² Schaarschmidt p 59; and full references in Letters 2 p xlvii n.; esp to Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Chartres, ed E. de Lépinois and L. Merlet, 3 vols (Chartres 1862-5) 1, 20. There is a full account of his tomb, with illustrations, by Joly, R. and Villette, J. in Notre-Dame de Chartres, 2, no 44 (Sept. 1980). pp 10–17.Google Scholar

³ The Policraticus has been made widely known by the translations of bks iv-vi and parts of vii-viii by J. Dickinson (New York 1927), and of bks i-iii and parts of vii-viii by J. B. Pike (Minneapolis 1938); see esp Luscombe below pp 29f.

⁴ See esp his treatment of St Bernard and Gilbert de la Porrée in the Historia Pontificalis (cited here from the edition and translation by M. Chibnall (1956) pp 15 f.); or his treatment of Louis IX and his brother the archbishop of Rheims-under whose protection John lived in exile, but of whom he wrote with studied ambiguity-in the later Letters, for example 136, 144, 176 (pp 176-9), 223 etc.

⁵ Especially Arnulf, bishop of Lisieux: see Letters 1, 17, 18, 30; Historia Pontificalis pp 54-6 etc.

⁶ See Letters 1 pp xii-xxiv; Saltman, [A.], Theobald (London 1956) esp pp 169–75.Google Scholar

⁷ Letters 2 pp xix-xx, xxxviii, 552-3, 576-7 (nos. 272, 274).

⁸ See esp Kealey, E.J., Roger of Salisbury (Berkeley 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the doubt as to Matilda’s name, see The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. M. Chibnall (Oxford, 1968-80), 6, 532-3 nn.

⁹ For the identification of the tombs and effigies moved from Old Sarum, see [H. de S.] Shortt, [‘The three bishops’ tombs moved to. Salisbury cathedral from Old Sarum’] (Salisbury 1971) repr from Wilts Archaeological and Nat Hist Magazine 57 (Salisbury 1958-60) pp 217-19.

¹⁰ It should be emphasised that this is pure conjecture, though it gains a little colour from the fact that his half-brother was the son of ‘Egidia’, which may suggest a mother not formally married.

¹¹ See Letters 2 pp xxv-xxvi and references, esp to Blake, D. W., ‘The Church of Exeter in the Norman Period’ (MA thesis, University of Exeter 1970)Google Scholar. Letters 2, 147 refers to a nephew, apparently Robert’s son, and no 148 to a lady possibly Robert’s concubine.

¹² Letters 2, 147-8. There are sharp references to incontinent archdeacons in Letters 1, 14-15,79; but two of these were written in Theobald’s name, and all refer to public scandals-furthermore the archdeacon denounced in nos 14-15 was addressed in 2, 253 a few years later in a much more friendly fashion.

¹³ Compare Brooke, C., Medieval Church and Society (London 1971) cap 4.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Letters 2 p xlvi n. for Exeter; ibid no 152 pp 52-3 shows that he had revenues in the diocese of Salisbury; and he is specifically called canon of Salisbury in MHTB 3, p 46.

¹⁵ Letters 2, 148 (compare n. 11 above).

¹⁶ Ibid. 172 pp 132-3.

¹⁷ Ibid. 304 pp 716-17.

¹⁸ Ibid. 2 December was the day of Thomas Becket’s arrival in Canterbury: ibid pp 720-1.

¹⁹ On the tomb, see Shorn; on Jocelin, , esp. Knowles, [D.], [The] Episcopal Colleagues [of Archbishop Thomas Becket] (Cambridge 1951) pp 17–22, 157Google Scholar and passim; [The] Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot […, ed. A. Morey and C. N. L. Brooke] (Cambridge 1967) p 538 and refs.

²⁰ On him, see esp Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp 34 seq; Knowles, , Monastic Order in England (2 ed Cambridge 1963) pp 287–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Voss, L., Heinrich von Blois (Berlin 1932).Google Scholar

²¹ St Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistola 520, in Opera 8 ed J. Leclercq and H. Rochais (Rome 1977) pp 480-2.

²² Historia Pontificalis pp 78-80.

²³ Letters 2, 296, pp 682-5.

²⁴ MHTB 3 pp 524-5; compare Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues p 19; Morey, A. and Brooke, C. N. L., Gilbert Foliot and his Letters (Cambridge 1965) p 56 and n.Google Scholar

²⁵ Letters 2, esp 216-18.

²⁶ Metalogicon ii.10 (ed Webb, Oxford 1929) p 82; compare Letters 1 pp xiv-xv.

²⁷ Metalogicon ii. 10, pp 77-83.

²⁸ Clerval, J. A., Les écoles de Chartres au moyen age (Paris 1895).Google Scholar

²⁹ Southern, R. W., ‘Humanism and the School of Chartres’, in Medieval Humanism [and other studies] (Oxford 1970) pp 61–85Google Scholar. Compare Letters 2 p x and Luscombe pp 24-5 below.

³⁰ See n 4 above.

³¹ See Letters 1 pp xix-xxiii; 2 pp xii, xlvi and n.

³² Morey, A., Bartholomew of Exeter (Cambridge 1937)Google Scholar; Kuttner, S. and Rathbone, E. in Traditio 7 (1949-51) p 295.Google Scholar

³³ Compare Letters 1 pp xxx-xxxvi.

³⁴ Letters 1 pp xxii-xxiii; on Vacarius see Southern, R. W. in Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays presented to R. W. Hunt (Oxford 1976) pp 257–86Google Scholar; Stein, P. in Church and Government in the Middle Ages: Essays presented to C. R. Cheney (Cambridge 1976) pp 119–37.Google Scholar

³⁵ Southern, Medieval Humanism pp 107-8; compare Kuttner and Rathbone, Traditio 7 (1949-51) pp 285-6.

³⁶ As in the case of his negotiations with the Pope on the claims of Henry II to Ireland (compare Letters 1 p 257 and refs) and perhaps Letters 2, 174-5, which may be reckoned to have exacerbated feeling between Becket and the English bishops in the summer of 1166.

³⁷ Metalogicon iii, prol (ed Webb p 117); compare Letters 1 pp xxiv, 256: we cannot be certain if the figure ten is precisely correct, but any reasonable reconstruction of the nature of John’s career in the late 1140s and 1150s makes it very plausible.

³⁸ On Peter see Leclercq, J., La spiritualité de Pierre de Celle (Paris 1946)Google Scholar; Letters 1 pp ix-x and passim. Most of his works are in PL 202; for recent study see Martel, G. de in Scriptorium 33 (1979) pp 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁹ Courtney, F., Cardinal Robert Pullen (Rome 1954) cap 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ St Bernard, Epistola 361 (Opera 8 pp 307-8): it is true that Bernard calls him simply John, but the letter is addressed to Theobald; the circumstances fit John of Salisbury and are not known to fit those of any other of Theobald’s clerks; and there is some manuscript authority for the address to John of Salisbury in the heading of the letter (see Leclercq and Rochais’s apparatus, 8 p 307, notes to lines 7-8: they cite one surviving manuscript, their Rp-compare p 235; presumably Mabillon had seen at least one more).

⁴¹ See Constable, G. in EHR 69 (1954) pp 67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Letters 1 pp 257-8.

⁴² See Historia Pontificalis, and M. Chibnall below, pp 169-77. The work is anonymous in the only surviving manuscript, and there has been no detailed discussion of its authorship, since its extraordinary congruence with the manner, career and experience of John were first noted-and the authorship attributed to him-by Giesebrecht, W. in his Arnold von Brescia (Munich 1873) pp 6–7Google Scholar. There are numerous circumstantial points which come readily to hand in favour of his authorship; but it is desirable that the whole case be studied and stated. Meanwhile, I assume the work to be correctly attributed to John.

⁴³ Letters 1 pp xxv-xxxviii, 2 pp xix-xliv; Saltman, Theobald, passim.

⁴⁴ The early letters of his exile reveal a strong and continuing desire to return to England; yet many of his letters from Rheims also take for granted that he is at home there-for the phrase ‘nos Francos’ see Letters 2, 270 pp 546-7.

⁴⁵ Letters 1, 33 esp pp 57-8.

⁴⁶ John of Hexham in Symeon of Durham, Opera Omnia, ed T. Arnold, RS (1882-5) 2 pp 318-20.

⁴⁷ For the manuscripts see Pinder-Wilson, R. H. and Brooke, C. in Archaeohgia 104 (London 1973) p 299 n 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ So far as is at present known: there is, for example no evidence that Shaftesbury was ever a hill-fort or hill-town in prehistoric times. The ancient hill-towns were mostly abandoned during the Roman occupation of Britain.

⁴⁹ Letters 2, 240 pp 456-9 and n. On John and Italy, see R. Manselli, below, n. 51.

⁵⁰ Hisloria Pontificalis pp 63-5.

⁵¹ See T. Reuter below, pp 415f; Letlers 2 pp xxxviii-xxxix. For John and the Lombard League see Popolo e Stalo in Italia nell’età di Federico Barbarossa, Alessandria e la Lega Lombarda (Turin 1970) esp paper by R. Manselli; see also Manselli, in I problemi [della civiltà commiale] (Atti del Congresso, Bergamo 1967) ed Fonseca, C. D. (Bergamo 1971) p 18 and n 50Google Scholar; bibliography in Cognasso, F., II Piemonte nell’età sveva (Turin 1968) p 843.Google Scholar

⁵² Letters 2, 272-6, esp (for Barbarossa in the winter of 1167-8) 272, and (for the foundation of Alessandria) no 276, pp 588-9.

⁵³ See n 51.

⁵⁴ Letters 2 pp 588-9; R. Manselli in I problemi (n 51).

⁵⁵ Letters 2, 290, pp 660-1.

⁵⁶ See Reuter pp 415-25 below; Letters 1, 124; 2 841 (index sv Frederick).

⁵⁷ Letters 2, 235, pp 434-5; compare 1 p 256.

⁵⁸ See Cheney, Mary G. in EHR 84 (1969) pp 474–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ For all this see Reuter, T. A., ‘The Papal Schism, the Empire and the West, 1159-1169’ (DPhil thesis, University of Oxford 1975) and below, pp 417fGoogle Scholar. See esp Letters 2, 177, 290, pp 182-5, 658-61.

⁶⁰ For Frederick as ‘ex-Augustus’ and the Lateran Synod see Letters 2, 242, esp p 474 and n 4.

⁶¹ See below pp 179-201; also Martin, Janet ‘John of Salisbury and the Classics’, PhD thesis, Harvard University (1968).Google Scholar

⁶² Letters 2, 276 pp 588-9, 272 pp 554-5.

⁶³ See n 4. Letters 2, 168 (the account of Becket’s thunders at Vizelay in June 1166) and no 304, with its terrifying account of the events of late November and early December 1170, are remarkable examples of the vividness with which he can portray contemporary reactions to dramatic events.

⁶⁴ See esp Letters 2 pp xxiv-xxv and refs.

⁶⁵ Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot, 166; 167 sends a similar message to Becket, and is the occasion of John’s outbursts (see below).

⁶⁶ Knowles, Episcopal Colleague’s, p 121; Letters 2, 174 pp 138-41.

⁶⁷ Horace, Ep i 17 62.

⁶⁸ Letters 2, 174 was addressed to Bartholomew bishop of Exeter; and to Exeter were also addressed several others of his most thunderous epistles. No close student of John’s letters has ever believed, 1 think, that they were literary exercises, not actually sent; the amount of minor gossip in most of them seems conclusive against this view-and the curious confusion over the addresses of some of the letters to Exeter (noted in Letters 2 p liv) is most readily explained if it reflects the actual condition of the packets of letters sent.

⁶⁹ See recent studies discussed by D. E. Luscombe pp 22-4, below.

⁷⁰ See pp 21-2, 34-5 below.

⁷¹ The edition was based on the London thesis by W.J. Millor, revised by Sir Roger Mynors; the translation to Letters 1 was by H. E. Butler; the whole was revised and annotated (with much help from Millor’s thesis), and the translation of Letters 2 provided, by myself, with the help of many scholars named in the preface to 2, especially Sir Roger Mynors, Dr Michael Winterbottom and Dr Diana Greenway.

⁷² For what follows see Letters 1 pp xxxvii-xxxviii, 266-7; Cheney, M. G. in EHR 84 (1969) pp 474–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Saltman, Theobald, pp 54-5.

⁷³ For a recent statement by one of the major authorities, see Knowles, D., Thomas Becket (London 1970)Google Scholar; Knowles, , [The] Historian and Character, (Cambridge 1963)Google Scholar cap 6. For a less favourable view, Warren, [W. L.], [Henry II] (London 1973), cap 13.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Letters 1, 128 pp 221-2.

⁷⁵ The nature and significance of this in 12th century England has never been fully explored: for various aspects of it, see esp Southern, Medieval Humanism, cap 11; Lally, J., ‘Secular patronage at the court of King Henry II’, BIHR 49 (1976) pp 159–84.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Warren cap 5, esp pp 207-17, lays out and discusses the contemporary attitudes to Henry II. See also Knowles, Thomas Becket, pp 33-7,156-9; John’s Letters 2, 168, 174-6 (esp pp 156-9), 288.

⁷⁷ See esp Knowles, Historian and Character, pp 112-13.

⁷⁸ See n 73.

⁷⁹ Letters 2, 305. The letter evidently circulated as a narrative of the murder; but there is no reason to doubt that it was originally written as a personal letter to John of Canterbury, bishop of Poitiers, early in 1171.

⁸⁰ For eyewitnesses, see Knowles, Historian and Character, pp 123-8, and Thomas Becket pp 172-3. For what follows, Letters 2, 305 pp 734-7.

⁸¹ See Letters 2 pp xliv-xlvi.

⁸² See Councils and Synods, 1, ed D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C. N. L. Brooke (Oxford 1981) pp 956-65; Foreville, R., L’Eglise et la royauté eit Angleterre sous Henri II Plantagenêt (Paris 1943), pp 373–84Google Scholar; Mayr-Harting, H. in JEH 16 (1965) pp 39–53.Google Scholar

⁸³ See Letters 2 pp xlvi-xlvii; Ralph de Diceto, Opera historica, ed W. Stubbs, RS(1876) 1 pp 410-12.

⁸⁴ Letters 2 pp lviii-lxiii; but see now Duggan, A., Thomas Becket: a Textual History of his Letters (Oxford 1980) esp pp 94–8Google Scholar, and T. Reuter’s forthcoming article on John’s Life. On John at Chartres, see however Luscombe, pp 35-6 below and references.