Page images
PDF
EPUB

ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS.

43

to fill the sees of Canterbury, London, and Dorchester with French Prelates. In ecclesiastical appointments he had a freer choice, because, in the case of an ecclesiastical office, no hereditary claim or preference could possibly be put forward. The same freedom of choice still remains to the dispensers of church patronage in our own times. The Lord Lieutenant, the Sheriff, the ordinary magistrates, of any county are necessarily chosen from among men belonging to that county. But the Bishop, the Dean, the ordinary clergy, may never have set foot in the diocese till they are called on to exercise their functions within it. Then, as now, various influences limited the choice of temporal functionaries which did not limit the choice of spiritual functionaries. It is therefore of special moment to mark the course of ecclesiastical appointments at this time, as supplying our best means of tracing the growth of the foreign influence and the course of the resistance made to it.

It is not very clear what the exact process of appointing a Bishop at this time was.1 It is clear that the royal will was the chief power in the appointment. It is clear that the official document which gave the Bishop-elect a claim to consecration was a royal writ, to which now, under the French influences of Eadward's court, a royal seal, in imitation of continental practice, was beginning to be attached. It is also clear that the appointment was regularly made in full Witenagemót. This of course implies that the Witan had at least the formal right of saying Yea or Nay to the King's nomination. But we hear at the same time of capitular elections, which clearly were not a mere form, though it rested with the King to accept or reject the selected candidate. In ordinary speech the appointment is always said to rest with the King, who is constantly described as giving a Bishoprick to such and such a man. The King too at this time exercised the right, which afterwards became the subject of so much controversy, of investing the Bishop-elect with the ring and staff. It is clear also, from the case of Stigand just recorded, that the King and his Witan had full power of deposing a Bishop. On the other hand, probably owing to the number of foreign ecclesiastics now in the Kingdom, references to the Court of Rome become from this time far more frequent than before. For an Archbishop to go to Rome for his pallium was nothing new; but now we hear of Bishops going to Rome for consecration or confirmation, and of the Roman Court claiming at least a veto on the nomination of the English King.

It is perhaps more startling to find that the court of Saint Eadward was no more free from the suspicion of simony than the courts of ruffians like Harold and Harthacnut. It is clear however that it was neither on the King personally nor on the Earl of the West-Saxons that this disgraceful imputation rested. One can hardly help sus2 See vol. pp. 338, 353.

1 See Appendix I.

pecting that it was the itching palms of the King's foreign favourites which proved the most frequent resting-place for the gold of those who sought for ecclesiastical dignities by corrupt means. In the year after Eadward's coronation we meet with a story which brings out all these points very strongly. Archbishop Eadsige found himself incapacitated by sickness from discharging his functions, and wished either to resign his see or, as it would rather seem, to appoint a coadjutor. But he feared lest, if his intentions were made publicly known, some man whom he did not approve of might beg or buy the office.1 He therefore took into his counsels none but the two first men in the realm, Earl Godwine and King Eadward himself. Godwine would naturally be glad of the opportunity to put some check on the growing foreign influences, and Eadward, easily as he was led astray, would doubtless be anxious, when the case was fairly placed before him, to follow any course which tended to preserve the purity of ecclesiastical rule. By the authority then of Eadward and Godwine, but with the knowledge of very few other persons,2 Siward, Abbot of Abingdon, was consecrated as Coadjutor-Archbishop.3 He acted on behalf of the Primate for about six years, till sickness caused him in his turn to resign his office and return to Abingdon, where he died. On this Eadsige again assumed the administration of the Archbishoprick 5 for a short time before his own death.

But a more memorable appointment was made in the course of the same year. Elfweard, Bishop of London and Abbot of Evesham, a Prelate whose name has already occurred in our history, fell sick of leprosy. He returned to his Abbey, but the brotherhood with one consent refused him admission. They met, we are told, with the just reward of their churlishness. Elfweard turned away to the distant

1 Chronn. Ab. 1044; Petrib. 1043. "Fordam se arcebiscop wende þæt hit sum oder man, abiddan wolde, oppe gebicgan, þe he wyrs truwode and ude, gif hit ma manna wiste."

2 Chronn. Ab. 1044; Petrib. 1043. "Be pas cynges leafe, and ræde, and Godwines eorles. Hit was elles feawum mannum cuð ær hit gedon was." So William of Malmesbury, ii. 197; "Ante cum Rege tantum et Comite communicato consilio, ne quis ad tantum fastigium aspiraret indignus, vel prece vel pretio."

He was consecrated to the see of Upsala, according to Professor Stubbs (Ep. Succ. p. 20) and Dean Hook (i. 491); to Rochester, according to the Abingdon History (i. 452). But Florence (1049) calls him "Siwardus, Edsii Dorubernensis archiepiscopi chorepiscopus." William of

Malmesbury (De Gest. Pont. 116) has a
strange story how Siward was intended to
succeed Eadsige, but on his treating him
harshly and not even allowing him enough
to eat, he was deprived of the succession
to the Archbishoprick, and had to content
himself with Rochester-"
quo leviaret
verecundiam, quo detrimentum consola-
retur." Siward signs charters with the
title of Archbishop, Cod. Dipl. iv. 96, 103,
105; as Bishop only in iv. 99; as Abbot
only in a very doubtful charter, iv. 102.
See also Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 759 B;
Angl. Sacr. i. 106; Bromton, 938.

Chron. Ab. 1048; Chron. Wig, 1057; Fl. Wig. 1049. See Hist. Ab. i. 461. Siward was a benefactor to his abbey, and fills a considerable place in its history.

5 Chronn. Ab. 1048; Petrib. 1045.
6 See vol. i. p. 341.

3

ROBERT BISHOP OF LONDON.

45

Abbey of Ramsey, where he had spent his early years, and where he was gladly received. He soon after died, leaving great gifts to the hospitable monks of Ramsey.1 Rumour however added that they largely consisted of his own former gifts to Evesham, and that he even did not scruple to remove from that undutiful house some precious things which had been the gifts of other benefactors. Two great spiritual preferments were thus vacated, one of them, the see of London, one of the most important in the Kingdom. They were bestowed in a full Witenagemót held in London in the month of August. The lesser office at Evesham was conferred on an Englishman, Wulfmær or Mannig, a monk of the house,* renowned for his skill in the fine arts; but in the nomination to the great East-Saxon Bishoprick, the foreigners obtained one of their most memorable triumphs. For it must have been in this same Gemót in which Mannig was appointed that the Bishoprick of the city in which the Assembly was held was bestowed on one Robert, a Norman monk, who had first been Prior of Saint Ouen's at Rouen, and afterwards Abbot of the great house of Jumièges. He has there left behind him a noble memorial in the stately minster which still survives in ruins, but in England it is not too much to say, that he became, in this high post and in the still higher post which he afterwards reached, the pest of the Kingdom. His influence over the mind of the feeble King was unbounded. We are ludicrously told that, if Robert said that a black

1 Chron. Wig. 1045; Fl. Wig. 1044; Hist. Eves. p. 85; Hist. Rams. c. 104.

2 Fl. Wig. u. s. "Ablatis ex maximâ parte libris et ornamentis, quæ ipse eidem contulerat loco, et quædam, ut fertur, quæ alii contulerant." Cf. Hist. Rams. u. s. But the Evesham historian, who uses very strong language against the monks of his own house, does not charge Ælfweard with more than transferring his intended gifts from Evesham to Ramsey; quæ huic loco offerre cogitabat, versâ vice præfatæ ecclesiæ Ramesiæ omnia condonabat." Hist. Eves. p. 85.

66

3 Fl. Wig. 1044. "In generali concilio quod eodem tempore celebratum est Lundoniæ." It was between July 25 and August 10. See Appendix I.

Chron. Wig. 1045; Fl. Wig. 1044; Hist. Eves. p. 86. Mannig rebuilt the church of Evesham, and practised his skill for the adornment of the churches of Canterbury and Coventry as well as his own. Chronn. Ab. and Wig. 1054.

5 Oddly enough, neither the Chronicles

6

nor Florence mention Robert's appointment to London, though they take it for granted in 1050, when they record his appointment to the Archbishoprick.

6 Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 134 b. He is there spoken of simply as a monk of Jumièges, but from the Biographer (399) and from the Nova Chronica Normanniæ, A. 1037, it appears that he had been Abbot. (See Neustria Pia, p. 309.) He became Abbot in 1037, and began the church in 1040. William himself, in his History (ii. 199), speaks of Robert's building as ecclesia Sanctæ Mariæ, quam ipse præcipuo et sumptuoso opere construxerat." He begins to sign as Bishop in 1046. Cod. Dipl. iv. 110.

7 William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 116) makes Robert's influence with Eadward the recompense of some services done to him in Normandy. He goes on, "Is ergo et amore antiquo et recenti honore primas partes in consiliis regalibus vendicabat, quos vellet deponeret, quos liberet, sublimaret."

crow was white, King Eadward would at once believe him. He is described at all hands as being the chief stirrer up of strife between Eadward and his native subjects. He it was who separated the husband from the wife, and the King from his most faithful counsellors. He it was whose slanderous tongue again brought up against the great Earl2 that charge of complicity in the death of Ælfred of which he had been solemnly pronounced guiltless by the highest Court in the realm. And the career of Robert is one of great historical importance. It is closely connected with the immediate causes-it may even be reckoned among the immediate causes of the Norman invasion. Robert's appointment to the see of London may be fairly set down as marking a distinct stage in the progress of Norman influence in England. He was the first man of utterly alien speech who had held an English Bishoprick since the days of Roman, Scottish, or Cilician missionaries. His overthrow at a later time was one of the first-fruits of the great national reaction against the strangers, and its supposed uncanonical character was one of the many pretences put forth by William to justify his invasion of England.

This appointment of Robert shows the great advance of the Norman influence. But that influence had not as yet reached its height. Godwine and the popular party seem still to have been able to make a kind of compromise with the King. It was necessary to yield to the King's strong personal inclination in the case of Robert; but the other vacant preferments were secured for Englishmen. We have seen that Ælfweard's Abbey was not allowed to be held in plurality by his successor in the Bishoprick, but was bestowed on an Englishman of high character. Stigand too had by this time made his peace with Eadward and Godwine, and he now began to climb the ladder of preferment afresh. He now again received the Bishoprick of Elmham or of the East-Angles. And it was in the same year, and seemingly at the same Gemót, that Gunhild, "the noble wife," the widow of the Earls Hakon and Hwold, the mother of Heming and Thurkill, was banished together with her sons."

This last event was one of that series of banishments which have

1 Ann. Wint. 21, Luard. "Tanti fuit homo ille in oculis Regis ut si diceret nigram cornicem esse candidam Rex citius ori illius quam oculis suis crederet."

2 Vita Eadw. 400. So William of Malmesbury (u. s.); "Ille contra pertinacius insistere, donec præcipuos optimates, Godwinum dico et filios ejus, proditionis apud Regem accusatos Angliâ expelleret. Expulsionis aliæ quoque fuere caussæ, et alii auctores, sicut alias non tacuimus. Sed

ille clarius classicum cecinit, instantius accusavit."

3 See vol. i. p. 344.

Bishop Godwin (Cat. of Bishops, p. 25) says truly, but without fully understanding the force of his own words; "This man is said to have laid the first foundation of the Normans conquest in England."

5 Chron. Petrib. 1043; Fl. Wig. 1044. 6 See above, p. 41.

MAGNUS CLAIMS THE ENGLISH CROWN.

4

47

been already spoken of as gradually falling on all who had made themselves in any way prominent in opposition to the election of Eadward. But it was most likely not unconnected with the present threatening state of affairs in Northern Europe. The early years of Eadward in England were contemporary with the great struggle between Swegen and Magnus (1044-1047) for the Crown of Denmark. The details of that warfare are told in our Scandinavian authorities with the usual amount of confusion and contradiction, and it seems hopeless to think of altogether reconciling their conflicting statements. Our own Chronicles, as usual, supply the most promising means of harmonizing them in some small degree. We have seen that Magnus was in actual possession of both Norway and Denmark at the time of Eadward's coronation.1 Swegen, after several battles, had found himself forsaken by every one, and had taken refuge in Sweden.2 Godescalc the Wend, who had accompanied him from England, had forsaken him with the rest, and had entered on that mingled career as missionary and warrior among his heathen countrymen of which I have already spoken. In this warfare he most likely acted as an ally of Magnus, who was also renowned for victories over the same enemy.5 Magnus, now at the height of his power, King of Denmark and Norway, conqueror of his heathen neighbours, enjoying, as it would seem, the respect and attachment of the people of both his Kingdoms, regretted and retracted the engagements of fidelity, perhaps even of submission, which he had made to Eadward when his own position seemed less secure. He now fell back on the claim by virtue of which he had possessed himself of Denmark, and which, in his eyes, gave him an equal right to the possession of England. Magnus sent an embassy to England (1045), claiming the Crown, and setting forth his right. He and Harthacnut had agreed that whichever of them outlived the other should succeed to his dominions. Harthacnut was dead; Magnus had, by virtue of that agreement, succeeded to the Crown of Denmark; he now demanded Harthacnut's other Kingdom of England. Eadward, we are told, answered in a magnanimous strain, in which he directly rested his right to the English Crown on the choice of the English people. While his brother lived, he had served him faithfully as a private man, and had put forward no claim by virtue of his birth. On his brother's death,

1 See above, p. II.

6

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »