Canterbury–York dispute
The Canterbury–York dispute was a long-running conflict between the
Nature of the dispute
The main locus of the dispute was the attempt by post-Norman Conquest Archbishops of Canterbury to assert their
Feeding into the dispute were the two
The popes, who were often called upon to decide the issue, had their own concerns with granting a primacy, and did not wish to actually rule in Canterbury's favour. But the main driving forces behind the Canterbury position were Lanfranc and Anselm of Canterbury, both of whom enjoyed immense prestige in the church and thus it was not easy for the papacy to rule against them or their position. Once Anselm was out of office, however, the popes began to side more often with York, and generally strived to avoid making any final judgement.[4]
Under the Norman kings
Under Lanfranc
The dispute began under Lanfranc, who demanded oaths of obedience from not just the traditional suffragan bishops of Canterbury but also from the archbishop of York.
Why exactly Lanfranc decided to press forward claims to a judicial primacy over York is unclear. Some historians, including
When Lanfranc attempted to find documentary proof to rebut York's refusal, it was discovered that no explicit statement of such a primacy existed. This involved the use of letters of Pope
King William I supported Lanfranc in this dispute, probably because he felt that it was important that his kingdom be represented by one ecclesiastical province, and this would best be accomplished by supporting the primacy of Canterbury. Before conquering England, William had ruled the
Thomas claimed that when Lanfranc died in 1089, Thomas' profession lapsed, and during the long vacancy at Canterbury that followed on Lanfranc's death, Thomas performed most of the archiepiscopal functions in England.[4]
Under Anselm
When Anselm was appointed to Canterbury, after a long vacancy that lasted from 1089 to 1093, the only flareup of the dispute was a dispute at Anselm's consecration on 4 December 1093 over the exact title that would be employed in the ceremony.[14] The dispute centered on the title that would be confirmed on Anselm, and although it was settled quickly, the exact title used is unknown, as the two main sources of information differ. Eadmer, Anselm's biographer and a Canterbury partisan, proclaims that the title agreed upon was "Primate of all Britain". Hugh the Chanter, a chronicler from York and a partisan of York, claims the title used was "Metropolitan of Canterbury".[15] Until the ascension of King Henry I in 1100, Anselm was much more occupied with other disputes with King William II.[14]
It was during Anselm's archiepiscopate that the primacy dispute became central to Anselm's plans. Eadmer made the dispute central to his work, the Historia Novorum. Likewise, Hugh the Chanter, made the primacy dispute one of the central themes of his work History of the Church of York.[16]
In 1102, Pope
Gerard died in May 1108, and his successor was nominated within six days. Thomas, however, delayed going to Canterbury to be consecrated, under pressure from his cathedral chapter and knowing that since Anselm was in poor health, he might be able to outlast Anselm. Thomas told Anselm that his cathedral chapter had forbidden him to make any oath of obedience, and this was confirmed by the canons themselves, who wrote to Anselm confirming Thomas' account. Although Anselm died before Thomas' had submitted, one of the last letters Anselm wrote ordered Thomas not to seek consecration until he had made the required profession. After Anselm's death, the king then pressured Thomas to submit a written profession, which he eventually did. The actual document has disappeared, and as always, Eadmer and Hugh the Chanter disagree on the exact wording, with Eadmer claiming it was made to Canterbury and any successor archbishops, and Hugh claiming that Thomas qualified the oath by making it clear that it could not impede the rights of the Church of York.[20]
Dispute under Thurstan
During the archbishopric of Thurstan, the Archbishop of York between 1114 and 1140, the dispute flared up and Thurstan appealed to the papacy over the issue, with Canterbury under Ralph d'Escures countering with information from Bede as well as forged documents. The papacy did not necessarily believe the forgeries, but the dispute rumbled on for a number of years.[21] Shortly after Thurstan's election in 1114, Ralph refused to consecrate Thurstan unless Ralph received a written, not just oral, profession of obedience.[22] Thurstan refused to do so, and assured his cathedral chapter that he would not submit to Canterbury. York based its claim on the fact that no metropolitan bishop or archbishop could swear allegiance to anyone but the pope, a position guaranteed to gain support from the papacy. King Henry, however, refused permission for Thurstan to appeal to the papacy, which left the dispute in limbo for two years. Henry does not seem to have cared about who won the dispute, and Henry may have delayed hoping that Ralph and Thurstan would reach a compromise which would keep Henry from having to alienate either of them.[23]
Pressure mounted, however, and Henry called a council in the spring of 1116, and Henry ordered that when Thurstan arrived at the council, he must swear to obey Canterbury. If Thurstan would not do so, Henry threatened to depose him from office. But, on his way to the council, Thurstan received a letter from the pope, ordering Thurstan's consecration without any profession. Although Thurstan did not reveal that the pope had ordered his consecration, he continued to refuse to make a profession, and resigned his see in the presence of the king and the council. But, the papacy, the York cathedral chapter, and even King Henry still considered Thurstan the archbishop-elect. In 1117, Ralph attempted to visit Pope Paschal II about the dispute, but was unable to actually meet the pope, and only secured a vague letter confirming Canterbury's past privileges, but since the exact privileges weren't specified, the letter was useless.[23]
Both Ralph and Thurstan attended the
In 1123,
Pope Honorius II made a judgment in York's favour in 1126, having found the documents and case presented by Canterbury to be unconvincing.[34] In the winter of 1126–1127, an attempt at compromise was made, with Canterbury agreeing to give jurisdiction over the sees of Chester, Bangor and St Asaph to York in return for the submission of York to Canterbury. This foundered when William of Corbeil arrived at Rome and told the pope that he had not agreed to the surrender of St Asaph. This was the last attempt by William to secure an oath from Thurstan,[35] for a compromise in the primacy dispute was made, with William of Corbeil receiving a papal legateship, which effectively gave him the powers of the primacy without the papacy actually having to concede a primacy to Canterbury.[36] This legateship covered not only England, but Scotland as well.[37]
A small flare-up in 1127 happened when William of Corbeil objected to Thurstan having his episcopal cross carried in processions in front of Thurstan while Thurstan was in Canterbury's province. William also objected to Thurstan participating in the ceremonial crownings of the king at the royal court. Thurstan appealed to Rome, and Honorius wrote a scathing letter to William declaring that if the reports from Thurstan were true, William would be punished for his actions. Thurstan then traveled to Rome, where he secured new rulings from the papacy. One gave the seniority between the two British archbishops to whichever had been consecrated first. Another ruling allowed the Archbishops of York to have their crosses carried in Canterbury's province.[38]
Legacy of the first dispute
The main import of the first dispute was the increase in appeals to the papacy to solve the problem. This was part of a general trend to seek support and resolution at the papacy instead of in the royal courts, a trend that grew through the reigns of William II and Henry I.[39] Also important was the impetus that the disputes gave to efforts by both York and Canterbury to assert their jurisdiction over Scotland, Wales and Ireland.[40] After the settlement of the profession issue, the dispute turned to other, lesser matters such as how the respective chairs of the two archbishops would be arranged when they were together and the right of either to carry their episcopal cross in the others' province.[5]
Under Stephen
Under Stephen, the dispute arose briefly at the Council of Reims of 1148.[41] Theobald of Bec, who was Archbishop of Canterbury for most of Stephen's reign, attended the council, and when Henry Murdac, just recently elected to York, did not arrive, Theobald claimed the primacy over York at one of the early council sessions. However, as Murdac was a Cistercian, as was Pope Eugene III, who had called the council, nothing further was done about Canterbury's claim. Eugene postponed any decision until Murdac was established in his see.[42]
Most of the time, however, Theobald was not concerned with reopening the dispute, as demonstrated when he consecrated
Disputes under Henry II
During Thomas Becket's archiepiscopate, the dispute flared up again, with the added complication of an attempt by Gilbert Foliot, the Bishop of London, to have his see raised to an archbishopric, basing his case on the old Gregorian plan for London to be the seat of the southern province. Foliot was an opponent of Becket's, and this fed into the dispute, as well as Becket's legateships, which specifically excluded York. When Roger de Pont L'Evêque, the Archbishop of York, crowned Henry the Young King in 1170, this was a furthering of the dispute, as it was Canterbury's privilege to crown the kings of England.[34]
The first sign of the revival of the dispute was at the Council of Tours, called in 1163 by Pope Alexander III. While there, Roger and Becket disputed over the placement of their seats in the council. Roger argued, that based on Gregory the Great's plan that primacy should go to the archbishop who had been consecrated first, he had the right to the more honourable placement at the council. Eventually, Alexander placed them both on equal terms,[41] but not before the council spent three days listening to the claims and counter-claims, as well as Roger relating the whole history of the dispute.[44] In 1164 Alexander gave Roger a papal legateship, but excluded Becket from its jurisdiction. The pope did, however, decline to declare that Canterbury had a primacy in England.[45] Alexander on 8 April 1166 confirmed Canterbury's primacy, but this became less important than the grant of a legateship on 24 April to Becket. This grant, though, did not cover the diocese of York, which was specifically prohibited.[46]
During the reign of Henry II, the dispute took a new form, concerning the right of either archbishop to carry their archiepiscopal cross throughout the kingdom, not just in their own province. During the vacancy between the death of Theobald of Bec and the appointment of Becket, Roger had secured papal permission to carry his cross anywhere in England. As the
The papacy, while continuing to grant legateships to the archbishops of Canterbury, began after 1162 to specifically exclude the legateships from covering the province of York. The only exception from the later half of the 12th century was the legateship of Hubert Walter in 1195, which covered all of England. This exception, however, was more due to Pope Celestine III's dislike of Geoffrey, the archbishop of York at the time.[37]
Notes
- ^ The original of the document is lost,[26] because of this there has been some concern that the document as it survives might not be authentic, but several historians, including Martin Brett and Mary Cheney have put forth arguments that it is.[5]
- ^ Papal bulls are made of lead and are attached to a papal communication. They bear a seal impression.[31]
- Richard W. Southern argued that they were forged shortly after the granting of Caritatis Bonun in 1120.[33]
Citations
- ^ Barlow English Church 1066–1154 p. 31
- ^ Bartlett England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings p. 92
- ^ a b Carpenter Struggle for Mastery p. 99
- ^ a b c d e f g Barlow English Church 1066–1154 pp. 39–42
- ^ a b c Cheney "Some Observations" Journal of Ecclesiastical History pp. 429–430 and footnote 3
- ^ Barlow English Church 1066–1154 p. 33
- ^ a b Blumenthal Investiture Controversy p. 151
- ^ Stenton Anglo-Saxon England pp. 664–665
- ^ Bates William the Conqueror pp. 169–170
- ^ a b Douglas William the Conqueror pp. 321–323
- ^ Barlow English Church 1066–1154 p. 61
- ^ Brett English Church p. 15
- ^ Delivré "Foundations of Primatial Claims" Journal of Ecclesiastical History pp. 384–386
- ^ a b Barlow William Rufus p. 308
- ^ Vaughn Anselm of Bec p. 148
- ^ Hollister Henry I pp. 13–14
- ^ Vaughn Anselm of Bec p. 242
- ^ Vaughn Anselm of Bec pp. 246–247
- ^ Vaughn Anselm of Bec pp. 255–256
- ^ Vaughn Anselm of Bec pp. 334–349
- ^ Loyn English Church p. 110
- ^ Hollister Henry I p. 235
- ^ a b Hollister Henry I pp. 241–244
- ^ a b Hollister Henry I pp. 269–273
- ^ Cheney "Some Observations" Journal of Ecclesiastical History p. 429
- ^ Cheney "Some Observations" Journal of Ecclesiastical History p. 432
- ^ Delivré "Foundations of Primatial Claims" Journal of Ecclesiastical History pp. 387–388
- ^ a b Hollister Henry I pp. 288–289
- ^ a b Robinson Papacy pp. 103–104
- ^ Quoted in Robinson Papacy p. 189
- ^ Coredon Dictionary of Medieval Terms p. 51
- ^ Robinson Papacy p. 263
- ^ Cheney "Some Observations" Journal of Ecclesiastical History p. 431 and footnote 5
- ^ a b Duggan "From the Conquest to the Death of John" English Church and the Papacy pp. 98–99
- ^ Brett English Church pp. 46–47
- ^ Barlow English Church 1066–1154 p. 44
- ^ a b Robinson Papacy pp. 173–174
- ^ Bethell "William of Corbeil" Journal of Ecclesiastical History pp. 156–157
- ^ Brett English Church p. 50
- ^ Brett English Church p. 52
- ^ a b Barlow Thomas Becket pp. 84–86
- ^ Saltman Theobald pp. 141–142
- ^ Saltman Theobald p. 123
- ^ Bartlett England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings p. 394
- ^ Barlow Thomas Becket p. 106
- ^ Barlow Thomas Becket p. 145
- ^ Warren Henry II p. 503
- ^ Young Hubert Walter pp. 88–89
References
- ISBN 0-582-50236-5.
- ISBN 0-520-07175-1.
- ISBN 0-520-04936-5.
- ISBN 0-19-822741-8.
- ISBN 0-7524-1980-3.
- Bethell, Denis (October 1968). "William of Corbeil and the Canterbury-York Dispute". .
- Blumenthal, Uta-Renate (1988). The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-1386-6.
- Brett, M. (1975). The English Church Under Henry I. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-821861-3.
- ISBN 0-14-014824-8.
- Cheney, Mary (October 1980). "Some Observations on a Papal Privilege of 1120 for the Archbishops of York". .
- Coredon, Christopher (2007). A Dictionary of Medieval Terms & Phrases (Reprint ed.). Woodbridge, UK: D. S. Brewer. ISBN 978-1-84384-138-8.
- Delivré, Fabrice (July 2008). "The Foundations of Primatial Claims in the Western Church (Eleventh-Thirteenth Centuries)". .
- OCLC 399137.
- Duggan, Charles (1965). "From the Conquest to the Death of John". In Lawrence, C. H. (ed.). The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages (1999 Reprint ed.). Stroud, UK: Sutton Publishing. pp. 63–116. ISBN 0-7509-1947-7.
- ISBN 0-300-08858-2.
- ISBN 0-582-30303-6.
- Robinson, I. S. (1990). The Papacy 1073–1198: Continuity and Innovation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-31922-6.
- Saltman, Avrom (1956). Theobald: Archbishop of Canterbury. London: Athlone Press. OCLC 385687.
- Vaughn, Sally N. (1987). Anselm of Bec and Robert of Meulan: The Innocence of the Dove and the Wisdom of the Serpent. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-05674-4.
- ISBN 0-520-03494-5.
- Young, Charles R. (1968). Hubert Walter: Lord of Canterbury and Lord of England. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. OCLC 443445.
Further reading
- JSTOR 556965.
- Vaughn, Sally N. (2006). "Henry I and the English Church : The Archbishops and the King". Haskins Society Journal Volume 17. Boydell. pp. 133–157.