkins, Conc. II, 448).

In 1317 archbishop Melton of York, returning from Rome, proceeded with cross erected through Kent and London. The archbishop of Canterbury laid the town of London under an interdict for the time of the archbishop of York's stay (Annal. Paulini; Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 77; I, 281).

In 1325 the archbishop of Canterbury excommunicated the archbishop of York for having caused his cross to be borne before him in the southern province. (Report in Wilkins, Conc. II, 526, after Wharton, Anglia Sacra I, 365.)

Prohibition of Edward III to the archbishop of Canterbury, 18th Aug. 1332, against causing difficulties to the archbishop of York on his way to parliament for erecting the cross, reference being made in the prohibition to an agreement made between the archbishops in the reign of Edward II to the effect, quod praefatus praedecessor vester, et successores sui, ad parliamenta et tractatus dicti patris nostri, et haeredum suorum, quae infra dictam Eborum provinciam teneri contingeret, et praefatus Eborum archiepiscopus, et ipsius successores, ad hujusmodi parliamenta et tractatus, infra dictam Cantuariensem provinciam tenenda venientes, cruces suas ante se erectas portarent,

absque perturbatione inibi facienda (Rymer, Foedera 4th Ed. II, 844).

23 Compare e.g. council of Ripon, 1306 (above, note 14), letters of archbishop Grenefeld of York, 1315; see also in letter of archbishop of Canterbury to archbishop Melton of York, 1324 (Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 61, pp. 238, 246, 326). The bishop of Durham in 1199 claimed for the archbishop of York as totius Angliae primas the right of assisting at the king's coronation (Hoveden, Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 51; IV, 90).

24 On the date compare Raine, Fasti Eboracenses, Lives of the Archbishops of York, London, 1863, I, 457, note s.

« AnteriorContinuar »