THE ARCHBISHOPS OF YORK.*
THE titular editor of this work may be regarded as the author of the volume at present completed, of which he claims the entire composition, and the collection of nineteen-twentieths of the materials. The topographical records of the late Mr. Dixon appear to have been most complete for the times subsequent to the "Great Rebellion," whereas his collections for the mediteval "Fasti of York" are described as little more than a bare catalogue of names and dates. A more complete repertory of archaeological memoranda and references was furnished for a certain period by the manuscripts of James Torre, a York antiquary of the seventeenth century, of whose labours only a general, though a very laudatory account is given us. The joint researches of these writers are of surprising extent, and will constitute a valuable aid to many neglected but interesting byways of English ecclesiastical history. Mr. Raine's mode of writing is, on the whole, effective and interesting, though he is too easily tempted to relieve the tedium of his details by poetical quotations or idyllic touches which may be deficient in pith and apposite- ness. They convey vague suggestions of a reverence for monastic institutions, which is seldom or never shaped into any proposition that can provoke controversy.
The series of lives extends from A.D. 627 to 1372, and com- prises forty-four archbishops or bishops ; for the higher dignity conferred on Paulinus, the first converter of the kingdom of Northumbria, was left vacant for nearly one hundred years after his demise. These annals occupy nearly 500 pages, which are well filled with matter, and with references both usual and unusual. They are preceded by an historical introduction, which affords us some glimpses of the early British prelates of the north country, and indicates the leading struggles in which their Saxon and Norman successors have been engaged, as in maintaining the Romish discipline in opposition to that of the Culdees, in asserting a precarious authority over the Church of the south of Scotland, and, above all, in preserving their own independence
Fasti Eboracenses : Lires of the Archbishops of York. By the Rev. W. H.Dison, M.A., Canon Residentiary of York, Sc., edited and enlarged by the Rev. James Bane, M.A-, Bee retary of the Stu-tees Society. Loudon: Leugmans. 18011.
of the See of Canterbury. In this last object, as appears from the biographies, they were pretty generally supported by the popes, who had an obvious interest in resisting the consolida- tion of a single primacy within the island. Indeed, Rome had adopted this course as early as the time of Wilfred, when York was governed by a mere bishop, who was partly thwarted by the influence of his own heptarchal sovereign. An oppo-ite line of policy recommended itself to the kings of England from the era of the conquest, and was, after a few waverings, upheld with no little obstinacy under the Norman dynasty. The first Arch- bishop of York raised up by the Conqueror was Thomas of Bayeux, who requested Lanfranc to consecrate him. This the latter, paying no regard to the precedents of the Saxon times, re- fused to do, unless Thomas would profess obedience and subjec- tion to Canterbury. The process of the controversy is succinctly told by Mr. Raine, who has drawn some particulars from manu- scripts in the chapterhouse of York, comprising the lives of the first four northern archbishops under the Norman kings, written by the poetical precentor Hugh de Sotevogina.
"Thomas at once refused, and stated his case to the king, who sent Lim back to Lanfranc with an order that the rite should be performed without the condition. That prelate then went to William, and defended the course which he had adopted. He said it was necessary for the safety of the country that England should have one primate as well as one sovereign (ut Britannia Iota uniquasi pritnati subderetur). An arch- bishop of York might easily side with some of the foreigners who visited his diocese, and set up a new o.onaroh, thus splitting the kingdom into two. The argument was a plausible one, and had its due weight with the Norman courtiers, who forgot that Thomas was one of their .countrymen, and that there was no reason to doubt his loyalty. It con. vinced the king, who tried in vain to alter the determination of Thomas. What soft words were unable to produce, threats at last effected. William told him that if he persisted he would bring down upon himself his heaviest displeasure, and that all his kindred should be banished from Normandy and England. After this, Thomas went to Canterbury, pre- pared to submit. Wilt thou be subject to the church of Canterbury, to me, and to my successors was Lanfranc's question. To thee,' was the reply, but not to thy successors.' The tears rushed from the eyes of the petitioner when he thus spoke, and no further would he go. Lanfranc was not too exacting, and the wished-for consecration took place."
The two prelates went to Borne in the following year for their pa//ia, and Thomas endeavoured to get his submission cancelled by Pope Alexander II., who discreetly referred the matter to the English clergy. A synod sat soon after their return of Lan- franc and Thomas to England, and its judgment awarded the supremacy to Canterbury. Nevertheless, Aneelm received no homage either from Thomas or from his successor, Gerard (under Henry I.), the latter evading his demand by going over to Rome and getting consecrated by Pope Paschal direct ; his attempt had been sanctioned by Henry. The next successor, a second Thomas, was at first supported by the same king in his struggle for independence, but soon deserted by him at the instances of .Anselm. The pope was requested to send a legate to decide the question, and while it was pending Ansehn died, invoking a curse against his opponent if he should continue con- tumacious. At the convocation the king turned against the Archbishop of York, and compelled him to yield, though under a protest in which ho was supported by two bishops.
In 1114, Henry tried to play the same game with Arch- bishop Thurstan, who, however, resisted him, alleging that he could not in conscience act against the primitive papal con- stitutions; he therewith offered to resign all his possessions to the Crown. He was, however, so strongly supported by Pope Calixtus that he ultimately carried his point, and the independ- ence of his successors was thenceforth secured in England, and afterwards formally settled by Alexander HL It is observable that the King had at one time favoured Thurstan's having been appealed to by the argument, "it was improper a metropolitan should make two professions of ecclesiastical subjection, one to the Pope and the other to his brother metro- politan. Supposing a dispute arose between the king and the Southern primate, the Archbishop of York, in consequence of his oath, would be obliged to obey the latter."
The remembrance of the above controversy might deserve to be cherished with some pride in the North, especially as many of its maintainers appear to have conducted themselves with much personal moderation, and much forbearance in secondary matters.
But the disputes between the two sees were doomed to be pro- tracted in more ignoble forms. Hume has ridiculed the quarrels for precedence which took place between the two prelates, who waited on the legate Uguccio in 1176. One of these was Roger, the loyal opponent of Becket, the other was Becket's successor, Richard. The latter had sat down on the right hand of the legate, when Roger seems to have pushed in between them, or ' according to the partizans of Canterbury, to have even seated himself in Richard's lap.
"This was too much for the sensitive feelings of the friends of Richard. Ecclesiastics and laymen alike manifested a strange excite- ment, and even bishops showed that they could be subject to the same passions that occasionally run riot in less exalted minds. They pounced upon Roger and threw him down, they cuffed and beat him to their hearts' content and trampled him under their feet. . . . When he went to the king to seek redress, they shouted after him the old calumny, 'Away, betrayer of St. Thomas I' . . . Nothing, however, seems to have been done. The scene was too ludicrous to necessitate any rigorous or severe remedy."
Another subject of frequent quarrels, beginning from the time of Becket and Roger, used to be derived from the claims of each metropolitan to walk with an erect cross carried before him, even in the other's diocese. This was most frequently attempted by the Archbishops of York, who had occasion to land in the south, after attending on the Pope for their pallia. They were strenuously resisted by the Canterbury prelates on severa occasions, in which they found all services stopped in the parishes they entered, the people forbidden under pain of ex- communication to provide thorn with food, and even armed bands sent against them. Edward I. had a good deal of trouble to preserve the peace of his realm where these processions took place, and the question was not satisfactorily adjusted till late in the reign of his grandson.
As we approach the fourteenth century, the character of these biographies is far from improving in proportion to the greater amount of materials which are placed at the command of the editor. The diaries and account-books of the prelates are made to supply a crude heap of petty local records, which are passed off for valuable materials of future social history. We venture to think them as worthless for the purpose, as a few private weather journals of a like date would be found to promote the improvement of meteorological science. We find but a few striking incidents in them, and the remainder could only be utilized if they were supplemented, numbered, and balanced in some statistical brain of unparalleled capacity. It is evident that the Dryasdust element in the editor's mind, or in the works on which he builds, has been weakly allowed to come too freely forward with its officious loquacity, and to overbear the ecclesiastical "clothes philosopher," from whose exordium we might have expected a more thoroughly edifying lecture. Per- haps the burning of old York by the Danes was necessary to preserve the opening sections from accessions that would have been equally detrimental.
Previous page
