University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Boniface Of Savoy, Archbishop Of Canterbury, 1245-1270: His Role In English Politics

(USC Thesis Other)

Boniface Of Savoy, Archbishop Of Canterbury, 1245-1270: His Role In English Politics

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 68-1206 WILSHIRE, Leland Edward, 1935- BONIFACE OF SAVOY, ARCHBISHOP O f CANTERBURY, 1245-1270: HIS ROLE IN ENGLISH POLm CS. University of Southern California, PluD., 1967 History, medieval University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan CeJ Copyright by LELAND EDWARD WILSHIRE 1968 BONIFACE OF SAVOY, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, 1245-1270: HIS ROLE IN ENGLISH POLITICS by Leland Edward W ilshire A D isserta tio n P resen ted to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In P a rtia l F u lfillm en t of the R equirem ents for the D egree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (H istory) August 1967 UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THK GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANOELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by .........................L eland__E <3wajrjd_JWiJI;s H i r e ‘ _ ................... under the direction of h.ia...Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of DO CTO R OF P H IL O SO P H Y C Dean Date A ugust.196.7.. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE A b - - j % T Chairman ’T p u T j U Z & l PREFACE My in terest in B oniface of Savoy, A rchbishop of Canterbury, cam e only after a long attem pt to avoid him . The picture usually painted of this archbishop w as a d reary one. W hile w ritin g a paper oh the p o litica l ro le of the m ore popular thirteenth century church m an Robert G ro sse te ste , how ever, I found m y se lf confronted with I p o litica l cu rren ts that, when traced back, em anated not from the j bishop of L incoln but from the avoided archbishop. Som ething was w rong w ith the traditional p ictu re. In May of 1965, I presen ted a p relim in ary paper, "Boniface of Savoy, A rchbishop of Canterbury: H is R elationship to the King and the Events of 1260-1264,1 1 at a sem in ar conducted at the U n iversity of Southern C alifornia by D r. Donald E . Q ueller, P r o fe sso r of M edieval H istory. T his paper confirm ed m y su sp icio n s and led to this presen t study. Along with P ro fe sso r Q ueller, I would a lso lik e to thank D r. Richard C. D ales, P r o fe sso r of M edieval H istory, U n iversity of Southern C aliforn ia. Both m en gave m e their in te re st, support and encouragem ent. I would a lso lik e to thank those who m ade p o ssib le a G raduate D ean's F ellow sh ip which w as a help in bringing this study to com p letion. The lib rarian s at many p la ces in the United States and England w ere able to se cu re for m e m a teria l that lim ited tra v el denied m e. In tim e, I hope to thank them p erson ally. ii I would e sp e c ia lly lik e to thank m y wife for her patient help in the task of rea d isg and typing the m anu script. Any e r r o r s, of co u rse, rem ain m y own r esp o n sib ility . L .E .W . L os A ngeles August 1967 TABLE O F CONTENTS PREFACE INTRODUCTION: A H istory of the Interpretation of B oniface of Savoy, A rchbishop o f Canterbury: a Study in V ilification and H agiography CHAPTER I: The E arly L ife of B oniface: from h is Birth to h is E lection to Canterbury (1207?-1241) CHAPTER II: The E lection of B oniface of Savoy to the See of Canterbury: a Study in P o litica l F o r c e s (1241-1245) CHAPTER HI: B oniface of Savoy, E lect of Canterbury: an E x e r c ise in P o litic a l A w areness (1245-1248) CHAPTER IV: The E arly P art of the R eign of A rchbishop B oniface: the P rob lem s of F in ance, Ju risd iction and the L iberty of the Church (1248-1256) CHAPTER V: From the Council of London to h is E xile: the R elationship of B oniface to the M ovem ents of E c c le s ia s tic a l and P o litica l Reform (1257-1262) CHAPTER VI: From h is E xile to h is Return to England: the A rchbishop and C ivil War (1262-1266) CHAPTER VH: The F in al Y ears of the A rchbishop in England to his Death in Savoy (1266-1270): an E stim ation of B oniface of Savoy and h is R ole in E nglish P o litics APPENDICES A. A L etter from A rchbishop B oniface to h is Suffragans, dated (O ctober) 1263, from the Additam enta to the Hyde C hronicle (unpublished). W ritten ca . l2 6 o . B odleian L ibrary, O xford, B odleian MSS, §T, fo l. 136r -l3 6 v B . A L etter from the Suffragans of Canterbury to A rchbishop B on iface, dated January (1264), from the Additam enta to the Hyde C hronicle (unpublished). B odleian L ibrary, Oxford, B odleian MSS, 91, fo l. 136v C. The C harter giving the C onditions for the Return of A rchbishop B oniface to England. F o ed era , I, i, 438 BIBLIOGRAPHY 182 184 185 186 v i INTRODUCTION | 1 A HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF BONIFACE OF SAVOY, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: A STUDY IN VILIFICATION AND HAGIOGRAPHY ! The nam es of m any churchm en from thirteenth century ! England are fa m ilia r. One can quickly c a ll to mind Archbishop Stephen Langton for h is relation sh ip to the Magna C arta and the early reign of H enry III. A rchbishop Edmund of Abingdon, noted for his a sc e tic ism and piety, and A rchbishops Robert Kilwardby and John Peckham , who helped to shape the in tellectu al life of the thirteenth century, have been the su b jects of recen t sch o la rly stu dies.* We are in the m id st of a r en a issa n c e of in te re st in the 2 brillian t and m u lti-sid ed bishop of L incoln, Robert G r o sse te ste . In contrast, one archbishop of C anterbury, Boniface of Savoy, rem ain s today in alm ost total o b scu rity . H is reign as archbishop, 1245-1270, covered a period of c ru cia l im portance in E n glish h isto ry . T his w as the tim e of the m isgovern m ent of Henry *F .M . P ow icke, Stephen Langton (Oxford, 1928), C. H. ! L aw rence, St. Edmund of Abingdon (Oxford, 1960), E llen M .F . Som m er-Seckendorff, Studies in'TEe L ife of Robert Kilwardby (Rom e, 1937), David K now les, "Some A sp ects of the C areer of A rchbishop ; Peckham , " E nglish H isto rica l R eview , LVH (1942), 1-18, 178-201, D ecim a L . Douie, A rchbishop Peckfiam (Oxford, 1952). 2 The older work by F ran cis S. Stevenson, Robert G r o sse te ste (London, 1899), has been updated by R obert G ro sse te ste , 1 Scholar and B ishop, D. A. C allus, ed. (Oxford, 1955). Many sch o la rs have contributed to this ren a issa n ce of in te r e s t in the bishop of L incoln. To nam e but a few , Ludwig Baur, A .C . C rom bie, R .C . D a les, Johann L oserth , F .M . P ow icke, J .C . R u ssell and S.H , Thom son. Many of h is m ajor w orks have been ed ited . H is m a ssiv e H exaem eron is due sh ortly, edited by R .C . D ales and S. G ieben. I 2 IH, the Oxford P ro v isio n s, Sim on de M ontfort, the B aron s1 War and the beginning of parliam entary in stitu tion s. E xcept for a four page a rticle in 1913, there has been no recen t study in E nglish devoted 3 p rim arily to this archbishop. It is the contention of this study that this obscu rity has hidden the sign ifican t ro le that B oniface assum ed in E nglish p o litic s. From an inconspicuous ea rly life , through the m inor con flicts of his early y ea rs as archbishop of Canterbury, B oniface of Savoy found h im self com pelled to make an open defense of the lib erty of the Church against the encroachm ents of the king. T his position becam e entangled in the p olitical refo rm s of the la tter portion of Henry*s reig n . What has not been shown before is that A rchbishop B oniface supported not only e c c le s ia s tic a l lib erty but a lso th ese p olitical r efo rm s. B oniface of Savoy ended his public life , as archbishops before him had done, in both e c c le sia stic a l and p olitical opposition to the king. The confusion over the place of B oniface in E nglish p o litics m ay stem from the fact that the h isto rica l interpretation concerning this archbishop has broken into four contradictory stran d s. There is the strand of hatred, of v ilification , a risin g out of the w orks o f the p rolific thirteenth century ch ro n icler, Matthew P a ris (what we sh a ll ^In 1962, F .M . Pow icke noted that w e are s till without a life of Boniface of Savoy. F . M. Pow icke, The Thirteenth Century, 1206-1307, Second edition (Oxford, 1962), p. 758. Pow icke m akes no referen ce to the older m aterial or to the sh ort a rticle by H erbert Thurston. H erbert Thurston, " B lessed B oniface of Savoy, Arch bishop of Canterbury, The T ablet, O ctober 18, 1913: 601-604. c a ll the "early M atthew P a ris tradition"). In h is native land of Savoy, B oniface w as p raised and venerated; out of this a ro se the "hagiographic tra d itio n ," leading to h is b eatification by Pope G regory XVI in 1839. T here is a lso a m inor third tradition ca rried on at the Canterbury chapter its e lf. This tradition ex p ressed appreciation for the p astoral work done by B oniface but did not have wide c ir culation . F in a lly , sta rtin g with Sam uel G uichenon's study of the house of Savoy in 1660, h istorian s have been questioning the e a r lie r j traditions and their picture of the archbishop. T hese attem pts form the "m odern tradition, " and have laid the groundwork for a c r itic a l reevalu ation of B oniface of Savoy and h is ro le in E n glish p o litic s. Matthew P a ris died som etim e during the period betw een 1258 and 1261, just as the events of the latter part of the reign of H enry III w ere com ing to a c lim a x . At h is death, M atthew P a ris w as s t ill r ev isin g his m ajor w orks, the Chronica M ajora and the H is tor ia Anglorum . In this final r ev isio n , he tried to m o d ify h is previou s castigation of A rchbishop B on iface. He ripped out whole pages dealing w ith the archbishop and pasted vellum slip s over many of the other r e fe r e n c e s. Matthew P a ris did not divulge the reason for this la ter editing or for h is attem pt at co rrectin g h is e a r lie r picture of B on iface. It has been su ggested that the r ev isio n w as done ! 4 to m ake h is w orks acceptable at the royal court. Although this m ay 4 F or the problem of the la ter editing, se e Richard Vaughan, M atthew P aris (C am bridge, 1958), F . M. Pow icke, "Notes on the C om position of the C hronica M ajora of Matthew P a ris, " Modern P h ilology, XXXVIII (l94l), 305-317, and the introductions to Matthew P a r is, C hronica M ajora, H .R . Luard, ed. (London, 1872), v o ls. I-V II. 4 be tru e, it does not discount the p o ssib ility that the h istorian m ay actually have changed h is conception of the arch bish op. In one of the la st p a ssa g e s from h is pen, Matthew P a r is put forth the ex pectation: "It w as m ost confidently hoped that the archbishop m ight be gifted with stren gth from above and, follow ing the footstep s of St. Thom as, . . . do battle with those who attack the C h u rch ." Although this w ish w as b eing rea liz ed as the final r ev isio n w as in p r o g r ess, the h istorian could not stop the tradition he had already begun. B oniface w as the a r ch -v illia n of the early v e r sio n s of the C hronica M ajora and the H istoria A nglorum . This view of B oniface was circu lated w idely and has been rep eated , in w hole or in part, for the last sev en hundred y e a r s. The Matthew P a ris tradition contains four broad accu sation s against the archbishop: B oniface w as totally unqualified to be arch bishop, he w as put into the s e e of C anterbury through nepotism , the archbishop w as w arlike and had w arlik e in te r e sts, and his e c c le sia stic a l a c tiv itie s w ere prom pted not by sp iritu al but by base m o tiv es. F ir s t, the ch ro n icler p ictu res B oniface as en tirely unfit in 0 knowledge, m ann ers, age and education to be an archbishop. He m akes the m onks of Canterbury, who have th eir own tradition, speak g M atthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., V, 632. 0 Ib id ., IV, 104. He la ter pasted a vellum slip over this p assage and w rote that B oniface w as a man of noble statu re, an elegant person, an uncle of the queen. This w as c r itic ism in r e v e r se . 7 of B on iface a s a fo reig n er, illite r a te , unknown and in exp erien ced . In another in stan ce, M atthew P a ris has a shouting mob at London c a ll A rchbishop B oniface an "im pious and bloody a g g r esso r of our ' p r ie sts . . . illite r a te and m arried as he is . . . w hose foul infam y „8 has already infected the city . Matthew P a ris m akes a m ajor issu e of the nepotism that he s e e s on the part of the king. He finds in the sudden death of a m inor court o fficia l the vengeance of the late St. Edmund on the king for 9 having put B oniface into the s e e of C anterbury. In another place, he sp eak s o f many bishops and abbots being forced by the king to sign a le tte r of recom m endation for the new archbishop. The monks! of C anterbury are m ade to fe e l so r r y for having acquiesced to the i w ill of the king in e le ctin g B on iface. The h istorian h as som e of them becom ing C arthusians in ord er to perform continual penance for their action s in this m atter.** M atthew P a r is a lso c re a te s a w arlik e ch aracter for the archbishop. He has the m onks of C anterbury speak of B oniface as 7 Matthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., IV, 425. O Ib id ., V, 124. T here is no evid en ce at all to support Matthew P a r is 1 v icio u s charge that B oniface w as m arried . 9Ib id ., IV, 553-554. *® Ib id ., IV, 105. L ater Matthew P a ris slip s up and sa y s that only one refu sed to sig n it, h is own abbot, and this he did not becau se of any thing that had to do with B oniface but becau se the abbot of W estm in ster had sign ed it fir s t. Ib id ., IV, 259-260. “ ib id ., IV, 105. M atthew P a ris did not seem to know that B oniface w as a m em ber of the C arthusian o rd er. T his p assage, lik e so many oth ers, w as la ter era sed and a ltered . 12 one v e rse d in w arlik e m a tter s. The v isita tio n s of the archbishop w ere, he sa y s, done to r a is e funds to ca rry on a w ar in P roven ce. The ch ron icler a s s e r ts that, during the arch bish op's ab sen ce from England in 1245-1249, B oniface w as fighting for the pope on the continent. H is return to Savoy in 1255-1256 is spoken of as a m ilita ry expedition to r e sc u e his brother Thom as, who w as captured , T i . . 13 in Italy. F in ally, Matthew P a ris goes to great lengths to find b ase m otives in back of the a c tiv itie s o f the archbishop. The efforts of B oniface to rid the s e e of Canterbury of debt are com p letely d is counted by the m onastic h istorian , who cannot even com e to adm it that the se e w as in debt. To adm it this fact would do injury to the 14 reputation of the form er arch b ish op s. The archbishop is castigated every tim e he attem pts an e c c le s ia s tic a l v isita tio n . One story, which has been repeated ov er and over again becau se of its lurid d eta ils, d e scrib es the canonical v isit of A rchbishop B oniface to St. 12 M atthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., IV, 425. T his w as later era se d only to be w ritten in again by a sixteen th century hand. 13Ib id .. IV, 404; V , 3 6 -3 7 ,5 4 8 -5 4 9 ,5 6 4 -5 6 5 . M andell C reighton d e sc rib es B oniface, during the Council of Lyons in 1245, as the m ilita ry com m ander of the papal guard. M andell Creighton, "Boniface of Savoy, " D ictionary of N ational B iography, L e slie Stephen and Sidney L ee, e d s . (London, 1910-1917), tl, 812. This is based on a faulty reading of Matthew P a r is . In the narrative, it is not B oniface but his brother P hilip who com m anded the papal guard. M atthew P a ris, Chron. M aj. , IV, 426. 14 I b id .. IV, 405. T his w as la ter erased by Matthew P a ris only to be w ritten in again in the sixteen th century. C f. Ib id ., IV, 405, n. 1. 7 B artholom ew 's priory: On the follow ing day, s t ill sw ellin g with anger, and clad in arm or under h is rob es, as those who saw him a sse r te d , the archbishop went to the priory of St. B artholom ew 's to v isit the canons there . . . On hearing th is Cthat they would not be v isite d by the archbishop U, the archbishop burst into an unbecom ing fit of anger, and rushing on the sub p rior, forgetfu l of h is station and the h o lin e ss of h is p r e d e c e sso r s, in flicted a blow with h is fis t on this holy p r ie st and relig io u s m an, w hile standing in the m iddle of the church, and c r u e lly rep eating h is blow s many tim es on h is aged b rea st, h is ven erab le face and h is hoary beard, he exclaim ed w ith a loud v o ice, 'Thus it b ecom es m e to deal with you E n glish t r a it o r s ,' and then, ravin g m ore horrib ly, with unm entionable oaths, he dem anded a sw ord be brought him im m e d ia te ly . . . . Nor w as the fury of the archbishop yet appeased; fo r, lik e a m adm an, rushing on this holy man, w ith great violen ce, and forcin g him backw ards, he pushed h is aged body w ith such force against the spondam . . . that he crushed h is bones to the v ery m arrow , and injured h is lungs and the parts about his heart . . . As he CBoniface 3 fe ll back, h is rob es w ere thrown a sid e and h is arm or w as plainly v isib le to the m ultitude .... H is im petuous fo llo w ers . . . had cru elly attacked the r e st of the unarm ed and unprepared canons and by ord ers . . . of the archbishop, c ru elly treated them , strik in g and wounding them and throw ing them down and tram pling on them . 15 This sto ry , along with the other d escrip tio n s of B oniface by M atthew P a r is, w as picked up by the m inor E n glish ch ro n iclers 16 of the thirteenth and fourteenth c en tu ries. Although this tradition Matthew P a r is, C hron. M a j., V, 121-123. In h is H is tor ia Anglorum , M atthew P a r is q u alifies the sto ry w ith "ut d icitu r1 ' and j la ter p a stes a slip over the w hole sto r y . In its p lace, he g iv es a different incident of the v isita tio n , m aking no charge against the archbishop. M atthew P a r is, H istoria Anglorum , F re d e ric Madden, ed. (London, 1866), IH, 79. 16 The annals of St. Paul ca ll him the " u se le ss m in ister of C anterbury." "Ex Annalibus S. P auli L ondoniensis, " F . L ieberm ann, e d ., M onumenta G erm anae H isto ria , S crip to res, G. H. P ertz and O thers, e d s. (Itanover, B erlin , 1810— ), X X V m , !>5l. In gen eral, this is the view of W illiam R ishanger, John de O xenedes and the anonym ous w riter of the F lo r e s H istoriaru m . cannot be traced for a couple of cen tu ries, it reap pears in F ran cis Godwin's A Catalogue of the B ishops in England (1615). A fter a b r ief m ention of the m ild appreciation of the Canterbury tradition, Godwin d e sc rib es B oniface as utterly unfit and unworthy of the position as archbishop of Canterbury, spending h is tim e at w ar, and using violen t m ean s to bring about h is e c c le s ia s tic a l visitation s.*^ W illiam Prynne, in the variou s edition s of h is fam ous An E xact V indication of our K ing's Suprem e E c c le s ia s tic a l Jurisd iction in all R eligious A ffairs . . . (1665), continues this tradition of v il ification , With Prynne, how ever, a new reason for castigatin g the archbishop is developed. He is m aligned b ecau se he tried to counter the king's "suprem e e c c le s ia s tic a l ju r isd ic tio n ." B oniface is seen , not as the kin g's favorite, as in Matthew P a r is, but as the king's 18 a d v ersa ry . This is an in terestin g tw ist in the M atthew P a r is' tradition, com bining the e a r lie r c r itic ism s of the archbishop with the turn of events after the death of the m onastic ch ron icler; the tim e when Matthew P a ris w as hoping that the archbishop would "follow 17 F ra n cis Godwin, A C atalogue of the B ishops of England (Londop, 1615), pp. 114-115. See a lso h is De P raesu llb u s Angliae C om m entarius (London, 1616). 18 I have taken the account from W illiam P ryn ne's The H istory of King John, King H enry III and King Edward I w herein the Sovereign D om inion of the Kings of England over a ll P erso n s in all C au ses is A sserted (London, 1676), pp. 560-9^5. Although it is an expanded edition of the second volum e of his An Exact V indication of our King's Suprem e E c c le s ia s tic a l J u risd iction in a ll R eligious A ffairs . . . (London, 1665), it has becom e known as volum e three of the V indication. In this study, the two volum es w ill be referred to under“ the traditional abbreviation; P ryn ne's R ecord s, volum es two and three. in the fo o tstep s of St. T h om as” and do the very thing that Prynne c r itic is e s . Even in the eighteenth and nineteenth cen tu ries, the ea rly Matthew P a ris tradition w as s t ill dominant in England. F or exam p le, J erem y C o llier in 1714 and Thom as F u lle r in the ea rly nineteenth 19 century spoke of B oniface as a ’’w o rth less a rch b ish o p ." In 1844, in the fir s t c r itic a l study of the B aron s' War, W illiam Blaaw s till accepted u n critically the traditional picture of B oniface and spoke of h is ignorance, overb earin g m anners and his d issim ila r ity to the 20 fo rm er archbishop, St. Edmund. W illiam Stubbs, in his C onstitutional H istory, spoke of h is office as ch a ra cterized only by arrogan ce, violen ce, and greed , and T .F . Tout describ ed B oniface as Edw ard's "unworthy uncle [w h ose death 3 ended the 21 w eak and n e r v e le ss tenure of the p rim acy." T ypical of this view point is M andell C reighton's long a r tic le in the D ictionary of N ational B iography. C reighton seem ed to have an inkling that B oniface had a ro le in E n glish p o litics but discounted it with the w ords, " ^B oniface 3 behaved as though the a ir of England 19 J erem y C o llier, An E c c le s ia s tic a l H istory of G reat B ritain (London, 1714), pp. 471 ff. Thom as F u ller, The Church H istory of B ritain. Third edition (London, 1842), I, 368. 2n W illiam H . B laaw , The B aron s' War, Second edition (London, 1871), p. 17 ff. See a lso the m ore popular study, J .R . G reen, A Short H istory of the E n glish P eople (London. 1876), p. 140. 21 W illiam Stubbs, The C onstitutional H istory of England, R evised edition (London, 1880), II, 69. T .F . Tout, Edward the F ir s t (London, 1893), p. 153. 10 22 in sp ired him with a fictitio u s p a tr io tis m ." He ended h is a r tic le w ith the general statem ent that the archbishop did nothing that was im portant eith er for the Church or for the state in England. To the presen t day, although by now a c o rr ec tiv e m ovem ent has se t in, the early Matthew P a ris tradition is s till put forth by m any w r ite r s. In Italy, in a sm a ll m onograph that r e lie s alm ost e x clu siv e ly on Matthew P a r is, Ugo Aldo de' F ra n cesco p ictu res B oniface as e sse n tia lly a m ed ieval knight, one who hid h is arm or 23 and sw ord under h is arch iep iscop al r o b e s. Although R .F . T reharne notes that it would be totally w rong to se e the archbishop only through j the unfriendly ey es of M atthew P a r is, he goes on to speak of his " selfish sep a ra tism , ,the un foreseen harvest of the H ildebrandine 1 sow ing" and h is "narrow p r id e .. . . So long as he was prim ate, the E n glish Church would not be allow ed to repeat the great-h earted d efen se of the com m on good of other d ays. And John M oorm an, in h is exten sive stu d ies of the thirteenth century E n glish Church, sp eak s of the violen t habits of A rchbishop B oniface who could strik e 22 C reighton, D ie, of Nat. B io ., II, 813. 23 Ugo Aldo d e1 F ra n cesco , E n rico III d'Inghilterra, B onifacio di Savoia e la loro P o litica v e r so F ed erico II di Svevia, Studi S torici (N ap les, 1939), p. 8. B ecau se he u se s M atthew ftaris alm ost ex clu siv ely in his study, d e'F ra n cesco contributes little to a c ritic a l study of the p olitical ro le of the archbishop. He is aw are that Matthew P a ris cannot be trusted (p. 20) but then u ses no other so u rc e. 24 R .F . T reharne, "The Significance of the B aronial Reform M ovem ent, 1258-1267, " T ransactions of the Royal H isto rica l S ociety, Fourth s e r ie s , XXV (1943), 5 4 -5 5 . Once Treharne has form ed this picture of the archbishop, he m akes a ll the h istory of the baronial reform m ovem ent conform to it. 25 a fellow p r iest with su ch fo rce as to knock him to the ground. The m ost recen t a rticle on B oniface is a study by M ile. Raymonde F o r e v ille of h is electio n to the arch b ish op ric. H er a n alysis of the e le ctio n and its rela tio n to papal pow er w ill be taken up sh ortly. H er gen eral picture of B oniface, how ever, is taken straight out of the Matthew P a ris trad ition . She c r e d its Matthew 26 P a ris with "un e c la ir age psychologique rev eia teu r. " B asin g h er picture upon the p sych ological insight of M atthew P a r is, sh e d e scrib es B on iface as a man of w ar who had neither the aptitude nor the th eological training for the p osition of archbishop. T his then is the early M atthew P a ris trad ition . Although Matthew P a ris m ay have wanted to change it late in h is life , the e a r lie r tradition of v ilifica tio n has continued to the p resen t. W hile the tradition of hatred w as being popularized in England, an opposite interpretation w as em ergin g in the arch bish op's native land of Savoy. B oniface w as rev ered as a sa in t. The fir st tra ces of this view m ay be seen in a le tte r from Hugh, the abbot- su p erior of the C arthusian order, to B oniface in 1250. He te lls the archbishop, if it is not just a lite ra r y flou rish , that h is virtu es w ere much rem em b ered at the G rand-C hartreuse, w here B oniface had for I 25 John R .H . M oorman, Church L ife in England in the Thirteenth Century (C am bridge, 1946), p. 166. See a lso his H istory o f the Church in England (London, 1953). 26 / M ile. Raymonde F o r e v ille , "L 'E lection de B oniface de Savqie, Au Sifege P rim atial de C anterbury (1241-1243), Contribution & l'Etude de la R eserve P apale, " B u lletin Philologique et H istorique (jusqu'a 1610), I (1960), 435 ff. 12 27 a tim e been a n ovice. It se e m s , how ever, that the m ain hagiographic tradition developed outside the m onastic w alls, among the people of Savoy. Jehan Servion, w riting at the end of the fourteenth century, in his G estez et Croniques de la M ayson de Savoye. gives a general d escrip tion of Boniface: Moult deuot, chatholique & tresbon proudons, aymant Dieu j & lettre en la sa c r e sain te theologie & doutteur sub vltraque sp ecy e, vailliant hom m e & cheriteu x Dieux aymant & doubtant & cregnant. II avoit pytye des p ou res, il sou stenoit & c o n sse illio t le s v e su e s, le s orphelin s, & tellem ent que chescung esto it par luy confortes & c o n s s e illie z . C estuy 2R B onyface fust m oult parsuyuy en toutes le s g ra ces de D ieu. L ater he d escrib es how B oniface governed Canterbury in a very holy, . w ise and honorable way, how the people loved him and how he was the second archbishop, after St. Thom as a B ecket, to becom e a sain t. At the end of h is account of B oniface, Servion d isc u sse s his final i ! illn e ss and the cu res that cam e to those who v isited his tomb in w ords j that sound lik e the beginning of a hagiographic developm ent: Et quant il fust so u ste r r e s soubz la lam e apres du grant autel, il avint vne nuyt que vnd des m oynes de leans fust fort contraint de la m aladye de la grauelle, & tellem ent quil aloit sus & ius du m ones tier; sy ly avint que par d e str e s se il s e vint a se o ir & couchier sur c e lle lam e de cuyure su r la tombe du bon arsiu esq u e, & incontenant I 2 ^Quoted in F ran cois M ugnier, I^es Savoyards en A ngleterre i au XIIIe S iecle et P ie rr e d'Aigueblanche EvSque d 'k eretora ! (CHSmbery, 189U), p . 82.— ---------------------------------------------- ; O Q Jehan Servion, G estez et Croniques de la M ayson de Savoye, Fre<3eric-Em m anuel B ollati, ed. (Turin, 1879), I, 255-256. j A sim ila r descrip tion can be found in the fifteenth century, Chronica I Latina Sabaudiae (H istoriae P atriae M onumenta. I, 605-606). Quoted in L es R eg istres d'innocent IV, E tie B erg er, ed. (P a ris, 1884-1897), II, Ixxiii. il fust q u eris. Et c elly m oyne ala toust sonner le s clochez & fist leu er le s m oynez & leur d ist son ca s; sy chantarent Te Deum laudam us, & depuis c e s te nottifycacyon de m yracle il y vindrent m oultz de p a ssie n s de c e lle m ala dye, lez quelz y gueryrent & heurent g a riso n tant de c e lle inferm ette com m e daultres; & depuis set na quen E n gleterre il avoit fait m y ra c les en sa v y e. Et fust vng tem ps que m oultz de m alades alloyent fayre leu r deuocion sur s a tom be, & eulx avoir vng petit 1 dorm ys su r la tom be il se n leuoyent san ez & g u ery s. 29 In the seventeenth century, this hagiographic tradition w as s t ill very stron g. A. du Saussay, in his M artyrologium G allicanum (1637), added a long eulogy on B oniface of Savoy and m ade the cla im , v ita l to a sain t, that h is body w as found incorrupt three hundred 30 y e a rs after his death. In 1838, on the urging of King Carlo A lberto of Sardinia, Pope G regory XVI published a d ecree form ally beatifying B oniface and approving of h is cultus a s having been practiced ab im m em orab ili in Savoy. Thus, no new judgment w as needed of h is v ir tu e s. He 31 w as proposed for veneration by the faithful. Out of this b eatification I cam e a se m i-o ffic ia l hagiographic life of B oniface w ritten in both 29 Servion, G estez de la M ayson de Savoye, I, 258. 30 A. du Saussay, M artyrologium G allicanum (P a ris, 1637), Supplem ent, p. 1,145. 31 John Henry Newm an r e fe r s to five docum ents that cam e from the Sacred C ongregation of R ites concerning the beatification of Boniface and a lso to a notice in the C orrespondence de Rome (N ovem ber 24, 1851). John H enry Newman, A pologia P ro V ita Sua, R evised edition (London, 1887), p. 395, H erbert Thurston and Norah L eeson make the apt com m ent that B oniface is not litu rg ica lly com m em orated in England. H erbert Thurson and Norah L eeson, "Bd. B oniface of S a v o y ,1 1 The L ives of the Saints, O riginally Com piled by the R ev. Albain B utler, H erbert Thurston and Norah L eeson , ed s. (London, 1931), III, 245. 32 F rench and Italian. The popular tradition continues in Savoy. Joseph j Jacquem oud, in a nineteenth century study of the abbey of Hautecombe^ spoke of the sa in tlin e ss of B on iface, the w isdom of h is ad m in istra- 33 tion and the gen eral adm iration of his c a r e e r . And in a popular w ork w ritten in 1925 by E . F ed elin i, B oniface is p raised for h is 34 piety, h is stea d fa stn ess and h is w isd om . B efore we exam ine the inevitab le cla sh of th ese two tradi tions and the beginning of a c r itic a l reevalu ation , the third strand of in terp retation that a ro se around B oniface of Savoy should be stu d ied . Canterbury w as the only m ajor s e e in England that had a r elig io u s chapter instead of a secu la r ch ap ter. The archbishop of Canterbury w as th erefore the abbot of the m onks of C anterbury. Except for a few m inor argum ents that w ere mended by con ciliation , B oniface had am iable relation s with the chapter. The m onks repaid him as evidenced by their favorab le accounts of h is life . F or exam p le, the w riter of the continuation of G erv a se's G esta Regum , origin atin g in the Canterbury c ir c le , lis ts three b asic a cco m p lish - 32 A n on ., V ie des B ienheureux Hum bert et B oniface de Savoie (Turin, 1839). A non., V ita di B ea ti U m berto e B onifacio de Savoia (Turin, 1839). I have not been able to obtain eith er of th ese two w orks. 33 Joseph Jacquem oud, D escrip tion H istorique de l'A bbaye R oyale d 1 H autecom be (Cham bery, 1843), p. 61. F r . Halkin, a review of E . F ed elin i, L es B ienheureux de la M aison de Savoie, E sq u isse H agiographiques. A nalecta- B ollandiana, XLlV (1926), 437. The r ev iew er d erid es the e x c e ssiv e piety of the author. 15 merits of the archbishop: (1) he built up the pow er and im portance of the s e e of Canterbury by h is v isita tio n s and agreem en ts with other s e e s , (2) he strengthened the chapter and the province by h is many constitutions and (3) he paid the debts of h is p r e d e c e sso r s. The w riter even goes so far a s to put into the arch bish op's mouth the little sp eech , r efer r in g to the palace of Lam beth: "By C h rist, m y p r e d e c e sso r s erected th is h all at a v a st exp en se but they only did it by the help of borrow ed su m s; sin ce I have paid their debts, it should be said that I have built this h a ll.1,35 Thom as W ykes, a monk at the abbey of O sney, with c lo s e ties with the Canterbury se e and chapter, w rote a sh ort, gen erally app reciative eulogy of B oniface a s a "vir sim p lic ita tis, lic e t m inus lite ra tu s, so b rie tam en degebat, sap ien tissim oru m co n silio se ! regebat, h u m ilis, pudicus, m od estu s, egenorum p rofu ssim u s r e c r e a to r .1 1 A year after the death of B oniface, John de W estgate, the j ! i ! su p erior of the Canterbury chapter, added a long account on B oniface I i j i to the chap ter's o fficia l ob itu aries of their arch b ish op s. W estgate i recounted the ach ievem en ts of A rchbishop B oniface and told that o e A n on., G esta Regum Continuata in The H isto rica l W orks of G ervase of Canterbury, W illiam Stubbs, ed. (London, 1880). II, 214, 25<P?5'i;----------- 36 Thom as W ykes, "Chronicon Vulgo D ictum , " A nnales M onastici, Henry R ichards Luard, ed. (London, 1869). IV, 255-235. f 16 37 the chapter was sayin g sp e c ia l m a sse s and p salm s for h is so u l. This appreciation is enlarged in the fourteenth century, o fficia l account of the archbishops of Canterbury, attributed w rongly to the monk Stephen B irchington. Along with rep eating the descrip tion found in the continuation of G ervase, the unknown author m akes 38 sp ecia l m ention of B on iface's love for the poor. As part of this ea rly Canterbury tradition, there a ro se in the E nglish Church a supplem ental appreciation for the o fficia l constitutions published by B oniface in support of e c c le sia stic a l lib erty. T hese constitutions grew out of a s e r ie s of provincial I gatherings called by the archbishop in 1257-1258 and w ere published j : as le tte r s patent by B oniface and h is suffragans at the Council of | Lambeth in 1261. (We w ill d iscu ss their h isto rica l im portance later in this stu d y .) j A rchbishop Peckham , ten y e a rs after the death of B oniface, i i used many of th ese constitutions in his stru ggle for e c c le sia stic a l ' | independence under King Edward I. Peckham w rote to Edward 37i»Dies O bituales A rchiepiscoporum C antuariensium ex M artyrologio & O bituario E c c le sia C h risti C a n tu a rien sis," A nglia j I Sacra, Henry Wharton, ed. (London, 1691), I, 58. | 38(Stephen Birchington), "H istoria de A rch iep iscop is * C antuariensibus, " Anglia Sacra, Wharton, e d .. I, 58. On the problem! of authorship, s e e the introduction to Chronica Johannes de Reading et Anonymi C antuariensis, 1346-1367, Jam es Tait, ed. (M anchester, l9l4), pjp. (>3-68. B ecau se of the generous bequ ests in h is w ill to the m endicant ord ers and to other poor c le r k s, B oniface w as greatly com m ended in the Annales M inorum , Luke Wadding, Annales Minorum seu Trium Ordinum, Third edition, P . Joseph M. F onseca, j ed. (F loren ce, IV, 269-270, The com p lete w ill is given in j ! J. Ludwig W urstem berger, P eter der Z w eite (Bern and Zurich. 1857), IV, 342-344. --------------------------- {urging him to d e sist from h is op p ression , "in a cau se for which i so m any holy fa th ers, and la s t but one, B oniface of b le sse d m em ory, 39 uncle to your illu strio u s m other, laboured so an xiou sly." In ;1342, A rchbishop Stratford published the d e c r e e s of B oniface in his fight for e c c le s ia s tic a l lib erty against Edward III and in 1423, A rchbishop C hichele, in the continuing stru ggle betw een Church 4C and king, again published the con stitutions of A rchbishop B on iface. T h ese m en had no m ore su c c e s s than B oniface in this stru g g le. A rchbishop C h ich ele's ch an cellor, W illiam Lyndwood (ca. 1375-1446), co llected and g lo sse d the constitutions of the form er arch bish ops, including those o f B oniface, in h is now fam ous 41 P rovin ciate. Lyndwood g iv es the rea so n for this c o llectio n in h is dedication of the book to A rchbishop C h ich ele. The provincial statu tes of Canterbury w ere in a com p lete state of d isarray and he 39 R egistrum E pistolarum F ra tr is Johannis P eckham , C. T. M artin, ed. (London, 1882-1885), I, 23 9 -2 4 4 . A gainst this action of P eckham , Prynne would la ter w rite that instead of obeying the king, Peckham r e lie d on "the p resid en ts of h is m ost sed itiou s jtrayterous p r e d e c e sso r s B eck et and B oniface whom he highly m a g n ifies, endeavoring to justify h is and h is suffragans an ti- m onarch ical proceedings and co n stitu tio n s." P ryn ne's R ecords, ;m, 267. F or the whole co n tro v ersy , s e e H ilda Johnstone, "A rch- ibishop P eckam and the C ouncil of Lam beth of 1281, " E ssa y s in M edieval H istory presen ted to Thom as F red erick Tout, A .G . L ittle and F . M. P ow icke, e d s. (M anchester, 1925), p. 182 ff. 40p ryn n e's R ecord s, III, The E p istle D edicatory Qxiii]]. ^ P r o v in c ia te , (seu C onstitutiones A n g lia e ,) continens C onstitutiones P rovin ciates quatuordecim A rchiepiscoporum C antuariensjum , W illiam Lyndwood, ed. (Oxford, ca . 1483, rep rin ted 1679). 18 | felt it would be useful for the E nglish Church if it had a book of | statu tes m odeled after the G regorian d e c r e ta ls. The P rovin ciale i ; w as an unofficial book. W hether it was m eant as a leg a l textbook 42 ' is not known. B ecau se of their extrem e au sterity and thus their little use, Lyndwood w rote that B on iface’s constitutions w ere hardly 43 worth a g lo s s . He s t ill included them , how ever, in the back of h is book and inserted many of them , in som ew hat altered form , in 44 , the m ain body of his w ork. j In 1534, the P rovin ciale was translated into E n glish and becam e the prim ary co llectio n of canon law for the new "English C h u rch ." This e c c le s ia s tic a l body felt itse lf governed by provincial synods, apart from and in opposition to, the pope and the cu ria. If we can b eliev e J .V . B ullard and H. C halm er B e ll, th ese statu tes which include the constitutions of B oniface, are s t ill binding as 42 ’ *F or the background to Lyndwood's P rovin ciale, se e C .R . Cheney, "W illiam Lyndwood's P ro v in cia le, " The J u rist, XXI (1961), 405-434, and the older study by F re d e ric W. M aitland, Roman Canon Law in the Church of England (London, 1898). 43 Sed quia in paucis servantur hae con stitu tion es, ideo c ir c a earum glossation em b reviu s p e r tr a n se o ." P rovin ciale, Lyndwood, e d ., p. 92 (g lo ss on the w ords "contingit aliquando); p. 411, n. 22. ^ T h e canons of B oniface stand in third place in quantity j (21) overtaken only by those of Edmund (22) and Stephen Langton . (52). An in terestin g sid eligh t on this co llectio n is that Edmund I never held a provincial synod and those statu tes attributed to h is nam e are those of B ishop Richard P oore of Salisb ury. Cf. C .R . Cheney, The Ju rist, XXI (1961), 421-422. 19 45 as canon law in the Anglican Church today. B ecau se of the canonical achievem ents of Boniface. Johannes Joscelyn , in the sixteen th century, felt obliged to add an appreciative epilogue to h is long, vindictive account of the arch bishop's life which he contributed to Matthew P ark er's De Antiquitate 46 B ritannicae E c c le sia e (1572). He fa ils to recon cile the two d escrip tio n s. With the king and P arliam ent taking over the leg a l and ultim ate control of the Anglican Church in the seventeenth century, in terest in canon law and its background declined, and with it, an in terest in the constitutions of B oniface of Savoy. What it did leave, how ever, w as the nagging feelin g in those who consulted the con tinuation of G ervase, the other Canterbury influenced works or the tradition surrounding the constitutions of B oniface, that som ething w as w rong with the early Matthew P aris tradition. One fe e ls this tension in the m onum ental work on the arch bishops of Canterbury by Dean Hook in 1865. He accepted alm ost 45 Lyndwood's P rovin ciale, The Text of the Canons therein Contained, Reprinted from the 'tran slation s made in 1534, J .V . B ullard and H. C halm er B e ll, ed s. (London, 1929), p. x li. The E nglish edition created quite a stir when it was fir s t published. Cf. Johannes Chappaey, Ad C onservationem L ibertatis E c clesia e A nglicanae (London, 1504) and A n on., A T rea tise concerning D ivers of the C onstitucyons P rovincial! and L egalities’ (i^onaon, 1535). 46 Johannes Day [[Matthew P arker 1 , De Antiquitate B ritannicae E ccleB iae, et Nom inatim de P r iv ile g iis E c c le sia e C antuariensis atque de A rchiep tscop is eiusdem L2&C. riistorxa (Hanover, 1605), I, 173-188. The author even includes the c r e st of B oniface, a white c r o ss outlined in black on a white background. 20 en tirely the ea rly M atthew P a ris tradition and pictured B oniface as a violen t, w arlik e and w orldly minded fo reig n er. The archbishop is d escrib ed as w rong-headed, im petuous and im p assion ed . * With ev ery advantage resu ltin g from noble birth and a la rg e fortune he did nothing w e ll. He w as not a divine; he showed no ab ility as a politician; as a so ld ie r, he evinced no genius as a gen eral but w as m er ely an im petuous dashing cavalry o ffic e r . 47 Hook sp eak s of him a s d esp isin g the E n glish and defying a ll law , precedent and p r iv ile g e. "Of the p rin cip les of B oniface, w e can 48 say nothing; indeed he s e e m s to have none." Y et Hook, being a lso acquainted with the Canterbury tradition, go es on to p ra ise this sam e m an. B oniface acted in m any in sta n ces with m oral fo rc e, prom p tn ess, d iscretio n and d ecisio n . "In sh ort, the conduct of B oniface w as w ise , judicious 49 and con ciliatory." Hook cannot seem to r eco n cile th ese two trad ition s. He attem pts to have the archbishop d ra stica lly change h is ch aracter half-w ay through h is tenure (where the P a ris tradition ends), but this is not sa tisfa c to ry to the author. He ends his account with the w ord s, "B oniface, under a ll th ese circu m sta n ces rem ained a m ere 50 c ip h e r ." N either Hook nor the E n glish w r ite rs of sim ila r accounts 47 W alter F . Hook, L iv es of the A rchbishops of Canterbury (London, 1860-1878), HI, 278. 4 W . in , 270. 49I b id ., in , 261. 50Ib id ., HI, 302. 21 in the early part of the twentieth century seem aware of the hagio- 51 graphic tradition on the Continent. The extrem e d ifference betw een the early Matthew P aris tradition and the hagiographic tradition could not escap e notice perm anently. It is hard to know exactly who w as the fir s t to notice this d iscrep an cy. As ea rly as the seventeenth century, Sam uel Guichenon, in h is gen ealogical h istory of the house of Savoy, was con sciou s of all three traditions about B oniface. He speaks of the E nglish w riters (in the Canterbury tradition) who m ention "l* innocence de sa v ie & la su ite de tant de p ieu ses actions l'ont suffisam m en t justified " He is a lso w ell aw are of the early Matthew P a ris tradition: Nonobstant que le s A nglais eu ssen t grande repugnance a la prom otion d'un e'tranger . . . Un autre h istorien de mSme nation ^Matthew P a ris 1, qui s 'e s t rendu fam eux par s e s m ed isa n ces, & qui n'a p a s tem iogn e'd'etre trop bien intentionne'pour ce P rela t. H is answ er to this slander is in the hagiographic tradition. II acquit une haute reputation en I'e x er cice de cette dignite" d'Arche'veque de Cantorbie . . . tant a cause de 51 G. Stirling T aylor w rote, in the E n glish turn of phrase, "as a m atter of fact, B oniface does not seem to have been altogether a bad s o r t." G .S tirlin g T aylor, The Story of Canterbury (London, 1912), p. 260. F . A. G asquet, in h is Henry In and the (Church (London, 1910), includes both the Matthew P a ris tradition and the Canterbury tradition but avoids any ch aracter an alysis of the archbishop. 52 __ Sam uel Guichenon, H istorie G enealogique de la Royale M aison de Savoie, New edition (Lyons, 1660, reprinted at Turin in "1778), I, 261. 53 Ib id ., I, 261, 22 i la saintete de s e s m oeu rs & de l T extraord in aire charite dont il usait en vers le s pauvres & le s m aison s r e lig ie u se s .... 11 e st certa in que B oniface de Savoie e st m ort en reputation de sain tete: que son corp s fut trouve tout ' en tier dans le sep u lch re il n'y a que trente ans: que toute la Savoie le v en ere, & qu'il s 'e s t fait d ivers m ira c le s a sa sep u ltu re. The the nineteenth century stu d ies of the house of Savoy, the ; contradictions noted by G uichenon w ere expanded fu rth er. J. Ludwig W urstem berger, in h is elaborate study of P eter the brother of B on iface, se rio u sly questioned the Matthew P a ris tradition. He j I could not se e how one p erson could have been as w icked as the Matthew P a ris p ortrayal. The m onastic ch ro n icler m ust have 55 w ritten out of a partisan sp irit and not out of love for the truth. Tow ards the end of the century, F ra n co is M ugnier, in h is ex cellen t study of the Savoyards in England during the thirteenth century, w as fu lly aware of the variou s traditions and spoke of B oniface as the "superbe et sev ere" a r c h b i s h o p . j 54 Guichenon, H istorie de la Royale M aison de Savoie, I, 259, 261. John Henry Newm an, in 1843, spoke of wanting to include a life of B oniface of Savoy in a s e r ie s of projected "Saint's L iv e s ." As Newm an d escrib ed it, the s e r ie s w as to e x p r e ss nationalism and ed ification . One w onders how this dual purpose would have affected h is treatm ent o f B oniface? Although a portion of the s e r ie s w as fin ally published, the life of B oniface w as never w ritten . Cf. Newm an, A pologia, p. 323 ff. 55 J. Ludwig W urstem berger, P eter der Z w eite, G raf von Savoyen. M arkgraf in Italien , se in Haus und se in e Lande (Zurich and B ern, 1^56-1858), II, 2 2 -2 5 , 250-251. 56 M ugnier, L es Savoyards en A n gleterre, p. 5. E lie B erg er, in the introduction to the second volum e of the r e g iste r s of Innocent IV published at the end o f the nineteenth century, knew of both the M atthew P a ris tradition and the Savoyard tradition concerning B on iface. B erg er, how ever, un critically accepted the M atthew P a ris tradition. R eg. Innoc. IV, B e rg e r, e d ., H, ix x ii-lx x v i. 23 These variou s c r itic ism s of the Matthew P a ris tradition w ere gathered up in a detailed study of B oniface by Joseph Strickland. His monograph. "R icerche Storiche sop ra il B . B onifacio di Savoia" (1895), w as the fir s t and, until now, the only m odern sch olarly 57 attem pt to' w rite a c r itic a l study ex clu siv ely on B oniface of Savoy. The cen tral them e of Strickland's w ork was a defense of B oniface against the accu sation s of the Matthew P a ris tradition. To M atthew Paris* contention that B oniface was unfit for the archbishopric and w as given the position only becau se he was related to the king, Strickland counters by tracing the ea rly life of ! 58 ; the archbishop and h is other e c c le s ia s tic a l p referm en ts. Although short, this sectio n is probably the b est part of h is study. Strickland i | show s that the w arlike tem per and a ctiv ities of B oniface, as | Matthew P aris p ictu res them are m ainly a fabrication. M atthew P a ris has B oniface leading troops to his brother*s aid in 1256. Strickland points out that the Continental ch ro n iclers, ' W illiam of N angis and W illiam of Ventura, do not m ention B oniface ! on this expedition, which they place in 1257. Boniface w as in i i 57 ii Joseph Strickland, R icerch e Storiche sopra il B . B on ifacio di Savoia, A rcivescovo di Cantorbery, 1207-1270, " M iscellan ea di Storia Italiana, Third s e r ie s , I (1895), 351-432. This study se e m s to have m isse d the attention of m ost E nglish M edieval sc h o la r s. ^ S trick la n d , M iscellan ea di Storia Italiana, I (1895), 356- 360. 59 There is a strange referen ce in the Continental h istorian s to "Boniface of Lyons" which Strickland b e lie v es to be a scrib a l erro r for "Philip of L yon s." Ib id ., I, 413. 24 England through the la tter part of 1256 and a ll of 1257. Again, the m onetary grants from King Henry for this expedition m ention the 00 other Savoyard brothers but not B oniface. Strickland an sw ers M atthew P a r is' tirade against the arch b ish op 's visitation p o lic ie s by using the le tte r s of Adam M arsh. T h ese le tte r s sp eak of the sp iritu al, reform in g nature of the o fficia l v is its . Matthew P a ris w as only echoing the h o stile feelin g s 61 of the m onks who did not want to be reform ed . A rev iew er w rote that after this study by Strickland there would be little left to glean concerning the archbishop. This is not true, as Strickland's study is not com p lete. He does very little w ith the p olitical influence of B oniface, he now here m entions the ex trem ely im portant Lam beth C ouncil of 1261 and he does not seem to grasp the sign ifican ce of the la tter portion of the p rela te's life . Strickland attacks with tellin g blow s the Matthew P a ris tradition but he does not subject the hagiographic tradition to the sam e scru tin y . In a very short but ex cellen t a r tic le w ritten in 1913, H erbert ®®Great B ritain, Public R ecord O ffice, Calendar of Patent R o lls, Henry HI, 1247-1258 (London, 1908), p. 54CL The date of this grant, F ebruary 5, 1257, would bear out Strickland's contention that the expedition was in 1257. 61 Strickland, M iscellan ea di Storia Italiana, I (1895), 391-397. 62 A n on ., a review of M. Joseph Strickland's "R icerche Storiche sop ra il B . B onifacio de S a v o ia ,1 1 A nalecta Bollandiana, XIV (1895), 343. 25 Thurston deals with Matthew P a r is 1 fam ous sto ry of the St. B artholom ew 's v isita tio n . Thurston r e la te s, "I do not h esitate to say that I b eliev e the whole Cstory J to be an utter fabrication from beginning to end, though, of co u rse, it is not n e c essa ry to suppose O that the St. Alban's ch ron icler invented it h im se lf." ° He then goes on to lis t fiv e reason s for his assertion : (1) the sto ry is unconfirm ed by independent testim ony, the other ch ro n iclers speaking of co n flicts but not at St. B artholom ew 's; (2) Matthew P a ris h im self su p p ressed the story in rev isin g h is history; (3) the F ran ciscan Adam M arsh never m entions this incident and, on the contrary, saw no reason to disapprove of the procedure of the archbishop in any of h is visitation s; (4) the bishop of London, w ritin g to St. Alban's for advice on the affair, says nothing of any violen t behavior on B on iface's part and (5) although Matthew P a ris has the m onks, out of fea r of the Thurston, The Tablet, O ct. 18, 1913, p. 603. One is puzzled by the fact that when this sam e author with his junior editor, M iss Norah L eeson, w rote a life of B oniface of Savoy for their r ev isio n of B u tler's L iv es of the Saints, this sam e story of the St. Bartholom ew visitation is repeated, qualified only by "it is s a id ," with the archbishop again hitting the aged p rio r. Thurston and L eeson , The L ives of the Sain ts, III, 24 3 -2 4 5 . Thurston could have com p letely changed his m ind. Another p ossib ility is that Thurston, now sev en ty -fiv e y ea rs old, had let h is junior editor w rite the account of B oniface and that sh e had not seen h is e a r lie r new spaper a r tic le . In the introduction, Thurston rela tes that M iss L eeson had done a ll the rew ritin g and his task had been confined to " selection , r ev isio n and providing the bibliographic n o tic es." Ib id ., I, v iii. Donald Attwater, in a further rev isio n , added a bibliographic notice to T hurston's a r tic le but s till left in the St. Bartholom ew sto ry . H erbert Thurston and Donald Attw ater, "Bd. Boniface of Savoy, Abp. A. D. 1270, " The L ives of the Saints, origin ally com piled by the R ev. Alban B u tler, H erbert Thurston and Donald Attwater, e d s ., R evised (London, 1956), Ed, 102-104. 26 archbishop, m ake no appeal to R om e, there is a le tte r from Innocent IV in rep ly to just su ch an appeal. This rep ly sa y s nothing about any violen ce by the p rim ate. By the twentieth century, it was becom in g obvious to those who did not blindly follow M atthew P a r is, that the e a r lie r traditions could not be tru sted . A few tentative con clu sion s could be drawn. E .F . Jacob, in h is a r tic le on H enry HI for the Cam bridge M edieval H istory, d escrib ed B oniface as "a m oderate m an, anxious for n64 r e fo r m . Jacob gave no elab oration on this p ercep tive com m ent. 65 Although this d escrip tion is now echoed by other w r ite r s, no one has taken up the task of testin g this descrip tion in a c r itic a l study. H orace K. Mann, in h is stu d ies of the popes during the Middle A ges, ca lled attention to the e a r lie r traditions concerning B oniface and traced h is relation sh ip to Innocent IV up to 1252.®® By not continuing this c r itic a l study of the archbishop into the reig n s of Pope Urban IV and Pope C lem ent IV, Mann avoided the m ajor p o litica l problem s that em erged by the stand taken by A rchbishop B on iface. M arion G ibbs, in her 1934 study of the bishop s of England ® 4E .F . Jacob, "England: Henry III, " Cam bridge M edieval H istory, J .R . ‘ Tanner, C .W . P revite-O rton , Z . N . B rooke, e d s. (C am bridge, 1929), IV, 266. 65 Cf. Frank R. L ew is, "W illiam de V alen ce, " A berystw th Stu dies, XIH (1934), 6 9 -9 2 . 66 H orace K. Mann, The L iv es of the P opes in the M iddle A ges, v o l. XIV, Innocent IV, 1243-1254 (London, 1928), pp. 274- 2Sl. See e sp e c ia lly p. 275, n. I. in the thirteenth century, w rote that the archbishop w as apparently w orldly and am bitious. M iss Gibbs, how ever, w as beginning to se e the p olitical im portance of B oniface as an independent force in E nglish h isto ry . She concludes her b r ief study of B oniface with the w ords: F or the general h istory of the period which follow ed the death of G ro sse te ste , it is a circu m stan ce of r ea l im portance that the E nglish episcopate had at its head this forcefu l, ru th lessly b u sin esslik e foreign er, half d istrusted by the king and clerg y and barons, h im self principally in terested in p ressin g to their leg a l and lo g ica l conclu sions his own righ ts as m etropolitan and the p riv ileg es and exem ptions of h is ord er. 67 The w eakness in this study of B oniface is that M iss Gibbs does not follow this in terest in the p olitical ro le of the archbishop outside the m onastic ch r o n icler s. This m akes her d ism iss the y ea rs after 1258 (again, at the death of Matthew P a ris) with the rem ark, "the episcopate as a body took no form ative part in the events of 1258-65. B oniface h im self p erforce left England in 1260. ®^Marion Gibbs and Jane Lang, B ishops and R eform , 1215- 1272 (Oxford, 1934), p. 23. 6 8Ibid. This general c r itic ism has been lev eled at her whole study! Cf. Hugh M acK enzie, a review of M arion Gibbs and Jane Lang, B ishops and R eform , A m erican H istorical R eview , XL (1935), 1365! M iss Gibbs m ight have picked up this erro r from a m isread in g of R .F . T reharne, who w rote in 1932, "of the m em b ers of the Council at the end of 1260, the E a rls of G lou cester and W arwick w ere now dead, Archbishop B oniface, M ansel, and P eter of Savoy w ere e x ile s in F r a n c e ..." R .F . T reharne, The B aronial Plan of R eform , 1258-1263 (M anchester, 1932), p. 314. The context of this passage would show, how ever, that Treharne did not place the departure of the archbishop in 1260, for e a r lie r he h im self, m isread s the continuation of G ervase (II, 222) and p laces the departure of the archbishop in 1263. Ib id ., p. 305. 28 H er e r r o r in dating (Boniface left England in Oqtober 1262, not in 1260) further con fu ses her understanding of th ese y e a r s. A study of the p olitical so u rc es would show that the E n glish episcopate, under the lead ersh ip of the archbishop, took a m ajor part in the events of 1258-1265. F .M . Pow icke, in his m a ssiv e stu d ies of thirteenth century England, spoke of Boniface: "The archbishop was in his way a great gq man and a su c c e ssfu l p rela te." Pow icke recogn ized the influence of B oniface in E nglish p o litics but again, no c r itic a l effort was made to expand th ese tentative con clu sion s into a detailed study. In conclu sion, we are left with the question: of what value are these traditions to a rea l app raisal of the archbishop? The early Matthew P a ris tradition has been shown to be highly su sp ect because of Matthew P a ris' great penchant for v ilifica tio n . If one can work around th ese preju d ices, how ever, both Matthew P a ris and the other ch ro n iclers can be of utm ost valu e. In som e c a se s , they are the only evidence we have of an event touching the arch bishop. The hagiographic tradition y ield s little of h isto rica l value. It does, how ever, c a ll attention to the e a r lie r life of Boniface in Savoy and sin ce G uichenon's study, has forced an evaluation of the Matthew P a ris tradition. The Canterbury tradition very p ossib ly gives a c o rr ec t picture of Archbishop B oniface, though it is quite lim ited in its sco p e. The m a teria l in the continuation of G ervase, 69P ow icke, King Henry HI. p. 265. 29 for in stan ce, is of high est h isto r ic a l valu e. The m odern tradition has laid the groundwork for a c r itic a l reevalu ation of B oniface although no one has yet gone beyond this p relim in ary step . The ob scu rity concerning the actual person and place o f B oniface of Savoy and h is sign ifican t ro le in e c c le s ia s tic a l and p o litica l reform needs to be lifted . CHAPTER I i THE EARLY LIFE OF BONIFACE: FROM HIS BIRTH TO HIS ELECTION TO CANTERBURY (1207?-1241) It is not su rp risin g that little can be known about the early I life of B oniface of Savoy. The early life of m ost m en in the Middle j A ges p assed unrecognized and unrecorded. We are fortunate, how ever, in having five so u rc es that touch upon the early life of Boniface; i a papal bull of G regory IX, dated 1232, appointing B oniface adm inis trator of the se e of B elley; a ch arter of 1224 d eclarin g an agreem ent | i | betw een Count Thom as I, the father of B oniface, and L andrico, bishop of Sion; the r e g iste r s of the counts of Savoy; p a ssa g es in the ! i Carthusian annals that sp eak of B oniface and a le tte r from Hugh, fa th er-su p erio r of the G rand-C hartreuse, to Archbishop B oniface in 1250 in which he r e fe r s to the p rim ate's youth. The papal bull of G regory IX speaks of B oniface as the son of the count of Savoy, that is , T hom as I . 1 This is a lso confirm ed by other evidence in the r e g iste r s of the counts of Savoy that speak of the ten child ren of Thom as I; A m adeus, U m berto, Aim one, Thom as, W illiam , P eter, B oniface, then the later children, P hilip and the two g ir ls, M arguerita and B e a trice ,^ T here is som e confusion over the m other of B on iface. Som e lu G regorius IX Bonifacium P raesu lem Instituit, " G allia C hristiana in P rovin cias E c c le s ia s tic a s D istributa; in qua S e r ie s et H is tor ia A rchiepiscoporum , Episcoporum et Abbatum, Bartholom ew Hare'au, ed. (P a ris, I860), XV, 316-317. ^Strickland, M iscellan ea di Storia Italiaina. I (1895), 357, 30 31 of the older stu d ies speak of the fact that Thom as I had two w ives, B eatrice of G eneva and la ter M arguerita of F aucigny. A study by F ed ele Savio of the prim ary docum ents of the counts of Savoy concludes that this tradition is confused and that Thom as I had 3 only one w ife, M arguerita of G eneva. The o ld est document that m entions Boniface is a charter of his father Thom as I, in 1224, which is sw orn to by h im self, h is wife, h is eld est son Am adeus and his four c le r ic a l so n s, 4 W illiam , Thom as, P eter and B on iface. We do not know the age of B oniface at this tim e, but by 1224 he is in som e c le r ic a l ord er. It is in terestin g to note that B oniface is the only one of th ese four son s to be con secrated in an e c c le s ia s tic a l position . Although a ll four son s w ere se t up in substantial b en efices by their father, P eter and Thomas renounced them quite ea rly to enter m ilita ry c a r e e r s. W illiam , b ish o p -elect of V alence, having enjoyed the tem p oralities of the s e e , w as never con secrated and died in 1239. P hilip then took over this b en efice, adding la ter the p osition of b ish o p -elect of Lyons along with other p referm en ts. At the instance of C lem ent IV, P hilip w as induced to renounce his many e c c le s ia s tic a l p referm ents and he died count of Savoy in 1285. The early e c c le s ia s tic a l c a re er of B oniface is som ew hat confused. Probably his fir st e c c le s ia s tic a l position w as the ^F edele Savio, I P rim i Conti di Savoia (Turin, 1887), pp. 82-83. 4W urstem berger, P eter der Z w eite, IV, 25, N o. 58. 32 priorate of Nantua. ® We a lso know that as a young man he declared his intention to becom e a C arthusian and becam e a novice in the ord er. Both of th ese a sso cia tio n s, in terestin gly enough, w ere lifelon g. B oniface stayed prior of Nantua even w hile he w as archbishop of C anterbury.6 Though never m ore than a novice, Boniface w as con sid ered throughout h is life as a m em ber of the 7 Carthusian ord er. L ater as adm inistrator of the se e of B elley , he had c lo se connections with the G rand-C hartreuse as the order was se t up w ith the bishop of B e lley as its nom inal head. It is a lso I in terestin g to note that, for rea so n s unknown, B oniface stayed in m inor o rd ers up until his electio n as archbishop of Canterbury when, j by p erm issio n granted by the pope, he w as quickly put through the g ord ers by the bishop of C h icester. As we have no exact ch ron ological inform ation, it is difficult ^The p riorate of Nantua w as eith er a daughter house of Ciuny or a C istercian hou se. Pow icke has confused the two early preferm ents of B oniface when he c a lls it a Carthusian m on astery. Pow icke, King H enry M , p. 265, ®Hans W aser reco rd s agreem en ts in 1252 and 1253 betw een B oniface, archbishop of C anterbury, acting in h is position a s prior of Nantua, or through h is proctor, and the lo rd s of T hoire and V illa rs and the abbot of B o s ie r e s . Q uellen zur S ch ied sgerich ts- barkeit im G rafenhause Savoyen. 1251-1300, Hans Waser, ed. ( Z ur ic h , " lS O D .'Vp.^ g^O. ~ — ------------------------- 7 See the le tte r of Hugh the abbot-superior of the Carthusian ord er. M ugnier, L es Savoyards en A n gleterre, p. 82. The la st document B oniface signed b efore his death w as a charter conferrin g favors upon the Carthusian o rd er. L e C oulteulx, A nnales O rdinis C arthu sien sis (M onstrolii. 1888-1891). Quoted in Strickland, M iscellan ea di Storia Italiana, I (1895), 426, n. I. 8R eg. Innoc. IV. B erg er e d ., I, 24, N o. 119. to put th ese two ea rly e c c le s ia s tic a l in terests in proper sequence. It would seem that B oniface w as fir s t the prior of Nantua because the w riter of the Carthusian annals goes to great lengths to explain how B oniface could have been prior of Nantua without having been g i fir s t a monk. As prior of Nantua, he w as also the lord of the city ! of Nantua and the surrounding a rea . Nantua w as the cen tral city in an area claim ed by both the count of Savoy and the lord s of Thoire and V illa rs and it would be ea sy to assu m e that B on iface, though not a monk, w as appointed prior through p olitical p r e ssu r e . H is b roth ers W illiam and P hilip and la ter even B oniface h im self w ere ad m in is- i trators of im portant b ish op rics without being con secrated . Although we know that B oniface, as a young m an, entered the C arthusian ord er, we do not know why, or when he entered, or when he departed, or how long he stayed there. *° In a letter dated | 1250, Hugh, the fa th er-su p erio r of the G rand-C hartreuse w rites to B oniface, now archbishop of Canterbury, urging him to m itigate his reform in g z e a l with love and understanding. In urging him to do th is, Hugh recounts how the young prince had left the m onastery in tears, w here, as Hugh recou n ts, he had lived and had estab lish ed a rep utation for virtue.** Although the fath er-su p erior te lls us that he had given B oniface a copy of G regory's M oralium , he does not give us ^Strickland, M iscellan ea di Storia Italiana, I (1895), 358. *°Guichenon sa y s that he left the G rand-C hartreuse in 1234. Guichenon, H istorie de la M aison de Savoie, p. 259. I can find no evid en ce to substantiate this date. **Mugnier, L es Savoyards en A ngleterre, p. 82. 34 the reason for this departure in tea r s nor when it happened. We do not know w hether B oniface left the m onastery b ecau se he could not 12 su stain the d iscip lin e (so M oorman) or becau se he left the mon astery. w ith tears of sa d n e ss, to take up one of h is e c c le s ia s tic a l p o sitio n s. In 1233, B oniface w as e le cte d to the s e e of B elley by its chapter. Joseph Strickland b e lie v e s that the bull of G regory IX, m entioned e a r lie r , in answ er to the ch ap ter's req u est, appointed 13 B oniface as bishop of B e lle y . On the b a sis of th is, Strickland con stru cts an in terestin g h yp oth esis that would give us the exact year of B on iface's birth. On the b a sis of this theory, Strickland sta r ts h is m onograph w ith the w ord s, "Boniface of Savoy is perhaps the only p rincip al Savoyard in the thirteenth century of w hich it is p o ssib le to determ ine with certain ty the year of h is birth. "*4 If we know h is birth date, we can con stru ct probable birth dates for the other son s of Thom as I. Strickland's theory is that the bull of G regory IX, speaks of B oniface a s not yet tw en ty-six y e a r s old, 15 "cum vigesim u m sextum annum nodum e g e r it." Thus B oniface, according to Strickland, w as "not able, according to the canons, to 16 be elected bishop . B oniface takes over the ad m in istration of the 12 M oorm an, Church L ife in England, p. 162. ^ S trick lan d , M iscella n ea di Storia Italiana, I (1895), 356. l4I b id ., p. 356. *5G allia C h ristiana, Haure'au, e d ., XV, 316. l6 Strickland, M iscella n ea di Storia Italiana, I (1895), 356. 35 s e e in 1233. He, th erefore, m ust have reached the canonical age of tw en ty -six and thus he would have been born in "the secon d half of 1207 o r at the la te st, in the fir s t half of 1 2 0 8 ." ^ As m uch as one would lik e to have an exact birth date for B oniface of Savoy, Strickland's theory m ust be questioned. The bull of G regory, r efer r ed to by Strickland, does not appoint B oniface as bishop of B e lle y . What it does is appoint B oniface as procurator of the s e e o f B elley until, at so m e future tim e, b etter arran gem en ts could be m ade for the b ishop ric: A lioquin p riorem et capitulum saep e dictos m oneas d iligen tiu s et inducas, ut, infra certum tem pus quod e is du xeris praefigendum , sib i p er election em canonicam de p ersona idonea in episcopum provideant et p astorem .18 The pope ask s the bishop of B esan con to exam ine B oniface as to h is q u alification s for being con sid ered for the post a s bishop. One of the qu alification s w as having reached the m inim um canonical age of tw e n ty -six . The pope go es on to sa y , how ever, that this exam ination would have nothing to do with h is appointm ent of B oniface 19 as procurator of B e lle y . Thus we have a term inu s ad quem for the birth date of B on iface, he had not reached the age of tw en ty -six by 1232, but w e have no term inus a quo. B eca u se of the em p h asis upon reaching the age of tw en ty -six , along w ith the e a r lie r m ention in the ch arter of 1224 that B oniface w as in c le r ic a l o r d e r s, Strickland m ay l7 Strickland, M iscellan ea di Storia Italiana, I (1895), 359. ^ G allia C h ristian a, H aure’ au, e d ., XV, 317. 19lb id ., p. 316. not be far off in his dating even though h is hypothesis does not hold up. If it is true that B oniface w as born in 1207, this would m ake him the sa m e age a s H enry m of England. Although the pope did not appoint B oniface as bishop of B e lle y , it would s t ill be true that the chapter had elected him . The tran sition al sta g e of "b ishop -elect" w as thus m ade station ary. The p r o c e ss could only be put into operation by papal com m and. E ither the pope would issu e another bull approving the electio n or appointing a bishop or he would ask the chapter to have a new ele ctio n . In the corresp on d en ce of Am adeus of Savoy and of the abbot of St. Sulpice, 20 B oniface is spoken of, as the e le c t of B e lle y . W hether Boniface reached the canonical age or not, no further m ove w as ev er initiated to m ake him bishop. The bull appointing B oniface as procurator of B elley speaks in high estim ation of the p erson al q u alities of the young B on iface. Strickland u se s this recom m endation to show the ch aracter of B on iface. He sp eak s of the bull as, "the m ost im portant in the life 21 o f B oniface of S a v o y ." One cannot alw ays b eliev e a le tte r of recom m endation although it should not be discounted com p letely. Although the bull sp eak s of h is noble birth, a son of the count of Savoy, and of h is m inor o r d e rs, no m ention is m ade of his being a m em b er of the Carthusian order or of h is position as prior of Nantua. 20 / B artholom ew H aureau, " E cclesia e B e llic e n sis: B onifacius II de Savoie, " G allia C hristiana, B artholom ew Haure'au, ed . (P a ris, I860), XV, 623^624. ^ S trick lan d , M iscellan ea di Storia Italiana, I (1895), 358. 37 In the bull, the archbishops of V ienne and T aren taise, the bishops of j G renoble and M oriana, the prior and chapter of B elley and many C istercian abbots, w ere a ll unanim ous in p raisin g B oniface, "sicut asseru n t, providum ac d iscretu m , m orum honestate conspicuum , ■ 22 ' som p etenter litterarum sc ien tia eruditum . The bull ord ers the bishop of Besan^on to exam ine B oniface, " si eum com petentis ,,23 ' litteratu rae et c o n v e r sa tio n s honestae fore co n stiterit. The bull speaks of h is educational attainm ent. Matthew P a ris, as we have seen , speak s of him as illite r a te and uneducated. M ugnier d e sc rib es Boniface a s, "I'el&ve a l'e c o le de p rin ces de ..24 Savoie. This may be a figurative ex p ressio n but it is probably tru e. We have no docum ents that speak of the educational attainm ent f of B oniface. He did, how ever, grow up in one of the m ost highly sop h isticated and cultured a rea s in the W estern world; P rovence and Southern F ra n ce. H is younger s is te r , B ea trice, becam e alm ost as fam ous as h er la ter husband B erengar as a w riter and troubador p o e te ss. It is p o ssib le that B ea trice w as the "countessa" in the prison poem s of Richard C oeu r-d e-L eon , who sen t to this lady a copy of h is son n ets. E leanor, the n iece of B oniface and future queen : of England, had as her tutor, R om eo, one of the g rea test Italian poets* Through h er poetry, e sp ecia lly her heroic poem on the greats of E nglish h istory, sh e attracted the in terest of Richard of Cornwall, 22 , G allia C hristiana, Haureau, e d ., XV, 316. 23Ibid. 2^M ugnier, L es Savoyards en A n gleterre, p. 5. 38 > i who, in turn, introduced her future husband, King Henry III, to this 25 precociou s young g irl in P roven ce. Although m ore arch ival work needs to be done, we do not have record of any litera ry endeavors by the young B on iface. We have little inform ation dealing with the six y ea rs that B oniface was b ish o p -elect o f B elley . We do know that he becam e, probably on the death of h is brother W illiam in 1239, procurator of 26 the s e e of V alence. After Boniface becam e archbishop of Canterbury, he s till kept up his relation sh ip with Savoy and the surrounding a rea . Until j i h is death, he rem ained prior of Nantua. Som etim e later he becam e lord of the c a stle and d istrict of Tour non, on the banks of the RhSne r iv e r . This relation sh ip a lso lasted until h is death. M ugnier, in h is study of the Savoyards in England, includes three ch arters that speak of Boniface in the capacity of lord of Tournon; (1) an agreem ent, in 1255, with the lord of F a v erg es, (2) a feudal grant to P eter de Aigueblanche giving him the fief of the ca stle of St. H elene du M alord, and (3) a ch arter to Rodolphe de Avalon concerning the sam e c a s t l e d B efore we p ass on to England and the attem pts there to gain 25 i E lean or's heroic poem has not been published. Royal L ibrary of Turin, MS. 26 Strickland m akes no m ention of this fact. Cf. F ran cisco Augustino, S .R .E . Cardinalium , A rchiepiscoporum , Episcoporum , et Abbatum Pedem ontane R egionis Chronologic a H istoria (Turin, 1645), p. 353 and Conrad Eubel, H ierachia Catholic a M edii A evi (R egensbergianae, 1910-1913), I, 131.“ 27 M ugnier, L es Savoyards en A ngleterre, pp. 286-291. 39 a higher e c c le s ia s tic a l p osition for B on iface, it would be w e ll to form j so m e picture of him as a young man in Savoy. That he w as a | "courtier-b ishop " though never actu ally a bishop, cannot be denied. In all three of h is early p referm en ts, plus being lord of Tournon, i he was a man caught up in the vortex of p o litica l p r e ssu r e and in trigu e. As p rio r of Nantua and as p rocu rator of B e lley and V alen ce, h is concerns w ere m ore p o litica l than th eological. In this r esp ec t, he is probably m ore rep resen tative of the Continental churchm en than the Schoolm en in P a r is. M arion Gibbs h esitan tly rem ark s: "He m ust have gained so m e know ledge of church ad m in istration 28 abroad. " T his m ay be said m ore p o sitiv e ly . B oniface cam e to the archbishopric of Canterbury w ith a background w e ll su ited for h is future em ploym ent. To sa y , h ow ever, as M arion Gibbs does, that b ein g caught up in p olitical c o n cern s, m ade him "w orldly and am bitious" m ay not 29 be tru e. Two of h is la ter r e la tiv e s, Louis IX of F ran ce and Henry III of England, though a lso caught up in the p o litica l arena, w ere noted for their devotion, if not their e x c e s s iv e p iety. T here is the leitm o tif of h is C arthusian leanings thkt m ay point in the opp osite d irection . When B on iface does com e to England, he is treated by Robert G r o sse te ste and Adam M arsh, as we sh all s e e , as som eon e 2 8 °M arion Gibbs and Jane Lang, B ish op s and R eform , p. 19. 29Ibid. 40 sim ila r to them in b asic con cerns and in terest, though not in back- 30 ground. ^^Roberti G ro sse te ste E p iscop i quondam L in coln ien sis E p istolae, H enry ftichards Luard, ed . (London, 1861), pp. 271-275, N os. 86-88. In his fir st lette r to the arch b ish op -elect, G ro sseteste congratulates him on the appointm ent. Ib id .. p. 271, N o. 86. "Adae de M arisco E p istolae, " Monumenta F ran ciscan a, J. S. B rew er, ed. (London, 1858), I, 77^53: CHAPTER H I ! THE ELECTION OF BONIFACE OF SAVOY I TO THE SEE OF CANTERBURY: A STUDY IN POLITICAL FORCES (1241-1245) ! W hile Boniface of Savoy was attending to the a ffa irs of the i i ■ I I s e e s of B e lley and of V alence, the p riorate of Nantua and p o ssib ly j ; l ■ the r esp o n sib ilities of being lord of Tournon, even ts w ere occu rin g i i | in England that would eventually lead to h is enthronem ent as a r ch - ; i i bishop of C anterbury. This e le ctio n w as unusual, not alone b ecau se it concerned a m inor noblem an and a p erson only in the ord er o f a sub-d eacon, nor b ecau se of the d ifficu lties in the electio n itse lf, j but b ecau se it involved, in a strange m ixture, the great p o litica l i i fo r c e s of the day. | j j Who was behind the m ovem ent to put B oniface of Savoy into j s » : i the pow erful and im portant s e e of C anterbury? The so u r c e s would ! | seem to indicate one of three p o ssib le p arties; (1) the m on astic j j ! ! chapter of Canterbury, who had, over a long period of tim e, won i I the right to be the o fficia l e le c to r s of the archbishop of Canterbury, i (2) the king and (3) the pope. i ( ‘ ! In the continuation of G ervase, the m onastic chapter of j Canterbury gives its e lf the cred it, in the m id st of many p rob lem s, ! including being under the ban of excom m unication, of elevatin g j I I ! Boniface of Savoy to the se e of C anterbury. To show how they | j i I accom p lish ed this feat, the w riter of the continuation of G ervase includes a long lis t of docum ents pertaining to the electio n . In a : patent le tte r giving notification of the electio n of B oniface, the loii^“ 42 canonical procedure is given. Each step is rigid ly follow ed, as it w ere, to allay any hint o f irreg u la rity . The procedure w as to be I I that of com p rom ise, the via com p rom issa , election by com m ittee. J No reason is given a s to just why this mode of election w as ch osen . I The step s of the leg a l procedure are then given in sequence; the ! granting of royal approval, the reading of the d ecree of the L ateran j Council of 1215, the nom ination of the com m ittee (seven m onks of | the chapter) with fu ll power of election , the invocation of the Holy ! I Spirit, the delib eration by the com m ittee, the election by the co m - j m ittee, a publication of the r esu lts of the election with a plea for j 1 postulation by the pope, "unanimi con sen su et voluntate in patrem ' i ii 1 et pastorem nostrum a domino papa postulandum elig im u s, and j j then the fin al consent by the prior and the chapter. * L etters giving i notice of the election and their sp ec ia l req u est w ere then sen t to the j I 2 i pope and the card in als. P ro cto rs w ere form ally appointed: three j I ! ! of the m onks and three law yers already at the curia; John la Dia, j ' 1 3 i | A lexander le Secular and A zzo de P arm a. They w ere given instructions that if the election w as not confirm ed, they w ere to have j i power to arrange for the appointm ent of B oniface by the pope to the ! 4 s e e of Canterbury. Along with the p roctors, a letter w as sent I I i I | I Cont. G ervase, II, 190. j 2Ib id ., II, 186-188; 3 ! T hese w ere in rea lity the king's p ro cto rs. Cf. Calendar of the Patent R olls, Henry M , 1232-1247 (London, 1906), p. 228 ff. 4n P er innatam vobis clem en tiam Dom ino annuente co n cessu m ." Cont. G ervase, n, 189. 43 entreating the pope to expedite the appointm ent and to answ er their plea: " P reces igitu r devotas et supplication es hum illim as, precibu s et supplicationibus iterum in cu lcan tes, U nguis, cordibus et a n im is, a san ctitate v e str a petim us, quatinus dictum dominum Bonefacium nobis, ob innatam vobis clem en tiam , in patrem et pastorem p ariter § ^ c o n c e d a tis ." At this place in the n arrative, the w riter inclu des a s e r ie s j i of docum ents originating about the sam e tim e as the e le ctio n and I i dealing with the papal liftin g of the ban of excom m unication put on j fi the chapter by the late A rchbishop Edmund. A fter a few narrative | w ords about the m isfortu n es of the m onastic p roctors on the way to i the curia (they had been captured by F red erick II), the w riter co n - ! elu d es this sectio n on the e le ctio n of B oniface by including the im portant bull of Innocent IV, dated Septem ber 16, 1243, appointing 7 j B oniface of Savoy as archbishop of C anterbury. i 5 Cont. G ervase, n , 192. — ■ — ^ f i i ^Ib id ., II, 192-197. The tim e sequence-i& som ew hat confused.! 7Ib id ., II, 198-200. The Dunstable A n n als, in con trast to | this chain o f even ts in G erv a se, speak of two electio n s at C anterbury, j one b efore and one after, the papal annulm ent of Edm und's ex co m - j m unication. Annales Monas tic i (Duns tablia), H. R. Luard, ed. (London, 1864-1869), III, 156. T here are hints in the docum ents in G ervase that this m ay be s o . In their lette r to Pope G regory, the C anterbury p rior and chapter speak of their fir s t attem pts at j election : L icet super sen ten tiis in nos injuste la tis relaxation em ' im p e tr a v e r im u s.. . ad c a u te la m .. . in prim o con sen su et in eandem | personam im m ob iles p ersev era n t, cum co n sid era tis om nibus c ir cu m - sta n tiis non videatur nobis quod de a lia persona p o ssem u s e c c le s ia e n ostrae et nobis m eliu s et u tiliu s p ro v id ere." Cont. G e r v a se ,II, 199. : In h is lette r of confirm ation, Innocent IV m akes m ention of this fir s t attem pt. Ibid. i 44 | In this bull of confirm ation, Boniface is d escrib ed in the w ords, "nobilitas g en eris, honestas m orum , vitae m unditia, d is - i lift j cretio n is industria et fam ae cla ra e praeconium ." The pope then j | goes on to state that he is doing this as a fa v o r for L ou is, king of i j F ran ce, Henry, king of England, Richard of Cornw all and Raymond, | i i f f I count of P rovence, per eorum favorem continuum dictae status J e c c le sia e honoris et p rosp eritatis su scip ia t i n c r e m e n t u m . j I In view of the leg a l troubles of the Canterbury chapter, it ! | would seem quite natural fo r the pope to appoint B oniface to the s e e j of C anterbury. What is unusual is the strong papal a sser tio n in the j ! appointm ent. By the use of h is plentitude of pow er, the pope com m its! ! i to the new appointee both the sp iritu a lities and tem p oralities of the j : I | see: j I C antuariensi e c c le sia e de sp e c ia li gratia co n cessim u s in I pas tor em , sp eran tes quod ip se ad decorem et decus domus j I D om ini quasi eburnea tu rris habebitur, per candorem j m unditiae, firm ita tis constantiam , robur fortitu d in is, ! intuitionem fid e i et e c c le sia stic a e lib e r ta tis, Rogamus itaque universitatem vestram et hortam ur attentius, per ; ap ostolica scrip ta vobis praecipiendo m andantes, quatinus ; praefatum electum ad saep e dictam e cc le sia m , cujus in j i sp iritualibus et teitfporalibus plenam sib i co m m isim u s. ; Cont. G ervase, II, 199. In a letter to the card in als, i B oniface is spoken o f as a "vir idoneus, littera tu s, nob ilis et j m o r ig e r a tu s.1 1 Ib id ., II, 189. M ile. Raymonde F o r e v ille , having ! based her conception of B oniface upon Matthew P a r is, as m entioned j e a r lie r , b e lie v es this to be a ll stereo ty p e. "Q ualifier B oniface de ; Savoie de v ir litteratu s fr is a it l ’h y p er b o le ." F o r e v ille , B ulletin I P h il. et H is t ., 1 (1960), 443. Granting the stereotyped nature of any lette r of recom m endation, the d escrip tion should not be d ism issed without further in vestigation . 9 Cont. G ervase, II, 200. 1 0ibid. A fter in sertin g this bull of Innocent IV, the w riter concludes with a sh ort narrative p a ssa g e d escrib in g how the p rior and chapter i | of Canterbury, upon hearing the w ords of the bull, burst forth with i w ords of joy and glad n ess: "B enedictus qui venit in nom ine D om ini, t | cunctis et sin g u lis fratribu s d esid eratu s et efferen tib u s. The ! chapter then sen t off two m onks to m eet B oniface and te ll him the good n ew s. ! In her an alysis of the electio n of B oniface, M ile. Raym onde j i | { F o r e v ille s e e s in this account in G ervase w ith its c o llec tio n of i | docum ents, two d e c isiv e canonical d evelop m en ts. ^ F ir st, she i j b e lie v e s that the v ia co m p ro m issa as put into operation by the • ! chapter in this electio n m arked the beginning of a m ove by the i ! i ; chapter to take over the righ ts of the arch b ish op ric not only when i the se e w as vacant but m ore im portantly even during the reign of j B oniface h im se lf. i i Nul dout^que le pontificat de B oniface deJSavoie ait m arque' j un pas d e c is if dans c ette v o ie . Le c a ra c te r e ad m in istratif j de sa g estio n , non m oins que s e s longues a b sen ces, a largem en t contribue ^ tr a n sfo r m e r le droit p ersonn el de I I'archeveque de connaitre des appels au sie g e m etropolitain I par Evocation d irecte ou qu1 il s e trouve ou par delegation, J j en une fonction ju d iciaire d^volue a un organ ism e perm anent, I j v erita b le Cour d’appel des d ifferen tes in sta n ces dioce'saines j I de la province eccle'siastiq u e, disposant d'un sie g e fix e et I d’ un p erson n el sp ecialise', c e lu i-c i pouvant etre c h o isi en j partie parm i le s m em b res de la co m m u n au t/m on astiq u e j i sp ecia lem en t fo rm es a la pratique le g a le . 13 ' ^C ont. G erv a se, II, 200. ^ M lle . Raymonde F o r e v ille , B u lletin P h il. e t H i s t ., I (1960), 43 5 -4 5 0 . 13I b id ., p. 449. 46 Along with this developm ent and even m ore im portantly, M ile. F o r e v ille s e e s in the electio n of B oniface a cru cia l turning point in the election s to the s e e of C anterbury. The chapter had given up its ele cto r a l rights and the pope, by the u se of h is plentitude of pow er, had now taken over the righ ts to the electio n of the arch - I bishop of Canterbury, "d1 une evolution juridique v e r s la r e se r v e j p ap ale." 1^ j i P ar a illeu rs cependant, la prom otion de^Boniface de Savoie j m arque une e'tape d e c isiv e dans la procedure de lente I appropriation des electio n s ep iscop ates par le Sain t-S iege, ! proceaure^qui devait aboutir aux r e s e r v e s ge'nerales j prom ulguees par le s papes a p artir du pontificat de B oniface V m . 1 5 j ! It is p ossib le that M ile. F o r e v ille has not only by her heavy j i relia n ce upon the Matthew P a ris tradition m istaken the character of j B oniface, but that she has a lso read too much into the election of J B oniface to the se e of C anterbury. On the one hand, the chapter i w as strengthened in its judicial righ ts not b ecau se B oniface w as a w eak archbishop but b ecau se, as we sh a ll s e e , he w as a stron g j i archbishop, a cham pion of the righ ts of the arch bish opric of 1 Canterbury arid thus the rights of the chapter of C anterbury. H is j i stru ggle with the suffragan bishops and his con flict with the king, along with his leg a l settlem en t with the chapter in 1258, did m ore ' than anything e ls e in the thirteenth century to enlarge and secu re | the rights of the Canterbury m onks. The m onks had won their righ ts j | i l^M lle. Raymonde F o r e v ille . B ulletin P h il. e t H is t ., I (I960), 443. j 15Ib id ., p. 436. ! ! not in any con flict with the archbishop but in their stru ggle with j Robert G r o sse te ste , the bishop of L in co ln .1® t I On the other hand, there is nothing in the election of B oniface that had to do with the Canterbury chapter giving up its e le cto r a l rig h ts. It is true that they w ere in a position of w eak n ess. | They w ere s till under a ban of excom m unication placed on them by j i their form er archbishop, Edmund of Abingdon. This had left them ! ! ! ! in an awkward situation . They appealed to the pope not only to j j accede to their w ish es in regard to the electio n or appointment but j | I | a lso to lift the ban of excom m unication. The pope com plied with | : both of their r eq u e sts. The chapter, in this election , had gained j I back their e le cto r a l rig h ts. i | i | The problem surrounding the electio n of B oniface to the j i ; s e e of Canterbury had nothing to do with the righ ts of election . No I one, except the suffragan bishops who fin ally lo st their ca se to the ! ; i Canterbury m onks, disputed their claim to the ele cto r a l righ ts. i The problem w as the actual im potence of the chapter. They m ight glory in the fact, as does the w riter of the continuation of G ervase, j that they had, through scru pu lously ob servin g every canonical step, ! j I ; brought about the electio n of B oniface of Savoy. It w as, how ever, to | *®Cf. M arjorie M. M organ, "The E xcom m unication of ! G ro sse te ste in 1243; with a T ext of a L etter w ritten by the Monks 1 of Canterbury justifying their Excom m unication, " E nglish H istorical R eview , LVII (1942), 244-250. 48 17 a ll intents and purposes, an e x e r c ise in fu tility . It was not a ca se of who had the righ ts of electio n , but rath er who con trolled the electio n . If we can b e lie v e M atthew P a r is, leavin g h is vehem ence j a sid e, it w as the king who brought about the e le ctio n of B oniface to i the s e e of C anterbury. A ccording to the ch ro n icler, the king had | tried in three d ifferen t in stan ces to se c u r e a p osition for B oniface | in England. In the fir s t in stan ce, M atthew P a ris h as the king i ! ea rn estly begging the chapter of Durham to e le c t eith er P ete r de 18 Aigueblanche or B oniface to the s e e of D urham . This, how ever, j can be questioned. The o fficia l reco rd s are sile n t on this issu e ; and sp eak only of the su c c e ssfu l candidate, who s e e m s to have been iq | a royal favorite, N icholas of Farnham . M atthew P a r is then has the king, in what becam e a cau se j c eleb re , exertin g p o litica l p r e ssu re to put B oniface into the s e e 20 i of W inchester. To the m on astic h istorian , it w as this m ove by i the king that caused h is "hero" St. Edmund to em ulate St. Thom as 17 j The only actual pow er the chapter s e e m s to have had, j w as to act as a "counter" in the interplay of p o litica l fo r c e s . The I pope never appointed a royal candidate whom the chapter refu sed to e le ct and thus the king, to h is annoyance, had to subm it, on many o cca sio n s, se v e r a l candidates from whom the chapter could s e le c t the m ost acceptable one. C f. Gibbs and Lang, B ish op s and R eform , p. 83. We do not know w hether this w as the c a se in the electio n of B on iface. l8 Matthew P a r is, C hron. M aj. , IV, 61-62. t9C al. of Patent R o lls, H enry III, 1232-1247, pp. 24 4 -2 4 5 . 1 20Matthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., IV, 14-15. > 49 j Q l | a B ecket and go into " exile” at Pontigny. T here is good reason to i | su sp ect that as St. Edmund becam e the ch ro n icler’s "hero" out of i this particular in stan ce, the person urged by the king, i . e . B oniface, becam e the "villain" and thus this instance w as the startin g point I | of the v ilifica tio n that developed into the Matthew P a ris tradition j concerning B on iface. Once M atthew P a ris had estab lish ed this | litera ry fram ew ork, there w as no way he could se t about to co rrect | the picture of B oniface even though, as we have seen , he may have ! tried late in his life . Even though his litera ry fram ew ork m ay be questioned, the su bstantial facts in the ca se concerning B oniface are c o rr ec t. The king attem pted to put Boniface into the s e e of W inchester. Although i l i the election by the Canterbury m onks of B oniface to the s e e of Canterbury occu rred within the com ing y ea r, the king, in h is c o r - C .H . L aw rence has shown, quite con clu sively, that i Edmund never w ent into e x ile and that the e a r lie r w riter, E ustace | of F aversh am , upon whom Matthew P a ris drew heavily, developed i the "exile" as a lite ra r y invention to sty le the end of Edmund's I life after the end of the life of St. Thom as a B eck et. Edmund w as | at Pontigny not b ecau se he went into e x ile, but becau se he was on the way to Rome to appeal to the pope. C .H . L aw rence, "The A lleged E x ile of A rchbishop Edmund, " Journal of E c c le sia stic a l H istory, VII (1956), 160-173. See a lso h is la rg er work, C .H . L aw rence, St. Edmund of Abington (Oxford, I960), pp. 155-185. j L aw rence, how ever, has given up too much to prove h is th e sis. ! This trip of Edmund, though techn ically not an e x ile, w as s till a | m ovem ent of p rotest against the king e sp e cia lly against h is in ter- | feren ce in the W inchester electio n . L aw rence com m ents on the ! W inchester affair: "Such incidents could engender bad feelin g, but I they w ere after a ll com m onplace in the life of a thirteenth-century ; bishop. It is hard to se e in them any reason lik ely to com p el the ; archbishop to abandon h is duties and retire from the country." | L aw rence, St. Edmund, p. 72. The W inchester conflict, as we sh a ll se e , cannot be d ism isse d that e a sily . 50 respond en ce with h is p roctors at the papal court, has them work for both e le c tio n s. On F ebruary 17, 1243, H enry w rote to Innocent IV, appealing to the pope not to p erm it the bishop of N orw ich to be tran slated to W inchester, as the m onks (i. e . the group that sided with the king) had "provided B Coniface 1 de Sabaudia th ereto, ac cording to the m andate of the ap ostolic s e e and the cou n sel of the o n le g a te . A few days la ter, the king appointed R obert A nketil as h is p ro cto r-g en era l "for a ll things which touch the king by reason of the election to Canterbury of B Coniface ] de Sabaudia; a lso by rea so n of the electio n o f him to the Church of W inchester by the p rior of that church and his a cco m p lices; a lso by rea so n of the postulation m ade in it touching the tran sferen ce of the bishop of 23 ’ N orw ich to it by the su b -p rio r of the said place and h is fo llo w in g ." To expedite his c a se , the king appointed the abbot of Hautecom be (a c lo s e neighbor to B oniface) and B ernard de Rumaunz, "in the p rosecu tion of the a ffairs of the churches of Canterbury and : W inchester, of B oniface of B elley , e le c t of C anterbury, and p ost- ; ulated to be bishop of W inchester. "2^ An explanation of the seem in gly contrad ictory m ove by the i king to put B oniface into both p o sitio n s, m ay not be d ifficu lt. In the ele ctio n to W inchester, the e le c to r a l com m ittee, the via com p ro- m is s a had been sp lit, four voted for the bishop of N orw ich and three 22C al. of Patent R o lls, Henry HI, 1232-1247, p. 400. 23Ib id ., p. 365. I 51 had voted for the king's candidate, B oniface of Savoy. The king, through ev ery type of leg a l argum ent, w as trying to convince the pope that h is group of m onks, though a m inority, w as the only valid 25 i group e lig ib le to e le c t a bishop. If he w ere to give up B oniface ; j ! as h is candidate (even though elected to C anterbury), h is whole j : I i le g a l argum ent would be shaken and his "deadly enem y" W illiam j i of N orw ich would becom e (as he la te r did becom e) bishop of ! i j W in ch ester. Thus the m ove to keep B oniface, as long as p o ssib le, I j a candidate for the se e of W in ch ester. It would a lso seem that the | king was not su re of eith er electio n , e sp e c ia lly that to Canterbury, j i ' I 1 and so he kept both doors open as long as p o ssib le . In a le tte r j ad d ressed to the pope and the ca rd in als, Henry req u ests that j ; B oniface be elected bishop of W inchester if h is electio n to Canterbury is not confirm ed. "Que s i forte p ro v isio ad effectum non p erven erit I de ip so quern ad a ltio ra provehi per vos cupim us et s p e r a m u s ." ^ i : i As Matthew P a ris saw the heavy hand of the king in the j i , W inchester election , he a lso saw it in the Canterbury election . 25 i F or those in terested in le g a l and canonical procedure, | | this appeal by the king would m erit further study. The king, along | i with the help of the em inent law yer, A zzo of P arm a, drew up one j | of the lon gest and m ost com plex le g a l b r iefs on reco rd . C al. of I Patent R olls, H enry III, 1232-1247, pp. 410-413. One of the points j | in h is defen se w as that the fo rm er pope, G regory IX, had granted | a d ecree that no one su sp ected by the king should be appointed to the j i s e e of W in ch ester. Innocent IV, how ever, would not be m oved and ! went ahead and appointed W illiam of R aleigh to the bishop ric of : W in ch ester. The king w as v io len tly angry and did everything, short of m urder, to p ersecu te the new bishop. The in terestin g role of : the new a rch b ish o p -elect in this con troversy, w ill be d iscu sse d in ' the next chapter. ^6R oles G ascon s, F . M ichel, ed. (P a ris, 1885), I, 160-161. | w here the m onks, in h is w ords, "had faithfully prom ised to e le ct | B oniface as their archbishop, as the king had m ost ea rn estly en - 27 j treated them to do. " As the electio n of B oniface w as r e sis te d | at the papal court by the pow erful archdeacon Sim on Langton, ! ; i Matthew P a ris has the king put p r e ssu re on the archdeacon and 28 | h is r e sista n c e w as quashed. The ch ro n icler is here substantiated j by the o fficia l r e c o r d s. In a lette r of F eb ru ary 17, 1243, the king ; req u ests the pope "to confirm the p rovision by the prior and convent j of the Church of C anterbury, after having obtained the king's lic en ce to e le c t, of B oniface de Sabaudia, proctor of the Church of B elley, the king's uncle, to the se e of C anterbury, void by the death of ; ECdmund^J, som etim e archbishop, which confirm ation the king has j O Q I greatly at h eart. " In another le tte r , "w hereas R Qobert 3 the prior and the convent of C hrist Church Canterbury, in the p ros ecution of th eir electio n of B on iface, proctor of the Church of B e lley , j to be archbishop of Canterbury, at the king's instan ce, " had ap - j i pointed h is la w y ers. M aster Atton' of P arm a, A lexander le Secular i : and John de Dya as their p ro cto rs, the king p ro m ises to pay a ll of j I - 30 j i their e x p en ses. i ! I | It has been su ggested , with m uch plau sib ility, that Queen E leanor w as in back of the king's effo rts to find her uncle, B oniface, i 97 ■ Matthew P a ris, Chron. M a j., IV, 103. 28Ib id ., IV, 103-104. 29C al. of Patent R olls, Henry III, 1232-1247, p. 400. 30Ib id ., p. 248. 53 j a p osition of im portance in England. Although the o fficia l reco rd s give no hint of th is, M atthew of W estm in ster is said to have w ritten that E lean or w rote, w ith h er own hand, a v ery elegant le tte r to the pope on behalf of B oniface: "Taking upon h e r s e lf for no other rea so n than his relation sh ip to h er, to urge the cause of this un su itab le candidate in the w arm est m anner. And so , m y lord the pope, when he had read the le tte r thought it proper to nam e this m an, who had been ch osen by a wom an, and it w as com m only sa id qi that he w as chosen by a fem a le in trig u e." I j In the G ascon R o lls, there is contained a long le tte r , dated 1 F eb ru ary 17, 1242, from the king to the pope, entreating him to eith er confirm the electio n of B oniface to the arch bish opric of Canterbury, or, as a sp e c ia l favor to the king, to appoint him to I th is p osition . A fter rela tin g that he has sen t h is p roctor, Robert A nketil, with h is le tte r s , the king continues: Ex affectu co rd is intim o quantum p ossu m us h u m iliter supplicando quatinus in eodem B Bonifacio 3 , avunculo n ostro, gem m am , nobilitam m orum e t g e n e r is, et tarn ip siu s quam suorum devotionem erg a Deum et Romanam E c clesia m attendentes, nec non utilitatem regn i tanquam r e i n ostre pensantes dictum B Conifacium U jam a D eo prom issu m nobis in subsidium sp e c ia le , et p roli n o stre | non m odicum fulcim entum et C antuariensi e c c le s ie in archiepiscopum difficultate quolibet e t inpedim ento post p o sitis, im penso de Sedis ap ostolice lib era lita te consueta, con firm ationes m unere con ced atis, in hoc v e l de jure quo dictum B jlonifacium [] juvari cred im u s, v e l, s i n e c e ss e fu erit, de gratia sp e c ia li, petitionem nostram sic e ffic a c ite r ^l Quoted in A gnes Strickland, L iv es of the Q ueens of England, New edition (London, 1869), I, 253. l ean find no r efer e n c e to this statem en t in the printed edition s of the F lo r e s ! H istoriarum attributed to M atthew of W estm in ster. 54 adm itentes quod ex eo paterne d ilectio n is affectum quern erga nos et h ered es n ostros g e r itis m a n ifestis ut opt am us, in d iciis o sten d atis, et nos ad exaltacion em corone n o stre fructum quern bene de sublato nobis m ajore fratre sp era v im u s, de m inore per D ei gratiam con seq u en tes, vob is et san cte Romane E c c le s ie fortiu s im posterum a str in g a tis. 32 M atthew P a ris m ay be refer r in g to this letter, o r to som e other docum ent not now extant, when he w rites that "the king, that he m ight m ore e a sily r a is e B oniface to the arch bish opric of C anterbury, w rote a book, at the in stigation of the queen, in which he lavish ed h is p r a ise s on the m an n ers, sc ie n c e and g en erosity of the said B oniface, although he w as a stra n g er to him , and affixing O < 5 h is se a l, he cau sed n early a ll the E n glish p rela tes to do the sam e." The le tte r cited above, how ever, m akes no m ention of any bishops or of their s e a ls . It would se em that H enry w as doing a ll he could to bring about the electio n of B oniface to the s e e of Canterbury and if any one could be cred ited with con trollin g this electio n , it would be the king. T his view , how ever, has been ch allen ged . There are th ose, su ch as Johannes H aller, who s e e not King H enry but the pope as the one p rim arily in terested in this electio n , the one who con trolled it and the one who u ltim ately benefited from it e sp e cia lly as it con ferred an obligation on the house of Savoy. H aller w rites: H einrich HI. war des K a isers Schw ager, und sein Verh'altnis zur K urie, in den sp ateren Jahren G regors IX. so eng, ^^R oies G ascons, M ichel, e d ., I, 159-160, No. 1,204. 33M atthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., IV, 259-260. 55 hatte seitd em ein e Triibung erfahren, ja der Konig glaubte sic h iiber Innozenz e rn stlic h besch w eren zu m iissen . D ass ein Oheim der Kdnigen, B onifazius von I Savoyen, zum E rzb isch o f von Canterbury erhoben w urde, w ar w eniger dem Konig als dem sav o y isch en G rafenhaus zu lieb e geschehen, das der P apst b e i guter Laune erh alten m u sste, w eil e s die S tra ssen von Lyon nach Italien b eh errsch te. 34 T his third alternative a s to who actu ally con trolled the I i ; Canterbury electio n , is an in terestin g h yp othesis although, here ! i 1 again, it has the w eakn ess of an o v ersta tem en t. As we have se en , j j Henry worked very hard, probably under the prodding of h is w ife, | to put B oniface into an E n glish p referm en t. E ven if it w as only j for m arital tranquility, one should not sa y that it m eant little to I ! ! the king. It stron gly appeared to those in England, as we saw in | M atthew P a r is, that the king controlled the electio n and that B oniface I 35 I cam e to England a s the kin g's " c r e a tu r e ." i One a lso questions the a sse r tio n that the prim e rea so n fo r i ! papal approval w as that it con ferred an obligation on the house of j t : Savoy. We have no docum ents that point to this m otive on the part j : ! | of the pope nor are there any docum ents that show the Savoyard j ; counts p r e ssin g for this ele ctio n . T here is no reason to suppose J that a preferm ent in England would put m uch of an obligation on the j house of Savoy and the relation sh ip betw een Savoy and the papacy 34 ' Johannes H aller, Das Papsttum , Idee und W irklichkeit, Second edition (E sslin gen am N eckar, 1962), IV, 1*77. 35 T his has lead R .F . T reharne to sa y , "Boniface is ! obviously the K ing's m a n . " R .F . T reharne, "The Significance of j the B aronial R eform M ovem ent, 1258-1267, " T ransactions of the Royal H isto rica l S ociety, Fourth s e r ie s , XXV (1943), 5 4 -5 5 . As this paper w ill show , this d escrip tion m u st be se r io u sly questioned. becam e p r o g r essiv ely w o rse rather than better after this electio n . The pope plainly sta te s in his bull of confirm ation who is now under obligation; the king of F ran ce, the king of England, Richard of Cornw all and the count of P roven ce. The pope, locked in m ortal com bat with F red erick II, w as urgently seek in g p olitical support and financial a ssista n c e from these r u le r s. He had granted a favor to these m en, a ll related in som e way to B oniface of Savoy. This 36 action could not help but p r e ss for a favor in return. On the other hand, it should be noted that this was the only m ajor election in England during the thirteenth century in which the pope approved the king's ch o ice. In a ll the disputed electio n s, Innocent IV paid no attention to the w ish es of the king. At the sam e tim e Innocent IV was approving the election of B oniface, he w as a lso approving the electio n of the king's "hated enemy" W illiam of 97 R aleigh to the s e e of W inchester. With th ese qualifications, this third alternative m ay explain som e of the events surrounding the electio n . Pope G regory IX, who had been requested in 1241 to confirm the election , did nothing about Raymond B erengar and h is w ife B eatrice, the s is te r of B oniface, had four daughters. Their m arriages w ere the talk of E urope. (Cf. D ante's descrip tion , "Four daughters, each one of them a queen, had Raymond B eren gar." D iv. C o m ., P a r ., VI, 133-135.) One m arried King Louis IX of F ra n ce , bn e m arried Richard of Cornwall, soon to be elected Holy Roman E m peror. Another m arried King Henry III of England. The youngest m arried C harles of Anjou who on the death of Raymond B erengar becam e count of P rovence and later conquered southern Italy, becom ing the ru ler of S icily and N ap les. A ll four daughters had c lo se relation s with their uncle, B oniface of Savoy. 37 Reg. Innoc. I V ., B erger, e d ., I, 23, No. 113. 57 it. The poor rela tio n s betw een Henry and G regory m ay explain this lack of enthusiasm on the part of the pope, com bined w ith the fact that A rchdeacon Sim on Langton, the pope's ad visor on E nglish a ffa irs, w as known to oppose the ele ctio n . It w as only : 1 ! after three y e a r s, with the death of G regory, the two w eek s reign j of C elestin e IV and the two y e a rs of vacancy, that Innocent IV, i in the fir s t month of h is pontificate, dealt with the m atter of the j C anterbury ele ctio n . i i ! i - To conclude: the electio n o f B oniface of Savoy to the se e I of Canterbury m eant a ll things to a ll p eople. The Canterbury I ! chapter could congratulate its e lf on the fact that it had brought | about the appointm ent of their candidate. The m onks had follow ed | every canonical step and by spending much tim e, effort and m oney, had brought about the papal appointm ent of their candidate. King ' j Henry III could pride h im se lf on the fact that he had gotten the i chapter to accep t, with few or no com p lain ts, h is candidate (a ra re occu rren ce) who w as a lso the uncle to the queen. The papal : appointm ent had only com e about by a la rg e financial outlay, the i ; work of ex cellen t p roctors at the cu ria and h is own p erson al ap p eals, j i Innocent IV, r ea liz in g that the d e ficien cie s of the electio n req u ired j i papal approval, used the electio n for h is p o litica l advantage; it i i ! con ferred an obligation upon four of the m ost im portant m en in 5 ! Europe — if it helped h is relation s w ith Savoy, a ll the b etter— and it gave him an opportunity to extend papal p r iv ile g es to the ex trem e. | 1 It w as the pope who invested the nom inee with the tem p oralities as w ell as the sp iritu a litie s of the s e e . 58 What w e have not answ ered is the question, what did this electio n , appointm ent and its interplay o f p o litica l fo r c e s m ean to its candidate, B on iface of Savoy? How did he look upon h is appoint m ent? The pallium and the r esp o n sib ilitie s of this office now rested upon h is sh o u ld ers. T his question can only be answ ered as he now turns h is attention to h is s e e and the p o litica l even ts in England. | CHAPTER III ! BONIFACE OF SAVOY, ELECT OF CANTERBURY: ! AN EXERCISE IN POLITICAL AWARENESS (1245-1248) j ! In the m odern w orld, w e are im patient to know the m otives i ! of a p erson assu m in g a position of public im portance. How does the | p erson view h is new o ffice? What are h is a im s, h is p u rp oses, his j public policy? We have nothing to indicate the m otives of B oniface | of Savoy, the new a rch b ish o p -elect of C anterbury. To compound I j the issu e , h is background gives us exceed in gly little inform ation, j a s we have se e n , a s to h is b a sic orientation. What is the orien ta- j tion of a m inor noblem an, a su b-d eacon, the b ish o p -elect of one ! s e e and the procurator of another, an in active C arthusian, the prior i | of a Cluniac house and the feudal lord of variou s c a s tle s and lands? i I H is election w ith its interplay of p o litica l fo rc es and the vehem ence ; of the early M atthew P a ris tradition a lso supply us with very little pertinent inform ation. ! As h is reign as prim ate of England p r o g r e sse s, how ever, so m e b a sic d e c isio n s on the part of B oniface can be se e n . At the : end of h is reig n , th ese com m itm en ts a re going to com e to a b oil with j | a definite effect upon E nglish p o litic s. In the ea rly part of h is reign , | th ese com m itm en ts are in a form ative sta g e, difficult to interp ret j | and hidden in a w elter of seem in g ly inconsequential acts and m inor | c o n flic ts. A century b efore, Thom as B eck et, another archbishop of Canterbury had a sse r te d h im self ea rly in h is reig n . In contrast, , B oniface arrived at h is b asic p osition quite late in h is c a re er as archbishop. The danger of reading too m uch into the events of this 59 60 e a rly period is o ffse t by the danger of not se e in g this slo w develop m ent. When B oniface r eceiv ed the pallium from the two m e s se n g e r s of the pope, Hugh, the D om inican p rovincial g en era l and Hugh, the su b -p rio r of C anterbury, h is fir s t task, c h a r a cter istic of this whole ea rly p eriod , was to try to r a is e so m e m oney. The acceptance of the w hite w ool band en tailed heavy fin an cial obliga tio n s. Two w eeks la ter, the pope granted to B oniface the pow er to contract a loan of 540 m a r k s.1 B on iface, in turn, sought from King Henry the righ t to pledge the Church of Canterbury for a loan and then borrow ed I, 000 m arks from R ichard of C ornw all and m ore m oney from unnamed m erch an ts. One of the fir s t le tte r s w ritten by B oniface as e le c t of Canterbury w as a p erson al note to King H enry. The king in one of h is period ic fits of anger against King L ou is of F ran ce, had w ritten B oniface to have no frien d ly d ealin gs with the F ren ch king. B ecau se o f c lo se fa m ily tie s w ith both ro y a l h o u ses, B oniface rep lied that he had avoided F ran ce in order not to be asked to stand god-fath er 3 to the royal child expected by the queen. *Reg. Innoc. IV, B erg er, e d ., I, 28, N o. 142. ^R oles G ascon s, M ichel, e d ., I, 127, N o. 964. The king underw rites the d eb ts. If B oniface d ies, the execu tors of h is w ill m ust pay Richard and the m erch an ts. C al. of Patent R o lls, H enry III, 1232-1247, pp. 4 2 5 ,4 4 6 . 3 Royal and Other H isto rica l L etters Illu strative of the Reign of H enry III, W alter Waddington Shirlev. ed . (London. I862-I866), II, 35- 36. 61 In another e a rly le tte r , B oniface involved h im se lf quickly in the a ffairs of h is s e e and w rote to W illiam of R aleigh, bishop- e le c t of W inchester, the object of H enry’s bitter anger and p er secu tion , that he would try to b rin g about a recon ciliation : "Know and r e s t a ssu red , that if, b efore our com in g to England, peace is not r esto r ed betw een you and the king, w e to that w ill stren uously apply o u r se lv e s, and w e w ill u se stron ger m eans to obtain a just end to this a ffa ir. B on iface a lso w rote to the king stating that he had r e c e iv e d le tte r s from certa in of his suffragan bishops 5 and urged the king to m ake a reco n cilia tio n . M atthew P a ris la ter r e la te s that the pope had w ritten to B oniface urging him to in terest h im se lf in the cau se of R aleigh . In one of h is ra re statem en ts of appreciation, the m on astic ch ro n icler sa y s that B oniface w rote the le tte r to the king, "out of h is innate kindheartedness . . . grievin g fi for the kin g's unpopularity. " 4 Matthew P a ris inclu des this lette r in his n arrative. M atthew P a r is, Chron. M a j.. IV, 297. B oniface, at the end of the le tte r , com m ents on the fact that he has no se a l and m ust sigh it with the sig n et of the chapter of B e lle y . 5 Ib id ., IV, 297-298. Cf. G ro sse te ste , E p istolae, p. 272. In the lette r from G r o sse te ste , the bishop of L incoln te lls B oniface that if the king p e r sists in h is c o u r se of action, he w ill violate the Magna C arta. Much has been m ade over the influence of the suffragan bishop s, e sp e c ia lly G r o sse te ste , upon B on iface. This can be overdraw n. Quite e a rly in h is reign as archbishop, as we sh a ll s e e , the suffragan b ishop s began to oppose B on iface. It is only at the end of h is reign that their relation s becam e am iable, long after the tim e when they w ere suppose to have s o much in flu ence upon the archbishop. W hether influenced or not, it is B oniface who m ust be held, righ tly or w rongly, for h is a ctio n s. 6Ib id ., IV, 297. 62 Even this e a rly in h is reig n , B oniface found h im se lf con fronted by the variou s r o le s of the arch b ish op ric. He is not only "pastor-shepherd" to h is suffragan bishops but a lso tied to the p o litica l affairs of both king and pope. Although he tr ie s to se t the tenor of h is reign by adm onishing the king, he m ust bring with him to England and publish, a papal bull that e x p r e ssly pardoned Henry in any instance when he happened to lay violen t hands on an e c c le s ia stic and thus fa ll under canonical c e n su r e s. The bull gave the king absolution after subm itting to the cu stom ary penance. It would a lso appear that B oniface a ssen ted to le tte r s of protection granted to the king in regard to this appeal against W illiam of I O R aleigh. The king circu la ted th ese le tte r s w idely. Along with this attem pt to m ediate the c a se of W illiam of R aleigh, B oniface a lso found h im se lf r e sis tin g the king's appoint- ' m ent of h is clerk , R obert P a sse le w e , to the b ishop ric of C h ich ester. A ccording to the g o ssip of M atthew P a r is, "the arch b ish op -elect ■ of Canterbury and a great m any of the bishops w ere highly indignant on finding this out, and, layin g asid e ail fear of, and affection for, j ' " — — j 7 T o e d e r a , C onventiones, L ittera e, et Cu.juscunque G eneris Acta Public a inter R e g e sA n g lia e , T hom as R ym er, e d ., reed ited by Adam Clarke and F re d e rick Holbrooke (London, 1816), I, i, 252. The bu ll w as to stand in fo rce for four y e a r s. The pope se e m s to have issu ed this bull, dated May 1252, b efore the c a se of W illiam of R aleigh broke out in the open. Although la ter the pope would com e to the defen se of the beleagu ered b ish o p -elect and appoint him bishop, much to the anger of King Henry, in A pril 1245, he issu ed another bull confirm ing the kin g's e c c le s ia s tic a l righ ts and p r iv ile g e s. F oed era, R ym er, e d ., I, i, 255. | 8Cal. of Patent R olls, H enry III, 1232-1247, p. 441. 63 the king, exam ined the said R obert on so m e difficult qu estion s, through the bishop of L incoln, and fin ally rejected the b ish o p -e lec t and annulled h is electio n at once, and without ask ing the king's consent, appointed M aster R ichard de Witz in h is stea d . L ater j Matthew P a ris a c c u se s B oniface as alone being resp on sib le for this j i j d eposition and puts into the mouth of the king the w ords: "I wonder ! that B on iface, archbishop of C anterbury, whom I prom oted to that j station , has cau sed such exp en se . . . and has sa u cily hurled from j j the bish op ric of C h ich ester Robert P a sse le w e , whom I had j I i se le c te d and w hose prom otion I had brought.about. The la ter i I i I i I w riter of the F lo r e s H istoriarum puts sim ila r w ords in the mouth j ; i of the king: "I su ffer a il this d eserv ed ly , b ecau se I hindered the i i I | fr e e electio n at Canterbury w h ere so m any sa in ts have com e from and thought it fit to prom ote an utterly unworthy person to this j | d ig n ity .1,11 | j I The actual rela tio n s betw een B oniface and King Henry over | i i the e le ctio n of P a sse le w e m ay be seen in a le tte r sen t from the young Queen E leanor to her husband the king. In this lette r, she j sta te s that she had r ec eiv ed a le tte r from B oniface in which he | I sought to avert the king's anger and prom ised to fu lfill h is w ish es ' 9 M atthew P a ris, Chron. M aj. , IV, 401. ! *°Ib id ., IV, 509. T his was la ter e ra se d . The chronicler, in its p lace, now has the king sp eak of the fact that the archbishop is ju stified in h is c r itic ism . Ib id ., IV, 509, n. 2. ^ A n on ., F lo r e s H istoriaru m , Henry R ichards Luard, ed. (London, 1890), ll, 278. in rela tio n to the bishop ric of C hichester: Quod quorundam relatu d id icerat nos pro facto suo de episcopatu C y cestren si con tra ipsum fu isse com m otas, et p etiit quod super hoc non m o lesta rem u r, nec contra ipsum m overem u r. Cui per nuncios et le tte r a s n ostras sig n ifica v im u s, quod non fuit m irum s i contra ipsum m overem u r, cum vos su per hoc o ffen d isset, nec p o sset aliquo modo nostram habere benevolentiam dummodo vestram su stin eret indignationem . Quibus etiam auditis et in tellect is , in propria p ersona ad nos a c c e s s it, nobis sign ifican s quod super p raed ictis et om nibus a liis vestram pro p o sse suo adim pleret voluntatem , cu i p ersu asim u s quod vestram adim pleret voluntatem , s i nostram v e lle t sed a re indignationem quia dum d isco rd ia inter vos et ipsum duraret, nostram iram nec indignationem eidem ullo m odo rem itter em u s. *2 Although the person al d ifferen ces betw een archbishop and king over these two electio n s are indicative of how the arch bish op- e le c t con ceived of h is office, it would be m ore im portant to our study of h is relation sh ip to E n glish p o litic s to know the exact r o le he played in the s e r ie s of G reat C ouncil m eetin gs or parliam ents 10 held in the la tter portion of 1244 and the ea rly m onths of 1245. 12"Queen E leanor to King Henry III, on behalf of B oniface, A rch b ish op -elect of C anterbury, M onumenta F ran ciscan a, B rew er, e d ., I, 629. The lette r of B oniface to the queen m ay be in rep ly to an e a r lie r letter asking him to m ake h is p eace with the king. R oyal L e tte rs, Shirley, e d ., II, 42. T here was la te r a m inor d isagreem en t : betw een B oniface and G r o sse te ste over the presentm ent of P a sse le w e ' to a liv in g at St. P e te r 's Northhampton although they w ere in accord over rejectin g him at C h ich ester. G r o sse te ste , E p isto la e, p. 353. 13The dating of th ese cou ncil m eetin gs by M atthew P a ris is i confused . With no other evid en ce, the exact dates for each m eetin g : cannot be given. They started on Septem ber 9, 1244, when the king, probably through the m ediation of B on iface, at la st resto red the tem p o ra lities to W illiam of R aleigh (Cf. C lose R olls, H enry m , 1242-1247, p. 227) and continued to F ebruary 1243. M atthew P a ris | notes that at this final m eeting-both archbishops w ere ab sen t. A I date ea rly in 1245 would be indicated as the archbishops had by then gone to the Council of L yons. C f. Strickland, M iscellan ea di Storia Italian s, I (1895), 378. 65 ! Six m onths after he arrived in England, in virtue of h is im portant office, B oniface found h im se lf involved in th ese parliam ents. j ; The G reat Council had been called by the king who was in dire fin ancial str a its, in order that it m ight accede to h is w ish es and grant I j him a finan cial aid. Matthew P aris recounts that during this s e r ie s ; o f m eetin gs, the p rela tes, uniting with the m agnates to form a solid | front, r e siste d the king's req u est and both groups elected a com m ittee i | of tw elve, including A rch b ish op -elect B oniface, to determ ine their | resp o n se to the king's req uest and to o v e rse e the expenditure of any I 14 grant given to the king. i ! ! N either Matthew P a r is, nor any other account of this s e r ie s ! j of Great Council m eetin gs, give us any indication of the position taken I j ( iby the a rch b ish o p -elect concerning the financial a ssista n ce asked for J The "Paper Constitution" included at this place in the narrative | ; of Matthew P a ris is probably, follow ing the su ggestion of N. Denholm-j Young, that of 1238 and not of 1244. The inscrip tion speaks of the kingj accepting its p rovision s w hile the narrative of the events of 1244 speak! o f the king refu sin g any p ro v isio n s. Cf. N. Denholm -Y oung, "The j 'Paper C onstitution' attributed to 1244, " E nglish H istorical Review, ! LVIII (1943), 401-424. F . M. Pow icke is troubled by the fact that it i se e m s to im ply that Archbishop Edmund is dead, thus precluding the ' j 1238 date. Pow icke, King Henry III, p. 291. The referen ce, how ever, j I is am biguous and could just as w ell m ean that he was absent. Edmund j •was on the Continent during the fir st half of 1238. Both B ertie j W ilkinson and C .R . Cheney have recen tly w ritten in defen se of the j J1244 date. B ertie W ilkinson cannot con ceive of Matthew P a ris being j I c a r e le s s enough to put a docum ent s ix y ea rs out of place w hile C .R . j Cheney b a ses h is argum ent on se v e r a l points, the ch ief being the j phrase san cto viro Edmundo. This phrase m ust point to the death of Edmund and a tim e during which he w as in consid eration for canon ization. B ertie W ilkinson, The C onstitutional H istory of England, 1 1216-1399, with Select Docum ents (London, 1948-1958), 1 ,117-130, C .R . dheney, "The 'P aper Constitution* p reserved by Matthew P a ris, " 1 E nglish H isto rica l R eview , LXV (1950), 213-221. T here is a p o ssib ility I that both argum ents are right; the 1238 constitution was again taken under con sid eration in 1244. by the king. One cannot argue from sile n c e but Matthew P a ris does picture the clerg y as a united front, an unusual conclusion if the l i a rch b ish o p -elect of Canterbury had openly sid ed with the king. It is probable that B oniface along with the r e st of the clerg y bargained with the king and with the p rom ise by the king that he "would p re ser v e in fu lle st force the lib e r tie s which he had at h is coronation sw orn to i grant, and for which he had given a ch arter, " granted him , on the j mar rage of h is e ld est daughter (a baby at the tim e), a scutage of j 15 I twenty sh illin g s from each knight's fe e . That there w as som e j frictio n betw een the king and the a rch b ish o p -elect in regard to finan cial grants can be se e n in a heated letter dated A pril 19, 1245, . in which the king forbids the m inor c le rg y to grant any finan cial j aid to B oniface: I | As the pope has by h is le tte r s la tely granted that the whole of the cle rg y of England sh a ll grant the king a subsidy, w herein the king has not yet been sa tisfie d , and the above p erson s a re, as the king h ea rs, to m eet by the authority of the archbishop of Canterbury for the giving of an aid to the said archbishop or the pope, the king forbids them to grant any aid without h is a ssen t to the archbishop or the pope or any other. During the ea rly part of 1245, even b efore this s e r ie s of i j m eetin gs had com e to an end, A rch b ish op -elect B oniface, along with i i a group of h is suffragan b ishop s, left England to attend the Council l5 Matthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., IV, 373. i 16C al. of Patent R olls, H enry III, 1232-1247. p. 463. R .F . T reharne im p lies just the opposite effect of B oniface in the Council ! of 1244: "It m ay not be altogether too fanciful, in view of la ter d evelopm ents, to su ggest that he [[Boniface ] w as resp o n sib le for the unexplained co lla p se of the united opposition in 1244." R .F . T reharne, T rans, of the Royal H isto rica l Society, XXV (1943), 58. ! 67 i I | of Lyons ca lled by Innocent IV for January 1245. At th is council : m eeting, B oniface w as co n secra ted by the pope as archbishop of j C anterbury. Other than tellin g us about the con secration , the evid en ce does not give us a sh arp picture of the p osition of B oniface at the C ouncil nor of the ro le he played in the is s u e s d iscu sse d at j 17 | the Council concerning England. Taking into con sid eration the J patent letter r eferred to above, along w ith other ind ication s, it would I I I seem that the a rch b ish o p -elect w as one of those, now including j | G r o sse te ste and the other E n glish b ish op s, who upheld the papal j demand on England for additional fin an cial support. T his dem and j so r e ly aggravated King H enry. He had on three sep arate o cca sio n s j ordered the bishops not to lev y the tax. He had pointed out that the ! i i j subsidy w as contrary to custom and p reju d icial to the royal dignity. | ’ ! He forbade the churchm en to proceed w ith the exaction of the subsid y j j under penalty of the lo s s of their b aronies and other p o s s e s s io n s . H e ! i 1 forbade them to take any m oney out of England and w rote to h is 18 su b jects asking them to r e s is t the ep iscop al dem ands. Even w hile they w ere m eetin g at the C ouncil, H enry w rote to the arch bish op- ; e le c t and to the other p rela tes forbidding them to attem pt anything * I against the king's dignity, on pain of the lo s s of their tem p o ra lities i : 17 A s we saw in the fir s t chapter, Matthew P a ris is quite j j unreliable in h is account of the a rch b ish o p -elect at this tim e. 1A 1 M atthew P a r is, Chron. M aj. , IV, 555-557. Cf. W illiam ; E. Lunt, F in an cial R elations of Hhe Papacy with England to 1327 (Cam bridge, 1&39), pp. <216-219. 19 which they held of the king. In the end, how ever, under the i prodding of B ishop G r o sse te ste , the king backed down in h is r e s is t ance to the papal d em a n d s.20 In 1248, B oniface returned to England w here he w as en throned, on A ll-S a in ts’ Day, with m uch pom p and pageantry by the king. With the enthronem ent, he now entered into the fu ll p o sse ssio n of the righ ts and p r iv ile g es of b eing archbishop of C anterbury. i T h ese early days a s e le c t of Canterbury m u st have been rev ea lin g to B on iface, He had to rem ain on friend ly p ersonal relation s w ith the king. In th is, he was s u c c e s sfu l. On h is trip | i to the C ouncil of Lyons, he rep resen ted the king in negotiations with ■ j h is brother, Count Am adeus of Savoy, for the c a stle s of S iesa, i ! A vigliana, St. M aurice of C hablais and Bard which guarded the j 21 l im portant p a sse s of the A lp s. t B oniface had found out, how ever, that public p olicy w as another m atter. He w as now to be archbishop of C anterbury. If he dared to a s s e r t his office, he w as to risk p o litica l opposition to the king. As arch b ish o p -elect of Canterbury, he had com e to the aid of his suffragan bishop, W illiam de R aleigh, and had r e sis te d the j ep iscop al appointm ent of the king's clerk , Robert P a sse le w e . In i __________________________________________________________________________ i IQ 1 19C al. of Patent R o lls, H enry III, 1232-1247, p. 483. j 20 G ro sse te ste , E p isto la e, p. 338, No. 117. 21C al. of Patent R o lls, H enry III, 1232-1247. p. 469. F or i the rea so n s in back of this m ove by the E n glish king to gain control of these four c a s tle s , s e e F . M. Pow icke, King H enry III, p. 364 ff. 69 both of th ese in sta n ces, he had had to back down under royal p r e ssu r e . At the parliam ent in 1244, the archbishop w as m ade aw are of the sim m erin g co n flict betw een the E n glish Church and the king over the lib e r tie s of the Church. Then, there w ere fin an cial m a tter s. In A pril of 1245, the king had forbidden the m inor church m en to grant an aid to the archbishop and w hile the archbishop w as at the Council of L yons, the king had threatened him and the other E n glish p rela tes with the lo s s of their tem p o ra lities held of the king. T h ese in stan ces m ight se em m inor and inconsequential but they pointed up the is s u e . Any com m itm ent on the part of the archbishop in regard to the lib erty of the Church would involve him in p o litica l opposition to the king. CHAPTER IV THE EARLY PART OF THE REIGN OF ARCHBISHOP BONIFACE: THE PROBLEMS OF FINANCE, JURISDICTION AND THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH (1248-1256) As prim ate of England, B oniface of Savoy began to take up the r esp o n sib ilitie s and pow ers of h is o ffice . Im m ed iately, the new archbishop concerned h im se lf w ith two p r e ssin g p roblem s; to obtain much needed finan cial a ssista n c e and to p r e ss fo r a fu ll acceptance of the ju risd iction al righ ts of the s e e of C anterbury. O vershadow ing th ese is s u e s , how ever, w as the one problem the archbishop would have liked to avoid. Can the E n glish Church, over which he is now archbishop, be independent of royal control? During this e a rly period of the p rim acy of A rchbishop B on iface, the con flict betw een Church and king is e x p r essed in a s e r ie s of negotiated se ttle m e n ts. T h ese take on a ritu alized appear ance. The king, in need of p o litica l and fin an cial support of the E nglish Church, w ill pledge h is word to r e sp e c t her lib e r tie s and to abide by form er c h a rters guaranteeing e c c le s ia s tic a l freed om . The Church w ill fin ally, in each in stan ce, accept the kin g's offer and the king w ill pledge h is word of com p lian ce. T his ritu a lized appearance on the su rfa ce tends to hide the j r ea l sig n ifica n ce of th ese en cou n ters. The dem ands of the king on ! the Church and the Church on the king becam e involved in the m ajor i p olitical is s u e s of this p eriod . Many of the p o litica l m oves by the king that lay in back of h is p r e ssu re of the Church appeared to the E nglish nobility and churchm en alik e, as foolhardy and su sp ec t. 70 71 There w ill com e a tim e, although not in th ese ea rly y ea rs of the prim acy of B oniface of Savoy, when e c c le s ia s tic a l reform w ill find its e lf bound up w ith p o litica l refo rm . In these encounters, the exact r o le o f the archbishop a lso is hidden. The issu e s are not p r e sse d . It would appear that B oniface b elieved negotiation would w ork. The king would straigh ten out h is p olitical a ffairs and would abide by h is pledged word to the Church. The even ts of this period w ill convince the archbishop oth erw ise. When he returns to England from an extended v is it to his hom eland in 1256, the m ethods of this e a rly period are found to be of no a v a il. There m ust be a d irect confrontation with the king. The fir s t problem facin g B on iface, even upon assu m in g the pallium in 1241, a s we have se en , w as the problem of fin a n ces. He ' ; had few p erson al funds and the arch iep iscop ate w as an exp en sive undertaking. He a lso had h is own d eb ts. In 1239, he had had to pay j I 1,000 m arks to sa tisfy the debts of h is brother, W illiam of Savoy. * | Although M atthew P a ris could not b eliev e that the s e e of Canterbury ! w as in debt (because it m aligned the ch a ra cter of the form er a rch - i . j bishops), the w riter of the continuation of G ervase puts the debt at 2 a form idable 22,000 m ark s. As soon as B oniface becam e arch bishop of C anterbury, he would be held lia b le for th ese d eb ts. This j i i would have given him good rea so n to defer h is con secration and en - I ! ~ 1R oles G ascon s, M ichel, e d ., I, 152, No. 1, 868. J ^Cont. of G ervase, II, 214, 261. Cf. Matthew P a r is, ! Chron. M a i., I V , 404-405. | 72 ! thronem ent until som e finan cial rem edy could be found. | This becam e h is im m ediate concern and he w asted no tim e ! in dealing with it. F .M . P ow icke, with good reason , c a lls B oniface, | "the fir s t good m an of b u sin ess to occupy the throne of Canterbury i j sin ce the death of Hubert W alter in 1205 and the fir s t e c c le s ia s tic a l | I j statesm an sin ce Langton's death in 1228."^ j | In his v is it to England in 1244-1245, Boniface had tried to | : secu re the consent of h is suffragan bishops to a plan in which the ! whole province of Canterbury would voluntarily com e to h is aid and j i j J r a ise the m oney needed to pay off the debts. The bishops refused to I i ; i con sid er the plan. At his con secration , Pope Innocent IV had given ' him authority to c o llec t the fir s t fru its of all vacant b en efices in the ! ■ i j province of Canterbury for sev en y e a r s. Again, the suffragan i ! bishops refu sed to have anything to do with the new dem and. On i April 19, 1246, Innocent w rote two le tte r s to the bishop of H ereford j relatin g that it w as the duty of the suffragans to com e to the aid of the archbishop and ordered the bishops to se cu re for him the fru its 4 of a ll vacant b en efices. Matthew P a ris p r e se r v e s a sim ila r letter j to Robert G r o sse te ste , bishop of Lincoln, containing the papal grant i with direction s to publish it. The pope urges the bishop’s support, | "so bearing each oth er’s burdens and a ssistin g one another, all m ay ! ; i j ; j o ^F.M. Pow icke, King Henry in, p. 361. He continues: ! "From this point of view , the a rriv a l of Boniface of Savoy w as the beginning of a new period in the h istory of the prim acy, a period which lasted till the death of W inchelsea in 1313." 4 Reg. Innocent IV, B erger, e d ., I, 287, N os. 1, 935-1, 936. 73 fu lfill the law of C hrist."® Again, there w as no resp o n se. To M atthew P a r is, this papal demand in support o f the archbishop even incen sed the king, who r a ilin g against the "new and unheard of extortion of m o n e y ," sent o rd ers to the bishops not to allow th ese b u lls of p ro v isio n s to be receiv ed in their d io c e se s and to the variou s ports to stop a ll b ea rers of such le tte r s from j fi 1 en terin g the country. Matthew P a ris m ay be partly c o rr ec t in ! picturing the anger of the king. Even though the kin g's ord ers in | this regard cannot be found, the king, la ter in 1250, a sse r te d the j im m unity of the royal chap els from th ese dem ands and w rote to the bishop of London that any attem pt to enforce the papal grant in regard to th ese chapels w as a "grave injury and in sult to the royal dignity.""7 ! Although G r o sse te ste fin ally put h is se a l to the papal bull granting this req u est, he w rote to B oniface a lette r explaining the j o j r e sista n c e on the part of h is fellow su ffragan s. It w as the arch - | I b ish op 's debts and he had to pay for them . B oniface reacted by suspending a ll the suffragans who refu sed to carry out the papal 5 * Matthew P a ris, Chron. M a.j., IV, 507. T here is som e j con troversy over the date of this le tte r . M atthew P a ris dates it j "sexto kalendis Septem bris, pontificatus n o stri anno tertio, " which | would m ake it 1245 (so P ow icke, King Henry in, p. 361). A s the letter r e fe r s to the bishop of H ereford as the co llec to r of the subsidy | and the two le tte r s to the bishop are dated A pril 1246, one would j a ssu m e that the ch ron icler is in erro r and that this lette r a lso should ! be dated 1246. 8 Matthew P a ris, Chron. M aj. , IV, 510. 7R oyal L etters, Shirley, e d .. II. 60. Cf. C al. of Patent R olls, Henry Itl, 1247^ 258. p. 77. q G ro sse te ste , E p istolae. pp. 276-277, No. 89. 74 ! o rd er. Under this p r e ssu r e , they fin ally relen ted , r eceiv ed papal | absolution and started to put the bull into operation. Along with ! ab solvin g the suffragan b ish op s, the pope a lso sen t a m andate, on j June 5, 1247, excom m unicating a ll who should venture to oppose the Q i ord er, excep tin g only the king, the queen and Richard of C ornw all, j Even with this grudging co n cessio n , the new archbishop i i w as s t ill h eavily in debt. The prior of St. L aw rence in G renoble, in 1248, w rote to the pope d escrib in g how B oniface w as s till p e r - | secu ted by h is cred ito rs: "Quum archiepiscopum C antuariensem i | p etito res propter debita p raed ecessoru m persequantur. Again I B oniface appealed to the pope and in rep ly Innocent IV granted him i d isch arge from all h is debts u n less the c red ito rs could give leg a l j proof that the m oney w as borrow ed and used for pu rp oses of the ! 11 s e e . Another letter w as sen t to the bishop s and another to the i archbishop*s proctor in England, the dean of B eau vais, to s e e that 12 B oniface w as not p r e sse d unduly by h is c r e d ito r s. The dean w as i a lso to publish a sen ten ce of excom m unication against all who s till 13 had not paid the fir s t fru its of the vacant b e n e fic e s. A month la ter, ; B oniface com plained that the papal lim it of 10, 000 m arks w as not ! 14 ' enough and Innocent IV in crea sed it to 12, 000 m ark s. Having been I _ i Q j R eg. Innoc. IV, B erg er, e d ., I, 420, N o. 2,814. 10I b id ., I, 507, N o. 3 , 369. n Ibid. 12Ibi_d., I, 507, N o s. 3,371; 3, 372. 13I b id ., I, 511, N o s. 3, 396; 3, 397. 14I b id .. I, 512-513, N o s. 3,410-3,411; 522, N o. 3,471. 75 I ' a ll this tim e at the papal cu ria, B oniface now, with the issu an ce of the la st of th ese b u lls, departed for England, w here he arrived so m e - | i tim e ea rly in the y ea r 1248. ! It would se em that this papal adjudication brought at le a s t | a tem porary halt to the r e sista n c e on the part of the suffragan ! b ish o p s. Matthew P a ris reco rd s the bishops com in g together at i | ' London in 1250, at w hich tim e they saw to it that the c o rr ec t amount j had been raised : "The b ish op s, th erefore, although unw illingly, i i | granted what he d em an d ed ." It w as to this a ssem b ly that the king j j d irected h is le tte r , referred to e a r lie r , exem pting the royal chap els j ‘ 16 ' ' from this paym ent. I In the next y ear, the suffragan bishops com plained to the : i i pope that the archbishop had c o llec ted m ore than w as stipu lated . j ! i Innocent IV appointed a card in al to look into the m atter and on h is I recom m endation, made B oniface r e sto r e any m oney he had c o llec ted j 17 over and above the sum of 12, 000 m ark s. With this investigation , j the m atter of the ea rly debts cam e to a c lo s e . If the opposition su bsided to the arch bish op's attem pt to ^M atthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., V, 100. *6 R oyal L e tte r s, S h irley, e d ., II, 60. In 1245, King Henry | had r ec eiv ed a papal indult d eclarin g the royal chapels exem pt from j their ordinary and in 1251, he obtained another indult, excluding these! I chap els from the paym ent of the fir s t fru its. F oed era, I, i, 277. j C lose R o lls, H enry III, 1247-1251, pp. 550-55L 17R eg. Innoc. IV, B ergen e d ., III, 2, No. 5, 447. Cf. i M atthew P a r is, (jhron. I^a.i. . V, 225-226. The Canterbury tradition ! has nothing but p ra ise for tne strenuous effort taken by B oniface 1 ! to c le a r the s e e of debt. 76 obtain h is m uch needed fin an cial a ssista n c e , the con flict w as just beginning over the arch bish op's a sser tio n of h is ju risd iction al rig h ts. On the b a sis of the d e c r e e s of the L ateran C ouncils of 1215 and 1245, B oniface claim ed fu ll pow er of v isita tio n in every d io cese in h is 18 p rovin ce. A ll the c le r g y , b ish op s, abbots and low er clerg y , both relig io u s and se cu la r, w ere declared su bject to his canonical inquiry. The archbishop, according to Matthew P a r is, ca rried on his a rch iep isco p a l v isitation b ecau se of a d e sir e for power and p erson al greed . To answ er this accu sation by the monk of St. A lban's, we are faced with a la rg e r question which up to this tim e has not been exam ined. What w as the archbishop's sp iritu al orientation? T his type of question is difficult for the h istorian . We are gen erally lack in g for B oniface those types of outward acts that are used (rightly or w rongly) to show a sp iritu a l fev o r. We have no le tte r s from the archbishop that speak of his relig io u s attitu d es. Nor do w e have any serm on s cred ited to Boniface as we have for Robert G r o sse te ste or for the la ter archbishop, John Peckham . We a lso have no record of any public a c ts of se lf-m o r tific a tio n as we have for the form er archbishop, Edmund of Abingdon. There is other evid en ce, how ever, that m ay at le a st sub stan tiate E .F . Jacob's d escrip tion of B oniface, which we noted l 8Cf. Strickland, M iscellan ea di Storia Italian s, I (1895), 391-407. F or the whole topic of ep iscop al visitation , se e C .R . C heney, E p iscop al V isitation of M onasteries in the Thirteenth Century (M anchester, 1931). ! e a r lie r , as a "m oderate m an, anxious for r efo rm ." The hagiographic I | tradition, though un verifiab le, m ay have at le a s t som e su bstance in I I fa ct. The Canterbury tradition, usually r elia b le, speaks of h is acts J of charity and h is love for the poor. t ! The archbishop used se le c te d D om inicans and F ra n cisca n s 19 to accom pany him on his e c c le s ia s tic a l v isita tio n s. The w ell known | F ra n cisca n Adam M arsh, in h is m any le tte r s, has nothing but high est ! | p ra ise for the work of reform ation done by the archbishop. In one of I i i ! h is la ter le tte r s , M arsh r e c a lls the c lo s e friendship he had alw ays | had with A rchbishop B oniface: "Longe am plius r etro sua su b lim itas i ' m ean hum ilitatem et obtem peranter audit, et attendit in telligen ter, et d iligen ter excip it, et su stin et p ersev era n ter in sa n ctita tis 2o j j am plectendae utcumque m on itis in s is te n te m ." F urther on in this j i le tte r , Adam te lls the archbishop that he m u st ex cu se h im se lf on i I j this one v isita tio n (1253). One of the rea so n s given is that the king is i 21 I angry with him for a sso cia tin g with the archbishop. The m any D om inicans and F ra n cisca n s m entioned in his w ill of 1264 m ay be those who helped with this v isita tio n . C f. Wadding, i jA nnales M inorum, IV, 26 9 -2 7 0 . In variou s of h is le tte r s, Adam j {M arsh sp eak s of the other m endicants helping the archbishop in his I v isita tio n . 20 M arsh, M onumenta F ranc is cana. B rew er, e d ., I, 327- {329, No. 182. In another letter, he urges G r o sse te ste to take up the jcause of the archbishop at the papal cou rt. Ib id ., I, 131. G r o sse te ste {was not altogeth er in favor of the v isita tio n s done by the archbishop. IHe wanted the suffragan bishops to have so m e control over the action s | of the archbishop in this m atter. The c r itic is m s of the bishop of L incoln w ere m ore concerned with the ju risd iction al and financial {aspects of the archbishop's v isita tio n s than their reform atory or sp iritu al nature. 2lIbid., I, 327-329, No. 182. I Jane Lang, in her study of the a r tic le s of inquiry found in the Burton Annals dealing with v isita tio n reform , links them not with G ro sse te ste or Hugh of W ells, with whom they have usually been I | a sso cia ted , but with A rchbishop B oniface, who, in her w ords, i | "appears to have been filled with an urgent and p r e ssin g d e sir e for 22 j the reform ation of the C h u rch ," i i It is in this d e sir e for reform that one may find a m otivation, | although never outwardly ex p r essed , for the archbishop's p e r sisten t ! stru ggle with the king over the lib erty of the Church and the final I I confrontation la ter in h is reign . | In 1250, on the b a sis of the precedent of G r o sse te ste 's e a r lie r v isitation and on the authority of a papal d ecretal giving him j I J com p lete righ ts not only to v isit h is own d io c ese but a ll the d io c e se s j ; in the province of Canterbury, A rchbishop B oniface started a gen eral ! ' 23 p rovince-w id e v isita tio n . A fter going through his own d io cese of i Canterbury and that of R och ester, traditionally a dependent of Canterbury, B oniface then tried to v isit the London d io c e se . He w as I h ere r e siste d by a ll. In the face of h is opposition, the archbishop j countered by placing the bishop and variou s chapters of London under j the ban of excom m unication. Both p arties appealed to R om e. The j archbishop, on h is behalf, and the p roctors, on behalf of the variou s j i j chapters in London, departed England, in this sam e y ea r, for the | ! i i 22M arion Gibbs and Jane Lang, B ishops and R eform , p. 161. ^ M a tth e w P a ris, Chron. M a i., VI, 188ff. The ch ro n icler j com plained, at one point, that the visitation s of G ro sse te ste w ere far ! m ore "inhuman and austere" than those of the archbishop. Ib id ., VI, 226-227. ------- papal cu ria . A fter due delib eration , the pope responded to the tw o-pronged 1 I appeal; the m o re sp ec ific one concerning the excom m unication of the London bishop and ch apters and the m ore gen eral one, whether the | archbishop actu ally had the right of v isita tio n throughout h is p rovin ce. The papal resp o n se to the sp e c ific appeal of the excom m un- j ication w as in favor of the London chapters and the archbishop lo st in his appeal. The pope lifted the ban of excom m unication. The Ibishop and ch ap ters of London, even in r e s is tin g the v isita tio n of the archbishop, should not have been excom m unicated. Innocent IV then d irected a s e r ie s of b u lls to England d irectin g variou s p erson s to 24 publish this absolution. The second question w as b ecom in g m ore com p licated . The suffragan b ishop s had again, in the face of the archbishop’s gen eral v isita tio n begun at London, banded together to r e s is t him . If w e can b eliev e M atthew P a ris, who in this is supported by the Dunstable annalist, B ishop G r o sse te ste warned them that their p r iv ile g es would be affected if the archbishop won h is appeal and ca lled them a ll to gether at a s e r ie s of m eetin gs from F ebruary 24, 1251 (at D unstable) 2^R eg. In nocen tIV , B erg er, e d ., II, 150, N o. 4,865; p. 154, N os. 4 ,8 8 6 -4 ,8 8 8 , 4,9lO. Cf. F oed era, I, i, 275. Joseph Strickland show s how M atthew P a r is su p p ressed evidence that would not support jhis picture of the con flict betw een B oniface and the chapter of London. Strickland, M iscella n ea di Storia Italiana, I (1895), 397-399. ! 80 i 25 i to N ovem ber 5, 1251 (at H ayles). At the fin al m eeting, they a ll i i 1 agreed to put up funds to support a proctor at the cu ria against the 1 archbishop. Although Adam M arsh w rote to G r o sse te ste tellin g him | that it was a m istak e for the bishops to im pede the w ork of refo rm a - I og i tion done by the archbishop, they went ahead with their plan and | as an added incentive to the pope, offered him a subsid y of 6, 00 0 I m ark s, with one-third deducted to m eet the c o st of the appeal. It is hard to know which sid e actually won in the papal : ®This s e r ie s of m eetin gs has been analysed in detail by j F . M. Powicke and C .R . C heney. C ouncils and Synods with Other | D ocum ents R elating to the E n glish Church, F .M . Pow icke and C .R . Cheney, e d s. (Oxford, 1964), ll, i, 4 4 7 -4 4 8 . This very j e x cellen t book which is com p rised of c r itic a l editions of m ost of the i • p rim ary docum ents dealing with the E n glish Church, planned by , , F . M. Pow icke and w ritten by C .R . Cheney, is c ru cia l to the study j of the place of A rchbishop B oniface in rela tio n to the many cou n cils j and synods of the m id -th irteen th century and has been used a cco rd - | ingly. The suffragans fir s t m et at Dunstable at which tim e they decided to appeal to R om e. At a m eeting at O xford, in A pril, they j ! r ev ise d their plans and decided to send two p roctors for each d io cese.! At a la te r m eetin g at London, they rejected this idea and appealed ' in a le tte r (not extant) to the archbishop, asking him not to m olest i them, their chapters or their c le r g y . At the dedication of the j I C istercian Abbey at H ayles, they again took up the idea of a proctor (one would a ssu m e that their person al appeal had failed ). In the king's! p resen ce, they appointed M aster John de Cheam as their proctor, to attem pt three things at the papal court: "To obtain the grace of the ap ostolic s e e touching the v isitation and procuration attem pted by the archbishop in the city and d io cese of London, and lik ely to be j attem pted against other b ishop s of the province, h ou ses of relig io u s | non-exem pt, and to obtain le tte r s ap ostolic for com p ellin g a ll ! I suffragans of the province and cle rg y to contribute to a subsidy for ' ! the a p ostolic see; and to act in the m atter of rec a llin g the grace i i lately m ade to the archbishop on the fir s t fru its of e c c le s ia s tic a l ! ! b e n e fic e s." W ells Cathedral C harter No. 82, Ib id ., p. 448. 26 M arsh, M onumenta F ra n cisca n s, B rew er, e d ., I, 51. 81 27 d e c isio n that follow ed . The pope gave B on iface the righ t to v is it the cath ed ral chapters and the relig io u s h ou ses of h is province but not the ordinary secu la r p arochial chu rch es u n less at the sp e c ia l req u est of the ordinary. The pope, how ever, b elieved that he had sa tisfie d the com plaints of the suffragan b ish op s and quickly issu ed m andatory le tte r s tellin g them of h is d ecisio n and req u estin g the 6,000 m a r k s. 23 The subsid y w as c o llec ted by 1 2 53.23 As the suffragan b ishop s opposed the archbishop, M atthew P a ris would m ake it seem as though the king supported him in h is v isita tio n p o lic ie s . Matthew P a ris m akes the bishop o f London speak o f fearin g the king's w rath if he opposed B on iface in the con flict 30 over ju risd iction . L ater the ch ro n icler goes on to say: "The king, i how ever, b ecau se he had created the archbishop and the queen, ! b eca u se he w as her uncle, could not lea v e him d eso la te, although j h is cau se w as an unjust one."*** Although there is no evid en ce to j I I 27 R eg. Innocent IV, B e rg e r, e d ., III, 55-57, N o s. 5 ,6 7 0 - j 5,672. Cf. M atthew P a r is, C hron. M a j., V, 302, 346. A d isa g re e m ent betw een B oniface and the convent of St. T rin ity w as not se ttle d until 1255 when the pope tabled the m otion and would not | co n sid er it. Cf. F oed era, I, i, 223, 306, 313, 362. ' j 2 8 H. Id ris B ell, "L ist of O riginal Papal B u lls and B r ie fs in ! j the D epartm ent of M anuscripts in the B ritish M useum , " E n glish i 1 H isto rica l R eview , XXXVI (1921), 405, N o. 113. "A L etter to the j B ish o p s o f L incoln, London and Bath C onfirm ing Im m unity of N on- j co lleg a te Secular C hurches from P rocuration s for V isita tio n s to the A rchbishop of C anterbury. P eru gia, May 27, 1252." 2®Matthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., VI, 213-215. 30Ib id ., V, 206. 31Ib id ., V, 218. i back up this picture of royal support, it would seem plau sible so i long a s the king did not fe e l h is own ju risd iction threatened. With the papal d ecisio n , the jurisdiction o f the archbishop in ! regard to v isita tio n w as given a de jure con clu sion , it would be som e j ! y e a rs b efore it would be given a de facto con clu sion . On h is return ; to England, B oniface se t about to continue the v isita tio n of h is ! province w ith the lim ited ju risd iction granted him by the pope. This would be done p eriod ically, even in tim es of c iv il turm oil, until h is ! ; final illn e ss and departure in 1268. M ost of the co n flicts a r isin g out j ; I of this la ter a sse r tio n of the arch b ish op ’s ju risd iction , although | j ! I played up by M atthew P a r is, w ere v ery m inor and need not detain 1 32 u s. One c a se , b ecau se it involved the king’s brother, how ever, i . i | w as not so m inor. With the death in ob scu rity of the king’s "hated enem y, " ! W illiam de R aleigh, b ish o p -e lec t of W inchester, whom A rchbishop j B oniface had e a r lie r supported, the king secu red the electio n of h is h alf-b roth er, A ylm er de L usignan. This w as a poor ch oice for m any | i rea so n s but in the year 1252, a m inor ju risd iction al argum ent a r o se j i J j betw een the b ish o p -e lec t and A rchbishop B oniface over the hospital l ’ of St. Thom as at Southwark. At one stage of the argum ent, A ylm er ! I ' | dispatched an arm ed band of m en who looted and burned som e of the j ! m anors in Canterbury and c a rried away an o fficia l of the archbishop i ; as a h ostage. On h is a rriv a l in 1252, B oniface placed a ll those guilty 90 M atthew P a r is, Chron. M aj., V, 414, 545, 615-619. 622. 635, 662. ! 83 under excom m unication and in D ecem ber of this yea r even went to O xford, w here at a solem n congregation o f a ll the u n iversity, he renew ed the excom m unication. Although M atthew P a r is reco rd s a sp lit at the court, the king sid in g with h is h alf-b roth er and the queen sid in g with her uncle, a papal d e cree adjudicated the is s u e and through the efforts of the king and queen, the rift w as patched up at a p rovincial cou ncil m eetin g in January 1253, w here the b ish o p -e lec t 33 r eceiv ed absolution and the k iss of peace. j j With the two problem s of finance and ju risd iction out of the I | way, the archbishop and the E n glish Church found th em selv es caught I | up in the la rg e r issu e s of the p o litica l w orld. The is s u e s w ere th r ee - j fold; the king’s demand for a crusading tenth, the kin g's demand for j ! p olitical and finan cial support for h is G ascon cam paign and the kin g's ' demand for support for h is S icilian en ter p r ise . The Church would j counter with its own dem ands. i Although H enry had d eclined to get involved in the crusadin g m ovem ent in resp o n se to Pope Innocent's c a ll at the C ouncil of Lyons in 1245, he r e v e r se d h im se lf and in 1250, by the hands of A rchbishop 34 i B oniface, in an elaborate cerem on y, he took the cru sad in g c r o s s . i i The pope had w ritten to the archbishop m any tim es to urge the king i 35 | to fu lfill h is vow m ade e a r lie r in h is reign . i 33Matthew P a r is, Chron. M aj., V, 359-360. ^ Ib id ., V, 101-102. M atthew P a ris se e m s to im ply that the i archbishop a lso took the c r o s s at this tim e. This problem is ana- | ly sed by Strickland, M iscellan ea di Storia Italian s, I (1895), 390. 35F oed era, I, i, 257, 266. j Upon the assum ption of the c r o s s , the pope sen t a bull to i j King Henry granting him , for three y e a r s, a tenth of a ll the e c c le - ! sia s tic a l reven u es in his kingdom . The pope ends the d ecreta l with j | the w ords: "We have given o rd ers to our breth ren, the archbishop i | of Canterbury and the bishop of H ereford, to hand over the tenth to i you without delay or without any deductions, when it is co llected qe and when you w ish to begin your journey over the s e a s . In another ! | ; bull d irected to B oniface, along with the archbishop of Y ork and the i i I bishop s of H ereford, Ely and Durham , the pope sp eak s of having | obtained their consent to this tenth and d irectin g them to be execu tors ! 3 7 I of the fund. In h is d ecretal to H enry, the pope r e la te s that he had i declined to im pose a tax without the approval of th ese churchm en, i 38 | but now he had receiv ed it (p ossib ly at Lyons in 1245-1247). By 1251, how ever, the demand by the king for th ese funds to I i i I fu lfill h is vow had reached an im p a sse. At a cou n cil of clerg y at \ i B eading in M arch 1251 (? ) and at a G reat C ouncil m eeting at London 39 i ■ in A p ril 1252, the c le r g y refu sed to com ply with h is w ish e s. At a m eetin g of p rela tes at London in O ctober 1252, under the d irection of B ishop G r o sse te ste , again the p rela tes objected to the k in g ^ demand i 40 j and did not a ct. When the king proposed to se t asid e the papal ' I i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j | 3 6F oed era, I, i, 272. m m — — m m m m m m m 3 7I b id ., I, i, 274. j 3 8I b id ., I, i, 272. I 39C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s .. II. i. 44 8 -4 5 0 . --------- 40I b id ., II, i, 451. ' 85 m andate and ask for a voluntary and graciou s aid, if w e can b eliev e Matthew P a ris, the cle rg y asked for a confirm ation of the c h a r te r s. When the king refu sed , the cle rg y declined to a g ree to h is term s with the excu se being that the archbishops of Canterbury and Y ork w ere absen t. D uring this tim e, A rchbishop B oniface, as we m en tioned e a r lie r , w as at the papal court seek in g a settlem en t of h is ju risd iction al con flict with the d io cese of London. That th ese rebuffs so r e ly aggravated the king can be se e n in a royal lette r w ritten in May 1252 to A rchbishop B oniface. In this lette r the king te lls the archbishop that h is suffragans had refu sed the royal req u est and he ask s the prim ate to give h is a ssen t and to urge his suffragans to do lik ew ise: t Suffraganeos v e str o s ad nos tram nuper p resen ciam convocatos ! rogavim us ut m andato ap ostolico, cujus transcriptum sub j sig illo abbatis W estm on asterii vobis m ittim u s, lib er a lite r | a ssen tir en t. Qui dixerunt se super p redicto mandato sin e ! vob is qui eorum e s tis honorabile capud nobis ad plenum non I p o sse r esp o n d er e.^ i j We do not know of any resp o n se by the archbishop to this royal | req u est, which r a is e s the point; when the archbishop lands in England' in N ovem ber 1252, how far w ill he p r e ss this r e sista n c e to the royal dem ands? i i One would hope for an answ er to this question in the pro v in cia l council m eetin g of January 13, 1253, but it is at this point that the prim ary evid en ce le ts us down. ^2 The churchm en cam e together 41C lose B o lls, Henry III, 1251-1253 (London, 1927), p. 217. Our two m ain so u r c e s, the C hronicle of John of W alling ford and the Annals of Burton, give no hint of the ro le o f the p rim ate. 86 o sten sib ly for the absolution of A ylm er de L usignan and h is form al reco n cilia tio n w ith A rchbishop B on iface. W hether this con flict could have influenced the arch bish op’s rela tio n to the kin g's demand is not known. Although the king sen t p roctors to this m eetin g to p r e ss again h is claim for the tenth, 43 we know of no con clu sion s reached by the p rela tes at this cou n cil other than a s e r ie s of 44 gravam ina or com p lain ts against the king. The evid en ce of the m eetin g does not te ll us m ore about these gravam ina. F . M . Pow icke and C. B . C heney conjecture that th ese com plaints w ere based upon the gravam ina o f Robert G ro sseteste.^ ® It is only la ter, how ever, under the year 1258, that the Burton annalist produces a s e r ie s of gravam ina that he c r e d its to G rosseteste.^ ® The m anuscript r e g iste r of the Durham p riory p r e se r v e s another se t of a r tic le s under the p r e - | fatory note w hich sta te s that they w ere p resen ted to the king during 47 a council of the archbishops and bishop s of the realm in 1253. This AO ' C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s ., II, i, 469. j 4 4 Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 305. F or a recen t study of the i w hole h isto ry o f the gravam ina of the E n glish Church, s e e W. R. j I Jon es, "B ish op s, P o litic s , and the Two L aw s: The G ravam ina of the j ; E n glish C lergy, 1237-1399," Speculum , XLI (1966), 2 0 9 -2 4 5 . j 4 ® C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s.II, i, 467. j j ; Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 4 2 2 -4 2 5 . I ^ J o n e s , Speculum , XLI (1966), 213. Jones concludes: "The a scrip tio n of th is lis t to 1253 is sim p ly another instan ce of the con fusion of a m onastic sc r ib e , sin c e the docum ent from the Durham p riory r e g is te r is a fragm ent of the leg isla tio n of the cou n cil o f 1257." The view of this paper is to lea v e the m atter open. G .B . F lah iff p r e fe rs the 1253 date. G . B . F lah iff, "The W rit of P rohibition to C ourts C h ristian in the T hirteenth Century, " M ediaeval Studies, ' VI (1944), 294, n. 4 9 . 87 Durham p riory lis t of gravam ina is unusual in that it is the exact wording of sev en of the enactm ents of the London Council of 1257. T h ese enactm ents, which w e sh a ll d iscu ss in our next chapter, are attributed to A rchbishop B on iface. Another p o ssib ility is that neither of th ese s e ts of com p lain ts are the gravam ina of 1253. Even if th ese two s e ts of com plaints are not of 1253, the confusion on the part of the ch ro n iclers is in terestin g in that it show s the c lo s e n e s s betw een the e a r lie r com plaints of G r o sse te ste and the later com plaints of B on iface. If we had m ore evid en ce, it is probable that w e could show a d irect participation of the archbishop in the n ego- I tiations of 1253. The evid en ce, how ever, is not su fficien t and the question m ust rem ain open. It is a lso hard to interp ret the place of A rchbishop B oniface | 48 ' in the G reat C ouncil m eetin g at W estm inster in May 1253. It w as j at this m eeting, after w eek s of delib eration , that the dem ands of both king and Church w ere m et. The churchm en granted the crusadin g i : tenth. The king, on the other hand, agreed to a solem n sen ten ce of j excom m unication pronounced by A rchbishop B oniface and h is suffragans against those who violated the ch a rters resp ectin g the : I 4 Q j ! lib erty of the Church. Although the king h im se lf w as exem pted from] j ! | __________________________________ ! ' 4 8 ! ! C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s ., II, i. j 4 7 4 -4 7 9 . - - - - - - J ^ F o e d e r a , ^ 289. See the detailed d escrip tion by j j Matthew P a r is of the archbishop along with h is suffragans p ro - | \ nouncing in due solem n ity, "with sm oking candle, " the sen ten ce of I excom m unication. Matthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., V, 373-378. The ! king a lso sen t out le tte r s patent sign ifyin g h is agreem ent to the excom m unication. F oed era, I, i, 290. 88 its p en alties, it w as treated by the p rela tes as a stron g weapon on th eir part and w as quickly sen t out and published throughout the land.**® The bishops appealed to the pope for ratification and on Septem ber 28, 1253, Innocent IV, on the advice of his cu ria , con firm ed the ex co m m u n ica tio n ,^ During this G reat C ouncil m eeting, Matthew P a r is has the archbishop, along w ith three other clergym en , being sen t a s a delegation to the king to obtain h is p ro m ise to ob serve the lib e r tie s of the Church. The ch ro n icler e m b ellish e s this situation by having the king m ake sp ort of the churchm en, a ll of whom w ere put in by royal p r e ssu r e , who are now pleading for the freedom of the Church. To j i Matthew P a r is, the only rep ly of the four d elegates w as: "My lord the 52 ; king, we are not d isc u ssin g the p ast but the fu tu re." E ven with this j •^ C o p ies 0f the excom m unication w ere quickly circu lated and I w ere to be found in cath ed ral m unim ents and m onastic ca rtu la r ie s j throughout England. It is noted in a table of ch a rters granted to the j i archbishop of Canterbury: "Sentencia lata in tr a n sg r e sso r e s carte ! lib erta tis A nglie sub s ig illo B on efacii a rch iep isco p i & quorundem j e p isc o p o r u m ." "Table of Canterbury A rchbishop C h arters, " Irene J. C hurchill, e d ., Camden M iscellan y, Third s e r ie s , XLI (1929), 7. ; T here se e m s to be a sc rib a l (or typographical) erro r in the copy of | this ch arter at the C athedral of C h ich ester. The "record o f the | sen ten ce of excom m unication pronounced by A rchbishop B oniface j | against tr a n sg r e sso r s of the lib e r tie s of the Church or other cu stom s i of the kingdom , of the com m on ch arter of lib e r tie s and of the ch arter of the fo r e st, " is dated 1263 instead of 1253. Reginald L . P oole, "The M unim ents of the B ishop of C h ich ester, " H isto rica l M anuscripts C om m ission , R eport on M anuscripts in V arious C o llectio n s, 1 (1901), 184-185. If the date given is c o r r e c t, and the bishops w ere at W estm in ster in M ay-June 1263, it would be the only indication, un supported by any other evid en ce, of th is act on the part of the arch bishop and h is suffragans at this la te r tim e. 5l F o ed era , I, i, 293. j 52M atthew P a r is, Chron. M aj. , V, 373-374. 89 em b ellish m en t, there is no rea so n to doubt the actual situation . The archbishop w as beginning to exp erien ce the obstinancy of the king. A s the churchm en had agreed to r a is e the cru sadin g tenth dem anded by the king, they now appointed a com m ittee of three to evaluate the fin an cial w orth of the e c c le s ia s tic a l goods and property in variou s d io c e se s and to then c o lle c t the tenth. The three appointed w ere the bishop of C h ich ester, the abbot of W estm in ster and the bishop of N orw ich . This new o v era ll evaluation of Church property b ecam e known by the nam e of the la s t of the c o lle c to r s; the valuation of N orw ich . 33 The la tter h isto ry of this tenth is hard to fo llo w . 34 It becam e entangled, a s we sh a ll s e e , in the sh iftin g p olitical in te r e sts of both | pope and king and w as constantly changed in purpose and execution. It is only under en tirely different p o litica l circu m sta n ces in 1266 that 1 the tenth fades from view , having only by that tim e been co llected in i part. ! In May 1255, in a papal le tte r to the archbishop of C anterbury, Pope A lexander IV r eo r g a n ize s the c o llectio n of the tenth and appoints | B oniface and Rostand, the new papal nuncio, as the new c o lle c to r s of j j the tax. It is at this tim e that a new sh ift of in terest had occu rred and the pope su g g ests in this le tte r that the king m ight change h is cru sadin g oath to one binding him to take up the S icilian question and 3 3W. E . Lunt has done an elaborate study of the background for the co llectio n and the valuation its e lf. W. E . Lunt, The Valuation ! of N orw ich (Oxford, 1926). j 54I b id ., pp. 5 2 -9 5 . i defend the Church against the reb ellio n of M anfred. A fter appointing j B oniface and Rostand, a ll the la ter corresp on d en ce is d irected to the j j legate and there is no other r efer e n c e in th is regard to the a rch - i i bishop. T his lack of involvem ent by the archbishop at this la ter tim e I can be attributed to the fact that he w as out of England on a v isit to his native land of Savoy. ! As m uch as King H enry w as in terested in h is com ing cru sad e 1 ! ; and its attendant grant of a tenth of e c c le s ia s tic a l revenu e, he w as j i i j forced to deal c lo s e r at hom e with an up risin g in G ascony, leavin g ; 56 | England in June, 1253. The W inchester Annals in record in g h is departure go on to state that he left a s custodians of the kingdom , j I i the queen, h is brother Richard of C ornw all and A rchbishop B on iface. I ! A ll the other r e fe r e n c e s, how ever, m ake it quite c le a r that the i I W inchester Annals a re in e rr o r on this point and that the queen and 57 j R ichard w ere the o fficia l custodians of the kingdom . T here are no j ; r efer e n c es in this regard to the archbishop. In O ctober of this sam e y ear, A rchbishop B oniface officiated ; at the funeral of Robert G r o sse te ste and a fte r a long and involved q u arrel with the L incoln chapter over the vacant s e e of L incoln, a j 58 ! com p rom ise w as finally reach ed . The arch bish op's in terest in the j ! con cern s of h is province w as cut sh ort, how ever, by the urgent ; I i | | ! 55F o ed era , I, i, 320. Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 350-355. j ^ Ann. Mon. (W intonia), II, 93. j ^ Ann. Mon. (D unstaplia), III, 186. E ft M arsh, M onumenta F ran ciscan a, B rew er, e d ., I, 323. 91 i dem ands of the king. i A fter an in gloriou s six m onths cam paign in G ascony, King | H enry, in h is usual way, had exhausted a ll h is funds and h is arm y w as | crum bling. Along with th is, the king had heard many rum ors to the ; effect that A lfonso X, the new king of C a stile, w as assu m in g h is i ! ancient righ ts to G ascony (dating back to the John-Authur conflict) i j and w as on the v erg e of invading G ascony w ith a la rg e arm y, seek in g I to overw helm the E n glish . King H enry quickly w rote to h is brother ! i j | Richard of C ornw all, the caretak er of the kingdom , to c a ll together | a parliam ent in order to r a is e both funds and so ld ie r s to m eet this j threat. > At a parliam ent in January 1254, a ll those p resen t, including i : the archbishop of C anterbury, p rom ised to a s s is t the king w ith a la rg e fo rce providing that it w as r ea lly true that the king of C astile j j 60 I I w as ready to invade G ascony. The D unstable Annals has the a rch - j bishop and the a ssem b led cle rg y qualify their grant even m ore with a refu sa l to give any aid u n less the king again sw are to ob serve the Magna C arta. 61 To com p licate m a tters, even though the archbishop and the ' I I ; higher clerg y consented to help the king, they w ere unable to pledge | I j j ®®We know of this le tte r only through the rep ly of Richard ; of C ornw all. M atthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., VI, 282-284. I fin ' Ibid. Pow icke and Cheney, accepting the account of M atthew P a ris (Chron. M a j., V, 425), say that the archbishop w as ; absent from this m eetin g. A ll the other evid en ce im p lies the fact, i accepted by this paper, that he w as p resen t. j ^ A nn . Mon. (D unstablia), III, 189. j ] 92 l | the consent of the low er clerg y and another council w as scheduled | for A pril 1254, at which tim e the low er cle rg y , through their r e p r e - ! 62 j sen ta tiv es, w ere to give their an sw er. Along with the low er clergy, I ] the em ergin g third esta te a lso refu sed to contribute until the king again a ssen t to the C harter and, with the m inor cle rg y , deferred 63 : their d ecisio n until the A pril parliam ent. The situation betw een the January council m eetin g and the ! A pril parliam ent is u n clear. It w as during this tim e that there se e m s I to be a r e v e r sa l on the part of King H enry; instead of a war d evelop - I ing betw een Henry and A lfonso, negotiations had brought about the I betrothal of H enry's son Edward and A lfon so's daughter E lean or. A ccording to F . M. P ow icke, the king quickly let those in England i | know of this developm ent: "These le tte r s [[referrin g to the le tte r of i I F ebruary 8, 12541 show that the king did not continue to exploit the j ..64 | s c a r e . ! i This can be se r io u sly questioned. Not only does Matthew j P a ris m ake much of the king's duplicity but a lso there is a patent ; le tte r dated M arch 24, 1254, in which the king, after thanking the j archbishop and oth ers for their offer of help, goes on to state that ; even though there are rum ors of a treaty: i The king is anticipating the very contrary, both becau se the king's en em ies in G ascony, after they had m ade a crafty ^ R oyal L e tte r s, Shirley, e d ., II, 101-102. go Ibid. This m ay be the fir s t instance of tru ely r e p r e se n t- i ative governm ent in England. 6* F . M. P ow icke, The Thirteenth Century, p. 117, n. 2. 93 treaty w ith the en em ies of the said king, com ing to King j H enry s e t up the horns of their pride against the king, and a lso b ecau se after the la s t retirem en t of the kin g's en em ies | and of the king of C a stile from King H enry, an im m en se | quantity of m oney w as sen t from the sid e of the king of C a stile j which he would not have sen t if he had intended to m ake a I treaty in good faith , 65 j King H enry go es on, "it would be a s h a m e .. . if through the in activity, i the land of G ascony, which is the right of the king and of the crow n of j g f i I England, should be d isg ra cefu lly torn from his hands and l o s t . " In regard to the C harter, the king bends to their w ish es: j A lso, in order that the king m ay do them su ch favour as he can without breach of ju stice, he has com m anded the queen and ea rl to cau se the G reat C harter of England to be pro claim ed and held by oath of the se v e r a l sh e r iffs in the se v e r a l cou n ties, on condition how ever that they (the arch bishop s and barons, e tc .) ca u se it to be ob served by th eir R_ | su b jects, and that they give them le tte r s patent accord in gly. i I It is hard to know the feelin g s of those, including the a rch - I bishop, who m et at the A pril m eetin g. Did they b eliev e the rum ors | and the p erson al appeal by Sim on de Montfort that the king had j ; se c r e tly , as far back as F eb ru ary 8, 1254, concluded a m arriage ' treaty with the king of C a stile , or did they b e lie v e, on the b a sis of the 1 ! - 1 : very recen t le tte r , r efer r ed to above, that the king s t ill expected a I w ar with the king of C a stile? A m em orandum of the E a ster council ! show s the great doubts of the p r e la te s. They offered Henry the ! 6 5 C al. of Patent R o lls, H enry HI, 1247-1258, pp. 27 9 -2 8 0 . j j P ow icke m akes no m ention of this patent le tte r . Matthew P a ris in - ! elu d es two ed icts of the king, dated F ebruary 14 and F ebruary 25,1254, : which a lso sta te that the king needs a subsidy b ecau se of the threatened invasion of the king of C a stile . Matthew P a ris, Chron. M aj., VI, 2 8 6 -2 8 9 . 1 6 6 C al. of Patent R o lls. Henry III, 1247-1258. pp. 279-280. 94 p roceed s of one of the three y e a r s of the cru sadin g tenth for the use in the G ascon cam paign, providing four stringent conditions w ere m et: (1) that it have the approval of the pope, (2 ) that the king of C astile r e a lly invades G ascony, (3) that the king confirm a ll the lib e r tie s of the Church and (4) that the tenth, or this part of the i tenth, be lev ied accord in g to the ancient valuation ( i . e . , not of the fift new valuation of N orw ich). Again, the evid en ce is contrad ictory. A ccording to the 69 Annals of Dunstable and T ew kesbury, a grant w as given. Matthew 70 P a ris p ictu res a situation in which a grant w as not given. u In the w ords of W. E . Lunt, "in view of the vague ch aracter of the evid en ce it se e m s im p o ssib le to d eterm ine the exact nature of the action taken | by the parliam ent in 1254. W hether or not a grant w as forthcom ing from the parliam ents t : of January and A pril 1254, the king fe lt he could s till r ely upon the crusading tenth granted him by the Church. About the sam e tim e as the A pril parliam ent, the three c o m m issio n e rs of the tenth planned j the organization of their valuation of e c c le s ia s tic a l revenue and in ! i ' j I ®®Bodleian L ibrary, Oxford, Stowe MSS, 930, fo l. 57v . j | P rinted in C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s ., II, i, 482. j i C f. W. E . Lunt, "The C onsent of the E nglish L ow er C lergy to j | Taxation during the Reign of Henry HI, P ersecu tion and L iberty: j E ssa y s in Honor of G . L . B urr (New York, l93t), pp. 142-143. i i a o ' l Ann. Mon. (Dunstablia), 1 ,190. Ann. Mon. (T heokesberia), j I, 156. I ^°M atthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., V, 440. j ! 7l W. E . Lunt, V aluation of N orw ich, p. 63. i I 95 July 1254, they published their co m m issio n and began their task of 72 evaluation and co llec tio n . In a c lo se le tte r , the king w rote to the j c o lle c to r s , e x p r essin g the d e sir e that the evaluation be done quickly i i ; and that he hoped to have the fir s t in stallm en t of the tax paid by i 7 3 j M ich aelm as. In another c lo se lette r, to Hugh de M ortim er, an I j o fficia l of the archbishop, the king asked him to do another evaluation 74 I of e c c le s ia s tic a l reven u e. On M arch 6 , 1254, a month b efore the A pril parliam ent and | | i not m entioned in h is lette r of M arch tw enty-fourth, A lbert of P arm a, I i j a papal legate, with King H enry's approval, conferred upon P rin ce I i I ! j Edmund the kingdom of S ic ily . Thus began the long and involved J , S icilian e n terp rise. Although F .M . Pow icke sta tes that "his i i i un cles of Savoy m ust have agreed with him , for it was Thom as of I y g i Savoy who headed a m issio n to the pope to su g g est com m u tation ," I there is no reason to include A rchbishop B on iface. A ll the early j negotiations over S icily w e re com pleted w hile the king w as in G ascony j and the archbishop w as in England. The la ter negotiations w ere i ! j entered into after the king returned to England and B oniface had j I continued his trip to his hom eland of Savoy. Although there are two j i 72Cal. of Patent R o lls, Henry III, 1247-1258, p. 370. | M atthew P a ris, Chron. Maj ., V i, 296-297. R eg. Innocent IV, Berger^ e d ., Ill, 182, No. 6 , 989. 73prynne, R eco rd s, II, 815. 7^R $les G ascon s. M ichel, e d ., I, 518, No. 3, 727. 7®Foedera, I, i, 297. 76F .M . P ow icke, King H enry III, pp. 370-371. 96 papal b u lls that se ek to involve the archbishop in the S icilian en ter p r ise , they do not te ll us how B oniface felt tow ards this m ove by the 77 king or w hether he acted in com p lian ce with the b u lls. The only ch a rters that the archbifehop w itn essed w hile w ith the king in G ascony, June 1254 to Septem ber 1254, w ere those pertaining to lo ca l affairs 78 in England. In Septem ber of 1254, A rchbishop B oniface departed the 79 kin g's court and traveled to h is lands in Savoy. He would return to England two y e a rs later in O ctober, 1256. We do not know the j ! reason for this departure and the only record we have of B oniface during this tim e is h is rec eiv in g the oath of fea lty from so m e of h is v a ss a ls in h is fie f of Tournon, h is con ferrin g of a fie f on the bishop i of H ereford at h is house at St. H elena, and h is co n secra tio n of the ! 80 I new bishop of E ly in Savoy. Although Matthew P a ris m akes the archbishop go to Savoy to lead an arm y against Turin to r e sc u e h is 77 On May 14,1254, the pope authorized the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of W inchester to borrow m oney in England for the p rosecu tion of the rights of P rin ce Edmund in S ic ily . F oed era, I, i, 301. On May 7,1254, the pope allow ed the archbishop of Canterbury to absolve the king from h is vow to go to the H oly Land, that he m ay engage in the expedition to S icily against M anfred. Ib id ., I, i, 320. ^8C al. of Patent R olls, H enry III, 1247-1258, pp. 305-326. 79 The archbishop se e m s to have left the king som etim e in j Septem ber or O ctober 1254: "B onefacius C antuariensis arch iep iscop u s . . . fuit in G uasconia usque ad m en sem Septem bris et p ostea red iit ad partes su as Sabuadiae." Cont. G ervase, II, 204. Cf. R oles G ascons, M ichel, e d ;, I, 531, N os. 4 , 22d, 4,233. 80 M ugnier, L es Savoyards en A n gleterre, pp. 286-289. Matthew P a r is, Chron. !Maj., V, S>08. 97 brother, we have shown in our e a r lie r study of Joseph Strickland's 81 m onograph, how this m ust be se r io u sly questioned. W hile the archbishop w as away, the stru ggle betw een the king and the E nglish Church continued. In a s e r ie s of council m eetin gs from O ctober 1255 to A pril 1256 (? ), the churchm en postponed their d ecisio n to grant any m oney to the king and pope in regard to the j 82 S icilia n en ter p r ise . Although Matthew P a ris b erates alm ost ev ery one, the king, the pope, the nuncio, the bishop of H ereford, the b ish o p -e lec t of W inchester, and the nobles for the op p ression of the i Church, it should be noted what he sa y s about A rchbishop B oniface: i The archbishop of C anterbury, who ought to have been the ! support of the totterin g Church, and the pilot of the v e s s e l of St. P eter, which w as at the m ercy of the w aves, was involved in w orldly b u sin ess in far distant countries beyond gg the se a , and governed h is flock with le s s care than he ought. ^ S trick lan d , M iscellan ea di Storia Italians, 1(1895), 412-414. 82 C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s ., II, i, 501-510. At the London C ouncil of the E nglish clerg y on January 18, 1256, a co m m issio n of low er clerg y w as appointed to convey to Rome a lis t of grievan ces probably based on the lo ca l grievan ces of the archdeacon of L incoln and those of the cle rg y of the d io c e se s of C oventry and L ich field . Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 360-363. Cf. Lunt, P ersecu tio n and L iberty, p. 146. Along with these griev a n ces went Innocent Ill's confirm ation of the Magna C arta and a C harter by King I John resp ectin g the lib erty of the Church. Matthew P a r is, Chron. M a i., V, 539-544. Although the ch ron icler goes on to say that the E n glish clerg y receiv ed no help from the pope, there is record of a le tte r , dated N ovem ber 8,1256, from Pope A lexander IV to King H enry callin g upon him to r esp ec t e c c le s ia s tic a l righ ts, which would i se em to be in resp o n se to this appeal. H .I. B ell, E n glish H isto rica l R eview , XXXVI (1921), 407. 83 M atthew P a ris, Chron. M a j., V, 526. A few pages earlier, the ch ron icler had said the sam e thing: 1 1 The archbishop of Canterbury who ought to have been a s it w ere a sh ield against the h o stile v io len ce of the king, w as at a great d istan ce on the continent, in volved in d ivers and secu la r a f f a ir s .. . " Ib id ., V, 514-515, C f .n .l. 98 T his p a ssa g e is in terestin g not in regard to what it sa y s (Matthew P a ris at this juncture of h is h isto ry has to fab ricate h is v ilifica tio n against the archbishop), but what it does not sa y . The ch ron icler d oes not link the archbishop with those who w ere o p p ressin g the Church and sh ortly w ill put forth the hope that the archbishop would follow in the footstep ts of St, Thom as and "do battle with those who attacked the Church. 1,84 i i In sum m ary, this ea rly portion of the reign of A rchbishop I B oniface saw the a sse r tio n of h is new found pow er as prim ate of j England in the two field s of finance and ju risd iction . Both of th ese i a sse r tio n s m et w ith r e sista n c e , both w ere upheld, although with ! i se v e r e lim ita tio n s, by the pope, and both cea se d to be a problem by the y ea r 1256. The problem of the lib erty of the Church, how ever, j could not be solved that e a sily . On the contrary, it had becom e m orej acute. Eight y e a rs of negotiation had been fr u itle s s . The E n glish ! Church had granted the king a cru sad in g tenth in exchange for h is approval to a sen ten ce of excom m unication against those who troubled the Church. T his seem in g ly had no effect upon the situ ation . The E n glish Church granted the king support for h is G ascon affair and in exchange, the king had r e issu e d the Magna C arta. Again, there w as no tangible r e su lts. If this w as not enough, the king had pledged h im se lf for an im p o ssib le sum to the pope in exchange for the dubvious righ ts to the crow n of S ic ily . The E n glish Church w as 84Matthew P a r is, Chron. M a i.. V, 632, 99 caught in a v ise betw een the pope and the king. The answ er of the E n glish Church w as postponed, aw aiting the return of the archbishop of Canterbury. CHAPTER V FROM THE COUNCIL OF LONDON TO HIS EXILE: THE RELATIONSHIP OF BONIFACE TO THE MOVEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL AND POLITICAL REFORM (1257-1262) When Archbishop B oniface returned to h is se e in O ctober 1256, he w as faced with a turbulent England. The m agnates, both noblem en and churchm en alik e, w ere extrem ely upset over the p olitical m o ra ss into which the king had, with the Sicilian affair, plunged the whole country. The E n glish Church, over which Boniface w as prim ate, had finally exhausted every delay and appeal and m ust now deal d irectly with the financial dem ands of both king and pope. To the thinking of the clerg y , the gravam ina of 1253 and the local gravam ina of 1256 had brought about no halt in the rapacity of royal power in regard to the lib erty of the Church. A ll the e a r lie r a g ree m ents had a lso brought about no perm anent r e s u lts . Som e so rt of d irect action on the part of the archbishop was needed. From 1257 to 1262 w as to be a period of alm ost continual m eeting, argum ent, negotiation and action . To bring som e order out of this turbulence and to s e e the relation sh ip of the archbishop to these even ts, this block of tim e w ill be divided into three period s, roughly divided by the annual c y cle of Grand C ouncil m eetin gs or parliam ents and the attendant e c c le s ia s tic a l or provincial m eetings or synods; (I) the year 1257, a tim e of "continued n eg o tia tio n ," (2) the yea r 1258 to M arch 1259, a tim e of "political confrontation, " and (3) the tim e period from O ctober 1259 to O ctober 1262, a con flictin g tim e of " e c c le sia stic a l confrontation" and the "royal r e a sse r tio n in 100 101 p o litic s, M ending with the departure or ex ile of A rchbishop B oniface from England. 1 The b e st d escrip tion of the year 1257 would be that of con tinued negotiation. We saw e a r lie r in 1256, how the churchm en put off any d ecisio n as to the fin an cial support for the king in h is S icilia n e n ter p r ise . In the fa ce of this r e sista n c e , H enry sen t off further appeals for papal support and e a rly in 1257, h is deputation returned not only with the confirm ation of the tenth for two additional y ea rs but a lso with papal approval for new e c c le s ia s tic a l taxes or "graces." The king p resen ted th ese dem ands to the cle rg y at his I parliam ent in M arch 1257, w here it w as su ggested that the churchm en j 3 i could c le a r up a ll th ese dem ands with a paym ent of 52, 000 m ark s. Two m onths la ter , after consultation am ong th e m se lv e s, the cle rg y agreed to the paym ent of th is amount on the condition that the king not It is a problem to know exactly what m eetin gs of the cle rg y w ere str ic tly p rovin cial, that is , confined only to the province of Canterbury and what w ere nation-w ide, including the cle rg y from the province of Y ork. The evid en ce does not give a c le a r p icture. F or a fu ll d iscu ssio n on this issu e for each e c c le s ia s tic a l m eeting, s e e C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s ., II, i, 524-692. This m inor problem does not affect the m ain thrust of this study and so w ill not be con sid ered in the text. It would seem that even the pro vin cial m eetin gs w ere looked upon as speaking for the w hole of the E n glish Church. T here are no in sta n ces during this period when the province of Y ork does not concur with the actions done by the province of C anterbury. o F oed era, I, i, 3 44-345. The "graces" w ere such things as annates from the low er b e n e fice s, the fru its of the b en efices of non r esid en ts not authorized by the pope or by a bishop, the p erson al property of in testa tes and the fru its a r isin g from the vacan cies of b en efices which fe ll to the papacy by devolution. Cf. Lunt, V aluation of N orw ich, p. 90. 3 Ann. Mon. (Burton). I, 386-389. 102 u se h is "graces" and rem ed y the griev a n ces of the E nglish Church. It would seem that at this tim e, if M atthew P a ris is c o r r e c t, that a 4 lis t of fifty gravam ina or g riev a n ces w ere presen ted to the king. The evid en ce is unclear as to the relation sh ip of A rchbishop B oniface to th ese fifty com p lain ts. M atthew P a r is, putting them in a different context, sp eak s of them only a s the "articuli pro quibus g e p isco p i Angliae fuerant pu gn atu ri." T his continual co n flict betw een H enry and the churchm en had even reached the e a r s of the pope and he e a r lie r w rote to the king j | so m e sa g e w ords of advice; in ord er that the king should gain the j fin an cial support of the E n glish Church, he should " recon cile h im se lf j with the p rela tes of h is kingdom , who a s s e r t that they have been 6 1 desp oiled of their righ ts by him , and with other p e r so n s." The pope, on the other hand, te lls the king that he w ill w rite to the E n glish churchm en to e a se up on the king and adjourn for a tim e the co n - j ^Matthew P a r is, Chron. M aj. , V, 637-638. 5 Ib id ., VI, 35 3 -3 6 5 . There is so m e confusion as to when to date th eseT iffy gravam in a. M atthew P a r is speaks of the fifty at the May m eetin g during 125V. In the A dditam enta, how ever, h is sh ort hand notation of the "four m itres" would seem to indicate the August 1258 m eetin g of the c le r g y (the archbishop b ein g absent). The fifty g riev a n ces need not be given h ere as they w ill la ter be rew orked and reapplied by the c le r g y at the la ter m eetin gs of 1258 and 1261. The sp ir it of th ese a r tic le s can be gained from the final a rticle: "Although our lord the king sw ore at h is coronation to p reserv e the righ ts and lib e r tie s granted to the ch u rch es, and although he has confirm ed them in the beginning of the G reat C harter, they a r e ,n e v e r th e le ss, con stantly attacked, disturbed, and m utilated by h is o ffic e r s. Thus he attacks not only gen eral, but even sp e c ia l lib e r tie s, namely, such as have been granted by h is p r e d e c e sso r s and confirm ed by h im s e lf .. . " Ib id ., VI, 365. g F oed era, I, i, 350. 103 7 sid eration of royal g r ie v a n c es. He le t the king off with a stern reprim and; that he should "act that n either h e C i.e . the bishop of R och ester 3 nor h is fellow b ish op s, nor the other p rela tes, eith er se cu la r or regu lar, need trouble th em selv es in the m atter, ” and that the king not n eglect the sen ten ce of excom m unication that had been pronounced against those who infringed e c c le s ia s tic a l lib e r tie s and g which a lso had been confirm ed by the pope. On M arch 2, 1257, Pope A lexander IV sen t a bull to A rchbishop B oniface, confirm ing i the e c c le s ia s tic a l p r iv ile g es of the archbishop and the suffragan j b ish o p s.0 i It does not se em that th ese papal adm onitions influenced j | eith er the king or the churchm en during th ese ea rly m eetin gs in 1257. j Although M atthew P a ris r e la te s that at this tim e, the king ’’prom ised j ! he would, a s soon as p o ssib le, m oderate the C hurch's o p p ressio n s, and r esto r e her to her proper state of lib erty, " the Annals of Burton, probably m ore accu rately, picture the king d isp leased with the e c c le s ia s tic a l dem ands and the conditions put on h is grant of m oney and he put off h is a n sw er .10 It is in this atm osphere that we get the fir s t real firm indication of the archbishop's own in itiative and involvem ent in E nglish 7F oed era, I, i, 350. 8Ibid. Q C on cilia Magnae B ritan iae, David W ilkins, ed. (London, 1737), I, 1 W . ^M atthew P a r is, Chron. M aj., V, 637. Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 402. 104 p o litic s. A rchbishop B oniface, not even w orking through the dean of the province, the bishop of London, issu ed a sum m ons in h is own nam e to a m eeting of the E n glish Church for August 1257. F rom a copy sen t through h is o fficia l to the b ish o p -e lec t of Coventry and L ich field , he begins: "Cum n e c e ss ita s im m ineat et u tilitas persuadeat quod nos et ven era b iles p atres su ffragan ei n o stri una cum a liis p rela tis C antuariensis provincie de com m unibus n egotiis A nglicane e c c le s ie tractaturi convenire d e b e a m u s.. . This sum m ons m et with a heated resp o n se from the king, j i i who, in a le tte r to the bishop of L incoln, forbade the p rela tes to 12 attend the m eetin g called by the archbishop. The king g iv es as a i | reason for this prohibition the fact that he is with his arm y in the j ! field (in W ales) and that the p rela tes w ere bound to rep air to the i ! royal standard for the d efen se of the king and the kingdom . The king, j th erefore, com m anded the archbishop and the suffragan bishops to j defer holding this convocation until the cam paign was over and a ll the suffragans w ere forbidden to appear at such a m eetin g under the forfeitu re of their b a ro n ies. One would a ssu m e that the king's anger had m ore to do w ith finan ces and e c c le s ia s tic a l dem ands than having , the bishops with him on the battlefront. In d irect opposition to the king, the m ajority of bishops m et with the archbishop in August 1257 at London to d elib erate on the presen t state of the Church, the m atter 1 ^Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 401. 12C lose R olls, H enry III. 1256-1259, p. 142. 105 13 of taxes and the c le r g y ’s g r ie v a n c es. The Burton annalist b rings together a s e r ie s of docum ents pertaining to this m eetin g. The fir s t is a statem en t of purpose for this m eetin g which m ade notice of the four points of contention: (1) How should the c le r g y r ea ct to the finan cial dem ands o f the king? (2) How should they rep ly to the papal demand for m ore j m oney? I ! (3) What a re they to do about the continued op p ression s on the E n glish Church? (4) What are they to do about the king's recen t prohibition again st the p r e la te s' m eetin g in this convocation? Although its nature is un clear, the Burton ann alist a lso includes an ! 15 i elab orate d iscu ssio n of th ese four points of contention. A fter a lis t of p rop osals d iscu sse d at the m eeting, the authorj ! enum erates the p roposition s fin ally put forth by the cou n cil. In j l I sum m ary form , the p roposition s dealt with the follow in g issu e s : | (1) The intrusion of se cu la r cou rts into tithe c a s e s under the p reten se of trying p leas of advow son. (2) The se iz u r e of the sp ir itu a litie s of vacant s e e s . (3) The prohibition of cou rts C hristian from tryin g c a s e s of breach of faith. (4) The in terferen ce with the e x e r c is e of co rr ec tiv e ju risd iction over faith and m o r a ls. *3Ann. Mon. (W intonia), II, 96. t4 Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 402. ^ Ib id ., I, 404. C .R . C heney com m ents that this d iscu ssio n m ay be the w ork of the m onastic p r e la te s. C ouncils and Synods. P ow icke and Cheney, II, i, 535. 106 (5) The attachm ent of e c c le s ia s tic a l judges to answ er b efore laym en . (6 ) The tria l in se cu la r cou rts of p erson al actions involving c le r ic s . (7) The distrain t of bishops for failu re to execute w rits of L ev a ri fa cia s against their subordinate c le rg y . 16 A fter the elaboration of th ese ab u ses, the archbishop and the a ssem b led cle rg y s e t up the le g a l m achinery to go beyond the m ere a sse r tio n of gravam ina. As the archbishop had e a r lie r in h is c a r e e r used the pow er of h is e c c le s ia s tic a l office to gain financial and ju risd iction al righ ts, so now he urged the higher c le rg y to r e so r t to sp iritu al c en su r es to enforce their righ ts and safeguard their judicial i i c la im s. The p roposition s w ere not in th em selv es enactm ents of j excom m unication nor w ere they, at this tim e, in the shape of form al ; leg isla tio n . They w ere, how ever, in stan ces w here the p rela tes could | i sp e c ific a lly pronounce sp iritu a l c en su res w ith the backing of the j i whole E n glish Church. T his period of continued negotiation and the yea r 1257 cam e to a c lo s e with the archbishop and h is suffragans sending m e sse n g e r s to the king in W ales to a scerta in h is final answ er to their grant of m oney conditional upon h is co rrectio n of royal abu ses of Church lib er ty . The negotiation ended as it began. The king gave no answ er 17 to th eir com p lain ts. ^ Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 406. The docum ent in the Durham r e g iste r m entioned e a r lie r in regard to the 1253 cou ncil m eeting contains m any of th ese sa m e points. ^M atthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., V, 624. Ann. Mon. (W intonia), II, 96. 107 The yea r 1258 becam e a y ea r of p olitical confrontation. In the words of the Annals of W averley: "At the length of this y ea r the e a r ls and barons, archbishops and bish op s, and other nobles of England, as though aroused from sle e p by a divine touch, se e in g the m isera b le sta te of the kingdom , banded th em selv es togeth er, and boldly assum ed the stren gth and courage of a lion w hich fe a r s the attack of no one. L ate in the y ea r 1257 and into 1258, the con flict betw een King H enry and A rchbishop B oniface and h is su ffragan s, had taken on a new developm ent. At the sam e tim e the king w as p r essu rin g the cle r g y for the tenth, he w as tryin g to back out of the S icilian affair 19 and its attendant debt to the pope. The king wanted m oney, for he w as in the m id st of the W elsh w ar, but he did not want to pay the pope. The pope, on the other hand, p r e sse d by his c r e d ito r s, turned to the E n glish Church and demanded that the tenth and the "graces" be paid to him . In O ctober 1257, Pope A lexander IV denied a petition of the 2 0 E n glish clerg y to be r elie v ed of the "graces" and on D ecem b er 26, 1257, inform ed A rchbishop B oniface and h is su ffragans that he would suspend them from the perform ance of their sp iritu a l and tem poral 21 functions, if they did not c o lle c t the tenth. It would seem that by the ea rly m onths of 1258, A rchbishop ^ Ann. Mon. (W averleia), II, 349-350. 19C al. of Patent R o lls, Henry M , 1247-1258, pp. 566-567. 2 9 F o ed era , I, i, 363. 21Ib id ., I, i, 367-368. 108 B oniface and h is c lerg y , faced w ith th ese extrem e p en alties, began to c o llec t the tenth. This m ade the king give vent to h is anger. He spoke of being "very greatly aston ished and m oved that B oniface, archbishop of Canterbury, by any authority w h atsoever c o e r c e s them for the said tenth, for w hich rea so n the king, by the cou ncil of the nobles of the rea lm , forb ids him to m ake any further ..22 c o e r c io n .. . If the pope threatened the c le rg y with sp iritu a l p en alties, he did the sa m e with the king. On D ecem ber 12, 1257, he gave notice that the king had incurred the pen alties of excom m unication and in terd ict by h is delay in paying the debt owed and furthering the S icilian en ter p r ise . He suspended the operation of th ese p en alties, how ever, until June 1258, when they would becom e effectiv e if the 23 king had not acted b efore then. F rom a notice in the L iberate R olls, it would seem that there w as, in the ea rly m onths of 1258, som e attem pt on the part of the king to deal, at le a s t in a sm a ll way, with the archbishop's e c c le s ia s tic a l dem ands/ 24 In a s e r ie s of parliam en ts in the m onths of A pril and May, 1258, the king, pleading for m oney to avoid the papal c e n su r e s, was faced with an aroused group of cle rg y and nobility. Seven of the 2 2 C al. of Patent R olls, Henry HI, 1258-1266, p. 8 . ^ F oed era, I, i, 366. L ater the su sp en sion w as extended to Septem ber 1358. tb id .. I, i, 369. 24C alendar of L iberate R olls, Henry III, 1251-1260 (London, 1959), p. 4 Z T . 109 m agnates, in a m utual oath, demanded that the king a ssen t to a "reform ation” of the governm ent; without which "he could neither m anage his a ffairs or p rosecu te the S icilian b u sin e ss . " 25 A com po sitio n was offered the king. If the king would a ssen t to this reform a tion, brought about by a com m ittee of tw enty-four, the nobles would take upon th em selves h is muddled foreign rela tio n s, they would try to r a ise financial support for the king, they would try to bring about a peaceful settlem en t with the king of F rance and in regard to the S icilian problem , they would send a legation to the curia, ask for ; a card in al-legate and with the help of the legate, m oderate the agreem ent with the pope. They would also try to reform dom estic j a ffairs which the king had let fa ll into a so rry affair. The king 26 agreed . At a parliam ent at Oxford in the com ing June, the com m ittee j of tw enty-four, tw elve chosen by the king and tw elve chosen by the m agnates, would begin to function and as soon as p o ssib le, a legation ! would be sen t to the pope. The evidence does not give us a c le a r picture of the ro le of A rchbishop B oniface in these new developm ents. Although Matthew P a ris te lls of the financial demands of the king at this tim e upon the variou s m onastic h ou ses, including St. A lbain's, he does not give us any insight into the role of the archbishop or the m ajor clerg y in th ese parliam ents during A pril-M ay 1258. One would assu m e, on the b a sis 2 5Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 470. F oed era, I, i, 371. From a ll indications, the king w elcom ed this arrangem ent. There is nothing to show any h ostility on the part of the king in these ea rly days of 1258. 110 of the c h r o n icler 's treatm ent of the m inor clerg y , that the archbishop and the churchm en d eferred to consent to the king's finan cial dem ands. ^ At the tim e of the A pril-M ay p arliam ents, A rchbishop B oniface sen t out another sum m ons to a m eetin g of the cle rg y at M erton (later, m oved to W estm in ster) on June 6,1258. He b egins the sum m ons with the w ords: "Cum propter e c c le s ie A nglicane eventus et ca u sa s quas fratern itatem v estra m ignorare non convenit fratrum nostrorum congregationem videam us oportunam . . . qualibet o cca sio n s c e ssa n te , ut in hac urgenti n e c e ssita te e c c le s ia nostro regim in i c o m m issa per vos et a lio s fr a tr e s n ostros gratum habeat providi 28 c o n silii fu lcim entu m . 1 1 In the w ords of the Burton ann alist, the p rela tes responded ; to the c a ll of the archbishop, to "reform the status of the E n glish 29 1 Church and to d isc u ss the a r tic le s that fo llo w e d ." A fter a d elib - i i 30 eration on the continuing finan cial c r is e s , the a ssem b led cle rg y , under the d irection of A rchbishop B oniface, approved a long s e r ie s 27Matthew P a r is, Chron. M a j., V, 682-688. ^ Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 411. 2 9Ib id ., I, 412. " T h e a ssem b led cle rg y seem ed to have m ade further arran gem en ts in regard to co llec tin g the crusading tenth. A n on ., "The Continuation of W illiam of Newburgh, " C h ron icles of the R eigns of Stephen, Henry II, and R ichard I, R. H owlett, ed. (London, 1884-1889), 11, 538-539. Ill 31 of p ro v isio n s. In sum m ary form , the 1258 p rovision s dealt with the follow ing issu e s: (1) That the arch bish ops, bishop s and clerg y should not be sum m oned b efore se cu la r c o u r ts. (2) That the laity should not put c le r k s into p referm en ts without e c c le s ia s tic a l authority. I (3) That no p erson im prisoned upon a w rit of excom m unication j should be se t at lib erty without the consent of the p r e la te s, and m aking due sa tisfa ctio n to the Church. (4) That c le rk s should not be prosecu ted upon fa lse or in su fficien t evid en ce. (5) That w andering c le r k s should be tried only in c o u r ts- ! C h ristian. j (6 ) That a p erson should not procure a king’s prohibition ! to avoid being tried in c o u rts-C h ristia n for perjury and ; breach of faith. j (7) That p rela tes should not be checked in the e x e r c is e j of th eir authority and that the la ity are obliged to take the oath in the e c c le s ia s tic a l c o u r ts. (8) That Jew s should appear b efore e c c le s ia s tic a l c o u r ts. I (9) That san ctu aries should not be violated . (10) That the property and p r iv ile g e s of the Church are so m e tim es invaded and overb orn e. A d ecree of excom m unication sh a ll be given again st such sa c r ile g io u s and unjust a ctio n s. (11) That the great m en of the land injure the c le r g y . They m ust give sa tisfa c tio n . (12) That the cle rg y should not be com p elled to s e e their com m od ities to the king's pu rveyors and serv a n ts at a rate and p rice s e t by the king. (13) That when the lands of cathedral and conventual churches are under the custody of the crow n during a vacancy, the qi A c r itic a l edition of the 1258 a r tic le s is given in C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s ., II, i, 572-585. 112 king's b aliffs and o ffic e r s should not em b ezzle the goods and com m it great w aste upon the e s ta te s . The ordinary sh a ll excom m unicate such sa c r ile g io u s p erson s until they have m ade sa tisfa ctio n . (14) That bishops sum m oned b efore com m on cou rts are not allow ed to attend by their p ro cto rs. (15) That p rela tes are forced to appear in the k in g's courts to show by what right or authority they hold their lib e r tie s and p r iv ile g e s. (16) That beq u ests to the Church from laity are not to be checked by the k in g's co u r ts. (17) That the king and noblem en com p el e c c le s ia s tic a l ! p erson s to do su it and s e r v ic e to their lo rd 's court and that churchm en are disturbed b ecau se they cannot show o rig in a l c h a r te r s. i (18) That the ordinary is hindered in the d isp osal of the goods of in testate p e r so n s. 32 I At this m eeting in 1258, in con trast to the sim ila r m eetin g I in 1257, the archbishop and the p rela tes not only urged the cle rg y to j s e e that the p rovision s w ere upheld by sp iritu a l c en su r es but with | i th ese p rovision s went a sen ten ce of excom m unication that w as pro nounced, ip so fa c to , upon a ll the v io la to rs of the p ro v isio n s, even 33 if they w ere governm ental o ffic ia ls under ord ers from the king. There is som e confusion over the con clu sion s of this synod at M erton- W estm in ster in 1258 although it would seem that th ese a rticu li with their attendant excom m unication w ere confirm ed in the la st days of 32 C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s ., II, i, 572ff. 33ibid. F or the sp e c ia l em p h esis upon the royal o ffic ia ls, s e e N os. 2, 3,11,17,18, 20. The problem s of e c c le s ia s tic a l reform can be se e n in the storm y rela tio n s at this tim e betw een the archbishop and the king over royal appointm ents to e c c le s ia s tic a l p referm en ts. Cf. C al. of Patent R o lls, Henry III, 1258-1266, pp. 5 0 ,7 4 ,1 3 3 . 113 the m eetin g with the stipulation that, if expedient, they could be rev ise d la te r . A few days after the convocation called by the archbishop at M erton -W estm in ster, the scheduled parliam ent m et at Oxford (June 34 9, 1258) and continued in term itten tly until August 4, 1258. Although we have a long s e r ie s of docum ents dealing with this s e r ie s of m eetin gs, it is hard to know exactly how and when the even ts hap- 35 pened. The evid en ce m akes c le a r , how ever, that the assem b led nob les, who cam e arm ed to the parliam ent, took an oath binding i th em selv es to the e a r lie r com p osition betw een the sm a lle r group of barons and the k i n g . 3 ® In the w ords of F . M. P ow icke, "the little j group of con fed erates w as turned, at Oxford, into a sw orn association! 0 1 7 j of the whole baronial body. " D uring th ese m eetin gs, the a ssem b led j I barons p resen ted a s e r ie s of com p lain ts, sim ila r to the gravam ina of the c l e r g y . 3® To the annalist of Burton, the m agnates w ere one with! T his study is follow ing the advice of F .M . Pow icke: "it is sa fe r to regard the period betw een May 2 and August 4 as a w h o le ." F .M . P ow icke, "Some O bservations on the B aronial Council (1258- 1260) and the P ro v isio n s of W estm in ster, " E ssa y s in M edieval H istory p resen ted to Thom as F red erick Tout (M anchester, 1925), p. l2o. ; 3®"In r ea lity , we cannot be su re what exactly happened at O xford." F .M . P ow icke, E ssa y s p resen ted to T .F . Tout, p. 120. We have an intriguing p erson al tetter w ritten by an ey ew itn ess but it does not give all the inform ation we need for a com p lete picture. Ann. Mon. (B urton),I, 443-446. 3®Ibid., I, 447-448. T here is no evid en ce that the king took another oath at this tim e. It would seem that h is e a r lie r oath w as s till binding. 37 F .M . Pow icke, The Thirteenth C entury, p. 140. 3**Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 439-443. 114 the cle rg y , in urging a reform ation of the k i n g d o m . E nlarging upon the p ro v isio n s of the e a r lie r group of nob les, those now a ssem b led at Oxford agreed to a s e r ie s of p rovision s en tailing a reform of lo c a l ju stice, the electio n of the cou n cil of tw enty- four (tw elve by the king and tw elve by the m agnates) with a sub com m ittee of four to e le c t a new Grand C ouncil, another com m ittee of tw elve to rep resen t the whole com m unity alongside this new Grand Council and another com m ittee to take into con sid eration the finan cial 40 i aid to the king. Along with th ese co m m ittees went a s e r ie s of p rovision s d elin eating e c c le s ia s tic a l reform , the o ffice of the ch ief ju stice, the tre a su re r, the exchequer, the ch an cellor, the ju sticiary and b a iliffs, the household of the king and queen, sh e r iffs, e sc h e a t- i o r s, the exchange at London, the recep tion s for the king and the queen i and fin ally, p rovision s dealing with parliam en t. The P ro v isio n s of | 39Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 438. ^Qlb id ., I, 446-447, 4 4 9 -4 5 0 . It would go beyond the scope of this paper to en ter into the sch o la rly argum ents over such term s as "community" and "com m unity of the r e a lm ." It is in terestin g to note, how ever, that those who fram ed the P ro v isio n s of Oxford se t up a supplem ental com m ittee of tw elve to w ork with the Grand Council of fifteen . In the P ro v isio n s, the com m ittee is d escrib ed : "T hese are the tw elve who have been elected by the b aron s, on behalf of the whole com m unity of the land, to co n sid er com m on needs along with the king's cou n cil at the three annual p a r lia m e n ts ..." Ibid. The whole com m unity in this regard probably m eant a ll those w hose righ ts w ere touched by any act relevan t to the com m on needs of the land. It would be dangerous to be m ore sp e c ific . F or a recen t study of this w hole field of debate, s e e the a r tic le s in the sp e c ia l study, M ediaeval R epresen tation in Theory and P r a c tic e , Speculum , XIX (16S4), No. 2 , P art 2. The definition given above has been influenced by the thinking of G aines P ost, Ib id ., p. 431. 115 Oxford ended with a rea ssig n m en t of the principal c a stle s of the king. 41 Som etim e during this period, June-A ugust 1258, the council of tw enty-four m et and through an e le c to r a l com m ittee of four, ful filled their functions of ele ctin g a new Grand C ouncil for the king. Although we do not have any record of the participation of A rchbishop B oniface in th ese proceed in gs up to th is tim e, he is now elected as 42 the titular head of this new Grand C ouncil. 43 E ven though the view is stren uou sly opposed, one cannot I help but assu m e an active p olitical participation of the archbishop a n d ; 4*Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 45 0 -4 5 3 . 42lb id ., I, 449. We cannot te ll who actu ally took the initiative! in the m eetin gs of the Grand C ouncil of fifteen . The ju sticia r, no j doubt, did m uch of the w ork but one cannot d ism iss the im portant j ro le played eith er form ally or inform ally by the archbishop in th ese I p roceed in gs. 43 R .F . T reharne takes a com p letely different view of Arch bishop B oniface and his rela tio n s to E n glish p o litic s. Robert G ro sse te ste is the hero of the E n glish Church. Boniface of Savoy is its v illa in . During this tim e, accord in g to T reharne, Boniface isola ted the Church from p o litic s. "From the m om ent G r o sse te ste 's influence in p o litics is sharp ly cut down, the prim ate ^Boniface J assu m ed h is rightful lead ersh ip , and the path of the clerg y in E nglish p o litics diverged rapidly from the lin e indicated by G r o sse te ste . It led straigh t to isolation and im p o te n c e .. . H enceforth barons and cle rg y go their sep arate w ays for as long as B oniface guides the policy of the C h u rch .. . the c le r g y .. . are not allow ed to join fo rc es with the b a r o n s .. . when at la st the c r is e s broke in M arch 1258, the clerg y sim p ly dropped out of the picture altogeth er, and did not, sa v e for a sin g le im portant o cca sio n in the sum m er of 1260 Csic J, enter it again until B oniface had fled into e x ile before the r isin g o? the rev olution in June 1263 Csic 3, and the lead ersh ip of the E n glish Church had once m ore fallen into E n glish hands." R .F . T reharne, T rans actions of the Royal H isto rica l Society, XXV (1943), 58. See a lso tt .F . T reharne, The P erso n a l ftuie of Henry III and the A im s of the B aronial R eform ers of 1258, " H istory, XVI (1931-1932), 339. the E nglish Church in th ese p roceed in gs. In the w ords of G .B . | Flahiff: "What is noted . . . is that during this period of com plaints n44 j and grievan ces the Church show ed h e r s e lf at one w ith the nation. | Although the king found two churchm en w illin g to se r v e on h is group i ; of tw elve for the com m ittee of tw enty-four (the bishop of London, F ulk B a sset, and the b ish o p -e lec t of W inchester, A ylm er de L usignan), the m ajority of the p rela tes sid ed with the baronial 45 I m ovem ent. The new Grand C ouncil was drawn for the m o st part (excluding p o ssib ly John M ansel, P eter of Savoy and the e a rl of W arwick) from those barons and churchm en who had g riev a n ces w ith the king; the archbishop, the bishop of W orch ester, the e a r ls of ; L e ic e s te r , G lou cester, N orfolk, Aum ale and H ereford, John fitz G eoffrey, P eter de M ontfort, R ichard G ray, R oger M ortim er and 46 Jam es of A ndley. With the d isin tegration o f the com m ittee o f tw enty-four, it is this Grand C ouncil of fifteen , along with its attendant com m ittee of 4 4 G .B . F lah iff, M ediaeval Studies, VI (1944), 296. ' 4 ^Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 447. The annals of Burton give only elev en nam es fo r the king's group of tw elve. This has led so m e ! sch o la rs to jump to the unwarranted con clu sion that A rchbishop j B oniface w as nam ed to this royal com m ittee and that h is nam e has j inadvertently fa llen o ff the lis t . C f. R .F . T reharne, The B aronial ; P lan of R eform , p. 67 and Jam es H. R am say, The Dawn of the j Constitution (Oxford, 1908), p. 170. As the archbishop, b ecau se of ! the im portance of h is office, is alw ays at the top of every lis t that ’ includes him , it would be strange that h is nam e would have fa llen off ; the lis t. The Patent R olls include the e a r l of G lou cester a s one of i the royal tw elve. C al. o f Patent R o lls, H enry III, 1247-1258, p. 637. I s e e no rea so n to d is m is s this a s an im p o ssib ility . C f. R. F . j T reharne, The B aronial Plan of R eform , p. 67. 4^Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 449. 117 tw elve rep resen tin g the "com m unity" that would head up the reform in g 47 m ovem ent for another two y e a r s. On the b a sis of the arch bish op's whole involvem ent in r e s is t ing the king and heading up the m ovem ent of e c c le s ia s tic a l reform , it would seem quite in keeping that he now took an active part in the new AQ p o litica l reform ation . The P ro v isio n s of Oxford had p rom ised to do that w hich the king had refu sed to do; to act on the griev a n ces of the E n glish Church: It should be rem em b ered that the state of the H oly Church is to be am ended by the tw enty-four ch osen to reform the sta te of the kingdom of England . . . at what tim e and place they think b est, according to the pow ers that they hold by w rit of the king of E n g l a n d . 49 47 It is hard to know exactly what happened to the council of tw enty-four. Under the term s of the p rovision s of Oxford it m ay have been only an ad hoc com m ittee w hose ch ief function w as to e le c t the ; Grand C ouncil of fifteen . With this done, it disbanded. If it w as a j perm anent co m m ittee, it could not have functioned as su ch after the flight of many of the royal participants (the king's P oitevin r e la tiv e s). A fter the M ay-A ugust m eetin gs, there is no m ore r efer e n c e to the com m ittee of tw enty-four. 48 Again, this is in d irect opposition to the view s of R .F . T reharne. He p ictu res A rchbishop B oniface as p o litica lly a ro y a list who had nothing to do with the p o litica l reform in g m ovem ent and who alw ays sid ed w ith the king. "In the la st r e so r t he [[Boniface ] w as ready to defend the Church against royal a g g r essio n on m atters of e c c le s ia s tic a l p riv ileg e, but he would never w illin gly allow the Church to join w ith the baronage in forcin g upon the king a national program m e of p o litica l reform in the in te r e sts of the com m on good." R .F . T reharne, The B aronial Plan of R eform , p. 58. A ccording to T reharne, this is e sp e c ia lly true in regard to the archbishop's p artic ipation on the Grand Council of fifteen , w here the "alien archbishop. . . 1 w as one of the k in g's m en am ong the f ifte e n .. . [ w h o 3 w as m ore or le s s on h is sid e, w illin g to a s s is t in undoing much of the work of reform of the la st two y e a r s. " Ib id ., pp. 8 4 -8 5 ,2 4 2 . 49Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 448. 118 Although the com m ittee of tw enty-four had disin tegrated , this concern w as probably s till in the mind of the archbishop as he m et with the others on the new Grand C ouncil. On August 4, 1258, the king form ally substituted the Grand C ouncil of fifteen fo r the com m ittee of tw enty-four as the body which w as to work out the reform in g . . 50 p ro v isio n s. In O ctober 1258, p r e sse d on by the com plaints of the "com m unitas b a ch eleria e, the Grand Council of fifteen m et with the king in parliam ent and form ally w itn essed a royal ch arter con firm in g the Grand Council.®^ A rchbishop B oniface w as the fir s t to w itn ess this docum ent follow ed by the other m em b ers of the Grand Council plus Hugh D isp en ser. At the C ouncil of W estm in ster in M arch 1259, w here further p rovision s dealing with lo c a l judicial problem s w ere agreed upon, it w as the archbishop, who, along with h is suffragan bish op s, pro nounced a sen ten ce of excom m unication on a ll those who would go C O against the p ro v isio n s. One of the p rovision s stipulated that when 5 0 C al. of Patent R olls. H enry III, 1247-1258, p. 644. ^ T h is se e m s to be the m ost adequate explanation for this stran ge s e r ie s of com p lain ts. Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 471-487. 52 The ch arter ends with the w ords: Know that we w ill and grant that that which our Council . . . has done or sh a ll d o .. . sh a ll be . . . estab lish ed fo rev er. . . . If any p erson . . . go against th is, we w ill com m and our faithful and loyal su b jects that they hold them as our m ortal e n e m ie s." Ib id ., I, 4 5 5 -4 5 6 . ^ C o n c ilia , W ilkins, e d ., I, 172-173. One should note the sim ila r ity betw een th ese p rovision s and the com plaints of the Church. Cf. De Antiquis Legibus L iber, C hronica, M aiorum et V icecom itum Londoniarum , T. Stapleton, ed. (London. 1846}. p. 42. 119 the king w as out of the country, the arch bish ops, the bishop of W orch ester, the e a r l m a rsh a ll, the e a rl of W arwick and the 54 ju sticia ry would "treat of the great needs of the r e a lm ." With the p ro v isio n s of W estm in ster, a new change in c ir cu m stan ces had co m e about. In the w ords of B e rtie W ilkinson: { \ "The P ro v isio n s of W estm in ster . . . ushered in a new and s t ill m ore j c r itic a l and dangerous phase . . . the Council had by now openly en croached far on the pow er of the king, and had settled down in d efin itely to the task of con trollin g the governm ent in the in te r e sts of 55 r e fo r m ." It m ay be se r io u sly questioned w hether those on the ^ Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 478. ®®Bertie W ilkinson, Studies in the C onstitutional H istory of j the T hirteenth and F ourteentlT & enturies, Second edition (M anchester, j 1952), pp. 191-192. This study would go beyond its stated purpose, that j is, to s e e the relation sh ip of A rchbishop B oniface of Savoy to E n glish i p o litic s, if it went into the w eigh tier p o litica l and constitutional \ problem s of the B aronial M ovem ent of 1258-1262. One is e sse n tia lly faced w ith three d ifferen t view s: (I) the view of R .F . Treharne who s e e s the period as a tim e of constitutional p r o g r ess under the b r il liant lea d ersh ip and c le a r headed p rin cip les of Simon de M ontfort, (2) the view of F . M. Pow icke who s e e s it not as a tim e of program s and p rin cip les but e sse n tia lly a tim e of p er so n a litie s with Simon de M ontfort as a "dark force" urged on by a p a ssio n for ju stice and (3) the recen t view of B ertie W ilkinson who s e e s the period dom inated not by M ontfort or h is con flict w ith the king but by the em ergin g power of the C ouncil of fifteen . It w as the Council that w as the force during this tim e of baronial opposition. Both the king and Sim on felt thwarted by the Council; the king, b ecau se it w as taking over execu tive pow er, and Sim on, b eca u se it w as bound by p rovision s to the king and thus could not be tru ely revolutionary. Under th ese con flictin g p r e ssu r e s, the Council w as torn apart thus lead in g to the open h o stilitie s of the y e a rs 1263-1265. See W ilkinson's chapter, The C ouncil of F ifteen , 1258-1265, " jStudies in the C onstitutional H istory of the T hirteenth and F ourteenth C en tu ries, pp. 180-1967 In this third view , which I b eliev e to be the m ost p rom isin g. A rch bishop B on iface, a s titular head of the Council of fifteen , w as c lo s e ly involved in the reform in g m ovem ent of th ese troubled y e a r s . 120 Grand C ouncil r ea liz ed that this had happened. W hether co n scio u sly or un con sciously, how ever, the nobles and the p rela tes had brought about a period of p o litica l confrontation with the king. One thing, how ever, w as lacking in this period betw een M arch 1258 and M arch 1259. The grievan ces of the E n glish Church, the m ain in te re st of A rchbishop B oniface, w ere s t ill left unheeded and unansw ered. If the period betw een M arch 1258 and M arch 1259 w as a period of p o litica l confrontation, the next three y ea rs w as going to be a con flictin g period containing both a r e a sse r tio n of royal pow er and another confrontation, this tim e e c c le s ia s tic a l rather than p o litica l. A rchbishop B oniface is to be c lo se ly involved in both of th ese in ter related m ovem en ts. ! i In the latter part of 1259, the new governm ental arrangem ent j seem ed to be w orking sm oothly. England w as ruled by a king. H er ! king had, how ever, delegated, by a ssen tin g to a s e r ie s of p rovision s, i som e o f h is pow er to a Grand Council of fifteen who w as a ss is te d by 56 a com m ittee of tw elve rep resen tin g the "com m un ity." On the su rfa ce, the relation sh ip of King Henry to this Grand Council and its attendant com m ittee, w as harm onious. The C ouncil functioned in its ; ad m in istrative capacity.®^ W hile the king w as in F ran ce, from late in 56 It is left to the constitutional and p o litica l h isto ria n s to thrash out the problem ; how m uch pow er w as r e a lly delegated? ®^See the four docum ents signed by the fifteen m em b ers of the Grand C ouncil during July 1259. T reaty R o lls, P ie r r e C haplais. ed. (London, 1955), I, 41-52. -------- ----------- 121 1259 to A pril 1260, a cou n cil o f regency, patterned c lo s e ly sifter the p ro v isio n s govern in g the k in g's a b sen ce, w as h is cu stod ian in England. It w as co m p rised of A rchbishop B oniface and four other m em b ers of the Grand C ouncil, the ju stic ia r, and P h ilip B a sse t, a m em b er of the co m m ittee of tw elv e. In July 1259, the arch bish op sum m oned an e c c le s ia s tic a l | cou n cil at L am beth. The only evid en ce of this m eetin g is a copy of j l I its su m m on s. In the sum m ons the only b u sin e ss to be under co n - ! | sid era tio n w as the continual fin a n cia l c r is e s w ith the papacy and the j I papal c e n su r e s on the E n g lish c le r g y to c o lle c t the tenth.®® N one of i the m atters of Church lib erty and the con flict w ith the king w ere on the agenda. i The sm ooth w orking arran gem en t betw een king and cou n cil j for the governance of England w as s e v e r e ly shaken at the beginning of ! the y ea r 1260 by the return of Sim on de Montfort.®® B eca u se o f ill health, the u n settled arb itration w ith the king of F ran ce and another u p risin g by L lyw elyn in W ales, the king w rote to h is reg en cy cou n cil 60 to defer the usual F eb ru ary (C andlem as) p arliam en t. The cou n cil ®®Anon., F lo r e s H istoriaru m , III, 3 5 3 -3 5 4 . ®®There is m uch to com m end the rem ark of F . M. Pow icke: "Both Sim on and the E n glish would have been happier and m ore fo r tunate if he had withdraw n from the sc en e in 1259. " F . M. P ow icke, King H enry III. p. 409. T h is drew the ire of R .F . T reh arn e. It w as Sim on ae M ontfort who, in reg a rd to the ev en ts of 1258-1265, "gave them m ean ing and touched them w ith g r e a tn e ss ." R .F . T reh arn e "The P erso n a l R ole o f Sim on de M ontfort in the P eriod of B aronial R eform and R eb ellion , 1258-1265, " P ro ceed in g s of the B r itish A cadem y, XL (1954), 75-102. ®°R oyal L e tte r s, S h irley, e d ., II, 148-150. 122 w as to take m ea su res to r e lie v e the b eseig ed royal c a stle s in W ales and to s e e to it that the M arches w ere p rotected . Sim on de M ontfort objected stren u ou sly to this postponem ent. He ca lled into q iestion the right of the king to suspend the p rovision s that stipulated the ca llin g of three parliam ents a y e a r . The king rep lied in polite le tte r s to the archbishop and the other m em b ers of the regen cy 61 council to continue to postpone the parliam ent. j The evid en ce does not te ll us how the m em b ers of the cou ncil | reacted to this d isagreem en t. Although they abided by the w ish es of | the king and tem p orarily postponed the parliam ent, could they not have I i been inclined to a g ree with Sim on de M ontfort? T here is a p o ssib ility | that the council sp lit on the issu e but th ere is no evid en ce that it did. 62 ! E arl Sim on, p ossib ly with P rin ce Edward, started to c o lle c t an arm ed follow in g. In M arch 1260, the king, sending s e c r e t ord ers throughout England, did the sam e thing. In a s e r ie s of le tte r s to A rchbishop B oniface, the archbishop of York, the c itiz e n s of London and York and the barons of the Cinque ports, the king review ed the go situation and pleaded with them to be loyal and obey the ju sticia r. Again the evid en ce does not te ll us whether the recip ien ts of the le tte r w ere sid in g w ith Sim on or with the king on this issu e . This 61Royal L e tte rs, Shirley, e d ., II, 153-155. ! go The r o le of P rin ce Edward, a boy in his late teen s, is difficult to e sta b lish in this arm ed confrontation of 1260. Thom as W ykes picks up the rum or that he w as m aking a bid for the throne. Ann. Mon. (Chronicon Thomae W ykes), IV, 123. 6 3C lose R olls, Henry III. 1259-1261, pp. 253-254. 123 may have been the w orry of the king, thus the le tte r s urging their support. At le a st the ju sticia r, the e a rl o f G lou cester and P hilip B a sse t, clo sed the city of London to Sim on, P rin ce Edward and their arm ed follow ing and the u p risin g ended in a sta lem a te. Through the m ediation of A rchbishop B oniface and R ichard o f Cornw all, King Henry consented to r e c e iv e the su b m issio n of P rin ce E dw ard.6^ I C harges quickly ensued betw een the king and the e a rl of L e ic e s te r . On the in siste n c e of Simon de M ontfort, the king agreed I i to subm it the dispute to an arbitration board m ade up o f A rchbishop B oniface and fiv e of h is suffragan bishops.®® One would assu m e that Sim on b elieved the archbishop and his su ffragan s to be eith er im - ! partial or inclined to h is sid e . In the reco rd of the tr ia l, the king presen ted h is ch arges and the e a r l responded. The archbishop and his suffragans threw out the ch arges: "In nullo contra ipsum 66 p ro ficere p otu eru n t." At this juncture, in the w ords of F .M . P ow icke, "unity w as ®^Anon., "Annales L ondon iensis, " C h ron icles of the R eigns of Edward I and Edward II, W illiam Stubbs, ed . (London, 1882),I, 55. ®®E.F. Jacob, "A P rop osal for A rbitration betw een Sim on de M ontfort and H enry III in 1260, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , XXXVII (1922), 8 0 -82. If, as F .M . Pow icke b e lie v e s, the docum ent in Appendix 37 of C h arles Bem ont, Sim on de M ontfort (P a ris, 1884) is a reco rd of the in q u iry of the archbishop and h is fiv e suffragan s, it would seem to be m ore a tria l with definite p o litica l ch a rg es rather than just an attem pt for arbitration . C harles B em ont h im se lf m akes the apt com m ent that the king's a ccu sation s against Sim on could have been m ade against m ost of the m em b ers of the Grand Council of fifteen . C h arles Bem ont, Sim on de M ontfort, New edition, E .F . Jacob, ed. (Oxford, 1930), p. lffST ^ A n n . Mon. (Duns tab ilia ), III, 215. 124 r e s t o r e d .. . Henry celeb rated St. Edwardfs day in an atm osp here c * 7 which seem ed to breath harm ony and gen eral g o o d w ill." The Grand C ouncil of fifteen s till functioned and when Hugh Bigod did not se e k r ee le ctio n as ju sticia ry , fiv e baronial e le c to r s elected Hugh le D esp en ser, another partisan of the p rovision s, as ju stic ia r. By the end of 1260, how ever, the effectiv e rule of the Grand C ouncil, through m any c ircu m sta n ces, cam e to an end. A fter an exhaustive study o f the reason s for this d em ise, for so m e of j which the C ouncil m ust take fu ll resp o n sib ility , R .F . Treharne could w rite: "The la s t act of the C ouncil instituted by the P arliam ent of Oxford w as issu ed in D ecem ber 28, 1260, and the ru le of the j | P ro v isio n a l governm ent cam e to an end. At a parliam ent in M arch of the next y ea r, King Henry j d eclared h is intention of seek in g papal absolution from h is oath to go o b serv e the p ro v isio n s. Along w ith this declaration w ent a lis t of com plaints against the Grand Council of fifteen and a req u est to 7fi subm it the kin g's c a se against the C ouncil to arbitration. Although Pow icke goes on to say: "The reality w as very much d ifferent. Sim on had broken the com m unity of the b aron s. The king had got h is w ay." F .M . P ow icke, The T hirteenth Century, p. 161. ® 8r . F . T reharne, The B aronial Plan of R eform , p. 250. ®^Anon., F lo r e s H istoriaru m , H, 46 2 -4 6 3 . ^® E.F. Jacob, "The C om plaints of H enry III again st the B aronial C ouncil in 1261, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , XLI (1926), 559- 571. In b rief, the ch arges w ere that the Council had taken the govern m ent out of the king's hands, it w as ruling without the kin g's p erson al w ish es and it had failed to introduce the p rom ised r efo rm s. See a lso , N. Denholm -Y oung, "Docum ents of the B arons' W ars, " E nglish H isto rica l R eview , XLVIH (1933), 558-575. 125 this arbitration w as going to be delayed, King H enry r ec eiv ed prom pt action in regard to papal absolution. A m onth la te r , the king's proctor, John M ansel (the younger ? ), had obtained from Pope A lexander IV, a bull r e le a sin g Henry from a ll oaths and obligation s 71 im posed on him by h is m agn ates. The bull gave Henry fu ll ab solu tion except for one stipulation: We, th erefore, being w illin g to provide for your dignity in this m atter, with our ap ostolic authority, in the plentitude of our pow er, from this tim e forw ard s, en tirely ab solve you from your oath. If, how ever, there should be contained in th ese statu tes and ordinances anything concerning the favors and advantage of p r e la te s, ch u rch es, and e c c le s ia s tic a l p erso n s, we do not intend to m ake such void, or in any way rela x the said oath in that r e sp e c t. L et no so rt of p erson , th erefore, infringe this ch arter of our absolution . . . if . . . j any one should p resum e to attem pt it, le t him know that he w ill incur the wrath of A lm ighty God and of the b le sse d a p o stles P eter and Paul. t i In b u lls dated A pril 29 and May 7, 1261, the pope in stru cted ! i i A rchbishop B on iface, the bishop of N orw ich and John M ansel to j absolve the p rela tes and m agnates from th eir oath to the p rovision s of Oxford and com m anded them to obey the king. 73 it is in terestin g to note that in th ese b u lls, the pope m ust m ake allow ance for the fact 71 F oed era, I, i, 405. R. F . Treharne has recen tly put forth the view that there w as two John M ansels, one a nephew and protege of the oth er. Treharne notes in a 1954 a r tic le that he is w ritin g an a r tic le of the two M an sels. R .F . T reharne, The P roceed in gs of the B r itish A cadem y, XL (1954), 91. This projected study m ay do m uch to c le a r up the relation sh ip of John M ansel the eld er, to A rchbishop B oniface and the whole B aronial M ovem ent. I would tentatively ven ture to su ggest that such a study would show that the eld er M ansel m ay have been m ore inclined during the y e a rs 1260-1261 to sid e with the clerg y and barons in England than we a re lead to b e lie v e . ^ F o e d e r a , I, i, 405. 73Ib id ., I, i, 405-406. 126 that the archbishop and the oth ers m ay th em selv es need to be ab solved: "Ut p rela to s, m agnates ac s e ip so s invicem s i opus fu erit et 74 om nes a lio s, qui ad observandum quaedam statuta . . . fe c e r u n t." Pope A lexander IV o rd ers the archbishop to excom m unicate those that do not abide by the bull and to put their lands under excom m unication. On May 8 , 1261, A rchbishop B oniface ca lled an e c c le s ia s tic a l j ! council for the province of Canterbury at London (later m oving to J 75 ' Lam beth). We do not have extant a sum m ons for this council a s we j have for the m eetin gs of 1257 and 1258. In the m on astic ch ro n icles, the o ste n sib le rea so n is to answ er a papal req u est, brought by a I nuncio, for finan cial aid to help rep u lse the T artar invasion in i Hungary.*^® The Burton ann alist inclu des an e a r lie r le tte r from the 77 pope to the archbishop con cerning this threat to C hristendom . B oniface, how ever, along w ith h is suffragans (including the bishop of N orw ich m entioned in the papal b u lls of absolution), used the o cca sio n to r ev iv e their g riev a n ces against the king and the royal encroachm ents on Church freed om . The C onstitutions of the legate Otto (1237) w ere read along w ith other p rovincial d e c isio n s. This caused an im m ed iate reaction on the part of the king who sen t a ^ F oed era, I, i, 406. ' 75Cont. of G ervase, II, 212-213. A non., F lo r e s H istoriarum , II, 465. The F lo r e s account is confused but s till valuable. The C ouncil is known both as the C ouncil of London and the Council of Lam beth. 7 fi A n on., F lo r e s H istoriaru m , 11,465. We do not know how the p rela tes responded to this appeal. 77Ann. Mon. (Burton), I, 49 5 -4 9 9 . 127 solem n w ritten p rotest to the council by h is clerk , M aster John de H em ingford. On the la st day of the council, the king sent W illiam Bonquer, John M ansel, P e te r of Savoy and even P rin ce Edward to 78 plead h is ca u se, "illuc ven ien s pro r eg e et regno a p p e lla v it." Although the w riter of the continuation of G ervase r e la te s 79 that the C ouncil did not a cco m p lish anything, this m ay pertain to the req u ests of the royal supplicants or to le g isla tio n that included a ll the churchm en p resen t. At the end of the con feren ce, May 13, 1261, A rchbishop B oniface, along with the bishops of London, W orchester, Salisbury and o th ers, published in patent le tte r s the 80 perm anent leg isla tio n or C onstitutions of Lam beth. What is im - | portant about these con stitu tion s is not their points of contention, they are taken over, w ith few additions, from the p rovision s of 1258. J What is im portant is that the gravam ina of the e a r lie r y e a r s has now ; i been m ade into form al leg isla tio n , leg isla tio n that is now aim ed alm ost e x clu siv e ly at the king and the royal o ffic ia ls. Et s i forte dominus rex in su is inhibitionibus v e l subm onitionibus non de d ecim is se t de iure p a tr o n a tu s.. . 78 Cont. of G ervase, II, 213. The C onstitutions of Otto w ere used probably b ecau se they w ere the only authoritative leg isla tio n and canon law availab le at th is tim e. F rom 1237 to 1261, a ll the leg isla tio n of the E n glish Church had been in the form of inform al gravam ina. C f. Dorothy W illiam son, "Some A sp ects of the L egation of Cardinal Otto in England, 1237-1241, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , LXIV (1949), 145-174. F or the appointm ent of John de H em ingford as the royal proctor, s e e the C al. of Patent R olls, H enry HI, 1258-1266, p. 151. 79 Cont. of G ervase, II, 213. ®°I have used the c r itic a l edition of these constitutions found in C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s ., II, i, 669-684. 128 Et s i dom inus rex v e l a lia quelibet se cu la r is p otestas m onitus super hoc c o m p e te n te r .. . Et s i r ex v el p o testa s a lia se c u la r is contem ptis penis hu iu szn od i.. . Et s i dom inus rex huiusm odi exhortationibus et m onitionibus o b a u d itis.. . Item , s i aliquo evin cente ius patronatus contra alium in foro regio sc rib a t rex e p is c o p o .. . j Et n is i dom inus rex, super h iis m onitus com p eten ter, j r e stitu e r it se u r e stitu i f e c e r i t .. . i If, after m any adm onitions, the king does not relen t in h is p r a c tic e s, as a final m ea su re, the cle rg y are to put their d io c e se s under interdict: Et s i nondum propter hoc infra v ig in ti d ies postm odum attrach iation es et d istr ictio n e s rex v e l p otestas attachians v e l d istrin gen s r ev o ca v erit, sed ob hoc manum contra e c c le sia m aggravaverit, effectu s cum Pharaone durior inter fla g ella penarum , extunc arch iep iscop u s et ep isco p i su as d io c e se s supponant e c c le s ia s tic o interd icto. B oniface and his suffragan s then appealed to the pope for confirm ation 83 of th ese sta tu tes. On the su rfa ce, it would seem that King H enry gave public a ssen t to the archbishop and h is con stitutions guaranteeing Church lib erty . T here se e m s to be no other way of adequately interpreting h is le tte r patent of June 22, 1262, which r eq u ests the tenants of the A rchbishop of Canterbury to grant an aid to B oniface, "who is heavily 81 4 b id ., II, 674. C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s ., II, 669ff. 82, 83 We know this by the counter claim of the king. C lose R olls, H enry III, 1259-1261 (London, 1934), pp. 481-482. 129 burdened w ith d ivers ex p en ses as w e ll in the court of Rom e as e ls e w here for the protection of the lib e r tie s of the Church. S ecretly , how ever, the king, within a month of the Council of Lam beth, sen t off p roctors to the papal cu ria to do what he could to rid h im se lf of the arch bish op’s con stitu tion s. In June, Henry appointed John de H em ingford as h is p roctor, "in the cau se of appeal in the court of Rome betw een the king on the one part and the A rch bishop of Canterbury and h is suffragans on the other, touching ! ord inan ces, con stitutions and statu tes la tely m ade by them in the p rovin cial cou n cil of London, to the prejudice of the king’s right and 85 dignity and the lib e r tie s, law and cu stom s of the r e a lm ." In a lette r w hich se e m s to have accom panied the p roctor, i King Henry la sh e s out at the archbishop and h is constitutions with j its "interm inatione anathem atis auctoritate p red icti c o n c ilii j I observanda ad im m utationem status n o stri corone et dignitatis n o stre, { et ad su bversion em iu r is n o stri et reg n i le g is , lib e r ta tis, et 86 c o n su e tu d in is.. . " He pleads with the pope not to confirm these statu tes: "Non perm ittendo tantam presum ptionem ad vocem p r e - currentium v e l etiam lite r a s dirigentium v e str e au ctoritatis m unim ine con firm ari. "8^ A s e r ie s of undated gravam ina w hich appear to have been 84C al. of Patent R olls, H enry III, 1258-1266, p. 217. 88Ib id ., p. 155. Prynne, R ecord s, II, 983-984. 86C lo se R olls, Henry III, 1259-1261, pp. 481-482. 87Ibid. 130 copied by royal c le r k s twenty y e a r s la ter, during a sim ila r conflict betw een Archbishop Peckham and King Edward 1, rep eat verbatim many o f th ese 1261 con stitu tion s and m ay p o ssib ly be the record of som e o ra l d iscu ssio n s betw een the r ep resen ta tiv es of Archbishop 88 B oniface and the royal c le r k s . As th ese undated gravam ina contain the kingT s rebuttal to each a r tic le (the fir s t docum ent to do this), it is in terestin g to note that the king, through h is r ep resen ta tiv es, would not a ssen t to any of the points r a ise d . During the su m m er of 1261, w hile this diplom acy w as going on at the papal court (a con flict that w ill continue for another y ea r and ; i a half), A rchbishop B oniface does som ething that s e e m s com p letely out of place in this w hole co n tro v ersy . In August 1261, he publishes the papal absolution from the P ro v isio n s of Oxford given him , a s we saw , by Pope A lexander IV and threatens Hugh Bigod with e x co m - ' m unication if he does not abide by the papal bull and give back the 89 c a s tle s of Scarborough and P ick erin g. D O °C ouncils and Synods. Pow icke and Cheney, e d s ., H, i, 687- 692. I have accepted the con clu sion s of C .R . Cheney that they com e out of the 1261 constitutions rath er than out of the 1258 gravam ina. Ib id ., II, i, 666. 89 F oed era, I, i, 4 0 8 -4 0 9 . The situation regarding the c a s tle s m ay be m ore com plex than the sim p le equation; the archbishop rep resen tin g the royal sid e (?) v e r su s Hugh B igod rep resen tin g the baronial sid e (? ). The archbishop h im se lf w as in con flict with the king over som e c a s tle s in England. Som etim e in 1259, the archbishop com plained to the pope that the king held h is c a s tle s of Canterbury and R o ch ester. In January 1261, the pope issu ed a bull m aking public the fact that the king had p rom ised to r e sto r e th ese two c a stle s to the archbishop and had not fu lfilled h is p ro m ise. Strickland, M iscella n ea di Storia Italians, I (1895), 419-420. I cannot accep t Strickland's argum ent that r e v e r se s this w hole situation; the archbishop in this con flict w as rea lly on the sid e of the king and the pope, although 131 On the b a sis of this action, F .M . Pow icke can r ela te that in 1263, "John M ansel . . . and A rchbishop B on iface, the agent of the papal sen ten ce of excom m unication, left England at once to r a lly „90 support for the king. When the action s of B oniface in 1263 are d iscu sse d , w e w ill se r io u sly question P ow ick e's statem en ts that the archbishop le ft in 1263, that he left with John M ansel, and that he left to r a lly support for the king. In one d escrip tion , how ever, P ow icke is righ t. During the sum m er of 1261, in this one instan ce, B on iface w as the "agent of the papal excom m un ication." T his m ust be accepted as fa ct. W hether he did it of h is own d irectin g this bull to the king w as actu ally w ritin g it through the king to the b aron s. Strickland then goes on to conclude: "A break betw een : B oniface and the barons w as inevitab le and the im m ediate ca u se w as the d ecisio n taken by the Council of B arons to entrust the c a s tle s of • the king to a person of their lo y a lty ." Ib id ., p. 119. I can s e e no ju stification for eith er of Strickland’s argum ents; that the papal bull w as not directed to the king or that the baronial control of the c a stle s m ade the archbishop change sid e s in this whole baronial co n tro v ersy . T here is a lso a con flict in 1258 over the custody of the c a stle s of Tunbridge and H aldo. Although B on iface and the e a r l of G lou cester had qu arreled e a r lie r , they had com e to a settlem en t in 1258. At the death o f the ea rl in 1262 (the archbishop perform ed the ob seq u ities), B on iface occupied the e a r l's fo rm er c a s tle s of Tunbridge and Haldo which the e a r l held of the archbishop in Kent. The e a r l's son G ilbert, if we can b eliev e the m onastic account, went to F ran ce to a sk the king to use h is pow er to red eem th ese two c a s tle s . Cont. of G ervase, II, 207,216. Cf. R. F . T reharne, The B aronial P lan of Reform , ppT~284- 285. The king, having already com m itted a ll of the e a r l's c a s tle s to one of his own fo llo w ers (not the archbishop), refu sed the b oy's req u est. It is hard to put th ese in tern ecin e squabbles into the la rg er picture of the baronial rev o lt. Did the archbishop occupy th ese c a stle s only out of p erson al r ea so n s, that is , h is own ju risd iction al rig h ts, or w as it part of the la rg er m ovem ent begun by the m agnates, barons and cle rg y a lik e, to abide by the P ro v isio n s of Oxford and to con trol a certa in amount of the royal c a s tle s ? The m onastic accounts give no answ er to this question. 90F .M . P ow icke, The T hirteenth Century, p. 175. 132 volition and not out of fea r of papal c en su res is not known. It m ay have been that during the sum m er of 1261, even w hile they w ere in heated con flict at the papal court, the king and the archbishop, along with others of the reform m ovem ent, had reached som e so rt of p o litica l co m p ro m ise. And again, the bull of absolution granted by A lexander IV, as we saw , had e x p r e ssly exem pted anything that had to do with the lib erty of the Church. It m ight a lso have been that the archbishop, now that the reform in g m ovem ent and the Grand Council of fifteen w ere things of the past, saw no other rec o u r se but to abide | by the papal bull. T his w as the height of H enry's r e a sse r tio n of | p o litica l pow er. In the le tte r cited above, in w hich Henry com p lain s j 1 to the pope about the archbishop, he goes on to say how the com m unity of England w as now on h is sid e, he had p o sse ssio n of the Tow er, i D over and m o st of h is c a s tle s and that he could face with confidence | I a few m alignants: Cum c e te r is c a str is regn i quasi u n iv ersis in pace tenentes concurrente com m unitatis a ssen su ex cep tis quibusdam m a liv o les quorum m ach in acion es callid os D eo propicio cum v e str e p atern itatis p resid io in b rev i sp eram u s e lid e re fo r tio r e s. 91 C lo se R olls, H enry III, 1259-1261, p. 482. We are a lso not su re of the relation sh ip of the fo rm er ju sticia r, Hugh Bigod, to the reform m ovem ent in the y ea rs 1260-1261. He had e a r lie r resig n ed or was d ism isse d as ju sticia r by the Grand C ouncil of fifteen and Hugh D esp en ser, elected by the m agnates, w as put in h is p lace. Did Bigod hold the two c a stle s becau se he opposed the king or b ecau se he opposed the group of m agnates who had m ade up the Grand Council? It is in terestin g to note that the archbishop w aited four m onths to put the papal absolution into effect and this at a tim e when King H enry w as seek in g the new pope to again grant an absolution b ecau se A lexander IV had died and h is older absolution w as now of no effect. ; 133 If th ere w as a job of reform ation to be done, the archbishop could not do it alone. The obvious con clu sion to this diplom atic stru ggle betw een the king and the archbishop at the papal cu ria se e m s to be a papal le tte r dated January 20, 1263. In this le tte r , the new pope, Urban IV, although g en erally approving of the C onstitutions of Lam beth and the w ork done by B oniface for e c c le s ia s tic a l lib erty , w ill not 92 confirm them , how ever, out of d eferen ce to the kin g's w ish es. Although the pope does not m ention it, one would hasten to add, out i ■ | of d eferen ce to the ex trem ely able diplom atic work done by the king's i p roctors at the papal court. Not so obvious is the diplom atic coup which the king and h is j p roctors w ere in the p r o c e ss of su c c e ssfu lly bringing to fruition. ! When Pope A lexander IV died ea rly in 1261, King Henry felt that he m ust have the new pope confirm or enlarge the absolution given him 93 by the late pope. Som ew here in the negotiation s, the req u est for a i renew ed absolution w as linked w ith the issu e of the archbishop's 1 con stitutions which w ere "to the prejudice of the kin g's right and i 0 4 ; dignity and the lib e r tie s, law s and cu stom s of the r e a lm . j : I In a royal le tte r w ritten to the new pope introducing the j I ! ; king's p ro cto rs, H enry r e la te s that they w ill explain h is rep ly to ; I the com plaints m ade against him by the archbishop of Canterbury and 92F oed era, I, i, 424. 93I b id ., I, i, 414. 94C al. of Patent R olls, Henry III, 1258-1266, p. 217. 134 h is suffragans and w ill a lso show how certain statu tes had been m ade in prejudice to the righ ts of the Crown, and in his nam e they w ill ask 95 H is H olin ess to annul th ese statu tes and p ro v isio n s. In a letter to the king, dated Septem ber 1261, John de H em ingford, one of the royal p roctors, te lls how he and the other p roctors had had three in terview s with the new pope and had ra ised the issu e of the arch b ish o p ^ r esista n ce : "Supplicavi nom ine v e str o ut literam ex ecu t- o r ia m jam gro ssa ta m dirigendam domino C antuariensi super Q fi absolutione. In the end, H em ingford’s diplom acy w as s u c c e s s fu l. The confirm ation of the Council of London w as prevented. Sciat v e stra dom inatio quod confirm atio c o n c ilii L ondoniensis . . . ansact . . . cur Q aD Cj D am e st im pedita, nec unquam confirm abuntur constitu tion es illiu s c o n c ilii contrsLVOs, quamdiu habetis unum contradictorem in c u r ia .. . 97 L ater in January 1262, form al le tte r s of req u est w ere sen t by King Henry to Pope Urban IV and the card in als asking them to exem pt him from h is oath to " ob serve certain ordinances preju dicial 98 to the royal pow er. And in this sam e month, Henry appointed a new se t of p roctors: "To show the griev a n ces done to the king and 95C al. of Patent R olls. H enry III. 1258-1266. p. 107. 96R oyal L e tte rs, Shirley, e d ., II, 189-191. There is an ed ito ria l m ix-up in a recen t c o llectio n of diplom atic docum ents w here this sam e le tte r is edited and attributed not to H em ingford, w ritten to the king, but from the king, w ritten to H em ingford. I b eliev e this is in e r r o r . D iplom atic D ocum ents, P ie r r e C haplais, ed. (London, 1946), I, 331. The underlining of "jam" is attributed by Chaplais to the text itse lf. 97Royal L e tte rs, Shirley, e d ., II, 191. " F o e d e r a , I, i, 414. 135 the realm by the archbishop of C anterbury and h is suffragans and to obtain the revocation of certa in statu tes issu ed by them to the 99 prejudice of the king and the C row n ." Although there is som e d isagreem en t am ong the p roctors as to who should get the c re d it for the s u c c e s s , the pope bends to the k in g!s w ish e s. In F eb ru ary, h is proctor R oger L ovel w rote to the king sayin g that John M ansel had obtained the pope's consent to r e le a s e H enry from his o b lig a tio n s.^ ^ In a la ter le tte r , L ovel h im - 101 s e lf takes cred it for this dip lom acy. He had obtained the b est le tte r s of revocation that the king could ev er hope for. The e a r lie r le tte r s of revocation issu ed by A lexander IV had contained unfortunate additions in favor of the p r e la te s. The new le tte r s did away with th ese additions: P ra eterea se r e n ita ti r eg ia e patefiat, quod lite ra e quas m a g istri A rlotus et Rostandus super revocation e hujusm odi et statu s v e str a e m agnitudinis reform ation e im petrarunt, quia quaedam additiones et clau su lae in favorem procerum et baronum ac totius regn i A ngliae praelatorum ac d ep ression em v estra e celsitu d in is in eisd em extiterunt in ser ta e, m inus bene im petratae fuerunt, quamquam ad im petrationem ipsarum totis virib u s iaborarint, quemadmodum in lite r is fe lic is 99C al. of Patent R o lls, H enry HI, 1258-1266, p. 197. 100Royal L e tte r s, S h irley, e d ., II, 204-206. F o r an explan ation of the episod e surrounding th ese diplom atic le tte r s and the papal bull o f F ebruary 25, 1262, s e e R .F . T reharne, The B aronial P lan of R eform , pp. 27 6 -2 7 9 . T here is a stron g p o ssib ility that the p roctors of the archbishop and the " secret" p roctors of a certain earl" (Ib id .) worked in conjunction, although u n su ccessfu lly , to b lock the papal absolution. 101Royal L e tte rs, S h irley, e d ., II, 207-209. 136 record ation is dom ini A lexandri papae IV. v e str a se re n ita s v id ere poterit plenius con tin eri. *02 On F ebruary 25, 1262, Pope Urban IV issu ed a bull d irectin g the archbishop of C anterbury, the bishop o f N orw ich and John M ansel to ab solve the king and instructed the archbishop to d eclare the king and queen and the ro y a l p rin ces freed from any oaths they had taken. The pope further in stru cts the archbishop that the nobles and p r e la te s w ere to be held to th eir oaths of fid elity and w ere to be told that the p r o m ise s that bound them to any statute or ordinance against the dignity of the Crown or in prejudice to its rig h ts w ere null and void .10 3 At the beginning of the bull the pope sin g le s out the archbishop a s h im - j s e lf in need of absolution: "Ac v o s ip so s invicem , s i opus e x iste r e t & a lio s vos om n es, v e l duo v estra m , aut tu, fra ter arch iep iscop e so lu s ejusdem p r a e d e c e sso r is v ic e , ac de ip siu s plenitudine p o testa tis, a i ; juram ento praedicto p rorsu s a b s o lv e r e .. . f|104 L ater in the bull, the pope com m ands the archbishop to d isso lv e any agreem en ts "nec j praetextu constitutionum et ordinationem praedictarum , aliquatenus j im pedientes e u n d em .. . The s u c c e s s of the king w as com p lete. The attem pts for < j e c c le s ia s tic a l and p o litic a l reform by the archbishop w ere com p letely i i _______________________________________________________________________________ I - ■ - ■ i 102Royal L e tte r s, Shirley, e d ., II, 209, j l03F oed era, I, i, 416. | 137 subm erged under the papal plentitude of pow er. At the clim a x of h is reign, B oniface found the pow er of the arch bish opric not su fficien t for the task . As Robert G r o sse te ste had been m ade to go against h is own w ish es in placing an appointee of the pope in an E n glish b en efice, so now B oniface of Savoy, in the la rg er issu e of reform , w as m ade to go against h is w ish es and annul h is own action s and the constitutions which he had, over m any y e a r s, deem ed e sse n tia l for e c c le s ia s tic a l r efo rm . The king could gloat about h is s u c c e s s . In a royal d ecree to h is sh e r iffs, ord erin g them to proclaim that Pope Urban IV had sanctioned the abrogation of a ll attem pts to usurp h is royal dignity, he could add: "Quod per venerab ilem patrem N orw icensem episcopum et d iscretu m virum Johannen M ansel1 th esau rario Ebor* d icti m andati ex ecu to res intervenien te in sim u l auctoritate v en era b ilis p atris B . C antuariensis arch iep isco p i ipsorum c o lle g e plenius e st denun- ..106 c ia tu m ... What could A rchbishop B oniface do in the face of these developm ents? With royal le tte r s of protection, he left England for l06C lose R olls, Henry III, 1261-1264, p. 123. F oed era. I. i , 419. See~the n otice in the L iberate h o u s w here the king a llo ca tes forty m arks to M aster Robert de M elkele who w as one of h is agents in publishing this absolution. C al. of L iberate R olls, H enry III, 1260-1267 (London, 1961). p. 105. The uto him" in the text should probably read "to them . Ibid. 107 Savoy on O ctober 8, 1262. 138 *Q^C al. of Patent R olls, H enry III. 1266-1272 (London. 1913), p. 736. The le tte r s of protection, dated O ctober 17, 1262, w ere granted for two y e a r s . The continuation of G ervase is quite sp ecific about the departure of the archbishop: "Hoc anno Cl262 H in v ig ilia Sancti D io n isii tran sfretavit apud Dovoriam dom inus B onefacius C an tuariensis arch iep iscop u s v e r su s p artes su as Sabaudiae, et d im isit in Anglia p rocu ratores su os m agistrum Petrum de A sson ia o fficia lem suum in sp iritu alib u s, et m agistrum Pontium de Sablerya sen esca llu m suum in tem poralibus, et Petrum de C r e ssia c o thesaurarium s u u m ." Cont. of G ervase, II, 216. The archbishop would not have appointed th ese o ffic ia ls if this w as a tem porary v is it. H is departure se e m s to have been a voluntary e x ile . CHAPTER VI FROM HIS EXILE TO HIS RETURN TO ENGLAND: THE ARCHBISHOP AND CIVIL WAR (1262-1266) The departure of A rchbishop B on iface from England around O ctober 8, 1262, r a is e s two b a sic q u estion s. There is the sp ec ific question as to the circu m sta n ces that m ade him lea v e and th ere is the broader question of the relation sh ip of the archbishop in voluntary e x ile to the p o litica l events of the y e a rs 1262-1266. T h ese questions are m ade even m ore difficult by a cru st of confusion and m isco n cep tion that has a r isen around the action s and m otives of the arch bishop during this period of tim e. T hese m iscon cep tion s have, fir s t of ail, confused the c ir cu m stan ces surrounding the arch bish op’s e x ile even to the point of giving a wrong date for his departure. F .M . Pow icke could w rite: "By the end of May Cl263 3 . . . John M ansel, Qthe king’s 3 • • • agent in the negotiations with the pope and A rchbishop B on iface, the agent of the papal sen ten ce of excom m unication against the su p p orters of the P ro v isio n s, left England at once to ra lly support for the king. "* As we have seen , the continuation of G ervase and the le tte r s of sa fe conduct point con clu sively to the O ctober 1262 date. The only V .M . P ow icke, The T hirteenth Century, p. 175. Cf. F .M . P ow icke, King Henry III, pp. 4 3 2 -4 3 9 . R .F . Treharne e sse n tia lly sa y s the sam e thing: "Boniface of Savoy and many of h is alien o ffic ia ls follow ed M ansel's exam ple and withdrew to F r a n c e ." R .F . T reharne, The B aronial Plan of R eform , p. 305. As w e saw in chapter one, T reharne r e fe r s the read er to Cont. of G ervase, II, 222 w hich does not m ention the departure of B oniface. 139 140 r e fe r e n c e s that could, in any w ay, support Pow icke*s con clu sion s are the notations in what is ca lled the "W inchester" group of a n n a ls.2 j The W inchester Annal its e lf under the date 1263 m akes the statem ent: j Capto P C e tr o ] de E geblanche ep iscop o H erefordiae et j Johanne M ansell, B onefacio arch iep iscop o C antuariensi, P Cetro 3 de Sabaudia prae tim ore m agno in partibus tran sm arin is d elitescen tib u s, Edwardus . . . alien gen as duxit in Angliam . . . accepto prius juram ento ab e is quod contra pacem regn i non sunt in g r e ssi, nec a lia s in g r essu r i, r em ea r e ad propria congerunt. 3 The u se of the word d elitescen tib u s m eans no m ore than those nam ed w ere in hiding or in concealm ent which would be applicable to the i archbishop already in e x ile . T here is nothing h ere that would justify j i the b e lie f that the archbishop left in 1263. Pow icke m ay a lso be confused in linking the departure of the archbishop w ith the departure of John M ansel. R ish an ger's C hronicle and the Annal of D unstable, the only p laces w here h is nam e is m entioned in this regard outside the "W inchester" tradition, p lace the departure of M ansel in 1264 and 4 now here m ention the fact that he left with the archbishop. i Again the question is r a ise d , what w ere the circu m sta n ces surrounding the departure of the archbishop? If he left in 1263, there ; could be good reason to b e lie v e that he left out of fea r of the baron s. 3 Although m uch s t ill need s to be done in an alysin g this group of annals, N . D enholm -Y oung has m ade a good sta rt in h is short a r tic le , "The W inchester-H yde C hronicle, C ollected P apers on M ediaeval Subjects (Oxford, 1946), pp. 86-95. 2Ann. Mon. (W intonia), II, 100. Cf. the id en tical statem en t in the W orchester Annal. Ann.“Mon. (W igornia), IV, 449. 4W iiliam R ishanger, C hronica et A nnales, H. T. R iley, ed. (London, 1865), pp. 17-18. Ann. !Mon. (D unstaplia), III, 223. 141 In 1262, how ever, this se e m s quite r em o te. One would agree w ith R .F . T reharne that O ctober 1262 w as a tim e of "excitem ent and e uncertainty, " and this in its e lf could have caused the archbishop to le a v e . But other than Sim on de M ontfort bringing a fa lse papal docum ent to England to prove that the pope had not absolved the king, there w as nothing in O ctober 1262 resem b lin g an open reb ellio n g and the king h im se lf seem ed on top of the situation . In fact, one could e a sily assu m e that just the opposite situ ation caused the archbishop to lea v e England, He left England b ecau se he and the king had had a continual d isagreem en t over the lib erty of the Church and the w hole reform in g m ovem ent and the archbishop left, eith er to "wash h is hands" of the w hole affair and r e tir e to Savoy, or to bring this altercation to a head, eith er by con fronting the king h im se lf in F ran ce or by joining h is p roctors at the cu ria in trying to persuade the pope to m odify h is absolution of the king, at le a s t to the point of con firm ing the C onstitutions of Lam beth. In any c a se , the archbishop did not su cceed in h is task . The p o litica l situation that he found h im se lf in becam e w o rse rather than b etter. The papal lette r of January 1263, r efer r ed to in the la st chapter, m ay in fact be an answ er to further p r e ssu re by the arch bishop at the papal cou rt. In this le tte r , Urban IV gave the king of 5R .F . T reharne, The B aronial Plan of R eform , p. 289. g This w as a fa lse assum ption on the king's part. We spoke e a r lie r of the p o ssib ility of a joint diplom atic venture at the cu ria by the agents of the archbishop and the agents of the barons to obtain a papal docum ent favoring their sid e of the co n tro v ersy . The (forged) docum ent displayed by M ontfort m ay have com e out of this a ctivity. 142 England a long lec tu r e on h is resp o n sib ility in regard to the freedom of the Church but the pope s t ill stu ck to h is d ecisio n to absolve the king on the tech n ical point that the archbishop had not obtained royal approval for h is synod at London (Lam beth) in 1261. The pope s t ill 7 withheld h is confirm ation of the C onstitutions of Lam beth. In the sam e month. Urban w rote to A rchbishop B oniface condem ning the P ro v isio n s of Oxford and the attitude o f the m agnates g to their king. The pope inform ed the archbishop that th ese statu tes w ere void and a ll who had sw orn to o b serv e th ese statu tes w ere absolved from their oath. He go es on to com m and B oniface to u se his authority against a ll th ose who abided by th ese oaths in sp ite of the papal absolution or who, in any way, pretended that th ese a sso cia tio n s had papal approval. Although Urban m ade a sligh t co n c essio n that h is action s should not apply to e c c le s ia s tic a l freed om , he s till m akes plain h is d ecision : V enerabilibus fratrib u s n o stris u n iv er sis a rch iep isco p is et e p isc o p is, ac d ile c tis filiis abbatibus, p riorib u s, ac a liis e cc le sia ru m p ra ela tis, necnon com itib u s, baronibus, m agnatibus, et a liis p raed icti regn i p erso n is e c c le s ia s tic is 7 F oed era, I, i, 424. See a lso the papal le tte r w ritten to A rchbishop B oniface on January 23, 1262, entitled "A rchiepiscopum C antuariensem H ortatur ut N e c e ss ita tis E c c le s ia e Rom anae Subvenit. " L es R e g istr e s d'U rbain IV (1261-1264), M. Jean Guiraud, ed. (P a ris, T 532-B 0U . I ,”33, N o. 128.---------------- g C oncilia, W ilkins, e d ., I, 760. In another le tte r in August 1263, Pope Urban IV w rote to a ll the faithful C h ristian s proclaim in g again that a ll oaths taken against the E n glish king w ere unlawful. B ritish M useum , Add. MSS, 15, 360, fo l. 266. Cf. G asquet, Henry the Third and the Church, p. 394. 143 et secu la rib u s, cujuscunque dign itatis, sta tis, ord in is, et conditiones fu eren t. ® The com p lete la ck of enthusiasm on the part of the arch bishop of Canterbury to follow this m atter through m ay have been in back o f the action of the pope when in N ovem ber 1262, he dispatched Gui F oulquois, card in al bishop of Sabina, as papal legate to England. Although the pope may have wanted to be p olite on tender points with A rchbishop B oniface, he could vent h is feelin g s to his le g a te . In one of h is le tte r s to the leg a te, the pope w rites: Eidem mandat quatenus, s i reb ellion em archiepiscoporum et aliorum praelatorum e cc le sia ru m ac com it um, baronum et aliorum regn i A ngliae r eq u irere v id erit, contra illo s, qui ip si v el r e g i A ngliae r e b e lle s fuerint, per ipsum v el p er a lio s reg u la res et se c u la r e s, praed icet verbum C rucis et earn volentibus r e c ip e r e largiatu r. It seem ed quite c le a r to the pope that A rchbishop B oniface along w ith the archbishop of Y ork and the r e s t of the E n glish clerg y w ere s t ill continuing th eir stru ggle for the reform m ovem ent a s they had during the y e a r s 1259-1261. A fter an exh au stive study of the legation r e g iste r of the leg a te Gui F oulqu ois, Joseph H eidem ann could w rite: "Was konnten nicht a llein die gefliichteten B isch b fe, an der 9R eg. Urban IV II. 374, N o. 777. See a lso Pope Urban's letter to King Henry in w hich he sp eak s of the two sid e s of the con troversy: the king on the one sid e "et quosdam ep iscop os et non- nullos barons, ex a lt e r a ." Ib id ., n , 371, N o. 768. *9Ib id ., II, 300, No. 596. The underlining is m y own. Cf. pp. 371-372, S o. 768. In another le tte r to h is legate, dated N ovem ber 22, 1263, the pope w rites: "Mandamus quatinus v en era b iles fra tres n o stro s arch iep iscop os et a lio s u n iversos et sin gulos e cc le sia ru m , a c . . . c o m ite s, barones ( e t c .) . . . ejusdem m oneas et in d u c a s.. . r e g i A n g lie .. . e ffic a c ite r intendentes, consueverunt ab ip sis A nglie regib u s exh ib eri. " Ib id ., II, 300, No. 595. 144 Spitze der E rzb isch o f von C anterbury, auf d ie se W eise gegen s ie ins W erk setzen !" 11 A rchbishop B oniface w as s till continuing h is con flict with the king. He had not com p lied with any of the papal i j r e q u e sts. By the end of 1263, h ow ever, the archbishop of Canterbury faced an en tirely different situ ation . Som etim e in the m iddle part of the y e a r 1263, a group of young, hotheaded nob les had invaded h is d io cese of C anterbury, had done untold dam age, s e iz e d c le r ic s , violated churches and plundered h ou ses and m an ors. N ew s o f th is ; act of sa c r ile g e fin ally reach ed the archbishop and in O ctober 1263, | I at B oulogne, probably at the parliam ent held betw een the king of F ran ce, the king of England and h is n ob les, B oniface w rote to h is suffragan s a le tte r com m anding them to excom m unicate those guilty j 12 I of this a c t. T his group of n ob les had rudely violated e c c le s ia s tic a l ; freed om . It w as this type of behavior that w as in back of the long lis t s of gravam ina that the archbishop and h is suffragans had drawn up over the la st s ix y e a r s. F rom h is m e s se n g e r s , B oniface had learn ed the exact nam es of those who had taken part in this crim in a l act; the two so n s of Sim on 11 Joseph Heidem ann, P apst C lem ents IV. E ine M onographic, v o l. I, D as V orleb en des PapsTes und Sein L e g a tio n sr eg iste r (M tinster, 1903), p. 142. ^ B o d leia n L ibrary, O xford, B odleian MSS, 91, fo l. I36r- 136v . A s this le tte r has not been published b efore, a c r itic a l edition of the docum ent is given in Appendix A. It is part of the Additam enta to the Hyde C hronicle which a s yet has not been published. Cf. N. D enholm -Y oung, C ollected P a p ers, pp. 86-95. 145 de M ontfort; Henry and Sim on the younger, Humphrey de Bonn the younger, and a group of young M archer lord s; R oger Leyborn, R oger C lifford, John G iffard, Hamo L estran ge and sev en teen o th ers. T hese w ere the on es, he w as inform ed, who had perpetrated this act and 13 thus should be excom m unicated by the Canterbury su ffragan s. A fter nam ing the cu lp rits, the archbishop goes on to say that with " b ittern ess of h e a r t," he m ust add that he had learned that Simon de M ontfort w as in back of this act, "auctoritatem et assen su m . . . referu n ter in p red ictis p r e s titis s e . The continuation of G erv a se, after m entioning the fact that the arch bish op’s o ffic ia ls had to fle e England, go es on to d escrib e this occu rren ce: A rch iep iscop u s necnon et su i m ultum anxiabantur, quia propter guerram non a u si fuerunt in terram ven ire, v e l aliquem de eorum fa m ilia m axim e cum co m es L e y ce stria e et su i c o m p lic es om nes e c c le s ia s alienigenarum cum bonis earundem seq u estra v it, et p lu res a liis rectorib u s de facto contulit. *^MS B odleian 91, fo l. I36r -136v . Cf. Appendix A. *4Ibid. The con struction of the lette r exclu d es Sim on de j I M ontfort from the excom m unication its e lf. T his w as noted in the ■ nineteenth century by J. O. H alliw ell who w rote: "Throughout the | whole of h is c a r e e r , M ontfort showed r esp ec t for the Church, and the property of the Church. In 1263, when the A rchbishop of Canterbury at Boulogne issu ed an excom m unication against se v e r a l of the barons, and even including two so n s of L e ic e s te r , for e c c le s ia s tic a l depre dations, yet we do not find M ontfort h im se lf included in the se n ten ce." W illiam R ishanger, The C hronicle of W illiam de R ishanger, of the B a ro n s1 W ars. The M ira cles of Sim on de M ontfort, J.o7 H alliw ell, ed. (London, 1840), p. Il6. The su p erscrip tion , how ever, im p lies that he w as included. T his is follow ed by N. D enholm -Y oung, C ollected P ap ers, p. 94. C f. Appendix A. *5Cont. of G ervase, II, 226. 146 L eaving asid e a ll the statem en ts that glorify Sim on de M ontfort and te ll how m uch he loved the Church and resp ected the lib erty of the C h u r c h ,o n e can find no reason to justify this plun dering of C anterbury. T his action and the subsequent plundering of the b ish op ric of H ereford done by this sam e group of barons, i I le ft M ontfort wide open for the charge la ter lev e le d at him by the j j king, even at the Boulogne con feren ce with King L ou is, that it w as j M ontfort and h is fo llo w ers and not the king that had violated C hurches j 17 ' and had tram pled under foot e c c le s ia s tic a l freed om . It m ay be, and the inferen ce is strong, that Sim on had no con trol over h is son s at this tim e nor over this group of young hot- j heads who had been rovin g through England doing a ll so r ts o f m isch ief! during the fir s t half of 1263. R oger de Leyborn, one of the lea d er s of th is group of M archer lo rd s, had his own person al feud with B oniface.! He had e a r lie r been a sso cia ted with W illiam de V alence in h is violen t ! 18 argum ents with the archbishop. The raid on Canterbury se e m s to l^The la v ish p ra ise accorded him by R .F . T reharne and the above statem en t by J .O . H alliw ell are fa irly rep resen ta tiv e. ^ R .F . T reharne, "The M ise of A m iens, 23 January 1264," Studies in M edieval H istory P resen ted to F .M . P ow icke, R. W. Hunt, W. A. Pantin, ft.W . Southern, e d s. (Oxford, 1948), pp. 223-239. I have accepted the co rrectio n of F .M . Pow icke which sh ifts the docum ents m entioned by Treharne to the con feren ce at Boulogne, O ctober 1263, rath er than A m ien s, January 1264. F .M . Pow icke, The T hirteenth Century, pp. 179-180. l8 F rank R. L ew is, A berystw yth Studies. XIII (1934), 11-35; XIV (1935), 6 9 -9 2 . See a lso W illiam Hunt, "h oger Leybourne, " D iction ary of N ational Biography, XXXIII, 209-211. 147 have been an outgrowth o f the arm ed support given by L eyborn to the convicted crim in a l W illiam de D eltin g. A s punishm ent for h is crim e of hom ocide, D elting had been d isp o ssed of h is m anor in Kent by the archbishop. L eyborn forcib ly ejected the archbishop's 19 o ffic e r s and gave the m anor into the custody of h is son W illiam . By August 18, 1263, how ever, R oger de C lifford, R oger Leyborn, John G iffard, Hamti L estran ge and many of the other M archer lord s who had perpetrated the act of sa c r ile g e in Canterbury had broken off any allegian ce they m ay have had with Sim on de 20 M ontfort and had-m ade their p eace with the king. E arly in Septem ber, R oger de C lifford w as m ade the king's ad visor and R oger Leyborn b ecam e the royal stew ard, b eing trusted enough to buy a royal wedding presen t for the daughter of the M arquis of 19 L . B . L arking has published the only known account of this con flict over D eltin g's m anor in Kent. The account is found in the unpublished ch ro n icle, A n on., "C ronica P aucorum , " B ritish M useum , Cotton MSS, Julius, D. V ., fo l. 37r -3 7 v . L .B . Larking, "On the H eart Shrine in Leybourne Church, " A rch aeologia Cantiana, V (1863), 173-174, n. 27. 20 uL arking pu blish es a covenant of reco n cilia tio n betw een th ese M archer lord s and P rin ce Edward dated August 18, 1263 (from the T reasu ry of the E xchequer). Ib id ., p. 175, n. 28. I se e no ju stification for the view of F .M . P ow icke that the M archers w ere on the sid e of M ontfort until N ovem ber 1263. Pow icke m ust give the strain ed interpretation that M ontfort h im se lf procured th ese le tte r s of pardon for a cts of v io len ce com m itted by som e of h is ad h eren ts. P ow icke, The T hirteenth Century, p. 177. If this w as true, why did not M ontfort get le tte r s of pardon for h is own son s who had a lso taken part in the act of vandalism at Canterbury? 148 21 M ontferrat. A patent le tte r announcing the kin g's pardon of th ese M archer lord s w as drawn up on Septem ber 18, 1263. In this le tte r , th ese nobles w ere pardoned for any tr e sp a sse s and e x c e s s e s they had 22 com m itted in the realm o f England. One w ould assu m e that the archbishop knew of these altered 23 relation sh ip s by the end of 1263. When the archbishop m et the king and the oth ers at A m iens in January 1264, in conjunction with the F rench king's arbitration of the dispute betw een Henry and his m agnates, B oniface had heard that the king had pardoned those guilty for the sp oliation of C anterbury. Not only th is, but R oger C lifford, R oger de Leyborn and the other ones guilty of this act of sa c r ile g e now form ed part of the royal Council and w ere the backbone of the 24 king's arm y. Although the barons at A m iens p resen ted their com plaints, the P ro v isio n s o f Oxford in altered form , they om itted all Larking, A rchaeologia Cantiana, V (1863), 182-183, n. 31. The w riter of the continuation of G ervase has a sage com m ent: "So he CRoger Leyborn 1 who w as la tely the ch ief enem y of the king, a p ersecu tor of the churches of God and e sp e c ia lly of the archbishop of C anterbury, w as m ade the stew ard of h is court and thus from Saul w as m ade Paul, and from the w olf the lam b. " Cont. of G ervase, II, 224. See a lso W illiam R ishanger, Chronica et A nnales, p. 13. 22C al. of Patent R olls, Henry III, 1258-1266, p. 278. On O ctober 8, 1^63, the king, in a lette r to the ch an cellor, repeated h is pardon for C lifford, Leyborn and the other M arch ers. Ib id ., p. 284. 23 The archbishop had sen t som e of h is clerk s back to C anterbury in O ctober of 1263. They probably sent back detailed inform ation about the situation to the archbishop. Ib id ., p. 283. 2 < *R oyal L e tte rs, S h irley, e d ., II, 250-251. 149 O R refer e n c es to the reform of the Church. A rchbishop B oniface, how ever, continued the stru ggle and m ust have had a serio u s con frontation with King Henry for in January 1264, the king issu ed the letter patent: N otification, as the king is perturbed about the in ju ries, dam ages and v io len ces la tely com m itted against the Church and e c c le s ia s tic a l p erson s in the province of Canterbury that the king has prom ised B oniface, Archbishop of Canterbury, that he and Hugh le Bygod and Robert Aguyllum w ill procure that R oger de C lyfford, R oger de Leyburn, John de V allibus, Ralph B a sset of Drayton, John Gyfford, Hame L estran ge, Hugh de T u rb ervill, W illiam de Huntingefeld and W illiam de E b ro icis, upon whom the blam e of these injuries is laid, sh all make am ends b efore next Sunday, upon which "Letare J eru sa lem 1 1 is sung. In testim ony w hereof the king ancLUie said Hugh and Robert have appended their se a ls to h is. 6 W alne, "The B arons' Argum ent at A m iens, January 1264, " E nglish H isto rica l R eview . LXIX (1954), 421. 26Cal. of Patent R olls, Henry III, 1258-1266, p. 378. W illiam R ishanger sa y s that Archbishop B oniface cam e back to England after the con feren ce at A m ien s. R ishanger, Chronica et Annales, p. 12. I b eliev e this to be an error on the part o f R ishanger. M ugmer, how ever, accep ts R ishanger on this point and sp eak s of the archbishop com ing back to England in M arch 1264, and leavin g again in July 1264. M ugnier, L es Savoyards en A n gleterre, pp. 154-155. M ugnier b a ses the departure of the archbishop in July 1264, on two le tte r s patent p reserv ed in the Tower of London; (1) Salvus conductus pro B. Cantuar1 A rch iep iscop o ita quod non deferat infra Regnum quod poterit e s s e dampnosum siv e prejudiciale R egi aut m agnatibus v el p raelatis Regni apud Sanctum Paulum London' XXV° Ju lii, " and (2) L itterae R egis m issa e B. A rchiepiscopo C antuariensi in F rancia degenti exp rim en tes praerogativam R egis ac le g e s contra usurpat i o n s et abusus tarn Papae quam totius C leri ac R egis p otestas in C lerum . ut supra, (s c il. 25 J u lii)." Quoted in W urstem berger, P eter der Z w eite, IV, 357. The letter of safe-con d u ct, how ever, is not a safe-con d u ct to go out of the country, but a safe-con d u ct to com e into the country. Lacking any other evidence, it is hard to know whether this second lette r is an ex p ressio n of the king's w ill or the w ill of h is captor, Simon de M ontfort. I would be inclined to accept the form er interpretation. 150 During this sam e month, January 1264, the suffragan bishops rep lied to the lette r of the archbishop dealing with the spoliation of 27 Canterbury. Nothing is said about the excom m unication, the situation w as now too com plex, but the bishops pledged their support to the archbishop and rep lied that they would step into the situation, co llec t his ravaged goods and protect the righ ts of the s e e . In M arch of 1264, there is a flurry of diplom atic activity betw een the pope and Archbishop B oniface. Along with a s e r ie s of b u lls granting the archbishop authority to e x e r c ise h is jurisdiction al 2 8 righ ts outside of C anterbury, Pope Urban IV continued h is p ressu re on the archbishop of Canterbury to support the king. In one bull, he d irects Boniface to com pel obedience to the judgment of the F rench king and in another, he com m ands the archbishop to annul any oaths, agreem ents and co n sp ira cies which the m agnates and p relates of 29 England had made against the king. By this tim e the new s of the ravage done to the bishop of H ereford had reached the ea rs of the pope and he rep lied in yet another bull, com m anding the archbishop to pronounce a sen ten ce of excom m unication against Simon de M ontfort, R oger de C lifford, R oger de Leyborn, John G iffard, G eoffrey (Humphrey ?) de Bohun the younger, the Montfort sons; Henry and Simon the younger, John de W ass, Hamo L estran ge, Ralph 27B odleian Library, Oxford, Bodleian MSS, 91, fo l. I36v . As this has not been published, a c r itic a l text is given in Appendix B. 28R eg. Urban IV. 111,177, No. 1,322; 187, N o. 1,360. 29F oed era, I, i, 436, 438. C oncilia, W ilkins, e d ., I, 760. R eg. Urban iV, fi, 373. N os. 769-770; 370, No. 766. 151 B a sse t and other barons of the realm who had done this deed: "The sen ten ce of excom m unication is to be enforced until sa tisfa ctio n is m ade, and if it is d isregard ed , the lands of the above barons and 30 others are to be put under an in te r d ic t." It is in terestin g to again note that except for Sim on de M ontfort, h is two son s and Humphrey de Bohun the younger, a ll the other barons m entioned w ere now on the ro y a l sid e and on the king's cou n cil. In this situation, it is difficu lt to place y e t another papal bull dated M arch 1264, which in calendared form read s: M andate, at the req u est of the archbishop of C anterbury, to the bishop of P a ris to publish the sen ten ce of excom m unication j pronounced by the archbishop against those who have m ade | statu tes against h is lib erty , nam ely that those bringing le tte r s j ap ostolic, or those of the archbishop, into England, sh a ll | be punished, and any other sen ten ces he m ay pronounce i against the sam e; the pope having annulled the said statu tes | and ord ered M ichael de F ie n e s, canon of T erouanne, to warn those who have published them to e r a se them from their | cap itu lars, under pain of excom m unication; and to c a ll in, if n e c e ssa r y , the aid of the se cu la r a r m .31 The problem is , who had m ade th ese sta tu tes? Was it Sim on . . i de M ontfort and h is fo llo w er s? Sim on had gained con trol of England {during a b r ie f period from July 1263 to Septem ber 1263 during w hich j i tim e he had control o f the great s e a l and issu ed governm ental i docum ents. He and h is fo llo w ers m ay have r e a liz e d that the arch bishop would have reacted stron gly to the violation of C anterbury and R eg, Urban IV, III, 205, N o. 1,454. C alendar of E n tries in the P apal R e g iste r s d ela tin g to G reat B ritain and Ireland, W. H. B lis s , ecT. (London, 1839), I, 411. j 3*Cal. of P apal R e g iste r s, B lis s , e d ., I, 410. 152 ! would have acted accord in gly. Thus a statute to block any m ove by the archbishop eith er by h is own le tte r s or by ap ostolic le tte r s, to r e ta lia te . The problem is , how ever, that the papal bull is dated i I M arch 1264. Was the papal cu ria so slow that it took six to eight m onths to answ er a req u est by the archbishop of C anterbury? If this is so , the papal favor would be quite u s e le s s to the archbishop by the ! tim e he r ec eiv ed it. The king w as now in control and m o st of those who had raided Canterbury w ere on h is C ouncil. I One cannot d ism iss the p o ssib ility that the new royal C ouncil | its e lf m ay have wanted to block any m ove by the archbishop as he sought to regain h is goods and h is rig h ts. This la tter solution m ay be indicated by an in terestin g papal bull, dated F ebruary 21, 1264, in which the pope nu llified , on the sp e c ia l req u est of A rchbishop B on iface, any attem pt to ab solve, even through ap ostolic le tte r s , l those who had violated the Church and those who "provincialium 32 con cilioru m excom m un icationis sententiam incurrerunt. ” W ere Sim on de M ontfort and h is fo llo w ers publishing th ese le tte r s of absolution? In O ctober 1262, as we have se en , Sim on appeared in England with fa lse docum ents that said , in e s s e n c e , just the opposite; that the pope had not absolved the king from the P ro v isio n s of O xford. T here is good reason to b eliev e that it w as the king and not M ontfort who had obtained papal le tte r s ab solvin g h is fo llo w ers, in this c a se , Leyborn, C lifford and the M arch ers, from their part in 32R eg. Urban IV, III, 230, N o. 1,562. 153 the violation of C anterbury. The vague nature of the arch bish op's req u ests in both of the above in stan ces had intentionally hidden the r e a l purpose of h is req u est for papal a ssista n c e , that is , to penetrate the sh ield that the king had put around the m em b ers of h is own council. If there is som e confusion over these papal m andates, there is a m ajor problem over a royal ch arter settin g down five conditions I for the return of A rchbishop B oniface to England. The conditions ! I w ere as follow s: (1) that the archbishop r e le a s e h is sen ten ce of e x - j com m unication prom ulgated against any person by rea so n of the j disturbance of the realm on condition that they m ake sa tisfa ctio n , (2) that h is suffragans and other d isc r e e t person s of the realm give him judgment in regard to e x c e s s e s , the subsequent sa tisfa c tio n and the obvious affairs touching the Church and the realm of England, (3) that he bring with him only h is household c le r k s, (4) that a ll other ! I clerk s with b en efices in England m ay return if they send nothing outside the kingdom and (5) that neither the archbishop or h is clerk s bring with them any le tte r s, m e ssa g e s or m andates w hereby dam age 33 or prejudice m ay happen to the king or any of the rea lm . F ir st of a ll, there is the problem of dating this ch a rter. Although it plainly sa y s "Anno D om ini m .c c . se x a g esim o quarto m en si M artii, " both C harles Bem ont and F .M . P ow icke b e lie v e this to be a sc rib a l e r r o r . It has nothing to do with M arch 1264 and m ust * 33 F oed era, I, i, 438. The ch arter is calendared in the Patent R o lls. C al. of PaFent R olls, H enry III, 1258-1266, p. 413. As th ere are som e d ifferen ces betw een the calendared v e rsio n and the Latin charter its e lf (two different v e rsio n s ?), the copy in the F oed era is given in full in Appendix C. 154 34 „ be cred ited to M arch 1265. C h arles Bem ont w rites: L 'archeveque de Canterbury s ’etait refugie*sur le continent; le s grands du royaum e a rreteren t en M ars 1265 le s conditions auxq uelles il se r a it tenu de s e sou m ettre pour pouvoir ren trer en A n g leterre. R ym er, qui publie c et a cte, le p la ce'a I'annee 1264. It e s t bien v ra i qu'on lit au r o le des le ttr e s patentee, com m e dans I'im prim e: 'Anno dom ini tn .c c . se x a g esim o quarto, m en se t n a r c ii.. . ’M ais j'ai constate"que I'acte e st insere" non, com m e le dit R ym er, au r o le de l'anne"e 48, m a is " a c e lu i de l'anne"e 49, qui com m ence en O ctobre 1264. En outre, la teneur m em e de I'acte prouve m an ifestem ent qu'il ne peut etre anterieur a L ew es. En M ars 1264, H enri III a u r a it-il 'au nom de tout son c o n s e il.. . ' (P er totum con siliu m ), interdit au prim at de ram en er avec lu i des e "t r an gers ? 35 What about th ese two sp e c ific argum ents m entioned by Bem ont for placing this docum ent in 1265? The in sertio n into the patent le tte r r o il for the year 49 (1265) instead of the y ea r 48 (1264) i is unusual but of no r e a l m erit its e lf. It w as com m on p ractice for | the chancery c lerk s to p lace old er docum ents into the r o lls w h erever j | they had an em pty sp a c e . The r o lls th em selv es cannot be used to I esta b lish a sp e c ific ch ron ological seq u en ce. And again, the argum ent | that the phrase per totum C onsilium can only r e fe r to 1265 c a r r ie s j t ; I very little w eight. It se e m s to be added at the bottom and has little to do with the actual docum ent its e lf w here the king does not enact i this ch arter in conjunction with h is royal C ouncil but "de C on silio | I P rocerum & Magnatum ejusdem R e g n i," that is , in an open j parliam ent. At the end of the ch a rter, there is not the usual 34 The view that the ch arter co m es from its obvious date of 1264 has been put forth in the old er w ork s. C f. M ugnier, L es Savoyards en A n gleterre, pp. 145-146, W illiam H. B laaw , T K e B arons' War, p.nL23. j •^ C harles Bem ont, Sim on de M ontfort (P a r is, 1884), p. 218. 155 signature of the m em b ers of the royal C ouncil as w itn e sse s of this ch arter as one would expect if the king w rote this charter in con junction with h is C ouncil. It is sea led only with the s e a l of the king, "ad m em oriam autem p raem issoru m praesen tib u s sig illu m illu s tr is R egis A ngliae e st ap p en su m ." Granted that there are many doc um ents around M arch 1265 that are c lo sed with the phrase "by the Council" but so are a good number of docum ents around M arch 1264? In D ecem ber of 1263, King Henry had a la rg e Grand C o u n c i l , i n i M arch of 1265, he had a caretak er C ouncil m ade up only of a few | of M ontfort's ad h eren ts. And again, the term "by the w hole Council" i m ay r e fe r to a m eetin g in parliam ent and not to the royal C ouncil. 1 King Henry HI m et in parliam ent with h is nobles in both M arch of 1264 and in M arch of 1265. The ch arter its e lf g iv es no internal evid en ce to te ll which p arliam en t. ; F . M. P ow icke u se s another type of evid en ce to prove that it w as w ritten in 1265: "The docum ent in the F oed era I, i, 438, layin g down the conditions of B on iface's return belongs to M arch 1265, not as often supposed to M arch 1264 when the h o stility to h is return w as 38 e x p ressed by the g a rriso n of D over's treatm ent of his a g e n t." A m andate, dated M arch 12, 1264, com m anding the ch an cellor and the U n iversity of Oxford to r e tir e from Oxford is sign ed "by king and C o u n c il." F oed era, I ,i,4 3 5 . Cf. C al. of Patent R o lls, H enry III, 1258-1266. p/T^Tf; ---------------------- ^ S e e those who w itn essed the agreem en t for arbitration sen t to L ouis IX. Royal L e tte rs, Shirley, e d ., II, 251-252. 3 8F .M . P ow icke, King Henry III, p. 461, n .2. Cf. p. 492, n. 2 and p. 495, n. 3. In h is la ter book, it is assu m ed without question. F .M . P ow icke, The T hirteenth Century, p. 199. 156 The incident is reported by the continuation of G ervase. During M arch 1264, the D over garrison se iz e d the archbishop's trea su rer and after a b rief incarceration , sent him to the archbishop with the follow ing letter: C om ites, barones, m ilite s, b u rgen ses, c iv e s et om nis a lia com m unitas terrae A nglicanae, vobis m andat, consu lit et supplicat, quatinus regnum A ngliae aliquo modo intrare non p raesum atis vos nec aliquis de v e s tr is , sicu t honorem vestrum d ilig itis, et de indem pnitate rerum vestrarum et corp oris v e s tr i vos co n serv a ri vu ltis im m unes; quod s i fa cere p raesu m atis, de gentibus terra e tanquam de v e str is m ortalibus et capitalibus in im icis cu sto d ia tis. 39 This is a provocative lette r although couched in diplom at ica lly polite te r m s. One should be hesitant, how ever, about applying ! it to the general situation in England in M arch 1264. D over was an atypical situation. It alone of the south E nglish c itie s s till held out, i ; in M arch 1264, against King Henry and h is arm ed fo r c e s . The king i had captured a ll the other cinque ports and had put R oger Leyborn, I one of the form er ra id ers of Canterbury, in charge of the captured : c itie s . D over m ight make quite a flou rish about speaking for the j whole of England but it probably spoke only for its e lf. The Dover | garrison had alw ays had poor relation s with C anterbury. In 1261, i B oniface h im self had had to apply: e c c le s ia s tic a l cen su res against those of Dover C astle b ecau se they had assau lted som e of the tenants of C hrist Church, desp oiling them of their goods.^® B oniface had j many en em ies in England and popular opinion could e a sily be aroused 39co n t. of G ervase, II, 234. j ^ °J .B . Sheppard, "Report of an Exam ination of the H isto rica l| M anuscripts belonging to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, 1 1 H isto rica l M anuscript C om m ission. V (1912), part I, 441. 157 against the Savoyard archbishop and h is str ic t, reform in g w ays. In th is, the ex p r essio n of the D over g a rriso n is probably c o r r e c t. The h o stility e x p r essed by the D over garrison and its le tte r to the arch bishop, how ever, cannot be used to prove anything m o re. It has no relation sh ip to what m ay, or m ay not, be happening in a parliam ent betw een the king and the nobles of the realm and it cannot be used to prove how the archbishop h im se lf felt about the reform in g m ove m ent or the c iv il war w ithin England its e lf. In back of the above argum ents by C h arles Bem ont and F .M . j Pow icke there se e m s to be the im plied assum ption that the charter j I giving the conditions for the return of the archbishop m ust com e from j M arch 1265 b ecau se that would fit in with their picture of B on iface. They d escrib e B on iface as a " ro y a list” archbishop who w as on the Continent rallyin g support for the king. In this interpretation, the i archbishop, in M arch 1265, w as allow ed to com e back to England j under stringent conditions laid down by Sim on de M ontfort and h is fo llo w er s. The captive king is m ade to issu e the ch a rter. T his is the r e a l argum ent. In M arch 1264, this theory would m ake little se n se b ecau se the king w as in nom inal control of England, though his authority w as quickly eroding. One should not give up the 1264 date that e a sily . W hether it is a sc r ib a l erro r or not, this is the date given in the docum ent and 41 the date given in a ll the printed so u r c e s . What is the fir s t and 41F oed era, I, i, 438. C al. of Patent R olls. Henry III, 1258- 1266, p. 413. Prynne, R ecords, lit, 9 9 l ~ . 158 m ajor condition put down for the arch bish op's return? That he r e le a s e the sen ten ce of excom m unication prom ulgated against any p erson s by reason of the disturbance of the rea lm . The only sen tence of excom m unication given by the archbishop that is extant, and it is highly unlikely that any other sen ten ce of excom m unication would be lo st through inattention, is the one given above in relation to the group of hotheads pillagin g C anterbury. A s m uch as the pope p ressu red the archbishop to com e out by w ritten docum ent against the lea d er s of the reform in g m ovem ent, even in relation to the pillagin g of the b ishop ric of H ereford, there is no record anyw here that he com plied with the papal req u est. During 1262-1263, Pope Urban had to send Gui F oulqu ois, h is leg a te, to m ake his w ill known in regard to the E n glish c iv il w ar. This is going to be again true in 1265. Gui F oulquois, the fo rm er papal legate to England, on the death of Urban IV ascen ded the papal chair under the nam e C lem ent IV . He a lso sent a leg a te to England, Cardinal Ottoboni F ie sc h i, card in al-d eacon of St. A drian. He w as dispatched on May 4,1265, w hile M ontfort s till controlled 42 England. Although Ottoboni would la ter w rite am iable le tte r s to 43 A rchbishop B oniface, Pope C lem ent IV m ade c le a r in h is le tte r s ^ L es R e g istre s de Cle'ment IV(1265-1268), M. Edouard Jordan, ed“ “ (P a ris, 1893), 1, 12- 2 6 . ^ R o s e G raham , "L etters of Cardinal Ottoboni, " E nglish H isto rica l R eview , XV(1900), 87-88; 109-111; 119-120. Although the title s and fir s t tin es are m issin g , R ose Graham b e lie v e s, on internal evid en ce, that those le tte r s m entioned above w ere probably w ritten to A rchbishop B on iface. 159 to h is leg a te exactly what the relation sh ip w as betw een the arch bishop and the reform in g m ovem ent. In w ords very sim ila r to a le tte r he h im se lf had rec eiv ed two y e a r s b efore, he w rites: E idem m andat, ut s i reb ellion em archiepiscoporum et aliorum prelatorum , ac comxtum , baronum et aliorum regn i ejusdem req u irere v id erit, contra illo s qui e i ip si v e l H enrico r e g i A nglie r e b e lle s fuerint, in p red ictis et D acie et . . . W asconia, et om nibus civitatib u s, c a s tr is , v illis et lo c is m a ritim is B ritan nie, N o rm a n n ie.. . ac X an cton en sis d io c e s is , necnon et in regno Alam annie ac a liis im p erii partibus p red icet verbum c r u c is .” The actions of A rchbishop B oniface and the E n glish cle rg y w ere so bad in relation to the w ill of the pope and the support of the E nglish king, that a cru sad e m ay have to be ordered throughout a ll of Europe against th ese r e b e ls. In another le tte r , Pope C lem ent IV g iv es his leg a te pow er to com pel the alleg ia n ce of the archbishops and cle rg y of England: Q uocirca m andam us, quatinus v en era b iles fra tres n ostros a rch iep isco p o s, et a lio s u n iversos et sin gu los ecclesia ru m p rela to s, ac nobiles v ir o s c o m ite s, bar on es, et a lio s quoscunque c le r ic o s et la ic o s regn i ejusdem m oneas et inducas, ut c a r iss im o in C h risto filio n o s tr o .. . r e g i Anglie illu str i e ffic a c ite r intendentes, fid elita tis juram enta ei, ut tenentur, exhibeant, ac a lia om nia que consueverunt ab ip sis A nglie regibus exhiberi; om nes conjurationes, con fed eration es, colU gation es et so c ie ta te s factas ab e is dissolvan t penitus et abjurent; statuta super h iis ed ita non o b s e r v e n t.. . ^5 What about the statem en t of F .M . Pow icke that B oniface spent h is e x ile rallyin g support for the king? In h is e a r lie r work, P ow icke r e la te s: "As term s of this secon d le tte r CClose R olls, 4 4 R eg. C lem ent IV. I, 16, N o. 56. The underlining is m y ow a 4 5I b id ., I, 16, N o. 55. j 160 i ! Henry III, 1261-1264, p. 389 3 show , Henry*s frien d s a c r o ss the j Channel, led by h is w ife, the archbishop, P eter of Savoy, W illiam ' of V alence, Hugh Bigod and John M ansel, had in mind an invasion ! [ to r e sc u e him not a concordat w ith the r eb els .... In any c a se , so i j long as the A rchbishop of Canterbury and John M ansel and other i ; stron g p artisans of the royal house w ere on the other sid e of the j i 46 1 j Channel, unreconciled, the danger of intervention w as r e a l. ” I ' j The stron gly p artisan ch ro n icles in favor of the baronial sid e, back up this a sse r tio n . The w riter of the F lo r e s H istoriarum I — ! sp eak s of those on the continent: "Huic autem convocationi rex j ! A ngliae interfuit, et regina A lienora, arch ip raesu l etiam Cantuariae ; B on efaciu s, et P etru s H ereford en sis ep iscop u s, Johannes M ansel, j i qui ab A nglia perturbati, quanta potuere m ala baronibus non I 47 cessaru n t m ach in ari. " W illiam R ishanger, in h is C hronicle of the ! B a ro n s1 W ar, sa y s e sse n tia lly the sam e thing: j Regina v ero et B onefacius arch iep iscop u s C antuariae, P etru s de Sabaudia, caeteriq u e parentes e iu s, consiliu m in ien tes, j congregaverunt p rin cip es, du ces, c o m ite s, et baron es, et j quasi tociu s Europae fortutudinem , proponentes Angliam h o stiliter invadere, p ersisten tesq u e in F landria et in lo c is i con term in is juxta m are cotid ie Angliam ingred i m inabantur, ; i coadunata secu m tanta n avigii m ultitudine quod vix cuiquam j I erat c re d ib ile. 4 8 ' j I i It is hard to b eliev e th ese annals in the early M atthew P a r is j F .M . P ow icke, King Henry in , p p .474;442. The docum ent | in the C lose R olls r efer r ed to by P ow ick e does not name those on the Continent nor does it m ention A rchbishop B on iface. 47 A n on., F lo r e s H istoriaru m , II, 486. 4 ®William R ishanger, The C hronicle of the B a ro n s1 W ars, ! p. 35. | 161 : tradition. The other annals ca refu lly exclude the archbishop from i ! th is l is t of e x ile s around the queen. Thom as W ykes, w ritin g from a | r o y a list standpoint, sp eak s only of John de W arrenne, W illiam de 1 49 | V alen ce and Hugh Bigod as w ith the queen on this e n ter p r ise . The i Annals of Tew kesbury speak only of the queen, P eter of Savoy, the i 5 0 ; bishop of H ereford and John M ansel. A ch arter of Queen E lean or i | dealing with fin an ces to support this venture is sign ed w ith only three j i 5 X i ! se a ls; the queen, P eter of Savoy and John M ansel. I I i In a ll that is known about the archbishop at this tim e, it j ! ! | would not be unusual, e sp e c ia lly with the c lo s e fam ily tie s with the | ! queen, for the archbishop to be with E leanor for a tim e in F ra n ce. j * i T here is nothing, how ever, outsid e the two ch ro n icles m entioned j j above, that would link the archbishop w ith the m ilita ry buildup and 1 i the threatened invasion . j | The secon d m ain point of the ch arter giving the conditions i i \ : for the return of A rchbishop B oniface to England has to do with the archbishop, along with h is su ffragan s, com in g to so m e so rt of , I judgm ent (arb itretu r) in regard to the e x c e s s e s com m itted at C anter bury. By M arch of 1265, this arbitration was a thing of the past. Som etim e after the battle of L ew es, eith er at a s e r ie s of m eetin gs of j j 4 9 Ann. Mon. (W ykes), IV, 151-152. ! 50Ann. Mon. (T heokesberia), I, 179. 5lB laaw , The B a ro n s1 War, pp. 358-359. 162 en ! the E n glish cle rg y , or at a s e r ie s of parliam ents during the sum m er | ! of 1264, the E nglish c le r g y abided by their p rom ise to the archbishop i | and with the n ob les, p r e sse d the king to start proceedings to gather | up the goods of the archbishop: I Septem ber 1, 1264, C om m itm ent during p lea su re, by the cou n sel of the m agnates of the council, to H. bishop of L incoln, and M aster Richard de M epham, archdeacon of ' Oxford, and R oger de Northwade of a ll the lands, p o sse ssio n s and goods belonging to B oniface, A rchbishop of Canterbury, which by o cca sio n of the disturbance of the realm , have been j unlawfully occupied by certain p erson s, consum ed and sca ttered , to the great dam age of the archbishop and h is j church, so that they ca u se the is s u e s th ereof to be co llected I and put in the church of Canterbury to be converted to the j u se of the said C hurch.53 j i j In a ro y a l le tte r to the sh eriff of Kent, the king rep eats in a letter ; c lo s e , the sam e arrangem ent given above "in form a per p relatos 54 | et barones pred ictos p r o v isa , 1 1 A w eek la te r , the three p erson s i nam ed in the king!s docum ent had given the resp o n sib ility to two 5 5 ! i p roctors; M aster E llis de London and M ayner de Cantuaria, a c le r k , j en | F or what little evid en ce available for th ese m eetin gs of thej i c le r g y from June to D ecem ber 1264, s e e C ouncils and Synods, I | P ow icke and Cheney, e d s ., II,i, 694-700! In a le tte r of protest 1 a r isin g out of th ese m eetin g s, the bishop of W orch ester m akes h is | appeal "propter absentiam v en era b ilis patris B on ifacii, D ei gratia j C an tuariensis arch iep isco p i, in tran sm arin is partibus a g e n t is ..." Cont. of G ervase, n , 239. The le tte r of p rotest w as against the p roceed in gs of the legate on the ground that the E nglish ep iscopate was prepared to deal w ith those found guilty of outrages on the Church during the recen t trou b les. The le tte r could be taken to m ean that i if the archbishop w as there, he would have done the sam e thing. ; N ow here does it m ention the p o ssib ility that the archbishop was ; supporting the le g a te . j 53C al. of Patent R olls, Henry HI, 1258-1266, p. 344. 54C lose R olls. H enry III, 1261-1264 (London, 1936), p. 404. j 55 ’ C al. of Patent R olls, Henry III, 1258-1266, p. 346. 163 56 Although this arrangem ent w as w orking som ew hat sm oothly, on | Septem ber 16, 1264, it se e m s to have broken down. The king has ; to w rite: i But the sa id bishops and archdeacon are not at p resen t in ! the rea lm , and their p ro cto rs are found to be negligen t in I this; the king h as stipulated Henry de Otinton, the king's c le rk , to s e ll the corn of the said b en efices in certain p la ces assign ed to him when appraised by oaths of good j m en, by view £jnd cou n sel of the sa id p ro cto rs, if they | w ill take part. 57 l i In D ecem b er of 1264, a new com m ittee of three p rela tes; the a rch - I ! bishop of Y ork and the bishops of London and L incoln "in pursuance ! of the p rovision s la tely m ade at London by the cou n sel and a ssen t | of the p rela tes and n ob les touching the plundering of e c c le s ia s tic a l i j C A I p erso n s, " w ere to do ju stice in this r e sp e c t. One would a ssu m e that if the ch arter stipulating the con - i ditions for the return of B oniface to England w as m ade in M arch of 1265, it would not have m entioned "the cou n sel of h is suffragans" in conjunction w ith the "making am ends" but would have m entioned this j ! s e le c t group of three p rela tes who had been picked by the m agnates ! and approved by the king for the c o llectio n of the goods pertaining to i the archbishop of C anterbury. And again, in M arch 1265, R oger C lifford, Leyborn, L estran ge and the other M archer lo rd s guilty of ®See the king's le tte r to the sh er iff of Kent. C lose R olls, j H enry i n , 1 2 6 1 - 1 2 6 4 , p . 4 0 4 . T here is evid en ce that som e so r t of I fin an cial arrangem ent had been esta b lish ed to take c a re of the I p roceed s of the se e of C anterbury. C al. of Patent R olls, Henry III, 1 2 5 8 - 1 2 6 6 , p. 3 4 6 . - - - - - - - - 57I b id ., p. 369. 58Ib id .. p. 393. 164 | the sa c r ile g e in Canterbury w ere se m i-h o sta g e s, on their way out of | gg I England to Ireland. It would seem som ew hat strange that they would i ; be charged at this tim e w ith the sp oliation of C anterbury, a crim e i { that w as over two y ea rs old and under different c ircu m sta n ces. | Although there are so m e m inor p oin ts, the third m ain point : is contained in the final cla u se of the ch arter giving the conditions for the return of the archbishop to England: "That neither the a rch - i bishop nor h is clerk s m ay bring anything with them in le tte r s, m e s - j i sa g e s or m andates or procure anything by th em selv es or oth ers ; ! w hereby dam age or prejudice m ay happen to the king or any of the C a 1 rea lm . If we take the interpretation of Bem ont and Pow icke, this . cla u se has nothing to do with the king (he is trying to get h is "royal" i | supporter back into England), h is nam e is only a cover for the barons, the "any of the r e a lm ." In this view , the " letters, m e ssa g e s and i l t j m andates concern the barons and not the king. Up to this tim e, j I I i how ever, the only docum ent that is extant is the excom m unication 1 pronounced pronounced by the archbishop, spoken about e a r lie r , which w as lev e le d at a group of hothead nob les, m ost of whom w ere , now on the sid e of the king. i I Tfhis r a is e s the question, what exactly w as the relation sh ip 1 i j betw een King Henry and his archbishop during th ese y ea rs of c iv il [ ! ! | w ar? A partial answ er m ay be found in the situation surrounding i ; the election of W alter G iffard to the bishop ric of Bath and W ells. 59 C al. of Patent R olls. Henry III. 1258-1266. p. 415. 60Ib id ., p. 413. ! 165 i | Thom as Scott H olm es, in h is c r itic a l edition of the R eg isters I i j of W alter G iffard as bishop of Bath and W ells, d e sc rib es the situation i i surrounding the election : A w eek after the battle of L ew es, the convent of Bath and the chapter of W ells h u rried ly, and without a ll the fo rm a litie s which w ere afterw ards agreed upon, e le cte d a s Bishop of Bath and W eils on the Thursday after the F e a st of St. Dunstan (May 22) W alter G iffard, a papal chaplain, in su b -d eacon 's o r d e rs, and one of the canons of the cathedral c h u r c h .. . | If Bath was papal, W ells w as clea rly r o y a list, and the influence of Edward de la C noil, the tru sted frien d of Queen E leanor, procured the election of a kin g's man to su cceed the r efo rm er Button. 61 i | During the next month, June 1264, King H enry, in support 62 ; of G iffard "whom the king holds in sp ec ia l com m endation, " w rote i an angry lette r to A rchbishop B on iface. In calendared form , it i read s: I i L etter to B oniface, A rchbishop of C anterbury, ex p ressin g i the kin g's indignation at h is r efu sa l to com m it to som e d isc r e e t person s of the rea lm power to exam ine and confirm i the electio n of M aster W alter Giffard as bishop of Bath and W ells, e sp e c ia lly as the king has detained him from com in g to the archbishop b ecau se the w ays of F ran ce are not sa fe for E nglish m en at p resen t, and sum m oning him to return to h is duties in England or delegate h is pow ers to suitable p erson s in the rea lm , oth erw ise h is em olum ents The R e g ister s of W alter G iffard. B ishop of Bath and j W ells, 1265-1266. and of H enry Bow ett. B ish op of Bath and W ellsf ; 1401-1407. Thom as Scott H olm es, ed. (Som erset, 1699), x v iii-x ix . i if we can b eliev e W illiam P rynne, A rchbishop B oniface supported | the fo rm er bishop of Bath and W ells, W illiam Button, in h is con flict i I with the king. Prynne, R ecord s, i n , 121v . 6 2 C al. of Patent R o lls, Henry III, 1258-1266, p. 319. Cf. G iffard's own petition to B oniface stating the circu m sta n ces of h is electio n and asking for h is confirm ation. W. H. B. B ird, "Calendar ; of the M anuscripts of the Dean and Chapter of W ells, " H isto rica l M anuscript C om m ission , I (1907), 103. i 166 w ill not be allow ed to go out of the rea lm . If n ecessa ry the king is ready to grant him a safe conduct. 63 To F . M. Pow icke, how ever, the situation is just the op p o site. W alter G iffard is not a royal supporter but a supporter of the baronial faction. In referen ce to the le tte r cited above, betw een the king and the archbishop, Pow icke rem ark s: "Henry w as made to e x - A 4 p r e ss indignation when the archbishop refu sed to do th is. " Simon 6 3 C al. of Patent R olls Henry HI 1258-1266, p. 328. The whole le tte r is given in the F oed era, I, i, 444 under the title: "L itterae m issa e B . arch iep 1 Cantuar* tunc in F ran cia degent' in quibus e x - prim unter praerogativa R egis, ac le g e s contra usurpationes & abusus ; icier i; necnon p otestas R egis in c le ru m ." See a lso the sa fe conduct given to the archbishop's c le rk "if B oniface, A rchbishop of Canterbury: . . . send him to England (on m atters of the electio n of Bath and Wells-> underlined as d e le te d ).. . on condition that he brings nothing with him that could be preju d icial to the king, p rela tes or m agnates. C al. of Patent R olls, Henry III, 1258-1266, p. 328. T his con flict r a is e s the whole question which m odern sch olarsh ip has, by and large, avoided; ; do the d e c re es of King Henry betw een the battle of L ew es and the battle of Evesham r eflec t the w ill of Simon de M ontfort or King H enry? It is the contention of the p resen t w riter that no general answ er can ! be given. It m ust be dealt with in sp e c ific s. In many c a se s , esp e cia lly when the ch a rters th em selv es state that the king is doing an act in conjunction with a council or parliam ent of m agnates, the ch a rters are probably the work of Sim on and h is fo llo w ers. But it can be se r io u sly questioned whether a ll the r e st of the royal ch arters are se c r e tly the words of Simon put ingeniously into the mouth of the king. A patent letter of the king is in stru ctive in this m atter: "And becau se the king understands that certain of his en em ies (em uli) fa lse ly sug g est that the king's m andates do not issu e of h is own knowledge, it would p lea se the king that ten or tw elve of the m ore d iscreet m en of the town com e to him to hear h is w ill m ore fully on the m a tte r ." C al. of Patent R olls, Henry III, 1258-1266, p. 430. T here is nothing to su ggest that these le tte r s to the archbishop and their ex p ressed oppo sition are anything e ls e than the ex p ressed w ill of King H enry. It would be in terestin g to extend this hypothesis to cover other le tte r s of King Henry during this tim e, e sp e c ia lly h is le tte r s to Edward and others to keep out of the kingdom . It m ust be rem em b ered that six y ea rs b efore, there w ere many rum ors that Edward h im self wanted to take over the throne. 64 F.M. Pow icke, King Henry HI, p. 461. The underlining is m y own. 167 | i de M ontfort had w ritten this le tte r in support of h is follow er and had I j : forced the king to sign it. i To confuse the issu e even m ore, Thom as W ykes, the ro y a list ch ron icler, attem pted an explanation of the situation: 1 Obiit W Q llelm u sU B athon ien sis ep iscop u s; m a g ister ' W alterus G iffard ad eandem sedem e st e le c tu s, et statim tran sfretavit ad dominum C antuariensem , et r ed iit in Angliam con secratu s ad eodem , c ir c a P en teco sten . Et quia tr a n s- i fretavit in vitis baronibus, m aneria sua fer e om nia d estru x - erunt. Ipse vero ante con secration em suam p raestito sacram en to quod r e g i non ad versaretu r, red ien s in A ngliam , prout e i injunctum fuerat a m etropolitano, in com item L e y ce stria e et c o m p lices su os excom m un icationes sententiam fulm inavit. 65 i A ll the p ie c e s do not fit together in this explanation. The evidence points to the fact that G iffard w as not ultim ately con secrated by A rchbishop B oniface but by P eter de A igueblanche, bishop of j 66 ' H ereford. P eter had alw ays been an ardent r o y a list and it would have been nothing out of the ordinary, if W ykes can be b elieved , that I he m ade the b ish o p -e lec t sw ear to support the royal ca u se. And again, if G iffard w as a baronial supporter, it would seem com p letely out of p lace, even granted the fact that the b ish o p -e le c t had been p ressu red to support the king, for the barons to p illage the s e e of one , of their own fo llo w e r s. W ykes sa y s that the "m etropolitan" m ade the m ade the b ish o p -elect publish a sen ten ce of excom m unication against j ^^Ann. Mon. (W ykes), IV, 164. 6 6 The R e g ister s of W alter G iffard, B ishop of Bath and W ells, H olm es, e d ., p. xix. 168 67 the b aron s. If w e take this to m ean the archbishop of Canterbury and if W ykes is c o r r e c t, it would be com p letely in ch aracter of what w e know about A rchbishop B on iface. E ven though he m ay not have been in favor of confirm ing the electio n o f G iffard, and even though he m ay a lso have supported the reform in g m ovem ent, if a group of barons again violated e c c le s ia s tic a l goods and lands, those guilty left th em selv es wide open for sp iritu a l p en a lties. When would the barons learn to r e sp e c t Church property? That W alter G iffard w as plainly a supporter of the king can be se e n by the fact that im m ed iately after the battle of E vesham , the king m ade him ch an cellor of England with a stipend of 500 m arks a go y e a r. In August of the follow in g y ea r, he w as appointed one of the royal arb itrators for drawing up the award of K enilworth and in 67 I We have no docum ents to back up this a sse r tio n and no ! evid en ce of a ban of excom m unication pronounced by A rchbishop 1 B on iface. What w e do have, in terestin g ly enough, is a le tte r from H enry of Sandwich, bishop of London, and the other Canterbury i b ish op s to G ilbert de C lare, e a r l of G lou cester, p rotestin g against the outrages of h is serv a n ts upon churches and e c c le s ia s tic a l persons.! B odleian L ibrary, Oxford, Dugdale MSS, 20, fo l. 140v . Cf. N . , D enholm -Y oung, C ollected P a p e rs, p. 126. Although it is not dated, j i internal evid en ce would point to a date after the b attle of L ew es (May i J 14, 1264). D enholm -Y oung lin ks it with Sim on de M ontfort's appeal I (through the k in g ? ) to the bishop s of the southern province to excom m unicate the M arch ers. F oed era, I, i, 456 (June 8, 1265). It is the view of the p resen t author that th is sen ten ce of excom m unication has no rela tio n to the M archers; they w ere not the ea rl of G loucester*s se r v a n ts. The lette r m ay p o ssib ly offer so m e explanation to the r e fer e n c e in Thom as W ykes of an excom m unication pronounced by A rchbishop B on iface. It would be a ll the m ore in terestin g if this ban of excom m unication w as pronounced after the ea rl of G lou cester sp lit away from Sim on de M ontfort. | ®®William Hunt, "W alter G iffard, " D ictionary of N ational i B iography, XXI, 296-29 7. Cf. The R e g iste r s of W alter G iffard, B is nop SrB ath and W ells, H olm es, e d ., p. x ix . O ctober of 1265, he was appointed by C lem ent IV, on the in sista n ce of the king, to the arch bish opric of Y ork .69 L ater during the early y e a rs of the reign of Edward I, G iffard w as given custody o f the G r e a t; Seal w hile the king w as on a cru sad e. The battle of E vesham , August 4, 1265, brought King H enry and his fo llo w ers back into fu ll p o litica l control; W alter G iffard now entered into h is ex trem ely active p o litica l life and the su pporters of I the king returned to England. T h ese even ts, how ever, did not involve the archbishop of C anterbury. A rchbishop B oniface spent the la tter I portion of the year 1265 and the ea rly portion of the year 1266 in h is c a stle at Tournon.^ 6 It w as only in May 29, 1266, that the eld erly 71 B oniface quietly returned to England. T hese fin al few y e a r s of h is I p rim acy w ill be the subject of our next chapter. T his quiet return of A rchbishop B oniface not only, as it were^! brings to an end an era of c iv il w ar within England but a lso lea v e s u s ; w ith the task of su m m arizin g the answ ers to two b a sic q u estion s. T here is the sp e c ific question, when w as the ch arter settin g down 66W illiam Hunt, D iction ary of N ational Biography, XXI, 297. ; B y D ecem ber of 1264, through a Tong period of negotiation, the arch bishop fin ally gave h is approval for the electio n of G iffard to the s e e of Bath and W ells. C lose R olls, H enry III, 1264-1268, p. 82. In 1266, th ere w as a further dispute betw een A rchbishop B oniface and W alter G iffard, now archbishop of Y ork, over G iffard's right to ca rry his ■ c r o s s e r e c t in the southern p rovince. Ibid. 70See the two ch a rters, dated Septem ber and N ovem ber 1265, printed in the appendix to M ugnier, L es Savoyards en A ngle- ter re , pp. 296-298. ^ C on t. of G ervase, II, 245. 170 | I the conditions for the return of B oniface w ritten? And there is the i gen eral question w hich form ed the b a sis for this w hole chapter, what j w as the relation sh ip of A rchbishop B on iface to the p o litica l even ts w ithin England during the period 1262-1266? F ir s t, there is the sp e c ific question concerning the ch arter giving the conditions for the return of the archbishop. It would se em , taking a il the evid en ce into con sid eration , that the obvious date of M arch 1264 m ust be accep ted . At the M arch 1264 parliam ent, four of the Canterbury su ffragan s tried to work out an agreem en t betw een 72 the king and h is m agn ates. The ten se p o litica l situation m ust be. e a se d . C iv il war m ust be avoided. It w as a tim e for co n cilia tio n . One of the points of contention, e sp e c ia lly for the churchm en, w as j the strain ed rela tio n s betw een their archbishop and the king. A ll p a rties fin ally agreed to a ch arter that e sse n tia lly sa id that the arch bishop would e a se the p r e ssu re off the king and h is su p p orters, providing, of co u r se, that am ends w ere m ade, and in exchange, the king and those p resen t would allow the archbishop to return to England. By the tim e it w as w ritten, how ever, the p o litica l situation grew w o r se . Both s id e s r e so r te d to a rm s and the even ts of the next two y e a r s quickly follow ed . It is many m onths la ter , with Sim on de M ontfort in control, that the sp oliation of Canterbury could be adju dicated . Even at that tim e, as w e have se en , no one w as too m uch in terested in the fate of the lands and goods of the archbishop. During tim e s of w ar, the innocent su ffer . Even the ch arter its e lf w as never 72F.M. P ow icke, King Henry III, p. 458. 171 | I put into actu ality. P o litic a l even ts had m oved too sw iftly. ! This lead s us to the b a sic question, what was the relationship! I of the archbishop to the p o litica l even ts of 1262-1266? The answ er lie s in the continued p o litic a l stru ggle betw een A rchbishop B oniface and King H enry. The archbishop found out that the diplom atic defeat at the papal cu ria that lead to h is voluntary e x ile in 1262 could not be r e v e r se d . Although the E nglish m agnates and churchm en tried to m ed iate a settlem en t lead in g to the arch bish op's return in M arch 1264, this cam e to nothing. The stru ggle betw een prim ate and king con - j j tinued. H enry, although openly accom m odating, did a ll in h is pow er to sh ield those of h is fo llo w ers who had taken part in the violation of the Canterbury s e e . The archbishop continued to r e s is t the royal i control of Church e le c tio n s. The cau se of e c c le s ia s tic a l and p o litica l reform which had now becom e in sep arately in terlaced , w as sw allow ed up in M ontfort's reb ellio n and c iv il w ar. The picture of B oniface a s the "royalist" archbishop supporting the king during this tim e of c iv il war m ust be r ejected . A b etter explanation would be of one under extrem e p r e s su re . On the one hand, the reb ello u s barons in England had turned against the foreign archbishop and h is appeals for the lib erty of the , Church. H is own se e w as p illaged and ransacked. On the other hand, two popes. Urban IV and C lem ent IV, spoke openly of the "rebellous" archbishop and e x p r essed d isfavor for his r e sista n c e to King H enry. The relation sh ip of the archbishop to the even ts of 1262-1266 ultim ately b ecom es one of p a ssiv e r e sis ta n c e . Until new protagonists a r is e , this stand by the archbishop of Canterbury, along with the m ore active 172 stand of h is suffragans in England, is the la st gasp of the reform in g m ovem ent that had its roots in the P ro v isio n s of Oxford in 1258 and the C ouncil of Lam beth in 1261. CHAPTER VH THE FINAL YEARS OF THE ARCHBISHOP IN ENGLAND TO HIS DEATH IN SAVOY (1266-1270): AN ESTIMATION OF BONIFACE OF SAVOY AND HIS ROLE IN ENGLISH POLITICS A rchbishop Boniface quietly returned to England in May 1266. He m ay have been in poor health. He had made out an elab orate w ill in 1264 and the r e fe r e n c e s in the C hronicles of Savoy, m entioned in chapter one, to a long, lin gerin g illn e ss in the latter y e a rs of h is life m ay extend back to this period of tim e. W hether intentionally or unintentionally. Archbishop B oniface fades out of the p o litica l picture in th ese la st rem aining y ea rs in England. Cardinal Ottoboni, the papal legate, had com e to England, along with the queen, in 1265 and w as now firm ly in p olitical con trol. What w as the relation sh ip betw een the archbishop and the papal leg a te? Again we have an im portant question with little evidence to arrive at an an sw er. T heir person al relation s m ay have been am iable. Ottoboni w as related through h is s is te r to the counts of Savoy. In a letter w ritten by the legate to A rchbishop B oniface, he w rites: Scim us enim in hoc sin gu lariter post Deum confidim us, et in sp e constituim ur, et gaudem us quod in eo s, qui de regno prefato disponunt, et precipue in nobilem virum ip siu s n eg o cii sp ec ia liter rem gerentem , et gratie, ut quicquid per talia fie r i p o sse cred itu r, per vos in illo p ossit 173 i plenius o p tin e r i.. . * ! In a papal le tte r dated July 1267, Pope C lem ent IV speaks of the | archbishop "in n egotiis co lla b o ret. " 2 This friend ship m ay have m o llified any proceedings against the archbishop of Canterbury h im se lf and the se v e r ity of papal r e ta l- ; iation upon the Canterbury suffragan s who had r e sis te d the king during this tim e of baronial reform and c iv il w ar. King Henry had i 3 wanted the leg a te to in itiate proceed in gs against sev en of the b ish o p s. ; The leg a te only brought proceed in gs against four; the bishops of ! i ; London, L incoln, W inchester and C h ich ester. By 1272, the four bishops suspended had eith er died or had receiv ed papal pardon. Evenj with th is, how ever, it m u st have been a b itter p ill for the archbishop ! to se e four of h is frien d s thus sen ten ced . They w ere the ones who had stood by him during a ll the troubled y e a r s betw een 1257-1262. : They w ere the ones who had helped to ham m er out the gravam ina j *Rose G raham , E n glish H isto rica l R eview , XV (1900), 8 7 -88. M iss Graham , on the b a sis of in tern al evid en ce, attrib utes this letter "probably to B oniface of Savoy, A rchbishop of C an terb u ry." Ib id ., p. 87. B eca u se it co n flicts with h is picture of the "royalist" archbishop, F .M . Pow icke has to reapply this letter: "C ertainly this le tte r w as not w ritten to A rchbishop B oniface as the editor su g g e sts. B oniface w as not in England and would have been h orrified by r eferen ce to h is influence with E arl S im o n ." F . M. P ow icke, King ; Henry HI, p. 528, n. 1. The le tte r now here im p lie s that the r e c ip - i lent w as in England. And again, this le tte r , along with the other legatin e le tte r s , fits quite n icely into the view put forth by this study that the archbishop w as h im se lf part of the reform m ovem ent in opposition to the king. T here is nothing w rong w ith the supposition that the archbishop m ay have been c lo se to the baronial lea d er s and a friend of Simon de M ontfort. 2 Reg. C lem ent IV, I, 410, N o. 1,233. 2F.M. P ow icke, King H enry HI, pp. 528-529. 175 : again st the king. They w ere the on es who had put their s e a ls to the C onstitutions of Lam beth in 1261. If the leg a te w as softened by h is relation sh ip to the arch bishop and h is attem pt to m ediate a p eace, the king w as not. D is regard in g a ll the p rovin cial syn od s. King H enry, w ith a heavy hand, began anew to encroach upon the lib e r tie s of the Church. R oger L eyborn, one of the lea d er s of those who had pillaged Canterbury in 1263, w as the k in g's sp okesm an to A rchbishop B oniface.^ The Pope had granted H enry, in June 1266, a tenth of a ll Church reven u es in 5 England. The king sen t in h is m en to get this tax by fo r c e . The frictio n betw een the king and the archbishop in this m atter can be se e n in a patent le tte r w ritten after B oniface had le ft England: W hereas B . archbishop of C anterbury, took a certa in sum of the sa id tenth of that arch b ish op ric for h is corn la tely taken from him by Im bert de M unferant to m unition the c a stle of D over, of which sum he detains the w rit of L ib era te, w hereby the king la tely com m anded him to su rren d er to him the said w rit with the bond of the said Im bert w hich he lik ew ise d etain s, but has not done so b ecau se the o fficia l and the stew ard of the arch bish opric have not rendered account of the said archbishopric: m andate to the said Bonettus and h is fellow to audit the said account m ade by the said o fficia l and stew ard of the tim e they w ere r e c e iv e r s and then to c er tify the king of the sum rec eiv ed by the arch bishop for the said corn, and to sue for and r e c e iv e the said instrum ents and d eliv er them to the ch an cellor when they com e to the king. And the said o fficia l and stew ard are com m anded to ren d er the sa id account and d eliv er the said in stru m en ts. ^C al. of Patent R olls, H enry III, 1266-1272, pp. 135;233. 5C al. of P atent R o lls, H enry HI, 1258-1266, p. 568. 6Ib id ., p. 322. Cf. C al. of L iberate R o lls, H enry HI, 1260- 1267, p. 2 W . 176 L ater after the death of A rchbishop B oniface, the king sp eak s of being "bound to the execu tors of the w ill of B . archbishop o f C anter- 1 7 bury for a great sum of m o n e y ." A fter the death of B on iface, the Q king enjoyed to the utm ost the fru its of the sed e vacante. E ven in th ese la st couple of y e a r s in England, A rchbishop B on iface continued h is r e sista n c e to royal en croach m en ts. When the king went to put one of h is appointees into a prebend in H ereford, the e ld er ly archbishop r e sis te d and the king com plained in a patent letter: "But down to the p resen t tim e heCthe archbishop D has d eferred doing this to the preju dice of the king’s right, at which the king is amazed."® If there w as one bright spot in th ese latter y e a r s for the i archbishop, it m ay have been his help in the preparations for the L egatine C ouncil of A pril 1268.*° B oniface m ay have been p resen t at I this Council and helped in form ing the fam ous Canons of Ottoboni that cam e out of this Council, but they w ere issu ed under the nam e of the legate.** i ; i ! ____________________________________________________________________________ | ^C al. of Patent R o lls, Henry HI, 1266-1272, p. 524. i I 8lb id ., pp. 332, 353, 553, 568. i 9Ib id ., p. 334. | lORose G raham , English H isto rica l R eview , X V (1900), 110, I No. 24; p. 119, N o. 36. To M iss Graham , the recip ien t of both le tte r s w as "probably B oniface of Savoy, A rchbishop of C an terb u ry." Ibid. C .R . Cheney hedges and attributes both le tte r s to an unnamed bishop "but not n e c e ssa r ily the archbishop of C anterbury." C ouncils and Synods, Pow icke and Cheney, e d s ., II, i, 735, n. 6 ; p. 743. In the secon d le tte r , the archbishop is instructed to sum m on a synod w ithin three w eeks to d iscu ss Church reform and to report its findings to the le g a te . ! „ : ! u Ib id ., H, i, 747-792. 177 j I I The archbishop, how ever, by this tim e, had a ll but com p letely withdrawn from public life and in O ctober 1268, again under 12 le tte r s of protection, withdrew to h is native land of Savoy. I A fter what w as to be h is final p o litica l act, secu rin g so m e favors for h is frien d s in the C arthusian o rd er,^ B o n ifa ce of Savoy d ied 1 on July 14, 1270, in the c a stle of St. H ei^ne des M illie r e s .^ A long, j slow fu n eral p ro cessio n ca rried h is body to the r e stin g place o f the l ^The le tte r s of p rotection are dated O ctober 20-21, 1268. Cal. of Patent R o lls, Henry 111, 1266-1272. pp. 2 6 5 -2 6 6 . The w riter ■ of the continuation of G ervase again sp e c ific a lly m entions the date: "Eodem annoQ 268 3 die Lunae proxim a ante festum b ea ti M artini (^November 14 J, dom inus B on efaciu s C an tuariensis arch iep iscop u s D ovoriam tran sfretatu ru s a c c e s s it; et non habens ventum prosperum , m oratus e s t ibidem quinque d iebu s. D ie vero Sancti M artini in e c c le s ia conventuali magnam m issa m celeb ra v it. Die v ero M ercu rii proxim a tran sfretavit ad p artes su a s Sabaudie. " Cont. of G ervase, II, 248. C f. De Antiquis L egibus L iber, Stapleton, e d ., p. 117. F . M. P ow icke again, with no apparent reason , g iv es a different date; N ovem ber 1269. F .M . P ow icke, King H enry III, pp. 575-576. The incident at W estm in ster C athedral, pictured by P ow icke, w here W alter G iffard, now archbishop of Y ork, ca rried h is c r o s s in pro c e s s io n and the Canterbury su ffragan s, refu sin g to join him , sat su llen in their s ta lls , m ay have p o litica l o v erto n es. Ibid. The Canterbury su ffragans had supported, along with the archbishop, the reform m ovem ent. W alter G iffard, the fo rm er ch an cellor, on the other hand, w as an ardent supporter of the king. l3"Anno C h risti se x a g esim o nono post m illesim u m ducen- tesim u m , indictione duodecim a, n o stri arch iep iscop u m , tamquam R o ssillio n is dominum querim onias su aC sic 3 , iuxta tenorem litteraru m d e m e n tis IV, de quibus anno p raecedente, contra eos detulerunt: a quo et segu en tes litte r a s titu lares ob tin u eru n t." Le C oulteulx; A nnales O rdinis C a r tu sie n sis, IV, 279. Quoted in Strickland, M iscellan ea di Storia Italiana, I (1895), 426. i l^In regard to the place w here B oniface died, this study has accepted the findings of F ra n co is M ugnier, L es Savoyards en A h gleterre, p. 219. 178 15 Savoyard nob ility, the ro y a l abbey of H autecom be. In the cool, s t ill m ountain a ir of the royal abbey of H aute- j com b e, in Savoy, there stands today an a lta r dedicated to the m em o ry 1 i i of " B lessed " B oniface, A rchbishop of C anterbury. A ll is quiet, a ll that is , except for the fig u r es on the b a s -r e lie f of the a lta r. H ere, a ll is in agitation and c o n flict. The archbishop is perpetually defending the righ ts of the Church against King Henry HI of England. T here is no su ch altar or b a s -r e lie f in England. T h ese two fa cts in th e m se lv e s eloquently sum up the life of j B oniface of Savoy and h is ro le in E nglish p o litic s. They speak of the j two m ajor traditions that have grown up around the archbishop; in Savoy, the hagiographic tradition, in England, the early Matthew P a ris tradition with its hatred against the reform in g archbishop. Only as m inor strands has been the Canterbury tradition w ith its app reciation of the provin cial and canonical work done by the a rch - j 15 In the m iddle of the fifteenth century, an elaborate bronze sarcophagus and effigy w as m ade by Henry C ologne for the form er archbishop of C anterbury, B oniface of Savoy. The effigy is so m e what sty liz e d and p ictu res B oniface a s a ta ll man, in full reg a lia , w ith stig r ata on h is hands and serp en ts at h is feet (sym b olizin g p rudence/. The only rep resen tation w e have of this origin al bronze effigy is an engraving by V alperga (ca. 1660) which w as included in G uichenon's H istorie de la R o y a le ^ la iso n de Savoie, p. 262. D uring the F ren ch R evolution, the bronze sarcophagus and effigy w as m elted down and d estroyed . U sin g the engraving by V alperga, a new tomb w as constructed in 1839 (the date of h is beatification ). T his tom b, now made out of ston e, s t ill stan ds today. On the tomb is w ritten the epitaph: "Hie jacet B onifacius de Sabaudia C antuariensis A rch iep iscop u s operibus bonis et virtutibus plenus obiit autem apud Sanctam H elenam Anno D om ini MCCLXX. XIV. die J u lii." Quoted in Strickland, M iscellan ea di Storia Italian s, I (1895), 429. 179 bishop and the m odern tradition which is now beginning to be aware of h is rightful place in h isto ry . B oniface had an inauspicious early life . There w as not much that ca lled attention to the young noblem an a s a C arthusian novice, the prior of Nantua or la ter, s till in the ord er of a sub-deacon, as the b ish o p -elect of B e lley or the procurator of V alen ce. Through fam ily connections and a strange interplay o f p olitical fo r c e s, how ev er, this sam e man w as appointed archbishop of Canterbury, the prim ate of the E nglish Church. Even as e le c t of Canterbury, B oniface becam e aw are of the m ain issu e of h is prim acy. Any a sser tio n on h is part in relation to the lib erty of the Church would involve him in opposition to the king. ! In the ea rly years as archbishop, the con flict w as avoided through a I s e r ie s of negotiated settlem en ts with the king. We get a glim p se of i | the archbishop's concern for e c c le s ia s tic a l reform during th ese [ y e a r s, as he a ss e r ts h is power as prim ate in the field s of finance | and ju risdiction . | The m ain issu e of the lib erty of the Church continued. The ! king did not abide by h is settlem en ts with the E n glish cle rg y . He involved the whole of England, including its Church, in a s e r ie s of s e n s e le s s p olitical m o v es. He s till continued to m eddle in lo ca l i Church a ffa irs. F aced with the obstinacy of the king. Archbishop j B oniface took part in the m ovem ent of p o litica l reform that em erged from the P rovision s of Oxford and incorporated the grievan ces of ; the Church into the C onstitutions of Lam beth. ; ; i The king took the con flict to a diplom atic confrontation at 180 l | the papal cu ria. It w as openly a showdown, through their p roctors, betw een A rchbishop Boniface and King Henry HI. The archbishop lo st. Pope Urban IV r e le a se d the king from any oaths or agreem en ts, with barons and churchm en alike, that he felt preju dicial to the royal dignity. Urban a lso withheld approval of the C onstitutions of Lambeth.' The days of an archbishop with papal backing r e sistin g the king w ere o v er. Thirteenth century p olitics w ere too com p lex. The papacy needed p o litica l power to break the opposition of F red erick II. It had given S icily to Edmund, the son of Henry III of England, in exchange for m ilitary and financial aid. The pope needed the king rather than the archbishop. The situation was made even m ore troublesom e by Sim on de i M ontfort's c iv il w ar. The reb elliou s barons cared little for the foreign archbishop and his appeals for the lib erty of the Church. H is own s e e was pillaged and ransacked. S till the con flict betw een the archbishop and the king continued although its outcom e was certain . Two popes spoke openly of the "rebellous a rch b ish o p ." The king shielded h is follow ers from the actions of the archbishop and the prim ate r e siste d the king's control of Church e le c tio n s. The relation ship w as s t ill strained on the death of B oniface in 1270. B oniface of Savoy had defended the righ ts of the Church against the king. This had led him to support the m ovem ents of p olitical reform . H is defeat m arked the end of any independent, p olitical power of the archbishop of Canterbury. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ! A L etter from A rchbishop B oniface to h is Suffragans, dated (O ctober) 1263, from the Additamenta to the | Hyde C hronicle (unpublished). W ritten ca . 1280. B odleian L ibrary, Oxford, Bodleian MSS, 9l,”7b l. 136r-136v j S i i (Superscription: in sam e hand as tex t) Mandatum excom m unicationis ; contra S. de Monte F o rti C om item et a lio s infra nom inatos. I B onifacius m iseration e divina C antuariensis arch iepiscopu s tocius Anglie p rim as, venerabilibus in C hristo fratribus C antuariensis e c c le s ie su ffragan eis salutem et sin ceram in dom ino ca rita tem . Cum quidam iniquitatis f ilii in hoc genus ! 5 s a c r ile g ii nuper in provincia C antuariensis a u si sin t perum pere, ; ut quosdam ecclesia ru m p relatos ac m ultas e c c le s ia s tic a s person as suadente diabolo manus in ea s iniciendo violen tas p resu m p serin t captivare, ac plu res m un eris fid eles tarn la ic o s quam c le r ic o s de se p tis e cclesia ru m ad quas confugerant, ac 10 r e s va ria s in eisd em e c c le s iis ex isten te s ecclesia ru m immunitatej violata, et quantum in ip sis dom ini d ei speluncam latronum fa cien tes extraxerunt violen ter e c c le sia stica r u m personarum tarn d ecim is quam a liis per eorum m anus im pias nequiter dep red atis. Insuper in profundum m alorum m ise ra b ilite r 15 ven ien tes in b en e ficiis e c c le s ia s tic is etiam curam sanctarum habentibus quosdam sc ism a tic o s viventibus rectorib u s eorum dem prelatorum m in isteriu m vituperando intrudere non sunt v eriti, non absque nota h eretice pravitatis ac m ulta alia enorm ia, et a lia inaudita contra deum et e c c le sia stic a m 20 lib ertatem in scandalum tocius c le r i et populi ausu nephandissim o perpetrare: fraternitatem vestram m onem us et exhortam us in dom ino Jesu C hristo vobis in virtute obedientie et sub pena canonice d istrictio n is nichilom inus firm iter iniungentes quatinus p redictos sa c r ile g o s et m a lefa cto res et 25 om nes illo s quorum auctoritate v el m andato, ope seu co n silio , quos om nes constat in sententiam m a io ris excom m unicationis m axim e secundum co n cilia provin cialia in c id isse , in e c c le s iis v e str is cathredalibus et in om nibus a liis vestrarum civitatum et diocesum , sin gu lis diebus d om in icis et fe s tiv is , can d elis 1 i 30 a c c e n sis, et p u lsatis cam panis excom m unicatos in genere nuncietis et nunciari fa c ia tis. Et quia per e x istit, dom inos H enr' et Symonem filiu s C om itis L a y c estr en sis, Humphricum ' de Bonn filium C om itis H ereford en sis, Rogerium de Leyburn1 , Rogerium de C lyfford1 , Johannem G yffard', Hamonum 35 L estraunge, Johannem de V aus, Jocelin ' de B ad elesm ere, Symonem de C reye, W illelm um M arim on1 juniorem , H enr1 de Borne, Johannem et Rabertum B a sset, Robertum de T u rb erville I juniorem , Hugonem de T u rb erville, H enr1 de T alincone, 182 183 1 Thom onem de T u rb erville, W alterum de B ork eville, Grim baldum P aunceforte, H. M aletnayns1 , H enr1 de H astyng', N icholam de S egrave, Johannem La Gyron* predictorum sa crileg io ru m et m aleficioru m au ctores e t fau ctores p rin cip a les e x titiss e , et 5 dominum S. de Monte F o rti Com item L a y c estr en sis auctoritatem et assen su m quod cum co rd is am aritudine r eferim u s in p red ictis | p r e s titis s e , vob is m andam us in virtute obedientie sub pena canonice d istrictio n is fir m ite r iniungendo, quatinus p red ictos om nes et sin gu los in form a p redicta excom m un icatos nom inatim 10 d en u n cietis, et denunciari fa c it. Et in h ib eatis, et inhiberi fa c ia tis subditis v e s tr is sub pena excom m unicationis ne cum p red ictis nom inatim excom m unicatis com m unicare seu p articip are presum ant. In e c c le s iis autem infra quarum term inos aliquos seu aliquem de p refa tis nom inatim excom m un icatis 15 d eclin are contingerit, quamdiu ibidem fuerint seu fu erit, c e s s a r i a d iv itis sin g u lis c iv ita tis et d io c e sis sib i subdita fa c ia tis. Si vero per unum m en sem excom m unicatonis fir m ite r anim o su stin e re preru m p serin t indurato, ex tunc ter ra s eorum et lo c a e is subdita quilibet ortum in su a civitate et d io c e se , e c c le s ia s tic o 20 supponat interd icto, sic u t offensam d e i om nipotentis et canonicam! vu ltis effu gere ultionem p red icta autem om nia et sin gu la tarn diu i fa c ia tis, quousque d icti m alefactores et s a c r ile g i deo et e c c le s ie - et dempnum seu iniuram pass is sa tisfe c e r in t com p etenter, et ab solutionis beneficium m eru erin t op Her 3 tin e re . Quid autem 25 super p r e m is sis fe c e r itis nos per v e str a s litte r a s patentes harum' se r ie m continentes c e r tific a r e c u r e tis. Vos autem reveren d e fra ter E p iscop e L ondoniensis ad sin gu los su ffragan eos n ostros p r e sen s mandatum nostrum p er p resen s origin ale, v e l per le tte r a s v e str a s patentes ip siu s o rig in a lis se r ie m con tinentes, 30 fa c ia tis p erven ire, et hoc vob is in virtu te obedientie et sub pena i canonice d istr ictio n is fir m ite r iniungim us et m andam us. Datum I B olon ien se supra m are die m ercu rio proxim a post festum Sancti M ichael is . anno dom ini M ° CC° LX te r c io . APPENDIX B i A L etter from the Suffragans of Canterbury to A rchbishop j B on iface, dated January 1263 (1264), from the Additamenta i to the Hyde C hronicle (unpublished). B odleian L ibrary, Oxford, B odleian MSS, 91, fo l. 136v ! i ! (Superscription: in different hand than the text) B esp on sio E piscoporum . 1 N os L on don iensis, W yntoniensis, W ygorniensis, L yn coln ien sis, S a r e n sis, C y cestre n sis, C oven tren sis, E ly en sis, N orew ycen sis, E x o n ien sis, B athon ien sis E p iscop i, relig io n e fid ei prom ittim us, et in verbo v erita tis et sa c er d o tii nos adinvicem obligam us, quod 5 iura, lib erta tes ecclesia ru m provincie C antuariensis com m uniter et singulatim con servab im u s, et co n se rv a r i quantum in nobis e s t ; procurabim us et faciem u s, et quilibet nostrum a lte r i in iure suo prosequendo et defendendo su i in iniuria e c c le s ie sue illa ta su i inferenda, sicu t proprium supportando, et defensionem eiu s sicu t : 10 propriam subeundo. Ita quod omnium et singlorum . . . ^ i sin gu laris et propria d efen sio. Qui autem in p r e m issis discordem et rem issu m s e reddiditur, . . .2 nullum a com m unitate ex sp ectet j i rem edium , sed s i super hoc in p rovinciale con cilio convictus fu erit canonice su biaceat ultioni. Ad cuius r e i robur et 15 firm itatem , s ig illa n ostra p r e se n ti pagine duxim us apponenda. Datum anno dom ini M CCd LX° tertio . m en se Januarii. ^Obliterated by c r e a se . ^O bliterated by c r e a se . 184 APPENDIX C The C harter giving the C onditions for the Return of ! A rchbishop B oniface to England. F oed era, I. i, 438 i , ; i | (Superscription:) De Conditionibus sub quibus A rch iep iscop u s {C antuariensis revertatu r in Angliazn. ! ! j Anno D om ini 1264, m en se M artii, in p ra esen tia illu str is R egis Angliae; de C o n silio P rocerum & Magnatum eiu sd em Regni, actum e s t, quod jven erab ilis pater B . D ei gratia C an tuariensis A rch iep iscop u s, totius A ngliae P rim a s, in Angliam revertatu r, sub conditionibus in fra- sc r ip tis , in Regno p acifice m oratu ru s. In p r im is igitur actum e s t, quod A rch iep iscop u s in r ev e rsio n e sua excom m un icationis sen ten tias in quascunque p erso n a s, occasion e jturbationis in Regno A ngliae habitae, prom ulgatas, sin e difficultate qualibet rela x et in form a juris: dum tam en illi, qui excom m unicati fuerint inventi, de e x c e ssib u s sa tisfa c e r e sint parati, & pro eisdem Canonic a mandata A rch iep iscop i r ec ip er e tenentur in form a inferibs in proxim o articu lo contenta. Sec undo, actum e st, quod de em end is fa cien d is, nom ine excessu u m E c c le s iis & E c c le s ia s tic is p erso n is infra loca, ju risd iction i suae im m ed iate subjecta, arbitretur A rch iep iscop u s de c o n silio omnium Suffraganeorum suorum , aut m ajoris & sa n io r is p artis; & de arduis n eg o tiis, E cclesia m Anglicanam & Regnum contingentibus, futuris tem poribus post rev ersio n em suam , sim ilite r de co n silio eorundem & aliorum discretoru m de Regno, ordinet & disponat. T ertio, actum e st, quod M agistros ta les fa m ilia re s C le rico s su os secu m adducat; & hos tantum C lerico s alien igen as de co n silio suo & fa m ilia retin eat. Quarto, actum e s t, quod a lii C le r ic i, quicunque b enefaciati in Regno 'A ngliae, cum A rch iep iscop o r ed ir e v o len tes, in b en eficiis su is sa lv o & se c u r e redeant & m orentur: & bona E c c le s ia s tic a infra Regnum expendant, ut tenentur, nihil extra Regnum d eferen tes v e l m itten tes, n is i c a su s n e c e ssa r iu s, & a c o n silio R egis approbatus, hoc req u irat. Quinto, actum e st, quod A rch iep iscop u s, seu C le r ic i cum ip so v en ien tes nihil in lite r is , N u nciis, seu m andatis secu m deferant, v el quicquam aliud, in ip so Regno com m oran tes, per s e v el per a lio s procurent, de quo R egi, aut aliquibus de Regno dampnum p o ssit, v e l periculum , seu praejudicium p roven ire. A d m em oriam autem praem issoru m praesen tib u s sig illu m illu str is IRegis A ngliae e st appensum . P er totum C on siliu m . 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY I. MANUSCRIPT SOURCES j I B oniface of Savoy. "Mandatum E xcom m unicationis contra S. de i Monte F o r ti Com itum et a lio s infra N om inatos, " Hyde C h ron icle. Additam enta. B odleian L ib rary, O xford. B odleian MSS/TJl, Tof.' 136**-136V. Henry Sandwich and O thers. "R esponsio E piscoporum , " Hyde C h ron icle. A dditam enta. B odleian L ib rary, O xford. B odleian MSS, 9l, fo l. 136v . II. PUBLISHED SOURCES i "Adae de M arisco E p isto la e, " M onumenta F ra n cisca n a . J. S. B rew er, ! ed. London, 1858-1882."T T W C T E - A nnales M on astici. H. R. Luard, ed. 5 v o ls. London, 1864-1869. A nonym ous. "A Continuation of W illiam of Newburgh’s H istory to A. D. 1 2 9 8 ,1 1 C h ron icles of the R eigns of Stephen, H enry II and R ichard I. R ichard H ow lett, ed. London, 1885. ii, 503-589. . "Annales L ondonienses, " C h ron icles of the R eigns of Edward I and Edward II. W illiam Stubbs, ed. London, 1882-1883." I, 1-253.-------- _________ . A nnales O rdinis C a rth u sien sis, C om plectens quae ad Institutionem D iscip lin am & O bservantias Or dim s sp ectan t. Rom e, 1887.-------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------ . C hronicle of Bury St. Edm unds, 1212-1301. Antonia G ransden, ed. and tran s^ L on d on , 1964. _________ . C hronicon M on asterii de Abingdon. Joseph Stevenson, ed. London, 1858. ' De Antiquis L egibus L iber, C ronica M aiorum et I V icecom itum Londoniarum . Thom as Stapleton, ed. London, 1846. |_________ . "D ies O bituales A rchiepiscoporum C antuariensium , ex | M artyrologio & O bituario E c c le s ia C h risti C an tu arien sis, " Anglia S acra. H enry Wharton, ed. London, 1691. I, 5 2 -6 5 . 186 10Y A nonym ous. "Ex Annalibus S. P auli L on d on ien sis, " F elix L ieberm ann, ed. M onumenta G erm anae H istoria, S crip to res. G. H. P ertz and O thers, e d s. H anover and B erlin , 1819— . XXVIH, 548-551. . F lo r e s H istoriaru m . H enry R ichards Luard, ed . London, is m : . G esta Regum Continuata in The H isto rica l W orks of G ervase of C anterbury. W illiam Stubbs, ed. London. 1880. IT ,' 106-324. ------------- . H istoria et C artularium M on asterii Sancti P etri G lo u cestria e. W illiam H enry h a r t, ed. London. 1863-1867. . M em orials of St. Edm und's Abbey. Thom as Arnold, ed. London, 1890-1896. B artholom ew de Cotton. H isto ria A nglicana. H enry R ichards Luard, ed. London, 185^1 B em ont, C h a rles. "Un RSle G ascon de L e ttr es C lo ses Expedie'es par la C h an cellerie du P rin ce Edouard, 1254-1255, " B u lletin P hilologiqu e et H istorique (jusqu’a 1715), LXI (1915), S i— 139, B ird , W. H. B . "Calendar of the M anuscripts of the Dean and Chapter of W ells, " H isto rica l M anuscripts C om m ission , 1 (1907), 135-137. C alendar of E n tries in the P apal R eg iste r s R elating to G reat B ritain “ and Ireland, v o l. 1. W .H . B lis s , ed. London, 1&33. Cam , H elen M. "The P arliam en tary W rits ’de expens i s 1 of 1258, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , XLVI (1931), 630-632. C h arters and D ocum ents Illu stra tin g the H istory o f the C athedral, cHt^ and ftio c e se of Salisb u ry. W. R. Jon es, ed. London, C hronica Johannis de R eading et Anonym i C an tuariensis, 1346-1367. Jam es Tait, ed. M anchester, l9 t4 . “ “ C on cilia M agnae B ritan iae et H iberniae. David W ilkins, ed . -------------London, "173?;--------------------------- C ouncils and E c c le s ia s tic a l D ocum ents R elating to Great B ritain arid Irelan d. Arthur W est Hadden and W illiam Stubbs, ed s. 2 v o ls. Oxford, 1869-1878. C ouncils and Synods with Other D ocum ents R elating to the E n glish Church, f . M . Pow icke and 6 . R . Cheney, e d s. 2 v o is . O xford, 1964. i i Denholm -Y oung, N o el. "D ocum ents of the B aron s1 W ars, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , XLVIII (1933), 558-575. ! D ocum ents Illu stra tiv e of E n glish H istory in the T hirteenth and ! fo u r te e n th C en tu ries. H enry C ole, ed. London, 1844. D ocum ents R elating to the P roceed in gs against W illiam Prynne in 1634 ana 1637. Sam uel tt. G ardiner, ed. W estm in ster, m r . ------------------- E x cerp ta x e R otulis Finium in T urri L ondinensi A sse r v a tis, H enrico T ertio frege, A. IX 1216-1272. C. R oberts, ed. London” l 8S6- l 6 8 6 . --------------------- F lo ren ce of W orcester and O thers. The C hronicle of F lo ren ce of W orcester and the two Continuations; C om p rising Annals of E n glish H istory, from the D eparture of the Rom ans to the R eign of Edwara I. Thom as F o r e ste r , tran s. London, 1854. F oed era, C onventiones, L iter ae, e t Cujuscunque G en eris Acta : P ublica, inter R eges A ngliae, et a lio s Q uosvis Im p eratores, ite g e s, PontificesT F rin cip es, v e l Communi t at e s , ab In gressu G u lielm i I. in A ngliam , A. D. 1066, ad N ostra U sque I ’em pora Habita aut T ’ractata. vol. I. Thom as R ym er, ed. reed ited by A. C larke, F . Holbrooke and O thers (R ecord C om m ission ). London, 1816-1869. Graham , R o se. " L etters o f C ardinal O ttoboni," E n glish H isto rica l R eview , XV (1900), 87-120. G reat B ritain, P ublic R ecord O ffice. C alendar of L ib erate R o lls, H enry PI. 1245-1251. London, 1937. . C alendar of L iberate R o lls, H enry III, 1251-1260. London, 1955; . C alendar of L iberate R o lls, H enry III, 1260-1267. London, -------------- 19BL--------------------------------- ---------- ! . C alendar of Patent R o lls, H enry III, 1232-1247. London, . C alendar of Patent R o lls, H enry HI, 1247-1258. London. l Q m . ^ *------------------------ 189 G reat B ritain , Public R ecord O ffice. Calendar of Patent R olls. Henry III. 1258-1266. London, 1910. . Calendar of Patent R olls, H enry HI, 1266-1272. London, ----------lsre:---------------------- -------1 — ------------ C lose R olls, H enry HI, 1242-1247. London, 1916. C lose R olls, H enry III, 1247-1251. London, 1922. C lose R olls, Henry HI, 1251-1253. London, 1927. C lose R olls, Henry HI, 1254-1256. London, 1931. C lose R olls, H enry III, 1256-1259. London, 1932. C lose R olls, H enry III, 1259-1261. London, 1934. C lose R olls, H enry III, 1261-1264. London, 1936. C lose R olls, H enry III, 1264-1268. London, 1937. C lose R olls, Henry III, 1268-1272. London, 1938. _________ . D iplom atic D ocum ents, v o l. I. P ie rr e C haplais, ed. London, 1964. _________ . T reaty R o lls, vol. I. P ie r r e C haplais, ed. London, 1955. "G regorius IX Bonifacium P raesu lem instituit, " G allia C hristiana in P rovin cias E c c le sia stic a s D istributa; in qua S e r ie s et H istoria A rcfaiepiscoporum , E piscoporum et Abbatum. B artholom ew Haur^au, ed. P a ris, f t 6o. X v , 3 lb -3l7. ; Haure^iu, B artholom ew . "Q uelques L ettres d'Innocent IV E xtraits des M anuscrits de la Bibliotheque N ationale, 1 1 N otices et ; E xtraits des M anuscrits de la B ibliotheque N ationale et autres B ibliotheques, XXlV, part 2 (1885), 156-246. j H isto rica l P ap ers and L etter s from the N orthern R e g iste r s. Jam es ! ' Raine, ed. London, 1873. j Jacob, E arn est F r a s e r . "A P rop osal for A rbitration betw een Simon de M ontfort and Henry III in 1260, " E nglish H istorical R eview , XXXVII (1922), 80-82. | "The Com plaints of Henry HI against the B aronial Council in 1261, " E nglish H isto rica l R eview , XLI (1926), 559-571. 190 Jehan Servion. G estez et Croniques de la M ayson de Savoye. F recJeric-E m m anuel B oilati, ed. 'turin, 18^9. I Johannes de O xendes. C hronica. Henry E llis , ed. London, 1859. John de Schalby. "L ives of the B ish op s of L incoln, " G iraldus C am b ren sis. Op era. J. S. B rew er, Jam es F . D im ock and G eorge F . W arner, ed s. London, 1861-1891. VII, 193-217.! i L an glois, C .V . "N otices et D ocum ents r e la tifs a l'H isto r ie de XIIIe et du XIVe S iecle, " Revue H istoriqu e, LXXXVII (1905). 55-79. L es R e g istr e s d1 A lexandre IV (1254-1261). C. F ou rel de la R on ciere, J. de L aye, P . de C enival and A. Coulon, e d s. P a r is, 1917. L es R e g istre s de C lem ent IV (1265-1268). M. Edouard Jordan, ed. — P a r is, 1893. L es R e g istre s de G regoire IX (1227-1241). L . Auvray and O thers, eds.| P a r is, 1896-1955. L es R e g istre s d'Innocent IV (1243-1254). E lie B erg er, ed. P a r is. 1884-1897. j i L es R e g istr e s d'Urbain IV (1261-1264). M. Jean Guicaud, ed . P a r is. I 1892-1 Sol. ----------------------------- j j L ettres de R ois, R ein es et au tres P erson n ages des Cours de F ran ce i et d 'A n gleterre. v o l. I. M. C ham pollion. ed. P a ris. 1839-1517.-------- L iterae C an tu arien ses. J .B . Sheppard, ed. London, 1887-1889. Lunt, W illiam E . "The Sources for the F ir st Council of L yons, 1245, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , XXXIII (1918), 72-78. Lyndwood's P ro v in eia le. The Text of the Canons T herein Contained. Reprinted from the ^Translations m ade in 1&34. J’.V . B ullard and H. G halm er fie ll, ed s. London, 1929. M ansi, Giovanni D om enico. Sacrorum C on ciliorum . v o l. XXIII. P a r is, 1779, reprinted 1901-1937. Matthew P a r is. C hronica M ajor a . H. R. Luard, ed. London, 1872. . H istoria A nglorum . F re d e ric Madden, ed. London. 1866-1869. M organ, M arjorie M. "The Excom m unication of G r o sse te ste in 1243; with the Text of a L etter w ritten by the Monks of Canterbury justifying their E xcom m unication, E n glish H isto rica l R eview , LVH (1942), 244-250. N icholas T rivet. A nnales, Sex Regum A ngliae. Thom as Hog, ed. London, 1845. P oole, Reginald L. "The M uniments of the B ishop of C h ich ester, " H istorical Manuscript Comm issio n . Report on M anuscripts in V arious C o llectio n s, I (1961), 177-18o. . "The M uniments of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, " H istorical M anuscript C om m ission . Report on M anuscripts in V arious C ollection s, 1 (1901), 205-262. _________ . "The M uniments of the Dean and Chapter of C h ich ester, " Historical Manuscript Commission, Report on Manuscripts in Various Collections, I (1901), 187-^05. . "The R ecords of the B ishop of Salisbury, " H istorical ; M anuscript C om m ission , R eport on M anuscripts in V arious Collections^ IV (1907), 1-13. -------------------------------------------- P rovinciate, (seu C onstitutiones A n g lia e ,) continens C onstitutiones P rovin ciates quatuordecim A rchiepiscoporum Cantuar- iensium , v iz . a Stephano Langtono ad H enricum C hicheleium ;i cum Sum m ariis atque eru d itis Annotationibus, sum m a j accuratione denuo revisu m atque im p ressu m . Cui adjiciuntur i C onstitutiones L egatinae D. Othonis et D. Othoboni, j Cardinalium , & Sedis A postolic ae in A nglia L egatorum . Cum j P rofu ndissim us Annotationibus Johannis de Othona, C anonici ; L in co ln ien sis. W illiam Lyndwood, ed. Oxford, ca . 1483, ! reprinted 18 V9. Prynne, W illiam . An E xact C hronological V indication and H istorical ; D em onstration of our B ritish , Roman, Saxon, Danish, Norm an, E n glish K ings1 Suprem e E c c le s ia s tic a l Ju risd iction j in, o v era ll Spiritual or fteligiou s A ffairs, C au ses, P erso n s, , e t c ., within their R ealm s o f England, Scotland, Ireland, and other D om inions, from the fir s t Y ear of k in g John, lt&&, to ; the Death of King Henry H I. B om . 127 3T etc. (R ecords ," fa . London, 1665. . The H istory of King John, King Henry III and King Edward j 1 w herein the Sovereign Dom inion of the k in gs of fengland over a ll P erso n s in a ll C auses is a sserted (R ecords7 ill). London, 1670. "Queen E leanor to King Henry HI, on behalf of B oniface, A rchbishop- e le ct o f Canterbury, " M onum ents F ra n cisca n a. J .S . B rew er, ed. London, 1058-1862. 1, 62§-636. Q uellen zur S c h ie d sg er ic h tsb a r k e itim G rafenhause Savoyen, 1251- -----------13557'Hans w a s e r .' e'a; ZffrCTT 1 ^ . ------------------ ---------- R egis tr u m E p is tolar um F r a tr is Johannis P eckh am . C .T . M artin, ed. London, 1882-1885. “ " * R egistrum Thome de Cantilupo, E p iscop i H er ef or dens i s . R .G . G riffith s, ed . London, 1907. R oberti G r o sse te ste E p iscop i quondam L in co ln ien sis E p isto la e . Henry R ichards Luard, ed. London, 1861. R obert of G lou ch ester. M etrical C h ron icle. W illiam A ldis W right, ed. London, 18TPT R oger of W endover. C hronica, siv e F lo r e s H istoriaru m . H. O. Cox, ed. London, 1841-1842. R Sles G ascons, D ocum ents inedits su r l !H istoire de F r a n c e . M. F ran cisq u e-M ich el and C harles Bem ont, e d s. P a r is, 1885- 1906. R otuli Hugonis de W elles, E p iscop i L in co ln ien sis. W. P . W. --------------Ph'iTTTmore, e37 O f t o lh . I» l2 -W 4 .-------- R otuli R ichardi G ravesend, E p iscop i L in c o ln ien sis. F . N. D avis, ed. w ith additions by C. W. F o ste r and A. H am ilton Thom pson. L incoln, 1925. R otuli Roberti G r o sse te ste . E p iscop i L in coln ien sis . F . N . D avis, ecT ! H orn castle, 1914. Royal and Other H isto rica l L etters Illu strative of the R eign of Hen-- - — x m Menr^rii. Walter Waddington £>hirley, ed. 2 vols. London, Sanders, I. J . , "The Text of the P ea ce of P a r is, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , LXVI (1951), 81-97. S elect C harters and Other Illu stration s of E n glish C onstitutional H istory. W illiam Stubbs, ed . Hinth edition, r e v ise d by H .<2. D a v is. Oxford, 1929. (Stephen B irch in g to n .) "H istoria de A rch iep iscop is C antuariensibus, " Anglia Sacra. H enry Wharton, ed. London, 1691. I, 1-49. | 193 "Table of Canterbury A rchbishop C h arters, " Irene J. C hurchill, ed, Cam den M iscellan y, Third s e r ie s , XLI (1929), i-x , 1-27, : The H istorian s of the Church of Y ork and its A rch bish ops. Jam es flain e, ed. London, 1879. ; The R eg ister o f W alter G iffard, L ord A rchbishop of Y ork, 1266-1279. i W illiam Brown, ed. Durham , 1904. The R eg ister, or R o lls, of W alter G ray, Lord A rchbishop of York, 1315-1255. Jam es R aine, ed . Durham , 1873. The R e g ister s of W alter G iffard, B ish op of Bath and W ells, 1265- ^ 6 6 , and of btenry B ow ett, B ishop of Bath and W ells, 1401- 1467. Thom as Scott H olm es, ed. S o m erset, 1895. | T reharne, Reginald F r a n c is. "The M ise of A m ien s, 23 January 1264, Studies in M ed iev a lH isto ry P resen ted to F re d e rick M aurice P ow icke. R .W . Hunt, W. A. Pan tin and R .W . Southern, e d s. Oxford, 1948. pp. 223-239. V etus R egistru m S a risb erien se a lia s dictum R egistrum S. Osmundi E p iscop i. H. Rich Jofaes, ed. London, 1883-1884. W alne, P . "The B a ro n s1 Argum ent at A m ien s, January 1264., " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , LXIX (1954), 418-425. W alter de Suthfeld. "Testim onium W alteri de Suthfeld E p iscop i N o rw icen sis de potestate A rch iep iscop i C an tuariensis in P rioratu C antuariensi, " A nglia Sacra. H enry Wharton, ed. London, 1691. I, 174. W alter of G uisborough. The Ctm onicle of W alter o f G uisborough (H em ingford). H arry R othw ell, ed . London, 1957. W illiam de R ishanger and O thers. C hronica et A n nales. H. T. R iley, ed. London, 1865. W illiam de R ish an ger. The C hron icle of W illiam de R ishanger, of the B a ro n s1 War s . ‘ The M ira cles of Sim on de M ontfort. Jam es O rchard fctalliwell, ed. London, 1840. I W illiam de Thorne^ C hronicle of Saint A ugustine’s Abbey C anterbury. A. H. D avis, ed. bxford , 1934. 194 HI. SECONDARY WORKS : Anonym ous. A review of M. Joseph Strickland's "R icherche Storiche sop ra B . B onifacio di Savoia, A rciv esco v o di C antorbery, M A nalecta Bollandiana, XIV (1895), 343. j . A T rea tise C oncerning D ivers of the C onstitucyons P rovin cial! and L eg a tin es. London, lS35. | Augustino, F ra n cisc o . S .R .E . C ardinalium , A rchiepiscoporum , E piscoporum , et Abbatum Pedem ontane R egionis C hronologic a B lsto r ia . Turin, 1645. I A veling, F r a n c is. "Boniface of Savoy, " The C atholic E ncyclopedia. C h arles G. H erberm ann and O thers, ed s. New York, 1913. II, 672. Baldwin, Jam es F . The K ing's C ouncil in England during the M iddle A g es. O xford l9l37 B eam ish , Tufton. B attle R oyal, A New Account of Sim on de Montfort's" Struggle against King Henry III. London, 1965. B e ll, H. Id ris. "A L ist of O riginal Papal B u lls and B riefs in the D epartm ent of M anuscripts in the B ritish M useum , " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , XXXVI (1921). 393-349, 556-583. Bemont, Charles. Simon de Montfort, Comte de L eicester, sa Vie (120 7-1265) son P&le Politique en France et en Angleterre. Paris, 1884.---------------------- e---------- . Sim on de M ontfort, E arl of L e ic e s te r , 1208-1265. New edition . fc .F . Jacob, tran s. Oxford, 1930. j B laaw , W illiam H. The B arons' W ar. Second edition. London, 1871. ; B rooke, Z achary N. The E n glish Church and the P apacy. C am bridge. 1931. B u tler, Alban. The L iv es of the F a th ers, M artyrs and other P rin cip al S a in ts. iSecond edition. Cublin, 1779-1780. C ave-B row ne, John. Lam beth P a la c e and its A sso cia tio n s. Second edition . Edinburgh and London, 1883. C azel, F red A. J r. "The L ast Y ears of Stephen Langton, " E nglish H isto rica l R eview , LXXIX (1964), 673-679. ------ Cheney, C hristopher R obert. E n glish B ish o p s’ C h an ceries, 1100- 1250. M anchester, 1950. i _________ . E n glish Synodalia of the Thirteenth C entury. O xford, 1941. ; _________ . E p iscop al V isitation of M on asteries in the Thirteenth j C entury. M anchester, 193l. ! _________ . " L egislation of the M edieval E n glish Church, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , L (1935), 193-224, 385-417. _________ . "The ’P aper C onstitution’ P r e se r v e d by M atthew P a r is," E n glish H isto rica l R eview . LXV (1950), 213-221. ! . "W illiam Lyndwood’s P rovin ciate, " The J u rist, XXI i (1961), 4 0 5 -4 3 4 . C hurchill, Irene J. Canterbury A d m in istration. London, 1933. C o llier, J erem y. An E c c le s ia s tic a l H istory of G reat B ritain . London, 1708-1714. Coulton, G .G . "The In terp retation of V isitation D ocum ents, " E nglish H isto rica l R eview , XXIX (1914), 16-39. C reighton, M andell. "Boniface of Savoy, " D ictionary of N ational B iography. L e slie Stephen'and Sidney L ee, e d s. London, 1910-1917. II, 812-814. Day, Johannes [jVTatthew P ark er 3. De Antiquitate B ritannicae E c c le s ia e et Nom inatim de P r iv ile g iis E c c le sia e C antuariensis atque de A rch iep iscop is eiu sd em LXX. j H istoria. v o l. I. H anover, 1605. Dehio, Ludwig. Innozenz IV und England. B erlin and L eip sig , 1913. j Denholm -Y oung, N oel. C artulary of the M ediaeval A rch ives of | C hrist Church. Gxford. 19317 . C ollected P apers on M ediaeval Subjects. Oxford, 1946. _________ . Richard of C ornw all. New Y ork, 1947. . "The 'Paper C onstitution' Attributed to 1244, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview . LVIII (1943), 401-424. D escrip tive Catalogue of M aterials R elating to the H istory of G reat B ritain and Ireland. Thom as Duffus Hardy, ed. London. 1862-1871. i D im ier, L ou is. H isto rie de Savoie des O rigines a l'A nnexion. | P a r is, 1913. ' D ouie, D ecim a L . A rchbishop P echam . O xford, 1952. Dufayard, C h a rles. H istorie de S avoie. P a r is, 1930. ; Eubel, Conrad. H ierachia C atholic a M edii A evi. v o l. I. R egen sb ergian ae, 1910-1913. F a sti E c c le sia e A nglicanae. John Le N eve and T. Duffus Hardy, e d s. Oxford, 1854. F ilip p i, F ilipp o de. "The R elations of the H ouse of Savoy w ith the Court of England, " P roceed in gs of the B r itish A cadem y, VIII (1917-1918), 4 4 7 -4 6 8 . F lah iff, G .B . "The W rit of P rohibition to C ourts C h ristian in the T hirteenth Century, " M ediaeval Studies, VI (1944), 261-313. ii * F o r e v ille , Raym onde, M ile. L 'E lection de B oniface de Savoie au Siege P rim a tia l de C anterbury (1241-1243), " B u lletin P hilologique et H istorique (jus qu'a 1610), M inistdre de ^E ducation N atlonale C om ite des Travaux faistoriques et S cien tifiq u es, I (1960), 4 3 5 -4 5 0 . F ow ler, R obert Copp. E p iscop al R e g ister s of England and W ales. London, 1918. F ra n cesco , Ugo Aldo de. E n rico III d'Inghilterra, B onifacio di Savoia e la lo ro P o litic a v e r so F ed erico II di Svevia, Studi S to ricl. N ap les, 1939. F u lle r, T hom as. The Church H istory of B ritain . Third edition . London, 183*7. G albraith, V ivian H unter. R oger W endover and Matthew P a r is. G lasgow , 1944. i G am s, P iu s B on ifaciu s. S e r ie s E piscoporum E c c le s ia e C ath olicae. vo l. I. G raz, 1875, reprinted 1957. G asquet, F ra n cis Aidan. H enry the Third and the Church; a Study of h is E c c le s ia s tic a l P o licy arid of the d ela tio n s betw een England and R om e. London, 1910. G ibbs, M arion and Jane Lang. B ishops and R eform , 1215-1272, with Special R eferen ce to the L ateran Council of 1215. London. m r .----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 197 Godwin, F r a n c is. A Catalogue of the B ishops of England. London, 1615. . De P raesu lib u s A ngliae C om m entarius. London, 1616. Graham, R ose. A rev iew of W. E . Lunt's The Valuation of N orw ich, E n glish H isto rica l R eview , XLII (1927), 421-424. . "Cardinal Ottoboni and the M onastery of Stratford Langthorne, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , X X X in (1918), 213-225. Gray, J. W. "The ’Ius P raesen tan d i’ in England from the C onstitution of Clarendon to B racton, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , L X V n (1952), 481-492. ” G reen, John R. A Short H istory of the E n glish P eop le. London, 1876. Guichenon, Sam uel. H istorie G eneologique de la R oyale M aison de S avoie. New edition. 6 v o ls . Turin, 1660, reprinted at Lyons in 1778. Halkin, F r . A review of E . F ed elin P s L es B ienheureux de la M aison de Savoie. E sq u isse s H agiographiques, A nalecta B ollandiana. 3?LIV (1926)! 4^7. — ------------- H aller, Johannes. D as Papsttum ; Idee und W irklichkeit. v o l. IV. Second edition. Edited and enlarged. E sslin g en am N eckar, 1962. Hampe, K arl. "Papst Innozenz IV. und die S iz ilisc h e VerschwcJrung von 1246, Sitzungsberichte der H eid elb erger A kadem ie der W issensch aften , P h ilosop h isch -H istorxsch e K la sse, XIV (1923), part 6, l - l9 . r r -----------------------------------------L Hardy, Thom as R elating C ollection known as ‘ Av TSGT. ------------ Haureau, B artholom ew . " E c cle sia B e llic e n s is : B onifacius n ,d e Savoie, " G allia C hristiana in P rovin cias E c c le s ia s tic a s D istributa; in qua S e r ie s et H istoria A rchieplscoporum , L piscoporum et Abbatum. B artholom ew Haureau, ed. P a r is, 1860. XV, 622-624. H eidem ann, Joseph. D ie E n glish L egation des C ardinals Guido F ulcod i, des Spaeteren P . C lem ens IV. M Unster, 1904. 198 H eidem ann, Josep h . P apst C lem ens IV. E ine M onographie. v o l. I, D as V orleben d es Papsies^und se in L e g a tio n sr eg iste r. M unster, W W . -C ----------------------- *-------- Hinnebush, W illiam A. "D iplom atic A ctiv ities of the E n glish D om inicans in the T hirteenth Century, " The C atholic H isto rica l R eview . XXVIH (1942), 309-337: Holt, J . C . "The Barons and the G reat C harter, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , LXX (1955), 1-24. Hook, W alter Farquhar. L iv es of the A rchbishops of C anterbury. London, 1860-1876. Howard, G .E . A review of O liver H. R ichardson 's The N ational M ovem ent in the R eign of Henry HI and its (S em ination in the B arons' W ar, A m erican H isto rica l R eview , XI (1795), 715-717.----- ----------------------------------------- H ow ell, M argaret. R egalian Right in M edieval England. London, 1962. ------ Hoyt, R obert S. "R ecent P ublications in the United States and Canada on the H istory of R ep resen tative Institutions before the F rench R ev o lu tio n ," M ediaeval R epresen tation in Theory and P r a c tic e , Speculum , XIX (19&4). N o. 2. Part 2, 350— 377. Hunt, W illiam . "Roger Leybourne, " D ictionary of N ational B iography. L e slie Stephen and Sidney L ee. e d s. London. Tsnr-isrr xxxm, 2 0 9 -2 1 1 . _________ . "W alter G iffard, " D ictionary of N ational B iography. L e slie Stephen and Sidney L ee, e d s. London, 1910-1917. XXI, 29 6 -2 9 7 . In ven tories of C h rist-C hu rch C anterbury. J. W. L egg and W. H. St. J. Hope, e d s. W estm in ster, 1902. Jacob, E arn est F r a s e r . "C hichele and C an terb u ry," Studies in M edieval H istor y Pr e s e nted to F re d e rick M aurice P ow icke. R .W . Hunt, W. A. Pantin arid R. W. Southern, e d s. Oxford, 1948. pp. 386-404. . "England: H enry in, " Cam bridge M edieval H isto ry . J . R. Tanner, C .W . P revite-O rton , Z . N. B rooke, ed s. C am bridge, 1929. VI, 252-283. 199 Jacob, E arn est F r a s e r . "St. R ichard of C h ich ester, " Journal of E c c le s ia s tic a l H istory, VII (1956), 174-188. I . Studies in the P eriod of B aronial R eform and R ebellion, -------------- 1253=1237: O xford T52ST.— j _________ . "The Reign of H enry HI: Some S u ggestion s, " T ran sactions ! o f the Royal H isto rica l S ociety, Fourth s e r ie s , X (1027), j 55— 87. . "What w ere the ’P ro v isio n s of O xford'?" H istory, IX (1924), 188-200. i Jacquem oud, Joseph. D escrip tion H istorique de l ’Abbaye Royale d’H autecom be et des M au solees E levels dans son faglise aux P rin ces de la M aison P oyale de Savoie. Chambdry, 1843. Ja m es, Montague Rhodes and Claude Jenkins. A D escrip tiv e Catalogue of the Manu scr ip ts in the L ibrary of Lam beth Palace. C am bridge, 1930-1932. I Jenkins, C laude. "The H isto rica l M anuscripts at Lam beth, " T ran sactions of the R oyal H isto rica l Society, Third s e r ie s . xT (19l7), 135-197.— --------------------------------^ Johnstone, H ilda. "Archbishop Pecham and the Council of Lam beth of 1281, " E ssa y s in M edieval H istory P resen ted to Thom as F re d e r ic k Tout. A .G . L ittte and~F. M. P ow icke. e d s. M anchester, 1925. pp. 171-188. . "A Y ear in the L ife of King Henry HI, " Church Q uarterly R eview , XCVH (1924), 314-333. Jon es, W. R. "B ishops, P o litic s and the Two Laws: The G ravam ina of the E nglish C lergy, 1237-1399, " Speculum , XL1 (1966), 20 9 -2 4 5 . , I Kemp, E ric W aldran. An Introduction to Canon Law in the Church of England. London, 1957. _________ . C ounsel and Consent, A sp ects of the G overnm ent of the Church a s Exem plifiecTin the H istory of the E nglish P ro v in cia l Synods. London, 1961. K im ball, E lisab eth G. "The Ju d icial A spects of Frank A lm oign T enure, " E nglish H isto rica l R eview , XLVII (1932), 6-11. 200 K nowles, M. David. Cardinal G asquet as a H istorian. London, 1957. . "Some A sp ects of the C areer o f A rchbishop P echam , " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , LVH (1942), 1-18, 178-202. _________ . "The Canterbury E lectio n of 1205-1206, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , LIII (1938), 211-220. _________ . "The E n glish B ish op s, 1070-1532, " M edieval Studies. P resen ted to Aubrey Gwynn S. J. J. A. Watt, J .B . M orrall and F .X . M artin, e d s. Doublin, 1961. pp. 2 8 3 -2 9 6 . _________ . The R eligious O rders in England. C am bridge, 1948-1961. L abarge, M argaret W ade. Sim on de M ontfort. London, 1962. Larking, L .B . "On the H eart-Sh rine in Leybourne Church, " A rch aelogia Cantiana: B eing T ran sactions of the K ent A rch aeological S ociety, V H863), 133-195. L aw rence, C lifford Hugh. "Robert of Abingdon and M atthew P a r is, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview , LXIX (1954), 408-417. _________ . St. Edmund of Abingdon: A Study in H agiography and h istory. Oxford, I960. _________ . "The A lleged E xile of A rchbishop E dm und," Journal of E c c le s ia s tic a l H istory, VII (1956), 160-173. . "The Thirteenth Century, " The E n glish Church and the Papacy in the M iddle A g es. C .H . L aw ren ce, ed. Condon, 1965. p^. 117-157. L ew is, Frank R. "W illiam de V alence (c 1230-1296), " A berystw th Stu dies, X in (1934), 11-35; XIV (1935), 69 -9 2 . --------- Luard, Henry R ichards. On the R elations betw een England and Rom e during the E a r lie r P ortion of the Reign o f h en ry III. (Jam bridge, 1&77. Lunt, W illiam E . "E arly A sse ssm e n ts for Papal Taxation o f E nglish C le rica l In c o m e s," Annual R eport of the A m erican H isto rica l A sso ciation for the Y e a r 1917. W ashington. TJJ20. pp. 26b-28U.----------------------------------- _________ . F in an cial R elations of the P apacy w ith England to 1327. C am bridge, 1939. 201 Lunt, W illiam E . "The Consent o f the E nglish L ow er C lergy to Taxation during the R eign of Henry HI, 1 1 P ersecu tio n and Liberty: E ssa y s in Honor of G eorge L incoln B u rr. J. i F ranklin la m e so n and O thers, e d s. New Y ork, 1931. ; pp. 117-169. j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . The V aluation of N orw ich. Oxford, 1926. L yte, M axw ell H. C. "Report on the M anuscripts o f the Dean and Chapter of St. P au l’s , " H isto rica l M anuscript C om m ission , IX (1916), 1-72. i M acK enzie, Hugh. A rev iew o f M arion Gibbs and Jane Lang’s B ish op s and R eform , A m erican H isto rica l R eview , XL (1935), 365. ; . "The A n ti-F oreign M ovem ent in England, 1231-1232, " A nniversary E ssa y s in M edieval H istory, by Students of C h arles faom er H ask in s. P resen ted on h is C om pletion of F orty Y ea rs of T eaching. C h arles H. T aylor and John L. La M onte, ed s. New York, 1929. pp. 183-205. ' M aitland, F r e d e r ic W illiam . Roman Canon Law in the Church of England: Six E s s a y s . London, 1898. , M akower, F e lix . The C onstitutional H istory and C onstitution of the Church of England. London, 1895. ~ Mann, H orace K. The L iv es of the P opes in the M iddle A ges, v o l. XIH, H onorious III to C elestin e IV, lStt>-124l. London, 1925. . The Lives of the Popes in the Middle A ges, vol. X IV , Innocent IV, 1243-12S4. London, 15*38. . The L iv es of the P opes in the Middle A ges, v o l. XV, A lexander IV to G regory X, 1254-1276. London, 1932. M ills, M abel. "Adventus V icecom itu m , 1258-1272, " E n glish H isto rica l R eview . XXVI (1921), 481-496. i M oorm an, John R .H . A H istory of the Church in England. London, 1953. I . Church L ife in England in the Thirteenth Century. C am bridge, 1945. ; M orris, W illiam A. "M agnates and Community of the Realm in I P arliam en t, 1264-1327, " M ediaevalia et H um anistica, I (1943), 5 8 -94. 202 M ugnier, F ra n co is. L es Savoyards en A n gleterre au XIHe S iecle et j P ie r r e d'A igueblanche, Eveque d'H ereford. Chambdry, 1890. i ! N ew hall, Richard A. A rev iew of F .M . P ow ick e!s King Henry III and the Lord Edward. A m erican H isto rica l R eview . LllL (1947 T /9 £ -9 B .---------- * I | Newm an, John H enry. A pologia pro V ita su a . R evised edition. London, 1887. O ust, G. R. L iteratu re and Pulpit in M edieval England. New York, 1961. I ! P etry, Ray C. "E m phasis on the G ospel and C hristian R eform in Late M edieval P reach in g, " Church H istory, XVI (1947), I 75-91. — P itra, D. "Rapport p resen te a M. le M inistre de ^ Instruction Publique et des C u ltes, par M. l'A bbe P itra, su r une M ission L ittera ire accom p lie en A n gleterre pendant 1849-1850," A rch ives des M issio n s Scientifiques et L itte r a ir e s, IV (1856), 110. P ost, G ain es. "The Two L aw s and the Statute of York, " M ediaeval R epresentation in Theory and P ra ctice, T1954), N o T ^ r F ar ----------- P otthast, August. R egesta Pontificum Rom anorum . B erlin , 1874- 1875, reprinted 19^7. P ow ell, Jam es E . " F red erich II and the Church: A R evision ist V iew , " C atholic H isto rica l R eview , XLVHI (1962-1963). 487-497. P ow icke, F . M aurice. "Guy de M ontfort, " T ransactions of the Royal H isto rica l Society, Fourth s e r ie s , XVHI (1935), lr > 2 3 , _________ . King Henry HI and the Lord Edward, The Com m unity of the Realm in the T hirteenth C entury. 2 v o ls. O xford, 1947. _________ . "Notes on the C om position of the C hronica M ajor of Matthew P a r is, " M odern P hilology, X X X V lll (1941), 305- 317. _________ . "Robert G r o sse te ste , B ishop of L incoln, " B u lletin of the John R yland's L ibrary, M anchester, England, ' X X X Y (1953), 4 ~ 57 - ? n T --------------------------------- 6 - 203 P ow icke, F . M aurice. "Some O bservations on the B aronial Council (1258-1260) and the P ro v isio n s of W estm in ster, " E ssa y s in M edieval H istory P resen ted to Thom as F re d e rick Tout. A. G. L ittle and F . t*owicke, e d s. M anchester, 1925. pp. 119-134. . Stephen Langton. O xford, 1928. . The Thirteenth Century. 1216-1307. Second edition. ------------- Oxforcf, 1962.------ ---------------- Previt^-Orton, C.W. The House of Savoy, 1000-1233. Cambridge, 1912. R am say, Jam es H. The Dawn of the C onstitution. New York, 1908. Richardson, H. G. "The Morrow of the Great Charter: An Addendum, " Bulletin of the John Ryland’s Library, Manchester, England, X X R (lf47),"154-260:------ *“ Richardson, Oliver H. The National Movement in the Reign of Henry 1H and its Culmination in the Barons1 War. New York, 1897. Robert G rosseteste; Scholar and Bishop. Daniel A. Callus, ed. — O xford, 1955. Rotondi, P ie tr o . A review of F ed erig o S clop is, D elle R elazion i P olitich e tra la D inastia di Savoia ed il~Governo B ritannico (dal l24b a l 1815) con Aggiunta di ttocuim enti Inediti, ~ R icherche Storiche, A rcnivio S torico Italiano, New s e r ie s , XIII (1861), 9 3 -9 8 . -------------------------------------- R u sse ll, Josiah C. "The C anonization of O pposition to the King in A ngevin England, " A n niversary E ssa y s in M edieval H istor by Students of C haries H om er"H askins. P resen ted on h is C om pletion of F orty Y ears o f T eaching. C h arles H. Tayloi and John L . La M onte, e d s. New York, 1929. pp. 279-291. Sam bin, P aolo. "P roblem i P o litic i A ttraverso L ettere Inedite de Innocenzo IV. " M em orie, Instituto V eneto, XXXIII, fa sc . 3, 1-71. Savio, F ed ele. I P rim i Conti di Savoia. Turin, 1887. Sheppard, J .B . "Report of an E xam ination of the H isto rica l M anuscripts belonging to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, " H isto rica l M anuscript C om m ission , V (1912), part I, 427-462: 204 Sm ith, Arthur L . Church and State in the M iddle A g e s. O xford, 1913, Sm ith, R eginald A. L . Canterbury Cathedral P rio ry . A Study in M onastic A d m in istration. C am bridge, 1943. Snellgrove, H arold S. The L usignans in England, 1247-1258. Albuquerque, l95o. Som m er-Seckendorff, E llen M .F . Studies in the L ife of Robert K ilwardby. Rom e, 1937. — Stephens, W illiam R. W. The E n glish Church, from the Norm an Conquest to the A c c e ssio n of Edward I, 1060-1272. London, 1901. Stevenson, F ra n cis S. R obert G ro sse te ste . B ishop of L incoln. London, 1899. Strayer, Joseph R ., and G eorge R u d isill, J r. "Taxation and Com m unity in W ales and Ireland, 1272-1327, " M ediaeval R epresentation in Theory and P ra c tic e, Speculum , XIX (1954), Mo. 2, P a r t 2, 410-416.----------- ---------- Strickland, A gnes. L iv es of the Queens o f England, v o l. I. New edition. London, 1869. Strickland, Joseph . "R icerche Storiche sop ra il B . B on ifacio di Savoia, A rciv esco v o di C antorbery, 1207-1270, " M iscellan ea di Storia Italiana, Third s e r ie s , I (1895), 351-4321 Stubbs, W illiam . R egistrum Sacrum Anglicanum . R evised edition. Oxford, 1557: ------- --------------- _________ . The C onstitutional H istory of England and its O rigin and D evelopm ent. F ifth edition. Oxford. 1887-1891. Sweet, A lfred H. "The C ontrol of E nglish E p iscop al E lectio n s in the Thirteenth Century, " Catholic H isto rica l R eview , New s e r ie s , VI (1927), 573=553:----------------------------------- . "The E nglish B en ed ictin es and their B ish ops in the Thirteenth Century, " A m erican H isto rica l R eview , XXIV (1919), 565-577. “ T albert, F . "La M ission en A ngleterre du C. Gui F oucoi en 1264 et le s C onferences de Boulogne, " Annales de I'E st et du Nord, V (1909), 411-425. “ 205 | | i j Thom pson, A. H. A rev iew of M arion Gibbs and Jane L ang's j j B ishops and R eform , 1215-1272, Eng lish H isto rica l R eview , LI (1936), ^15-31*7. 1 Thom pson. E. M argaret. The C arthusian O rder in England. London. 1 1930. ; Thom pson, F aith. Magna Carta: Its R ole in the M aking of the E n glish C onstitution. M inneapolis, 1948. . "P arliam en tary C onfirm ation of the G reat C harter. " A m erican H isto rica l R eview , XXXVIII (1933), 6 59-689. 1_________ . The F ir s t Century of the Magna C arta, Why it P e r siste d a s a D ocum ent. M inneapolis. 1925. ! Thurston, H erbert. " B lessed B oniface of Savoy, A rchbishop of Canterbury, " The T ablet, O ctober 18, 1913, 601-604. : Thurston, H erbert, and Donald A ttw ater. "Bd. B oniface of Savoy, Abp. A .D . 1270," The L iv e s of the Saints, origin ally com piled by the R ev. Alban B u tle r . H erbert Thurston and Donald A ttw ater, e d s. r e v ise d . London, 1956. HI, 102-104. Thurston, H erbert, and N orah L eeso n . "Bd. B oniface of Savoy, Abp. A .D . 1270," The L iv es o f the Saints, origin ally com p iled by the R ev. Alban teu tler. iHerbert Thurston and N orah L eeson , e d s. r e v ise d and supplem ented. London, 1931- 1942. Ill, 243-245. T iern ey, B rian. Foundations of the C on ciliar T h eory. C am bridge, 1955. . " G ro sseteste and the T heory of Papal S o v e r eig n ty ," Journal of E c c le s ia s tic a l H istory, VI (1955), 1-18. Tout, Thom as F red erick . Edward the F ir s t . London, 1893. . P o litica l H istory of England, 1216-1377. London, 1905. _________ . "W ales and M arches in the B aron s1 W a r ," C ollected P a p e r s. M anchester, 1932. H, 47-100. i T reharne, Reginald F r a n c is. The B aronial P lan of R eform . 12SB- 1263. M anchester, 1932. “ . "The M ise of A m ien s, 23 January 1264," Studies in 'M edieval H istory P r esen ted to F red er ic k M aurice P ow ick e. R .W . Hunt, W. A. Fan tin and R. W. Southern, e d s. Oxford, 1948. pp. 2 2 3 -2 3 9 . 206 Treharne, Reginald F r a n c is. "The Nature of P arliam ent in the Reign of H enry III, " E nglish H isto rica l R eview , LXXIV (1959), 590-611. . "The P erso n a l Role o f Simon de M ontfort in the P eriod o f B aronial R eform and R ebellion, 1258-1265, " P roceed in gs of the B ritish A cadem y, XL (1954), 75-102. . "The P erso n a l Rule of Henry III and the A im s of the B aron ial R eform ers of 1258, " H istory, XVI (1931-1932), 3 3 6 -3 4 0 . _________ . "The Significance of the B aronial R eform M ovem ent, 1258-1267, " T ran sactions of the Royal H isto rica l Society, Fourth s e r ie s , XXV (1943), 5 4 -85. Vaughan, R ichard. M atthew P a r is . C am bridge, 1958. Wadding, L uke. A nnales M inorum seu trium Ordinum a S. F ra n cisco In stitutorum . v o l. fV. P . Joseph M. F o n seca , ed. Third ed ition . F lo ren ce, 1931. W eber, H einrich . U eber das V erh'altniss Englands zu Rom wahrend der Z eit der Legation d es C ardinals Otho in den Jahren 1737^12 £17'E erlui, fBBS:— ------------------------------------------- W ilkinson, B e r tie . Studies in the C onstitutional H istory of the T hirteenth and Fourteenth (Centuries. Second edition. M anchester, 1952. . The C onstitutional H istory of England, 1216-1399, with --------------S elect D ocum ents, v o l. I ." T ^ 6 lQ 9 4 E T 9 B '8 .------- --------- _________ . "The 'P o litic a l R evolution1 of the T hirteenth and F ourteenth C enturies in England, " Speculum , XIV (1949), 502-509. W illiam son, Dorothy M. "Some A sp ects of the L egation of Cardinal Otto in England, 1237-1241, " E nglish H isto rica l R eview , LXIV (1949), 145-173. Wood, Susan. "E nglish M on asteries and their P atrons in the Thirteenth Century, " Journal of E c c le s ia s tic a l H istory, VII (1956), 9 2 -9 3 . ' W oodcock, B rian L . M edieval E c c le s ia s tic a l C ourts in the D iocese of C anterbury. London, 1952. W urstem berger, J. Ludwig. P eter der Z w eite. Graf von Savoyen, M arkgraf in Italien, se in Haus und se in e Lande. 4 v o ls. B ern and £tirich , 185'7.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Boniface of Savoy, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1245-1270: His role in English politics

PDF

The Origins And Development Of The Catalan Consulados Ultramarinos From The Thirteenth To The Fifteenth Centuries

PDF

The Authenticity Of David Of Augsburg'S German Works, With Particular Reference To His 'Paternoster'

PDF

Alfred Of Sareshel'S Commentary On The 'Metheora' Of Aristotle. (Latin Text)

PDF

Piero Della Vigna--Bureaucrat

PDF

Fulk Of Neuilly

PDF

A Selected Bibliography Of German Literature In English In Translation, 1956-1960

PDF

The Patriot In Exile: A Study Of Heinrich Mann'S Political Journalistic Activity 1933-1950

PDF

Theological And Dramatic Concepts Of The End Of Man In The Middle Ages

PDF

Julian And Athanasius--A Study In The Implications Of The Doctrine Of Creation

PDF

The Ascendancy Of The Earls Of Wessex: 1018-1066

PDF

The Image Of The Artist In The Works Of Frank Wedekind

PDF

Amerika In Den Werken Thomas Manns (German Text)

PDF

Das Sozialkritische In Den Werken Leonhard Franks. (German Text)

PDF

The 'Quomodo' Manuscript: Historical Introduction, Translation, And Critical Apparatus

PDF

The Contributions Of George W. Norris During His Service On The United States Senate Judiciary Committee

PDF

Leopold I Of Austria: A Reappraisal

PDF

Income Distribution And The Social Welfare Function: A Study Of Theories Of Distributive Justice

PDF

In Defense Of Beauty: A Phenomenological Analysis Of The Hedonics Of Perception

PDF

The Demise Of The 'New Man': An Analysis Of Late German Expressionism

Asset Metadata

Creator Wilshire, Leland Edward (author)

Core Title Boniface Of Savoy, Archbishop Of Canterbury, 1245-1270: His Role In English Politics

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program History

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag History, Medieval,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Queller, Donald E. (committee chair), Dales, Richard C. (committee member), Spalek, John M. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-589454

Unique identifier UC11360916

Identifier 6801206.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-589454 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6801206.pdf

Dmrecord 589454

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wilshire, Leland Edward

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA