State Trial of Thomas Becket Part 2.1

State Trial of Thomas Becket Part 2.1 - Roger of Hoveden

October 1164, Council of Northampton

English Lawsuits 421A. [pp. 433-5]

[R. C. van Caenegem, ed. (1991). English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I: Henry II and Richard I (nos. 347-665). Vol 2. #421A. pp.225-8. Selden Society.]

Roger of Hoveden Chronica i, 225-8

[ Rogerus (de Hoveden) (1868). Chronica. Vol. 1. Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer. pp. 225–8. ]

Quod cum regi constaret, ut eum magis affligeret, statim misit ad eum, et summonuit eum per bonos summonitores, quod in crastino venisset, paratus reddere illi rationem villicationis suae, quam habuit in regno suo ante consecrationem suam. Archiepiscopus autem, sciens quod grave ei immineret exterminium si in curia venire properasset, modis omnibus quaesivit dilationem: tum quia tempus summonitionis brevissimum erat, tum quia ipse graviter infrimabatur. Cumque rex vidisset quod archiepiscopus ad diem ilium non veniret, misit ad eum Robertum comitem Leicestriae, et Reginaldum comitem Cornubiae ad videndum aegritudinem illius. Qui cum venissent, invenerunt ilium in lecto jacentem infirmum, et ad petitionem illius dederunt ei respectum veniendi ad curiam usque mane. Eodem die dictum erat ei et nunciatum a familiaribus regis, quod si ipse ad curiam regis venisset, vel interficeretur, vel in carcerem mitteretur.

Super bis igitur archipraesul habito cum suis familiaribus consilio, per consilium cujusdam sapientis, in crastino antequam ipse ad curiam pergeret, cum summa devotione celebravit missam de Sancto Stephano protomartyre, cujus officium tale est: "Etenim sederunt.principes et adversum me loquebantur, etc.;" et causam suam Summo Judici, Qui Deus est, commendavit. Tamen pro celebratione illius missae, graviter accusatus fuit postmodum a Gileberto Lundoniensi episcopo, qui pro rege loquebatur. Imponebat enim illi Lundoniensis episcopus quod missam illam celebraverat per artem magicam, et in contemptu regis. Itaque post celebrationem missae arcbiepiscopus imposuit collo suo stolam, deinde induit cappam nigram canonicalem, et profectus est statim ad curiam regis. Et statim factus est undique magnus concursus populi, ut viderent finem. Ipse autem crucem suam portabat in manu sua dextra, cum sinistra vero tenebat lorum equi in quo sedebat. Et cum venisset ad aulam regis descendit, et ipse crucem suam bajulans, intravit domum regis. Deinde intravit exteriorem cameram solus portans crucem suam. Nullus enim suorum sequebatur eum. Et cum intrasset, invenit plebem multam in ea, et sedit inter illos. Rex autem erat in secretiori tbalamo cum suis familiaribus.

Tunc venit ex parte regis ad arcbiepiscopum Gilebertus
Lundoniensis episcopus, qui multum increpavit eum, quod sic cruce armatus venit in curia. Et voluit crucem a manibus ejus eripere, sed arcliiepiscopus cam fortius tenuit. Sed Henricus Wintonieusis episcopus dixit Lundoniensi episcopo, "Frater, dimitto archiepiscopum crucem suam tenere; ipse enim debet illam bene portare." Tunc Lundoniensis episcopus multum iratus adversus Wintoniensem episcopum dixit ei, "Male locutus es frater, et malum inde tibi continget, quia contra regem locutus es."

Deinde venit ad eum Rogerus Eboracensis archiepiscopus

"O quotiens vouit blandis accedere dictis
"Et molles adhibere preces,

Sed antiquum odii incendium repugnabat, nec permisit eum quicquam pacifice loqui, immo plurimum increpabat eum, quod sic armatus cruce ad curiam veniret: dicens quod rex gladium habebat acutiorem, et ideo si consilio suo acquiesceret, crucem suam tolleret. At quidam do circumstantibus sic ait,

"Crede mihi; si credis ei, tu decipieris:
"Fistula dulce canit volucres dum decipit auceps;
"Impia sub dulci melle venena latent.

Archiepiscopus autem Cantuariensis crucem suam deponere noluit, sed dicebat, "Si gladius regis carnaliter corpora caedit, gladius meus spiritualiter percutit, et animam mittit in gehennam."

Et dum ipse sederet expectans, dixerunt quidam secreto, quod mors ejus jurata erat a regalibus. Et ex ilia hora quaesivit occasionem recedendi a curia, et ut commodius recedere possit, appellavit ad praesentiam summi pontificis; et causam ecclesiae et suam posuit sub protectione Dei, et domini papae; et praecepit universis episcopis appellationem suam inviolatam servare.

Tunc omnes episcopi laudaverunt ei, ut ipse satis faciens voluntati regis, redderet ei archiepiscopatum suum in misericordia illius, sed archiepiscopus noluit eis inde credere. Tunc mandavit ei rex per milites suos, ut sine dilatione veniret, et redderet ei plenariam computationem de omnibus receptis, quae receperat de redditibus regni, quamdiu cancellarius ejus fuit; et nominatim de triginta millibus librarum argenti. Quibus archiepiscopus respondit: "Dominus meus rex scit, quod ego saepius ei reddidi computationem de omnibus his quae ipse modo a me petit, antequam electus fuissem ad archiepiscopatum Cantuariensem. Et in electione mea Henricus filius ejus, cui regnum adjuratum fuit, et omnes barones scaccarii, et Ricardus de Luci justitiarius Angliae, clamaverunt me quietum, Deo et sanctae ecclesise, de omnibus receptis et computationibus, et ab omni saeculari exactione ex parte domini regis; et sic liber et absolutus electus fui ad hujus officii administration em; et ideo amplius nolo inde placitare." Quod cum regi constaret, dixit baronibus suis, "Cito facite mihi judicium de illo, qui homo meus ligius est, et stare juri in curia mea recusat." Et exeuntes judicaverunt eum capi dignum et in carcerem mitti.

Tunc misit rex Reginaldum comitem Cornubiae et Robertum comitem Leicestriae ad indicandum illi judicium de illo factum. Qui dixerunt ei, "Audi judicium tuum." Quibus archiepiscopus respondit: "Prohibeo vobis ex parte Omnipotentis Dei, et sub anathemate, ne faciatis hodie de me judicium, qui appellavi ad praesentiam domini papae." Dum autem praedicti comites redirent ad regem cum responso illo, archiepiscopus exivit a thalamo, et progrediens per medium illorum venit ad palefridum suum, et ascendit, et exivit ab aula, omnibus clamantibus post eum, et dicentibus: "Quo progrederis, proditor; expecta et audi judicium tuum."

And when it became apparent to the king, so as to afflict him further, he at once sent to him a summons, by proper officers to present himself on the morrow, ready to render to him an account of his stewardship of the kingdom before his consecration. The archbishop, however, knowing that it would mean banishment if he were to hasten to come to the court, by all means ask the question of delay, both because it was a very short time of the summons, because he was seriously ill. And as the king saw that the Archbishop did not come, on that day, he sent to him Robert, Earl of Leicester and Reginald earl of Cornwall, to check upon his illness. And they came and found him lying on his bed, a sick man, and at his request, and because of that they gave him respite, saying that he was to come to the court in the morning. And on that same day it was told to him, as had been told by friends of the king, that if he himself had come to the court of the king that day, he would have been slain, or have been sent to prison.

Twice over the archbishop stayed, therefore, on the advice of his close friends and their wise counsel. On the morrow, before he himself went to the court, and with the greatest devotion, he celebrated the Mass of St Stephen Protomartyr, whose office and words are the following: "For princes sat and spoke against me, and so on.", committing his case to the Supreme Judge, Who is God himself. However, because he had celebrated this mass, he was later seriously accused by Gilbert, bishop of London, who was speaking on behalf of the king. who laid against him the charge that the mass had been celebrated as a means of invoking the art of magic, and in contempt of the king.

Thus, after the celebration of the mass, up to his neck he put on the stole of an archbishop , and then on top put on the black cope of a canon, and straightway made his way to the king's court. And immediately a great crowd of people gathered on all sides to see the outcome. But he, with his own hand, held up his cross, which was carrying in his right hand. In his other hand, the left one, he held the leash of the horse upon which he was sat. And when he had arrived at the court of the king he climbed down, and bearing his cross, entered the  house of the king. Then he entered the outer chamber alone, still carrying his cross, for none of his men followed him. And when he had entered there, he found a lot of people in it, and sat down amongst them. The king was in a  private inner chamber with his close friends.

Then Roger, archbishop of York, came up to him

 "O, how many times she wanted to approach him with sweet words and flatter him with soft prayers."

But the burning fire of an ancient hatred fought against this, and he was not allowed to speak peaceably to him any more; in fact, for the most part, he rebuked him, that he had come to the court with his cross armed in this manner: a sword, saying that the king had a sharper one, through his counsel, and so if he consented, take up his cross. But I will relate to you what some of them that stood by said,

"Trust me, if you trust him, you are deceived;

"The flute sounds sweet to birds while they are as deceived by hawks;

"A Wicked poison lurks hidden beneath sweet honey."

The archbishop of Canterbury, however, said that he did not want to put down his cross, and continued, "If  my body is struck carnally with the sword of the king, my sword will strike spiritually, and send lives to hell."

And, while he was sitting waiting, they whispered to one another saying, his death was sought by the regal jury. And from that hour forward he sought an opportunity to withdraw from the court, and better, for to be able to depart, he appealed the case to the most high Pontiff, and put his cause and that of the church under the protection of God, and the Pope, and he commanded all the bishops to keep inviolate his appeal.

Then all the bishops praised him, and that it was enough for him to do the will of the king, that he should render up his archepiscopate into the mercy of king, but the archbishop did not want to trust them about this.. Then, he was commanded by the king's soldiers to appear before him, that he should come without delay, and render up to him, in full all the revenues of the kingdom which he had received, during the time when he was his chancellor, and to the total of the thirty thousand pounds of silver.

To which the archbishop replied that:

"My lord the king, knows that I have surrendered to him more often sums that total more than all these which he himself now seeks from me, before I became elected as archbishop of Canterbury. And at my election, before Henry his son, to whom the kingdom had been adjured, and all the barons of the exchequer, and Richard de Luci justiciar of England, they declared me, before God and holy church, quit of all receipts and accounts, and from all secular exaction on the part of the lord king. And so I have been free and acquitted, and elected to the administration of this service, and therefore I do not want any more thence to plead."

And when this had become apparent to the king, he said to his barons, "Provide me quickly with the judgment of him who is my liegeman, and declines to stand correctly in my court." And they went out and judged him, that he should be taken and sent to prison.

Then the king sent Reginald, the earl of Leicester, and Robert, Earl of Cornwall, to him for the purpose of informing him of the sentence that had been decided. They said to him, "Listen to your sentence." To which the archbishop replied: "I ​​forbid you, on the part of the Almighty God, and under pain of anathema, not to pass sentence on me this day, when I have appealed the case to the lord Pope." In the meantime these prementioned earls, however, came back with his answer to the king , the archbishop left the chamber, and made his way through the crowd; coming to his palfrey, he mounted, and went forth from the hall,  all  called after him,  saying: "Where are you going, traitor; stay and listen to your sentence."

----

Also another translation

Roger (of Hoveden); trans. Henry Thomas Riley (1853). The annals of Roger de Hoveden: Comprising the history of England and of other countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201. H.G. Bohn. pp. 263–266.

http://archive.org/details/annalsrogerdeho00rilegoog

or

http://archive.org/details/annalsofrogerdeh01hoveuoft

Also

Roger of Hoveden (1853). The Annals of Roger de Hoveden: Comprising The History of England and of Other Countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201. H.G. Bohn. pp. 262–.

https://archive.org/stream/annalsofrogerdeh01hoveuoft#page/262/mode/2up

http://elfinspell.com/Hoveden23.html

....

In the year of grace 1165, being the eleventh year of the reign of king Henry, son of the empress Matilda, the said king assembled a great council at Northampton, where he inflicted great annoyances upon Thomas, the archbishop of Canterbury. For in the first place, the king made his own horses take up their quarters at the archbishop’s lodgings, on which the prelate sent word to the king that he would not come to court until his lodgings had been cleared of the king’s horses and men. On the day after the council, archbishop Thomas came to the king’s court, attended by his suffragan bishops, and demanded his leave immediately to cross the sea to go to pope Alexander, who at this time was staying in France; this, however, he could not obtain; but the king said to him, “You shall first answer me, for the injustice you have done to John, my marshall, in your court.” For this John had made complaint to the king that when he had claimed in the archbishop’s court a certain piece of land against him, as held by hereditary right, and had for a long time impleaded him in respect thereof, he was unable to obtain any redress from him, and had appealed from the jurisdiction of the archbishop’s court upon oath, according to the customs of the kingdom. To this the archbishop made answer: —


“There has been no refusal of justice to John in my court; but he himself (whether by the advice of some one else, or whether of his own free will, I know not,) brought into my court a certain bundle, and took the oath upon it, that in consequence of denial of justice he withdrew from my court; whereas it appeared in the justices of my court that it was he who had done the injustice towards me, in thus withdrawing from my court; as it is one of the statutes of your kingdom which says, ‘If any person shall wish to appeal from the court of another person, he must make oath upon the Holy Evangelists.’ ”

However, the king, paying no attention to Thomas, when he had said these words, made oath that he would have both justice and judgment at his hands. The barons of the king’s court thereupon sentenced him to be amerced by the king, and although the archbishop endeavoured to appeal against this judgment, still, by the entreaties and advice of the barons he suffered himself to be amerced by the king, in the sum of five hundred pounds, and found security for that sum.

Upon this, he retired from the court and went to his lodgings, and, on account of the annoyance and vexation which he felt in his mind, took to his bed and fell extremely ill. When this became known to the king, that he might annoy him still more, he immediately sent to him, and summoned him by trusty summoners, to appear before him on the following day, prepared to give him an account of the stewardship, which he had held in the kingdom before his consecration. The archbishop, however, being sensible that a heavy sentence of banishment awaited him, if he should hasten to make his appearance at the court, sought every excuse for delay; both on the ground of the time given by the summons being extremely short, as also of his severe attack of illness. Upon this, the king seeing that the archbishop would not appear that day, sent to him Robert, earl of Leicester, and Reginald, earl of Cornwall, to be witnesses of his illness. When they came, they found him lying ill in bed, and at his entreaty granted him a respite from coming to the court until the following morning. On the same day it was told him, and word was brought to him by those of the king’s household, that if he appeared at the king’s court, he would either be thrown into prison or put to death.

In consequence of this, the archbishop, after conferring with his friends on these matters, by the advice of a certain prudent person, next morning, before going to the court, celebrated with the greatest devotion the mass of Saint Stephen, the Proto-martyr, the office of which begins to this effect, “Etenim sederunt principes, et adversum me loquebantur,” &c., and commended his cause to the supreme Judge, who is God. Still, for celebrating this mass, he was afterwards severely accused by Gilbert, bishop of London, who spoke in the king’s behalf. For the bishop of London made it an accusation against him, that he had celebrated this mass by means of the magic art, and out of contempt of the king.

After having thus celebrated the mass, the archbishop placed over his shoulders his stole, and then put on his black canonical cape, and forthwith set out for the king’s court. Immediately upon this, a great crowd of people collected together from all quarters to see what would be the end of it. He carried his cross in his right hand, while with the left he held the reins of the horse on which he was seated, and on coming to the king’s palace dismounted, and, still holding the cross, entered the royal mansion; after which, he entered the outer chamber alone, still carrying his cross; but no one of his people followed him thither. On entering the chamber, he found there a great number of the common people, on which he took his seat among them. The king, however, was in his private closet with the persons of his household.

On this, Gilbert, the bishop of London, came to the archbishop on the king’s behalf, and greatly censured him for coming to the court thus armed with the cross, and even tried to wrest it from his hands, but the archbishop grasped it too tightly for him; whereupon, Henry, the bishop of Winchester, said to the bishop of London, “Brother, allow the archbishop to retain the cross; for he ought himself to be well able to carry it.” The bishop of London, being greatly enraged at this remark, turned to the bishop of Winchester, and replied, “Brother, you have spoken to ill purpose, and evil will ensue to you therefrom, inasmuch as you have spoken against the king’s interests.”

Next came to him Roger, the archbishop of York. “Oh, how oft did he wish to approach him with bland requests, and soft entreaties to use!” But the old embers of hatred forbade him so to do, and would not allow him to utter a word in a peaceful way. On the contrary, he uttered the most severe reproaches against him for thus coming to court armed with the cross; saying that the king had a sword which was still sharper, and therefore, if he followed his advice, he would put aside his cross. On this, one of the bystanders made this remark: “Believe me, if you believe him, you will be deceived. The fowler plays sweetly on his pipe while decoying the birds. Beneath sweet honey noxious poisons lie concealed.” However, the archbishop of Canterbury refused to put aside his cross, but said: “If the king’s sword carnally slays the body, my sword pierces spiritually, and sends the soul to hell.” Now while he was sitting there waiting, some persons secretly told him that his death had been sworn by the king’s followers; in consequence of which, from that hour he sought an opportunity for withdrawing from the court, and, that he might more easily withdraw, appealed to the Supreme Pontiff, placing the cause of the Church and of himself under the protection of God and of our lord the pope; and gave orders to all the bishops inviolably to observe his appeal. Upon this, all the bishops advised him to comply with the king’s wishes, and, surrendering his see, throw himself upon his mercy; but the archbishop refused to trust them upon that point.

At this moment the king sent him word by his knights to come to him without delay, and render to him a full account of all the receipts of the revenues of the kingdom during the time that he had been his chancellor. And, in particular, he was questioned with reference to thirty thousand pounds of silver; on which the archbishop made answer: “My lord the king knows that I have often rendered him an account with the reference to all the demands he is now making upon me, before my election to the archbishopric of Canterbury. But, upon my election to that see, the king’s son, Henry, to whom the kingdom was bound by its oath, and all the barons of the exchequer, and Richard de Lucy, the justiciary of England, released me before God and the Holy Church from all receipts and reckonings, and from all secular exactions on behalf of our lord the king, and thus, free and acquitted, was I elected to the administration of the duties of this office; and for that reason do I refuse to plead any further.” The king, upon hearing this, said to his barons: “Make haste and pronounce judgment upon this person, who, being my liege-man, refuses to take his trial in my court;” on which they went forth, and pronounced that he deserved to be arrested and placed in confinement. On hearing this, the king sent to him Reginald, earl of Cornwall, and Robert, earl of Leicester, to inform him of the judgment that had been pronounced upon him; who accordingly said to him: “Listen to the judgment pronounced upon you.” To this, the bishop made answer: “In the name of Almighty God, and under penalty of excommunication, I forbid you this day to pronounce judgment upon me, insomuch as I have appealed unto the presence of our lord the pope.” While the above-named earls were carrying this answer to the king, that archbishop went forth from the chamber, and going through the midst of them, reached his palfrey, and mounting it, left the palace, all the people shouting after him and saying: “Where are you going, traitor? Stop, and hear your sentence!”

When, however, he had arrived at the outer gates, he found them shut, and was in great apprehension of being taken by his enemies, but Almighty God delivered him. For, Peter de Munctorio, one of his servants, espied a number of keys hanging on a nail near the gate, and taking them down, opened it, on which the archbishop sallied forth on horseback, the
king’s porters standing by, and uttering not a word. The archbishop made all haste to arrive at the house of some canons regular, where he was hospitably entertained, and commanded the tables to be set out and all the poor that were to be found before the gates to be introduced to eat and drink in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. This was accordingly done; and he, together with them and his people, becomingly partook of the repast in the refectory of the canons, and, when it was finished, made his bed in the church, between the nave and the altar.

Isabelle de Warrene

Extract from William Fitzstephen. Materials iii, p. 142

...
Eum procumbentem Ricardus Brito percussit tanta vi ut et gladius ad caput ejus et ad ecclesiae pavimentum frangeretur, et ait, 'Hoc habeas pro amore domini mei Willelmi, fratis regis.' Hic siquidem Willelmus appetiverat conjugium comitissae de Warrena, sed archiepiscopus contradixerat, quoniam hic Willelmus ex matre imperatrice Mahalt, ille comes Warennae Willhelmus ex patre rege Stephano, consobrinorum fuerant filii. Unde Willelmus, frater regis Henrici, inconsolabiliter doluit et omnes sui archiepiscopo inimici facti sunt.
...

And whilst prostrated Richard Brito struck his head with such a force that both his sword and the paving of the church cracked, and he said, "You may have this for the love of my lord William, brother of the king." This all followed  from the marriage of William had desired with the Countess of Warren, but which the archbishop had opposed, since this William's mother was the Empress Matilda, and Earl William Warren, his father was King Stephen, it followed they were children of cousins. Hence the soul of William, the brother of King Henry,  was inconsolably grieved, and this made all of them enemies towards the archbishop.

References

House of Warren - Wikipedia

Keith Sidwell (24 August 1995). Reading Medieval Latin. Cambridge University Press. pp. 317–. ISBN 978-0-521-44747-8. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_de_Warenne,_4th_Countess_of_Surrey

The First Signs of Distance between the King and St. Thomas

The Cases of the Cleric from Worcester and the Cleric who Stole a Silver Chalice

Prima distantia regis et sancti Thomae pro quodam clerico, qui in Wirecestriae territorio dicebatur accubuisse filiam cujusdam probi hominis, et pro ea ipsum patrem occidisse. Hunc clericum rex voluit judicio curiae laicae examinari et judicari. Archiepiscopus renitebatur, et clericum illum in custodia episcopi fecit custodiri, ne regis justitiae traderetur. Alia, pro clerico, qui, in ecclesia ipsius archiepiscopi, quae in Londonia est et dicitur ecclesia beatae Mariae in foro, furatus est calicum argenteum, quem comprehensum rex voluit judicio seculari judicari. Archiepiscopus judicio ecclesiae fecit eum exauctorari, et ex abundanti ad regem mitigandum cauteriari.

The first sign of a distance between the king and St. Thomas concerned a cleric from the district of Worcester. It was said that this cleric had lain with the daughter of a certain upright gentleman, and because of her had killed her father. The king wanted this cleric tried in a lay court where he could be examined and sentenced. The Archbishop resisted. He ordered the cleric to be kept in custody by the bishop, and directed that he should not be handed over to the king's justice.

Another case concerned a cleric who had stolen a silver chalice from a church called the Blessed St Mary [Mary-le-Bow], in Cheapside, London, a church belonging to the archbishop himself, and whom, after his arrest, the king wanted to be tried by secular justice.  The archbishop ordered him to be judged by the church, and following his degradation,  had him branded, out of an abundance towards assuaging the king.

References

Frank Barlow (1990). Thomas Becket. University of California Press. pp. 92–. ISBN 978-0-520-07175-9.

Council of Westminster by Anonymous of Lambeth

Council of Westminster by Anonymous of Lambeth

October 1163

Extract from

Thomas Becket (st., abp. of Canterbury.) (1845). Vita s. Thomæ Cantuariensis archiepiscopi et martyris, ab auctoribus contemporaneis, ed. ab I.A. Giles. pp. 88–9. 

Universität Zürich Corpus Corporum

Anonymous

XII. DE ORTU CONTENTIONIS INTER IPSUM ET REGEM.

http://goo.gl/08utzU

XII. DE ORTU CONTENTIONIS INTER IPSUM ET REGEM.

Non multo post autem episcoporum, abbatum et procerum coetum Londoniae colligi contigit, ob negotia regia, pacisque regni firmamentum. Inter ceteras vero quae propositae sunt illic querimonias, accusati sunt archidiaconi super subditos non praelationis tenere modestiam sed exercere tyrannidem, calumniis fatigare laicos et indebitis exactionibus clericos. De cleri quoque numero producti sunt quidam variis flagitiorum criminationibus impetiti. Tales enim praecipue dicebantur regni turbare pacem, novisque facinorum immanitatibus debacchari, securitate per ordinis privilegium evadendi. Correctionem igitur horum rex instanter ab episcopis flagitabat. Amplius autem institit, ut in clericos publicorum criminum reos de ipsorum consilio sibi liceret, quod avitis diebus factum sua curia recolebat; tales enim deprehensos et convictos aut confessos, mox degradari, sicque poenis publicis, sicut et laicos subdi tunc usurpatum est. Hoc idem sibi licere quum instantius rex postularet per episcopos decerni, substiterunt quidem ipsi diutius caventes admittere, quod legi divinae videbatur obviare. Dicit enim Naum propheta, Non judicabit Deus bis in id ipsum. Contra Deum itaque bis judicandos censuisse videri poterant, si post degradationem inconvictis poenam mortis aut mutilationis infligi consensissent. Cavit hoc prudentissimus et rectissimus judicum rex Salomon. Quum enim Abiathar sacerdos reus mortis appareret sicut et Joab, quia contra Salomonem declinassent post Adoniam fratrem ejus ut rex fieret, non tamen sicut Joab, sic et Abiathar Salomon morte punivit, sed a sacerdotio tantum amovit dicens: Vade iu Anathor, agrum tuum: es quidem vir mortis, sed hodie te non interficiam, quia portasti arcam Domini coram patre meo David. Talibus itaque cum archiepiscopo moti pontifices, ad regis arbitrium legem ponere dubitarunt, praesertim ne trahi posset in praejudicium et calumniam innocentium, ut vel ad purgationem urgerentur vel nocentium sorti subderentur. Hinc itaque contentionis exordium. Hinc enim arbitratus rex archiepiscopum cum episcopis in insidiis sibi sedere, regiarumque dignitatibus consuetudinum velle contraire, primum ira non parum excanduit, et deinde promissionem de servandis illis extorquere prosdiit. Illi vero, tractatu seorsim diutius habito, volentes regis iram sedare, cautam putaverunt procurasse responsionem, dum ordine suo salvo petitionem fieri concesserunt. Additionem autem, quam providerant ad cautelam, pars regis interpretata est ad captionem, et super ea detrahenda diutius certatum est, sed episcopis unanimiter subsistentibus tunc obtentum non est. Unde soluto conventu terribiliter efferatus rex et minax abscedens, exinde pontificalium concussionibus rerum officiales suos gravius insistere jussit.

Not long afterwards, however, at an assembly of  bishops, abbots and the nobles in London who happened to be gathered together, on account of the king's business, and in support of the peace of the kingdom, and among other matters which had been properly raised there, there were also some complaints: archdeacons were accused of not keeping hold of their authority and exercising discipline towards their subjects, but instead were behaving with tyrrany and oppressively, harrassing the laity and profiting  by exacting undue monies from the clerics. And concerning some clerics there were a number of whom about which it was brought forward they were accused of certain various scandalous charges. These were of such kind which were said to be disrupting the peace of the kingdom, and the news of the barbarity and debauchery of their deeds, and freely without any care, by the privilege of their order, were evading justice. It was on account of these therefore that the king urgently demanded from the bishops an immediate rectification. Furthermore he insisted, that in order to allow the prosecution of those clerics accused of committing public crimes, he wanted to bring back those practices which were in force in the courts in the time of his grandfather. For such persons who have been caught and who have been convicted or have confessed, and have subsequently been degraded, they should thus be received for public punishment as if they were lay persons, and subject to seizure. This same matter they were going to permit since the king had asked for it very forcibly to be decided by the bishops, but indeed, they held themselves back for a long time from having to allow it, as they saw it as being be prevented by the divine laws. 

Indeed Nahum, the prophet, said that God does not judge the same case twice. It would be seem to God, therefore, if they were to seen to concur with this, as permitting a double punishment, if the convict, after having been degraded, they were also to agree that he could be subjected to the death penalty or mutilation. 

The most foreseeing and most virtuous judge, king Solomon, warned of this, just as when indeed Abiathar, the priest, who was evidently a defendant in a case involving the death penalty, and Joab who had turned against Solomon, so that his [Solomon's] brother, Adonijah, could become king. However, Joab and Abiathar were not dealt with in the same way. Solomon wanted to sentence them both to death, but to Abiathar, who had moved so far away from being a priest he said,

"Go back to Anathoth, to your fields. You are indeed worthy of being put to death, but today I will not have you die, because you carried the Ark of the Lord personally for my father, David."

So it was with the such a line of reasoning therefore that the archbishop moved the pontiffs. They hesitated having the law dragged more towards the arbitration of the king, particularly that he would not able to betray into the prejudgement and false accusation of the innocent, as either they might be pushed hard towards having purge themselves, or they might find themselves in the fate of being subdued as criminals. 

Hence, therefore, here was the beginning of the contention. Hence, indeed, the king observed that the archbishop together with the bishops were themselves sitting in ambush, and wishing to oppose the authority of the royal customs; his anger not a little burned at first, but he then tried to extort promises from those who required security. Those considerations aside, aware of the day-to-day requirements of living, they wanted to appease the anger of the king, by providing  a more carefully thought out answer, and hence granted the request of his petition, "saving their order".

In addition, nonetheless, which they had foreseen about the security of their living, it was explained that the king had the right to deprive them of part  of their land, and above that to take that away longer, but he did not prevent the unanimity of the bishops by this pretense.

Hence this was the outcome of the conference: the king was terribly furious and threatened to leave. From then on, with the bishops shook up, he ordered his officials to pursue matters on a more serious footing.

References

Dorothy Whitelock; Martin Brett; Christopher Nugent Lawrence Brooke (1981). "#158: Royal Council of Westminster". Councils & Synods: With Other Documents Relating to the English Church. A.D.871-1204. Volume I. Part II 1066-1204. Clarendon Press. pp. 848–52. ISBN 978-0-19-822394-8. 

Patrologiae cursus completus: sive biblioteca universalis,integra uniformis, commoda, oeconomica, omnium SS. Patrum, doctorum scriptorumque eccelesiasticorum qui ab aevo apostolico ad usque Innocentii III tempora floruerunt ... [Series Latina, in qua prodeunt Patres, doctores scriptoresque Ecclesiae Latinae, a Tertulliano ad Innocentium III]. 1854. Col. 287. http://books.google.com/books?id=UfEQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA295.

James Craigie Robertson. Materials for the history of Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury (canonized by Pope Alexander III., A.D. 1173).. Vol. IV.. Longman & co.. pp. 95–7. 
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50321s/f128.image
 

Jeremy Collier (1840). An ecclesiastical history of Great Britain, chiefly of England, from the first planting of Christianity, to the end of the reign of King Charles the second: with a brief account of the affairs of religion in Ireland. Printed for W. Straker. pp. 230–. 

Frederic William Maitland (1 July 1998). Roman Canon Law in the Church of England: Six Essays 1898. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.. pp. 138–. ISBN 978-1-886363-57-1. 
http://archive.org/details/romancanonlawin00maitgoog


Toutant, Mary Aimee du Sacre-Coeur. “An Annotated Translation of the Life of St. Thomas Becket by an Anonymous Author Number 2” (1944). Master's Theses. Paper 403. http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/403
 

Irresistible Force Paradox

Question: "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?"

Answer: "Martyrs and saints are generated."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox

The story of the Constitutions of Clarendon, which eventually led to the murder of Thomas Becket in Canterbury cathedral, and his subsequent beatification and canonization as a saint and martyr, is one about two of the most willful and stubborn people in all of history: Henry the second, king of England, who would want his authority and will acted upon and obeyed in all matters, and Thomas Becket,archbishop of Canterbury, who refused to surrender the liberties of the church to the king. Thomas Becket was the immovable object; King Henry was the irresistible force.

The story is about how the paradox was eventually resolved.

Clarembald

Clarembald [Clarembaldus/Clarembertus], a Norman secular priest, with the reputation of being a hugely dissolute person, and previously Prior of Montacute and St. Mary's, Thetford, in 1161, was foisted upon the monks of St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, by King Henry II as their abbot. They did not want him. St. Augustine's was perhaps the oldest and most famous monastic establishment in the whole of the country, having been founded by St. Augustine himself.  It was also one of the richest institutions in the country. Its head was one of the few "Mitred Abbots" of England, an appointment equivalent in rank to a bishop, a baron, with the right to be summoned and sit in the king's Concilium Magnum, as a Lord Spiritual, to give him counsel in the matters of import in regard to the running of the kingdom. Clarembald wanted the riches of the Abbey for his own personal use and profit. The monks of St. Augustine's were very angry with the king about this, and refused to allow Clarembald to enter their chapter-house, celebrate mass, or undertake any other sacred function in their church. But he still managed to have control of the whole temporalities  of the monastery and its land and produce, having obtained the custody of the monastery's common seal.

Clarembald claimed and asserted, as some of his predecessors had also done before him, that the post of Abbot of  St. Augustine's was exempt from archiepiscopal jurisdiction. He demanded that Becket should therefore come to grant him the customary pastoral benediction and blessing for the appointment within the precincts his own monastery, and not for him to have to go to the cathedral, and also without the need to profer any oath of canonical obedience to the archbishop. Becket refused to do this. It was said that the king had encouraged Clarembald in this matter in revenge for Becket's opposition to him. And this has been recorded in the-then contemporary mansucripts as one of the first major causes of dissension between the king and Becket. 

Later on, at the time of Becket's murder Clarembald had offered accommodation to the four knights, on the night before the murder.

Clarembald was never made full abbot, never confirmed in his position and for the next 15 years remained only as abbot-elect, during which time it was said that he wasted the property of the community. In 1168 there had been a major, and the abbey had burned down. According to one account Clarembald had fathered no less than seventeen bastards on one of the monastery’s manors, contrary to the principle of clerical celibacy. In 1173 he was formally deposed, following an investigation that had been set up by the pope at the behest of the monks of the abbey.

Footnote and Aftermath [Link]

Abbot Clarembald appears neither to have received benediction nor to have made profession, his own peculiar position and the strained relations between the king and Becket doubtless accounting for this; His successor, Roger, however, practically secured the victory. The archbishop rejected his claim to be blessed in the abbey with only a modified form of the oath of profession, and the matter was decided by Pope Alexander III, before whom Roger appeared in person. The forged privilegium of Augustine and other documents were produced and declared to be genuine by the pope, who ruled that the archbishops should give benediction in the abbey without any profession of obedience, and that failing this the abbots should go to receive benediction from the pope. He himself blessed Roger in 1179, and moreover granted him permission to wear the mitre and other insignia, a right which the abbots since Egelsin had dropped on account of the opposition of the archbishops. There is no doubt about the matter, for it is admitted by the cathedral party, Gervase bitterly lamenting that not even lavish expenditure of money had availed to prevent it. A formal agreement was made between the abbot and the archbishop in 1182,  and in 1185 Archbishop Baldwin was amicably and respectfully received at the abbey. 

References

Clarembald (DNB00) - Wikisource

Editor W.
A History of the County of Kent: Volume 2 (pp. 126-133).
Houses of Benedictine monks - The abbey of St Augustine, Canterbury 
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=38191

James CRAIGIE ROBERSTON (1859). Becket, archbishop of Canterbury: A. Biography. John Murray. pp. 94–.

James CRAIGIE ROBERSTON (1859). Becket, archbishop of Canterbury: A. Biography. John Murray. pp. 332–4.
Other links

John Morris (1859). The life and martyrdom of saint Thomas Becket archb. of Canterbury. Longman, Brown. pp. 235–.

James J. Spigelman (1 June 2004). Becket & Henry: The Becket Lectures. James Spigelman. pp. 122–. ISBN 978-0-646-43477-3.
James J. Spigelman (1 June 2004). Becket & Henry: The Becket Lectures. James Spigelman. pp. 287–. ISBN 978-0-646-43477-3

William E. Phipps (10 September 2004). Clerical Celibacy: The Heritage. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 138–. ISBN 978-0-8264-1617-9.

Henry Charles Lea (1 August 2003). History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church. Kessinger Publishing. pp. 234–. ISBN 978-0-7661-7337-8. 

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=38191
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=63693

St Augustine's Abbey - Wikipedia

House of Lords - Wikipedia

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) - Abbey of Saint Augustine - Wikisource

Machadoink.com (1852) The Mills, Canterbury. 

Edward Churton (1840). The early English church. J. Burns.

G. F. MacLear . S. Augustine's Canterbury: Its Rise, Ruin, And Restoration. Kessinger Publishing. pp. 17–. ISBN 978-1-4179-6432-1.
http://anglicanhistory.org/england/sac/maclear1888/02.html

George Frederick Maclear (1888). S. Augustine's Canterbury: Its Rise, Ruin, and Restoration. W. Gardner, Darton, & Company.

http://anglicanhistory.org/england/sac/maclear1888/

Thomas Tanner (1744). Notitia monastica: or, An account of all the abbies, priories, and houses of friers, heretofore in England and Wales; and also of all the colleges and hospitals founded before A.D. MDXL.. William Bowyer, at the expense of the Society. pp. 2–.

John Stevens; Sir William Dugdale (1723). The history of the antient abbeys, monasteries, hospitals, cathedral and collegiate churches: Being two additional volumes to Sir William Dugdale's Monasticon anglicanum: containing the original and first establishment of all the religious orders that ever were in Great Britain ... not spoken of by Sir William Dugdale, and Mr. Dodsworth. The foundations of their several monasteries .... Printed for T. Taylor. pp. 69–.

William Dugdale (1846). Monasticon Anglicanum...a History of the Abbies and Other Monasteries...and Cathedral and Collegiate Churches...in England and Wales. Bohn. pp. 90–.

David Knowles; C. N. L. Brooke; Vera C. M. London (9 August 2001). The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, I 940-1216. Cambridge University Press. pp. 36–. ISBN 978-1-139-43074-6.

John Caley; Bulkeley Bandinel; Sir Henry Ellis (1823). Monasticon Anglicanum: A History of the Abbies and Other Monasteries, Hospitals, Frieries, and Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, with Their Dependencies, in England and Wales; Also of All Such Scotch, Irish, and French Monasteries as Were in Any Manner Connected with Religious Houses in England .... Longman. pp. 569–.

William Thorne; Thomas Sprott (1934). William Thorne's Chronicle of Saint Augustine's abbey, Canterbury. B. Blackwell.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2853901?uid=3738928&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101771594687
Translation of William Thorne's Chronicle of St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury [specimen Pages.]. s.n., 193. http://books.google.com/books?id=9XKAQwAACAAJ.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=uUsTUYTfKaSE4ATYoIGgBw&id=3ZtlAAAAMAAJ&dq=thorne+augustine&q=clarembald#search_anchor

http://archive.org/stream/historiaeanglica00twys#page/n952/mode/1up
http://archive.org/stream/historiaeanglica00twys#page/n983/mode/1upSelden (1652). Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores X. Siméon monachus Dunelmensis, Johannes Prior Hagustaldensis, Ricardus Prior Hagustaldensis, Ailredus Abbas Rievallensis, Radulphus de Diceto Londoniensis, Johannes Brompton Jornallensis, Gervasius Monachus Dorobornensis, Thomas Stubbs Dominicanus, Guilielmus Thorn Cantuariensis, Henricus Knighton Leicestrensis Ex vetustis manuscriptis, nunc primum in lucem editi, adjectis variis lectionibus glossario indiceque copioso. typis Jacobi Flesher, sumptibus Cornelii Bee. pp. 1835–.

http://archive.org/details/monasticonanglic00dugd

Gervase
Historiae anglicanae scriptores X. Simeon monac...

Joseph Berington (1790). The history of the reign of Henry the Second, and of Richard and John, his sons: with the events of the period, from 1154-1216. In which the character of Thomas a Becket is vindicated from the attacks of George, lord Lyttelton ...
. Printed by M. Swinney. pp. 232–.Becket letters
fds.oup.com-www.oup.com-pdf-13-9780198222651.pdf
http://archive.org/stream/historiaeanglica02sime#page/n75/mode/1up

Diceto Clarembald, abbot of, i. 308, 354 ; ii. 279. 

38 Herb i  31 Gervase 1382 

Gervase
Col 1432:
http://archive.org/stream/historiaeanglica02sime#page/n74/mode/1up

Diceto

534:

http://www.archive.org/stream/historiaeanglica01sime#page/422/mode/1up/search/clarembaldus

561:

http://www.archive.org/stream/historiaeanglica01sime#page/436/mode/1up/search/clarembaldus

713:

http://www.archive.org/stream/historiaeanglica01sime#page/512/mode/1up/search/clarembaldus

http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1477&context=luc_theses p. 20

Letter 67. Archbishop Theobald to  Pope Adrian IV

Begging Pope Adrian to command that  the Abbot of St. Augustine's to make a profession of obedience to him.

1165

In a letter dated from Montpelier July 10, 1165, Alexander III ordered Clarembald to make his profession

of obedience to Thomas

Jaffé Regesta 11217

https://archive.org/stream/regestapontific00jaffgoog#page/n205/mode/1up

Antecessorum nostrorum

Jacques-Paul Migne (1855). Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina:  Volume 200 Epistola CCCLIX: excudebat Migne. col. 383.

1168

11392 (7604) Henrico, Anglorum regi, significat, litteras eius a Clarembaldo electo S. Augustini, Reginaldo archidiacono Sarisberiensi, Simone de Carcere, Henrico de Northamtune redditas sibi esse. Thomae, archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, interdictum esse, "ne in regem aut in terram eius vel in personas regni eius, interdicti seu excom- municationis sententiam, donec rex eum in gratiam reciperet, proferre ulla ratione attentaret, aut in aliquo gravare praesumeret" quoniam inquit "litteras illas, quas anno praeterito per nuncios tuos ultimo destinavimus (ep. 11302 d. d. 20. Dec. 1166), viribus de cetero constat carere, si archiepiscopus interim te aut terram tuam vel personas regni in aliquo gravare praesumpserit, praesentes litteras poteris in argumentum nostrae voluntatis ostendere". Quam rex "in scriptis suis vel legatis varietatem invenerit", excusat. (Mense Maio a. 1168 datam esse epistolam hanc, probat Reuter U. 620 sq.) Epist. S. Thomae ed. Lupus p. 630, ed. Giles II. 128, Migne 200 p. 464. "Excellentiae tuae nuncios".

1176

Clarembald was removed by Alexander III in 1176.

See John of Salisbury  Giles Letter 310

John (of Salisbury, Bishop of Chartres) (1848). Joannis Saresberiensis opera omnia. Nunc primum in unum collegit et cum codicibus manuscriptis: Epistolae.  Epistola CCCX: J. H. Parker. pp. 268–.

Translation:-

http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1671&context=luc_theses p.151-

Letter 326/310 Bishops Bartholomew of Exeter and Roger of Worcester to Pope Alexander III

late 1175 - early 1176

Other Jaffé Regesta references

1176

12707 (8440) Monachos S. Augustini Cantuarienses hortatur, ut dejecto Clarembaldo,
alium sibi abbatem sumant. Hist. mon. S. Aug. Cant. p. 413. (Chron. W. Thom ap.
Twysden H. A. SS. H. 1818, Migne 200 p. 1080). "Auditis olim".

12708 (8441) Capitulo S. Augustini Cantuariensi petente, "quidquid Clarembaldus, quon-
dam electus, de bonis ecclesiae absque consilio et assensu totius capituli in ejus
praeiudicium fecerit", rescindit. Hist. mon. S. Aug. Cant. p. 415. (Chron. W. Thom
ap. Twysden H. A. SS. H. 1818, Migne 200 p. 1080). "Nostrae sollicitudinis est".

12709 Capitulo S. Augustini Cantuariensi concedit, "ne quisquam, abbas sive praelatus,
ecclesiae eorum pueros infra XV. annos in monachili habitu suscipiat". Hist. mon.
S. Aug. Cant. p. 427. "Nostrae sollicitudinis est".

12710 Capitulo S. Augustini Cantuariensi petente, domui eorum eleemosynariae asserit
ecclesiam S. Augustini Northbumensem. Hist. mon. S. Aug. Cant. p. 448. "Iustis
petentium desideriis".

12711 Capitulo S. Aug. Cantuariensi petente, ecclesiae eomm "combustae et omnino
fere destructae ad reparationem ipsius ecclesiae" asserit ecclesiam Faureshamensem.
Hist. mon. S. Aug. Cant. p. 429. "Cum ecclesia vestra"

12712 Capitulo S. Augustini Cantuariensi concedit, "ne quisquam, abbas sire praelatus,
ecclesiae eorum segrestaniam (sacristaniam) vel camerariam absque consensu totius
capituli ad firmam dare vel sibi usurpare praesumat". Hist. mon. S. Aug. Cant. p. 426.
"Nostrae sollicitudinis est".

12179 (8377) B(artholomaeo) Exoniensi et R(ogero) Wigomiensi episcopis et (Clarem-

baldo) abbati Faureshamensi mandat, ut monasterium S. Augustini Cantuariense, 

"quod non solum in temporalibus, sed et in spiritualibus ad ultimum venisse de-

fectum videatur", reformare studeant, utque, si cognoverint, quod absque amotione

electi (Clarembaldi) et quorundam monachomm reformari non possit, eos amoveant

aliasque idoneas personas substituant. Liverani Spicil. Liber. p. 546, (Chronica

W. Thom ap. Twysden H. A. SS. IL 1817). "Cum ex suscepti".

J.A. Froude (1877). The Living Age Thomas Becket: Living Age Company. pp. 5–.