Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

against him as a suspected judge. They arrived just too late to effect their purpose. Becket had that very day left Pontigni with a secret and very singular object; and before they were able to convey their message to him, had pronounced the dreaded sentence in the church of Vezelay.

In the mean time orders had been sent to all the ports along the coast of England and Normandy to search the person of every one who passed from one country to the other; and to inflict the severest punishment on any one on whom letters should be found either from the Pope or Becket. But here, too, the vigilance of the king's party proved ineffectual; the sentences were formally delivered to the Bishop of London, with orders to forward them to all the bishops of the province of Canterbury: and the result was, that an evasive answer was returned to Becket, either really or nominally, from the collective body of the clergy.

This letter is Lord Lyttleton's unquestionable evidence, written, as it professes to be, (1) by a body of persons from among whom all Becket's friends had been banished-(2) who had no option left them of neutrality-(3) who had just been balked in a twofold attempt to evade his authority-(4) who could find no apology for their own conduct except in disparaging his.

The other letter, that of Gilbert Foliot, is of much greater importance, and charges Becket with having been accessory to proceedings very inconsistent with his subsequent professions.

Now we cannot deny that Gilbert Foliot "might" have derived his information from the King. But that "without such information or other very strong evidence, he would never have ventured to charge Becket in such definite terms" does, we own, seem to us a much more questionable proposition.

This Gilbert Foliot was supposed by Becket to have been the real author of the letter above alluded to, which was nominally sent from the whole body of the clergy, and he had in consequence received a severe reprimand: in answer to it he wrote the letter, or rather pamphlet, we now speak of. The reason he assigns for writing it may in some measure affect our views of its credibility. He says

"Cum Ecclesiam Dei subvertere, fas nefasque confundere &c., emissis publicè scriptis denotemur, difficile est ut sileamus, et hanc adversum nos opinionem vel a præsentibus admitti, vel indefensam futuræ posteritati transmitti, confessionem innuente silentio, permit

tamus.'

This letter, then, was no private affair between Gilbert and Becket, which must depend upon its truth for its poignancy. It was a published pamphlet, to vindicate his conduct in the eyes of his own generation and posterity-an ex-parte statement, addressed to persons who had no other source of information, and who, if they could be deceived without it, could be deceived by it. Moreover, it was an ex-parte statement which could hardly be answered; for the coast was at this time so strictly blockaded, that without great danger to the bearer, no letter from Becket could reach England; and it was not

[ocr errors]

very likely that Becket would risk the safety of his friends to carry on a paper war.

Lastly, it should not be altogether left out of sight who this Gilbert Foliot was, to whose testimony under such circumstances so much importance is attached.

He had been originally a monk of Chegni, where he obtained great reputation for learning and austerity; and was in consequence promoted to the rich Abbey of St. Peter's, Gloucester. In this station he corresponded with Pope Eugenius, and all the other most famous persons in the church, on a footing of confidence and familiarity which betokens a consciousness of the place he occupied in public estimation. In the year 1147, he was farther advanced to the Bishoprick of Hereford, and his fame for abstinence and voluntary poverty advanced likewise. So that, to use the words of his friend, the Abbot of Reading, [Cave Manuscript. 1. 285.] "Ecclesiam Dei suavissimo replevit odore." His influence was acknowledged, not only by churchmen, but by the highest lay nobility. It was apparently at his suggestion, that the Earl and Countess of Leicester devoted themselves to a monastic life. Reginald de St. Waleric had been acting oppressively towards the Monks of Osney; and Gilbert, though not officially concerned, was the person to remonstrate with him. The light in which he was regarded by Henry is sufficiently manifested in the letter which solicits his acceptance of the See of London. On receiving the Pope's mandate for his translation, Henry wrote to him in the following terms:

"Domini Papæ mandatum executioni mandare non differatis, mihi in hoc plurimum obsecuturus, et eo amplius favorem et amoris argumentum, si erga vos augeri possit, et omnium Baronum meorum consecuturus. Ibi [in London] quippe quotiescunque in Regno meo de magnis aliquid agendum occurrit, concilia celebranda sunt, et consilia sumenda. Barones pro negotiis suis consilio fulciendis confluunt. Ut igitur latius vestræ bonitatis et virtutis immensæ diffundatur et pateat magnitudo, non immerito vobis, ut Londoniensis Ecclesiæ solicitudinem et curam pastoralem suscipiatis, Dominus Papa curavit, Ecclesiæ illi, tali indigenti Pastore, satisfaciens; mihi et hæredibus meis et Regno meo non mediocriter providens."

Such was the language in which Henry solicited Gilbert's acceptance of one of the highest pieces of preferment in the country: and Becket, then a Bishop, accompanied the King's letter with one still more flattering in his own name. He was consecrated Bishop of London, April 28, 1163; and just about this time Becket's misunderstandings with the King were drawing towards a crisis.

The next thing we hear of Gilbert is, that at the council of Tours, May 21, 1163, he made overtures to the Pope to dispense with his professing subjection to the See of Canterbury. The request was granted on the ground that he was still bound by the profession he had already made on his appointment to the Bishoprick of Hereford. [Ep. D. Thomæ, I. 25.] But we find from Gilbert's own statement, that though he accepted the dispensation, he denied the ground on which it was granted. At the council of London, October 1

of the same year, it became evident that Becket had altogether lost the King's confidence and support; and from this time Gilbert took a decided lead in the government party; indeed he seems to have stept into the situation which Becket had forfeited, and to have been invested, as far as the power of the state could invest him, with Archiepiscopal authority.

At the same time, whether from a strong sense of the obligations which this fresh elevation imposed on him, or from a consciousness that his present position was ambiguous, and might require some demonstration to set him right in the eyes of the world, he seems to have imposed on himself fresh austerities, which were generally known and talked of. September 4, 1163, Alexander wrote to him

"Andimus et veridicâ multorum relatione comperimus, quod tu carnem tuam ultrâ quam deceat et expediat attenuas et affligis. * ** Monemus igitur Fraternitatem tuam et exhortamur attentius quatenus carni tuæ nequaquam hujusmodi austeritatem indicas.

* * *

Ita quod corpore non ultra debilitando quam deceat, servitio conditoris valeas robustius inhærere."

Gilbert however preferred fasting to obedience; and by degrees his reluctance to profess subjection to Becket was accounted for by his conduct. He demeaned himself on all occasions as if exempted from Archiepiscopal jurisdiction; and at last went so far as formally to justify his systematic disobedience on the ground, (1) that the Diocese of London had been originally the seat of the Primacy, and (2) that since his own translation to that See no profession had been exacted from him. (Cave. Manuscript. Letter 1, 176.)

These facts, admitted on all sides, prepare us to believe another on the assertion of Becket's friends. They assert, and Gilbert when charged with it does directly deny, that on the death of Theobald, he aspired to the vacant See of Canterbury; and that whatever opposition Becket's election met with, was attributable to this circumstance. Neither is there any thing in the assertion either improbable in itself, or discreditable to Gilbert. A Benedictine Monk, highly celebrated for learning and piety, who had been a Bishop for 14 years, and was esteemed by the nobility, lay as well as clerical, might fairly compete with Becket for the highest station in the church. And the reluctance which he afterwards manifested to acknowledge Becket's authority, might be the natural and even pardonable consequence of a failure.

But however leniently we may be disposed to think of Gilbert's conduct, he clearly was not the person to judge impartially of his successful rival. Nor is his evidence rendered in any way more credible by the peculiar circumstances under which he wrote the letter in question. Had this letter been, as Lord Lyttleton supposes, addressed privately to Becket, we still should have regarded it with something short of confidence. But being, as it is, a published pamphlet "vindicating his character to his own and future times," we confess we do think it very questionable indeed.

Such is the evidence of Gilbert Foliot; but at the same time that

we venture to question its credibility, we hesitate to claim any great reliance for those "some of Becket's friends," whose word Lord Lyttleton so unceremoniously sets aside. We had rather seek for information from historians who may be supposed to have taken a less warm interest in the events they relate.

The first we shall quote is Gervase of Canterbury, whose bias, like that of all other contemporary historians, was certainly in favour of Becket, but who wrote at a time when the state of parties in the church was cross-divided, and when other controversies had superseded that in which Becket was concerned. Gervase was admitted a Monk of Canterbury the same day that Becket was consecrated, [Script. Hist. Aug. a Twysden, p. 1418.] and therefore, though he could not speak from personal knowledge to the circumstances of the election, still he derived his information as nearly as possible from the fountain head. His account is

“A.D. 1161. Obiit venerandæ memoriæ Theobaldus Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus totius Angliæ primas et Apostolicae Sedis Legatus, anno Pontificatus sui 22. quarto decimo Kal. Maii. Erat autem his diebus Thomas Cantuar. Archidiac. et Regis Cancellarius, in Anglia potentissimus, in omnium oculis gloriosus, sapientiâ præclarus, nobilitate cordis omnibus admirabilis, inimicis et æmulis suis terribilis, atpote Regis amicus et in Regno secundus, sed et Regis Rector et quasi magister.

"A.D. 1162. Rex Henricus suis transmarinis impeditus negotiis, admirabilem illum Thomam Cancellarium ad expedienda Regni negotia transmisit in Angliam: hâc tamen primâ et præcipuâ intentione ut in Archiepiscopum Cantuariensis Ecclesiæ eligeretur. Post modicum, mense videlicit Maio, venerunt Cantuariam nuntii ex parte et præcepto Domini Regis. Episcopus scilicet Cicestrensis, Episcopus Exoniensis, Episcopus Roffensis, Abbas de Bello, et frater ejus R. de Luci, portantes conventui Domini Regis apices et mandatum, ut Prior cum aliquibus Monachis unà cum Episcopis et Clero Angliæ, apud Londoniam convenirent, sibi Archiepiscopum totique Angliæ Primatem electuri. Hoc igitur audito nuntio, venerandus ille Wibertus Prior, et qui cum eo erant, invocatâ spiritus sancti gratiâ, Thomam Regis Cancellarium in nomine S. Trinitatis elegerunt."

It appears from this account that much the greater part of the interval between the death of Theobald and the election of Thomas arose from the King's delay in fixing on a successor, and that it probably arose from the common cause of such delays, avarice. Theobald died April 17, 1161; Becket was not sent to England till 1162; the mandate to elect did not arrive till May, and the consecration was celebrated June 2. This relation seems to leave little time for strenuous opposition; and the silence of Gervase confirms the presumption that nothing of the sort took place. But the validity of the inference will be better appreciated, on referring to this same Gervase's account of the three following elections-those of Richard, Baldwin, and Hubert.

The other historian to whom we shall refer is Radulphus de Diceto, a person who had access to the very best information on the subject,

and who, belonging as he did to a party to which Gervase was strongly opposed, may be regarded as a very good supplementary evidence. Radulphus de Diceto was Archdeacon of London at the time of Becket's election, and during part of the subsequent troubles acted as secretary to Henry. He tells us in his short but accurate records"Clero totius Provinciæ Cantuariorum generaliter Londoniæ convocato, præsente Henrico filio Regis, et Regni Justiciariis Thomas Cantuariensis Archidiac. et Regis Cancellarius nemine reclamante solemniter electus est in Archiepiscopum; electionem factam sine aliquá contradictione recitavit Henricus Wintoniensis Episcopus apud Westmonster, in refectorio Monachorum quartâ feriâ ante Pentecostem."

This may seem to be sufficient, but we will risk the appearance of an anticlimax, to acquaint our readers with the view which John of Salisbury took of Gilbert Foliot's charge against his friend. In the Autumn of 1166, Becket sent to him the letter which he had received from his suffragans, and which was more than suspected to be Gilbert's composition. He returned an answer criticising this letter point by point, and noticed the charge of which we now speak as follows:

"Nec curo de mendaciis quæ super introitu vestro interserere ausus est: Præsens audivi et vidi: solus ille verbum electionis vestræ gratum non habuit. Qui præ cæteris omnibus, quod multis claruit et claret indiciis, ut in sedem vestram induceretur, aspiravit. Non tamen obloqui ausus est, aliis arguentibus ambitionem et impudentiam ejus. Et electioni habitæ fere omnibus plus applausit."

This certainly is the statement of a person anxious to speak and think well of Becket, but, if we may judge from what we have already seen, not anxious to deceive him. John of Salisbury, as his letters shew, was no flatterer, and, except a wish to flatter, no motive can be assigned for his disguising a fact with which he must have been acquainted, to a friend who was interested in knowing it.

Here then we shall close our inquiry, the result of which seems to be in some degree at variance with commonly received opinions. Upon the whole we think that there is little ground for asserting, either that Becket while Chancellor was remarkable for his indifference to religion, or while Archbishop for his pretensions to it-or that his election, though he was certainly the nominee of the King, was procured by means at all more violent than was usual on such occasions. And if this is not overstating the result of our inquiry, we think it goes far to exonerate Becket's character at least from the imputation of insincerity. (To be continued.)

NOTICES OF THE OLDEN TIME.

A "MONSTRANS."

To the Editor of the British Magazine.

SIR,-In those countries where the Romish religion is professed, the festival of "Corpus Christi" is a day of much pomp and pa

« AnteriorContinuar »