No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Observations on a Papal Privilege of 1120 for the Archbishops of York
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
Extract
The privilege Caritatis Bonum (JL 6831), addressed to Archbishop Tliurstan of York and his successors, was issued on 11 March 1120. By this privilege, Pope Calixtus 11 forbade the archbishops of Canterbury to demand a profession of obedience from the archbishops of York and the archbishops ol York to make any such profession. The object ol this paper is to consider the importance of the privilege and to examine (and reject) suggestions that the known text was forged or interpolated; in the course of this examination we shall consider an abbreviated text in a Rouen manuscript, which has been treated as a separate document of an earlier date. We shall also consider the brief account given twice over by Hugh the Chantor in slightly different terms, of the scene at the papal court when the privilege was brought before the pope for subscription, both because such accounts are rare, and because this account throws some light on the curious fact that one of the cardinals who subscribed was not at the curia at the appropriate time. No attempt will be made to tell yet again the story of the conflict between the two English archbishops, but it will be necessary to examine in detail some of the evidence relating to events in the winter of 1119-20. Some small amount of repetition has been unavoidable, as different aspects of the matter are considered in turn.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980
References
1 See note 15 below.
2 The privilege is printed in Historians of the Church of York and its archbishops, ed. Raine, James, 3 vols. (Rolls Ser., 1879-1894)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as H.C.Y.) iii. 41-4, from York, Dean and Chapter Muniments, Magnum Registrum Album, part i I'o. 42V (dated v idus Martii); also in The Priory of Hexham, i. ed. Raine, J. R., Surtees Soc, 1864Google Scholar , illustrative documents, p. x, no. vii, from B.L. Lansdowne MS 402 (a York cartulary) to. 11 2v (dated vero idus Martii), whence Robert, Ulysse, Bullaire du Pape Calixte II. Paris-Besancon 1891. i. 227Google Scholar , no. 154. An abbreviated copy, discussed below, is also printed by Robert as no. 86, from Rouen, Bibl. municipale, MS 1405 (Y 27, Le Livre d'lvoire) p. 59 (dating-clause omitted).
3 Brett, Martin. The English Church under King Henry I, Oxford 1975Google Scholar . does not mention the privilege in discussing the Canterbury-York dispute, but states that it is authentic (p. 24011). Barlow, Frank, The English Church 1066-1154, London 1979Google Scholar . mentions the collapse of the Canterbury case in 1 120 without further detail. See also Nichol, Donald, Thurslan Archbishop of York 1114-1140, York 1964, 74Google Scholar . Dr Bethell, Denis. in a valuable article, ‘William of Corbeil and the Canterbury-York dispute’, this Journal, xix (1968), 145–159Google Scholar , takes the view that already by 1116 ‘the archbishop of Canterbury's attempt to extract a profession of obedience from the archbishop of York was in ellect a lost cause’, and cites letters of Pope Paschal 11 forbidding the profession. These letters, which were not presented, and strictly speaking lapsed on Paschal's death, were indeed letters, not privileges granted in perpetuum; they were not regarded by either party as definitive. The pope was probably not at that stage, nor the curia perhaps at any stage, much interested in Canterbury or York; all however were keenly interested in the papal right to hear the case arising from Archbishop Thurstan's appeal of May 1116. Canterbury's attempt to avoid pleading, and to shelter behind the king until after the issue of Cantatis bonum, was a fatal tactical error.
4 The clearest account of the dispute is by Dueball, Margarete, Die Suprematstreit zwischen den Erzdibözesen Canterbury und York, 1070-1126 (Historische Studien no. 184), Berlin 1929Google Scholar.
5 The date of the primaiial forgeries has been much disputed. I follow the view of Southern, R. W., ‘The Canterbury forgeries’, EHR, iiii (1958), 193–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar . and idem , St Anselm and his Biographer, Cambridge 1963, 304–9Google Scholar . Attempts to prove an earlier origin fail because they do not account convincingly lor the Hrst use ol the torgeries in 1123, or lor the appearance of their texts in the part of Eadmer's Historia Novorum which was composed between 1119 and (at latest) 1125.
6 Hugh the Chantor, History of Four Archbishops of York. H.C. Y., ii. 98-227; also ed. and trans, by Johnson, Charles. Hugh the Chantor, The History of the Church of York 1066-1127, Nelson's Medieval Texts, London 1961Google Scholar (hereafter cited as H.C.).
7 H.C.Y. ii. 220; H.C., 132.
8 On Hugh and his work see Cransden, Antonia, Historical Writing in England c. 550-1907, London 1974, 123–5Google Scholar and on his career at York see especially Clay, C. T., ‘The early precentors and chancellors of York’, Jnl Yorkshire Archaeological Society, xxxv (1941), 116–20Google Scholar.
9 H.C.Y. ii. 355. On this chronicle see ibid. ii. pp. xx-xxii.
10 Schieller, Th., Die päpulichen Legaten in Frankreich, 870-1130 (Historische Studien, no. 263), Berlin 1935, 207Google Scholar , says that Hugh erred in stating that Cardinal Cono's legation of 1119-20 included England. Another more debatable error concerns the date of the consecration of the bishop of Geneva in 1120. This is wrongly stated in the surviving MS KH.C.Y., ii. 151, H.C., 90). But the tweltth-century York chronicle, which uses Hugh's work, gives the date correctly: quartaferia, for Hugh's impossible Kalendas Mail (H.C.Y., ii. 377, 181). Did the chronicler have a better text of Hugh's work before him?
11 I. Letter to King Henry asking for Thurstan's reinstatement (H.C.Y., ii. 185-6, H.C., 93-4, JL 6832). 2 and 3. Letters to the archbishop of Tours and bishop of Beauvais ordering them to deliver no. 1 (H.C.Y., ii. 180, H.C., 88-9, JL 6773 misdated). 4, 5, 6. Letters to King Henry (JL 6774 misdated), Archbishop Ralph of Canterbury, and to the clergy and people ol York, declaring the archbishop suspended and laying an interdict on both English provinces; these letters were to be delivered only if Thurstan was not rein-stated [H.C.Y., ii. 193-4, 192-3, 194; H.C., 102-3, 101-2, 102-4!. 71 Letter to Cardinal Cono, ordering him to deliver no. 5 if necessary (mentioned but not copied, H.C.Y., ii. 180-1, H.C., 89).
12 H.C.Y., ii. 191. 196-7, 204-6; H.C., 100, 106, 117.
13 For Pop e Alexander's privilege Tune ecclesia Dei (22 Jan. 1161, no t in JL ) see Papsturkunden in England, ed. Holtzmann, W., ii, Göttingen 1931. 291Google Scholar . For Antiquam Eboracensis (JL 12749) see Materials for the History of Thomas Becket. v. ed. Robertson, J. C. (Rolls Ser., 1881)Google Scholar ; Cilberti…Londoniensis epistolae, ed. Giles, J. A., London-Oxford 1864, ii. 75Google Scholar ; Radulfi de Diceto…opera historica, i, ed. Stubbs, William (Rolls Ser., 1876) 406Google Scholar ; for its appearance in decretal collections, mostly ot known Anglo-Norman provenance, see Regesta Decretalium saeculi XII, ed. Chodorow, S. and Duggan, C.. Monumenta luris Canonici, Ser. B, (Citta del Vaticano, forthcoming)Google Scholar.
14 H.C.Y., ii. 197, H.C., 107.
15 Regesta Pontijicum Romanorum, ed. Jallë, P., rev. Wattenbach, G., Loewenfeld, S., Kaltenbrunner, F.. Ewalcl, P., 2 vols., Leipzig 1885-1888Google Scholar , [JL], i. 794. The editors knew Caritatis bonum only from The Priory of Hexham (see n. 2 above).
16 Omont, H., Catalogue del manuscrits des bibliotheques publiques de la France, i, Rouen 1886, 399–403Google Scholar . and cf. 11. 2 above.
17 Twysden, Roger, Histonae Anglkanae Scriptores Decem, London 1652Google Scholar , 1684-1734, and see 11. 9 above.
18 H.C.y., 167, H.C.,75.
19 Fliche, A., La Reform Gregorienne (Hist, de I'Eglise, ed. Fliche, A. and Martin, V., viii), Paris 1964. 322–6Google Scholar . Cf. Luchaire, A., Manuel des institutions françaises. Paris 1892, 26–8Google Scholar.
20 Boehmer, H., Die Fdlschungen Erzbischofs Lanfranks von Canterbury, Leipzig 1902, 40–1.Google Scholar
21 H.C.Y., ii. 192, H.C., 101.
22 Foreville, R., L'iglise et laroyauteen Angleterresous HenriII Planlagenet, Paris 1943, 51, nGoogle Scholar . 11. The later privileges are printed in Papsturkunden in England, ed. Holtzmann, W., ii, Göttingen 1935, nos. 12, 13, 66Google Scholar.
23 H.C.Y., ii. 103-4, 134-5, 151-2; H.C., 6-7, 55-6, 58-9.
24 H.C.Y., ii 174-84, H.c., 82-92.
24 On Cono see , Schiefler, Legaten (n. 10 above), 198–222Google Scholar , and Schoene, G.. Kardinallegat Kuno, Bischof von Praeneste, Weimar 1857Google Scholar.
26 H.C.Y., ii. 182, H.C., 90. The punctuation of the editions needs amendment here. The text should read: ‘Subscripserum…diaconi. Privilegio subscripto cum ceteris litteris accepto, archiepiscopus rogavit…’
27 Katterbach, B. and Peitz, W. M., ‘Die Unterschrilten der Papste und Kardinale in den “Bullae Maiores” von 11. bis 14. Jahrhundert’, Studi e Testi, xl. Rome 1924, 177–274Google Scholar . For some later examples ol subscriptions added to completed privileges see Cheney, C. R., Medieval Texts and Studies, Oxford 1973. 57Google Scholar.
28 The following came to hand too late for mention: Somerville, R., ‘The Councils of Pope Calixtus 11: Reims 1119’, Proc. of the Fifth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law. 1976, Citta del Vaticano 1980, 35–50Google Scholar . See especially, pp. 46-9 on Cardinal Cono, and the literature there cited.