^{page 1 note 1} Ralph de Diceto, Opera Historica, ed. W. Stubbs, i (Rolls Series, 1876), pp. 434–35.

^{page 2 note 1} For the excommunication of Richard and John at Vézelay, 12 June 1166, see Materials [for the History of Thomas Becket], ed. J. C. Robertson, v (Rolls Series, 1881), pp. 383, 388, 394–95, etc.; of Richard again and Geoffrey, 13 April and 29 May 1169, ibid., vi (1882), pp. 594, 601, etc.; of Geoffrey again, papal confirmation, 10 September 1170, ibid., vii (1885), p. 358. For John as ‘jurator’, ibid., vi. 177; for Geoffrey as ‘archidiabolus’, ibid., vii. 20, 59, etc. The present essay is preliminary to a full treatment of the careers of these three important servants of Henry II. My thanks are due to Mr I. P. Shaw for many helpful suggestions on Richard's career.

^{page 2 note 2} The Great Rolls of the Pipe for the Second, Third and Fourth Years of the Reign of King Henry II, ed. J. Hunter (London, 1844), pp. 30, 31, 47, 121 and 122.

^{page 2 note 3} P[ipe] R[oll] 9, Hen[ry] II (1162–63), p. 26. For all Henry II PR refs., see Publications of the Pipe Roll Society, 30 vols. (London, 1884–1925).

^{page 2 note 4} Diceto, i. 319.

^{page 3 note 1} Ibid., i. 319.

^{page 3 note 2} Dictionary of National Biography, xvi (1909), p. 1080; cf. ref. to the Life of St Nectan, below, and also the marginal identification in B[ritish] M[useum], Cotton MS. Claudius B.ii, fo. 206^r: ‘Iste fuit Ricardus Tokelin, postea Wintoniensis episcopus’.

^{page 3 note 3} Knowles, D., The Episcopal Colleagues of Archbishop Thomas Becket (Cambridge, 1951), p. 38Google Scholar; Cheney, C. R., From Becket to Langton (Manchester, 1956), p. 27.Google Scholar The disputed point that Herbert was Richard's son seems greatly strengthened by the royal confirmation (Dec. 1175–Mar. 1182) of a grant made by Richard, archdeacon of Poitiers, and ‘Herbert his son’; the confirmation is attested by Richard, bishop of Winchester, and Herbert, archdeacon of Canterbury: cf. Delisle, L., Recueil des Actes de Henri II, ii (Paris, 1920), pp. 175–76.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 4} [Fitzneal, Richard,] Dialogus de Scaccario, [ed. Charles, Johnson (London, 1950),] xiv–xv.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 5} Materials, vi. 453–55; Gilbert Foliot, Epistolae, ed. J. A. Giles, i (Oxford, 1845), pp. 247–48.

^{page 3 note 6} Life of St Nectan, trans. Doble, G. H. (Cornish Saints Series, no. 45, Torquay, 1941), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar It is conceivable that Henry II and Richard were known to one another at an early date, since Henry, when a boy, was himself for a while in the custody of Earl Robert at Bristol. I am indebted to Mr A. Tomkinson for valuable information and advice on the Gloucester household.

^{page 4 note 1} E.g., Gregory de Turri was in the service of Earls Robert and William, and Jordan de Turri was in the familia of Richard of Winchester: cf. PR 23 Hen. II, p. 25; Hugh de Gundeville was constable of Earl Robert, and William de Gundeville was in Richard's familia: cf. p.6, n. 11, below and also PR 24 Hen. II, p. 55. A royal charter to Richard of Poitiers, concerning Hartland Abbey in late 1165, included Richard Pincerna among its witnesses; both Hartland and Richard Pincerna appear in the same context as Richard Tokelin in the Life of St Nectan, pp. 21–22. Cf. R. W. Eyton, Court, House-hold and Itinerary of King Henry II (London, 1878), pp. 87–88.

^{page 4 note 2} Eyton, op. cit., pp. 44,60, 84–85, 96 et passim; Delisle, ed. cit., 402, 403–4, 417, 439–40 et passim.

^{page 4 note 3} A detailed report on these charters will be published later.

^{page 4 note 4} Eyton, op. cit., p. 44.

^{page 4 note 5} Ibid., p. 263; Delisle, ed. cit., pp. 258–60.

^{page 4 note 6} For charters of English provenance, see Eyton, op. cit., pp. 60, 77, 84–85 et passim. For those of continental provenance in the periods cited, ibid., pp. 96, 158, 159, 177, 219, 221, 233 and 235; Delisle, ed. cit., i. 402, 403–4, 417, 442–43, 456–57, 458–59, 459–60; ii. 11–12, 15–17, 37–38, 63–64, 88–89 and 285–86.

^{page 5 note 1} Eyton, op. cit., p. 85; Delisle, ed. cit., i. 524, 527 and 528.

^{page 5 note 2} Attesting first, Delisle, ed. cit., i. 402, 403 and 417; attesting second, ibid., 442–43, 456–57, 458–59, 459–60, etc.

^{page 5 note 3} Cf. ibid., i. 459–60: ‘Testibus G. archidiacono Cantuariensi, R. archidiacono Pictavensi…’ and ibid., ii. 11–12: ‘Testibus… R. Wintoniensi, G. Elyensi electis…’

^{page 5 note 4} Eyton, op. cit., pp. 84–85, 159 et passim.

^{page 5 note 5} E.g., ibid., 202. The question of ecclesiastical precedence was clearly involved in the sequence of charter witnesses, but seems not entirely to explain it in all instances.

^{page 5 note 6} For examples of Richard not appearing first, see ibid., pp. 190, 192 and 203 (following Gilbert of London); Delisle, ed. cit., ii. 37–38, 60–62 (Treaty of Ivry), 113–16, 120–22, 234 and 258–60.

^{page 5 note 7} Charters granted by Richard include two in L. Delisle, Chronique de Robert de Torigni, ii (Rouen, 1872), pp. 308–09; see also idem, Recueil des Actes, ii. 175–76 and 258–60.

^{page 5 note 8} Ibid., intro., p. 434 and ii. 258; and St Bartholomew's Hospital, Old Deed 1283 (information kindly supplied by Professor C. R. Cheney).

^{page 5 note 9} Delisle, ed. cit., ii. 45–46.

^{page 5 note 10} Ibid., 60–62.

^{page 5 note 11} Ibid., 113–16.

^{page 6 note 1} Delisle, ed. cit., ii. 219–21.

^{page 6 note 2} PR 2 Hen. II, p. 30.

^{page 6 note 3} The Great Roll of the Pipe for the First Year of the Reign of King Richard I, ed. J. Hunter (London, 1844), p. 146.

^{page 6 note 4} PR 9 Hen. II, p. 26.

^{page 6 note 5} PR 10 Hen. II, p. 10; 11 Hen. II, p. 18; etc.

^{page 6 note 6} PR 13 Hen. II, pp. 57–58; 14 Hen. II, p. 76; 15 Hen. II, p. 44; 16 Hen. II, p. 151; 17 Hen. II, p. III; 18 Hen. II, p. 95; 19 Hen. II, p. 140.

^{page 6 note 7} PR 13 Hen. II, pp. 148–49; 14 Hen. II, p. 140; 15 Hen. II, p. 2; 16 Hen. II, p. 113; 17 Hen. II, p. 12; 18 Hen. II, p. 72; 19 Hen. II, p. 191; 20 Hen. II, p. 16; 21 Hen. II, p. 22; 22 Hen. II, p. 154; 23 Hen. II, p. 18; 24 Hen. II, p. 39.

^{page 6 note 8} PR 18 Hen. II, p. 85; and 19 Hen. II, p. 57.

^{page 6 note 9} PR 18 Hen. II, p. 75; and 19 Hen. II, p. 197.

^{page 6 note 10} PR 19 Hen. II, pp., 57 and 197; and 20 Hen. II, pp. 15–16.

^{page 6 note 11} PR 13 Hen. II, p. 58; and 14 Hen. II, p. 77.

^{page 7 note 1} PR 19 Hen. II, pp. 57, 140 and 197.

^{page 7 note 2} PR 14 Hen. II, pp. 4, 26, 43, 54, 105, 182, 195, 214 and 218.

^{page 7 note 3} E.g., for PR 15 Hen. II, pp. 27, 58, 63, 75, 101, 126, 147, 154, 164, 168 and 172.

^{page 7 note 4} Ibid., pp. 27 and 63.

^{page 7 note 5} PR 16 Hen. II, pp. 109 and 137.

^{page 7 note 6} Ibid., p. 22.

^{page 7 note 7} After 1173: PR 20 Hen. II, pp. 4, 5, 42, 64, 119 and 128; 21 Hen. II, pp. 83, 114, 140, 190, 204, 205 and 216; 22 Hen. II, pp. 63, 71, 190, 208 and 213; 23 Hen. II, pp. 127, 167, 180, 193 and 204; 24 Hen. II, pp. 22 and 132; 25 Hen. II, pp. 3 and 121.

^{page 7 note 8} Boussard, J., Le Gouvernement d'Henri II Plantegenêt (Paris, 1956), pp. 497–98Google Scholar; Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., The Governance of Mediaeval England from the Conquest to Magna Carta (Edinburgh, 1963), pp. 200Google Scholar, n. 2, and 203.

^{page 7 note 9} Jolliffe, J. E. A., ‘The Camera Regis under Henry II’, Eng[lish] Hist[orical] Rev[iew], lxviii (1953), pp. 18–19Google Scholar; Richardson, H. G., ‘The Chamber under Henry II’Google Scholar, ibid., lxix (1954), p. 604; idem and Sayles, op. cit., p. 233.

^{page 8 note 1} (i) PR 9 Hen. II, p. 29; to Hen. II, p. 34; 11 Hen. II, p. 4; 12 Hen. II, p. 18. (ii) 13 Hen. II, p. 34; 14 Hen. II, p. 16; 15 Hen. II, p. 2; 16 Hen. II, p. 3. (iii) 22 Hen. II, p. 151; 23 Hen. II, p. 91.

^{page 8 note 2} Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ed. W. Stubbs, i (Rolls Series, 1867), pp. 238–39.

^{page 8 note 3} But cf. Diceto, i. 434–35; and Foreville, R., L'Église et la Royauté, en Angleterre sous Henri II Plantagenet (Paris 1943), pp. 474–75.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 4} Dialogus de Scaccario, pp. 17, 26–27 and 74.

^{page 8 note 5} Ibid., p. 27.

^{page 8 note 6} Eyton, op. cit., pp. 237, 244, 249 and 251; Feet of Fines, 1182–96, PR Soc. Publications, xvii (1894), pp. 1 and 2; see Boussard, op. cit., p. 560.

^{page 9 note 1} Diceto, i. 381–82.

^{page 9 note 2} Haskins, C. H., Norman Institutions (Cambridge, 1925), pp. 174–76.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 3} Loc. cit.; Boussard, op. cit., pp. 369–70 and 512–13; Powicke, Sir Maurice, The Loss of Normandy, 1189–1204 (Manchester, 2nd edn, 1961), pp. 51 and 54–55.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 4} Boussard, op. cit., p. 513; whether or not Richard himself can be technically styled Justiciar, or Seneschal, has been the subject of some debate.

^{page 9 note 6} Haskins, op. cit., pp. 327–28.

^{page 9 note 6} Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae sub Regibus Angliae, ed. T. Stapleton, i (London, 1840), pp. xxix, lxxxv and 74; Haskins, op. cit., pp. 174–76; Boussard, op. cit., p. 513 and n. 2.

^{page 10 note 1} Materials, v. 38.

^{page 10 note 2} Ibid., v. 115.

^{page 10 note 3} Eyton, op. cit., pp. 206 and 209. For Simon, see also Delisle, ed. cit., i.90, 91, 406, 415, 416, 426, 430, 448, 465; ii. 32, 89, 90, 108 and 126.

^{page 10 note 4} Diceto, i. 312.

^{page 10 note 5} Materials, v. 85.

^{page 10 note 6} Ibid., iv. 58.

^{page 10 note 7} Ibid., iv. 60–61.

^{page 11 note 1} Ibid., i. 47–48.

^{page 11 note 2} Ibid., v. 150.

^{page 11 note 3} Ibid., v. 182–84 and 428–29; cf. Foreville, op. cit., pp. 170–75.

^{page 11 note 4} Materials, i. 61; v. 388, 390 and 392.

^{page 11 note 5} Diceto, i. 319–20. For the authorship of this letter, see ibid., ii. 282.

^{page 11 note 6} Ibid., vi. 321.

^{page 12 note 1} Materials, v. 331–34 and 347–52.

^{page 12 note 2} Ibid., vi. 1–5 and 5–8.

^{page 12 note 3} Ibid., v. 383.

^{page 12 note 4} Ibid., vi. 453–55.

^{page 12 note 5} Ibid., vi. 594 and 601.

^{page 12 note 6} Ibid., vi. 606.

^{page 12 note 7} Ibid., vii. 52–56; cf. Foreville, op. cit., p. 192.

^{page 12 note 8} Materials, vii. 147.

^{page 12 note 9} Ibid., vii. 310 and 389.

^{page 12 note 10} Ibid., iii. 120.

^{page 13 note 1} Cf. Eyton, op. cit., p. 153, and Materials, vii. 457–78.

^{page 13 note 2} Ibid., iv. 414; cf. Foreville, op. cit., p. 337.

^{page 13 note 3} E.g., Giraldus Cambrensis, Opera, ed. J. F. Dimock, vii (Rolls Series, 1877), pp. 69–70.

^{page 13 note 4} Diceto, i. 354.

^{page 13 note 5} Ibid., i. 367–68.

^{page 13 note 6} Foreville, op. cit., pp. 370–71 and 379–84.

^{page 14 note 1} Foreville, op. cit., p. 379; M. Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, xiv (Paris, 1806), p. 645.

^{page 14 note 2} Gilbert Foliot, Epistolae, ed. cit., i. 247–48.

^{page 14 note 3} John of Salisbury, Epistolae, ed. J. A. Giles, ii (Oxford, 1848), pp. 276–278; epp. 313–15.

^{page 14 note 4} Bartholomew of Exeter, ibid., ii. 279–80: epp. 316–17.

^{page 14 note 5} Duggan, C., Twelfth-Century Decretal Collections and their Importance in English History (London, 1963), pp. 118–51.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 6} Materials, vi. 453–55.

^{page 15 note 1} Ibid., vii. 561–64.

^{page 15 note 2} Brooke, Z. N., The English Church and the Papacy from the Conquest to the reign of John (Cambridge, 1931), pp. 219–20Google Scholar; see also now Mayr-Harting, H. M., ‘Henry II and the Papacy’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xvi (1965), p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 3} Becket took his stand in defence of clerical privilege against secular curtailment of it, not against the secular enforcement of an ecclesiastical judgment; canonical tradition allowed that recourse might be had to the secular power at the Church's discretion or to make effective judgments in the Church's interests. Becket was not contending against that tradition. Richard was likewise concerned with clerical interests: to defend clerks against attacks made on them with impunity; once more the secular power could make effective a judgment to the Church's benefit. It may be thought that Becket and Richard used ill-chosen arguments, in emphasizing the ‘double punishment’ thesis, but their policies were equally reconcilable with canonical tradition. Cf. Duggan, C., ‘The Becket Dispute and the Criminous Clerks’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xxxv (1962), pp. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 15 note 4} Brooke, op. cit., p. 219. 5 Diceto, i. 434–35.

^{page 15 note 6} Ibid., 402–3 and 410; cf. Foreville, op. cit., pp. 426–28.

^{page 15 note 7} Diceto, i. 410.

^{page 16 note 1} Diceto, i. 427–28.

^{page 16 note 2} Poole, A. L., From Domesday Book to Magna Carta (Oxford, 2nd edn, 1955), pp. 156–57Google Scholar; for an excellent survey of this question, see Van Caenagem, R. C., Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glanvill, Selden Society, lxxvii (1958–1959), pp. 325–30.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 3} Foreville, op. cit., p. 442.

^{page 17 note 1} Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, ii (Leipzig, 1881): Decretales Gregorii IX, 1. 3. 3; 1. 28. 3; I. 29. 6; 2. 28. 22; 3. 30. 6; 3. 38. 8; 5. 5. 2.

^{page 17 note 2} Quinque Compilationes Antiquae, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882): Compilatio Prima, 3. 33. 9; 4. 1. 2; 5. 15. 6. The date of composition of Compilatio Prima is estimated as not earlier than March 1192.

^{page 17 note 3} P. Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, ii (Leipzig, 2nd edn 1888), nos. (JL)14151–58 are all listed simply ‘Wintoniensi episcopo’, under Alexander III's pontifical years 1159–81.

^{page 17 note 4} Duggan, op. cit., pp. 66–117.

^{page 18 note 1} Duggan, pp. 69–73 and 152–62.

^{page 18 note 2} Ibid., pp. 73–76 and 162–73; for Quamvis simus, ibid., p. 164, no. 20 (JL 14152, 14154 and 14156): ‘Dat. Venet. in Rivo Alto XII Kal. Augusti’. Cf. B[ritish] M[useum], Royal MS. 10 B. IV, fos. 45^vb–46^va.

^{page 18 note 3} Duggan, op. cit., pp. 76–78 and 173–87; cf. nos. 31, 37 and 72: the Winchester inscription of this last item is probably false.

^{page 18 note 4} B.M., Royal MS. 15 B. IV, fos. 107^v, 109^r and 109^v–110^r.

^{page 18 note 5} B.M., Egerton MS. 2819, fos. 19^vb, 43^va, 43^ra, 50^rb, 66^ra, 76^ra, 79^vb, 85^vb and 99^vb; further items are of possible Winchester provenance.

^{page 18 note 6} Oxford Bodley Tanner MS. 8, fos. 591^a–720; analysed by Holtzmann, W., ‘Die Dekretalensammlungen des 12. Jahrhunderts; 1. Die Sammlung Tanner’, Festschrift zur Feier des 200jährigen Bestehens der Akad. der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1951), pp. 83–145Google Scholar, nos. 2. 3. 1; 2. 11. 4; 2. 14. 1; 3. 10. 1; 3. 13. 2; etc.

^{page 18 note 7} B.M., Egerton MS. 2901, fos. 7^r, 9^r, 16^v, I7^r, 28^V, etc.

^{page 19 note 1} JL 13932, 14311, etc.

^{page 19 note 2} Tanner, 2. 14. 1; Holtzmann, loc. cit., pp. 111–12; B.M., Egerton MS. 2819, fo. 99^vb.

^{page 19 note 3} Eyton, op. cit., pp. 206 and 222; cf. p. 9, nn. 2–5 above.

^{page 20 note 1} Southern, R. W., ‘Some New Letters of Peter of Blois’, Eng. Hist. Rev., liii (1938), p. 412CrossRefGoogle Scholar and n. 7; Cheney, Becket to Langton, p. 147 and n. 2.

^{page 20 note 2} The B.M. Egerton MS. 2901 will be discussed in a separate study, together with a critical edition of the Winchester decretals of the period and a report on the canonists in the Winchester household.

^{page 20 note 3} Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard, ii (Rolls Series, 1864), p. 63; Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ed. cit., ii. 58.

^{page 20 note 4} Diceto, ii. 40–41.

^{page 21 note 1} Knowles, op. cit., pp. 155–56.

^{page 21 note 2} Cheney, op. cit., p. 108; cf. Duggan, C., ‘From the Conquest to the Death of John’, in Lawrence, C. H., ed., The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London, 1965), pp. 87–93Google Scholar and 108–13.