^{page xxxii note 3} See above, p. xx, n. 7.

^{page xxxii note 4} The papal schism of 1130.

^{page xxxii note 5} Marc., iv, 11.

^{page xxxii note 6} Philip., iii, 20.

^{page xxxiii note 1} Invectiva, cap. 8.

^{page xxxiii note 2} See below, p. 181.

^{page xxxiii note 3} See below, pp. 181, 190, 198 and 209.

^{page xxxiii note 4} Sermones, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

^{page xxxiii note 5} Five papal answers to Arnulf on questions of law appear in the appendix to the Lateran Council of 1179, three of which appear to have been taken from the same letter (Appendix, pars vii, cap. xvi; pars xxii, capp. v and vi; pars xxv, cap. v; pars xliv, cap. x, in Mansi, J. D., Sacr. conciliorum nova et ampl. collectio, xxii, 302, 361, 366 and 409).Google Scholar

^{page xxxiv note 1} Arnulf took care of the funeral arrangements (below, p. 4).

^{page xxxiv note 2} Letter of Hugh, archbishop of Rouen, to Alberic, H.F., xv, 696.Google Scholar

^{page xxxiv note 3} Gerald of Wales (‘Liber de Princ. Instruc.’), viii, 160, 301 and 309.

^{page xxxiv note 4} Diceto, i, 256.

^{page xxxiv note 5} Arnulf, ep. no. 3.

^{page xxxiv note 6} H.F., xv, 603.Google Scholar

^{page xxxiv note 7} This may perhaps be inferred from St. Bernard's contrast between those accusers whose poverty prevented them from following Gerard out of the country and Arnulf who spared neither purse nor body (H.F., xv, 603)Google Scholar:

‘Restat proinde nihil aliud suspicandum, quam fugisse hominem subdolum [sc. Gerardum] accusantium multitudinem, qui extra patriam eum minime prae inopia sequi possent. Gratias agimus domino Lexoviensi, qui zelo domus Domini tactus, nec marsupio pepercit, nec corpori’.

^{page xxxv note 1} So says Becket, Materials, vii, 243Google Scholar. Gams, Series episcoporum, gives 1157 for the date of Froger's appointment, possibly following the Annales Uticenses (Ordericus, v, 162), although the cui successit is quite ambiguous. Torigni, , p. 205Google Scholar, and his editor, Howlett, support 1159.

^{page xxxv note 2} Epp. nos. 33 and 34. This John seems to have been a royal clerk about 1166 (Eyton).

^{page xxxv note 3} See below, p. lvi.

^{page xxxv note 4} Ep. no. 34.

^{page xxxv note 5} Ep. no. 35.

^{page xxxv note 6} Cf. Gerald of Wales' strictures, i, 298 seqq. (‘Symbolum Electorum’) and i. 103 (‘De Rebus a se Gestis’).

^{page xxxv note 7} See the scandalous conditions at Grestain, epp. nos. 45–9.

^{page xxxvi note 1} See Lemarignier, J. F., Étude sur les privilèges d'exemption et de juridiction ecclésiastique des abbayes normandes depuis les origines jusqu'en 1140 (Archives de la France monastique, vol. xliv, 1937.)Google Scholar

^{page xxxvi note 2} Lemarignier, , op. cit., p. 210.Google Scholar

^{page xxxvi note 3} See ep. no. 21.

^{page xxxvi note 4} See epp. nos. 68 and 89.

^{page xxxvi note 5} See epp. nos. 69, 70 and 86–9.

^{page xxxvi note 6} Ep. no. 68.

^{page xxxvi note 7} Lemarignier, op. cit., appendix I.

^{page xxxvii note 1} Epp. nos. 88 and 89.

^{page xxxvii note 2} In 1173 Arnulf says that the litigation had lasted thirty years, in other words, the whole of his episcopate (below, p. 144). Arnulf is found in conflict with the abbey c. 1159 over financial matters and the expulsion of a monk (epp. nos. 18 and 19). Certainly the abbot Robert II de Blangis, sometime monk of Bec, was excommunicated and suspended c. 1165 by Arnulf, and although he was almost brought to his knees by papal legates (below, p. 146; and ep. no. 70), he remained contumacious, and defied the efforts of three sets of judges-delegate. Giles de la Perche seems to have had this office soon after his election to Evreux in 1170 (ep. no. 69), and the third commission, composed of the deans of Bayeux and Evreux and the bishop of Avranches, did nothing owing to the sloth of the two deans (ep. no. 88), so that Arnulf was forced to apply to the pope for a fourth delegacy. By 1173 the case had become complicated by charges against the abbot of inobedience and perjury, and the disputed possession of a hermitage also added fuel to the fire (below, pp. 145–6).

^{page xxxviii note 1} Ordericus, , ii, 24–7Google Scholar; Lemarignier, , op. cit., pp. 67–9.Google Scholar

^{page xxxviii note 2} Lemarignier, , op. cit., pp. 203–4.Google Scholar

^{page xxxviii note 3} Below, p. 144.

^{page xxxviii note 4} Below, p. 145.

^{page xxxviii note 5} Lemarignier, , op. cit., pp. 210–11.Google Scholar

^{page xxxviii note 6} See below, p. 146.

^{page xxxviii note 7} Ep. no. 21.

^{page xxxviii note 8} Lemarignier, , op. cit., p. 279.Google Scholar

^{page xxxix note 1} Appendix to Lateran Council, 1179, pars xxv, cap. v (Mansi, J. D., Sacr. conciliorum nova et ampl. collectio, xxii, 366).Google Scholar

^{page xxxix note 2} Ibid. (Bessin, G., Concilia Rotomagensis Provinciae, ii, 525).Google Scholar

^{page xxxix note 3} See below, pp. 175, 206 and 207.

^{page xxxix note 4} Above, p. xxxviii.

^{page xxxix note 5} Below, pp. 198–9.

^{page xxxix note 6} Ep. no, 115.

^{page xl note 1} The most detailed account of the obscure and highly controversial events which followed is given by DrOhnsorge, W., Die Legaten Alexanders III (159–69), (1928), pp. 15–38.Google Scholar

^{page xl note 2} See above p. xxxv, and below, p. lvi.

^{page xl note 3} Ep. no. 23.

^{page xl note 4} Ep. no. 24. Alexander's reply is printed among Arnulf's letters by Giles, no. 22.

^{page xl note 5} See below, p. 37.

^{page xl note 6} No. 28.

^{page xl note 7} Materials, v, 18.Google Scholar

^{page xl note 8} Ep. no. 27.

^{page xl note 9} Ep. no. 29. See Ohnsorge, op. cit.

^{page xl note 10} Cf. ep. no. 35.

^{page xli note 1} Draco Normannicus (in Chronicles of … Stephen, etc., Rolls Series, vol. ii), pp. 743–4.

^{page xli note 2} ‘Hic siluit Thomas antistes Canturiensis.

Ut minus edoctus verba Latina loqui’. Ibid., p. 744.

^{page xli note 3} ‘Cessit Apostolicus Arnulfo Lexoviensi

Concilium verbis irradiare suis:

Sed fluvius torrens emergens fontis ab imo

Vix reprimi valuit vocibus atque manu’.

Ibid., p. 744.

^{page xli note 4} Ed. Giles, pp. 2–25. When published by Arnulf the sermon seems to have been expanded into two orations.

^{page xlii note 1} See below, pp. 179 and 192.

^{page xlii note 2} Below, p. 76.

^{page xlii note 3} Below, p. 101.

^{page xlii note 4} Cf. Materials, vii, 86 and 88Google Scholar, and Diceto, , i, 335.Google Scholar

^{page xlii note 5} Ep. no. 35.

^{page xliii note 1} Below, p. 76.

^{page xliii note 2} Anon., I, Materials, iv, 12Google Scholar; William fitz Stephen, ibid., iii, 18. 8 No. 36.

^{page xliii note 4} Diceto, , i, 312Google Scholar; Alexander to Becket, Materials, v, 85.Google Scholar

^{page xliii note 5} Diceto, , i, 315Google Scholar; Alan of Tewkesbury, Materials, ii, 336.Google Scholar

^{page xliv note 1} Materials, v, 147.Google Scholar

^{page xliv note 2} No. 42.

^{page xliv note 3} Bosham, , Materials, iii, 393Google Scholar; John of Salisbury to Bartholomew of Exeter, ibid., v, 381–2; Nicholas of Mont St. Jacques to Becket, ibid., v, 419.

^{page xliv note 4} For John's attitude, see Webb, , John of Salisbury, pp. 109–11.Google Scholar

^{page xliv note 5} Peter of Blois, ep. no. 22, M.P.L., ccvii, 80.Google Scholar

^{page xliv note 6} Cf. letter in Materials, v, 101.Google Scholar

^{page xlv note 1} Friend to Becket, Materials, vi, 72.Google Scholar

^{page xlv note 2} Ibid., p. 73.

^{page xlv note 3} Ep. no. 53.

^{page xlvi note 1} See below, p. 1, note b.

^{page xlvi note 2} Torigni, , p. 232Google Scholar; Draco Normannicus (in Chronicles of … Stephen, etc., vol. ii), p. 714.Google Scholar

^{page xlvi note 3} Ed. Giles, p. 41.

^{page xlvi note 4} Friend to Becket, Materials, vii, 70–5Google Scholar; Vivian to Alexander, ibid., 79–80.

^{page xlvi note 5} No. 55.

^{page xlvi note 6} Becket to Alexander, Materials, vii, 335. Garnier de Pont-Sainte-Maxence gives a dramatic version (La Vie de S. Thomas, ed. Hippeau, C. (Paris, 1859), p. 154).Google Scholar

^{page xlvi note 7} Notably the Abbé Simon. See his Recherches (ut supra, p. xx). He believes that the chasuble at the hospital belonged to Arnulf, and was borrowed by Becket, and that Arnulf bequeathed the relic to the chapel, which he had consecrated, when he retired to Paris.

^{page xlvi note 8} No. 72.

^{page xlvii note 1} William of Sens to Alexander, Materials, vii, 442Google Scholar; William to Hugh of Durham, ibid., vii, 444.

^{page xlvii note 2} Ep. no. 87; Anonymous, Materials, vii, 513Google Scholar; Albert and Theodwin to William of Sens, ibid., vii, 520.

^{page xlvii note 3} Nos. 54a and 54b; compare the criticism of Herbert of Bosham in Materials, vii, 268Google Scholar, and of an unknown, ibid., vii, 273 and note 1.

^{page xlvii note 4} No. 60.

^{page xlvii note 5} No. 59.

^{page xlvii note 6} Nos. 75 and 84.