No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2011
The history of Thomas Becket has been a fruitful subject of controversy for centuries. The murder and its results have also been continually expounded, so that it would seem presumptuous to claim to say anything new on such a well-worn theme. But attention has been focussed almost entirely on the question of criminous clerks, and rightly, if the quarrel of Henry II and Becket is the theme; for this was the issue that affected the archbishop most closely—the prestige of the archiepiscopal court was at stake. The Constitutions of Clarendon, however, affected the prestige of a greater than Becket, and the issues involved were correspondingly more important, and a decision on them carried with it the settlement of the minor question. I am only concerned with Becket because his murder brought about a decision of the main issue between Henry and the Pope. When Henry was reconciled with the Pope at Avranches in 1172 he made two concessions: (1) he renounced those customs that had been introduced in his own time to the harm of the Church; and (2) he allowed appeals to Rome. Now it is doubtless true to say that, as Henry insisted that the Constitutions were all “old” customs, the first concession meant little or nothing. But it is also usual to say that as, by a saving clause, he was allowed to get security from appellants that they were meditating no harm to king or country, the effect on his authority of the second clause was also slight. So the general opinion seems to be that, while Henry gave way over the question of the criminous clergy, on other questions of principle he was successful in maintaining his position.
page 214 note 1 Eadmer, Book v, ed. Rolls Series, pp. 228, 232; Jaffé-Löwenfeld, nos. 6450, 6453.
page 215 note 1 Sarum Charters, ed. Rolls Series, pp. 10–13.
page 215 note 2 Ed. Rolls Series, II. 190.
page 217 note 1 Historia monasterii S. Augustini Cantuariensis, ed. Rolls Series, p. 411; Jaffé-Löwenfeld, no. 10128.
page 218 note 1 Cf. Makower, pp. 228, n. 8, 240, n. 2.
page 219 note 1 . Maitland used Jaffé's original edition.
page 220 note 1 In his edition of Epistolae Cantuarienses in the Rolls Series, p. cxviii.
page 220 note 2 Of Eugenius III. Jaffé-Löwenfeld, no. 8959.
page 221 note 1 I have given a detailed analysis in the Appendix.
page 223 note 1 Cf. H. Böhmer (Kirche und Staat in England, p. 402), who asserts that these Popes were not interested in legal issues, but in the increase of their authority and in the financial advantages derived from suits at the papal court.
page 223 note 2 There is more evidence to be discovered about this period from MS. sources. Professor F. M. Stenton tells me that the impression he has so far obtained from episcopal and other documents in monastic cartularies is in strong confirmation of my view about appeals, both with regard to Stephen's reign and the latter half of Alexander's papacy.
page 224 note 1 I am here following the dating of letters given in Jaffé-Löwenfeld.
page 224 note 2 See, for these decretals, Jaffé-Löwenfeld, nos: 13793 foll. There is a noticeable similarity of some of these decretals to the Archbishop of Canterbury with canons issued by Archbishop Richard (Wilkins, Concilia, 1. 474).
page 225 note 1 And this, it seems to me, persisted until the Reformation Parliament of Henry VIII. The Statute in Restraint of Appeals began, and the Act for the Submission of the Clergy completed, the undoing of what Henry II had done at Avranches in 1172.
page 225 note 2 I have tried to verify all the addresses with the aid of Jaffé-Löwenfeld, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum; a few of them are uncertain.