No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Medieval churchmen who became involved in ecclesiastical disputes or in disputes with secular authority, had access to a rich ‘language’ of phrase and imagery with which to strengthen their case. This ‘language’, drawing on Scriptural sources and on standard interpretations of Scripture, could be used to depict almost any dispute as a struggle between good and evil, as the persecution of pious men by the impious, as the renewed persecution of the Church Universal, as a latterday trial and passion of Christ, or as an assault on church liberties.
1 By ‘standard interpretations’ is meant those interpretations which most educated churchmen would have known and accepted. The interpretations which would have been familiar to John of Salisbury and his readers are those contained in the Glo[ssa] ord[inaria], which is discussed in Smalley, Beryl, The study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford 1952) pp 46–66 Google Scholar. The edition of the GI[ossa] ordinaria] which will be cited here is Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria … opera et studio Duacensium emendatis 6 vols (Douai and Antwerp 1617).
2 The episcopate was divided on most aspects of the dispute. For the debates which took place among the bishops at the councils of Westminster (on the issue of ‘criminous clerks’) and Clarendon (on whether they should accept unconditionally the customs of the kingdom) see Knowles, [David], [The] E[piscopal] C[olleagues of Archbishop Thomas Becket (Cambridge 1951)] pp 57–8, 61–2 Google Scholar.
3 M[aterials for the history of Thomas] B[ecket Archbishop of Canterbury …] edd Robertson, J. C. and Shepherd, J. B. 7 vols (RS 1875-85) 2 pp 326–9 Google Scholar.
4 MB 2 p 328: ‘Temporis instantia id requirit, maxime cum non sit generalis sed personalis haec persecutio. Satius est igitur unum caput in parte perclitari, quam totam ecclesiam Anglicanam inevitabili discrimini exponere.’ For the trustworthiness of this account note Knowles, EC p 72.
5 MB 5 ep 29. For dating of letters from MB I have followed the provisional dating given in the appendices of Anne Duggan, Thomas Becket: A textual history of his letters (Oxford 1980). For dating and discussion of the letters note Index 2 (Incipits), ibid.
6 The Christ themes: ‘multiplicantur injuriae, non nostrae sed Christi—immo quia Christi, eo magis nostrae’, MB5 p 48; ‘Eripitur Jesu Christo quod sanguine suo comparavit; in ipsam Ejus sortem potestas saecularis manum extendi!’ ibid. For an image which combines storm and shipwreck: ‘succendentibus sibi invicem more fluctum procellis, solum nobis videmus imminere naufragium, nec… “Domine salva nos, perimus”: ibid.
7 MB 5 ep 74 (Ad audientiam tuam) p 138.
8 Ibid p 138 where Becket hopes earn vel solam vel maximam meae persecutions causam attendas, quod exemplo tuo usus sum.
9 Ibid pp 140–1: Quid etiam si in universam ecclesiam cum offenso nobis principe conspirationem fecerunt? Et te, pater sanctissime, suspectio ista poterat attingere. ‘At’, inquient, ‘regis tenebantur ex debito domini.’ Sed illi corporaliter, mihi spiritualiter.
10 MB 5 ep 59 (Legitur Constantii principis), November-December 1164.
11 Divine vengeance: ibid pp 107–8: ‘Inimici Filii hominis gladii accinti et ad nocendum preparati.’ For the ‘counsel of Achitophel’ and the ‘innocent David’, ibid p 107: ‘consilia Achitophel consociorumque eius adversus David innocentent infatuet.’ For the attack on the Maccabees, ibid p 107.
12 This problem is discussed by Anne Duggan in The world of John of Salisbury (Oxford 1984). Duggan’s article was still unpublished when this article was written. While she argues for a coolness between John and Becket in the opening phase of the dispute, she does not go so far as to suggest that they differed on policies or tactics. Note also Brooke: ‘For reasons which can be guessed, but not fully explained, John refused to be one of Becket’s companions’ in The Letters of John of Salisbury [hereafter JS Epp.] edd Millor, W. J. and Brooke, C. N. L., 2 vols (OMT 1955, 1979) 2 p xix Google Scholar. The best account of John’s relationship with Becket is to be found in chapter 4 of [Beryl Smalley, The] Becket conflict [and the schools (Oxford 1973)]. Smalley takes a view differing in emphasis from that expressed in this paper: ‘That John suffered unwillingly does not prove that he dissented from Becket’s cause’, ibid p 103.
13 John’s role in drafting the Vita Sancti Anselmi (PL 199 cols 1009–40) and the significance of the campaign to canonise Anselm is discussed by Southern, R. W., Saint Anselm and his biographer (Cambridge 1963) pp 336–43 Google Scholar.
14 Note JS Epp 2 ep 136 written in early 1164.
15 William FitzStephen says that John of Salisbury and John of Canterbury were removed from England by Henry to prevent them from giving counsel and aid to Becket (MB 3 p 46). Placed in the context of the Council of Clarendon this passage must be incorrect; see JS Epp 2 p xx. However it may be that FitzStephen is recording the vague recollection that very early in the dispute the two Johns were seen as closely identified with Becket.
16 For the withdrawal from Becket’s household see JS Epp 2 ep 139 (probably 1164—65) p 23 end: ‘sciatisque pro certo quia michi propositum est ut non sim de cetero curialis; et hoc ipsum bene novit dominus Cantuariensis, a cuius me subtraxi consortio, sed nec fidem subtraho nec caritatem.’ John’s search for a personal reconciliation can be seen in epp 137–9, 150–1.
17 Historia pontificalis ed Chibnall, Marjorie (London 1956). For discussion of the dating see pp xxiv–xxx Google Scholar.
18 Ibid p 42. Cf Herbert of Bosham’s account of the mass expulsions: MB 3 p 359.
19 For John’s comments on the failure of the conference at Angers see JS Epp 2 ep 164 (?May—June 1166) pp 84—7, and ep 167 (early June 1166) p 99 (in profectione versus Andegavim … simile subire dispendium.) Cf JS Epp 2 p xxvii.
20 For John’s account of excommunications at Vézelay and the appeal by the bishops see JS Epp 2 ep 168 pp 108–115.
21 John’s concerns with the interests and possessions of Canterbury would have been sharpened by his years in the household of Archbishop Theobald. Note John’s role in drafting letters for Theobald in 1160–61 when Theobald—then seriously ill and close to death—was seeking to put his affairs in order. (See JS Epp 1 the series of letters epp 116–135; see ibid Appendix 5) For an interesting presentation of John’s loyalties to Canterbury, see Liebeschütz, Hans, Mediaeval Humanism in the life and writings of John of Salisbury (London 1950) pp 101–03 Google Scholar.
22 JS Epp 2 pp 32–5.
23 Becket conflict p 103.
24 JS Epp 2 p 35.
25 Ibid ep 152 pp 56–7.
26 Historia pontiftcalis pp 45–6.
27 JS Epp 2 epp 136–9, 144–5, 150–2.
28 Ibid epp 158–84.
29 Ibid epp 141, 146, 156, 202–4, 210 and the letters listed in nn 46–7 below.
30 Ibid epp 137–9, 150–1.
31 Ibid epp 136, 144, 152.
32 Ibid epp 145.
33 Ibid epp 151 p 51.
34 Ibid p 11.
35 Ibid pp 32–5. The idea of persecution as a spiritual and beneficial test was a commonplace; thus Jerome: Persecutio non ad negationem credentium, sed ad probationem pertinet et coronam (PL 24 col 187).
36 JS Epp 2 ep 150 pp 48–9.
37 Ibid p 55.
38 see n 36 above.
39 The letter mentions ‘fraterculus’, evidently John’s brother Richard who was probably in England until May or June 1166; see JS Epp 2 p xxv.
40 JS Epp 2 ep 145 n 1.
41 Ibid p 41.
42 Ibid
43 Ibid p 39.
44 Ibid.
45 See n 29 above.
46 JS Epp 2 epp 140, 142, 147–9, 153–5, 195, 201, 208–9, 211, 267, 268. (Brooke does not assign a date but there is reason to think that it was written in 1166 or later—I intend to discuss the dating of this and other letters in my dissertation, The friendship circles of John of Salisbury Trinity College Dublin) pp 270–1.
47 JS Epp 2 pp 206–07.
48 Ibid p 27.
49 Ibid pp 41–3.
50 John contrasts (ibid p 338–9) those ‘whom the world, showing no gratitude to God, persecutes without cause’ and ‘those who seemed to be the pillars of the church The reference to the kingdom of Christ: p 340–1.
51 Ibid p 63.
52 Ibid p 297: ‘But He who sought out the mean and sick and permitted us to make profession of justice and witnesses of the law … He gives us boldness to hope’.
53 Ibid p 299.
54 Ibid
55 Ibid pp 300–01.
56 Ibid pp 304–5.
57 To Bartholomew: ibid ep 171 and the lengthy epp 168 and 174. To Becket: epp 173, 179 and the lengthy 175–6.
58 The exceptions are ibid epp 158, 160, 162, 166, 170, 182.
59 Ibid p 123.
60 For instance David Knowles, Thomas Becket (London 1970) p 114.
61 JS Epp 2 ep 175 pp 152–3, 156–7; ep 181 pp 202–3.
62 Note for instance Cassiodorus: Quapropterper nomen Doech Idumaei jure Antichristus intelligitur … (PL 70 col 373 A)
63 JS Epp 2 ep 175 pp 152–3, 156–7.
64 Thus Orosius in Liber Historiarum 6.26: Decent persecutiones a Nerone usque ad Maximianum Ecclesia Christipassa est (PL 31 col 1130A). Cf Gerhoch of Reichersberg In Psalmum XXXIX: deinde in passionibus martirum, quibus a Nerone usque ad Maximianum et Diocletianum decies repetitis quasi per X cornua bestia illa fuit terribilis, MGH Lib 3 p 435 lines 12–4. Gerhoch, Cf In Psalmum XXIX, ibid p 418 lines 10–12 Google Scholar.
65 During the entire Becket dispute John makes only one reference to persecution by a Roman emperor: ‘Peter and Paul would have escaped Nero’s sword, and not even made him their enemy, if they had not preached against men’s pleasures and wrongdoings.’ (JS Epp 2 ep 187 pp 246–7). There is one indirect reference to Henry II as being like the emperors Titus and Vespasian, who were not among the persecutors of the early church but who had repressed the Jewish people with great cruelty. See ep 173 pp 136–7; the allusion to Psalm 79:14-15 (80:13-14) and the Gl ord on this.
66 JS Epp 2 ep 175 p 165.
67 Ibid p 167.
68 Ibid p 175.
69 PL 93 col 489. For the identification of the Pseudo-Bede as Manegold of Lautenbach see the general remarks and references in Smalley, , Study of the Bible pp 48–9 Google Scholar.
70 JS Epp 2 p 191.
71 Ibid pp 194–5.
72 Ibid ep 168 p 109.
73 Ibid ep 178 p 186.
74 Ibid ep 163 p 84: ‘Ridet ad haecprudentia camis, et perfidorum vocibus Iudaeorum insultat et maledicit ei qui cum Christo pendet in ligno.’
75 John counteracts these accusations: ‘Someone will say that the imposition of the tax and harrying of churches is to be laid wholly at the door of the king’s chancellor …’ibid ep 168 pp 105–7.
76 Nunquid enim clerus institutus est ut comedens etc, ibid p 84.
77 Ibid 134.
78 For instance, ibid ep 169 pp 118–9: ‘But wait awhile, and in time they will be held in regard (in tempore erit respectus eorum).’ This reference to Wisdom 3:6 is explained in Gl ord as in diei iudicii. The next sentence in John’s letter is more direct: ‘In the meantime there is no peace for the wicked’ etc.
79 For instance JS Epp 2 ep 181 p 201 : ‘The king puts his trust in the Emperor and in the hope that he will capture the pope as is foretold to him by the prophets of Baal, who see false things and foolish, because they speak not from the Lord. ‘
80 For instance, ibid ep 174 pp 144—7 are combined the themes of divine vengeance and historical scale. After listing Cain, Pharaoh, Adoni-bezek and Ham as examples of the dictum ‘Wherewithal a man sinneth, by the same also shall he be punished.’ John remarks: ‘in every age and in every race, if one considers the history of divine providence, one will clearly recognise that there has always been some similarity between crime and punishment.’
81 The blessedness of suffering for justice, a locus drawn from Matthew 5: 10 and I Peter 3: 14 is to be found in ibid ep 161 pp 78–9: patimini propter iusticiam beati eritis and occurs at a later stage in ep 273 p 572 and ep 298 p 696. The theme of pro iusticia pati (with no mention of beautitude) is found at pp 250, 258, 296, 302–3.