¹ Sicut plurimi, 1177-79: [The] Letters [of John of Salisbury], 2, [The Later Letters (1163-80) (ed W. J. Millor and C. N. L. Brooke, OMT: Oxford 1979)] 325, p 802.

² Ep 305. For the comparison of Thomas with Christ, see pp 726-31.

³ This letter, sometimes divided into lections, occurs in martyrologies or lectionaries from Citeaux (Dijon, Bibl municipale MSS 574 and 646), Hasnon (Douai, Bibl municipale MS 855), Marchiennes (Douai, Bibl municipale MS 838), Moissac (Paris, BN MS lat 2098), Saint-Martial de Limoges (Paris, BN MS lat 5347) and Saint-Rémi de Reims (Reims, Bibl municipale MS 302), in addition to a Clermont-Ferrand lectionary (Bibl municipale MS 148), the provenance of which is uncertain.

⁴ Setting aside the strictly liturgical commemorations of Saint Thomas, the evidence of surviving continental MSS, the medieval provenance of which can be securely established, suggests that John’s Vita et Passio was widely disseminated. Work on the expansion of Becket’s cult is still in progress and more copies of John’s Life may yet come to light. So far, however, versions of his Vita et Passio have been found in MSS from Belval (Charleville, Bibl municipale MS 254, vol. 3); Bologna, Bibl del’Università MS 1604 (olim aula 111, app MSS 1031); Clairvaux (Montpellier, École de médecine MS 2 and Troyes, Bibl municipale MS 1183); Jumièges (Rouen, Bibl municipale MS U 24, catalogue no 1402); Lyre (Évreux, Bibl municipale MS 7); Monte Cassino, cod casin 466 KK; Novara, Bibl capitolare MS CIV (olim 65, catalogue no 80); Sainte-Geneviève (Paris, MS CC.I. in 4° 19, catalogue no 1370); Saint-Ghislain (London, BL Additional MS 10050); Saint-Hubert in the Ardennes (Namur, Bibl du Musée archéologique MS 15, prologue only; Saint-Nicholas in Arnstein (London, BL Harleian MS 2802); Saint-Séverin (Bibl Sainte-Geneviève, Paris, MS E.l. in 4° 21, catalogue no 1648); Saint-Victor (Paris, Bibl de l’Arsenal MS 938); San Felice di Narco (Spoleto, Bibl della cattedrale, Lectionary of San Felice di Narco); Santa Giustina, Padua (Oxford, Bodl. Lyell MS 77: prologue and modified vita).

⁵ The precise contribution made by John to Alan’s collection remains uncertain. Guy, canon of Merton, claimed that he helped John assemble a collection of letters relating to the cause of Saint Thomas, and his florilegium of extracts from that work (Oxford, St. John’s College, MS 126) reflects the order of Alan’s collection rather than that of John’s second collection of letters, although it predominantly contains letters written by John himself. The most satisfactory interpretation of this evidence is that John made a special selection of Becket materials which Alan incorporated into his own more ambitious work. For the latest discussions of the relationship between these letter-collections, see Letters 2, pp lviii-lxiii and Duggan, Anne, Thomas Becket: A Textual History of his Letters (Oxford 1980) pp 94–8.Google Scholar

⁶ [The] Letters [of John of Salisbury,] 1, [The Early Utters (1153-1161) (ed W. J. Millor and H. E. Butler, revised by C. N. L. Brooke, NMT, OMT London 1955)] p 44 n 1. The recipient of Letters 1, ep 27, he is the ‘suus Ernulfus’ of the Becket correspondence, MHTB, 5, epp 84 and 163; 6, ep 233. The ascription of these letters to bishop Arnulf of Lisieux is erroneous: see The Letters of Arnulf of Lisieux, ed F. Barlow, Cam Soc, 3 series, 61 (1939) p lxxxvii.

⁷ Smalley, [Beryl], [The Becket Conflict and the Schools (Oxford 1973)] p 103.Google Scholar

⁸ Policraticus viii.18 [(ed C. C. I. Webb: Oxford 1909)] 2, p 364.

⁹ Smalley p 88.

¹⁰ Letters 1 pp 257-8.

¹¹ For letters to Henry de Beaumont, bishop-elect of Bayeux, Master Humphrey Bos, chancellor of Bayeux, Richard of Ilchester, archdeacon of Poitiers, Bartholomew, bishop of Exeter, and Robert, prior of Merton, see Letters 2, 138-9 and 149-51. His letters to the justiciar, Richard de Lucy, and to the bishops of London, Hereford, Worcester and Chichester have not survived, but see Letters 2 pp 48-53.

¹² Letters 2 p 20, ‘non diffiteor quin ecclesiae et archiepiscopo Cantuariensi debitam fidem seruauerim, sed quod ex conscientia contra honorem regi debitum aut utilitatem me in nullo uersatum esse’.

¹³ Letters 2 pp 20-2 (to Master Humphrey Bos), ‘Ecclesiae et archiepiscopo Cantuariensi debitam seruaui fidem et ei, ubi iustitia et modestia uidebantur adesse, et in Anglia et in partibus cismarinis fideliter astiti’; p 48 (to Bartholomew, bishop of Exeter), ‘Seruaui quidem fidem debitam domino meo archiepiscopo, sed ex cons cientia mea saluo honore regis’. See also ep 167, to Master Raymond, chancellor of Poitiers, and ep 183, to Engelbert, prior of Val-Saint-Pierre.

¹⁴ Letters 2 p 22, ‘sciatisque pro certo quia michi propositum est ut non sim de cetero curialis; et hoc ipsum bene nouit dominus Cantuariensis, a cuius me subtraxi consortio, sed nee fidem subtraho nee caritatem’ (italics mine).

¹⁵ Letters 2 p 48, ‘Nollem quidem expromittere quod Cantuariensi de cetero non seruirem, et tamen michi Deus testis est quod ex proposito non ero de cetero curialis’.

¹⁶ Letters 2 p 12.

¹⁷ Letters 2 p 22 (to Master Humphrey), ‘Sicubi uero aut exorbitare a iustitia aut modum excederc uidebatur, restiti ei in faciem’; p 48 (to bishop Bartholomew), ‘sacpius et aspcrius quam aliquis mortalium corripuerim dominum archiepiscopum de his, in quibus ab initio dominum regem et suos zelo quodam inconsultius uisus est ad amaritudincm prouocasse’.

¹⁸ Letters 2 pp 8-15.

¹⁹ Letters 2, 144; see Smalley p 103.

²⁰ Warren, [W. L.], [Henry II (London 1973)] pp 512–13.Google Scholar

²¹ The fullest account of the Angers interviews is given by William FitzStephen, MHTB 3, pp 98-101. Sec also Letters 2, pp 98-9, and n 46 below.

²² Letters 2 p 86 (to his brother Richard), ‘Potueram namque recipere quae michi, ut opinor, per iniuriam aufcruntur, si aeterna uellem usquequaquc postponere et libertatem spiritus pernicioso et certe periculosissimo artare iuramento …ego, prout exigebatur, sine dispendio salutis et famae petitam non possem praestare cautioncm’.

²³ Letters 2 pp 184-5.

²⁴ Letters 2, 173.

²⁵ Letters 2, 175, esp p 160, ‘Vos autem, ut michi uisum est, litteris et malitiae eorum prudentissime et elegantissime respondistis’.

²⁶ Letters 2, 176, esp pp 170-5.

²⁷ Letters 2 pp 190-1.

²⁸ Letters 2 pp 188-9.

²⁹ Letters 2, 213 (to the pope), on behalf of the Canterbury exiles who are suffering ‘pro tuenda libertate ecclesiae’ (p 348); 2, 219 (also to the pope).

³⁰ See esp Letters 2, 174 (Multa quidem, July 1166) and 187 (Expectatione longa, late 1166) addressed respectively to Bartholomew and Baldwin. Multa quidem (evidently written with the bishops’ appeal before him, since he quotes verbatim from its text) condemns the appeal of 24th June 1166, MHTB 5 (ep 205), which he regards as a piece of royalist propaganda fabricated by Gilbert Foliot of London, contemptuously described as ‘your scribe’ (notarius uester) and ‘ruler of the synagogue’ (archisinagogus), whom he accused of having sought the primacy. In Expectatione longa, written to the archdeacon of Totnes somewhat later, he deploys a fully-developed justification of Becket, rebutting the charges made against him in the bishops’ appeal and extended in Gilbert Foliot’s Multiplicem nobis (The Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot [ed Adrian Morey and C. N. L. Brooke: Cambridge 1967] ep 170) and blaming the bishops’ own unreliability and lukewarmness for Becket’s momentary weakness at Clarendon.

³¹ See esp Letters 2, 225 (Raritas intermeantium, c October 1167), where he attributes Becket’s concession at Clarendon to the pressure of the bishops, though he does not seek to excuse it-’Pollicitationem Clarendonae, ad quam de consilio episcoporum impulsus est, purgare non possum’ -and defends his flight from Northampton as a defence of the sinking English Church, not abandonment of it-’Confugit ergo ad Romanum pontificem …ut eius praesidio ualidius opitularetur ecclesiae naufraganti…. Hoc autem non fuit ecclesiam exponere, sed liberationi eius operam dare’ (p 392).

³² In a letter to Becket in summer 1166 (Letters 2, 179), John seems to be impugning the moderation and discretion of the household, or certain members of it (see n 33 below); more than a year later, in condemning the breach of diplomatic etiquette in Becket’s proposed letters to cardinal William of Pavia, he submitted his own conciliatory letter to the cardinal (Letters 2, 229) for Becket’s approval, because ‘nolo ut sensus insulsus et ariditas linguae meae in uestrae clientelae risum et opinionis meae dispcndium publicetur’ (p 400).

³³ Letters 2 p 190, ‘sed paucos, prouidos et discretos, si quos tamen habetis tales’. See FitzStephen’s lively description of Herbert of Bosham’s interview with Henry II at Angers (MHTB 3 pp 99-101), and the well-judged comparison of Herbert and John of Salisbury in Smalley, pp 87-8; also p 59: ‘Master Herbert was a colourful character who loved a scrap. He was also a gifted writer, an original thinker, an artist and the best Hebraist of the century’.

³⁴ Letters 2 pp 170-1, 354-5, and 372-5.

³⁵ See his letters to Jocelin’s brother, Richard de Bohun, bishop of Coutances (Letters 2, 216), to Jocelin’s son, Reginald Lombardus (Fitzjocelin), archdeacon of Salisbury (2, 217), and to Jocelin himself (2, 218). In Romanos amicis (2, 278), he recognised his obligations to Jocelin and asked Becket to spare him, ‘nostis me domini Saresberiensis esse a multo tempore debitorem, et Deus nouit quantum infortunio eius compatiar; ideoque …omni deuotione supplico ut ipsius, quantum salua honestate ecclesiae et uestra poteritis, misereamini, nee a me unquam aliud con silium audietis’(2, p600). Writing to Master Ralph Niger in summer 1166 (2, 181, p 202), he promised to do his best for Richard, ‘Temptabo utique, ut consulitis, archiepiscopum flectere pro archidiacono Pictauensi, si tamen intellexeritis quod ad pacem ecclesiae possit proficere labor meus; alioquin probrosum esset et turpe patrem circumuenire et dominum’, though later (2, 182, p 206) he somewhat ambiguously commended his refusal to consort with the archdeacon.

³⁶ In Fides et deuotio (2, 182, cited in n 35 above), John discussed the problem of association with excommunicates in the context of Ralph’s refusal to have dealings with Richard of Ilchester. He distinguished four forms of contact: salutation with a kiss, sharing a common table, praying together, and greetings, and argued that a distinction should be made between the perfect and the imperfect observance of the canon law, between the ideal and the necessity imposed on imperfect men by the pressure of ‘public power’. This is one of John’s most ambivalent letters. It implies that Ralph should overlook Richard’s excommunication in order to use the oppor tunity afforded by his friendship in the service of the Church. Becket forbade precisely this kind of equivocation to bishop Roger of Worcester in 1169, MHTB 6, p 577.

³⁷ See esp his discussion of the dilemma of Bartholomew of Exeter in early 1168, Letters 2, pp 462-9.

³⁸ Letters 2 p 152, ‘Non enim uobis laqueum procurauimus’. John had urged Becket to summon the bishops, despite their appeal to the pope, 2 pp 134-5.

³⁹ Letters 2 pp 708-9.

⁴⁰ Letters 2 pp 724-5.

⁴¹ See esp Si affectum (to his brother Richard, Letters 2, 164, cited in n 22 above), Puer meus (to Master Raymond of Poitiers, 2, 167, cited in n 43 below), and Litterae tuae (to Master Ralph of Lisieux, 2, 202, cited in n 51 below).

⁴² MHTB 3 p 99, ‘dicens, se nutritum ab adolescentia de bonis Cantuariensis ecclesiae, et juratum esse in domini papae et archiepiscopi sui obedientiam; neque posse Cantuariensi ecclesiae vel domino suo archiepiscopo deesse, neque posse quarumlibet consuetudinum observantiam suscipere contra dominum papam et ecclesiam Cantuariensem’. See also nn 46 and 51 below.

⁴³ Letters 2 p 96 (to Master Raymond of Poitiers), ‘Si de praeteritis agatur, non nego me Cantuariensi archiepiscopo sicut domino et patri meo debitum et deuotum prestitisse obsequium, et utinam efficacius prestitissem; nee unquam, Deo propitio, ad hoc pro quacumque utilitate uel dampno deducar ut dominum meum, quicumque sit, abiurando uel abnegando maculem uitam meam, immo et memoriam nominis et gentis meae coram Deo et hominibus’; see also n 51 below.

⁴⁴ Smalley pp 118-20.

⁴⁵ In October 1169, Henry II attempted to protect himself from the consequences of an interdict by compelling the adult population of England to swear that they would not obey any sentences imposed by the archbishop or by the pope, and issued severe decrees against any who should fail to observe his mandate, MHTB 1 pp 53-5 and 3, pp 102-3. Although some of the bishops seem to have allowed the oath to be administered in their lands, they all refused to take the oath themselves: see M. D. Knowles, AnneJ. Duggan, C. N. L. Brooke, ‘Henry II’s Supplement to the Constitutions of Clarendon’, EHR (1972) pp 757-71, esp pp 760-1.

⁴⁶ See FitzStephen’s record of the arguments put to John himself at Angers, MHTB 3 p 99, ‘Dictum est ei pro rege, quod in terra regis natus et nutritus …et …oportere eum sicut regni regis indigenam regi esse fidelem contra archiepiscopum et omnes homines: propositaque est ei forma sacramenti, si jurare vellet, quod regi fidelis foret de vita et membris suis, et honore suo terreno conservando contra omnes homines, et nominatim, quod consuetudines suas scriptas et regales suas dignitates legitime conservaret, quidquid faceret dominus papa vel archiepiscopus vel episcopus suus’. Similarly exclusive loyalty is implied in Henry’s statement to the nobles and courtiers assembled at Chinon on 1 June 1166—’dixit quod omnes proditores erant qui eum adhibita opera et diligentia ab unius hominis infestatione nolebant expedire’ (Letters 2 p 108). As recorded here byjohn of Salisbury, this is a telling anticipation of the words which allegedly precipitated Becket’s murder.

⁴⁷ Walter de Insula, keeper of the king’s seal, was required to swear that he would receive no messages from the Canterbury exiles (Letters 2 p 78), ‘Audio magistrum Galterium iuramento artari, ut neque litteras neque nuntios recipiat exulantium.’

⁴⁸ FitzStephen records an illuminating exchange between Henry II and bishop Roger of Worcester in 1170, see MHTB 3 pp 104-5.

⁴⁹ Warren, p 402.

⁵⁰ At Montmirail in January 1169, MHTB 3 pp 424-5 and 428-9; see also FitzStephen’s account of the attitude of Henry of Houghton, one of Becket’s clerks, on the same occasion, pp 96-7.

⁵¹ Letters 2 p 96 (to Master Raymond of Poitiers), ‘Si uero de iuramentis actum fuerit, nouit dominus meus episcopus quam subtili reuerentia in talibus tenear. Nunquid ergo iurare possem in ea praescriptione uerborum aut potius salutis proscriptione quae ab aliis (ut audio) exigitur et praestatur, ubi nee Dei nee legis nee ordinis saluandi licet fieri mentionem? Sed et de consuetudinibus reprobis et legibus ignotis aut repugnantibus legi Dei seruandis quis sacramentum praestat, nisi alienus a fide et omnium sacramentorum contemptor?’ (see also n 43 above); p 296 (to Master Ralph of Lisieux), ‘Sed forte dices quia pridem proposita mutabitur formula iuramenti nee cogetur aliquis in reprobarum consuetudinum uerba iurare, contentus erit exactor iuramenti si fidelitatis seruandae sibi succinctim absolute uerba praestentur, ita quidem ut non adiciatur fidem ecclesiae et praelatorum obedientiam saluam fore; nam, ut aiunt, istis nee uult nee uoluit praeiudicare quod nee exigitur iuramentum. Verum si praeiudicare non debet, quare necessariae ad salutem obseruationis non licet fieri mentionem? Si praeiudicat, qua conscientia praestabitur a fideli?’; p 386 (to John of Poitiers), ‘Nam si de iuramentis agitur quae dominus rex a nobis exigere consueuit, rogo Deum meum ut ante michi mortem misericorditer largiatur quam conscientiam et famam iuramentis talibus maculare’.

⁵² See n 51 above.

⁵³ In his first conference with the king, held ‘inter Gisorcium et Triam’ on 18 November 1167, Becket insisted on the insertion of the saving clause ‘saluo honore Dei et libertate ecclesiae et honestate personae suae et possessionibus ecclesiarum’, Letters 2 pp 408-9.

⁵⁴ These same reservations were repeated at Montmirail on 6 January 1169, Letters 2 pp 640-1.