Monday, 30 June 2025

God's Powers, and Mankind's Responsibilities; and the Start of the Quarrels between the King and Thomas Becket

129

Mult par est Deus vaillanz, forz e de grant bunté,
Quant il le cuer de l’ume a einsi tost turné.
Car il n’a suz ciel rei de si grant poesté
Ki puisse pas turner le quer ne le pensé
645 De nul hume suz ciel, ultre sa volenté.

130

Mes Deus l’ad tost turné, quant li plest e il volt,
E tost li fait haïr ceo que plus amer solt ;
De malveis le fet bon, entre les bons l’acolt.
Cil se repent forment, de ses mesfaiz se dolt ;
650 Itele penitence devant Deu suëf olt.

131

Pur ceo ne se deit pas clerc ne lai merveillier,
[21] Ne folement tenir Deu pur nun dreiturier,
S’alquanz volt de pechié retraire e redrecier,
E les alquanz i lest murir e trebuchier.
655 Le felon n’aime pas, mes le bon umme a chier.

132

Ne het pas Deus les humes, mes il het lur folie ;
E cunuist bien lur quers e trestute lur vie ;
Set bien ke cist sera feniz en felonie
E cist en bone fin. A cestui Deus aïe,
660 Si tost cum se repent e mal’ovre ad guerpie.

133

Deus cunuist mult bien tuz cels ki serunt salvé ;
Cil sunt tant sulement a vie destiné.
E si conuist Deus bien cels ki serunt dampné ;
Nes volt pas rapeler de lur iniquité ;
665 Purveü sunt a mort, car mal erent finé.

134

Cil ki sunt a dampner, purveü sunt a mort ;
De lur dampnatiun n’i a mes nul resort.
E si Deus les salvot, deable fereit tort.
En pechié finerunt, ne purrunt prendre port ;
670 La dunt nuls ne resurt charrunt al pudlent gort.

135

Deus n’esforce nullui de fere bien u mal ;
A chescun a duné franche force e igal,
Ke chescun en pot fere, s’il volt, u bien u al.
Cel salve Deus e aime que il trove leal,
675 E celui het e damne k’il troeve trop charnal.

136

Quant l’egle a ses pulcins fez el ni eschapir,
Encontre le soleil lur fait les oilz ovrir ;
Cel ki le rai ne pot esguarder ne suffrir
Cel fet del ni aval trebuchier e chaïr.
680 Ki Deu ne volt amer, Deus nel volt pas nurrir.

137

Deus ad a tuz duné sens e force e poeir.
A chescun lest ovrer tut sulunc sun voleir ;
E quant hum pur mesfere met Deu a nunchaleir
E despent en pechié sa force e sun saveir,
[22] 685 Volez vus dunc jugier que Deus le deit aveir ?

138

L’eschelguaite est la sus el pinnon de cel munt ;
Veit les larrons el val ki embuschié se sunt
Pur prendre les errantz ki par le chemin vont.
Cil les veient tresbien, sevent k’il les prendront,
690 E tut a escïent a els prendre se funt.

139

E quant nus nus volum a escïent damner,
Quidiez vus que nus voile a force Deus salver ?
Il est la sus el ciel ; noz ovres esguarder
Al jugement vendra, e bons e mals prover ;
695 As malfez en lerra tuz lur servanz mener.

140

E se Deus salvot nul d’els ki a damner sunt,
As altres fereit tort, ki senz fin perirunt ;
S’en salvot un, par dreit salvereit tut le munt.
Mes li bon e li mal dreit jugement avront,
700 E sulunc lur deserte merite recevront.

141

E se l’um me demande pur quei cil bien fereit,
Ki sera desperdu, quant pas nel guarireit,
Encuntre li respun, certes, ke il mescreit :
Li plus malveis del mund guarantir se purreit,
705 Si guerpisseit le mal e a Deu se perneit..

142

Deus nus apele tuz a sun regne, li pius,
Sarazins e paens, cristïens e geius.
Li uns est clerveanz e li autres est cius ;
Poi suffist tel i a, li autre quiert granz fius.
710 La u chescun est pris, est apresté sis lius.


143

Sa femme aime li uns plus ke il ne fait sei ;
Pur creistre ses enfanz ublie Deu, le rei ;
Pur aveir purchacier enfraint suvent la lei,
E plusurs deserite, e emble e ment sa fei,
715 E parjure e usure, del tut vit a bedlei.

144

De bien faire purquant ne se deit nul targier ;
Einsi se pot chescun de peine deschargier,
[23] Nis cil ki en enfern serunt senz recovrier ;
Li biens k’il avront fet les pot mult alegier.
720 Purquant a sei salver deit chescun travailier.

145

Segnur, pur ceo vus di : lessez le mal ester ;
Ceo que avez mesfet pensez de l’amender.
Ne dormez en pechié, pensez vus d’aprester,
Quant Deus vendra pur vus, od li pussez aler
725 E od lampes ardanz en pareïs monter.

146

Se vus ne cremez Deu, cremez enfern ki art,
U nuls ki entera n’en istra par nul art.
As bons humes pernez, ki unt esté, reguart,
E a meint pecheür que Deus prist a sa part,
730 Al seint martyr Thomas, ki fu ocis or tart.

147

Asez avez oï quels il esteit jadis.
Mordanz ert cume lous, quant l’ainel a suppris,
Mesfaisanz ert e fers, e quereit los e pris ;
Or ert simples e dulz, despiseit vair e gris.
735 E cum plus ama Deu, tant fu il del rei pis.

148

Car si tost cum il fu sacrez a cel’honur,
De la parole Deu se fist preecheür,
E del tut entendi al suverain seignur.
Ne sai se pur ceo l’a li reis pris en haür,
740 Mes d’iloec en avant l’esluina de s’amur.

149

Le premier maltalent vus sai jeo bien mustrer.
Car al rei enveia maistre Ernulf ultre mer :
Sun seel li rendeit, ceo li manda li ber.
Dunc se prist durement li reis a emflamber :
745 « Pur les olz Deu, fet il, nel voldra mes guarder ?


Translation

129

God manifests Himself as  all-powerful, strong and of great goodness, 
When He has turned the heart of man so quickly. 
For there is no king under heaven with such great power 
Who can turn the heart or the thought 
Of any man under heaven, beyond his will.

130

But God turns it quickly, when He pleases and wants, 
And soon makes him hate what he used to love most; 
He turns evil into good, among the good he gathers. 
He repents greatly, when he grieves for his misdeeds; 
Such penitence is sweet before God.

131

For this reason, neither cleric nor layman should marvel, 
Nor foolishly hold God as unjust, 
If someone wishes to withdraw from sin and correct himself, 
And some wish to die and stumble there. 
The wicked He does not love, but the good man is cherished.

132

God does not hate men, but He hates their folly; 
And He knows well their hearts and all their lives; 
He knows well that this one will end in wickedness 
And this one in a good end. To this God aids, 
As soon as he repents and has turned away from evil.

133

God knows well all those who will be saved; 
They are only [ones] destined for [everlasting] life [in Heaven]. 
And God knows well [all] those who will be damned; 
He does not wish to recall them from their iniquity; 
They are destined for death, for they were evil in the end.

134

Those who are to be damned are destined for death;
From their damnation, there is no escape.
And if God saves them, the devil would be wronged.
In sin they ended, they cannot take refuge;
From which no one can rescue them from the painful torment.

135

God does not compel anyone to do good or evil; 
To each He has given free will and equally, 
So that each can do, if he wishes, either good or evil. 
God saves and loves the one He finds loyal, 
And He hates and damns those He finds too carnal.

136

When an eagle has its chicks in a nest, 
The sun causes their eyes to open; 
Those who cannot bear to look at its rays cannot survive. 
This causes the nest to stumble and fall. 
He who does not wish to love God, God does not wish to nourish.

137

God has given all sense and strength and power. 
To each is given to work solely according to his will; 
And when Mankind, for wrongdoing, puts God to shame 
And spends in sin his strength and his knowledge, 
Do you then wish to judge that God should have it?

138

There is a lookout high up there upon the peak of this mountain; 
He sees the thieves in the valley who have concealed themselves 
To capture the travellers who want to pass along the way.
They [the travellers] also see them very well, they know that they will be ambushed by them, 
And [they know that willfully] all in sight have designs to capture them.

139

And how many of us want to know to condemn,
What do you say that we want God to save by force?
He is up there in heaven; our works will be examined
At the [Day of] Judgement, and both the good and the bad will be tried;
As the wicked [devils] will lead away all those who serve them to Hell.

140

And if God saved anyone who is to be condemned,
He would do wrong to the others, who will perish without end;
If one is saved, by right he would save the whole world.
But the good and the bad will have a just judgement,
And [judged them] according to their deserved merit, they will receive [their justice] .

141

And if someone asks me why this is well done,
Who will despair when he is not cured?
In reply, certainly, let him be mistaken:
The most evil person in the world could protect himself [from eternal damnation],
If only he cured his disease and trusted in [turned to] God.

142

God summons us all to His kingdom: the pious,
Saracens and pagans, Christians and Jews.
One may be a clear-sighted and another may be blind;
One may have been satisfied with little; the other may have sought great wealth.
When each one is taken [from this life], he is ready for the final decision about his place [for eternity]. 

143

Some men love their wives more than themselves 
To raise their children, they frequently forget God, the king;
To have more [wealth and gains], they often break God's commandments,
And many forsake, and lie and betray their faith,
And perjure themselves and lend money at usury, and spend their whole lives in perfidy [outside the law].

144

No one should hesitate to do good
Everyone can avoid punishment
Even those who are destined for Hell
Without any hope of recourse can surely alleviate their punishment.
This is why everyone must work for their own salvation

145

Lord, for this I tell you: let the evil be.
If what you have done is wrong, think to amend it.
Do not sleep in sin, think you to prepare,
For when God will come for you, with Him you may go
And with the lamps ablaze ascend into Paradise.

146

If you do not burn for God, then burn in a Hell that truly burns,
Where no one who enters therein comes out by any craft or means.
Take the good men who have been, and look,
To the many sinners whom God has taken to His part,
And to the Saint Martyr Thomas, who was murdered of late.

147

So you have heard what he once was.
He was fierce like a wolf, when the lamb was caught,
He was wicked and wild, and sought glory and praise;
Now he is simple and gentle, despising blue and gray.
And as he loved God more, he was the king's worst.

148

For as soon as he was consecrated to that honour,
He became the preacher of the word of God,
And entirely understood the sovereign Lord.
I do not know if for this the king took him in disdain,
But from then on he shone with love.

149

Of the first quarrel [between the King and Thomas] I know well how to relate it to you.
For the King had sent Master Arrnulf [of Lisieux] across the sea [to him]:
His seal [of the office of chancellorship] he had returned to him [the King], this the Messenger told him. Then the King took it hard and blew up in anger:
“By the eyes of God,” he [the King] said, “does he not want to defend himself?

Question of the Authorship of the Constitutions of Clarendon

 

Introduction: The Quarrel Solidified in Text


The Constitutions of Clarendon, a set of sixteen articles promulgated in January 1164, represent a watershed moment in the history of English law and the perennial medieval struggle between secular and ecclesiastical power.1 Far more than a simple legislative act, the document was the textual embodiment of a profound conflict between two of the twelfth century's most formidable personalities: King Henry II of England and his former chancellor, Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury.3 To ask who was the "author" of this document is to pose a question that cannot be answered with a single name. The modern concept of authorship, implying a sole creator of a text, is anachronistic when applied to the complex political and legal processes of the Angevin court. The Constitutions were not written; they were forged in the crucible of a power struggle, a product of royal will, expert legal craftsmanship, coerced political legitimation, and principled opposition.

This report seeks to deconstruct the notion of authorship as it pertains to the Constitutions of Clarendon by examining the distinct roles played by the key figures involved. It will argue that the creation of this pivotal document is best understood through a four-part model:

  1. The Political Author: The individual whose will, ambition, and political agenda were the driving force behind the document's conception and creation.

  2. The Technical Authors: The legal and administrative experts who translated political will into the precise, and often provocative, language of the text.

  3. The Formal Recognizers: The political assembly of the realm's great men whose formal assent was sought to provide the document with the veneer of legitimacy as established custom.

  4. The Defining Opponent: The figure whose steadfast resistance to the document shaped its historical trajectory and cemented its notoriety for centuries to come.

By analyzing the genesis of the Constitutions through this framework, it becomes clear that while King Henry II was the document's undeniable political architect and prime mover, he was not its sole creator. The text was drafted by his trusted justiciars, legitimized by a council of magnates, and ultimately defined by the very man it was designed to control: Thomas Becket.


Section I: The Royal Will - King Henry II as Political Author


King Henry II was the unambiguous political author of the Constitutions of Clarendon. The document was a direct manifestation of his overarching political project: to restore and expand royal authority, to create a uniform system of justice throughout his realm, and to subordinate all competing powers, including the formidable institution of the Church, to the authority of the Crown.2 His personal will and political agenda were the sole reasons for the document's existence, and its content reflects his specific grievances and strategic objectives.

Henry's primary justification for this assertion of power was the restoration of "ancestral customs." The preamble to the Constitutions explicitly frames the text not as an innovation, but as a "remembrance or recognition of a certain part of the customs, liberties, and dignities of his predecessors, viz of King Henry his grandfather".5 This was a shrewd political strategy. The reign of his predecessor, Stephen (1135-1154), had been a period of civil war and weakened royal authority known as "the Anarchy," during which the Church had significantly extended its jurisdiction and privileges.1 By claiming to be merely restoring the state of affairs that existed under his powerful grandfather, Henry I, he cast his reforms in a conservative light, making them appear as a return to order rather than a radical power grab.1 This narrative of restoration was a powerful tool for legitimizing what were, in fact, significant encroachments on ecclesiastical independence.

The most pressing issue that served as the catalyst for the Constitutions was the problem of "criminous clerks"—members of the clergy, a group that included not just priests but anyone in even minor holy orders, who were accused of serious secular crimes like robbery or murder.1 Henry II was infuriated that these individuals were subject only to the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. Under the principle of "benefit of clergy," these courts could not impose punishments involving bloodshed, meaning a cleric convicted of murder might only be defrocked (dismissed from his office) and fined.1 In Henry's royal courts, such a crime would be punished by mutilation or death.1 The king saw this as a grave injustice and a threat to the peace of his kingdom.8 Clause 3 of the Constitutions was his direct and most controversial solution, proposing a complex procedure whereby a clerk would be accused in a royal court, tried in a church court in the presence of a royal justice, and, if convicted and defrocked, returned to the royal court for secular punishment.6

Several other clauses directly reflect Henry's personal determination to assert royal prerogative over a defiant Church. Clause 7, which forbade the excommunication of the king's tenants-in-chief or officials without prior royal consent, is widely believed to be a direct response to an incident in July 1163 when Archbishop Becket excommunicated a royal vassal, William of Eynsford, without consulting the king, an act that enraged Henry.5 Likewise, Clause 4, which required high-ranking clergy to obtain royal permission before leaving the kingdom, was a pointed reassertion of a Norman custom designed to prevent unauthorized appeals to the Pope in Rome, thereby keeping ecclesiastical disputes under royal control.2

Perhaps Henry's most critical and strategic act of authorship was not in conceiving the individual clauses, but in demanding that these unwritten "customs" be formally codified in writing at the council held at his hunting lodge in Clarendon.4 This was a political masterstroke. It transformed a fluid and debatable set of oral traditions and practices into a rigid, sixteen-point legal text. This act of codification forced the bishops into a binary choice: either formally accept the king's written definition of royal authority with their seals, or openly defy him. Henry's authorship, therefore, was not one of mere penmanship but of sophisticated political architecture. He skillfully weaponized the concept of "custom" and the technology of writing to construct a legal and political framework intended to permanently subordinate the English Church to his will. The document itself was an act of statecraft, designed to create an unassailable legal fact on the ground.


Section II: The Archbishop's Defiance - Why Thomas Becket Was Not the Author


The proposition that Thomas Becket authored the Constitutions of Clarendon, particularly in his former capacity as Lord Chancellor, is historically untenable. His role was not that of a creator but of the document's most determined and consequential opponent. His resistance was so profound that it defined the Constitutions' historical significance and ultimately led to his own martyrdom.1

A simple examination of the timeline refutes any possibility of Becket's authorship. Becket served as Henry's loyal and effective Chancellor from 1155 to 1162.11 During this period, he was the king's closest friend and a staunch defender of royal interests, often at the expense of the Church.4 The conflict that produced the Constitutions began only

after Henry engineered Becket's appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1162. Upon his consecration, Becket underwent a profound transformation, resigning the chancellorship against the king's wishes—a move that signaled his dramatic shift in allegiance from the Crown to God and the Church.8 He adopted an ascetic lifestyle and began to champion ecclesiastical rights with the same vigor he had once shown for royal power.4 The Constitutions of 1164 were the direct result of this new conflict; they were Henry's response to the defiance of the man who was once his closest ally.

At the Council of Clarendon in January 1164, Becket did not draft the articles; he led the resistance against them. He was horrified by what he saw as an assault on the liberties of the Church. Under immense pressure from the king and his barons, Becket and the other bishops eventually gave a reluctant verbal promise to observe the "customs".2 However, when presented with the written document—the Constitutions themselves—Becket refused to affix his seal.4 This refusal to formally endorse the text was the ultimate act of defiance, a clear rejection of its legitimacy. Soon after the council, tormented by guilt over his moment of weakness, Becket repudiated his verbal oath entirely. Pope Alexander III, while counseling diplomacy, ultimately condemned the most offensive clauses, and Becket fled into exile in France, where he waged a six-year battle against the king and the Constitutions he was accused of betraying.1

Becket's opposition was grounded in a sophisticated legal and theological argument. His primary objection to Clause 3, concerning "criminous clerks," was based on the principle that no person should be punished twice for the same offense (nemo bis in idipsum). He argued that to have a cleric tried and degraded from his office by a church court, and then handed over to a lay court to be mutilated or executed, was to inflict a double punishment for a single crime.1 For Becket, who was educated in canon law, this was a violation of both divine and natural justice.15

This clash was more than a personal quarrel or a simple political dispute. It represented the collision of two expanding and increasingly sophisticated legal systems. On one hand, Henry II was forging the foundations of the English common law, a centralized, national system of justice dependent on the king's authority.16 On the other hand, the universal Church, heavily influenced by the twelfth-century renaissance of Roman law and the systematization of its own canon law (notably in Gratian's

Decretum), was asserting its own comprehensive legal code with jurisdiction over its personnel and property across all of Christendom.10 Becket, as the head of the Church in England, saw himself as the defender of this universal, divinely-ordained legal order against the encroachments of a local, secular monarch. His refusal to author, or even endorse, the Constitutions was therefore not mere stubbornness, but a principled defense of a competing and, in his view, superior legal and spiritual authority. The conflict was an inevitable consequence of the great legal and intellectual developments of the age.


Section III: The King's Men - Identifying the Technical Drafters


While King Henry II provided the political impetus, the task of translating his will into a formal legal document fell to his expert administrators. The historical record, though not containing a formal scribal attribution, provides compelling evidence that the technical authors of the sixteen articles were two of the king's most trusted officials: his Chief Justiciar, Richard de Lucy, and the royal justice, Jocelin de Balliol.

The notion that the Constitutions were drafted by legal specialists is supported by a contemporary commentary appended to some versions of the text, which notes that "Henry caused the constitutions of Clarendon to be drawn up by two of his justiciars".9 This general statement points away from the king himself and toward the professional legal minds at the heart of his government.

The most specific and credible evidence for the identity of these two justiciars comes, paradoxically, from their adversaries. In the charged atmosphere of the Becket dispute, the archbishop's supporters sought to identify the architects of the policies they so vehemently opposed. The Dictionary of National Biography, drawing on contemporary accounts, records that "Archbishop Thomas believed that he, jointly with Joscelin de Bailleul, drew up the constitutions of Clarendon".19 The

Encyclopædia Britannica corroborates this, stating that de Lucy "was singled out by Henry’s enemies as the main author".20 This attribution from a hostile source carries significant weight. In historical analysis, an accusation made by an opponent regarding a matter of fact, rather than opinion, is often considered strong evidence. Becket's circle was not assigning credit; they were assigning blame, and in doing so, they almost certainly identified the men widely known within the court to have been responsible for the document's formulation.

Richard de Lucy was the logical choice for this task. As Chief Justiciar, he was Henry's principal minister and the head of the kingdom's judicial and administrative machinery, a position roughly analogous to a modern prime minister.20 He was a seasoned administrator who had served under Henry I and Stephen before becoming Henry II's right-hand man.19 He was responsible for running England during the king's frequent and prolonged absences in his continental domains.20 His deep involvement in the conflict is further confirmed by the fact that Becket personally excommunicated him on two separate occasions, in 1166 and 1169.20

Jocelin de Balliol (or Bailleul) was another influential Anglo-Norman baron who served as a royal justice. His name appears prominently in the preamble to the Constitutions, not as a drafter, but as one of the lay barons present at the council who "conceded" and "promised" to uphold the recognized customs.9 His identification by Becket's party as a co-drafter alongside de Lucy indicates that he was recognized by his contemporaries as a key legal expert in the king's service.

The drafting of the Constitutions by professional justiciars is a hallmark of the increasing sophistication and professionalization of the Angevin government. Henry II's reign was transformative, moving English governance away from ad-hoc administration and toward a more bureaucratic and expert-driven system.16 The legalistic precision of the Constitutions, especially the carefully worded Clause 3, which modern scholars note was "skilfully designed to avoid the prescriptions of canon law" 18, is indicative of the work of trained legal minds, not simply a monarch's decree. This process demonstrates the nascent common law system in action, where royal policy was formulated and implemented through an emerging professional judiciary. The long list of magnates—both lay and clerical—named in the preamble were not a drafting committee; they were the "Formal Recognizers," an assembly convened to witness and give assent, thereby granting the document the crucial political legitimacy of being the acknowledged "customs of the realm".6

Name

Title/Role in 1164

Identified Role in Creation

Evidence/Source

King Henry II

King of England

Political Author / Prime Mover

His stated intent to restore "ancestral customs" and his direct involvement in the disputes that led to specific clauses. 2

Richard de Lucy

Chief Justiciar of England

Technical Author / Principal Drafter

Identified as the main author by his enemies in Becket's circle; his role as chief minister made him the logical drafter. 19

Jocelin de Balliol

Royal Justice, Baron

Technical Author / Co-Drafter

Named by Becket's supporters as a joint drafter with de Lucy. 19

Thomas Becket

Archbishop of Canterbury

Defining Opponent

Led resistance at Clarendon, refused to seal the document, and based his six-year exile on opposition to it. 1

Roger, Archb. of York

Archbishop of York

Formal Recognizer

Named in the preamble as one of the leading churchmen who "conceded" and "promised" to observe the customs. 6

Robert, Earl of Leicester

Joint Chief Justiciar

Formal Recognizer

Named in the preamble as one of the leading lay barons who "conceded" and "promised" to observe the customs. 6


Section IV: The Scholarly Consensus - A Review of Modern Historiography


The question of the authorship and significance of the Constitutions of Clarendon has been a subject of intense scholarly research for well over a century. Far from being a neglected topic, it lies at the heart of the historiography of the Angevin period, English legal history, and the medieval relationship between Church and state. Modern understanding of the document's creation is built upon a rich foundation of primary source analysis and scholarly debate.

The indispensable starting point for any serious research is the monumental seven-volume collection, Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, published in the Rolls Series between 1875 and 1885.23 This comprehensive compilation of contemporary Latin lives of Becket (by authors such as William of Canterbury, Edward Grim, and Herbert of Bosham), letters, and other documents provides the raw material from which all subsequent historical narratives have been constructed.3

Foundational work in the modern era was conducted by the great legal historian F. W. Maitland. In his 1898 work, Roman Canon Law in the Church of England, Maitland corrected a long-standing and crucial misunderstanding of Clause 3. He demonstrated that Henry II did not intend for criminous clerks to be tried in royal courts from the outset. Instead, he proposed a more legally subtle and complex procedure involving both courts, an arrangement designed by his lawyers to punish the clerk under lay law without directly violating the Church's claim to jurisdiction over the trial itself.1 Maitland's meticulous analysis established a new standard for understanding the legal intricacies of the dispute.

The twentieth century saw the publication of major biographies that have become standard works on the period. W. L. Warren's magisterial Henry II (1973) provides a comprehensive appraisal of the reign, placing the Constitutions firmly within the broader context of Henry's ambitious administrative and legal reforms.29 Warren portrays the Constitutions not as an isolated act of anger, but as a logical, if aggressive, component of the king's larger state-building project.31 Conversely,

Frank Barlow's Thomas Becket (1986) stands as the definitive modern biography of the archbishop.33 Barlow masterfully reconstructs the conflict from Becket's perspective, analyzing his transformation and motivations with deep learning and sympathy, while remaining critical.4 Together, Warren and Barlow provide the essential political and biographical framework for understanding the two protagonists.

More recent scholarship has delved into even more specialized legal and canonical aspects. Anne Duggan, a leading authority on twelfth-century canon law, has shown that Becket's stance on clerical immunity was not an outlier but was, in fact, "in line with current thinking about clerical immunity" among canonists of the day.18 Her work reinforces the view that Clause 3 was a "skilfully designed" attempt by Henry's legal team to find a loophole in established Church law, further highlighting the role of expert drafters.18 Legal historian

John Hudson has examined Clause 3 in relation to Henry's other legal innovations, arguing that it was part of a consistent royal policy to centralize justice and bring all significant criminal cases under the purview of the king's court and his chief justiciars.18

The evolution of the scholarship on the Constitutions of Clarendon reflects the development of historical methodology itself. It has progressed from the narrative and often partisan accounts of contemporary chroniclers to the rigorous source criticism and grand political narratives of Maitland, Warren, and Barlow. The current generation of scholars, like Duggan and Hudson, now engages in highly specialized institutional and legal analysis, comparing the nascent common law with the sophisticated international system of canon law. This scholarly journey demonstrates that while the question of "who wrote it?" has been answered with a high degree of certainty, the more profound historical inquiries have shifted to how it was written, what legal theories it engaged, and what its intended administrative consequences were. The focus has moved from personality to process, from a clash of wills to a clash of legal systems.


Conclusion: A Multi-faceted Authorship


The authorship of the Constitutions of Clarendon cannot be attributed to a single individual. The document was the product of a complex political process in which several key figures played distinct and crucial roles. A nuanced understanding requires moving beyond a simplistic search for one "author" and appreciating the multifaceted nature of its creation.

  • King Henry II was the undisputed political author. The Constitutions were a direct expression of his royal will, conceived to achieve his strategic goals of restoring royal prerogatives, centralizing justice, and curbing the independence of the English Church. His decision to codify these "customs" in writing was a masterful act of political statecraft that precipitated the crisis.

  • Thomas Becket was in no way an author of the document. His role as Chancellor is chronologically irrelevant, as the conflict arose only after he became Archbishop. He was, instead, the defining opponent. His principled and unyielding resistance, culminating in his refusal to seal the document and his subsequent six-year exile, transformed the Constitutions from a piece of royal legislation into the centerpiece of one of the most famous conflicts in English history.

  • The technical authors—the expert administrators who translated the king's agenda into precise legal articles—were, according to the most credible contemporary evidence, Henry's Chief Justiciar, Richard de Lucy, and the royal justice Jocelin de Balliol. The legalistic skill evident in the drafting, particularly in clauses designed to circumvent canon law, points to the work of these professional servants of the Crown.

  • The great council of archbishops, bishops, earls, and barons assembled at Clarendon served as the formal recognizers. They were not a drafting committee but a political body whose function was to grant legitimacy to the king's project by publicly assenting that these articles were, indeed, the ancient and established "customs of the realm."

Ultimately, the story of the Constitutions of Clarendon is the story of the birth of a legal text at the intersection of power, law, and ideology. It was driven by the ambition of a king, drafted by his expert lawyers, legitimized by his magnates, and immortalized by the defiance of his archbishop. To understand its creation is to witness a pivotal moment in the development of the English state and the enduring tension between secular and spiritual authority.


Appendix: Curated List of Sources



1. Primary Sources


  • Full Text of the Constitutions:

  • The Avalon Project: Medieval Documents. Yale Law School. The text includes a brief, though dated, scholarly commentary. 9

  • Internet Medieval Sourcebook. Fordham University. Provides access to the text and other related medieval documents. 37

  • Contemporary Chronicles and Letters:

  • Robertson, James Craigie, and J.B. Sheppard, eds. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. 7 vols. Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores (Rolls Series) 67. London: Longman & Co., 1875–85. This is the foundational and indispensable collection of primary source material, including the contemporary biographies by William of Canterbury, John of Salisbury, Edward Grim, William Fitzstephen, and Herbert of Bosham, as well as collections of letters pertinent to the dispute. 3


2. Key Secondary Sources (Modern Scholarship)


  • Barlow, Frank. Thomas Becket. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. The definitive modern biography of the archbishop, providing a thorough analysis of his career and the conflict with Henry II. 4

  • Duggan, Anne. Thomas Becket. London: Arnold, 2004. An important modern study with a particular focus on the canon law context of the dispute. 18

  • Hudson, John. "Constitutions of Clarendon, Clause 3, and Henry II's Reforms of Law and Administration." In Laws, Lawyers and Texts: Studies in Medieval Legal History in Honour of Paul Brand, edited by Susanne Jenks, Jonathan Rose, and Christopher Whittick, 1–20. Leiden: Brill, 2012. A specialized scholarly article analyzing the legal and administrative purpose of the most controversial clause. 18

  • Maitland, F. W. Roman Canon Law in the Church of England: Six Essays. London: Methuen & Co., 1898. Contains the foundational essay that re-interpreted the legal meaning of Clause 3. 1

  • Warren, W. L. Henry II. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. The classic and comprehensive biography of the king, placing the Constitutions within the broader context of his reign and administrative reforms. 11

  • Entries for "Richard de Lucy" in Encyclopædia Britannica and "Lucy, Richard de" in Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900. These reference works provide concise summaries of de Lucy's career and his role in the drafting of the Constitutions, based on primary sources. 19

Works cited

  1. Constitutions of Clarendon - Wikipedia, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutions_of_Clarendon

  2. Constitutions of Clarendon | Henry II, Church-State Relations, Royal Authority | Britannica, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/Constitutions-of-Clarendon

  3. The Abbess, the Empress and the 'Constitutions of Clarendon' (Chapter 13) - English Legal History and its Sources - Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/english-legal-history-and-its-sources/abbess-the-empress-and-the-constitutions-of-clarendon/7F8BDA438774C8EAA6C512A37677BE89

  4. Becket controversy - Wikipedia, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_controversy

  5. Constitutions of Clarendon | In Custodia Legis - Library of Congress Blogs, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014/12/constitutions-of-clarendon/

  6. The Constitutions of Clarendon - Britain Express, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.britainexpress.com/History/medieval/clarendon.htm

  7. How Falling Out with Henry II Resulted in Thomas Becket's Slaughter | History Hit, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.historyhit.com/how-falling-out-with-henry-ii-resulted-in-thomas-beckets-slaughter/

  8. The Murder of an Archbishop (Becket) - Teach Democracy, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://teachdemocracy.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-16-1-b-the-murder-of-an-archbishop

  9. Constitutions of Clarendon. 1164. - The Avalon Project, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/constcla.asp

  10. Constitutions Of Clarendon | Encyclopedia.com, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/british-and-irish-history/constitutions-clarendon

  11. Thomas Becket - Wikipedia, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket

  12. Thomas Becket: the murder that shook the Middle Ages | British Museum, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/thomas-becket-murder-shook-middle-ages

  13. Archbishop Thomas Becket - Learning Resources - Canterbury Cathedral, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://learning.canterbury-cathedral.org/a-walk-through-time/becket/

  14. Benefit of Clergy--A Legal Anomaly - UKnowledge, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4977&context=klj

  15. Thomas Becket - New World Encyclopedia, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Becket

  16. Henry II and the English Common Law. Justice John Bryson. Plantagenet Society of Au - NSW Supreme Court, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Publications/Speeches/Pre-2015-Speeches/Bryson_20020720.pdf

  17. Henry II: Father of the Common Law - TBA Law Blog - Tennessee Bar Association, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.tba.org/index.cfm?pg=LawBlog&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=26853

  18. Constitutions of Clarendon, Clause 3, and Henry ii's reforms of law and administration John Hudson the conflict between - Brill, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://brill.com/display/book/9789004232570/B9789004232570_002.pdf

  19. Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Lucy, Richard de ..., accessed on June 29, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Lucy,_Richard_de

  20. Richard de Lucy | Norman Lord, Magna Carta, Sheriff | Britannica, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-de-Lucy

  21. Richard de Lucy : London Remembers, Aiming to capture all ..., accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.londonremembers.com/subjects/richard-de-lucy

  22. Constitutions of Clarendon, Clause 3, and Henry ii's reforms of law and administration John Hudson the conflict between - Brill, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://brill.com/previewpdf/book/edcoll/9789004232570/B9789004232570_002.xml

  23. MATERIALS FOR THE HISTORY OF THOMAS BECKET, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (CANONIZED... (Hardcover) - AbeBooks, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/MATERIALS-HISTORY-THOMAS-BECKET-ARCHBISHOP-CANTERBURY/31170131993/bd

  24. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury (Canonized by Pope Alexander III, AD 1173) - Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/materials-for-the-history-of-thomas-becket-archbishop-of-canterbury-canonized-by-pope-alexander-iii-ad-1173/2776FB0D58B13C7622095D94C859CD27

  25. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury - Better World Books, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/materials-for-the-history-of-thomas-becket-archbishop-of-canterbury-9781108049290/new

  26. Materials for the history of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, (canonized by Pope Alexander III, A.D. 1173) - University of Edinburgh - DiscoverEd, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://discovered.ed.ac.uk/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=44UOE_INST%3A44UOE_VU2&search_scope=UoE&tab=Everything&docid=alma99480313502466&lang=en&context=L&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&query=sub%2Cexact%2CScotland%20--%20History%20--%20Sources

  27. Materials for the history of Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury (canonized by Pope Alexander III., AD 1173) - The Online Books Page, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=ha008883692

  28. Materials for the history of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury (canonized by Pope Alexander III., A.D. 1173) - Internet Archive, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://archive.org/details/materialsforhist01robe

  29. Henry II - Wilfred Lewis Warren - Google Books, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://books.google.com/books/about/Henry_II.html?id=C8KrkVOxaT0C

  30. Henry II (English Monarchs) by Wilfred Lewis Warren | Goodreads, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/478634.Henry_II

  31. The Golden Age of Historiography: Records and Writers in ... - Sci-Hub, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://dacemirror.sci-hub.se/journal-article/dd13341dbb533da3e55b1ef82a80612f/hosler2014.pdf

  32. Henry II. -- : Warren, Wilfred, Lewis : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming - Internet Archive, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://archive.org/details/henryii00warr

  33. Thomas Becket - Frank Barlow - Google Books, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://books.google.com/books/about/Thomas_Becket.html?id=8j5clEE5VwwC

  34. Thomas Becket by Frank Barlow - Paper - University of California Press, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520071759/thomas-becket

  35. Constitutions of Clarendon, Clause 3, and Henry II's Reforms of Law and Administration, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://michigan.law.umich.edu/faculty-scholarship/faculty-publications/constitutions-clarendon-clause-3-and-henry-iis-reforms-law

  36. Medieval Documents : 400 - 1399 - Avalon Project, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/medieval.asp

  37. Constitutions of Clarendon, 1164 - IALS Digital resources - School of Advanced Study, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://resources.ials.sas.ac.uk/eagle-i/constitutions-clarendon-1164

  38. Selected Sources: England - Internet History Sourcebooks: Medieval Sourcebook, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://origin.web.fordham.edu/Halsall/sbook1n.asp

THE “WATER OF THOMAS BECKET”: WATER AS MEDIUM, METAPHOR, AND RELIC Alyce A. Jordan Introduction In life, and particularly in - Brill, accessed on June 29, 2025, https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/edcoll/9789047427032/Bej.9789004173576.i-538_025.pdf