BOOKS.
iiriafl'S LIVES OF LANFRANC, ANSELM, AND A'BECKET.*
As a complete series of biographies of the great Anglo-Norman Archbishops, this volume should have contained Langton ; though for a principal object of the writers the limitation is proper onaugh. This object appears to be, to describe the struggle b tween the earlier English monarchs who practically maintained the superiority of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, and de- manded the feudal submission of ecclesiastics to the crown as their liege lord, and those churchmen who insisted on their
the state, and a divided allegiance to the Pope.
independence of The subject is well worth the attention of the historical inquirer, notwithstanding the number of historians who have treated it. The broad facts are known well enough ; but from the bias of some writers, the epic-like manner in which others treat history, or the numerous divisions which they handle, the particulars might be more fully and more exactly brought out. The great want is a complete picture of the period in its various classes— kings, barons, churchmen, citizens, vassals, and serfs. Unless we have an almost photographic transcription from existing autho- rities, of these different grades in their moral characteristics, mental development, and modes of life, we cannot form any very true opinion of the struggles which took place for several centu- ries, the king and warlike classes being generally ranged on one side, and the ecclesiastics and common people on the other. In sound political theory, the right was doubtless with the civil Dower; for the church aimed at establishing. an imperitan lu overt° of the most mischievous kind, unless circumstances ren- dered the evil a temporary good. In a merely logical sense the right was altogether with the state, even on the ecclesiastic's own reasoning ;, for the real contest was not about spiritual but temporal matters. Monarchs and barons, from the eleventh century to the fourteenth, did not trouble themselves with theological or doc- trinal matters; few, indeed, could comprehend them. The real struggle was for power, and jurisdiction over property and persons.
The authors of this work are not qualified by original research or native,powers of mind to exhaust the subject in the manner indicated, even if biography were the best form of doing it ; but they give another illustration of the maxim that "extremes meet." Although themselves averse to "a State Church," a strong feeling is exhibited against state claims when opposed to Papal encroachments ; and we seem to trace a disposition to fa- vour the personal characters both of Anselm and A'Becket, on oc- casions where general opinion is against them, and certainly where the preponderance of proof seems to mark ambition and self-deception, if not evident hypocrisy in both prelates. Lan- franc is less partially treated, perhaps because he was less of a mystic in religion than Anselm, and less of a Papal bigot as a churchman. The first Anglo-Norman primate was above and be- fore all things a practical man ; he never pushed a theory to ex- tremes, regardless of good and evil. He also had the Conqueror to deal with, and William's character did not dispose bins to sub- mit to churchmen, while circumstances gave him more power than his successors could attain. This difference is seen and dimly indicated in a comparison between Lanfranc anti Anselm, consequent upon an incident in the life of the latter while at Bee— the death of a favourite monk.
"In spite of all, Osbern dies; and Anselm consoles himself with the pro- mise of Ins friend to transmit to him a knowledge of his then unknown des- tiny. While the monks surrounded the body of their dead brother, and chanted the service of the church, Anselm saw a vision, which he inter- preted, according to his wishes, as the intelligence of his friend's safety, "This is one of many circumstances which constitute striking dissimi- larity between the recorded life of Lanfmne and that of Anselm. In the biography of the former we were seldom brought into contact with the supernatural agencies of the middle ages. Here and there a vision ap- peared. A ghostly boy, for example, was seen in company with Hertuin, and by spiritual intervention it was determined that the Abbey of Bee should be rebuilt. But these were exceptions as a rule, the natural order of things was observed. But such is not the rule in the life of Anselm. Its every page bears traces of belief in active supernatural power. Every dream of a disturbed mind is a vision,—every act of kindness a prodigy. From the time of Othern's death, Anselm rose higher and higher in the esteem of his monks, and their former animosity was turned into unbounded admiration. He was elevated into a seer, a prophet, and a worker of nil reales. Maniacs were restored to reason 'by his presence. A dying man beheld a flame of fire issue from his mouth. His secretary saw him sur- rounded, when engaged in his nocturnal meditations, by a halo of light. Returning from a visit to a Norman lord, he fell into conversation with a monk of whom he asked a night's lodging. The monk promised to provide bun with shelter, but apologetically informed him he must expect but meagre fare. The confident smile with which Anselm begs him not to snake himself uneasy on that score, suggests the possible resemblance of the monk's larder to that of the clerk of Copmanhurst, of whom the Black Knight demanded a supper. Such however, is not the case; the virtue of the monk is sustained, and a supper is provided by the miraculous power of imolai. It would perhaps be difficult to say whether this difference In the lives of these two men is to be accounted for by the superior acquaintance of Lanfranc with the laws of nature,—or by the circumstance that, whereas n. are chiefly indebted to the ordinary chroniclers for the facts of Lanfranc's ale, that of his disciple and successor was written by one who was constant- 's' near him, and whose deep reverence may have led to a belief that Anselm !as possessed of attributes superior to his fellows. The latter is probably the case, for it is hard to believe that the virtue of either of these philoso- phers was so much greater than their science, that they could refuse the nemoffe of superstition."
Although the contentions between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities are a prominent topic, and apparently a main purpose
.Three Archbishops : Lasafranc—Anselm—A'Beeket. By Washington and +oa Wilk& Published by Bennett, London ; and Menzies, Edinburgh. of the volume, they are not an overwhelming feature. The i.16. cidents of the lives are exhibited, if not in great detail ; while they are made a peg on which to hang characteristic sketches of the times, or observations of the biographers. The rapid promotion of Becket for example, gives rise to the following remarks on patronage in the middle ages compared with our own ; though it is not perceived that the ltomish church was by no means a de- mocratic corporation, beyond disregarding birth and looking only to merit that could be made available. It combined in its numer- ous subordinates and long gradations of rank, democracy, aristo- cracy, and monarchy, with a military discipline, and the impossi- bility, under the institution of celibacy, of turning any ecclesias- tical position or property into an hereditary appanage. "Promotion by favour is usually considered the antithesis of promotion by merit. The truer antithesis would be, promotion by privilege. Autocracy i. as little interested as democracy in the repression of low-born ability. It is under the government of the few—whether calling itself by the pompous misnomer, "Aristocracy "; or made justly odious by the designation, "Oli- garchy garchy "—that the natural rights of intellect, and the paramount necessities of the public service, are systematically sacrificed to considerations of pri- vate, fatuity, or party interest. Hence the frequency and conspienousneas of great panics in the annals of absolutely despotic and of absolutely free states—their comparative paucity in those of sauced monarchies audguasi- republics ; the nurseries of mediocrity, the prison-houses of genius. Hence, especially, the number and brilliancy of the names which even in the darkest of the middle ages shone in the firmament of the church—that theocratic democracy whose worst abuses could only obscure, not destroy, its presentation of that Divine idea which heathen philosophy named the monarchy of man '; and whose unfaithfulness will not prevent its being the mother of that human perfectness which a Christian Father visioned as the city of God.' Free from the subtlest of those influences which mug sometimes bias the purest and the strongest, ecclesiatics bad little motive to prefer other than the fittest to posts within their gift ; and when serviee was to be rendered to the Pope a little at the expense of less sacred poten- tates, they were especially unlikely to put forward the eldest of the broth- ren merely because lie was the eldest. And secular princes, on the other hand, were but too glad to avail themselves of servants, at once superior in art and alien in interest, to the temporal nobility ; who on their part, how- ever resolute to impose their counsels, and gratify their ambition, were willing enough to resign the toils of administration."
The book is to be commended for a skilful selection of facts and a, clever as well as powerful mode of presenting them so as to form a striking narrative. It has slight claims to an artistical work in any high sense. The biography- proper is somewhat marred by the interference of ecclesiastical history, and introduced pic- tures of manners, while space is scarcely left to treat the his- tory or the age satisfactorily.. Neither are the individual traits of the men happily developed. The reader scarcely carries off an idea of the likeness. In fact The Three Arehbtshops are three long "articles," done upon the Macaulay model, with an infusion of the platform both in sentiment and style.
Previous page
