The Saxons in England, Volume 2 (of 2): A history of the English commonwealth till the period of the Norman conquestKemble, John Mitchell
History
The Saxons in England, Volume 2 (of 2): A history of the English commonwealth till the period of the Norman conquest
Kemble, John Mitchell
Great Britain -- History -- Anglo-Saxon period, 449-1066
This event has naturally been discussed with very different views. The
Roman Catholics construe it to imply a recognized right in the Roman
See: the Protestants look upon it as rather a piece of skilful
manœuvring on the part of the Pope. Lappenberg (i. 172) says: “The
death of Wigheard was taken advantage of by the Pope to set over the
Anglosaxon bishops a primate devoted to his views.” “This opportunity
was not lost upon Italian subtlety. Vitalian, then Pope, determined
upon trying whether the Anglosaxons would receive an archbishop
nominated by himself.” Soames, Anglos. Church, p. 78. Against this, of
course, Lingard has expatiated in his Hist. and Antiq. i. 75. He
attributes the selection of Theodore to a _request_ of the two kings,
and adds in a note: “That such was their request is certain. Beda
calls Theodore, who was selected by Vitalian, ‘the archbishop asked
for by the king’—episcopum quem petierant a Romano pontifice (Bed. iv.
c. 1)—and ‘the bishop whom the country had anxiously sought’—doctorem
veritatis, quem patria sedula quaesierat. Id. Op. Min. p. 142.
Vitalian, in his answer to the two kings, reminds them that their
letter requested him to choose a bishop for them in the case of
Wigheard’s death—‘secundum vestrorum scriptorum tenorem.’ Bed. iii.
29. Certainly these passages must have escaped the eye of Mr. Soames,
who boldly, and without an atom of authority for his statement,
ascribes the choice of a bishop by Vitalian to Italian subtlety.” Mr.
Churton in his Early English Church, p. 67, inclines also to this
view, which is again combated by Soames in his Latin Church, etc. p.
80 _seq._; but this author with a happy skill which he sometimes
manifests of not seeing disagreeable data, says nothing of the “_quem
petierant_ a Romano pontifice.” Yet in these words lies the matter of
the whole dispute. It certainly does not appear from Vitalian’s
letter, that any such contingency as Wigheard’s death was provided for
by the kings; this is in itself extremely improbable, and the
assertion is an evidence of Lingard’s rashness where the interests of
his party are concerned. But is it not on the other hand very probable
that more letters passed between the kings and the pope than are now
recorded? that Vitalian announced Wigheard’s death, and that the
kings, conscious of the difficulty of coming to any second settlement
in such a state of society as their own (especially as they were but
two of four very equally poised authorities), fairly asked him to
solve the problem for them? I greatly doubt the strict adherence to
canonical forms of election in the seventh century; and indeed
throughout the history of the English church it appears that the kings
dealt very much at their own pleasure in the appointment of bishops.
It could hardly be otherwise with a clergy dispersed through so many
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account