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: 24 December 2009
Prima. Arnulfus, dei gratia Lexouiensis ecclesie humilis minister, dilecto suo Egidio, Rothomagensi archidiacono, salutem.
Epistolas, que aliquando diuersis a me sunt destinate personis, in libellum redigi, tuoque desiderio postulas exhiberi. Adquieuissem libentius si scirem quod eas esses quasi furtiuum aliquid habiturus, quia in lucem prodire proprie imperfectionis conscientia non presumunt. Timeo enim, si publicis exponantur aspectibus, ne lectorem ieiune macies orationis offendat, michique ad iactantiam reputetur edicio; quam tamen non fastus ostentationis elicuit, sed instancia tue caritatis extorsit. Decreueram eas futuris non reseruare temporibus, sed omni protinus abdicare memoria, quia non satis de cultu sermonis uel sententiarum peritia conndebam. Mallem siquidem eas tenebris dampnasse perhennibus quam ridendi materiam inuidie prestitisse, que eo securius aliena subsannat quia sua simili periculo non exponit. Non enim ceteri nos uel nostra tuis oculis intuentur, a quo, si quid in nobis bonum est, magnificatur attentius, et imperfectioni uenia facilis indulgetur. Animi siquidem eorum, quos odii sibi uel inuidie uendicauit affectio, sicut benignitatem indulgentie nesciunt, sic rationis iudicium non attingunt, sed omnia metiuntur affectibus, nichil sua meritorum estimatione taxantes. Ego itaque uoluntati tue deesse non audeo, ne forte uerecundiam negligentiam putes, quia, sicut alternis amicitia conualescit obsequiis, sic alterutrius incuria procedente laxatur.
page 1 note a Nephew of Archbishop Hugh of Rouen (Fitz Stephen, Materials, iii, 27), archdeacon of Rouen 1143–70, bishop of Evreux 1170–9. He also received the dedication of Arnulf's sermons (Ed. Giles, p. 1).
page 1 note 1 om., A.
page 1 note 2 om., E.
page 1 note b The terminus a quo for the date of the libellus (see above, p. lxxi) is 1165, and the terminus ad quem 1170, the year in which Giles became bishop. There is ample evidence that Arnulf retired temporarily from public affairs in 1166 (see above, p. xlvi).
page 2 note 1 contrahunt, A.
page 2 note 2 A gathering is lost in D2.
page 2 note 3 Ad Celestin' papamde promotione sua, A.
page 2 note 4 catella, A.
page 2 note a Pope Innocent II died 24 Sept. 1143, and Guy de Castello, cardinal-priest of St. Mark (Boso, ‘Hist. Pont.’, in Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, L., Paris, 1886–1892), ii, 386Google Scholar), was elected pope two days later. As the letter must have been written in the course of the year 1144, it is unlikely that Celestine received these congratulations, for he died on 8 March. See above, p. xx, n. 6.
page 3 note 1 exaltationes, Vulgate.
page 3 note a Geoffrey, count of Anjou, the father of King Henry II. See above, p. xx.
page 4 note 1 deuotus, A.
page 4 note 2 The first three lines are missing in D2.
page 4 note 3 add pro ecclesia Sagiensi, A.
page 4 note 4 add per, E.
page 4 note 5 electorum, A; election crossed out and electionum in margin, D2.
page 4 note 6 quod, D2.
page 4 note a See above, p. xlviii.
page 4 note b John, bishop of Séez; see above, pp. xii, seq.
page 4 note c The MS. title, referring to Pope Celestine, is incorrect, for Geoffrey is already reconciled to the pope, an event which did not take place until Easter 1146. For this and the letter, see above, pp. xxxiii, seq.
page 5 note 1 sciens, E.
page 5 note 2 auctori, A; u expunged, D2.
page 5 note 3 consumari, E.
page 5 note 4 potestate uel uoluntate, E.
page 5 note 5 non, E.
page 5 note a See below, p. 56 and note c.
page 5 note b Gerard's election was not confirmed by the papacy until he had become a regular canon and had sworn to uphold the Order. See below, p. 57.
page 6 note a Robert had been a secular canon of St. George's in the castle of Oxford, holding the prebend of Stow, Bucks, and archdeacon of Leicester. He was consecrated bishop in December 1148. In the Matilda-Stephen conflict he had connexions with both sides. His brother, William de Chesney, was a prominent supporter of Stephen, and his nephew, Gilbert Foliot, later bishop of London, inclined to the side of the empress. See the Rev. Salter, H. E., ‘The Family of Chesney’, Cartulary of the Abbey of Eynsham (Oxford Hist. Soc., vol. xlix, 1906), vol. i, appendix i, pp. 411Google Scholar, seqq., and the D.N.B. It appears that Robert was a friend of Ralph de Diceto (Foliot, ep. no. 94, M.P.L., cxc, 811Google Scholar), who was another friend of Arnulf's youth (ep. no. 26). Perhaps they had all met at the schools of Paris.
page 7 note 1 sanctimonialem, A.
page 7 note 2 flamma, E.
page 7 note 3 e over u expunged, A; e over u erased, D2.
page 7 note 4 flamma, A, E.
page 7 note 5 sept. ess., A.
page 7 note a See above, p. xxvii, n. 7.
page 7 note b Cf. Arnulf's sermon on the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary (no. 4), where there is some similarity of language.
page 8 note 1 dispon¯tur, A.
page 8 note 2 affectus, A; altered, D2.
page 8 note 3 illi thaI., A; ? transposed, D2.
page 8 note 4 lasciuie, D2.
page 8 note 5 eiusmodi, A, E.
page 8 note 6 contractu, E.
page 8 note 7 dignitatis interlined, E.
page 8 note 8 ilium, A; over ilium, D2.
page 9 note 1 o over expunged i, A, D2.
page 9 note 2 quando, E.
page 9 note 3 perpetue uel perfecte, E.
page 9 note 4 integ. ual., A; transposed D2.
page 9 note a See above, p. xxviii.
page 10 note 1 add Item, A.
page 10 note 2 dein, A.
page 10 note 3 recrudiuit, D2.
page 10 note 4 om, A; inserted D2.
page 10 note 5 nil, E.
page 10 note 6 Interim, A.
page 10 note a The manuscript title. Pope Adrian, is a mistake.
page 10 note b War between the Angevins and Louis was sporadic between 1149 and 1151. See Chartrou, , L'Anjou de 1109 à 1151, pp. 72Google Scholar, seq. and above, p. xxviii.
page 10 note c 7 September 1151 (Torigni, , pp. 162–3Google Scholar).
page 10 note d This seems to be a veiled reference to the rebellion of Geoffrey, Henry's brother, after June 1152 (Torigni, , p. 165).Google Scholar
page 10 note e Richard, dean of Bayeux, bishop of Coutances 1151.
page 11 note 1 add pro Philippe Baioc' episcopo, A.
page 11 note 2 im erased, E.
page 11 note 3 qui, E.
page 11 note 4 oconcurrunt, D2.
page 11 note 5 conprouincialibus, A.
page 11 note a This ascription seems preferable to the manuscript title, Pope Adrian IV.
page 11 note b Philip de Harcourt, dean of Lincoln, archdeacon of Evreux, bishop of Bayeux 1142–63, is known to have been at Rome once under Lucius II and three times under Eugenius III, viz., 1144, 1145, 1146 and 1153 (Haskins, , Norman Institutions, p. 203Google Scholar, n. 27). He was generally engaged in restoring the possessions of his see, which he had found much impoverished, and had much trouble with the monks of Troarn and Fécamp (ibid., pp. 201–4, and Antiquus cartularius ecclesiœ Baiocensis (livre noir), ed. V. Bourrienne (Soc. de 1'hist. de Normandie, Rouen, 1902–3), nos. 154, 155, 156, 159, 173, 186, 189 and 199).
page 11 note c In 1105 Henry I had taken and burned the city (Ordericus iv, 219), and in 1138 Robert of Gloucester had captured the city for Geoffrey, count of Anjou (ibid., v, 108). The church was burned in 1160, and Philip was active in its restoration (Torigni, , p. 206Google Scholar).
page 12 note 1 ad repell. et reprim., A; transposed, D2. repellandam, D2.
page 12 note 3 submurmurant, E.
page 12 note 3 qui, E.
page 12 note 4 timor, A; ? altered D2.
page 12 note 5 quodammodo, inserted, E.
page 12 note a On the death of William, prior of the Austin house of Ste. Barbe in the diocese of Lisieux, in January 1154, Daniel, prior of the daughter cell of Beckford in Gloucestershire was elected (Anonymous chronicle of Ste. Barbe, in H.F., xiv, 504Google Scholar, where the letter is incorporated in the chronicle).
page 13 note 1 protinus inserted after omnia, E.
page 13 note a Chancellor 1154–62. For the letter see above, p. xxx.
page 14 note 1 contemporary rubric.
page 14 note 2 nos, MS.
page 14 note 3 cum, MS.
page 14 note 4 conseruetur, MS.
page 15 note 1 abb. Boneuallis, E.
page 15 note a After leaving Marmoutier, where he was still to be found in 1138, Arnold was abbot of this Benedictine house in the diocese of Chartres near Châteaudun, occurring in 1144 and 1151. He had returned to Marmoutier by 1159, and died c. 1162. Arnold was the author of many religious works, and had connexions with St. Bernard (H.L., xii, 536Google Scholar, and Clerval, , Les Écales de Chartres au Moyen-Age, pp. 205–6Google Scholar). Also, see above, p. xiv.
page 15 note b Probably Philip, abbot of the Cistercian house of l'Aumône in the diocese of Chartres, once archdeacon of Liège and prior of Clairvaux. He was later a supporter of Pope Alexander III in the schism (H.F., xv, 753, 762Google Scholar), and was active in the Becket dispute in 1164 (Materials, i–iv, passim; and H.L., xiv, 166Google Scholar).
page 16 note 1 quon. dilata uobis retributio, A; si and est inserted, D 2; uobis inserted, E.
page 16 note 2 subito, E.
page 16 note 3 stat. cep., A; statim before cepit crossed out, D 2.
page 16 note 4 Ernulfum, A.
page 16 note 5 salutare, E.
page 16 note 6 holocaustumque, E.
page 16 note 7 hol. obtuli pro, A; transposed, D 2.
page 16 note a See note a, p. 15.
page 17 note 1 om., A; inserted, D 2.
page 17 note 2 particibus, A.
page 17 note 3 amplectatur uel complectatur, E.
page 17 note 4 singillatim, A; n expunged, D 2.
page 17 note 5 terminus, E.
page 17 note a See page 15, note a.
page 17 note b Rotrou, later archbishop of Rouen.
page 18 note 1 om., A; inserted, D 2.
page 18 note 2 iocumda, D 2.
page 18 note 3 prouectu, E.
page 18 note 4 iocumdis, D 2.
page 18 note 5 Porro, A.
page 18 note 6 add dominum, A.
page 18 note 7 c
mmendauit, D 2.
page 18 note a There was a meeting of the kings of England and France ‘in confinio Normanniae et Franciae’ on 5 February 1156 (Torigni, , p. 186Google Scholar), where the business was the homage due from Henry and the question of his brother Geoffrey's continental possessions. Shortly after Geoffrey fled to Anjou where he raised revolt, and Henry followed him and besieged the castles of Chinon and Mirebeau (Torigni, , p. 189Google Scholar; W. of Newburgh, Hist, rerum anglicarum in Chron. of … Stephen, etc. [Rolls Series], i, 113; John of Salisbury, ep. no. 128, M.P.L., cxcix, 108Google Scholar). It must have been at this time that Henry and Arnulf were at Tours, near the hostile castles.
page 18 note b See above, p. xxxi, and the next letter.
page 19 note 1 nostrum, A; changed by expunction, D 2.
page 19 note 2 cmmodius, D 2.
page 19 note 3 cimparare, D 2.
page 20 note 1 Ad Rollandum, sancte Romane ecclesie cancellarium, A.
page 20 note 2 ? precurrit, cu expunged, D 2.
page 20 note 3 deberet, A; er expunged, D 2.
page 20 note 4 stu|stidiis, D 2.
page 20 note 5 multum, E.
page 20 note 6 regis et, A; over erasure, D 2.
page 20 note 7 enim, A; over enim, D 2.
page 20 note a He became Pope Alexander III in 1159.
page 20 note b See the previous letter.
page 21 note 1 om., E.
page 21 note 2 add pro magistro Simone, A.
page 21 note 3 om., E.
page 21 note 4 retrusus uel reclusus, E.
page 21 note 5 obnoxius, A; altered by expunction, D 2.
page 21 note 6 add ipsam, A; crossed out, D 2.
page 21 note a There were few vacancies in Norman churches during the pontificate of Adrian, and it is most probable that Séez, vacant from 1157 to 1159 (see above, p. xxxv), is indicated here. The tone of the letter strengthens the supposition, for Arnulf was embroiled in the business of the church, and had a personal interest in the diocese (see above pp. xxxiii, seqq.).
page 22 note 1 correptio, A; altered, D 2.
page 22 note 2 add Item, A.
page 22 note 3 nostro, A.
page 22 note 4 aut, A.
page 22 note 5 ad inopiam tantum, A; ? transposed, D 2.
page 22 note a Peter was a stranger, a monk from Cluny, and his arrival in 1155 caused disturbances which became bitter in 1158 (Loth, Julien, Hist. de l'abbaye de S. Pierre de Jumièges (Soc. de l'hist. de Normandie, 1882–1885), i, 267–9).Google Scholar
page 23 note 1 add et, A.; expunged, D 2.
page 23 note 2 sac. mon., E.
page 23 note 3 om., A; ? expunged, D 2.
page 23 note 4 om., E.
page 23 note a Either Bernard, who was suspended in 1159 after a rule of scarcely a year (G.C.), or his successor, Robert II de Blangis, abbots of the Benedictine house of St. Évroult, near Argentan, at this time subject to the bishops of Lisieux. See above, pp. xxxvi, seqq.
page 24 note 1 Drog. et Hug., A.
page 24 note 2 credidit absoluend', E.
page 24 note 3 quod, D 2.
page 24 note 4 neglegentia, A; e over i expunged, D 2.
page 24 note 5 uestram fratrumque, E.
page 25 note 1 Ad eundem, A.
page 25 note 2 es, E.
page 25 note 3 utilitatem uel humilitatem, E.
page 25 note 4 sanguis Christi, A; transposed, D 2.
page 25 note a See note to the preceding letter.
page 26 note 1 tibi scripta, E.
page 26 note 2 seueriore, E.
page 27 note 1 Domino Cenoman', A.
page 27 note 2 Roth, thes., E.
page 27 note 3 ? transposed to fere sit, D 2.
page 27 note 4 deuotio uel religio, E.
page 27 note 5 om., E.
page 27 note a Ralph de Warneville, treasurer of Rouen and treasurer of Normandy (Haskins, , Norman institutions, p. 180Google Scholar, n., 130), royal chancellor 1173–81, and bishop of Lisieux to succeed Arnulf, 1181.
page 27 note b If the date is correct, Laurence, who was elected in 1159 after the see had been vacant for two years, is indicated.
page 28 note 1 sanctitatis uel maiestatis, E.
page 28 note 2 offerre, E.
page 28 note 3 uobis, A.
page 28 note 4 satisfationem, A.
page 28 note 5 compositone, A.
page 28 note a 1130–64. He dedicated a work to Arnulf, and Arnulf composed an epitaph for Hugh. See above, p. xxii, n. 6.
page 28 note 2 Henry de Sully, a scion of the family of Blois-Champagne (for Arnulf's relations with the house, see above, p. xiv), was monk of Cluny, and abbot of the Benedictine convent of Fecamp in the diocese of Rouen, c. 1140–89. He was also an unsuccessful or reluctant candidate for the sees of Salisbury, York and Lincoln. For Fecamp's jurisdiction over parishes, see Lemarignier, Étude sur les privilèges d'exemption et de juridiction ecclésiastique des abbayes Normandes, and above, p. xxxviii. Archbishop Hugh confirmed these privileges (G.C., xi, instr. 23Google Scholar).
page 29 note 1 huius, A; over erasure, D 2.
page 29 note 2 correctus, E.
page 29 note 3 Ad Will, et Io. Pap. card., E; Ad H. Pisan' et Io' Neapolit' et Iac' cardinales, A.
page 29 note a A grammarian at Paris, known as a commentator on Priscian. John of Salisbury studied rhetoric under him between 1140 and 1142 (Poole, R. L., ‘The Masters of the Schools at Paris and Chartres in John of Salisbury's time’, in Studies in chronology and history (Oxford, 1934), p. 244Google Scholar, and Webb, , John of Salisbury, p. 9Google Scholar), and he is mentioned in the Metamorphosis Goliae Episcopi, which was composed c. 1142 (Poole, , op. cit., p. 240Google Scholar). He was still active in 1166, possibly at Poitiers (Letter of John of Salisbury, Materials, v, 348Google Scholar). It is quite possible that Arnulf had met him at Paris.
page 29 note b The editors of the H.L. (xii, 486)Google Scholar think that this was Hugh de Nonant, Arnulf's nephew, but it seems an unwarrantable conclusion.
page 29 note c The two editions have different lists of cardinals, but probably the letter was sent to all supporters of Alexander, and covered no. 24. John of Naples, a Victorine, was cardinal-priest of St. Anastasia. William of Pavia, cardinal-priest of St. Peter ad Vincula, and Henry of Pisa, cardinal-priest of St. Nereus and St. Achilles, were two of the legates sent to further the papal cause in France in 1159/60. Hyacinth was cardinal-deacon of St. Mary in Cosmedin, and later Pope Celestine III. For the activities of these cardinals at this time, see Ohnsorge, W., Die Legaten Alexanders IIIGoogle Scholar. For the letter, see above, p. xl.
page 30 note 1 patris, D 2; patris expunged and partis in margin, A.
page 30 note 2 add et intrusione Octouiani, A.
page 30 note 3 om., A.
page 30 note a On his return from Toulouse in October, Henry reduced the castles of barons who had been instigated to rebellion by Louis, and a truce with the French king followed in December 1159 (Torigni, , pp. 205–6Google Scholar).
page 30 note b See above, p. xl. This letter probably accompanied no. 23. The pope replied on 1 April 1160 (printed Giles no. 22).
page 31 note 1 neglegentem, A; i over e expunged, D 2.
page 31 note 2 misericors et miserator, A.
page 31 note 3 preuidet, E.
page 31 note 4 insert tamen, E.
page 31 note 5 uel, E.
page 31 note 6 add ad, E.
page 31 note a Peter Leonis, the anti-Pope Anacletus. Cf. Arnulf's description of him in his Invectiva, cap. 3.
page 32 note 1 nobiliori, E.
page 32 note 2 om., A; inserted, D 2.
page 32 note 3 quoniam, E.
page 32 note a These pictures seem to have made a great impression on contemporaries; of. John of Salisbury, ep. no. 59, M.P.L., cxcix, 39.Google Scholar
page 33 note 1 nec, A; c erased, D 2.
page 33 note 2 om., E.
page 33 note 3 G., A.
page 33 note 4 om. a uobis, A; inserted, D 2.
page 33 note 5 om., A; inserted, D 2.
page 33 note a Cf. previous letter, p. 30 and n. a.
page 33 note b 1154–78.
page 34 note 1 recompensant, E; s inserted, D 2.
page 34 note 2 offerunt uel conferunt, E.
page 34 note 3 per quam, E.
page 34 note 4 altered to communitati, E.
page 34 note a This seems to be a reference to Arnulf's circulars (no. 23) to the supporters of Alexander III.
page 35 note 1 Ad Ric' de Diceto [Ditio expunged] Lond' archid', E; Ad Radulf' London' archid', A.
page 35 note 2 Ricard', A; altered, D 2.
page 35 note a The historian. See Stubbs' introduction to Diceto, pp. xxvi, seqq. and above, p. xvii.
page 35 note b John of Salisbury is very fond of this quotation; see epp. nos. 247, 296, 302 (M.P.L., cxcix, 291, 343, 354Google Scholar).
page 35 note c Mentioned as a canon of Lisieux in 1148 (document printed by Haskins, , Norman institutions, p. 322Google Scholar).
page 36 note 1 nobisque, A.
page 36 note 2 susceperat uel receperat, E.
page 36 note a For William, see Round, , Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 389Google Scholar, and Stubbs, , op. cit., pp. xxxii and livGoogle Scholar. This chaplain of Archbishop Theobald carried the result of the council of London, which dealt with the disputed election, to the papacy (see above, p. xl) in July or August 1160 to Henry in Normandy (John of Salisbury, ep. no. 64, M.P.L., cxcix, 48Google Scholar), and perhaps he had been in Normandy before the council and even taken Henry's instructions to London (see next page).
page 36 note b See above, p. xl.
page 36 note c The letter ‘Quia sedis’, Labbe, P. and Cossart, G., Sacrosancta concilia (Paris, 1671–1672), x, 1392.Google Scholar
page 37 note 1 actore, E.
page 37 note 2 changed from cum-, D 2.
page 37 note 3 add enim, E.
page 37 note 4 dix. om., A; transposed, D 2.
page 37 note 5 neque, A; inserted, D 2.
page 37 note 6 changed from ioconditatis, D 2.
page 37 note 7 mult, uen., E.
page 37 note a See Raby, F. J. E., A hist. of Christian Latin poetry (Oxford, 1927), p. 116.Google Scholar
page 38 note 1 serm. seren., A; transposed, D 2.
page 38 note 2 changed from cum-, D 2.
page 38 note 3 add uir illustris eloquentie, E.
page 38 note 4 om., E.
page 38 note 5 add de susceptione domini pape Alexandri, A.
page 38 note a See above, p. xl. Ohnsorge, , op. cit., pp. 21Google Scholar, seqq., concludes that the London synod was held after the continental synods (which, it is agreed, met about July 22), sand was a part of Henry's policy of delay. On the other hand, in E.H.R., li, 264Google Scholar, I held that it took place in June before the meetings on the Norman-French border. Ohnsorge's general reasoning is plausible, but his interpretation of the passage in Arnulf's letter (below, p. 42), on which his conclusion depends, seems doubtful. He interprets Arnulf's reference to the activity of the French Church on behalf of Alexander as an account of the synod of Beauvais, and says that Arnulf makes no reference to the complementary Norman synod of Neufmarche because of the contrasting tone of its results (note 56). The crucial evidence is Arnulf, 's, Sed quia inter ipsum et principem nostrum … nouiter est reformata concordiaGoogle Scholar, etc. (below, p. 42), which Ohnsorge indeed interprets as a reference to the peace between Henry and Louis in May (note 56), but gives the phrase no importance in determining the chronology of the events narrated there. He explains it as giving the general cause of Louis' complaisance. For Gilbert Foliot's praise of the letter, see Materials, v, 16, and for Arnulf's reasons for writing, see no. 27.
page 39 note 1 compararetur, E.
page 39 note 2 omnis, E.
page 39 note 3 mendicatas, A; e inserted, D 2.
page 39 note a See below, p. 43, n a.
page 39 note b Imar of Tusculum, who consecrated Octavian, and Guy of Crema, cardinal-deacon of St. Mary in Porticu 1146, cardinal-priest of St. Calixtus 1158, anti-Pope Paschal III 1164, and John of Mercone, cardinal-priest of St. Silvester and St. Martin 1150.
page 39 note c Cf. the accounts of the election given by Romuald of Salerno, Chronicon, ed. Garufi, C. A. (Rerum Ital. Script., new edition, vol. vii, 1914), pp. 243–4Google Scholar; by Gerhoh of Reichersberg, ‘De Investigatione Antichristi’, ed. Sackur, E. in Libelli de lite (Mon. Germ. Hist., 1897), iii, 360–1Google Scholar; and by Raul, Sire, ‘De Rebus Gestis Friderici Primi in Italia’ (Rerum Ital. Script., vol. vi, 1725)Google Scholar, col. 1183.
page 40 note 1 ? altered to et, D 2.
page 40 note 2 discurr. glad., A; transposed, D 2.
page 40 note 3 debebant, E; b expunged, D 2.
page 41 note 1 credatur, E.
page 41 note a See p. 36, note c.
page 42 note 1 callicana, A; altered, D 2.
page 42 note 2 uirtute, A; over uirtute, D 2.
page 42 note 3 caritatis, A; inserted, D 2.
page 42 note 4 tabule, A; altered, D 2.
page 42 note 5 manus, E.
page 42 note a A truce in December and a peace in May (Torigni, , pp. 206 and 207Google Scholar). For the terms see H.F., xvi, 21.Google Scholar
page 43 note 1 etiam, enim expunged, A; etiam expunged, D 2.
page 43 note 2 tempestiuus, A; i inserted, D 2.
page 43 note 3 bonitate, E.
page 43 note 4 add sancte, E.
page 43 note 5 Ad Gisl' Lond' et Hyl' Citest' et Wll' Norwic' episcopos Anglie, A.
page 43 note a Henry, bishop of Winchester, and Hugh, bishop of Durham, were said to be supporters of Octavian (John of Salisbury, ep. no. 59, M.P.L., cxcix, 43Google Scholar). Octavian claimed to be a relative of King Stephen (John of Salisbury, Historia pontificalis, p. 45Google Scholar, and see Dr. Poole's explanation in Appendix IV), and so would be related to the bishop of Winchester.
page 43 note b For the matter see above, p. xl, and for the form, p. lxxviii, n. 1.
page 44 note 1 uel, E.
page 44 note 2 uobis rei, E.
page 44 note 3 scismatisci, D 2.
page 44 note 4 audeat, E.
page 44 note 5 ne, A; c inserted, D 2.
page 44 note 6 om. Tusc. loqu., A; added in margin, ? gloss, D 2.
page 45 note 1 affectare, E.
page 45 note 2 trahere uoluntatem, E.
page 45 note 3 stat. ad un., E.
page 45 note 4 over uerteretur, A; er expunged, D 2.
page 45 note 5 for. ecc., E.
page 45 note 6 om. possit … maledictionis, B, B 1, B 2, B 3, B 4)
page 45 note a Alias is John of Mercone, who had been archdeacon of Tyre; tertius. who was of good birth, is Guy of Crema, who, like Octavian, claimed to be a relative of King Stephen (see reference, p. 43, n. a).
page 46 note 1 lascisua, s inserted, D 2; lacisua, A.
page 46 note 2 illudere, A; altered, D 2.
page 46 note 3 qua, E.
page 46 note 4 eorum, A; over erasure, D 2.
page 46 note 5 qui et, A; a over i expunged, D 2; qui and om. et, E.
page 46 note 6 ualuerunt, A; over ualuerunt, D 2.
page 47 note 1 eorum, A; over erasure, D 2.
page 47 note 2 eos, A; u over e expunged, D 2.
page 47 note 3 eorum, A; over erasure, D 2.
page 47 note 4 ipsorum, A; ibid., D 2.
page 47 note 5 descendant, E.
page 47 note 6 om., A; inserted, D 2.
page 47 note 7 add enim, A; expunged, D 2.
page 47 note 8 eos, A; over erasure, D 2.
page 47 note 9 sunt, A; ibid., D 2.
page 47 note 10 cum eis, A; ibid., D 2.
page 47 note 11 detestantur, A; Ibid., D 2.
page 47 note 12 eis, A; ibid., D 2.
page 47 note 13 ceperunt, A; ibid., D 2.
page 47 note 14 om., A; inserted, D 2.xs
page 48 note 1 fidebus, A; li inserted, D 2.
page 48 note 2 eos, A; over erasure, D 2.
page 48 note 3 cum eis, A; over erasure, D 2.
page 48 note 4 ipsis, A; ibid., D 2.
page 48 note a Ohnsorge, , op. cit., pp. 24–38Google Scholar, believes this to be a description of the council of Toulouse in October 1160, which he has resurrected (notes 51 and 67). See also Amelli, A., La chiesa di Roma e la chiesa di Milano nella elezione di papa Alessandro III (Firenze, 1910)Google Scholar, and Ohnsorge, , ‘Eine ebracher Brief-sammlung des XII Jahrhunderts’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, (1928–1929), xx, 4Google Scholar, seqq.
page 49 note 1 euidentibus, E.
page 49 note 2 The names are expanded in the margin, probably by the same hand which added Tusculanum loquor (see above, p. 44, n. 6).
page 49 note 3 illos, A; over erasure, D 2.
page 49 note 4 Norgeng', A; amended from, D 2.
page 49 note 5 ceperunt, A; over erasure, D 2.
page 49 note 6 om., A; inserted, D 2.
page 50 note 1 operis, D 2.
page 50 note 2 illi, A; over erasure, D 2.
page 50 note 3 om. Rom. ecc., E; Ad Heni' Pisan' cardinalem, A.
page 50 note 4 quarter, A; r expunged, D 2.
page 50 note 5 maligni|nitatis, D 2.
page 50 note 6 conualesco, A; signs of erasure, D 2.
page 50 note 7 uideatur uel credatur, E.
page 50 note a See above, p. xl.
page 51 note 1 Engolismsem, D 2, A; Engolismum, E.
page 51 note a Arnulf's quarrels with his canons, the church of Séez (see above, p. xxxv) and with the convent of St. Évroult (ibid., p. xxxvii) were agitating him at this time.
page 51 note b These debts were probably contracted during Arnulf's royal justiciarship. See above, pp. xxix, seq.
page 51 note c 1159–78 (Gams, , Series episcoporumGoogle Scholar), 1159–82 (Chevalier, , RepertoireGoogle Scholar). This letter was written at the beginning of an episcopate, and the date given is not in discordance with manuscript evidence.
page 52 note 1 comprobatur uel predicatur, E.
page 52 note 2 ei followed by erasure, A; eum, m over i expunged, D 2; in eum, E.
page 52 note 3 opponendum uel componendum, E.
page 52 note 4 uobis aliquid, E.
page 52 note 5 turn, A, E; altered, D 2.
page 52 note a This is the accuser of his bishop, Gilbert de la Porrée, whose philosophical opinions were objected to in 1147 (Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici Primi, ed. Waitz, G. (Script. Rer. Germ., 1912), pp. 67Google Scholar, seqq.; Letter of Geoffrey d'Auxerre, H.F., xiv, 327Google Scholar; John of Salisbury, Historia pontificalis (ed. R. L. Poole), p. 17Google Scholar).
page 53 note 1 inuenisse, A; r over ss expunged, D 2.
page 53 note 2 om., E.
page 53 note a See above, p. xxxv and p. lvi.
page 53 note b There was war in Toulouse in the summer of 1159, and war in the Beau-voisis in October. A truce was made in November between Kings Henry and Louis which became a peace in May 1160. Arnulf was a witness to the peace (Eyton).
page 54 note 1 tum, A; altered to tum, E.
page 54 note 2 mag. desid., E.
page 54 note 3 presenta, A; i inserted, D 2.
page 54 note 4 om., E.
page 54 note 5 tautum, A.
page 54 note 6 noluique, A; sed inserted, que expunged, D 2.
page 54 note 7 reddit, A; di inserted, D 2.
page 54 note a The schism. See above, p. xl.
page 54 note b Froger, formerly almoner of the king (Torigni, , p. 205Google Scholar and n. 3), and a one-time domesticus of Arnulf's (see next letter).
page 54 note c William de Passavant.
page 54 note d Achard.
page 54 note e Cardinal-priest of St. Peter ad vincula. He arrived in Normandy about the end of 1159, and left probably in the autumn of 1161 (Ohnsorge, W., Die Legaten Alexanders III, pp. 37–43Google Scholar).
page 55 note 1 om. si … uenissem, E.
page 55 note 2 om., E.
page 55 note a The quarrel between Arnulf and Silvester was concerned with the woods of Livet and Millouel (in the parish of St. Désir, Lisieux). The report to the pope of the judges-delegate, William de Passavant and Achard, announcing Silvester's submission, is printed by Sauvage, R. N., ‘Fragments d'un cartulaire de Saint-Pierre de Lisieux,’ Études Lexoviennes (1928), iii, 341–2.Google Scholar
page 55 note b See above, p. xxxv, and the previous letter.
page 56 note 1 om., E.
page 56 note 2 reddisset, D 2, A.
page 56 note 3 qui inserted and om. magna, D 2.
page 56 note 4 om., E.
page 56 note 5 archidionatus, A, D 2.
page 56 note a Instrument of John in G.C., xi, instr. col. 160. He built a cloister and other offices for the canons (Torigni, , p. 149Google Scholar).
page 56 note b See above, pp. xiv and xviii.
page 56 note c ‘Decernimus quoque atque constituimus, ut archidiaconi Sagiensis ecclesiae, de vestris fratribus, vel vestro capitulo, vestroque consilio ab episcopo eligantur, et beneficia, et redditus, et quidquid eis de archidiaconatibus provenerit, in vestros regulares usus atque communes redigantur”, Instrument of John, loc. cit.
page 57 note 1 bona fide, E.
page 57 note 2 officio, opificio in margin, E.
page 57 note 3 orta, E.
page 57 note a Austin abbey near Valence, Drôme. Pope Adrian IV had been one of its canons.
page 58 note 1 sumnam, D 2.
page 58 note 2 add ipsum etiam uestrum cum eis, E.
page 58 note 3 add Item, A.
page 58 note 4 quo, E.
page 58 note 5 relig. intend., A; transposed, D 2.
page 58 note 6 om., E.
page 58 note a See above, p. xxxv, and the two preceding letters.
page 59 note 1 ascribi, E.
page 59 note 2 illius, E.
page 59 note a Cf. St. Bernard, De Consideratione, (M.P.L., clxxxii), iii, 1Google Scholar, ‘Eis tu [Pope Eugenius III] successisti in haereditatem. Ita tu haeres et orbis haereditas. At quatenus haec portio te contingit, aut contigerit illos, id sobria consideratione pensandum’.
page 59 note b Cf. St. Bernard, , op. cit., i, 9Google Scholar, ‘Praedecessores tui non ita consueverunt: eris molestus quam pluribus, quasi qui a patrum vestigiis subito deviaris: nempe id videberis agere in sugillationem illorum … Nec potes eorum omnia simul et subito vel errata corrigere, vel excessus redigere in modum. Erit cum acceperis tempus, ut secundum sapientiam tibi a Deo datam paulatim et opportune id studeas. Interim sane malo alterius utere in bonum quod potes’.
page 60 note 1 uideratur, D 2, A.
page 60 note 2 rerum, A; r expunged, D 2; altered,. E.
page 61 note 1 uirtutis, E.
page 61 note 2 dereliquit, A.
page 61 note 3 add in, A; expunged, D 2.
page 61 note 4 enim, E.
page 61 note 5 que, E.
page 61 note 6 promtior uel pronior, E.
page 62 note 1 erog. sol., E.
page 62 note 2 condempnant over evasion, D 2.
page 62 note 3 enim os obstructum loquentium, A; erasure, D 2.
page 62 note 4 transquillitate, D 2.
page 62 note a Apparently Froger's nephew, John. See ep. no. 33.
page 63 note 1 contrictio, A; c expunged, D 2.
page 63 note 2 cari|caritate, A.
page 63 note 3 satisfactionis, Z.
page 63 note 4 quantum, Z.
page 63 note 5 om., Z.
page 63 note a See above, p. xliii.
page 64 note 1 Almare, A.
page 64 note 2 firmasse, A.
page 64 note a The exact dates of Richard's precentorship are not known. Richard Daumeri (other forms: Ricardus de Ameri, de Aumeri, de Aumari, Dameri), as precentor and archdeacon of Lincoln, witnesses a charter of Henry de Oilli, royal constable (Transcripts from the cartulary of the abbey of Thame, Brit. Mus. Cotton MS., Julius, C. vii, fo. 287v). Henry, according to Eyton, held the office from 1155 to 1158, and died c. 1163–5. Later, as Richard, precentor of Lincoln, Arnulf's correspondent witnesses charters in October 1162 (The registrum antiquissimum of the cathedral church of Lincoln, ed. Foster, C. W. and Major, K., Lincoln Record Soc., 1931–1937, iii, 156Google Scholar) and in 1163–6 (Cartulary of Oseney abbey, ed. Rev. Salter, H. E., Oxford Hist. Soc., 1929–1936, v, 241Google Scholar). Still precentor, he and Richard of Ilchester, archdeacon of Poitiers, acted as royal guardians of the see of Lincoln and accounted for its revenues during its vacancy, 1167–73 (Rolls, Pipe, 14 Henry II–19 Henry II, The great roll of the pipe for the 13th year of the reign of King Henry the second, A.D. 1166–67, The Pipe Roll Soc., 1889, pp. 40 and 57Google Scholar etc.). Richard also attests a charter of Bishop Robert Chesney as a canon of Lincoln (Transcripts from the cartulary of the abbey of Thame, fo. 297v). His predecessor, Roger de Almaria (Le Neve's Roger de Derby), appointed in 1147–8 (The registrum antiquissimum, i, 262–3Google Scholar), is noticed as precentor c. 1150 (Transcripts of charters relating to the Gilbertine houses of Sixle, Ormsby, Catley, Bullington and Alvingham, ed. Steuton, F. M., Lincoln Record Soc., 1922, pp. 1 and 15Google Scholar), and in that capacity attests a charter dated 1156–62 (ibid., p. 3). It appears then that Richard became precentor c. 1157.
The request which is contained in this letter had previously been made in person by Arnulf to Richard, and from this we may perhaps infer that it was made in England. Arnulf was with the king at Lincoln in January 1155; but that date is probably too early. A more likely time is October 1163, when the bishop crossed to England to intercede between Henry and Becket, and when the royal court is found at Lincoln (Eyton).
page 65 note 1 add plerumque, E.
page 65 note 2 formabit, E.
page 65 note 3 turn, A; altered to turn, E; altered, D 2.
page 65 note a A Peter archdeacon of Poitiers occurs in 1148 (G.C., ii, instr. col. 376).
page 66 note 1 eumque, E.
page 66 note 2 cururrisse, A; altered, D 2.
page 66 note 3 om., A; inserted, D 2.
page 66 note b After the embassies of Arnulf and Richard of Ilchester at the end of 1163, Geoffrey Ridel and John of Oxford were sent to the pope by Henry to ask for the legateship for the archbishop of York and confirmation of the Constitutions. They obtained a grant of the legateship under unsatisfactory conditions, and Henry then sent two lesser men who were successful in the matter of the profession of the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, and claimed that Geoffrey and John had acted foolishly at the Curia (Mat., v, 89Google Scholar). It seems that Arnulf expected to go on this legation, and, when others were sent, wrote this letter to the pope. John of Salisbury, writing at about this time, thought that Arnulf was to go and undertake the business of the abbot of St. Augustine's (Mat., v, 101Google Scholar), and the legates echo Arnulf's complaints as to the intrigues of Becket's supporters at the Curia (ibid., v, 89). For the chronology see Eyton; Materials, v, passim; and above, p. xliii.
page 67 note 1 silentio res, E.
page 67 note 2 reputat, A.
page 67 note 3 sit. damp., E.
page 67 note 4 consumate, E.
page 67 note 5 absoluet, A; altered, D 2.
page 68 note a See previous letter and note.
page 68 note b A reference to his championship of Alexander during the schism.
page 68 note c This letter is followed in the MS. by the papal bull, dated 28 November at Sens, and it is printed by von Pflugk-Harttung, J., Acta pontificum romanorum (Tübingen, 1880–1888), ii, 369.Google Scholar
page 69 note 1 reliquid, MS.
page 69 note 2 Venerabili et dilecto domino et patri suo Thomae, Dei gratia Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, Ernulfus Luxoviensis episcopus, ad prosperitatem et salutem spiritu consilii et fortitudinis pervenire, R; no title or address, C 3.
page 69 note 3 add ter, R.
page 69 note 4 ut C 3.
page 69 note 5 ergo, R.
page 69 note 6 in mtuas, a inserted, C 3.
page 69 note 7 amplexis, C 3.
page 69 note 8 Arbitrantur, G.
page 69 note a See above, p. xliv. This letter is also found in the contemporary collections of Becket correspondence, and Robertson's conflated text, based largely on these sources (Materials, v, 302Google Scholar), is collated as R.
page 70 note 1 leuitatis, R.
page 70 ntoe 2 magni|centiam, G.
page 70 note 3 nos, C 3.
page 70 note 4 extitit, G.
page 70 note 5 percepte, R.
page 70 note 6 quoniam, G.
page 70 note a Quoted in a late thirteenth-century Durham MS. in the muniments of the dean and chapter, Loc., iii, 40, among other excerpts from the Becket correspondence, membrane 2 dorse, line 49, ‘Ne dissimulacio audaciam creet, vel insolenciam indulgencia prona confirmet.’
page 71 note 1 add et, C 3.
page 71 note 2 debitum, C 3.
page 71 note 3 Ch. sang., E.
page 71 note 4 cogitasse, R.
page 71 note 5 om. rer., C 3, R.
page 71 note a A reference to the Constitutions of Clarendon.
page 72 note 1 uoluit uel uoluisset, E.
page 72 note 2 est im., E.
page 72 note 3 impunitate, R.
page 72 note 4 minus, G.
page 72 note 5 ues. caus., R.
page 72 note 6 quoniam, G.
page 72 note 7 censentur, E.
page 72 note 8 om., R.
page 73 note 1 aliquando uel quandoque, E.
page 73 note 2 ad exitium, C 3.
page 73 note 3 quam, G.
page 73 note 4 caus, uest., C 3, R.
page 73 note 5 ordinis sui debitum, R.
page 74 note 1 impendunt, G.
page 74 note 2 dissidio, R.
page 74 note 3 om., R.
page 74 note 4 effectu uel euentu, E.
page 74 note 5 non uota, C 3.
page 74 note 6 humiliori, R.
page 74 note 7 ordinem, C 3.
page 74 note 8 audatiam, C 3, R.
page 74 note 9 prouentibus, C 3, R.
page 74 note 10 tantum, G.
page 74 note 11 nec, R.
page 74 note 12 insistendum uel intendendum, E.
page 75 note 1 percepta, C 3, R.
page 75 note 2 que bonum uestram est, transposed from que uestram bonum est, E.
page 75 note 3 possit, R.
page 75 note 4 auctoritas, G.
page 75 note 5 quia, R.
page 75 note 6 uobis, G, R.
page 76 note 1 Domini sunt corda, R.
page 76 note 2 irrogauit, R.
page 76 note 3 actoris igitur, C 3.
page 76 note 4 sap. ues., R.
page 76 note 5 recurrendum, R.
page 76 note 6 inherete, E.
page 76 note 7 obsequiis, G.
page 76 note 8 sed, G.
page 77 note 1 non, R.
page 77 note 2 insert uelut quoddam holo. before pro fratribus, G.
page 77 note 3 est lib., E.
page 77 note 4 ergo, R.
page 77 note 5 om. federibus … quoscunque, G.
page 77 note a Henry crossed to Normandy in February 1165 (Eyton).
page 77 note b Unless the letter dates from 1168 this paragraph is rhetorical exaggeration. The whole tone of the letter, however, suggests that Becket had only recently gone into exile.
page 78 note 1 statum, G, C 3; erasure, E.
page 78 note 2 confusum, G, C 3; erasure, E.
page 78 note 3 neque, C 3.
page 78 note 4 quibuscumque, C 3, R.
page 78 note 5 plura, C 3.
page 78 note 6 Passage added by C 3and R.
page 78 note 7 Passage added by R.
page 78 note 8 R, E.
page 78 note a Henry spoke with Louis on n April 1165 (Eyton; Louis Halphen, ‘Les entrevues des rois Louis VII et Henri II durant l'exil de Thomas Becket en France’, in Mélanges d'histoire offerts à M. Charles Bémont).
page 78 note b There was trouble in Wales in 1164, and Henry returned for an expedition in May 1165 (Torigni, , pp. 222, 225Google Scholar; William of Newburgh, ‘Historia rerum angl.’ in Chron. of … Stephen, etc., i, 145Google Scholar; Eyton).
page 78 note c Until recently precentor of the chapter of St. Aignan, Orleans. He had powerful supporters, for King Louis also wrote to the pope requesting his restoration. Alexander, in a firm refusal of the demand, dated 25 June 1165, states that he had been allowed to keep his prebend and provostship (H.F., xv, 837Google Scholar). Cuissard, ‘Dignitaires et chanoines de la collégiale de saint-Aignan’, in Bulletin soc. arch, hist, Orléans, xi (1895)Google Scholar, erroneously lists Reimbert on this evidence as occurring in 1175.
page 79 note 1 sicut ipse, E.
page 80 note a The future King Philip Augustus was born on 21 August 1165 (Suger, , De glorioso rege Ludovico … [ed A. Molinier, 1887], pp. 176–8Google Scholar; Torigni, , p. 225Google Scholar).
page 80 note b If this can be connected with the next letter there is a strong presumption that it concerns the case between Herbert, abbot of the Benedictine house of Grestain in the diocese of Lisieux, 1139–78, and John, a priest, which was decided by Foliot as judge-delegate (Foliot, ep. no. 181, M.P.L., cxc, 885Google Scholar, and no. 205, ibid., col. 910, which determines the date). After presenting John to the church of West Firle with its chapel Charlston in Sussex and in the diocese of Chichester, the abbot tried to disturb his tenure by the intrusion of Henry, a monk of the abbey. John appealed, and the pope appointed Foliot as judge, who then decided the case in his favour. The sentence was promulgated at the time when Foliot and Hilary of Chichester were about to go to the pope at the order of the king, and the only time that the two bishops visited the pope together on a legation was in October 1164 after the council of Northampton (Materials, ii, 336, 402Google Scholar; iii, 323 etc.). Nicholas, archdeacon of Middlesex, who witnesses Foliot's sentence, occurs in 1162 (Le Neve, , FastiGoogle Scholar). Also see above, p. xxxv.
The Editors of Gallia Christiana believed that this business concerned the abbot William I, who succeeded Herbert in 1180, and who was transferred to the abbey of St. Martin of Poutoise in 1185. This would mean that Arnulf was occupied with the case during his exile and after his resignation of the bishopric. Yet such a manifest error was repeated by Deshays, (op. cit., supra, p. xiii), ii, 70Google Scholar? and by the author of a modern monograph on the abbey, Ch. Bréard, , L'abbaye de Notre-Dame de Grestain (Rouen, 1904), pp. 44–57.Google Scholar
page 81 note 1 uidelicet, E.
page 81 note 2 om., E.
page 81 note 3 Cristanensem, A.
page 81 note a Cf. St. Bernard, , De considerations, (M.P.L., clxxxii), iii, 2Google Scholar, ‘Non est autem suffugium appellatio, sed refugium’.
page 81 note b See note to preceding letter.
page 81 note c Herbert's lawsuit was sub judice in the summer of 1164 (see preceding letter), and it is likely that this warning was sent in the next year. This is an important date, for on it hangs the whole chronology. We know then that Herbert left for England in April or May 1164, just before the hearing of his case, and that fixes the date of the next letter, which was written when Herbert had been in England almost two years.
page 82 note 1 enim, E.
page 82 note 2 Part of this Utter is repeated in ep. no. 49 (q.v.), which occurs uniquely in C 3. It is that version which is collated here, and not the normal version which also is to be found in C 3.
page 82 note 3 add dominum, A.
page 82 note 4 Beginning of the passage repeated in ep, no. 49 (q.v.); see note 2.
page 82 note 5 poterunt, E.
page 82 note 6 dissonabant, C 3.
page 82 note 7 timorem, C 3.
page 82 note 8 om., C 3.
page 82 note a For a list of the possessions of Grestain in England, see King Richard's charter of 1189, printed Dugdale, , Monasticon Anglicanum (ed. J. Caley), vi, 2, 1090–1Google Scholar, and in two versions by Bréard, , op. cit., pp. 199Google Scholar, seqq.
page 82 note b See the two preceding letters.
page 82 note c See previous page, note c.
page 83 note 1 nec, C 3.
page 83 note 2 impediendum, C 3.
page 83 note 3 cucurisse, C 3.
page 83 note 4 cutellis, C 3.
page 83 note 5 prouidia, D 2.
page 83 note 6 in mensam, C 3; altered from immensam, D 2.
page 83 note 7 uiderentur, E.
page 83 note 8 inoantante, C 3.
page 83 note 9 pernicem, C 3.
page 83 note 10 adaucto, C 3.
page 83 note 11 district|ctione, D 2.
page 83 note 12 om., A; inserted, D 2.
page 83 note 13 nichil sibi, E, C 3.
page 83 note 14 add quasi, A, C 3; quas expunged, D 2.
page 83 note a Cf. the tart story concerning St. Bernard's failure to perform a miracle given in Mapes, Walter' De nugis curialium (Camden Soc., vol. 1), p. 42.Google Scholar
page 84 note 1 mereantur, E.
page 84 note 2 om., A; inserted, D 2.
page 84 note 3 cutello, C 3.
page 84 note 4 om., C 3.
page 84 note 5 duxerunt uel dixerunt, E.
page 84 note 6 conseruantiam, C 3.
page 84 note 7 om., C 3.
page 84 note 8 adimplendum uir., C 3.
page 84 note 9 End of the passage repeated in ep. no. 49; see p. 82, n. 4.
page 85 note 1 aliqui, E.
page 85 note 2 ord. dig., E.
page 85 note 3 seu. apost., E.
page 85 note 4 Arnulfus, dei gratia Lexouiensis episcopus, dilecto fratri Herberto, abbati Gristanensi, salutem, C 3.
page 85 note 5 absen|sentiarum, D 2.
page 85 note a There were about a dozen in the province, and, of these, only Ste. Barbe-en-Auge in the diocese of Lisieux is well known.
page 85 note b See note to ep. no. 45.
page 86 note 1 dis|cere, D 2; discedere, C 3, (A); discurrere, E.
page 86 note 2 add diem dominice ascensionis, C 3.
page 86 note 3 add Valete, C 3.
page 86 note 4 monasterium, MS.
page 86 note a See p. 81, n. c. Part of a letter is inserted in this epistle which occurs in all the MSS. (no. 47). If this longer version is in the form in which it was sent to the pope, the insertion is made to give additional incidents, although it is in part redundant.
page 87 note 1 poten|tentie, MS.
page 87 note 2 expositis, first hand.
page 88 note a See above, pp. xlvii, seqq.
page 90 note 1 omnen, MS.
page 90 note 2 Placet, first hand.
page 90 note 3 Abb. West., E, A.
page 90 note a Arnulf was using him as a messenger in 1164 (Materials, v, 147).
page 90 note b Geoffrey.
page 90 note c Nevertheless, Herbert was apparently able to keep his position until his death in 1178 (Torigni, , p. 280Google Scholar, and see p. 176, note 6).
page 90 note d 1158 (?)-11 April 1173 (E. H. Pearce, Monks of Westminster, p. 44).
page 91 note 1 om. sed ei, A; inserted, D 2.
page 91 note 2 Rep. mi. pot., A; transposed, D 2; poc. mi. rep., E.
page 91 note a Donationis … meretur is inserted in a charter hand. For the importance of this, see above, p. lxxiv.
page 92 note 1 reliquerunt uel reddiderunt, E.
page 92 note 2 reddidit, E.
page 92 note 3 om., E.
page 92 note a See above, p. 28, note b.
page 93 note 1 requirit, E.
page 93 note 2 exhibet, E.
page 93 note a Non-resident archdeacon, 1162/3–1173; bishop of Winchester. For his career see D.N.B., xlviii, 194Google Scholar, and Powicke, F. M., The loss of Normandy (Manchester, 1913), pp. 73–5Google Scholar. He was in Normandy in 1166 (Eyton).
page 94 note 1 un. al., E.
page 94 note 2 add etiam, E.
page 94 note 3 altered to funguntur, A.
page 94 note 4 Venerabili et dilecto patri abbati Cistercienti, A., del gratia Lex' episc', salutem, Z; om. et fratres eius, A.
page 94 note 5 accessit, Z.
page 94 note a 1163–7, an Englishman, one-time abbot of Ourscamp, which was the mother house of Mortemer. See above, p. xlv.
page 94 note b There are two versions of this letter. The longer, but very inaccurate version, which probably represents the unedited state, occurs in a seventeenth-century St. Victor, Paris, letter-book, MS. Paris, B.N., latin 14615, ff. 306v–8 (see Luchaire, A.'s ‘Etudes sur quelques mss. de Rome et de Paris’, in Bibl. de la fac. des lettres, Univ. Paris (1899)Google Scholar, and ‘Note additionelle aux études …’, ibid. (1901). It is here collated as Z, and, where the texts differ widely, the seventeenth-century version is given in the right-hand column.
page 95 note 1 Si quae, Z.
page 95 note 2 coniutata, Z.
page 95 note 3 abrumpunt, Z.
page 95 note 4 ad hoc, Z.
page 95 note 5 in uitiis, Z.
page 95 note 6 hac, Z.
page 95 note 7 obsistes, Z.
page 95 note 8 om., A, Z; inserted, D 2.
page 95 note 9 add solum, Z; add scilicet, A; scilicet expunged, D 2.
page 95 note 10 praecedente, Z.
page 95 note 11 turn, E, Z.
page 95 note 12 et, Z; et inserted, A.
page 95 note 13 silicet, Z.
page 95 note 14 consumantur, Z, E.
page 95 note 15 Q and space, Z.
page 95 note 16 eiusmodi, A; eiusdemmodi, Z.
page 95 note 17 peruenire, Z.
page 95 note 18 equirenda, Z.
page 95 note 19 desid. et prec., Z.
page 95 note 20 quo, Z.
page 95 note 21 om., leaving space, Z.
page 95 note a The abbot would be Geoffrey. Arnulf was certainly a friend of the next abbot, Richard de Blosseville. For this and the abbey of Mortemer, see ep. no. 117 and note.
page 96 note 1 dotuum, Z.
page 96 note 2 mandate, Z.
page 96 note 3 add scilicet, A; expunged, D 2.
page 96 note 4 constituendam, Z.
page 96 note 5 om., leaving space, Z.
page 96 note 6 commeato, Z.
page 96 note 7 om., Z.
page 96 note 8 add si vobis ita uideatur, Z.
page 96 note 9 merita, Z.
page 96 note 10 add est, MS.
page 96 note 11 qui, MS.
page 96 note 12 inde vtinam perueniant, Z.
page 96 note 13 aliqui, Z.
page 96 note 14 pro electione, Z.
page 96 note 15 nostrae, MS.
page 97 note 1 ut, E.
page 97 note 2 rescriptio, Z.
page 97 note 3 aliquo, E.
page 97 note 4 confirmat, and add Valete, Z.
page 97 note 5 M; no address, C 3.
page 97 note 6 fragilitatis, C 3.
page 96 note a For the contents of the letter, see above, p. xlvii. The letter is found in two forms. This version is given only by C 3 and the Bodleian MS. e Mus. 249, fo. 104v (see Robertson, , Materials, v, xxiiiGoogle Scholar). It is collated here as MS. A longer version appears in all the 2nd edition MSS. of Arnulf's letters, and in MSS. D 2 and A (see below, pp. 106, seqq.). The short version clearly dates from the summer of 1169; but the longer version has an insertion in which events of a later date are mentioned, and the earlier narrative is thrown into the past tense. It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that in December 1170 Arnulf used the same letter that he had sent to the pope on Gilbert's behalf in 1169, altering it here and there, and bringing it up to date by an insertion and by suitable changes of tense. The increment appears as a separate letter in C 3, with an indication that the introduction to the shorter form should precede it, but that verbs should be altered into the past tense. This, however, is a faulty reconstruction of the longer version.
page 98 note 1 auctor, C 3.
page 98 note 2 nouerit, M.
page 98 note 3 se totam, M.
page 98 note 4 ne, c expunged, C 3.
page 98 note a Becket excommunicated him on 13 April 1169 (Diceto, , i, 333Google Scholar; Materials, vi, 558 and 595Google Scholar), and the sentence was delivered at St. Paul's on 29 May (Materials, vi, 603Google Scholar). For his own view of the sentence, see Materials, vi, 595Google Scholar, and for Henry's, ibid., vi, 600. Foliot had anticipated the sentence by appeal (Diceto, , i, 333Google Scholar).
page 99 note 1 om., M.
page 99 note 2 om., M.
page 99 note 3 uestro, M.
page 99 note 4 om., M.
page 99 note 5 om., C 3
page 99 note 6 prouectum over prouendum, C 3.
page 99 note 7 apost. huic, M.
page 99 note 8 incolumen, M; om. Dominus … incolumem, C 3.
page 100 note 1 Domino pape Lex., C 3; Domino papae Alexandra, episcopi et clerus Normanniae, salutem et obedientiam, R.
page 100 note 2 angelorum, D 2; Angliae, R.
page 100 note 3 s expunged, C 3; ei, R.
page 100 note 4 add ecclesiasticarum personarum et optimatum regni sui consilio pro amore uestro, R.
page 100 note 5 dig. prist., R.
page 100 note 6 For Visum … adeo, read Cum igitur inter dominum regem et nuntios uestros super hoc tractatus prolixior incidisset, in verbo utrimque complacito novissime convenerunt; ita scilicet, R.
page 100 note a See above, p. xlvi. When this letter appears in the collections of Becket correspondence (printed Robertson, , Materials, vii, 89Google Scholar; here collated as R), it is ascribed to the bishops and clergy of Normandy. This is not inconsonant with Arnulf's authorship, and there is no reason to suspect it, although other letters written at this juncture are very similar in content (cf. letters of Rotrou of Rouen and Bernard of Nevers, Materials, vii, 85–8).
page 100 note b Vivian and Gratian were appointed commissioners by the pope about 1 April 1169 (Materials, vi, 537Google Scholar).
page 100 note c This meeting was at Bur-le-Roi, near Bayeux, on 1 and 2 September 1169. It is stated that Arnulf was present (Materials, vii, 70–5).Google Scholar
page 101 note 1 pot. pro., E.
page 101 note 2 adimit, R.
page 101 note 3 regia uel regalis, E.
page 101 note 4 poss. deuot., E, R.
page 101 note 5 amplectandas, R. dat. uob. a deo, C 3, R.
page 101 note 7 add, Dominus personam uestram ecclesiae suae per tempora multa conservet incolumem, R.
page 101 note 8 Arnulfus, del gratia Lexouiensis episcopus, dilectis fratribus Roberto priori totique capitulo Bernacensi, salutem et dei benedictionem, C 3.
page 101 note 9 om., D 2, C 3.
page 101 note 10 superbia, C 3.
page 101 note a Abbot Richard I of this Benedictine abbey in the diocese of Lisieux and department of Eure, died in 1169 (Torigni, , p. 242Google Scholar), and his successor seems to have been a certain Joscelin (G.C.).
page 102 note 1 add me, C 3.
page 102 note 2 add ut, C 3.
page 102 note 3 add autem, C 3.
page 102 note 4 preeuente, D 2.
page 102 note a As there is one corruption of a proper name in this letter (see next note), it is conceivable that Errardus may also be wrong. If Edwardus could be read, there is the possibility that it refers to Edward Grim, who was thus present at the martyrdom. Bosham, when mentioning him among the eruditi, says, ‘Quern hie per se ab aliis seorsum pono, quia ipse etsi de provincia, de archi-praesulis tamen proprio familia non erat : sed causa hie ad archipraesulem suum, nuper tune reversum ab exilio, visendum venerat’ (Materials, iii, 529Google Scholar). For biographical details, see Materials, ii, xlvGoogle Scholarseqq.; Bosham, ibid., iii, 498; Fitz Stephen, ibid., iii, 139; and ibid, and Anon. I, Materials, iv, 76 and 77Google Scholar, where he is called Mr. Edward.
page 102 note b The church must be in the diocese of Canterbury, but the name is obviously corrupt. Saltwood, Kent, Saltewode, might easily be read as Sautemonde by a scribe unfamiliar with English place names, and the patronage of that church seems to have been in the hands of Bee in the twelfth century. Porée, (Histoire de l'abbaye du Bec (Evreux, 1901), i, 469–70Google Scholar) says that the church of Saltwood was granted with its chapels, tithes and lands to Bee, and especially to the daughter priory of St. Philbert, by Hugh de Montfort, shortly after the foundation of the priory. The grant was confirmed by Archbishop Ralph (1114–22), by Archbishop Theobald and by Kings Henry I and Henry II. The advowson must almost certainly have been included in this general grant of the church. In the thirteenth century, however, the archbishop of Canterbury was patron (cf. Registrum Epist. J. Peckham, Arch. Cant. (Rolls Series), iii, 1014Google Scholar), and the change seems to be the result of an agreement made between Stephen Langton and the abbey, in which the archbishop declares that the priory of St. Philbert is to receive a pension from the church of Saltwood, and that the archbishop is to have the advowson (Inspeximus by Pecham of an inspeximus by Kilwardby of the agreement, calendared, ibid., iii, 1065; charter of Langton, transcribed by Miss K. Major from Lambeth Chartae Misc. xi, no. 41, in an unpublished Oxford B.Litt. thesis on the Acta of Stephen Langton, document 103).
page 103 note 1 ? for eam.
page 103 note a William of the White Hands, son of Theobald, count of Blois and Champagne, and brother-in-law of Louis VII, king of France; 1165 bishop of Chartres, 1168 added archbishopric of Sens, 1176–1202 archbishop of Reims, 1179 cardinal-priest of St. Sabina. He was a distinguished patron of scholars. See John R. Williams, ut supra, p. xxiii, for bibliography, and see supra, p. xiv, for Arnulf's relations with this family.
page 103 note b King Henry was enforcing his claim on Berri which the king of France and Theobald of Blois contested. A truce was made between the two kings in November 1170 (Benedict, , i, 10Google Scholar).
page 104 note 1 discretis, CC.
page 104 note 2 add simul, CC.
page 104 note a See above, p. xlvii. The letter is repeated in C 3 on fo. 147, and it is collated here as CC.
page 105 note 1 et repeated, C 3.
page 105 note 2 om., CC.
page 105 note 3 deducta, CC.
page 105 note 4 om., CC.
page 105 note 5 omnique, CC.
page 105 note a 22 July 1170 at Fréteval. See Materials, vii, 343 and 346.Google Scholar
page 105 note b Exeter, Chester, Rochester, St. Asaph, Llandaff, York and Durham (Materials, vii, 360 and 364Google Scholar).
page 105 note c London and Salisbury (Materials, vii, 360Google Scholar).
page 105 note d For the pope's charges, see his letter to the archbishop of York (Materials, vii, 364Google Scholar).
page 106 note 1 scintilla, CC.
page 106 note 2 om. Omnipotens … incolumem, CC.
page 106 note 3 Domino pape Lexou., C 3.
page 106 note 4 Personam domini Lond. etcetera, ut supra, vsque ‘capiti nescientis illisit’ (p. 107, line 15), nisi quia ibi ‘trahitur’, hic in ‘Tractus est’ mutatur. Sequitur, ‘Quod auditum uestre nimirum …’ (p. 108, line 21), C 3.
page 106 note a For the contents of the letter, see above, p. xlvii. For its form, see above, p. 97, where the earlier and shorter version is printed. Of the longer version C3 only gives the text of the increment, and a faulty indication as to the reconstruction of the whole letter. This course of creating two letters quite distinct except for a common introduction and conclusion was taken, perhaps, in order to avoid repetition. The later letter, however, could not have existed independently as it appears in C 3.
page 107 note 1 om., E.
page 107 note 2 expugnatur, E.
page 107 note 3 infestatur, E.
page 107 note a See above, p. 98, note a.
page 108 note 1 C 3takes up from p. 107, line 15, with Quod auditum uestre.
page 108 note 2 om. ab isto, C 3.
page 108 note 3 intrusus uel re., E.
page 108 note a The piece which has been interpolated to adapt the letter to its use in 1170 (see above, p. 97, note a) begins here. C 3 can now be used for collation.
page 108 note b He was absolved at Rouen at Easter 1170 (Diceto, , i, 338Google Scholar). For the conditions, see Materials, vii, 273.Google Scholar
page 108 note c After the coronation of the young Henry he was excommunicated again (Materials, vii, 363 and 399Google Scholar), and the sentence was served on 1 December 1170 (Eyton).
page 109 note 1 om., C 3.
page 109 note 2 recrescebat, C 3.
page 109 note 3 facte expunged, C 3.
page 109 note 4 amplexamur, C 3.
page 109 note 5 of|offerendas, D 2.
page 109 note 6 quia, C 3.
page 109 note 7 om., C 3.
page 109 note 8 add enim, C 3.
page 109 note a Cf. Materials, vii, 490.Google Scholar
page 109 note b The excommunication was removed at Chaumont on 1 August 1171 (Diceto, , i, 347Google Scholar); his suspension at Aumale on 1 May 1172 (ibid., i, 351).
page 110 note 1 C3's version of the later letter ends here.
page 110 note 2 Domino pape pro Salesbiriensi episcopo, C 3.
page 110 note a He almost reached Rome after his first excommunication (Diceto, , i. 335Google Scholar; Materials, vii, 275Google Scholar).
page 110 note b This is the end of the increment (see above, p. 97, note a, and p. 108, note a).
page 110 note c See above, p. xlvii.
page 110 note d Joscelin was suspended on the return of Becket on 1 December for complicity in the coronation of the young king (Eyton; Diceto, , i, 340Google Scholar; Materials, vii, 360Google Scholar). In April 1171 the pope gave permission for him to have conditional absolution because of his weak health (Materials, vii, 481Google Scholar).
page 111 note 1 om., C 3.
page 111 note 2 transpose the two si clauses, C 3.
page 111 note a Reginald, archdeacon of Salisbury and Joscelin's son, was employed by Henry on his business. See Materials, vi, 273, 537Google Scholar and elsewhere, and cf. Peter of Blois, ep. no. 24, M.P.L., ccvii, 86Google Scholar, and Materials iii, 524.Google Scholar
page 112 note 1 misereri, C 3; altered, D 2.
page 112 note 2 add in, E.
page 112 note 3 consumare, E.
page 112 note 4 merita, C 3.
page 112 note 5 armata, MS.
page 112 note a John de Belmeis, treasurer of York, bishop of Poitiers 1162, and later archbishop of Lyons (D.N.B.).
page 113 note 1 Uenerabili fratri et amico karissimo, Ernulfo, del gratia Ebroicensi electo, Arnulfus, Lexouiensis ecclesie humilis minister, salutem, C 3.
page 113 note 2 ? propinquitate, D 2.
page 113 note 3 secundat, C 3.
page 113 note 4 add Valete, C 3.
page 113 note a For Giles, see note a to ep. no. 1.
page 114 note 1 Venerabili et dilecto patri et amico, B., dei gratia Nouiomensi episcopo, Arnulfus Lexouiensis ecclesie humilis minister, salutem cum omni uere dilectionis affectu, C 3.
page 114 note 2 huiuscemodi, E.
page 114 note 3 Rad., C 3.
page 114 note 4 om., leaving space, C 3.
page 114 note 5 C 3adds this unique passage.
page 114 note a 1167–74 or 1175.
page 114 note b See above, pp. xlviii, seq.
page 115 note a Dean of Salisbury, bishop of Bayeux, 1164–1205.
page 115 note b There was a family of Louvets who were lords of Bonneville la Louvet, situated between Cormeilles and Pont l'Eveque, and there is a Henry Louvet at this time who had a son Robert (d'Anisy, Léchaudé, Les anciennes abbayes de Normandie, i, 97Google Scholar no. 31 and p. 98 no. 36, etc.).
page 115 note c William de Tournebu, bishop of Coutances, ante 1183.
page 115 note d Bishop of Avranches, 1171.
page 116 note 1 interlined over indultum, MS.
page 116 note 2 Arnulfus, dei gratia Lexouiensis ecclesie humilis minister, uiro eruditoc et eloquenti, Nicholao, priori Sancti Iohannis, salutem, C3.
page 116 note a There are two Collevilles in the diocese of Bayeux, Colleville-sur-Orne, 13 kms. N.N.E. of Caen, and Colleville-sur-Mer, the same distance N.W. of Bayeux. Arnulf says that he had a manor in the parish; but unfortunately the episcopal estates are not known with precision at this time.
page 116 note b Arramarensis, the Benedictine house of Montiéramey, about 20 kms. S.E. of Troyes in the diocese of Sens. Mr. Nicholas of Clairvaux or of Montiéramey was a monk of the latter house, but changed to the Cistercian order and became secretary to St. Bernard. Through his insinuating grace he became a person of some importance; but in 1151 he was guilty of forging St. Bernard's seal. Later he returned to Montiéramey and became prior of its cell or priory of St. Jean Châtel, afterwards known as St. Blaise, in the city of Troyes, before 1161, and died before 1178 (Besse, J. M., Abbayes et prieurés: Province ecclés. de Sens (Archives de la France monastique, 1913)Google Scholar; Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Montiéramey, ed. Lalore, C. and Pigeotte, L. (1890), pp. 73 and 98Google Scholar; H.L., xiii, 553Google Scholar).
page 117 note 1 add Quod, C 3.
page 117 note 2 quod inserted, D 2.
page 117 note 3 nullas umquam, C 3.
page 117 note 4 nulla michi, C 3.
page 117 note 5 habeo, C 3.
page 117 note 6 add et, C 3.
page 117 note a Henry I, the Liberal, count of Meaux, and 1152 count of Champagne and Brie; c. 1127–81. Arnulf had known him on the Crusade, and Henry appears to have been a personal friend of Nicholas (Cartulaire de … Montiéramey, pp. 74, 76, 85Google Scholar, etc.). For Arnulf's relations with this family, see above, p. xiv.
page 118 note 1 aptare, C 3.
page 118 note 2 accepi, C 3.
page 118 note 3 qua, C 3.
page 118 note 4 add Valete, C 3.
page 118 note a Henry founded the college of St. Stephen at Troyes for fifty canons, and he himself, lies buried in his fine church (Besse, , op. cit.Google Scholar).
page 118 note b The Benedictine abbey of St. Désir in the suburbs of Lisieux, of which the history is extremely obscure between 1113 and 1233. See the Simon, Abbé G. A., Liste des abbesses de Saint-Désir de Lisieux (1928).Google Scholar
page 118 note c Richard de Bohun.
page 119 note 1 add sui, MS.
page 119 note 2 reuer|rentiam, MS.
page 119 note 3 persoluerint, 1st hand, MS.
page 119 note a Benedictine nunnery of Montivilliers, 6 kms. north of Le Havre, in the diocese of Rouen. See above, p. xxxvi.
page 120 note 1 zelus, 1st hand, MS.
page 120 note 2 Ad episcopum Ebroicensem, C 3.
page 120 note 3 (add monachi, G, H, H1 and H2).
page 120 note 4 (add legati, G, H, H1 and H2).
page 120 note 5 om., C3.
page 120 note 6 ipsam, C 3.
page 120 note 7 om., C3.
page 120 note 8 sentat, C 3.
page 120 note 9 The letter is repeated on fo. 64 in D2, where it is marked with a marginal vacat.
page 120 note a Vasouy, near Honfleur.
page 120 note b For Giles, see above, p. 1, note a; and for the matter, see above, p. xxxvii.
page 120 note c Glossed, Sancti Ebrulfi, in C 3.
page 120 note d Of Montivilliers, see above, p. 119, note a.
page 121 note 1 om., E.
page 121 note 2 om. et prudentium, E.
page 121 note a See above, p. xxxvii.
page 121 note b Cardinal-priest of St. Anastasia; see above, p. 29, note c.
page 122 note 1 interlined over differi, MS.
page 122 note 2 Carissimo … obedientiam, C.
page 122 note 3 Arnaldus, C.
page 122 note 4 add dominum, Z.
page 122 note 5 Anglia, C; Anglis, V, O.
page 122 note a See above, p. xlvi. As this epistle occurs in none of the MSS. of Arnulf's letters, it has been considered convenient to take it direct from Robertson, , Materials, vii, 438Google Scholar, whose transcripts inspire great confidence.
page 123 note 1 pernitiore, C.
page 123 note 2 credebam, V, O.
page 123 note 3 om., C.
page 123 note 4 aemulorum, C.
page 123 note 5 sibi, C.
page 124 note a For David's career, see Stubbs' introduction to Diceto (vol. i, pp. li.seqq.) and Brooke, Z. N., ‘The register of Master David of London’Google Scholar in Essays in hist. pres. to R. Lane Poole. Dr. Brooke did not notice that Poupardin described the MS. quite carefully in Bibl. Écale des Chartes, lxiii (1902).Google Scholar
page 124 note b For Richard, see above, p. 93, note a. He had visited the pope at Frascati to obtain the remission of his sentence of excommunication, and rejoined the king in Normandy in June or July 1171 (Eyton). David, as legate of the bishop of London, had visited the pope at about the same time to secure Foliot's absolution and restoration (Materials, vii, 479 and 476Google Scholar).
pagr 124 note c On David's way to Rome (see previous note), Becket had reproached him for accepting an office from the king (Materials, vi, 617Google Scholar). See Brooke, , op. cit.Google Scholar, for details of his rewards.
page 124 note d Henry returned to England on 1 August (Eyton).
page 124 note e Gilbert Foliot, bishop of London, received remission from excommunication at Chaumont on 1 August 1171 (Diceto, , i, 347Google Scholar), but his suspension was not relaxed until May 1172 (ibid., 351).
page 125 note 1 perducet, first hand, MS.
page 125 note a See preceding letter and notes.
page 125 note b As a result of Becket's exile, many ecclesiastical benefices were vacant.
page 125 note c Archdeacon of Middlesex; cf. Materials, vii, 275.Google Scholar
page 125 note d See above, p. xlvii.
page 126 note 1 accrescere repeated, MS.
page 126 note 2 gap for one word in MS.
page 126 note a The nuncios whom Henry sent to Rome before and after the murder of Becket returned in June or July 1171 (Eyton), bearing the pope's confirmation of the sentences on the Anglican prelates, imposed as punishment for the coronation of the young Henry.
page 127 note 1 No address, C 3.
page 127 note 2 Elegerat, C 3.
page 127 note 3 uestre, C 3.
page 127 note a Cistercian house in the diocese of Orleans.
page 127 note b Henry III celebrated the feast of Christmas in 1171 at Bur-le-Roi, near Bayeux (Torigni, , p. 253Google Scholar). He also celebrated Christmas in 1172 in Normandy, but he came from France and not from Anjou. Henry II, however, kept Christmas in Anjou (Benedict, , i, 34–5Google Scholar), and the young Henry may have visited him after the king of France.
page 127 note c These negotiations may be quite innocent; but as the letter can be dated December 1172 it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that Arnulf is negotiating with the parties which combined against Henry II in the war of 1173. We know that Arnulf owed his downfall to his ambiguous actions at this time (see above, p. li), and it is perhaps significant that the incriminating part of this letter was suppressed in the regular edition. If this suspicion is correct, the letter suggests a reason for Arnulf's complicity. The abbot of Cour-Dieu may have been acting for Theobald V, count of Blois and Chartres, who supported the young Henry and King Louis in 1173, and we know that Arnulf was bound by many ties to the family of Blois-Champagne (see above, p. xiv).
page 128 note 1 C3 adds this unique passage.
page 128 note 2 Uenerabili et dilecto patri et amico Stephano, dei gratia Meldensi episcopo, Arnulfus Lexouiensis humilis minister, salutem cum plurimo sincere caritatis affectu, C 3.
page 128 note 3 Causa, C 3.
page 128 note 4 Garin', E.
page 128 note 5 sine, C 3.
page 128 note a The abbey of Le Val-Richer, a house favoured by Arnulf, and to which he had granted a charter in 1179 (du Monstier, A., Neustria pia (Rouen, 1663), p. 828Google Scholar). It was situated in the exemption of Cambremer, part of the diocese of Bayeux.
page 128 note b Chancellor of Sens and of Paris, bishop of Meaux 1162, archbishop of Bourges 1171. The address in MSS. D 2 and E, Pope Alexander, is an evident mistake.
page 128 note c Hugh, abbot of the Austin monastery of St. Vincent, Senlis, 1163–89. St. Vincent had been a daughter house of St. Victor, Paris (see note f), since 1138 (G.C., x, instr. col. 1495).
page 128 note d Marines, 19 kms. N.W. of Pontoise. The abbot of St. Vincent was patron in 1337 (Longnon, A., Pouillés de la province de Rouen. Paris, 1903).Google Scholar
page 128 note e Henry, bishop of Senlis, 1168–85.
page 128 note f Ernest, abbot of the Austin convent of St. Victor, Paris, who was deposed in 1172 for financial malpractices. See note c.
page 128 note g Hugh, abbot of Ste. Geneviève-du-Mont, Paris, another house of canonsregular.
page 128 note h The Austin abbey of Notre-Dame at Eu in the diocese of Rouen, another daughter house of St. Victor, Paris. Abbot Roger I occurs between 1148 and 1161, and Osbert between 1175 and 1191.
page 128 note i For the Cistercian abbey of Mortemer, and Arnulf's connexions with it, see above, p. xvi, n. 5, and below, p. 179. The abbot at this time was Geoffrey de la Chaussée.
page 129 note 1 Ric., E, C 3.
page 129 note 2 om., C3.
page 129 note 3 uest. pru., E.
page 129 note 4 pot. de iure, E.
page 129 note 5 deocesi, D2.
page 129 note a Geoffrey d'Auxerre was secretary to St. Bernard and abbot of several houses including Clairvaux.
page 129 note b From a genealogy given by Simon, G. A., ‘Charte de Richard de Courcy (1242) pour l'abbaye de N.-D. d'Aunay (Calvados) et généalogie de la famille de Courcy’, Bulletin de la Soc. des Antiquaires de Normandie, xxxvii (1926), 433–48Google Scholar, the following details are taken:
Robert III also had a younger brother named Richard, the fourth son of Robert II. But, as Robert II had produced eight sons by 1109, it is unlikely that it is his Richard who concerns us here.
page 129 note c Bishop of Avranches 1170 (Torigni, , p. 247Google Scholar) or 1171 (Gams, , Series episcoporumGoogle Scholar).
page 130 note 1 om., C 3.
page 130 note 2 postulatione, m expunged, C 3.
page 130 note 3 ueritati, s expunged, C 3.
page 130 note 4 Reuerentissimo domino et patri suo karissimo, Alexandra, dei gratia catholice ecclesie summo pontifici, Amulfus, Lexouiensis ecclesie humilis minister, salutem et deuotam obedientiam, C 3.
page 130 note 5 om., C 3.
page 130 note 6 Gordarvilla, E.
page 130 note 7 add ad, E.
page 130 note 8 om. cum magna … possessionis, E.
page 130 note 9 delegato, C 3.
page 130 note 10 iudici, C 3.
page 130 note 11 Rotrodo, E.
page 130 note a Goderville, 13 kins, south of Fécamp, pertaining to the abbot of Fécamp in 1337 (Longnon, , Pouillés de RouenGoogle Scholar).
page 131 note 1 om. et domino Egidio … officio, C 3.
page 131 note 2 eo, C 3.
page 131 note 3 predicto iudici, C 3.
page 131 note 4 iudicem, C 3.
page 131 note 5 cui, C 3.
page 131 note 6 sub. uid., C 3.
page 131 note 7 add hoc, C 3.
page 131 note 8 que acta sunt apud nos, E.
page 131 note 9 Domino pape Lexouiensis episcopus, C 3.
page 131 note a Rotrou, 1165, and Giles in 1170. The case, therefore, was heard previously before 1165, and the date of the present letter is after 1170. It is strange that C 3. should omit all the references to Giles' participation in the business.
page 131 note b For the importance of this letter, see above, pp. lxxiv, seqq.
page 131 note c Laurence, abbot of the Benedictine house of La Couture in the diocese of Le Mans.
page 132 note a Brullonius, Brûlon, pertaining to La Couture in 1508 (Longnon, , PouillésGoogle Scholar). See also Round, , Calendar, p. 364Google Scholar.
page 132 note b Geoffrey I.
page 132 note c William de Passavant.
page 132 note d Joscius.
page 133 note 1 nouissime, first hand, MS.
page 133 note 2 pronegasset, MS.
page 133 note 3 C3 adds this unique passage.
page 133 note 4 Uenerabili et dilecto patri et amico, Henrico, Fiscannensi abbati, Arnulfus, Lexouiensis ecclesie humilis minister, salutem et plurimam dilectionem, C 3.
page 133 note a For Henry, see above, p. 28, note b.
page 134 note 1 descenderere, C 3.
page 134 note 2 om., C3.
page 134 note 3 glossed uestro, C 3.
page 134 note 4 add Valete, C 3.
page 134 note 5 Ad capitulum Cisterciense, E; Abbati Cisterciensi et sanctis capituli loci eiusdem, C 3.
page 134 note 6 de episcopatu nostro, E.
page 134 note 7 om., E.
page 134 note a This letter raises a difficulty, for Richard de Blosseville was abbot of Le Valasse from 1157 to 1174, and William, ‘now’ abbot of Le Pin, was the first to hold that office, and was elected about 1142, occurs in 1162, and two abbots have followed him by c. 1172 (G.C.). If tunc can be read for nunc in line 3, the position is more satisfactory, unless nunc is used very vaguely. William, however, may be a hitherto unrecorded abbot. The date given is that suggested by the position of the letter on the MSS.
page 134 note b William I, de Forgiis; Cistercian house of Le Pin in the arrondissement and diocese of Poitiers, a daughter house of Pontigny.
page 134 note c Richard de Blosseville, 1157–74 abbot of the Cistercian house of Le Valasse, near to Lillebonne in the diocese of Rouen, later abbot of Mortemer, and a friend of Arnulf's (see ep. no. 117).
page 135 note 1 tetigisset, C 3.
page 135 note 2 perseueratione, C 3.
page 135 note 3 trahere, C 3.
page 135 note 4 cogendus, C 3.
page 135 note 5 om., C3.
page 135 note 6 persequi, C 3.
page 135 note 7 ut, C 3.
page 135 note 8 prohiberem, C 3.
page 135 note 9 om., E.
page 135 note 10 nec, ? over erasion, E.
page 135 note 11 add sue, E.
page 135 note a Cistercian house of Chaelis, near Ermenonville in the diocese of Senlis.
page 136 note 1 plublicas, MS.
page 136 note a For a discussion of this letter, see above, p. lxxxii. Peter was archdeacon of Pavia, canon of Notre-Dame of Chartres, and abbot of St. André of Chartres, perhaps still a house of canons-regular. He became bishop-elect of Meaux 1171, cardinal-priest of St. Chrysogonus 1173, legate in France 1174–8, bishop of Tusculum 1179, archbishop-elect of Bourges 1180, and died in 1182. Delehaye has published two important studies of his career (Revue des questions hist., vols. xlix and li. 1891, 1892)Google Scholar; but Luchaire remained convinced that Peter was a Victorine (‘Etudes sur quelques manuscrits de Rome et de Paris’, in Bibl. Fac. Lettres, Univ. Paris (1899), p. 63Google Scholar). Also see above, pp. xviii and liv.
It is not certain whether he gave up his bishopric on becoming a cardinal, but Arnulf, who knew him well, would certainly have used his greater title had this letter been later than 1173. There is another Peter, bishop of Meaux in 1175, who only held the see for a year, but the dates of the other letters on the MS. militate against this ascription.
page 137 note 1 Uenerabili et dilecto patri et amico, B., dei gratia Exoniensi episcopo, Arnulfus, Lexouiensis ecclesie humilis minister, salutem, C 3.
page 137 note 2 uos, E.
page 137 note 3 add aliquandiu, C 3; aliquamdiu expunged, D2
page 137 note 4 uestra, E.
page 137 note 5 om. preuentum gratia, E; om. gratia, C 3; the second gratia in D2 was written after the scribe had started on the next word.
page 137 note 6 omit, leaving gap, C 3.
page 137 note a 1161–82.
page 137 note b The legates Albert, cardinal-priest of St. Laurence in Lucina, and Theodwin, cardinal-priest of St. Vitalis, who were sent to reconcile Henry with the Church and arrange the conditions after the murder of Becket, arrived in Normandy about January 1172 (Eyton), when Henry was in Ireland.
page 138 note 1 Uenerabili patri suo et amico karissimo, Iohanni, dei gratia sancte Romane ecclesie presbitero cardinali, Arnulfus, Lenouiensis ecclesie humilis minister, salutem cum omni sincere dilectionis affectu, C 3.
page 138 note 2 add tamen, E.
page 138 note 3 loq. reg. Ang., C 3.
page 138 note a For the letter, see above, p. xlvii. Robertson has misplaced it in Materials, vii, 494Google Scholar. For the cardinals, see p. 29, note c, and p. xviii. William had been one of the commissioners for the reconciliation of Henry and Becket from August 1167 (Materials, vi, 232Google Scholar) until the summer of next year (ibid., 481).
page 139 note 1 suo, E.
page 139 note 2 add ipse, C 3.
page 139 note 3 credebantur iniquitates, C 3.
page 139 note 4 conquieuit, E.
page 139 note a He was suspended on 1 December 1170 (Eyton) for the part he played in the coronation of the young Henry (Diceto, , i, 340Google Scholar; Materials, vii, 399Google Scholar). The absolution took place in November or December 1171 at Aumâle (Diceto, , i, 348Google Scholar; cf. Materials, vii, 498–505Google Scholar).
page 139 note b Cf. Materials, vii, 499.Google Scholar
page 140 note 1 Uenerabilibus et dilectis dominis et patribus suis, Alberto et Theodino, sancte Romane ecclesie presbiteris cardinalibus et legatis, Arnulfus, Lexouiensis ecclesie humilis minister, salutem cum omni sincere caritatis affectu, C 3.
page 140 note 2 add Valete, C 3.
page 140 note 3 om., E.
page 140 note 4 No address, C 3.
page 140 note a See note to ep. no. 83.
page 140 note b For canons of criticism in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see Poole, R. L., The papal chancery (Cambridge, 1915), pp. 143–62Google Scholar; cf. Roger of York's criticism of a papal bull, document printed by Kuowles in E.H.R., 1, 477–8.Google Scholar
page 140 note c The king was in Brittany in the summer (Eyton), and it looks as though Arnulf was with him. The second excuse is an unfortunate corollary to the first.
page 140 note d For William, see above, p. 29, n. c. For the letter, which covered the next, and the St. Evroult business, see above, p. xxxvii.
page 141 note 1 Domino pape Lexouiensis [episcopus], C 3.
page 141 note 2 deuotum, C 3.
page 141 note 3 illuceresceret, C 3.
page 141 note 4 om., C 3.
page 141 note 5 altered to turn, E.
page 141 note 6 occurrit, C 3.
page 141 note a Covered by the previous letter. See note d.
page 142 note 1 pro, C 3.
page 142 note 2 bonitas, E.
page 142 note 3 iam, C 3.
page 142 note 4 quietiem, C 3.
page 142 note 5 patiatu, C 3.
page 142 note 6 space of two lines left blank, omitting ut ego … relinquere, C 3.
page 142 note a Albert and Theodwin. See note to ep. no. 83.
page 142 note b May 1172 at Savigny. See Materials, vii, 513Google Scholar and v, 414, and cf. vii, 520.
page 143 note 1 altered to tum, E.
page 143 note 2 C 3ends here.
page 143 note 3 impediunt, E.
page 143 note a Brial (H.F., xvi, 673Google Scholar) and Robertson, (Materials, vii, 560)Google Scholar, suggest that this was Gilbert de Glanville, archdeacon of Lisieux, and afterwards bishop of Rochester.
page 143 note b Cf. Materials, iii, 526.Google Scholar
page 143 note c Concerning the case of St. Evroult. See above p. xxxvii.
page 143 note d William de Tournebu, later bishop of Coutances.
page 143 note e Robert de Neufbourg.
page 143 note f Richard III.
page 144 note 1 et, G.
page 144 note 2 quandoque repeated, E.
page 144 note 3 aduersus, G.
page 144 note 4 quibusdam, G.
page 144 note 5 seruauerunt, E.
page 144 note a Hugh de Nonant. See above, p. xiii.
page 145 note 1 Reuerentissimo domino suo et patri karissimo, A., dei gratia catholice ecclesie summo pontifici, Arnulfus, Lexouiensis eoclesie humilis minister, salutem cum omni debite humilitatis et deuotionis affectu, C 3.
page 145 note 2 fallacibus, C 3.
page 145 note 3 quos, C 3.
page 145 note 4 eccles. inst., C 3.
page 145 note a Concerning the case of St. Evroult, see above, p. xxxvii.
page 145 note b See the two previous letters.
page 146 note 1 expressum, C 3.
page 146 note 2 nobis, E.
page 146 note 3 fraudatore, E.
page 146 note 4 C 3. adds this unique passage.
page 146 note a See ep. no. 70.
page 146 note b See above, p. xxxvi.
page 146 note c See above p. lvi.
page 146 note d 1164–1205.
page 147 note 1 Cardinalibus Lexouiensis [episcopus], C 3.
page 147 note 2 Commorlem, C 3.
page 147 note 3 om., C 3.
page 147 note a See note to ep. no. 83.
page 147 note b Cormolain, 17 kms. east of St. Lô, in the diocese of Bayeux.
page 148 note 1 beneficio, C 3.
page 148 note 2 fraude, C 3.
page 148 note 3 quod ea que ibi, C 3.
page 148 note 4 nee, E.
page 148 note 5 ne, C 3.
page 148 note a Achard, ob. 1171, or Richard III, his successor.
page 149 note 1 C3. adds this unique passage.
page 149 note a See above, p. 1. Six bishoprics had fallen vacant during Becket's exile, and the king took steps to fill them with his supporters as soon as he was reconciled to the archbishop. In October 1170 Becket's envoys reported indignantly from England that an electoral body, consisting of the archbishop of York, the bishops of London and Salisbury, and four or six clerks from each of the vacant churches, was to be set up (Materials, vii, 391Google Scholar), and in December these prelates and the parties of six clerks joined the king in Normandy to the scandal of many (Becket to the pope, Materials, vii, 406Google Scholar; John of Salisbury to Peter of Celle, ibid., 409; Diceto, , i, 342Google Scholar). We know nothing of their deliberations, and presumably little had been done when Becket's death suspended such activities.
When the king was once more reconciled to the Church, interest had shifted to the election of a new archbishop. The negotiations between the two Henrys, the prior of Canterbury, the papal legates and the bishops began in 1172 (Gervase of Canterbury, i, 39, seqq., gives the most detailed account, and cf. Diceto, , i, 369Google Scholar, and Materials, viiGoogle Scholar, passim); but the proceedings were so lengthy that the legates Albert and Theodwin authorized in the meanwhile the filling up of the vacant bishoprics (letter quoted by Diceto, , i, 366Google Scholar). In April 1173 a meeting of the clergy of the vacant churches assembled at Westminster, and in the presence of the justiciar Lucy accepted Henry's nominees (Torigni, , p. 256Google Scholar; Gervase, , i, 243Google Scholar; Diceto, , i, 368Google Scholar). Nevertheless, Diceto calls the elections free.
When finally Richard, prior of Dover, was elected archbishop on 3 June, arrangements were made that he should be consecrated two days later and consecrate the new bishops at the same time (Gervase, , i, 244Google Scholar). But the young Henry had already revolted, and, in a letter forbidding the ceremony, which arrived opportunely at the time of the consecration, he protested that the candidates were unsuitable and that he had not been consulted, and announced that he had appealed to the pope through the legates (Gervase, , i, 243Google Scholar; Diceto, , i, 372Google Scholar). In such circumstances the consecrations were abandoned, and all sent letters to the pope (cf. letters of John of Salisbury, nos. 311–15, M.P.L., cxcix, 368–71).Google Scholar
page 150 note 1 celebritate, MS.
page 150 note a War between Henry and his sons who were supported by Louis of France broke out at the end of June 1173 (Torigni, , p. 257Google Scholar).
page 151 note 1 Venerabili domino et amico suo, Ricardo, Pictauensi archidiacono Arnulfus, Lexouiensis ecclesie humilis minister, salutem cum omni sincere caritatis affectu, C 3.
page 151 note 2 om., C 3.
page 151 note 3 officiis diuinis, C 3.
page 151 note a The archbishop of Canterbury was in the same position as the bishops.
page 151 note b See note to ep. 52. For the matter cf. Benedict, i, 85.
page 151 note c This is the date suggested by the position of the letter in C 3, and connects it with Richard's election to the see of Winchester; but the position in D 2 and in the second edition makes it about 1170.
page 151 note d Probably the book with that title by Rupert of Deutz, who died in 1135. John of Salisbury left one to Chartres (Cartulaire de N.D. de Chartres, ed. Merlet, L. and de Lépinois, E. (Chartres, 1862–1865), iii, 202Google Scholar). Or it may be the Liber de diversis consuetudinibus ecclesiarum in officiis divinis of John of Avranches, bishop of Avranches and archbishop of Rouen at the end of the preceding century (H.L., viii, 69Google Scholar).
page 152 note a For the cardinals see note to ep. no. 83. For the matter see above, p. 149, n. a, and cf. letter of Foliot, no. 160, M.P.L., cxc, 863.Google Scholar
page 152 note b Cf. ep. no. 60, and p. 111 and note a.
page 153 note 1 add sancte Romane ecclesie, G.
page 153 note 2 illius, G.
page 153 note 3 que, G.
page 153 note a For the cardinals see note to ep. no. 83, For the matter see above, p. 149, n. a.
page 153 note b Of Wells (Le Neve, Fasti).
page 153 note c Cf. letter of Gilbert Foliot, no. 160, M.P.L., cxc, 863.Google Scholar
page 154 note 1 add diutius, G.
page 154 note 2 add amplius, G.
page 154 note 3 om., G.
page 154 note 4 ibi nullus, G.
page 154 note 5 semper mach., G.
page 154 note 6 non, G.
page 154 note a Cf. letter of Gilbert Foliot, no. 158, M.P.L., cxc, 862Google Scholar. After the postponement of the consecrations (see above, p. 149, note a), Richard, elect of Canterbury, and Reginald, elect of Bath, left for Italy in 1173 and arrived in February 1174 (Torigni, , p. 263Google Scholar; Diceto, , i, 388Google Scholar; Benedict, , i, 69Google Scholar). Richard was consecrated by the pope at Anagni on 7 April 1174 (Gervase, , i, 247Google Scholar; Benedict, , i, 69Google Scholar); but Reginald's case was postponed until he could provide witnesses. On the way back to England, Reginald was able to purge himself of complicity in the murder of Becket, and to produce witnesses to declare that he was born before his father, Joscelin, bishop of Salisbury, had taken holy orders, so he was consecrated at the cathedral of St. John, Maurienne, on 23 June 1174 by archbishop Richard, and by the archbishop of Tarentaise, who was being sent by the pope to reconcile Henry and his sons (Diceto, , i, 391Google Scholar; Torigni, , p. 263Google Scholar; Gervase of Canterbury, i, 251Google Scholar; Peter of Blois, ep. no. 45, M.P.L., ccvii, 130Google Scholar).
page 154 note 6 Cf. Gervase, , i, 244.Google Scholar
page 155 note 1 conferre, E.
page 156 note 1 No address, C 3.
page 156 note 2 uos, E.
page 156 note 3 moribus over noctibus expunged, C 3
page 156 note a Henry of France; son of King Louis VI, Cistercian monk, bishop of Beauvais 1149, archbishop of Reims, 1162–75.
page 156 note b This Philip was a relative of the archbishop's, because he was the son or grandson of Isabel, an illegitimate daughter of Louis VI, who was married before 1117 to William fitz Osmund of Chaumont in the Vexin (Brial, J. J., Hist. Acad. Inscriptions et Belles Lettres (1821), v, 94–107).Google Scholar
page 156 note c The language rather suggests that the archbishop of Rouen was the writer of the letter, but it seems characteristic of Arnulf.
page 157 note 1 eorum, E.
page 157 note 2 uideretur excedere, C 3.
page 157 note 3 lacrimosus, C 3.
page 157 note 4 tempus, C 3.
page 157 note 5 om., C 3; altered from dilectioni redundet, D 2.
page 157 note a See above, p. 154, note a.
page 158 note 1 labefactum uel labefactatum, E.
page 158 note 2 altered to impudenter, E.
page 158 note a In 1169 Becket called him, ‘spurium, fornicarium, et ecclesiasticse pacis inimicum, sacerdotis filium’ (Materials, vii, 181).Google Scholar
page 158 note b Two folios are missing from G, and so its derivative, H 1, has been collated.
page 159 note 1 ista, H 1.
page 159 note 2 requiratur, H 1.
page 159 note a ‘Celeberrimum est enim Cenomannensis Ecclesiæ Praesulem post Turonensem Archiepiscopum totius Turonensis diœceseos obtinere primatum, nullumque in Turonensis Episcopii Antistitem rite posse sacrari [nisi per ipsum] et post decessum Archiepiscopi cuncta ejusdem Ecclesiae negotia illius arbitrio debere disponi.’ (‘Gesta Pontificum Cenomannensium’, anno 1081, H.F., xii, 542).Google Scholar
page 159 note b The rebellion of the king's sons. See above, p. 1.
page 159 note c Bartholomew, 1174–1201. Torigni (p. 262) describes him as ‘juvenis strenuus et genere nobilis’.
page 160 note 1 tantum et laboris inferat et perturba[ti]onis, H 1.
page 160 note 2 G., G.
page 160 note 3 om., G.
page 160 note 4 Excision of two folios in G causes the loss of the rest of this letter.
page 160 note a Benedictine abbey in the diocese of Lisieux, 22 kms. N.E. of Lisieux.
page 160 note b Préaux, Benedictine abbey in the diocese of Lisieux, near Pont-Audemer. The abbot would be Henry I, once monk of Bec.
page 160 note c ? 1160. See above, p. 54.
page 161 note 1 prohibemus, MS.
page 162 note a The Benedictine house of Préaux, near Pont-Auderaer, in the diocese of Lisieux, which had the patronage of many churches in the diocese.
page 162 note b Probably Albert and Theodwin (see note to ep. no. 83), who made a visitation of Norman monasteries in the summer of 1172 (Eyton).
page 162 note c Rotrou of Warwick.
page 163 note a See above, p. lviii.
page 164 note 1 Marginal note in hand of the corrector.
page 164 note a c. 1150–79, when he was elected to the bishopric of Coutances.
page 164 note b William de Passavant.
page 164 note c See above, p. liii.
page 164 note d This royal officer, vice-chancellor in 1173 and keeper of the seal, successfully crowned his official career with the king by becoming archdeacon of Oxford in 1175, bishop of Lincoln in 1183 and archbishop of Rouen in 1184. During King Richard's absence on the Crusade, Walter was involved in the disputes surrounding Longchamp and Prince John, and he acted as justiciar from 1191 to 1193. He died in 1207 (D.N.B.; Haskins, , Norman institutions, pp. 130Google Scholar n., 180; Powicke, , The loss of Normandy, passim)Google Scholar. A useful account of his archiepiscopate is given by Packard, Sidney R., ‘King John and the Norman Church’, The Harvard Theological Review, xv (1922), 27Google Scholar, seqq. For this letter, see above, p. liii.
page 165 note a Arnulf's journey was from Nonant (Calvados) to the Benedictine abbey of Cerisy-la-Forêt, 17 kms. N.W. of St. Lô, which was on the route to Barfleur, where Henry embarked in May.
page 165 note b This letter is probably the next.
page 166 note 1 confouere, H 1.
page 166 note 2 suscepisse uel recepisse, E.
page 166 note a See above, p. liii. This was probably covered by the preceding letter.
page 166 note b Part of this letter is excised in G, and so its derivative, H 1, is collated.
page 166 note c The Benedictine abbey of Cerisy-la-Forêt, where Arnulf was lying ill (see previous letter).
page 166 note d A reference to the rebellion of the king's sons in 1173.
page 167 note 1 iustioia, H 1.
page 167 note 2 diffiniuit, H 1.
page 167 note 3 uidelicet, H 1.
page 168 note 1 G continues after its break.
page 168 note a The rubric has not been inserted in the MS., but there can be little doubt that the letter was sent to his old friend, Richard of Ilchester, who was with the king at this time, and who was Arnulf's only ally at court (ep. no. 119). Cf. contemporary list of contents (F 1, fo. 1v): ‘Hec epistola creditur ad R. Wint, episcopum fuisse directa’.
page 168 note b See above, p. liii.
page 169 note a For references to a similar description in John of Salisbury and Peter of Blois, see above, p. lii, n. 3.
page 169 note b Cf. the figures given in epp. nos. 108 and 110.
page 170 note 1 transfretratione, MS.
page 170 note a Cf. Liber exemplorum, ed. Little, A. G. (Brit. Soc. Franciscan Studies, vol. i, 1908), p. 123Google Scholar: Notum est autem quod in curiis principum querentibus gratiam necessarii sunt adiutores et intercessores.
page 170 note b See above, pp. liii, seqq. If the statement that Arnulf had served the king for 30 years (see line 16) is not a mistake, the letter must refer to Henry's return to Normandy in April 1180, and not to his departure in May 1175. On the Pipe. Rolls, moreover, transfretatio means a crossing to Normandy (R. L. Poole, ‘Early correspondence of John of Salisbury’, in Studies in chronology and history, p. 270Google Scholar). But the tone of the letter and the reference to a recent meeting between Arnulf and Henry favour the date given here.
page 170 note c Cf. the figures given in epp. nos. 107 and no.
page 171 note a See above, p. liii.
page 171 note b After crossing to England in May 1175, the king and the young Henry visited Becket's tomb on 28 May (Eyton).
page 171 note c Henry was at York on 10 August (Eyton).
page 172 note 1 consummatur, MS.
page 172 note 2 triginginta, MS.
page 172 note 3 vqueadded in the margin in the same hand.
page 172 note a Cf. ep. no. 109, by which this letter may be covered, and see above, p. liii.
page 172 note b If 35 is correct he must be speaking of his tenure of the episcopal see; 25 would be the number of years of royal service. But cf. the figures given in epp. nos. 107 and 108.
page 173 note 1 Marginal note in hand of the corrector.
page 174 note 1 permiserit, MS.
page 174 note a See above, pp. liii, seq., and the next letter. The royal free chapel of Bosham, a peculiar in the diocese of Chichester, was an ancient foundation. Where St. Wilfrid found the only traces of Christianity among the South Saxons in 681 a college of secular priests was established, which was so well endowed with land that it was worth over £300 in the Confessor's time. Edward granted the benefice to his Norman chaplain, Osbert, who, as bishop of Exeter, continued to hold it after the Conquest, and transmitted it to his successors. The value of the benefice, had, however, considerably diminished. Under Bishop William Warelwast, Bosham was transformed into a college of 6 secular canons, of which the bishop of Exeter was dean. See V.C.H. Sussex, i, 374Google Scholar, ii, 109, seqq., etc.
page 174 note b The king crossed to Normandy in August 1177 (Eyton).
page 175 note a The church of Faringdon, Hants, formed part of the chapelry of Bosham (see above, p. liv, and the previous letter and note), and its manor was part of the honour pertaining to that church (V.C.H. Hants, i, 469Google Scholara). The patronage was recovered by the bishops of Exeter (Registrum Johannis de Pontissara, ed. Deedes, C. (Canterbury and York Soc. & Surrey Record Soc., 1915–1924), i, 162).Google Scholar
page 175 note b Thurstin, sheriff of Hampshire, Mich. 1155–9 (Eyton).
page 175 note c Richard fitz Thurstin, sheriff of Hampshire, 1159–70 (Eyton, , and List of sheriffs for England and Wales (Public Record Office, Lists and Indexes, ix, 1898)Google Scholar).
page 176 note a 1171–82.
page 176 note b Herbert, abbot of Grestain (see above, p. 80, n. b), died in 1178 (Torigni, , p. 280Google Scholar), and William of Exeter, monk of Bec, succeeded in 1179 (ibid. and note 6). This dispute probably explains the gap between the death and the accession which puzzled the editor of Torigni.
page 176 note c John.
page 176 note d The N., i.e. nomen, was expanded by Giles to Nicolaum. Haskins, , Norman institutions, p. 171Google Scholar, and Génestal, , Le privilegium fort en France (Bibl. Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Sciences religieuses, 1921–1914), ii, 112Google Scholar, note 2, have commented on this letter.
page 177 note 1 reuolutus, MS.
page 177 note 2 patioribus, MS.
page 177 note a See above, p. xxxix.
page 179 note a He is not in the main descent of the Marmion family. There was a William Marmion at this time, the brother of Geoffrey Marmion who was an unspecified relative of Robert Marmion, the head of the family, and the founder of the abbey of Barbery near Falaise (The complete peerage, ed. Doubleday, H. A., etc., viii, 509Google Scholar).
page 179 note b The fifth abbot of the Cistercian house of Mortemer (diocese of Rouen and near Les Andelys), who had been first abbot of the daughter house of Le Valasse, near Le Havre, which had been refounded in 1157 (Torigni, , p. 196Google Scholar n.). He left Mortemer on 25 August 1179 after a rule of 5 years (Chronicle of Mortemer, in H.F., xii, 783Google Scholar).
page 180 note a For Ursicampus, Ourscamp (dioc. Noyon, arr. Compiègne), the Cistercian abbey to which Mortemer had been affiliated since 1137, and between which houses there was considerable exchange of officers (ibid.). The abbot was Guy, 1170–95.
page 180 note b Henry had employed Richard as a messenger in 1171 (Benedict, , i, 21Google Scholar).
page 180 note c See above, pp. liv, seqq.
page 181 note 1 add esse, MS.
page 181 note 2 marginal note in hand of the corrector.
page 182 note a For Richard, see p. 93, note a, and for the letter, which probably covered nos. 120 and 121, see above, pp. liv, seqq.
page 182 note b The son of a small Derbyshire landowner (Stenton, quoting Rev. Statham, S. P. H.'s article in The Derbyshire Arch. Soc. Journal, 1926, pp. 57–9Google Scholar), William is found in the household of William Longsword, brother of King Henry II, a charter of whom he attests between 1156 and 1163 (Facsimiles of early charters from Northamptonshire collections, ed. Stenton, F. M. (Northauts. Record Soc., vol. iv, 1930), pp. 24–6Google Scholar). He later passed to Henry's court, and after an apprenticeship as an English justiciar he succeeded Richard, bishop of Winchester, as seneschal of Normandy in 1178. He had a considerable influence on Norman law (Haskins, , Norman institutions, pp. 192, 183–4Google Scholar, and Powicke, , The loss of Normandy, p. 70Google Scholar, etc.).
page 182 note c See above, p. 164, note d.
page 183 note 1 Willelmus filius, MS.
page 183 note 2 communicari, MS.
page 183 note a Henry of Bayeux, Ralph de Warneville, the chancellor, and Rotrou of Rouen. For this embassy, cf. pp. 187 and 191.
page 183 note b For Peter, see note to ep. no. 82.
page 184 note a For the letter, which was covered by the previous, and itself covered the following letter, see above, pp. liv, seqq.
page 185 note 1 alleuiare, MS.
page 186 note a For this letter, probably covered by the two preceding ones, see above, pp. liv, seqq.
page 186 note b For Peter, see note to ep. no. 82.
page 187 note a For this legation and the persons, see pp. 183 and 191.
page 187 note b The Norman church was summoned to the Lateran Council of 1179 by the papal legate, Albert de Suma, in the summer of 1178 (Benedict, , i, 206Google Scholar; Torigni, , p. 279Google Scholar).
page 187 note c For this letter, which covered the two following ones, see above, pp. liv, seqq. For Peter, see note to ep. no. 82. He returned to the papal curia about December 1178 (Delehaye, , Revue des quest, hist., xlix, 49Google Scholar).
page 188 note a This plan of exile to save money in order to pay his debts had been considered by Arnulf in 1166. See above, p. xlv.
page 188 note b St. Victor, Paris, for the 3rd Lateran Council. See below, p. 192.
page 188 note c For the letter, which was under cover of no. 122, see above, p. lvii.
page 189 note a For the letter, covered by no. 122, see above, p. lvii.
page 190 note 1 insalutare, MS.
page 190 note a See above, pp. xix–xx.
page 190 note b For the building, see above, p. xlvii, seqq.
page 191 note a For the letter, which covered no. 126, see above, p. lvii. For Peter, see note to ep. no. 82.
page 191 note b See note d to ep. no 105.
page 191 note c Ralph de Warneville; see p. 27, note a. For the negotiations, see above, pp. 183 and 187.
page 191 note d See p. 182, note b.
page 192 note 1 trhaebatur, MS.
page 192 note a Hugh de Nonant ? Cf. ep. no. 128.
page 192 note b For this letter, which was covered by no. 125, see above, p. lvii.
page 192 note c See p. 182, note b.
page 193 note 1 Willelmi, MS.
page 193 note a For Walter, see note to ep. no. 105.
page 193 note b Henry was in England from July 1178 to April 1180 (Eyton).
page 193 note c For Peter, see note to ep. no. 82.
page 194 note a Hugh de Nonant ? Cf. ep. no. 128.
page 194 note b For William, see above, p. 103, note a.
page 194 note c Theobald V, count of Blois. Other brothers were Henry I, count of Champagne, and Stephen, count of Sancerre. For Arnulf's relations with this family, see above, p. xiv.
page 194 note d William fitz Ralph, the seneschal (see p. 182, note b). For another account of this affair see ep. no. 126.
page 194 note e William visited England and the shrine of St. Thomas at the end of July 1178 (Diceto, , i, 426Google Scholar), but the letter is probably later.
page 195 note a Later bishop of Rochester. For the letter, see above, p. lvii.
page 195 note b Richard of Ilchester. See the next letter.
page 195 note c Hugh de Nonant; see above, p. xiii. The letters he carried were probably nos. 125 and 126.
page 196 note a For Richard, see p. 93, note a.
page 196 note b See the preceding letter.
page 197 note a A letter of Pope Alexander III to Rotrou, dated 11 October at Tusculum (i.e., in the year 1171, 1172, 1178, or 1180), reveals that Rotrou had written to ask him whether he should absolve before their trial those excommunicated by his suffragan bishops who appealed to his Audience to be absolved. Alexander replied that he should do so, unless he wished to defer to the bishop, and so send them back for absolution, but that in either circumstance he himself must hear the case,’ quia nec excommunicati ante absolutionem suam in causa sunt audiendi, nec causa ad eos, quibus appellatum est, debet remitti’. Letter printed by Pommeraye, , S. Rotomagensis Eccl. Concilia, pp. 158 and 161Google Scholar, and calendared Jaffé-Loewenfeld, Regesta, no. 13583.
page 198 note 1 exponat, MS.
page 198 note a See above, p. lvi.
page 198 note b See above, p. xx.
page 199 note 1 Cenomannis, MS.
page 199 note a 1161. See above, p. 54, for another account.
page 199 note b Arnulf was out of favour in 1164. See above, p. xxxii.
page 199 note c Alexander was at Bourges from 1 August to 13 September 1163, and from 28 April to 17 May 1165.
page 200 note 1 notaria, MS.
page 200 note 2 altered to delegate by the corrector.
page 200 note a Arnulf complained somewhat similarly c. 1173. See above, p. 146.
page 200 note b For the results of this conspiracy, see ep. no. 137.
page 201 note a See above, pp. lviii, seqq.
page 201 note b Silvester, treasurer of Lisieux, and Hugh de Nonant, later bishop of Lichfield. See above, p. xiii.
page 201 note c Hugh de Nonant; cf. the list in ep. no. 138. His Lisieux prebend is rather a mystery. Once he is stated to have been given the prebend de Capella, Chapelle Hareng, near Thiberville (below, p. 204), which in 1350 was taxed at £35 (Longnon, , Pouillés de la province de Rouen)Google Scholar, and elsewhere the prebend is located in the parish of Gacé (below, p. 211), and would be that of Croisilles, taxed at £20, and, with its church, at £40 in 1350 (ibid.). As Nonant itself is in the deanery of Gacé, it seems likely that Arnulf had created a group of jurisdictions for Hugh round Gacé, and that he held the deanery and archdeaconry of Gacé and the prebend of Croisilles, having lost Chapelle Hareng by this time.
page 202 note a Cf. the account of this affair given in ep. no. 138.
page 202 note b Hugh de Nonant.
page 202 note c Henry, 1164–1205.
page 202 note d Giles, 1170–9.
page 203 note 1 delegate, MS; ? read delegarit.
page 203 note 2 canonica, MS.
page 203 note a Henry.
page 203 note b Richard III.
page 203 note c Silvester, Arnulf's nephew.
page 203 note d de Glanville, bishop of Rochester 1185–1214.
page 203 note e John d'Alencon, archdeacon of Lisieux; royal vice-chancellor in 1190. See Round, Calendar, passim.
page 204 note 1 uaca/care, MS.
page 204 note 2 uidebatur, first hand.
page 204 note 3 add et, MS.
page 204 note 4 Ego, MS.
page 204 note a Chapelle Hareng; see p. 201, note c.
page 205 note a For Theodwin and his legation, see above, p. 137, note 6.
page 206 note 1 eo, MS.
page 207 note 1 Marginal note in hand of the corrector.
page 207 note a Cf. p. 197 and note a.
page 208 note 1 add iii, H 2.
page 208 note 2 uoluerint, H 2.
page 208 note 3 prohibere, H 2.
page 208 note 4 spiritalem, H 2.
page 208 note 5 promisistis, H 2.
page 208 note a See above, pp. lviii, seqq. The address, Pope Lucius, which is given in the two MSS. in which the letter occurs, is obviously a mistake, for Lucius III did not become pope until September 1181, and the king had nominated the successor to the bishopric before July 1181 (above, p. lix). The lack of congratulations in the letter also is suspicious.
page 209 note 1 sexcentos, H 2.
page 209 note a Richard III.
page 209 note b Osbern.
page 209 note c Simon.
page 209 note d For Walter, see above, p. 164, note d.
page 209 note e Cf. Arnulf's claim to have augmented the revenue on p. 189.
page 209 note f See above, pp. xlvii, seqq.
page 209 note g See above, p. xx.
page 210 note 1 prerumpta, H 2.
page 210 note 2 quam noua, H 2.
page 210 note 3 consequentur, H 2.
page 210 note a See above, pp. xxv, seqq.
page 210 note b Capella may mean here a chapel at the abbey of St. Victor, Paris, or, as it is more likely that there was distraint on Arnulf's baggage before it left Normandy, it may well be understood in the sense of a set of liturgical vestments and ornaments.
page 211 note 1 Ad Henricum ii. regem Anglorum. Reuerentissimo domino suo, Henrico, del gratia illustri et glorioso Anglorum regi, frater Arnulfus, sancti Victoris Parisiensis canonicus, utinam regularis, pacem, gloriam et honorem, F 1.
page 211 note 2 in repeated, F 1.
page 211 note 3 Guasceyum, H 2; Gwaceuum, F 1.
page 211 note 4 ill. ecc., F 1.
page 211 note 5 Nunaunt, F 1.
page 211 note 6 reg. ill. poss., F 1.
page 211 note 7 om., F 1.
page 211 note 8 om. educaui … diligentius, H 2.
page 211 note 9 archidiaconatus, H 2; altered, H 1.
page 211 note a See above, p. lviii.
page 211 note b Gacé, near Argentan, of which there was also a deanery and archdeaconry.
page 211 note c De Formeville gives the following reference to Arnulf's charter: Arch. de L'Empire, carton L, 1494.
page 211 note d Croisilles; see above, p. 201, note c.
page 211 note e Cf. the list in ep. no. 133, p. 201.
page 212 note 1 potestatis, F 1.
page 212 note 2 om., F 1.
page 212 note 3 psequente, H 2.
page 212 note 4 om., F 1.
page 212 note 5 ei cont., F 1.
page 212 note 6 reseruaueram, F 1.
page 212 note 7 ullo, H 2.
page 212 note 8 parrochiali, F 1.
page 212 note 9 Nunaunt, F 1.
page 212 note 10 acceptis, F 1.
page 212 note 11 suum diuina, F 1.
page 212 note a For another account of this affair, see above, p. 202.
page 212 note b Occurs 1142 and 1147 (G.C.).
page 213 note 1 add de qua magis confidimus, F 1.
page 213 note 2 add et pertinentiis, F 1.
page 213 note 3 letificauit, F 1.
page 213 note 4 enim, F 1.
page 213 note 5 om. conuertit … speraueram, F 1.
page 213 note 6 enim, F 1.
page 213 note 7 audacia, H 2.
page 213 note a See above, p. lix, and note 4.
page 213 note b The principle of Henry's possessory assizes.
page 214 note a For the letter, which may have covered the next, see above, p. lix.
page 215 note 1 liba, MS.
page 215 note 2 Ancl', MS.
page 215 note a For this letter, which may have been covered by no. 139, see above, p. lix.
page 215 note b For William, see above, p. 182, note 6.
page 216 note a Warin, formerly abbot of Ste. Geneviève-du-Mont.