Leaders of the People: Studies in Democratic HistoryClayton, Joseph
History
Leaders of the People: Studies in Democratic History
Clayton, Joseph
Democracy; Great Britain -- History
But the barons were not so craven. To the king’s threat, “No man shall
be mine, who will be his” (Anselm’s), the nobles said bluntly that not
having taken any oath of fealty to the archbishop they could not abjure
it. And Anselm was their archbishop. “It is his work to govern the
Christian religion in this land, and we who are Christians cannot deny
his guidance while we live here.”
The three days’ conference at Rockingham ended in disappointment to the
hopes of William of absolute autocracy, and in general contempt for the
prelates whose abject servility had availed nothing.
Anselm alone stood higher in the eyes of the men of England, and
greater was the ill-will of William. For another two years Anselm held
his ground against the king. The pallium was brought from Rome by
Walter, Bishop of Albano, and placed on the altar at Canterbury, and
Anselm was content to take it from the altar. William had written in
vain to Pope Urban praying for the deposition of Anselm, and promising
a large annual tribute to Rome if his prayer was granted. The pope, of
course, declined to do anything of the sort, and William had to make
the best of the situation. He wanted money for his own purposes, and
his barons were now against him in his quarrel with the archbishop.
For a time William adopted a semblance of peace with Anselm, but his
anger soon blazed out again. The ground of complaint this time was that
the soldiers whom the archbishop had sent to the king for his military
expedition against Wales were inadequate--without proper equipment, and
unfit for service. The archbishop was summoned to appear before the
King’s Court to “do the king right.”
From the time of his acceptance of the archbishopric, Anselm had been
hoping against hope that the king would support him, as the Conqueror
had supported Lanfranc, in the building up of the Christian religion
in England--this summons to the King’s Court was the death-blow to all
these hopes. The defendant in the King’s Court was at the mercy of
the king, who could pronounce whatever judgment he pleased.[5] Anselm
returned no answer to the summons, but his mind was made up.
“Having knowledge that the king’s word ruled all judgment in the King’s
Court, where nothing was listened to except what the king willed, it
seemed to Anselm unbecoming that he should contend, as if disputing, as
litigants do, about a matter of words, and should submit the justice
of his cause to the judgment of a court where neither law, nor equity,
nor reason prevailed. So he held his peace, and gave no answer to the
messenger.” (Eadmer.)
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account