Lanfranc and the English: The
start of a national identity
The effects of Lanfranc upon the English and the Normans
Naam:
Studentnum:
E-mail:
Telephone:
R.V.W. van Lieshout
10058400
[email protected]
06-45742654
Module:
Opleiding:
Eerste lezer:
Tweede lezer:
Masterscriptie
Geschiedenis UVA
Prof Guy Geltner
Claire Weeda
1
Contents
Contents ................................................................................................................................... 2
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
1. Historiography...................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 The historiography on the English national identity ...................................................... 8
1.2 The historiography on Lanfranc ................................................................................... 11
1.3 The unworthiness of Lanfranc ..................................................................................... 14
2. The reformation of Lanfranc .............................................................................................. 16
2.1 The Constitutiones ....................................................................................................... 16
2.2 The impact of the Constitutiones ................................................................................. 17
2.3 Lanfranc and the English Saints ................................................................................... 22
2.4 Lanfranc’s policy of reform .......................................................................................... 24
3 Lanfranc and the Normans.................................................................................................. 26
3.1 The Normans in the eleventh century ......................................................................... 26
3.2 English tradition and Norman practice. ....................................................................... 27
3.3 Lanfranc and the Norman clergy ................................................................................. 29
3.4 Lanfranc and the Normans .......................................................................................... 31
4 Lanfranc and the English ..................................................................................................... 33
4.1 Lanfranc and child oblation.......................................................................................... 33
4. 2 Lanfranc on his English clerics ..................................................................................... 35
4.3 Lanfranc and William the Conqueror ........................................................................... 37
4.4 The impact of King William on Lanfranc ...................................................................... 39
4.5 Lanfranc and the English .............................................................................................. 42
5 Lanfranc, the Pope and the Church .................................................................................... 45
5.1 Lanfranc and Alexander II ............................................................................................ 45
5.2 Lanfranc and Gregory VII ............................................................................................. 48
5.3 Lanfranc and the Church .............................................................................................. 51
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 54
Primary Sources ..................................................................................................................... 60
Internet sources ..................................................................................................................... 60
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 60
2
Abbreviations
CL
Cowdrey, H.E.J, Lanfranc : scholar, monk and archbishop (Oxford, 2003)
GEN
Gillingham, John, The English in the twelfth century: imperialism, national identity
and political values (Woodbridge 2000)
GL
Gibson, Margaret, Lanfranc of Bec (London 1978)
HEN
Adrian Hastings, The construction of nationhood: ethnicity, religion, and nationalism
(Cambridge 1997)
LCL
Lanfrancus Cantuariensis, The letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, Helen
Clover and Margaret Gibson (ed.) (1979)
LCM
Lanfrancus Cantuariensis, The monastic constitutions of Lanfranc, Dom David
Knowles (ed.) (2002)
TEN
Thomas, Hugh M, The English and the Normans: ethnic hostility, assimilation and
identity: 1066-1220 (Oxford 2003)
3
Introduction
The conquest of England in 1066 is generally seen as a critical turning point in its history.
Not only was it the last time when invaders from mainland Europe managed to conquer
part of the isles of Britain, but it also meant a new kind of reign over the citizens of a nowNorman empire stretching from its border with Scotland past the boundary with Wales
over the English Channel and including a significant portion of northern France. This
conquest and the subsequent occupation by the Normans have for the last twenty-five
years been a focal point for (mostly) historians of (English) nationalism and national
identity. The discussion so far has been a lively one. Over the years some historians have
recognized this era as the beginning of the English nation state,1 while others place it
earlier2 or later.3 All agree however that the Norman, continentally-orientated, reign of
William the Conqueror (1066-1087) and his successors had a huge impact on how English
government was shaped during the following century.
During the 1990’s Adrian Hastings wrote about medieval nationalism in response to the
thesis of Ernest Gellner and Eric Hobsbawn, who stated that nationalism and national
identity were modern inventions and could therefore not exist in medieval times. Hastings
argued that nationalism and national identity weren’t specifically modern phenomena and
(as a theologian) focussed here upon religious history.4 The discussion became more
intense when John Gillingham in the year 2000 bundled several articles he had written
since 1980 and gave it the title The English in the twelfth century: imperialism, national
identity and political values. Gillingham not only argued that in medieval times there was an
English national identity, but also laid out how it came into existence, making national
identity a subject for medieval studies,5 instead of an argument between scholars of
medieval and modern history. Within the field of medieval studies, national identity and
mostly English national identity now became a recognized subject for historians of medieval
history. Although the subject of a national identity in medieval times is still much debated,
studies after 2000 weren’t obliged to argue whether a national identity in medieval England
existed. Now they could focus themselves, without further explanation, on when exactly
this identity came into being and whether an English identity was the correct term for it.
1
GEN, 99-100, 136-139, 156; Robin Frame, 'The wider world' in: Rosemary Horrox and W. Mark
Ormrod (ed.), A social history of England 1200-1500 (Cambridge 2006) 435-453, 502-503
2
HEN; Nigel Saul, 'Medieval England: identity, politics and society' in: Nigel Saul (ed.), The Oxford
illustrated history of medieval England (Oxford 1997) 1-4; A. P. Smyth, Medieval Europeans: studies in
ethnic identity and national perspectives in medieval Europe (London 1998) 66
3
TEN, 69
4
HEN, 1-13
5
TEN, 5
4
Most scholars take a position around one of several turning points in English history.
These moments are mostly focussed upon the times around Bede Venerabilis (672-783),
Alfred the Great (871-899) and the conquest of England by Duke William II of Normandy.6
Most of those historians date the start of the evolution of English national identity to the
centuries around the conquest of England in 1066.7 Although Hastings puts it a few
centuries before 1066,8 Gillingham places it evolution early in the twelfth century,9 and
Thomas, who puts his vision on paper in 2003, places it at the end of the twelfth century.10
Both opinions depend on the extent to which the Normans had integrated into English
society, utilising earlier works of which, among others, were the works of Bede
Venarabilis.11 It could serve future research to take a closer look at the first decades after
the conquest, so that historians can check for differences in cultures and if there was any
ideological difference between these cultures. This study follows the views of historians like
Gillingham and Thomas, in that a (new) national identity was developing after 1066, which
became increasingly stronger until it came into being during the twelfth century.12 This will
be done by putting into perspective the vision on the English, and in comparison the
Normans, during the first decades after the conquest. Through interpretation of the works
and writings of one of its most influential persons of his age, Lanfranc, the Archbishop of
Canterbury (1070-1089), it will open up his view regarding the English and the Normans and
whether the differences between their respective national identities were surmountable.
Four years into the reign of William as king of the English, in the year 1070, Lanfranc
became (at an age of around 65 years) Archbishop of Canterbury, after having served
twenty-five years at the Norman monasteries of Bec and St. Etienne. Lanfranc is an odd
figure. Brought up in Pavia, schooled in law and only following his calling to the service of
the Lord around the age of forty, he became a remarkably important figure within the
church. This was also the time when he came to Normandy.13 Although coming late into his
ecclesiastical career, he was still able to make it a very successful one. During his period at
Canterbury he became one of the most influential clergymen of his time, who created the
6
GEN; TEN; Saul, 'Medieval England’, 6-7; Vivian H. Galbraith, 'Nationality and language in medieval
England' in: Vivian H. Galbraith (ed.), Kings and chroniclers: essays in English medieval history
(London 1982) 121- 122; Frame, 'The wider world' 435
7
GEN; TEN; Galbraith, 'Nationality and language in medieval England'; Frame, 'The wider world'
8
HEN, 36/-39, 51-53: Hastings sees a significant role for nationalism in religion. He therefore puts the
start with Bede, but mostly with Alfred the Great.
9
GEN, 134-139
10
TEN, 66-69
11
Ibidem, 359-360
12
GEN, xx-xxi; TEN, 64-66
13
CL, 1, 11, 79; GL, 3-4
5
foundation of the twelfth century English church. As archbishop he implemented a new
hierarchy in the English church, with the bishop of Canterbury as the most important
clergyman in England with a claim of supremacy over Scotland, Wales and even Ireland.14
But his reforms were not limited to this. He directed them at a new and improved English
church and on several aspects of this church, among which were monastic organizations
and saint worship.15 It is also said that he aligned the English church with the continental
church.16 But he is also a controversial figure, who is often criticized for being more loyal to
his king, than to the Church itself. One could also speak of Lanfranc as an outsider. Until he
began his ecclesiastical career, he had little contact with Normandy or England, but when
his importance grew, he used his own experiences to determine the course of his actions.
Therefore it is important to establish how Lanfranc saw himself. This is not an easy matter.
His own words state that he did not identify himself with the English, although in some
cases he still sees himself as English. His view of the English and the English identity is a
dubious one. His first statement about the English is not favorable towards them:
I pleaded failing strength and personal unworthiness, but to no purpose;
the excuse that the language was unknown and the native races
barbarous weighed nothing with them either. In a word: I assented, I
came, I took office. Now I endure daily so many troubles and vexations
and such spiritual starvation of nearly anything that is good. I am
continually hearing, seeing and experiencing so much unrest among
different people, such distress and injuries, such hardness of heart,
greed and dishonesty, such a decline in holy church, that I am weary of
my life and grieve exceedingly to have lived into times like these.
17
Although in this quotation from one of his letters to Pope Alexander II (1061-1073), he
pictures the English as barbaric, in the following fragment of a letter also to Alexander II he
describes himself as follows:
14
LCL, 2-4
GL, 116-177, CL, 120- 143, 154-159
16
CL, 127
17
‘Aduersus hoc imbecillitas mearum uirium morumque indignitas prolata in medium nichil profuit,
excusatio incognitae linguae gentiumque barbararum nullum apud eos locum inuenire praeualuit.
Quid plura? Assensum prebui, ueni, suscepi. In qua tot molestias/ tot tedia tantumque ab omni fere
bono defectum mentis cotidie sustineo; tot aliorum in diuersis personis perturbationes,
tribulationes, damna, obdurationes, cupiditates, spurcicias, tantumque sanctea aecclesiae casum
incessanter audio, uideo, sentio ut tedeat me uitae meae, doleamque plurimum me usque ad haec
tempora peruenisse.’ in: LCL, 30-33
15
6
Now I am a novice Englishman, virtually ignorant as yet of English affairs,
18
except for what I learn at second hand.
His view of the English was therefore not uniform. One moment he abhors the English
while the next he identifies himself with them. Connected thereto is also his vision of the
Normans. Did he see himself as part of the Norman culture, or did he even see a separate
culture? These will be the topics onto which this study will focus. Most recent research on
Lanfranc focuses on him as Archbishop of Canterbury and debates whether he saw himself
as English, Norman, a combination of both or neither.19 Even though it is still necessary to
spend some attention to this topic, the intention of this study will be to shift the focus, to
Lanfranc’s ideas about the English and Normans. Did Lanfranc see two ethnically separate
people, or one people with differences? How was he influenced by his surrounding, for
example by his king, the church organization, the local population and the Norman elite,
and how was his reformation of the English church influenced by this view? To establish the
answers to these questions, the subject will be divided into Lanfranc’s pursuits while on the
episcopal seat, his view of the Normans, his view of the English and the influence of the
Church on Lanfranc. In trying to give the answers to these questions, this study will show
that Lanfranc’s actions were not in so much influenced by his position and relations with
others, but were pretty much dictated by them, because of which his actions did not always
show his personal convictions. Because of this new perspective, it will show that an
integration of Norman and English identities, had already (still very early, unexpectedly and
unplanned) started under the rule of the first official bishop under the reign of King William
I.
18
‘Ego tamen nouus Anglus rerumque Anglicarum, nisi quantum ab aliis accipio, adhuc pene inscius’
in: LCL, 36-39
19
For more information see: CL; GL; Guilio D’Onofrio (ed.) Italia sacra: studi e documenti di storia
ecclesiastica 51: Lanfranco di Pavia e l’Europa de secolo XI: nel IX centenario della morte (1089-1989)
(Roma 1993)
7
1. Historiography
1.1 The historiography on the English national identity
To write about an English national identity or nationalism, historians reach back to the
grand days of nationalism during the nineteenth century. Most works written about
nationalism from that era try to place their own nationality in an early as possible epoch,20
resulting in an ideal picture of the investigated area, which told people more about their
own agenda than about the time they meant writing about.21 Research in the subjects of
nationalism and national identity has however greatly improved after the Second World
War. Slowly nationalism and national identity became topics only associated with the
modern era. Historians like Ernest Gellner and Eric Hobsbawn argued that these subjects
weren’t applicable to eras before 1900. Both link the rise of nationalism and a national
identity to the rise of industrialism, which before than was mostly nonexistent.22
Developments like a national educational program, a growing sense of unity by simplifying
means of communication arising from industrialism, growth of prosperity and the
expansion of cities are according to Gellner and Hobsbawn essential for a national
identity.23 They state that these aspects had not developed enough until the nineteenth
century. Furthermore the apparent class distinctions which they thought were
characteristic of a medieval society would make a unity within the state impossible.24
During the 1980’s resistance to these views rose up and in the 1990’s Adrian Hastings, a
theologian, argued that nationalism wasn’t a modern phenomenon.25 Based upon his
theological research he placed English nationalism in the seventh century, based upon
remarks in the works of the Venerable Bede, or with Alfred the Great in the ninth century
at the latest.26 He received widespread support from historians as John Gillingham, who
mostly wrote about medieval English historians, their world view and the medieval political
English world, Vivian Galbraith, who took it upon herself to research English linguistics and
their binding influence, A.P. Smyth who combined linguistics with royal patronage and Nigel
Saul who takes a geographical perspective, combined with conflict.27
20
Frits van Oostrom, 'Spatial struggles: medieval studies between nationalism and globalization',
Journal of English and Germanic philology (2006) 5
21
Ibidem.
22
Ernest Gellner, Nations and nationalism (Oxford 1983); E.J. Hobsbawm, Nations and nationalism
since 1780 : programme, myth, reality (Cambridge 1992)
23
Gellner, Nations and nationalism, 28, 36
24
Ibidem, 14-18
25
HEN
26
Ibidem, 36-39
27
GEN; Galbraith, 'Nationality and language in medieval England'; Smyth, Medieval Europeans; Saul,
8
The thesis of Hobsbawn and Gellner was based on industrialisation, advanced technology
and the growing importance of cities in the nineteenth century. According to both Gellner
and Hobsbawn, these were developments which were until then unique for this era.28
When taking these criteria into account however, they could also be applied, on a smaller
scale, to the eleventh and twelfth centuries. These last centuries were characterized by the
growth of the cities and a significant growth in population. The population reached levels
which after the 1300’s were not matched for centuries. With this increase in population
also came an increase in prosperity, commerce and industry. In particular in England this
ensured a feeling of superiority to their Celtic neighbours, which in its turn created a feeling
of belonging to a group of people.29 These factors made England an imperialistic power
during the twelfth century and beyond,30 but the start of these developments were also
notable in the tenth and eleventh century with the rise of Normandy.31 In Normandy during
the tenth and eleventh century prosperity made technological improvements in warfare
and the production of new weaponry on a grand scale possible. This led to a feeling of
supremacy with the Norman population,32 who became to see themselves as a group of
elite warriors and with a separate Norman identity.33 In contrast to the opinion of Gellner
and Hobsbawn, urbanization, advance in technology and growth in population and
prosperity led the Normans to seeing themselves as a separate better people. They more
and more started to see themselves as a people who could cope with anyone, which
created a feeling of a superior identity.34
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries these developments were not on such a scale as
they were to be in the nineteenth century. Historians are still, for the greater part, unable
to show the feelings of the ordinary citizens and farmers as a whole, if they had any
nationalistic feelings at all. Most likely they were pre-occupied with making a living and for
them it did not matter who was king and where he came from. Because we cannot speak of
a mass national movement, we therefore cannot speak of nationalism in the Middle Ages.
But because there are significant clues to the feelings of important men during this era, we
can speak of a national identity.
'Medieval England’
28
Gellner, Nations and nationalism; Hobsbawm, Nations and nationalism since 1780
29
GEN, 99-100, 104-108
30
Ibidem, 3-18
31
Robert Bartlett, The making of Europe: conquest, colonization and cultural change 950-1350
(London 1993) 86
32
GEN, 49-53; TEN, 51-52
33
Bartlett, The making of Europe, 86-104
34
GEN, 44
9
This discussion during the first decade of the twenty-first century moved therefore from
whether there was an English national identity to when it came into being. Reacting to
Gillingham, H.M. Thomas published in 2003 a book35 in which he argues that Gillingham
places the development of an English national identity to early.36 He places a national
identity in the first half of the twelfth century,37 while Thomas places it at the end of the
twelfth century.38 The main differences lie in the interpretation of names of what
Gillingham calls factions within the Anglo-Norman ruling elite39 and what Thomas still thinks
of as ethnic groups.40 When Gillingham refers for example to the French (within England),
he means a political faction, which has ties with French orientated nobles.41 Thomas argues
that he misinterprets the evidence, and that the texts mean to speak about an ethnic
group.42 This discussion does however not limit itself to Thomas and Gillingham, for almost
all historians of medieval national identity mention different starting points for the
development of an English national identity.
For this study three mainstream theses are relevant. The first one follows Adrian Hastings
and speaks of the start of an English national identity before the conquest of England by the
Normans. In the main it is supported by famous English medieval historians as Geoffrey of
Monmouth (1100-1155), Wace (1110-1174), Henry of Huntingdon (1088-1154) and William
of Malmesbury (1095-1143), who (tried to) reconcile the history of the pre-conquest
English state with the reality of Anglo-Norman rule after 1066. Second is John Gillingham
who places the start of an English national identity within the first half of the twelfth
century. He bases his thesis on the period hereupon following, which is characterized by
violence and hostility against other ethnic groups. He sees a considerable turnaround in the
way Normans increasingly picture themselves as English.43 The last one is H.M. Thomas,
who places the start of an English national identity at the end of the twelfth century. In his
book he argues that although the Normans began to feel themselves more English in the
beginning of the twelfth century, the segregation between the Normans and English made
still for too large a gap to bridge this early. Therefore there could not have been one English
people until the end of the twelfth century. The contradictions between these opinions will
be one of the focal points.
35
TEN
Ibidem, 5, 57
37
GEN, 134-139
38
TEN, 69
39
GEN, 151-156
40
TEN, 64-64
41
GEN, 132
42
TEN, 71-72
43
GEN, 113-160
36
10
The prospect of this study is therefore to put these three theses to the test, by putting
them in a perspective of the eleventh century. By looking through Lanfranc’s eyes, it will
become clear if he saw a specific difference between the English and the Normans and
what the basis was for this difference and his view. It will become clear why Lanfranc
thought what he did, but also why he carried out certain actions, when they seem
contradictory to his overall view of the English. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to
take a closer look at what research about Lanfranc has been done.
1.2 The historiography on Lanfranc
Lanfranc was born in Pavia around 1005 and started his life and career outside of the
church, with a study in law and taught it until 1042 in Bologna and in various cities in
France. The Vita Lanfranci (Bec, c. 1140 by Milo Crispin), which is written about a century
later, states that when he was about 37 years old, he went, in fulfillment of a debt, to Bec
to live as a monk in the monastery.44 Within five years he was asked by the abbot of Bec to
start a school within the monastery. At an age of about 48 he was a prior within the
monastery. We know this because of a conflict between Lanfranc and William II, the count
of Normandy, later known as William the Conqueror or William I, king of England. This
conflict arose presumably out of him disapproving of William’s wedding with Mathilda, the
daughter of the count of Flanders, because she was alleged to fall within the prohibited
degrees of kinship,45 and which almost led to Lanfranc’s banishment from Normandy.
According to the Vita Lanfranci, which is partly based upon documents from Christ Church,
Canterbury and Lanfranc’s letters,46 Lanfranc, when leaving the monastery with a lame
horse, encountered William on the road leading to the monastery. Lanfranc asked him that
if he was really banished, he could at least get a decent horse so he may be able to leave.47
After this incident Lanfranc and William never had a disagreement (worthy of mentioning)
again.48 What this incident, although the precise reason for it is still unclear, shows is that
Lanfranc and William were (from here) on friendly terms with each other and trusted one
another. For instance, when William founded a new Monastery at Caen in 1066, he made
Lanfranc the abbot of it.49
44
GL,26
CL, 33
46
Gibson, Margaret, ‘The Vita Lanfranci’ in: Guilio D’Onofrio (ed.) Italia sacra: studi e documenti di
storia ecclesiastica 51: Lanfranco di Pavia e l’Europa de secolo XI: nel IX centenario della morte (10891989) (Roma 1993) 664-665
47
CL, 32
48
Ibidem, 33
49
GL, 100
45
11
A lot has been written about Lanfranc and he is a figure that is claimed by different
cultures. This is most noticeable in the name they give him. The first and foremost is the
English where Lanfranc had been the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1070 till 1089,
Lanfranc of Canterbury is an important reformer who aligned the English church with the
Continental church with regard to among others liturgy and organization. About Lanfranc as
an English bishop most has been written by English (ecclesiastical) historians, like D.
Knowles and H.E.J. Cowdrey.50 Authors who focus more on his career, like M.T. Gibson, call
him Lanfranc of Bec, to emphasize his coming to power, the start of it during his stay at Bec
and to stress the fact that most of his writing were done during his period there. But also,
according to this author, because this is where he gained his network, which later made
him the bishop that he was, came into being. He made, for example, acquaintance with
Anselm (his successor as Archbishop of Canterbury) and the later Pope Alexander II (10611073), who studied with Lanfranc at the monastery of Bec in Normandy.51 Some people also
use the name Lanfranc of Pavia, after his place of birth in Lombardy. In 1989 there was a
convention in Pavia dedicated to Lanfranc of Pavia, to commemorate his death nine
centuries earlier.52 Contrary to this name the convention however mostly focused on his
career after he had joined the church in 1043. It was organized by the University of Pavia,
who still feels a close connection to one of its most influential former citizens.
Most research around Lanfranc focuses upon his most controversial moments. First and
foremost is his alleged role in the Berengar controversy. Berengar of Tours (999-1080) was
a bishop, who called into question the sanctity of the Eucharist and the position of the pope
as the absolute authority within the church.53 Because Lanfranc was in regular
correspondence with Berengar, there are historians who think that his conflict with William
during his priory at Bec, wasn’t instigated by William’s marriage with Mathilda of Flanders,
but because of his alleged role in this controversy. During the period before his conflict with
William, when Lanfranc was probably in Rome with the pope, a letter was sent by Berengar
to Lanfranc in Normandy. Because Lanfranc wasn’t present at that moment, the letter was
read by his fellow monks, who were shocked by the contents of this letter.54 Although it is
uncertain this was the reason for his conflict with William, it might still be a plausible one,
50
Dom David Knowles, Saints and Scholars: Twenty-Five Medieval Portraits (New York/Cambridge
1962); CL
51
CL, 22
52
Guilio D’Onofrio (ed.) Italia sacra: studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica 51: Lanfranco di Pavia e
l’Europa de secolo XI: nel IX centenario della morte (1089-1989) (Roma 1993)
53
GL, 65
54
CL, 39-40
12
for William wanted to keep good relations with the pope, who naturally condemned the
theories of Berengar.
A second focus in the research concerns the relationship between Lanfranc and his king:
William I. When Lanfranc became bishop of Canterbury, according to modern historians, his
first loyalty was to his king and not to the pope.55 This makes the position of Lanfranc an
interesting one, for he also had, at least at the beginning, a very good working relationship
with the pope himself, who more than once wanted Lanfranc to come and work in Rome.56
This research takes as a starting point the conflict between William and Lanfranc when the
latter was still a prior at Bec. Another explanation for this argument could in fact be that
Lanfranc was on friendly terms with some of William opponents and enemies during his
time at Bec.57 If this is indeed so, he made an interesting career under King William, where
a possibility of an earlier betrayal is of no importance.
Most research about this last topic reveals a close relationship between William and
Lanfranc. It is thought that Lanfranc was, already before the conquest of England, an
important adviser of William.58 When Lanfranc was nominated for the position of bishop of
Rouen in 1067, it is also said that he turned the position down because William had greater
plans for him as the future archbishop of Canterbury.59 This cannot be confirmed with any
known sources, but considering the position of Lanfranc at William’s court, it remains a
plausible one. The relation between Lanfranc and William is perhaps best described by the
fact that Lanfranc went to Rome (after his initial conflict with William), to advocate
William’s case in marrying Mathilda of Flanders, a mission he completed with success.60
Because of his work for King William, historians tend to see Lanfranc as a man with loyalties
to his king first.61 Yet this becomes not clear when focusing upon his relationship with for
example Pope Alexander II, whose relationship with Lanfranc was amicable and never
stopped trying to get Lanfranc a job in Rome.62
The lasting impression Lanfranc leaves is for his qualities as a reformer. In every scenario
and research topic, scholars cannot deny, that Lanfranc himself was a scholar. He was
always busy teaching, discussing or improving ecclesiastical organizations. This also explains
his interest in corresponding with Berengar of Tours. In the Vita Anselmi (Canterbury, c.
55
H.E.J. Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’ in: H.E.J. Cowdrey, Popes and
th
church reform in the 11 century (Suffolk 2000) 440
56
CL, 40-41
57
CL, 34
58
Ibidem, 37
59
Ibidem, 37-38
60
Ibidem, 445
61
GL, 31
62
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 440 - 444
13
1124) its author, Eadmer (1060-1126), recalls how Lanfranc wanted to curtail the holy
calendar and that the only reason why some saints were spared de-sanctification, was
because Lanfranc talked to Anselm.63 This illustrates that Lanfranc was seen as a thorough
reformer. It might therefore be important to take a closer look at his program of
reformations and their implications for the Anglo-Saxon population. Why did he think
reform was necessary and what was exactly his aim in reforming the English?
1.3 The unworthiness of Lanfranc
Looking into Lanfranc’s writings one might discover that he has a rather modest style on the
one hand, while haughty in the other. When comparing letters from Lanfranc to different
people, it is therefore prudent to review his style of writing. In every letter he wrote, he
introduces himself as not worthy. Even when he is talking about being a bishop of
barbarians, he claims he is not worthy. This can be interpreted as typical Christian humility.
It makes the task of filtering out Lanfranc’s opinion about the English and Normans
however a lot more difficult. His expressions of unworthiness are contrary to the image of
Lanfranc as highest clergyman of the land and of Lanfranc as a king’s man, with all
associated respect. Mostly it has been explained as a standard phrase for bishops who had
a monastic background. The explanation though could be more complicated. First it puts
Lanfranc in a position of supreme subservience to the pope who controls the life of
Lanfranc and to which Lanfranc has no voice whatsoever in where he is being sent.64 It also
follows that Lanfranc expresses here the Christian ideal of sacrifice for the greater
(spiritual) good. A third possible explanation could be that the archbishop wanted to focus
attention to his position, which through action of pope or king (or lack of action), is
endangered.65 As is evident with regard to the primacy of Canterbury, when Lanfranc failed
(at first) to gain the needed support of king or pope in establishing his hegemony over the
bishopric of York in 1072. The intention behind this statement was to focus attention upon
the problem and instigate the recipient into action, beneficial to the writer (in this case
Lanfranc).66
Appeals regarding the phrases as “unworthy bishop” or “unworthy of the name bishop”67
to a higher authority are rather common in this period, for we also see them with
63
Ibidem, 33
Marylou Ruud, ”Unworthy servants’: The rhetoric of resignation at Canterbury, 1070-1170’ in: The
journal of religious history vol. 22, no. 1 (February 1998)
65
Ibidem, 4
66
Ruud, ‘Unworthy servants’, 4
67
LCL, 30-31, 82-83
64
14
Lanfranc’s successor Anselm and later with Thomas of Becket.68 This tactic was however not
always successful and depended on the position of the bishop to be firmly established. In a
similar instance a century later, Thomas of Beckets needs to flee the country69 and when an
abbot under Lanfranc tries the same, Lanfranc tries to steer into a direction which will cost
him his position. As he wrote to the pope:
There is a bishop in in our province called Hermann, who gave up his
office in the time of your predecessor Pope Leo of revered memory and
tried to become monk; he is now trying to do so once more by every
means he can […] he is old and chronically ill he is no longer able to
attend to his official duties. […] for this reason that I decided to consult
your highness in the apostolic see.
70
Although the reasons Lanfranc named, may very well has been the reason that lead to
Lanfranc’s action as described above, this is the second time this specific bishop tries this
stunt,71 the first time being in 1054, and apparently Lanfranc sees some benefit in
Hermann’s (Bishop Hermann of Ramsbury 1045 – 1078), an Anglo-Saxon Bishop, abdication,
to which in chapter 3 and 4 will be spend more attention. Important to note here is that
this says nothing about his vision on the English, but that it is, in most instances, a political
ploy.
68
Ruud, “Unworthy servants”, 7
Ibidem, 8
70
‘Hermannus siquidem nostrae regionis episcopus, qui tempore uenerandae memoriae Leonis
papae antecessoris uestri relicto episcopate monachicam uitam petiit, nunc iterum hoc idem facere
omnibus modis petit […] Sed iam senili actate prolixaque egritudine confectus debito officio curam
impendere ulterius non ualet […] Propterea apostolicae sedis celsitudinem consulendum putaui’ in:
LCL, 34-37
71
LCL, 34
69
15
2. The reformation of Lanfranc
2.1 The Constitutiones
When Lanfranc came to power as Archbishop of Canterbury he expressed his shock over
the deplorable state of the English church. He saw the English church as a church of
barbarians, where what was important was being ignored.
Now I endure daily so many troubles and vexations and such spiritual
starvation of nearly anything that is good. I am continually hearing, seeing
and experiencing so much unrest among different people, such distress and
injuries, such hardness of heart, greed and dishonesty, such a decline in holy
church.
72
Lanfranc never stopped thinking of himself in any other frame than a monk and kept
adoring the monastic life,73 even though he was no longer able to live by it. From his
monastic background he saw the monastic organizations as the backbone of the Church,74
for it was here that people devoted themselves completely to God. His main focus became
therefore the monastic life of the English. With this in mind he wrote the Constitutiones,
which is thought to have been written in 1077, 1079 or 1083. Scholars originally placed the
composition of this work in 1083, but recent research places its composition closer to the
beginning of Lanfranc’s reign at 1077, making it a text which was written down earlier than
the rules of Cluny.75 These rules were meant to be a part of a much larger reformation
program, focusing on the primacy of the bishop of Canterbury above all other bishops in
England and Britain, the Anglo-Saxon saints and monasteries and monastic communities, as
the Cathedral communities, which were before then unknown to Lanfranc.76 These last
were probably to Lanfranc’s liking and flowing from his personal experience, he placed
much importance with monastic institutions as a basis for Christianity.77 He wrote the
Constitutiones to create a standard for monastic behavior, where in his eyes he saw a need
72
‘In qua tot molestias / tot tedia tantumque ab omni fere bono defectum mentis cotidie sustineo;
tot aliorum in diuersis personis perturbationes, tribulationes, damna, obdurationes, cupiditates,
spurcicias, tantumque sanctea aecclesiae casum incessanter audio, uideo, sentio’ in: LCL, 30-33
73
LCM, xvii
74
CL, 174
75
LCM, xxviii
76
GL, 182; LCM, xviii
77
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 449
16
for improvement.78 Whether this was based on a feeling of superiority or ecclesiastical
perseverance might in this stadium still be unclear. His reform was however still thorough.
Using the Constitutiones he tried to reform the English monastic community and bring it
in line with the doctrine for continental monasteries. Yet when he started to reform the
English church he came upon an institution that was before then unknown to him. After his
initial doubts Lanfranc thought highly of the cathedral monasteries, which were present in
several cities in England, among which was Canterbury.79 Because of Lanfranc’s love for
monastic life, these typical Anglo-Saxon cathedral monasteries were able to survive his
reformation plans, even though they didn’t exist on the continent, or any other official
ecclesiastical institution.80 Modeled on his experience of continental monasteries the
Constitutiones were to be used as a manual for the ecclesiastic year.81 For each and every
possibility, it puts into words how the monks were to act or react.
Lanfranc would have put these rules onto paper with specific reasons. One of them might
have been the inherent flaws of the Anglo-Saxons, but in the opinion of this author, this
seems unlikely, seen the impact Lanfranc must have known this reformation would have
according to the principles it was based on. The impact of his reformation might have been
less than is suspected by most historians and the basis of this reformation might have been
less unfamiliar to the English than is assumed.
2.2 The impact of the Constitutiones
The impact of the Constitutiones is a matter of debate among historians. That in the long
run Lanfranc’s vision won the day is undeniable, but how much difference it made and if it
meant a shift in how English monks acted during day-to-day activities is still unclear. What
is certain is that Lanfranc wasn’t the first one to try and get the English church up to speed
with continental practice. About a century earlier, around 1070, it was King Edgar (943-975)
who started a reform program with the help of his bishops, because:
When therefore he [King Edgar] learned that the holy monasteries in all
quarters of his kingdom, brought low, and almost lacking in the service
of our Lord Jesus Christ, were wasting away and neglected.
82
78
GL, 182
CL, 150
80
LCM, xvviii
81
CL, 155-157
82
‘Comperto etenim quod sacra coenobia diuersis sui regiminis locis diruta ac paene
Domini nostri Ihesu Christi seruitio destituta neglegenter tabescerent’ in: The Monastic
Agreement of monks and nuns of the English nation, Dom Thomas Symons (ed.) (1953)
1-3
79
17
According to recent scholars there were in the time of King Edgar, after some of the most
vicious and devastating attacks of the Vikings of the tenth century had taken place, about
150 English monasteries.83 Most of these monasteries had been a focal point of local or (at
best) regional importance. Well into the twentieth century historians thought that the
Viking raids brought indescribable damage to the English culture and church. Recent
research however shows that the damage was less than the Anglo-Saxon chroniclers from
this era wanted us to believe. Most of the monasteries survived the Viking raids and despite
the Viking attacks these monasteries were still flourishing in the tenth century.84 AngloSaxon Christian culture was therefore less damaged than before thought.85 Yet contact
between these monasteries was infrequent and one doctrine for all monasteries was not
present, leading to all monasteries following their own rules. This is also what Edgar meant,
when he said that Christian faith was lacking and was wasting away. Because of this he
launched the Concordia Regularis at the Synod of Winchester in 970, which was meant to
be implemented in every English monastery.86
In structure the Concordia Regularis shows many similarities with the Constitutiones,
which Lanfranc would create a century later. Both texts try to establish rules for
monasteries based upon the Rule of Benedict.87 It follows that similarities are not
unexpected. The structure of both texts is also the same, although the Constitutiones are
more elaborate on a wide variety of subjects and are most of these subjects in line with the
later (mid-twelfth century) Cluniac rules.88 Lanfranc also places greater focus upon children
in monasteries.89 It is obvious from reading the Constitutiones that Lanfranc has other foci
than Edgar had. Edgar tried to bring unity to a church where there was not even contact
between the different ecclesiastical organizations and most of these were locally
orientated.90 Lanfranc aims at modernizing the church organizations, taking all separate
institutions out of their isolation, and creating one church organization based upon the
continental church.
83
John Blair, ‘A saint for every minster? Local cults in Anglo-Saxon England’, in Alan Thacker and
Richard Sharpe (ed.) Local saints and local churches in the early medieval west (Oxford2002) 457-458
84
Ibidem, 456
85
Ibidem.
86
The monastic agreement, ix
87
Ibidem; Mary Clayton, ‘Centralism and uniformity versus localism and diversity: the Virgin and
native saints in the monastic reform.’ in: Peritia: Journal of the Medieval Academy of Ireland 8 (1994)
95; LCM, xv
88
LCM, xxxii-xxxiii
89
Ibidem, xxv
90
John Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford 2005) 343
18
The success of Lanfranc is inextricably connected with the success of the reformation of
the church under King Edgar. When Edgar started his reformation program in 970, most
monasteries were damaged, isolated from each other and they had lost a large portion of
their previous resources and wealth. Although the Viking raids of the ninth and tenth
centuries had a considerable impact on the church, most monasteries and other church
organizations survived the ordeal.91 It did lead to an increase of their isolation from the
overall organization, which in respect led to an increasingly locally orientated organization
with only ties in the local community, mostly visible in the worship of saints in these
religious institutions. Most saints from this period were local saints and their sainthood was
mostly based upon local criteria, which did not necessary correspond with ecclesiastical
criteria. There was for example a monastery that elevated its abbot to sainthood, because
he was important for their personal quality of physical life and ignoring their spiritual needs
by letting the monks drink alcohol. But there are also instances known for worshipping
Anglo-Saxons as saints who died during Viking raids.92 Most monasteries did what they
themselves thought was best, ignoring any of the official and papal restrictions. When
Edgar speaks about monasteries that were brought low, he seems to be referring to these
practices.
Trying to bring uniformity to Anglo-Saxon monastic life, Edgar’s program was meant to
implement the Benedictine rule in all monasteries. To give all monasteries a common
denominator and an air of importance, Saint Mary was chosen to become the figurehead of
this reform, and was to be worshipped at least next to the local saints.93 Most rules in the
Concordia Regularis were meant to be implemented as a base for this new cult. When
Edgar died in 975, England entered a period of political unrest. His successors were in
power for only short periods of time and the conflict with the Danes in England began to
stir again. This meant that a strong monarchy as under Edgar was not able to establish itself
and was not able to exert the same sort of influence upon the separate ecclesiastical
organizations. When the Normans came into power only 50 of the 150 monasteries still
partly followed the rules as stipulated by the Concordia. And even these monasteries were
mostly clustered (see figure 1).94 Lack of a uniform church would have been a thorn in the
flesh of William and this might have been one of the reasons for nominating Lanfranc as the
91
Ibidem, 294-294
Blair, ‘A saint for every minster?’, 460-462
93
Clayton, ‘Centralism and uniformity versus localism and diversity’, 105-106
94
Figure 1 is based upon: John Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford 2005); John Blair, ‘A
saint for every minster? Local cults in Anglo-Saxon England’, in: Alan Thacker and Richard Sharpe
(ed.) Local saints and local churches in the early medieval west (Oxford 2002)
92
19
new Archbishop, because he was an ardent supporter of the reform papacy, strong
leadership within the church and a clear uniform policy.
A hundred years after the tenth-century reformation met its end, Lanfranc gave the
Benedictine reformation another shot. Backed by king and pope, he endeavored to reshape
the English church into one coherent unity. The basis of his reform was once again the
Benedictine Rule. As we have seen, at least one-third of the original Anglo-Saxon
monasteries were still acquainted with these rules and it might still be plausible that other
monasteries had some knowledge of the Regularis Concordia. These Benedictine Rules may
therefore not be completely unknown to them. So although Lanfranc made the decision to
replace to top layer of the ecclesiastical elite to make a smoother transition to the new
system, the reform program in itself may have caused a smaller aversion among monks,
than is usually thought. Although Lanfranc recognized the need to improve the church and
bring it back up to standard, he did not do this because he saw a fundamental flaw in
English worship. Indeed he saw some considerable advantages which he was able to
implement in his on continental practices based church (which he also thought were flawed
on several areas). Mostly the church organization was comparable with the continental
church. What needed to be done was a standardization of liturgy, procedures and
organization and his reformation did just that: one Benedictine Rule, one principal
archbishopric and a clear hierarchy with a sound and clear view. This was also the main
reason why he replaced so many high native Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastics with Normans, for in
Normandy William had already implemented the same change when he was only just a
duke. Under William Normandy was already forged into one unity, with its duke as the
undisputed ruler over secular as ecclesiastical organizations. Now he wanted to achieve the
same in England and bringing in Norman clergy, was meant to attain this goal. They were
already used to the strict hierarchy and the standardization, which Lanfranc now proposed
for England.95 This might have been the main problem for the Anglo-Saxons. At his death
Lanfranc was celebrated for his ardent work regarding the church and for creating one
coherent unit.96 But while he was celebrated for this triumph, he was still blamed for
limiting the positions of the Anglo-Saxon population so severely. Eadmer of Canterbury, at
this time a monk at Canterbury, celebrates Lanfranc for his renewal of religion through all
95
96
GL, 106
CL, 172-174
20
orders of the kingdom,97 while also complaining about the lack of career opportunities for
Anglo-Saxons.98
To create this standard he now had to gain firm control over all ecclesiastical related
matters, and these were still greatly hindered by one Anglo-Saxon practice. For in the
Anglo-Norman church still many monks, for Anglo-Saxon origin, were used to sanctifications
of people without any ecclesiastical reason. Tackling these issues would be one of the most
discussed actions of Lanfranc and has often been cited in the discussion about Lanfranc’s
position with regard to the English.99 It is therefore important to place it in the context of
his reformation program, to gain some important insights.
97
CL, 174
TEN, 63
99
Richard W. Pfaff, ‘Lanfranc’s supposed purge of the Anglo-Saxon calendar’, in: Richard W. Pfaff
(ed.), Liturgical calendars, saints, and services in Medieval England (Aldershot 1998) 95-97
98
21
Figure 1: Monasteries in the late eleventh century, which were
already existent in the tenth century. The red dots indicating
monasteries that where still somewhat influenced by the tenthcentury reformation.100
2.3 Lanfranc and the English Saints
The relationship between Lanfranc and the English saints is a difficult one. Lanfranc had
high expectations from all Christians and thought that everyone, including laymen, was
100
Figure 1 is based upon: John Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon society (Oxford 2005); John Blair, ‘A
saint for every minster? Local cults in Anglo-Saxon England’, in: Alan Thacker and Richard Sharpe
(ed.) Local saints and local churches in the early medieval west (Oxford 2002)
22
obliged to spend their lives as devout a Christian as possible.101 He held a critical view on all
that was church related. Following the view of the new reform papacy (after 1046), he
believed the Church was obliged to look after the souls of all Christians, something which
had been neglected before 1046, when popes considered their own position more
important.102 Through these opinions he held a critical view to any established rules and
agreements within the church. In lieu of this he also held a practical view on Christianity, for
he believed that, for practical reasons, it wasn’t possible for laymen to always be a good
Christian and he believed society could not continue to exist with people that only occupied
themselves with a purely Christian life. Here he saw a role for the church, in which they
were to lead society in Christian piety.103 Because of this clergymen were to live by
example, to inspire the laymen to live a life inspired by Christianity as much as possible. To
achieve this Lanfranc had very strict rules according to which clergymen had to live and to
which they had to adhere.
What we have to consider with the greatest care is that what is
necessary for the soul’s salvation should be safeguarded in every way […]
Where these are preserved it may truly be said that the Rule of St.
Benedict and the monastic order are kept.
104
One of the best examples people had, were saints. This meant that Lanfranc also had very
strict rules concerning sainthood. For if monks tried to live a good Christian life, the saints
had lived perfect Christian lives. Concerning these rules Lanfranc was greatly troubled when
inquiring into the case of all those Anglo-Saxon saints who were canonized over the last
couple of centuries. One of the first tasks he set himself was the culling of the holy
calendar. How thorough this cull was, is uncertain. Some historians think he made drastic
changes in the number of saints, although recent research points out that although he
made a critical review of all Anglo-Saxon saints, most of them survived Lanfranc cleaning
up.105 The review of these saints was done according to the criteria of the church, but even
so there was, according to Anselm’s biographer Eadmer, discussion between Lanfranc and
101
CL, 207
Ibidem, 39-41; Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 440
103
CL, 53
104
‘Illud tamen cautissime attendendum est, u tea sine quibus anima potest omnibusmodis inuiolata
seruentur […] Hec ubi seruantur, rectissime potest dici regulam sancti Benedicti et monachorum’ in:
LCM, 2-3
105
Pfaff, ‘Lanfranc’s supposed purge of the Anglo-Saxon calendar’, 95-108
102
23
Anselm of Bec,106 whom he consulted on a regular basis, about which criteria were
applicable to each saint.107
If Lanfranc’s intention was not to decimate the number of Anglo-Saxon saints, he was
from here on out trying to limit the number of new saints being created. By reviewing the
saints and emphasizing the strict rules for sanctifying potential saints, he also emphasized
his own role as archbishop in the process. No new saints were to be proclaimed unless
sanctioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This also fit his reform program in which he
also wanted to put forward the bishopric of Canterbury as the supreme seat of the church
with Britain. These principal aims in addressing his problems with the Anglo-Saxon saints
were therefore not ethnically motivated, but were meant to enforce his own position.
2.4 Lanfranc’s policy of reform
Lanfranc is known as one of the most important reformers of the eleventh-century English
church.108 The greatest impact of his reform can be found in the English monastic life, for
which he wrote an independent handbook. His alleged decimation of the saints can be
viewed in a perspective of laying ground rules for future sanctification. While in discussions
found in the Vita Lanfranci, his biographer makes clear what Lanfranc thought of the AngloSaxon saints, he also shows the influence of other important clergymen on Lanfranc’s
decisions, like Anselm and Eadmer, who was from Anglo-Saxon origin himself. All
discussions end in Lanfranc acknowledging the sanctity of the person in question.109 The
main aim of Lanfranc was to put a stop to the wild sanctification of unsaintly persons and to
create a precedent in which Lanfranc was to not only be included in any future
sanctification processes, but to make sure that the last decision about any new saint lay
with the Archbishop of Canterbury and so increasing his own influence.
Looking closer into his monastic reform, one cannot simply conclude that Lanfranc’s
reformation had a big impact on the church itself. Taking a critical look at these newer
monastic rules, one can see a correspondence between these rules and the rules put onto
paper a century earlier by Edgar the Peaceful. Because both texts have a common base in
the Rules of Benedict, this doesn’t have to be very surprising. Even the cathedral
monasteries, which were until then unknown on the continent and to Lanfranc, were to
106
Anselm of Bec (1033-1109) is considered to be of great influence on Lanfranc. Anselm became a
monk of Bec in 1059 where he made acquaintance with Lanfranc and followed into his footsteps as
prior when Lanfranc became abbot of St. Ettiene and later when Anselm became Archbishop of
Canterbury after Lanfranc’s death. During this period they stayed in close contact with each other.
For more information see: CL, 208-211
107
LCM, xxviii-xxiv
108
LCM, xviii- xix
109
Ibidem, xxviii-xxv
24
remain open under his rule.110 The impact of Lanfranc’s reformation can therefore be called
limited and the new English church of Lanfranc became a blend of both Anglo-Saxon and
Norman practice. It would seem therefore likely that the implementation of Lanfranc’s
reorganization went a lot smoother because of this tenth-century reformation.
The Benedictine reform of the tenth century was at the time of Edgar’s death incomplete.
His successors were through internal conflict, a reignition of the wars against the Danes and
short reigns of each of the consecutive English kings, unable to gain the influence or time to
pay special attention to these new Benedictine rules. This meant that after affecting one
third of all monasteries, the tenth-century reformation bled to death, with only marginal
results. Lanfranc’s reformation was able to pick up where the former reformation left off.
This meant for the Rule of Benedict to be finally completely implemented into the English
monastic system. The forceful implementation of these rules meant alternative measures
within the church and these other factors were more important for the division of the
English and Normans,111 as will be shown in the following chapters. Lanfranc does not seem
to wish to change the Anglo-Saxon religious system, but to update it, implying that he does
not think the Anglo-Saxon system to be inferior to the Norman ecclesiastical system. His act
of putting Norman ecclesiastics in high positions might also be a measure to ensure a
smooth implementation of the updated system, because they themselves had already gone
through the same changes a couple of decades earlier. This might therefore have nothing to
do with ethnical discrimination. But this is a subject which will be discussed within chapter
four. It would seem that Lanfranc was not expressly discriminating towards the English. His
attitudes towards both the English and the Normans need some alternative examination,
which will be done in the following chapters.
110
111
CL, 149-153
TEN, 235
25
3 Lanfranc and the Normans
3.1 The Normans in the eleventh century
Contact between England and the continent, and especially Normandy, was frequent, even
before 1066. So when William the Conqueror became king in 1066 he came into a kingdom
that was familiar with continental customs. This was also true for the church. In 1051
Robert of Jumièges (d. 1052 between 1055), a Norman, became archbishop of Canterbury
and only after he had been bishop of London for fifteen years.112
But during the tenth and eleventh centuries there was a certain distinction between the
Normans and their surrounding neighbors. The Norman duke owed allegiance to the French
king and therefore they saw themselves as French. Through the years the Norman dukes,
and especially duke William II, were able to create a higher degree of autonomy for
themselves, which led to some specifically Norman features in a culture they themselves
thought of as French. These Norman features were characterized by an aggressive
expansionism, through which a disproportional number of new kingdoms during the tenth,
eleventh and twelfth century gained a Norman leader.113 The Normans had created a name
for themselves of warriors, which they were all too happy to confirm at any opportunity.
Wherever the Normans went, a French orientated culture went with them and this was also
true for Christianity. In every newly conquered territory, new monasteries were founded,
based upon the most prestigious Norman monasteries of the time, like Bec.114
Normandy was a prosperous area in which urbanization was well under way during the
beginning of the eleventh century. Cities as Caen, Rouen and Bayeux were able to profit
from the economically advantageous climate and brought much prosperity to the Norman
nobles. Because of the focus on warfare and conquest, technological advances in warfare
made startling progress in Normandy, which in its turn was able to facilitate the war lust of
the Norman nobles. They spread out to the corners of, in the eyes of the Normans, civilized
Europe to conquer kingdoms like Sicily or enter into service with the Byzantine emperors,
where they were quite successful in their military careers.115
The influence of French culture upon their surroundings was, also because of this,
widespread. In this culture the notions of chivalry were important, notions which before
then were uncommon in England. This made the English, as became later the case with the
112
H.E.J. Cowdrey, ‘Robert de Jumieges’, The Oxford dictionary of national biography, available at:
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23717 (accessed on 16 june 2012)
113
Bartlett, The Making of Europe, 43
114
Ibidem, 57
115
Ibidem, 42
26
Welsh, Scots and Irish, look like barbarians during any military conflict, where the Normans
were used to acting chivalrous with regard to their adversaries, with the aim of capturing
for ransom instead of killing or enslaving their opponents.116 This notion of chivalry was one
of the new things introduced after the conquest of England by William the Conqueror.117
But the Normans also saw themselves as culturally superior when thinking about writing,
Christianity and even in building, which after the conquest lead to a French style of
building.118
Under William the Conqueror Normandy became a state with a stable regime.119 Bundling
the new technologies, the growing prosperity and the warlike attitude boasted by the
Normans, made them a force to be reckoned with and gave them an aggressive attitude
against non-Normans.120 William, during his reign, intensified his grip upon his territories.
Conquering England accelerated this process and it kept developing until under the reign of
Henry I, when the king was master over all of the English territories, with a firm grip on its
nobility and giving the king the last word in, for example, any inheritance.121 All of these
factors gave the Normans a specific identity; one which made them feel superior to the
English.122 This superiority can be seen in several areas in this newly acquired kingdom and
becomes clear when looking through Lanfranc’s eyes, when he regards the English, for
example as barbarians.
3.2 English tradition and Norman practice.
As reviewed in the second chapter Lanfranc made a distinction between the Normans and
the English. This is however not a clear distinction. Sometimes he saw himself as English,
while his overall opinion of the English was rather low. He reformed the English church,
because he deemed it old-fashioned, while implementing Anglo-Saxon aspects in the new
English church. On more than one occasion Lanfranc claimed to be:
A novice Englishman, virtually ignorant as yet of English affairs.
123
116
GEN, 58, 100-101
John Gillingham, ‘Kingship, chivalry and love. Political and cultural values in the earliest history
written in French: Geoffrey Gaimars’s Estoire des Engleis’, in: C. Warren Hollister (ed.), Anglo-Norman
culture and the political renaissance: proceedings of the Borchard conference on Anglo-Norman
history (Woodbridge 1995) 39-42
118
Saul, 'Medieval England’, 8, 24
119
CL, 29
120
HEN, 44
121
C. Warren Hollister, ’Anglo-Norman political culture and the twelfth century renaissance’ in: C.
Warren Hollister (ed.), Anglo-Norman culture and the political renaissance (Woodbridge 1995) 15-16
122
GEN, 136-137
123
‘Ego tamen nouus Anglus rerumque Anglicarum […] adhuc pene inscius in locum’ in: LCL, 36-39
117
27
This claim of ignorance with Normans about being an Englishmen is reinforced by
Lanfranc’s memorandum about the supremacy of Canterbury over the other bishoprics, in
which he blames the new bishop, Thomas of York (1070 – 1100), a Norman from Bayeux, to
be ignorant of English discourse and is therefore acting against the usual norm.
He acted in this way from ignorance rather than from a proud and
obstinate spirit. For he was a newcomer, with no experience whatever of
English usage.
124
According to this citation, Lanfranc noticed a distinct difference between English and
Norman customs. Yet based upon the first statement one could conclude that he saw
himself as an Englishman. So what constituted an Englishman according to Lanfranc?
Lanfranc did see a difference between the English and the French, for in a letter send in
1075 to King William in connection to a rebellion, he writes:
Our forces are pursuing them with a countless host of French and
English.
125
The mention of the English here is probably meant to indicate that not all Anglo-Saxon
nobles were rebellious and probably that most remained loyal to their new king, while
other English nobles chose to rebel. The fact remains however that Lanfranc was able to
make a clear distinction between the English and French/ Norman forces. One ought to
keep in mind that the political realities of the eleventh century are an important factor
within this discussion. When Lanfranc saw English custom with regard to the supremacy of
Canterbury, it is a real possibility that he established himself as English, to use these
traditions in his own advantage. When falling back on traditions which were unknown to his
adversaries, like Bishop Thomas, he would have been able to strengthening his point. This
could be a reason he had proclaimed himself, and those he thinks who ought to serve
under him, as English. In this manner they were able to follow English customs, which were
favorable in this case. When debating this issue he calls upon historical works of Bede, but
124
‘Hoc autem ignorantia magis quam spiritus elati pertinatia agebat. Nouus enim homo et Anglicae’
in: LCL, 40-41
125
‘et nostril cum infinita multitudine Francigenarum et Anglorum eos in sequuuntur’ in: LCL, 124125
28
also on Anglo-Saxon annals.126 Yet it weren’t these arguments that finally made the
difference. Characteristic of this entire discussion is that the arguments of Lanfranc are
being put aside and Lanfranc has to rely on the intervention of King William:
He turned to other proofs, slight and weak, which by Christ’s help were
soon demolished at a few strokes. When the king rebuked him with
paternal mildness for having presumed to come so poorly supplied with
arguments against such battery of proofs.
127
This quote shows the end of a reasonably long dispute between Lanfranc and Thomas,
which centers on old English traditions of supremacy of Canterbury over the other English
churches. The breakthrough in this case came not from the arguments of English tradition
by Lanfranc, but by intervention of the king. Implying that although the arguments of
Lanfranc were thought to be relevant, English tradition was not important enough to win
the day. Lanfranc had a close relationship with the Normans, one he did not have with the
English. In the next part we’ll try to focus some more on his relationship with both.
3.3 Lanfranc and the Norman clergy
The tone of the letters sent to French or Anglo-Saxon clerics varies. Looking at the letters
sent to French clerics or monasteries, one sees a fraternal undertone in the letters. Most
start with polite introductions like:
To John, archbishop of the holy church of Rouen, preeminent in devotion
to God and the love of justice, Lanfranc, an unworthy prelate, sends his
service and prayers.
128
John, who ought to stand on equal grounds with Lanfranc, could be treated more cordially
than his fellow English bishops because he also was an archbishop. But even to lowerranking Norman clerics, like the bishop of Tethford129, he still shows a cordial attitude:
126
LCL, 48-57
‘uertit se ad alia egena atque infirma argumenta quae post paucam moram Chrito reuelante
paucis sunt obiectionibus abolita. Quem cum rex dulci paternaque reprehensione argueret quod
contra tantam argumentorum copiam tam inops rationum’ in: LCL, 54-55
128
‘Zelo Dei et amore iusticiae praecellenti sanctae Rotomagensis aecclesiae
archiepiscopo Io. L. indignus antistes seruitium cum orationibus’ in: LCL, 92-93
129
Ann Williams, The English and the Norman conquest (Woodbridge 1995) 46
127
29
To his well-beloved brother and colleague Herfast Lanfranc, an unworthy
bishop, sends friendly greetings and prayers.
130
In contrast to his fellow bishops who are from origin Anglo-Saxon, he refers, for example,
as:
Lanfranc, archbishop by divine favour and not his own merits, sends
prayerful greeting.
131
There are some similarities between the English bishops and bishops who are in conflict
with Lanfranc. Compared with the introduction in his letter to Peter of Chester, a Norman
bishop who was in service of the English church before the conquest,132 who he calls to
account for his un-Christian behavior, he uses the phrase:
Lanfranc by the grace of God archbishop.
133
It would seem Lanfranc tried to emphasize his role in the church, as given to him by God
in contrast to his introduction line to those who he considered to be on friendly terms with.
Apparently Lanfranc felt it necessary to emphasize his position and authority when
communicating with the originally Anglo-Saxon clerics, to persuade them in following his
orders. The use of the same introduction returns, when he communicates with Thomas of
York, a Norman bishop who did not believe his archbishopric, according to Lanfranc, ought
to be submissive to Canterbury.134 In a letter from before 1073, when the argument is
settled, he again uses the phrase which emphasizes his position of archbishop, afterwards
the introduction line is replaced by:
Lanfranc, an unworthy bishop.
135
130
‘Dilectissimo fratri et coepiscopo He. L. indignus antistes salute et amiciciam cum orationibus’ in:
LCL, 106-107
131
‘Lanfrancus diuina dignatione non suis meritis archiepiscopus abbati B. salutem cum orationibus’
in: LCL, 104-105
132
Frank Barlow, The English church 1000- 1066: a history of the Anglo-Saxon church (London 1979)
117-118
133
“Lanfrancus gratia Dei archiepiscopus”’ Lanfrancus gratia Dei archiepiscopus’ in: LCL, 110-111
134
LCL, 105, 111
135
‘Lanfrancus indignus antistes’ in: LCL, 110-111
30
It is a common use of words in Lanfranc’s letters136 and when he writes to Stigand, bishop
of Chichester, to put right some wrongs is his diocese, he again uses the line which states
that he has become archbishop because of God himself.137 Stigand of Chichester was a
Norman, who gained his first position in England through William the Conqueror himself.138
Apparently Lanfranc felt the need to assert his authority over Stigand after receiving
complaints about his behavior within his diocese.
Overall it would appear that Lanfranc feels the need to assert his authority in cases where
he thinks people are evading the influence his function as archbishop gives him, or when his
subordinates are misusing their position for personal gain. In this respect the same line
appears within letters sent to bishops with whom Lanfranc is in conflict, as to bishops from
Anglo-Saxon origin. Like this Lanfranc makes with a distinction between Normans and
Anglo-Saxons (/ Englishmen) in which the Anglo-Saxons were put in the distrusted category.
3.4 Lanfranc and the Normans
Lanfranc had close relationships with the Normans in England and on the continent. When
he needs a sparring partner concerning theological questions he tends to reach out to
important Norman ecclesiastics on the continent, such as the Archbishop of Rouen. Within
England, by contrast, Lanfranc puts himself forward as the highest ecclesiastical institution
of England. His relation with other ecclesiastics in England is businesslike and only in certain
cases to be called friendly. The reverence Lanfranc shows to continental (and mostly
Norman) ecclesiastics, is absent in most cases of communication in England. Lanfranc does
show that he is on friendly terms with some other ecclesiastics in England, but these are all
Norman from origin and tend to have come into their position after 1070.
Lanfranc’s businesslike tone seems to have its roots in his power struggle with the other
(Norman) bishops in England, like Thomas of York. The tone in his letters to these bishops,
and mostly the introduction of his letters, are meant to emphasize his position in respect to
the recipient of the letter. While this is so with Thomas of York, it also seems to be like this
to all remaining Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastics. Lanfranc tended to make a division between
English and Norman. On what premises he made this distinction is for so far unclear, but it
would seem that he needed to emphasize the authority he holds over them. By calling
himself English, instead of Lombard or French it would seem that he would adhere
136
From all 52 letters send by Lanfranc, twenty have used this or a variety of this phrase in its
introduction, which would come to 38% of the total number of letters.
137
‘Lanfrancus gratia Dei archiepiscopus’ in: LCL, 114- 117
138
Diana E. Greenway, ‘List of bishops of Chichester’, British History Online, available at:
http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=34293 (accessed on 11 April 2012)
31
geographical criteria for an ethnical identity. Here it would seem he finds it more important
where somebody lives. Yet when he makes a distinction between English and French
military forces, he seems to base his distinction on place of origin. This last distinction is
incompatible with the former. If origin is the most important factor, living somewhere else
does not change that person’s ethnic identity, which in turn would make it impossible for
Lanfranc to call himself English. We might have to look further into his perception of the
English to understand where this view on Englishness comes from and therefore this will
receive some attention in the next chapter.
His perception might however not be completely based upon ethnicity and may be
complicated by political realities. One of the most important distinctions made by Lanfranc
is between two groups which are not labeled with a nationality, but based on whether
Lanfranc thinks them trustworthy. Automatically the category of trustworthy men includes
all clergymen he already knew from his time at Bec and St. Etiènne. His attitude against his
political enemies is the same as the one he seems to display against the Anglo-Saxon
population. Lanfranc seems to have deemed them untrustworthy. We have already seen
that most of Lanfranc’s reform measures weren’t aimed at the Anglo-Saxons specifically,
but on an outdated organization. Yet there are still some measures, like Lanfranc’s
emphasis on the teaching of children, which could still be interpreted like discriminating.
The focus upon these children can be seen in the perspective of raising a new generation of
English monks, who would leave behind their English roots, to join the civilized Norman
world. This therefore needs to be examined better.
32
4 Lanfranc and the English
4.1 Lanfranc and child oblation
Lanfranc focusses in his texts and letters, for an important part, on the young monks and on
the child oblates in monasteries. This is visible in his Constitutiones, where a separate part
of the book is dedicated to these groups and specifies how they ought to behave and how
they are to be educated. It is most unlikely that the new members of monasteries only
came from Norman families. In fact most would have come from English families.139 It
seems plausible that Lanfranc wanted the standards within his organization to be kept high.
This is also a recurrent theme in councils he organized. When, for example, he presides
over the English episcopal council of 1075 in London, he again spends additional attention
on this point and argues for strict control over their education:
In particular the children and the young monks shall everywhere be
under supervision, suitable masters being allotted to them, and they
shall carry lights at night.
140
His view and attention on children is something that distinguishes his works from any
other and which does not agree with modern audiences, because of the role he assigns to
them, which to modern readers might seem harsh.141 This is also one of the few
ecclesiastical works which spends this much attention to the education of children.142 The
truth is that Lanfranc had a strict view on how to work with children in monasteries. This
strict program meant that when the ordinary monks started their day, they also need to
start their training, which begins at sunrise:
Then the brethren, rising in their night shoes, and the children and young
monks with lanterns shall enter the church, and when a prayer has been
said they shall sing prime, and the psalms for relatives with their collects,
and the seven penitential psalms, and the litany.
143
139
TEN, 205
‘Infants precipue et inuuenes in omnibus locis deputatis sibi idoneis magistris custodiam habeant,
nocte luminaria ferant.’ in: LCL, 76-77
141
LCM, xxv
142
Ibidem, xix, xxv
143
‘Surgentes fratres in nocturnalibus suis, et infants et iuuenes cum luminaribus suis, ueniant in
ecclesiam, et facta oration cantent Primam, et psalmos familiars cum collectis suis et septem
psalmos, et letaniam’ in: LCM, 4-7
140
33
After their early start, their training as monks starts:
The children shall begin with reading aloud, and afterwards, if need be,
practice the chant. No one shall ever read or rehearse the chant in the
cloister, save in silence, until the children begin to read, nor shall he go
to confession.
144
Thereafter it focusses on the children learning to recite the chant autonomously.145 This
implies that Lanfranc thought that in time the new English oblates were able to become
full-fledged monks. The attention he puts on monks with regard to being visible at night is
not arising from trust issues with the English but a well-intended attempt to train his monks
in what Lanfranc deems important and what seems to be standard practice in continental
monasteries.146 This training was aimed at preparing those new monks for the new
monastic regime Lanfranc envisioned. With this in mind he gives the children in a
monastery a prominent place and although his methods might be harsh, for the training is
intense and does not give the children the chance to rest when they might need it,147 it is
not out of character. Lanfranc sees it as everyone’s duty to be the best Christian possible.
Furthermore it was an overall view of important ecclesiastics like Lanfranc, but also like
Saint Benedict and even of the ecclesiastics during later centuries, that such educational
programs were to be successful and common in the absence of any lay educational
system.148 So although people now might think Lanfranc’s methods barbaric, in his own
time it was a well-known method of teaching and not limited to English ecclesiastical
organizations.149
Here Lanfranc sees no inherent faults in the English. Keeping in mind, that the English
church will not be able to survive without the additional replenishment of new English
clergymen, Lanfranc sees the English as being able to become a significant part of the
church in due time, if they only get the correct upbringing. This does however not mean
that the English clerics automatically were trusted by Lanfranc.
144
‘Pueri uero primitus alte legant, et postea si opus fuerit cantent. Omni tempore antequam legant
infants nullus in claustro legat aut cantet, nisi in silentio, nec ad confessionem pergat.’in: LCM, 6-7
145
LCM, 6-9
146
Ibidem, xix
147
LCL, 11
148
LCM, xxvi
149
Ibidem.
34
4. 2 Lanfranc on his English clerics
Lanfranc tries to keep the ecclesiastical personnel in England under strict supervision. In the
council of London in 1075 a decree is accepted in which:
No one shall keep a strange clerk or monk in his household or ordain him
without letters of commendation.
150
That Lanfranc wanted to keep a close eye on all clerics in England is certain. This firm grip
was meant to make sure his reform program was executed as he meant it, for he wanted to
ensure its success. This might not come as a surprise because when looking back in English
history to the tenth-century reformation, it becomes clear that that reformation did not
only failed because of the discontinuity in the monarchy, but also because of the tendency
of English ecclesiastical institutions to keep to their own practices. Although all monasteries
were for example meant to worship Saint Mary, they also kept their own saint and
practices.151
One of the ways in which Lanfranc tried to get a grip on these institutions was by
replacing the top layer of the English Church by Norman clerics. Important Christian
institutions like Westminster Abbey were since the beginning of the Norman occupation
lead by Normans.152 This offered great career opportunities for men of Norman origin and
who wanted to gain a career within the church, like Gilbert Crispin (1055-1117),153 who was
in frequent contact with Lanfranc and on instigation of Lanfranc became abbot of
Westminster in 1085. We can conclude that Lanfranc kept these (important) posts to men
he was familiar with. Gilbert Crispin was for example the brother of the abbot of Bec at that
moment, who was in frequent contact with Lanfranc. Two letters to Gilbert are included in
this collection of letters of Lanfranc,154 which is in comparison just a small part of the in
total 61 letters, but the tone and contends of the letters imply that the family of Crispin was
well known to him. With regard to his brother’s son Lanfranc writes tot Gilbert:
150
‘ne quis alienum clericum uel monachum sine commendaticiis litteris retineat uel ordinet.’ in: LCL,
76-77
151
Clayton, Mary, ‘Centralism and uniformity versus localism and diversity; the Virgin and native
saints in the monastic reform’ in Peritia: Journal of the Medieval Academy of Ireland 8 (1994) 105106
152
GL, 114
153
LCL, 101-105
154
Ibidem, 100-103
35
I said that he was your brother because that indeed is what I desire and
entreat that he should be. I am told that even your own honoured
mother is gracious enough to call him her son.
155
It might be plausible that because he started his career in the church in Normandy, this was
where his (social) network was and that he knew what to expect of these people. This does
not attest that Lanfranc did not trust the English, only that he did not know any Englishman
good enough to entrust a critical position within the church and to act according to their
function to the rules and tradition as known on the continent.
When looking at the ones carrying the letters sent by and to Lanfranc, only those who
from origin are Norman are possible to identify, like:
When I send you Robert the monk of Bec.
156
Yet this does not mean that those instances in which no name or origin is known, they also
were French. Most probably did Lanfranc send letters with any means he had available. He
for example sends letters with new consecrated bishops to their kings, who might not
always be Norman, like after the consecration of the new bishop of Dublin.
It might still be that Lanfranc sees to many differences between the Anglo-Saxon Church
and the Continental one. When writing to parties outside of England, like Scotland or
Ireland, his tone is condescending and disapproving. To the new consecrated bishop of
Dublin, Patrick, he gives a letter meant for Guthric of Dublin in which he writes:
He brought us many good reports of you, glorious king, matters worthy
of much commendation.
157
Although Guthric wasn’t a king, he ruled just a small Norse enclave and recognized the king
of Munster as his overlord,158 Lanfranc gives him here unjust credit in the hope to get on
Guthric’s good side, to make some changes more easily. In Lanfranc’s view he sees the
marriage customs in Ireland as barbaric, for:
155
‘Fratrem tuum propterea dixi illum, quoniam reuera sic esse uolo multumque rogo. Nam et
uenerabilis mater tua, sicut michi relatum est’ in: LCL, 101
156
‘Quando Robertum Beccensis coenobii monachum ‘in: LCL, 92-93
157
‘Qui quamius de Gloria uestra multa nobis bona multisque leudabus digna retulerit’ in: LCL, 66-67
158
LCL, 66-69
36
There are said to be men in your kingdom who take wives from either
their own kindred or that of their deceased wives; others who by their
own will and authority abandon the wives who are legally married to
them; some who give their own wives to others and by an abominable
exchange receive the wives of other men instead.
159
These are also the same complaints which arise a century later, when the English talk about
the Welsh and Scots and which Gillingham has identified as ‘Celtic’ practices and were also
common before the conquest in England, but were afterwards abolished.160 It is in 1075 still
something that Lanfranc thinks that ought to be emphasized by the decrees in the Council
of London,161 which implies that this is for England still a relevant subject.
If something was relevant for England, it was not only Lanfranc’s decision to make. When
he became bishop he must have been aware of the position and attitude of King William I
with regard to the English Church. The English monarch had in comparison with other kings
of his time much influence over the church. He held a strict line in which all inhabitants of
England, including ecclesiastics, owed allegiance to him first. What William thought of most
matters was therefore very important on how it was treated by Lanfranc.
4.3 Lanfranc and William the Conqueror
Lanfranc’s view on and his relations with the Normans and the English cannot be described
without his relation with William the Conqueror, for after initial disagreements, it is obvious
that Lanfranc was regarded in a position of respect with William. The only real conflict
between the two that is known to us is the conflict when Lanfranc was still a prior at Bec.
Whatever the reason might have been, it is obvious, from Lanfranc’s career under William,
that they maintained a good relationship. On numerous occasions Lanfranc in entrusted
with keeping the king’s peace and he tries to uphold it.162 He also tried to keep a distinction
between the secular world of King William and his own ecclesiastical world. In his letter to
Bishop Peter he writes:
159
‘in regno uestro perhibentur homines seu de propria seu de mortuarum uxorum parentela
coniuges ducere, alii lagitime sibi copulates pro arbitrioi et voluntate relinquere, nonnulli suas aliis
dare et aliorum infanda commutation recipere.’ in: LCL, 68-69
160
GEN, 47
161
LCL,77
162
LCL, 113
37
You should be aware that it is neither your role as a bishop nor within
your power to do these things.
163
This separation of ecclesiastical and secular matters is based upon the example Lanfranc
thinks a bishop should give. In other instances he is in fact pro-actively involved. When in
1075 a rebellion has started, directed by an Anglo-Saxon earl named Ralph (c. 1042- c.
1096), Lanfranc writes to his king:
We do not want you to cross the sea at this moment; for you would be
offering us great insult were you to come to our assistance in subduing
such perjured brigands.
164
This implies Lanfranc was acting in lieu of his king and that he is supposed to be handling
this problem without help from his king. This mixing up of secular and ecclesiastical
business led to the judgment of many traitors by ecclesiastical courts, which meant that
most accused (English) nobles were able to stay alive after their punishments, in contrast to
a similar uprising a few years earlier.165 Lanfranc however also acts on a regular basis as the
representative of William. It was he, when he was still a prior in Bec, who went to Rome to
negotiate with the pope about William’s marriage to Mathilda of Flanders.166 But in his
function as Archbishop of Canterbury he still fulfills this role and sends letters on behalf of
his king to among others earls in England, like Roger Earl of Hereford, who gets a letter
which states:
Our lord the king of the English greets you and all of us as his faithful
subjects in whom he places great trust, commanding us to do all in our
power.
167
Obviously Lanfranc was entrusted to act like he thought best in William’s absence. The
times Lanfranc is sent away as envoy for his king only serve to emphasize this trust. This
relationship also seems to benefit Lanfranc in that it makes it possible for Lanfranc to
163
‘Haec nec tui officii nec tuae potestatis esse cognoscas.’ in: LCL, 112-113
‘tempore nolumus uos mare transire, quia magnum dedecus nobis faceretis si pro talibus periuris
et latronibus uincendis ad nos ueniretis.’ in: LCL, 124-125
165
LCL, 125
166
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 442
167
‘Dominus noster Anglorum rex salutat et nos omnes sicut fideles suos in quibus magnam fiduciam
habet’ in: LCL, 118- 119
164
38
influence his own position because William was able to fill the important ecclesiastical
positions in England without interference from the pope.
Pope Alexander ruled that this case [the supremacy of Canterbury over
York] should be heard in the land of England and settled there by
testimony and judgement of the bishops and abbots of the whole
Kingdom. […] So both archbishops came to the king at the festival of
Easter.
168
However he never changes the tone of his letters from the businesslike conversation to
imply bonds of friendship between him and William. Unlike the conclusions of other
historians that they had a close and personal bond,169 it is my opinion upon reading his
letters, that Lanfranc was trusted by William, but that for this part it was a strictly
businesslike relationship. There are also some differences between Lanfranc and William.
As discussed at a given point Lanfranc prosecutes rebels in William’s name. Beforehand,
when William did this himself, they were tried and executed. Under Lanfranc they were
able to survive their conviction. It would therefore seem that Lanfranc was in comparison
lenient towards the English. The in comparison different attitude of William can easily be
explained when looking at the first decade of his reign as king of England.
4.4 The impact of King William on Lanfranc
The first decade of the reign of William I is characterized by insurrections and hostility
between Anglo-Saxons and Normans. When Lanfranc writes to William in 1075 that they
are subduing ‘perjured brigands’, he refers to yet another insurrection.170 The history of
these rebellions began in 1068 in Essex and during the next five years William was hard
pressed to stay upon the throne of England. Mostly at his borders, where the Norman
influence was weakest, a constant supply of new rebellions (often with help from countries
along the border) was in order.171 The number of infractions on English soil is astounding, as
is shown in figure 2.172
This most certainly had its impact on the reign of William and his attitude against the
English and gave William an opportunity to replace English lords with Norman ones, who
168
‘deceuit Alexander papa oportere hanc causam in / Anglica terra audiri, et illic tocius regni
episcoporum et abbatum testimonio et iudicio definiri. […] Vterque igitur in Paschali solennitate ad
regem uenit’ in: LCL, 42-45
169
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 440
170
LCL, 127
171
M. Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England: 1066-1166 (Oxford 1986) 16
172
Figure 2 is based upon: M. Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England: 1066-1166 (Oxford 1986) 15-18
39
were expected to be more loyal to him.173 It was a policy which was further implemented
by Lanfranc within the church and was continued under William’s predecessors. This would
have been difficult for William to start without the help of powerful clergymen. Archbishop
Stigand (1052-1070), Lanfranc’s predecessor, was already a powerful secular man when he
was consecrated under Edward the Confessor, where he started his career as a royal clerk.
At the time of the Domes Day survey, Stigand was said to have property over the
substantial amount of 10 shires.174 William wanted, at least in the beginning of his reign,
Stigand to be on his side.175
Figure 2: Areas which were focal points
of Anglo-Saxon attacks (with external
help) during the first five years of the
176
Norman occupation.
Though with Stigand William did not have the bishop, with a firm grip on his subordinates
as he wished to have. During the reign of Stigand as Archbishop of Canterbury most of the
new churches or monasteries were consecrated by other bishops and if any cleric could
make it so, they would choose consecration at another’s hands. Even with the coronation
of King William and his wife a couple of years later, they chose another bishop to perform
the ceremony.177 The implementation of the same custom of replacing the top layer
started here with Lanfranc. Lanfranc is known to have followed this hard line, although
most probably because of his own reasons. His policy is confirmed by the words of Eadmer
in the Vita Anselmi, in which he states that it was impossible for any Englishmen to come
173
Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England, 16
CL, 79
175
Ibidem, 79-80
176
Figure 2 is based upon: M. Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England: 1066-1166 (Oxford 1986) 15-18
177
CL, 80-81
174
40
into any position with any meaning. Eadmer claims this was also true for functions within
the church.178 Another confirmation of this policy comes from Lanfranc’s collection of
letters (although these are by no measure complete).179 When looking at his collection of
letters, most letters written to English clergymen are written to those who were from origin
Norman or came from Norman monasteries.
The fact remains, as Thomas points out, that the English church was too big an
organization to be filled with only Norman clergymen.180 Although based upon ideas which
were known in England at the time of this reformation. The set-up of the organization of
the new Anglo-Norman church was substantially different in that from now on all dioceses
were to be led from cities instead of small towns:
By generosity of the king and the authority of the synod permission was
granted to three of the bishops mentioned above to move from
townships to cities: Hermann from Sherborne to Salisbury, Stigand from
Selsey to Chichester and Peter from Lichfield to Chester.
181
With the consolidation of Normandy before the conquest, King William had created a firm
position for himself and his successors. This also meant that William had considerable
influence upon the church.182 We have already seen several instances in which jurisdiction
with regard to certain decisions were deferred to William and here we see the same. The
citation above is followed by:
The case of certain others who remained in townships or villages was
deferred until the king, who was at that time fighting overseas, could
hear it in person.
183
Despite William’s influence within the church and all his attempts to gain the upper hand in
his struggle with his new subjects, the church still kept a special place within English society,
at which we will take a closer look in the next chapter.
178
TEN, 63
These letters can be found in: LCL
180
TEN, 201, 213
181
‘concessum est regia munificentia et sinodali auctoritate prefatis tribus episcopis de uillis ad
ciuitates transire: Hermimanno de Siraburna ad Serisberiam, Stigando de Selengeo ad Cicestrum,
Petro de Licifelde ad Cestrum.’ In: LCL, 77
182
TEN, 202, 220-221
183
‘De Quibusdam qui in uillis seu uicis adhuc / degebant dilatum est usque ad regis audientiam, qui
in transmarinis partibus tunc temporis bella gerebbat.’in: LCL, 77
179
41
4.5 Lanfranc and the English
Lanfranc’s relation with the English is heavily influenced by his relation with William the
Conqueror. William, who became a duke at the age of seven, devoted most of his time
claiming the authority he was owed. Around 1060 he had succeeded and had also extended
his power into the Norman church. It was the duke of Normandy who presided over any
church council and even with papal matters the duke was present and able to exert his
influence.184 After his coronation as king of England, he was able to extend this practice as
king of England, enlarging his power even further. This also meant for Lanfranc that he, in
his position as archbishop of Canterbury, was relying, in several aspects of his rule, on the
opinion of William.
Meanwhile the relation between William and the English population can be called at least
troublesome. William made a distinction between Normans and Englishmen on principle of
origin, a distinction in which the English were seen as a danger to William’s base of power.
Seen the numerous insurrection during the first five years of William’s reign, it would seem
that his caution with regard to the English (nobles) was justified. Williams’s policy of
replacing Englishmen in important positions with Normans was, under Lanfranc, further
implemented in the English church, leading to a further decrease of English ecclesiastics in
top positions.185 In addition to the reasons William might have had, Lanfranc also had his
own reasons. His powerbase as Archbishop of Canterbury was, at his consecration weak.
Because of the untenable position of his predecessor Stigand, who was easily avoided by his
fellow clergymen,186 he had to create a stable powerbase for himself. The option William
gave him of replacing the top layer in the church organization might have been a desirable
solution, because now Lanfranc could emphasize his alleged position in comparison to the
other English bishops, as his struggle for the primacy of Canterbury testifies.
William was the one who nominated Lanfranc for the position of Archbishop of
Canterbury, probably because he needed an able leader and probably because he wanted
someone whose loyalty was without question. Yet it remains remarkable that when
Lanfranc addresses William with regard to the supremacy of Canterbury, he seems to be
disregarded by William.187 As will become clear in the next chapter, William considered his
own position more important that the positions of others. His demands for complete
loyalty and Lanfranc’s awkward position due to William’s demeanor will be a theme in the
following chapter and will explain his attitude which would seem to be dictated by William.
184
CL, 29-32
Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England, 39-40
186
CL, 80-81
187
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 426
185
42
During the first decade of the occupation, mostly English nobles rebelled frequently
against William’s reign. Lanfranc, in his position as Archbishop of Canterbury, is closely
involved with William, especially after he had established the supremacy of Canterbury
over the other English dioceses. The English state was one in which the English king had the
final word concerning all matters, secular or ecclesiastical and it might have been this,
which had influenced Lanfranc’s attitude against the English. His calm regard of the AngloSaxon bishops shows a distinct manner to people he did not directly trust. Even though he
still claims that there is no distinction between the tasks of an English or Norman bishop.
With regard to an English bishop he writes to the pope that he cannot cope:
Because he is unduly burdened with services.
188
We see Lanfranc keeping a businesslike attitude towards the English, which would also
corresponded with his reform program and was related with the changes of occupants of
several ecclesiastical offices. He tried to reform the English church, to bring it up to
standards. And although he did not think of the English as trustworthy, he saw them as
being able to participate within the Anglo-Norman church, which becomes more clearly
later on in his reign. The English just have to be trained in the right methods and as the
career of Eadmer of Canterbury (1055-1124), who started his career under the rule of
Lanfranc, but later on even became a bishop, shows it was still possible for Englishmen to
advance within the ranks of the church.
The English church was in a unique position and while it was being made a bulwark of
Norman ideology, it still remained an attractive institution for the English. Because of the
limited numbers of Normans the English church was able to draw on, Englishmen still had
advanced career opportunities189 and even the Anglo-Saxon population felt themselves
save when under the protection of the church, as a case where women flee for the French/
Normans to a monastery illustrates:
As you tell me fled to a monastery not for love of the religious life but for
fear of the French.
190
188
‘angariis ultra uires pregrauatus’ in: LCL, 37
TEN, 203
190
‘Quae uero non amore religionis sed timore Francigenarum sicut uos dicitis ad monasterium’ in:
LCL, 167
189
43
When Thomas and Hastings claim that the church was one of the biggest unifying
elements in this period in England,191 they are most probably right, for when the English
and Normans were still struggling with their newfound position, the English church became
visibly Anglo-Norman in character, as will be described in the following chapter. It does
however seem that the church is reasonably early after the conquest accessibly for both
ethnic groups and already playing a significant role as a unifying influence for both ethnic
groups.
191
HEN, 37, 52-53; TEN, 48, 200-201
44
5 Lanfranc, the Pope and the Church
A recurrent theme in the discussion about national identity is the role of religion. The thesis
of Hastings relies on it and Thomas sees it as pivotal in the evolution of an English
identity.192 Most scholars focus upon religion as a means of guarding an identity,193 but it is
also mentioned as a means of integrating several identities into one identity.194 One has to
keep in mind that Christianity in Europe around this time, could be seen as a global affair,
with its official leader in Rome (most of the time) and it was therefore not always
necessarily bound to the affairs of a specific state. This unique position of Catholicism
makes Lanfranc’s opinions difficult to determine. Most historians of national identity have
looked into the identity of nobles, medieval historians and of the elites.195 Not only because
of the availability of sources, but also because ecclesiastics were part of a trans-national
organization. Lanfranc corresponds with a significant number of other ecclesiastics, some
within the Norman Empire, but also many outside of the English church. Of the 55 letters
incorporated within the edition of H. Clover and M. Gibson, about twenty percent is
directed at a person outside of the Norman Empire.196 When just looking outside of
England, the number raises to about forty percent. If researching the attitude of Lanfranc to
the English, his businesslike letters can be rather informative. Yet he makes little to no
personal remarks within his letters, for mostly they contain his instructions, or his view on
certain (theological) questions.
Because of these obstacles it is essential to review Lanfranc’s disposition towards and role
in the (global) church and in particular his relationship with the pope. Scholars tend to
describe Lanfranc’s relations with the pope as secondary and in comparison with his
relation with William as rather inconsequential. However Lanfranc did have a good, and for
a certain period even a personal, relationship with the pope. Therefore these relations need
some clarification.
5.1 Lanfranc and Alexander II
Alexander II became pope in 1061 and remained so until his death in 1073. Before then he
was called Anselmo de Baggio, who also had studied with Lanfranc. He was also the pope
192
HEN, 52-53; TEN, 295-296
TEN, 296
194
HEN, 36-38
195
GEN; Galbraith, 'Nationality and language in medieval England'; Smyth, Medieval Europeans;
Frame, 'The wider world'; Rolf H. Bremmer, ‘The Gesta Herewardi: Transforming an Anglo-Saxon in
an Englishman’ in: The Summerfield and Keith Busby (ed.), People and texts: relationships in
literature (Amsterdam/ New York 2007) 29-42
196
LCL
193
45
who in 1066 sent his support in the form of his banner to William the Conqueror,197 who
was about to embark on his conquest of England. It is safe to say that the papal regime was
at this time favorable toward the Norman duke and his followers. If Lanfranc had any role in
this favorable disposition is unclear, but there is no evidence to implicate Lanfranc with any
involvement with this attitude towards the Normans.
As can be read in Lanfranc’s letters, Alexander II was the pope who assigned the position
of Archbishop of Canterbury to Lanfranc, for the letter in which Lanfranc complains about
his nomination is directed at Alexander.198 The letter implies however that it was William I
who, for his own personal reasons, set events into motion, because:
That duke, now king of the English, endeavoured in many different ways
to bring this about.
199
It might be possible that Lanfranc knew of his nomination and that it has been brought
about with full knowledge of the chain of events that led him to this nomination. It was only
several years earlier, in 1067, that Lanfranc was nominated for the position of Archbishop
of Rouen and scholars believe that one of the main reasons for Lanfranc’s refusal of the
position could have been that he would, in time, become Archbishop of Canterbury.200 This
implies Lanfranc was fully aware of his circumstances and able to influence them, with the
aid of his relations including those of Pope Alexander II.
Alexander II was widely known as a reforming pope.201 In this the characters of Lanfranc
and Alexander were closely connected in that both stood at the base of an intense
reformation program, but both were also open to new ideas of organization. The trend of
reform in the church had already been set in motion in 1046 by the Emperor Henry III.
Although Lanfranc was at this time already in Bec and his correspondence with the papacy
was at this time relatively low, Lanfranc is still thought to have kept himself well informed
and probably involved himself with many of the reform subjects.202 His teaching therefore
might have been heavily influenced by the reform papacy and it may not be a surprise that
it was one of Lanfranc’s students who became the later pope Alexander II.203
197
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 449
LCL, 30-35
199
‘Quod cum prefatus princeps iam rex Anglorum factus multis uariisque modis laboraret efficere’
in: LCL, 30- 31
200
CL, 37-38
201
Ibidem, 43
202
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 440-441
203
Ibidem, 449
198
46
So Lanfranc identified himself with the reform papacy and was able to build an important
network with personal ties based upon the ideas of the reform papacy.204 This entailed that
Lanfranc adhered stricter believes concerning the lives and chastity of the clergy and the
stricter discipline we know from his works like the Constitutiones.205 Working with
ecclesiastics who mostly had the same believes, he was able to build a significant network
of likeminded people. Through the papal legate Humbert, who for most of Lanfranc’s reign
was his link with the papacy, these clergymen remained in close contact with each other
and the Pope.206 This network gave Lanfranc, at least under Alexander II, but probably also
under some of Alexander’s predecessors, influence in the papacy which is often overlooked
by other scholars.207 Lanfranc’s wish to reform the English church and take a closer look to
established traditions within the English church might very well, at least partially, have
been influenced, at least in the beginning of his reign as archbishop, by the new policies of
the reform papacy and his inclination towards a more strict and transparent church
organization. His first aim would have been to reform the English church to fit in this global
church and not to wipe out any Anglo-Saxon cultural identity. It might have led to
Lanfranc’s decimation of the Anglo-Saxon saints,208 but as the continuation of the Cathedral
monasteries shows, this was, at first probably not his main goal.
His attitude towards the papacy began to change after 1073 and relations with
Alexander’s successor, Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) were rather difficult in comparison.
According to some historians this relationship became strained because of Lanfranc’s
involvement with secular England and the policies of William I.209 It was this troubling
relationship Lanfranc was developing with this pope, which finally made Lanfranc decide
where his loyalties lay and drove him into accepting William’s policy, instead of following
his own convictions towards the English and the Normans.210 Therefore it is important to
create a better perspective of his relationship with this pope.
204
CL, 38-45
Ibidem, 41
206
CL, 45
207
Ibidem, 441-442: Popes who might have had an open ear to Lanfranc could have been: Nicolas II
208
Although this is also questionable, for there is no remaining evidence that Lanfranc really
desanctified more than a few Anglo-Saxon saints. For more information see the article of Richard
Pfaff: Richard W. Pfaff, ‘Lanfranc’s supposed purge of the Anglo-Saxon calendar’, in: Richard W. Pfaff
(ed.), Liturgical Calendars, Saints, and Services in Medieval England (Aldershot 1998) 95-108
209
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 474-475
210
Ibidem.
205
47
5.2 Lanfranc and Gregory VII
Under the guidance of Gregory VII the relation between the papacy, England and Lanfranc
became strained. It is true that William I did not completely lose his support of the papacy,
for Gregory, when coming to power, reinforced the earlier position of the church that the
assault and conquest of England was legit. The Roman subdeacon Humbert, who also urged
Lanfranc to take up the position as archbishop in 1070, remained, on behalf of the Pope,
active within the Norman duchy and the kingdom of England until his death in 1080.211
William I remained therefore assured of papal support. Disagreements between the two
parties have always existed, as is visible in the treatment of Archbishop Stigand between
1066 and 1070 when the pope had put a ban on him, for holding the offices of several
dioceses. He was to be excommunicated on authority of all five popes of this period and
they forbade anyone of keeping contact with him, or being ordained by him.212 Yet Stigand
was during this period a well-honored guest at William’s court. All popes were well aware
of Williams’s capabilities of manipulating (papal) politics to his own advantage and his
ruthless use of the English church in securing his hold on his newly acquired territories.213
This illustrates the conflict Lanfranc gradually came into. With Alexander II, Lanfranc had a
personal relationship, build upon their common background, mutual trust and the seeking
and asking of advice, when advice was needed. Trust that is expressed in a letter from
Alexander II to William I in 1071 in which he states:
The personal and apostolic authority that we have delegated to him for
the conduct and conclusion of disputes is such that whatever he may
decide in these affairs, so long as it is just, can thereafter be considered
no less firm and binding than if the matter had been concluded in our
own presence.
214
This kind of relationship is not found in letters send from Gregory VII to Lanfranc,
although they already had a common history and probably met on several occasions before
the election of Gregory VII to the papacy, which can be led back to 1050.215 The first
211
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 450
CL, 82: During this period of 19 years until his disposition in 1070 each pope, Leo IX, Victor II,
Stephen IX, Nicolas II and Alexander II, repeated their sentence over Stigand.
213
Ibidem, 456-457
214
‘In causis autem / pertractandis et diffiniendis ita sibi nostrae et apostilicae auctoritatis uicem
dedimus, ut quicquid in eis iusticia dictante determinauerit, quasi in nostra presentia definitum
deinceps firmum et indissolubile teneatur.’ in: LCL, 62-63
215
LCL, 56
212
48
instance of correspondence in a letter between Lanfranc and Hildebrand (this is how
Gregory was called before he became pope) that can be found is a reply from Lanfranc to
Hildebrand in 1072. The tone of the letter can, in comparison to other letters, be called
ornate, which implies, according to Helen Clover and Margaret Gibson, that Lanfranc is not
writing someone he trusts.216
In the edition by Clover and Gibson three letters can be found regarding Gregory VII. One
by Gregory to Lanfranc in 1073, right after his ascension to the papal see and also two
letters from Lanfranc and William (one each) to the new pope in 1080. The first letter is
cautionary against involvement of bishops in the secular world, but mostly points Lanfranc
to his responsibility with shepherding the Irish from their sinful ways, again reinforcing the
English position with regard to the Celtic countries.217 The former part of the letter is
however interesting in this discussion, because it seems Gregory wished to relay this
message explicitly to Lanfranc and can be linked to the involvement of Lanfranc in the
policy of William and William’s secular demands on Lanfranc. The following citation almost
certainly points to Lanfranc’s secular activities in the name of William:
Bishops, the very men who should be shepherds of the souls, in their
endless craving for wordly glory and the delights of the flesh are, not
only choking all holiness and piety within themselves but the example of
their conduct is luring their charges into every kind of sin.
218
Although Lanfranc still saw himself as a monk and most probably adored the monastic life,
he seems to be drawn into secular affairs by his function as Archbishop of Canterbury.219 In
this function the secular involvement is made clear during the rebellion of Earl Ralph in
1075, during which it is Lanfranc who directs the armies of English and Normans towards
their enemy.220
The strain on his relationship with this pope becomes even clearer in the correspondence
surrounding the second and third letters. In 1080 the archdeacon Hubert arrives in England
with two letters. One is meant for King William I and one is meant for Lanfranc. The letter
addressed to William calls for him to do fealty to the pope. The letter send to Lanfranc has
216
LCL, 56
Ibidem, 64-67
218
‘Episcopi uero et qui pastores animarum esse deberent mundi gloriam et declicias carnis
insatiabili desiderio prosequentes non solum in semetipsis quae sancta quaeque sunt religiosa
confundunt, sed subditos suos ad omne nefas operum suorum exemplo pertrahunt.’ in: LCL, 64-65
219
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 449
220
LCL, 125
217
49
the same objective. It is meant to reinforce the view of Gregory VII on Kingship, which
according to his opinion ought to be submissive to the apostolic see.221 In this letter he calls
upon Lanfranc to come without further delay to Rome.222 Lanfranc refuses to come,
because, according to him, William refuses to let Lanfranc leave England.223 William himself
also replies to the letter send to him and writes:
I have never desired to do fealty, nor do I desire it now; for neither
promised in my own behalf nor can I discover that my predecessors ever
performed it to yours.
224
This also fits in William’s view regarding the English and Anglo-Norman clergy. It is said
that he in a flare of anger once stated that ‘if a monk of his land ventured to bring a plea
against him, he would hang him by his cowl from the nearest oak’,225 even though he would
still pay his respect and homage to any papal legate send to him.226 He was lord over his
land and any ecclesiastic working in England or Normandy was subject to him first. This
statement was incompatible with the ideas concerning kingship of the new pope.
Despite all frictions between Lanfranc and the pope, Lanfranc did still seem to show some
loyalty to Gregory. When in 1084 Henry IV put a new pope on the apostolic throne,
Clement III (1084-1100), he wrote a rebuke to the bishop of St. Clemente for calling
Gregory, Hildebrand and his legates ‘thick-heads’. He does however conclude this letter
with:
Our island has not yet repudiated the one nor decided whether to obey
the other
227
And it would seem that Lanfranc would follow the opinion of his monarch. What the
decision would be is to remain unknown, for Gregory died in 1085 before William made a
decision for his ‘island’. When Lanfranc died in 1089, the decision of following Clement or
221
H.E.J. Cowdrey, ’The Gregorian reform in the Anglo-Norman lands and Scandinavia’ in: Cowdrey,
th
H.E.J, Popes and church reform in the 11 century (Suffolk 2000) 324
222
LCL, 128
223
Ibidem, 130-131
224
‘Fidelitatem facere nolui nec uolo, quia nec ego promise nec antecessores meos antecessoribus
tuis id fecisse comperio’ in: LCL, 130-133
225
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 454
226
Ibidem, 454
227
‘Nondum enim insula nostra priorem refutauit, nec utrum huic oboedire debeat sententiam
promulgauit.’ in: LCL, 164-167
50
Gregory’s successor, Urban II (1088-1099), still wasn’t made clear and relations with the
papacy were, to put it mildly, stagnant.228
In contrast with his relation with Alexander II, we visibly see Lanfranc’s relation with the
pope deteriorate. This can be attributed to several facts, although the most important are
Lanfranc’s personal acquaintance with Alexander, which made an open relationship with
room for discussion possible. The attitude of Gregory created an awkward position for
Lanfranc, for the pope demanded obedience of his king, who refused to give it and his king
demanded obedience from all of his subjects, including ecclesiastics. William was tenacious
concerning this aspect and there was little for Lanfranc to do than follow his instructions.
But even so, the relation between Lanfranc and Gregory, before he became pope, was to be
called cold and businesslike at best. It might therefore have been an easy decision for
Lanfranc, which might have had its impact on the way Lanfranc reorganized the English
church.
5.3 Lanfranc and the Church
From his position between pope and king, Lanfranc also tried to get the English church
under control. When he replaced the top layer of the English church, he had replaced all
personnel that was possible, within the given limits. The English church was a big
organization and, although Norman immigration was most likely higher (by a couple of
thousands of mostly middling rank Normans) than previously thought,229 it would still have
been impossible to fill all positions with just Normans. It remains also doubtful if this had
ever been Lanfranc’s intention. The secular clergy and hermits within the church
organization mostly had an English background. This strong presence within the church
made the church into an organization with ties to both ethnic groups.230 And although
neither William I nor his sons appointed any new native English bishops, the lower layers of
the clergy remained English and were able to create strong mutually social ties.231 At the
beginning of the twelfth century under Henry I a remarkable number of Englishmen came
into important positions within the church,232 indicating a stable English presence within
the English church going back for some time.
Lanfranc’s reform program also created new opportunities for the English clergy.
Important positions within the secular clergy were still accessible for the English and the
228
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 484-485
TEN, 163-165
230
Ibidem, 201
231
Ibidem, 202
232
Ibidem, 207
229
51
creation of new functions, such as rural deans and archdeacons, and within these function
Englishmen played an important role.233 Lanfranc’s insistence on the supremacy of
Canterbury led to the church becoming one unit. Later this unit became an important drive
in the creation of an English identity.234 It was the church that had supported William when
he invaded England and with the intervention of Lanfranc between Alexander II and the
Norman Empire it was the church that supported William in his endeavors to create a
unified polity.235 Mostly in the first two decades of his reign, William maintained good
relationships with the papacy and the church, creating a bond between the Normans and
the church, while maintaining and expanding an iron grip over his subjects, slowly replacing
important Englishmen by Normans.
The church however remained accessible for all people, whether English or Norman, as
can be shown by the example of English women fleeing from the French into a monastery,
where they apparently felt safe,236 while still having a Norman elite that spent considerable
amounts on (new) foundations of monasteries within England.237 The Anglo-Saxon
characteristics Lanfranc kept were what made the church into such an important aspect in
the evolution of a national identity in England.
The English saints were an important factor in English life. Lanfranc supposed purge of the
saints is shown in modern research to have been of small impact. Most saints survived and
Lanfranc used his view on sainthood only for the decision when needing to sanctify new
saints. This also meant that the survival of these saints made the church accessible for the
English, who were used to these saints in their Christian faith. But also for the Normans
saint worship was important.238 More and more Norman noblemen favored English
monasteries with their wealth,239 monasteries which worshipped local Anglo-Saxon saints.
The new character of the church, since the council of London in 1075 more and more urban
instead of rural,240 gave cities and their population a much tighter relationship with
ecclesiastical institutions.241 Through cities the Norman population, which resided mostly in
cities,242 became acquainted with the English church. The church therefore became even
233
TEN, 211
Ibidem, 283
235
Ibidem, 285
236
LCL, 167
237
TEN, 284
238
Ibidem, 38
239
Ibidem, 284
240
LCL, 76-77
241
TEN, 281
242
Ibidem.
234
52
more accessible for both ethnic groups and emphasizing that it served people of the same
believes instead of ethnicity eventually led to serving both communities.
53
Conclusion
Working through Lanfranc’s life and linking his work with the situation he was operating in,
creates a view of how Lanfranc saw the division between the English and Normans in
England a few years after the conquest by the duke of Normandy. This study has shown the
impact of Lanfranc’s surroundings upon his work and ideas. It has shown what Lanfranc
thought of both ethnic groups and their mutual relationship. Although Lanfranc calls
himself English, he readily distinguishes two groups in England: the English and the French,
the latter of which he (officially) belongs to. His view of the English is however, as his first
letter from 1073 shows, unflattering. Here he calls them barbaric, with significant problems
and characteristics, which prevent them from being able to organize their religion
properly.243 This is the main reason for Lanfranc to implement a reform program in which
he recreates the English church, but now based upon Continental standards.
Just like William I is focusing on one country with him as king, Lanfranc is focusing on
creating one church with one authority within England. That is why his aim during the first
years was directed to the supremacy of Canterbury over the rest of the British Isles.
Lanfranc follows thus the king’s example, although getting little help from William himself.
This is a recurrent theme in Lanfranc’s career as Archbishop of Canterbury. William was
known for his ruthless exploitation of any resources available to him and worked towards
an iron grip on his lands. He was able to achieve dominance not only over his secular
holdings, but also over the ecclesiastical institutions in England and Normandy at an early
stage in his reign,244 making any future ecclesiastical figure dependent upon his wishes. In
the Memorandum on the primacy of Canterbury, Lanfranc narrates the process on
achieving primacy for the see of Canterbury. The role of William emerges explicitly in this
memorandum, even though he at first refers Lanfranc to the Pope. Who send Lanfranc back
and eventually only with the help of his king, Lanfranc was able to gain a final beneficial
judgment in this case.245 Striking is the disappearance of the written oath of obedience to
Lanfranc, which had been the reason why he in the first instance did not want to rule in
favor of the Archbishop of Canterbury.246 This shows his influence on decisions regarding
any ecclesiastical office.
Time and time again we can see William’s influence on Lanfranc’s decisions. William’s
opinions seem to be based upon the first decade of his reign. From 1066 until 1075, he was
243
LCL, 30-35
CL, 29
245
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 474-475
246
LCL, 38-47
244
54
plagued by successive rebellions by English nobles. These events had their influence upon
his attitude towards the English and led to a purge of the rebelling noblemen and their
replacement by Normans, but his distrust went even further. It even resulted in passing
over of Englishmen in favor of Normans for important ecclesiastical positions until at least
the reign of King Henry I.247 William expected complete obedience from his subjects and
this meant also from his ecclesiastical subjects. Lanfranc might have been the most
powerful person within the English church, but he still owned loyalty and obedience to
William. Lanfranc’s reign as Archbishop of Canterbury is therefore very much influenced by
William’s administration. Lanfranc also worked for the king’s administration when the king
was abroad,248 which only made his secular involvement greater. We see him for example
taking a leading role in suppressing the revolt of 1075 under Earl Ralph, where the forces
seem to be directed by Lanfranc, in William’s absence.249
It remains difficult to separate Lanfranc’s and William’s attitudes towards the English. I
argue however that although they worked closely together, they did work from different
perspectives. William was only able to hold his grip on England by replacing possibly
rebellious elements by loyal Norman nobles and forcing his subordinates in doing the same.
The numbers of insurrections against his rule emphasize the need for this. Lanfranc on the
other hand kept to another perspective. Gaining officially his authority from Rome instead
of the English king, he was officially bound to a different perspective. He was to ensure that
all Christian souls were cared for and not just the souls of one ethnic group. But even when
he would discriminate between Normans and Englishmen, this still would practically have
been impossible because of the limited number of Normans he could rely on.250 There were
nowhere nearly enough of Normans to replace every single English clergyman in the English
church. Although he did replace most of the top layer in the church, his attitude towards
Englishmen in the church was different from those against secular Englishmen. As becomes
clear during the reign of Henry I, we can see Englishmen rising to the top of the hierarchy in
the English church relatively fast and early,251 implying that they were already in a position
of importance. In addition, even during the reign of king William I and William II we can see
Englishmen in important and influential positions among the secular clergy, making them
still a force to be reckoned with within the church.
247
TEN, 207
CL, 194-196
249
LCL, 124-125
250
TEN, 201, 2013
251
Ibidem, 207
248
55
This makes Lanfranc’s position a difficult one to define. During the 1070’s and 1080’s we
can see a shift from his focus on the papal authority and his adherence to the reform
papacy to his new role as the highest clergymen in England under William I. The influence
of William upon the office of archbishop makes Lanfranc’s position against the papacy a
difficult one and he gets reproached by the pope for the secular influence upon his position
and vice versa. Contact with the papacy became more difficult and ends with the practical
termination of all contact after 1084,252 when both William as Lanfranc refuse to
acknowledge any of the two popes.
Given this situation, we can see that Lanfranc’s opinion of the English is heavily influenced
by William’s opinion of the English. William created a firm position for himself as king and
wasn’t willing to allow any slacking among his subordinates.253 For Lanfranc we see that
much depended upon his personal relations with others. With regard to his letters we can
see that the contents in his introductions change in tone and style according to his view of
the addressee. When writing to people he considered not being on friendly terms while the
tone of each letter becomes more businesslike. In the introduction of his letters we can see
Lanfranc emphasizing his position as archbishop, chosen by God himself and the
subordinate position of those placed below him. Emphasis lies mostly on the will of God in
his appointment as archbishop. It is striking that most of the letters with a businesslike tone
and the emphasis on his position, are written to people he was on unfriendly terms with,
like Thomas of York before the primacy of Canterbury was established, or in the English
bishops and other English clergymen.
Most of these letters were composed in an official capacity. Although compelling, they do
not supply irrevocable evidence to Lanfranc’s attitude. His attention to the newest
members of his monastic communities seems to reinforce these ideas. Lanfranc is a man of
strict rules and strict discipline. The attention he spends on the children in monasteries
cannot, through lack of evidence, be retraced to any Anglo-Saxon customs. Regarding the
Norman monasteries as Bec, one cannot find the procedures as described by Lanfranc,
before his time.254 At first sight it would seem that Lanfranc thinks special attention is
needed to bring the English (child) oblates under control. Yet when looking further into
Lanfranc’s reform program we can see that the attention he gives them isn’t that odd and
252
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 474-475
Ibidem, 454
254
LCM, xxv
253
56
that it is cited on a regular basis by some of history’s most important monastic leaders, like
for example Saint Benedict.255
Standing at the dawn of the new and (according to Lanfranc) improved English church, he
had to reach back to earlier English reform attempts. Seen the intensity and influence of
the tenth-century reformation, it would seem impossible that Lanfranc would not have
gained knowledge about it. Building here upon the tenth-century reformation, he was able
to reinforce his Benedictine revolution. Since the writings of Saint Benedict himself,
additional attention was given to children within monasteries. The attention and rules he
laid out for these children are therefore not that exceptional for this era.256
Keeping in mind that most English monasteries were, at the beginning of the eleventh
century, already acquainted with the Benedictine Rule, the impact probably wasn’t very
great. However Lanfranc did not completely reform the church to the Continental model.
He also kept some typical Anglo-Saxon characteristics, like the cathedral monasteries. Also
his view on the English saints was, as artfully demonstrated by Richard Pfaff, not as radical
as was thought for years.257 He did look into English sainthood, but most of his attention
was dedicated to laying ground rules for sanctification, for which Lanfranc had specific
ideas.
All in all Lanfranc didn’t want to demolish Anglo-Saxon Christianity, but he did advocate
Continental practices. His entire career can be seen as following the reform papacy258 and
even when his contact with the pope deteriorates, it is still doubtful that he stops believing
that change in the church is desirable. Most of the monastic practices he brings to England
can be retraced to Bec. Seen that the English church was relying heavily upon English
clergymen and novices, it is also difficult to believe that he had any reluctance in working
with the English. It is known for example that he was in regular contact with Eadmer, and
was willing to enter into discussion with him about, among others, Anglo-Saxon saints.259
What was essential for Lanfranc, seen the unwillingness of monasteries to reform in the
past, was to replace people in key positions. This way his reform program was as little as
possible counteracted. Placing Normans on these positions might have been the most
logical choice. These were the ecclesiastics who were known to be used to these
continental practices, even though their cooperation wasn’t always according to Lanfranc
plans, like the incident regarding the primacy of Canterbury with Thomas of York shows.
255
LCM, xxvi
Ibidem, xxvi
257
Pfaff, ‘Lanfranc’s supposed purge of the Anglo-Saxon calendar’, 95-108
258
Cowdrey, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy and the see of Canterbury’, 440
259
LCM, xxvii-xxv
256
57
His relation with the English can therefore be best described by his own letters: ‘For I am a
novice Englishman’.260 Lanfranc believes in an identity based upon geographical criteria and
because he was living in England, he saw himself as an Englishman. His relation with
William I only reinforces these believes. William was clear about the fact that he expected
unquestionably loyalty from his subjects. Insubordination was not tolerated, even by
ecclesiastics.261 Lanfranc was therefore bound to follow William in his policy. But even so
Lanfranc saw him as the only chance the English had for a peaceful life,262 because of which
he himself deferred his own policy from the opinions William adheres. Where William is
shown to have been distrustful of the Anglo-Saxons and was trying to limit their influence
with the political world, Lanfranc tries to create a united view of the Normans and the
English. When he writes to the king about the rebellion of Earl Ralph in 1075, he explicitly
conveys to his king that the French and English are united in their fight against these rebels.
This means that his ideas on an ethnic identity are also based upon political criteria.
Lanfranc was rather unique in this respect, because we do not see a lot of important people
during the second half of the eleventh century, who makes such clear statements.263
Considering his criteria for a national identity, we can create the image of a man, who was
able to adapt his ethnic identity to his surroundings. He went from first being a Lombard, to
being a Norman, to being an Englishman. This also creates an image of a very versatile
ethnic identity. What this means is that Lanfranc, as head of the English church, next to his
extensive reform program already had started on a process of assimilation. This is also
reinforced by research done by Thomas and Hastings, who both see the church as a vital
pillar in the creation of one national identity.264
I can however not completely agree with Adrian Hastings on the existence of a coherent
English identity before the Norman Conquest. The identity in the seventh century was
probably very different than the identity before the eleventh century, England was too
divided and in too much turmoil during pre-conquest times. During the tenth en beginning
of the eleventh centuries there might have been a vision of one unified England, but this
was still an ideal, which was far removed from the actual world. Especially the existence of
a separate Danelaw in the tenth century made a unified England, with people who
identified themselves with this unity, seem further away than ever. An identity based upon
the program by Lanfranc would have differed much from the Anglo-Saxon identity during
260
LCL, 36-39
Ibidem, 454
262
LCL, 35
263
TEN, 73-74
264
Ibidem, 295-296; HEN, 52-53
261
58
pre-conquest times. Since the tenth century much had happened, from the reformations of
the tenth century, the struggles against the Danes to the Norman Conquest. Also the
character of the English church had changed significantly. Where during the tenth century a
Benedictine reformation was struggling, and failing, to replace the established orders,
Lanfranc was able to implement it without much hassle.
Most evidence available to us focusses on the Normans and their view regarding the
English. This tells us something about the identity of the Normans and their ideas
concerning their uniqueness, but because of their position as a conquered people, it sadly
says little about the English and their own view on how they saw themselves. Even when
looking at Lanfranc, who called himself English, we can still see a clear distinction between
his view on the Normans and English. Mostly this view seems to be based upon the
characteristics of friendship and a shared past. All people Lanfranc wrote and was on
friendly terms with, knew him from his time at Bec, from his time as abbot of Saint Étienne
or met him during his involvement in discussions and activities on behalf of the reform
papacy. The other letters to English clergymen are mostly written in a neutral tone,
implying a businesslike relationship, but even then no more. Most of the Normans he wrote
to were clergymen who were similarly inclined with respect to the views propagated by the
reform papacy. Because most of the letters are written regarding some ecclesiastical
problem, it seems logical that Lanfranc went to people with a similar worldview. William’s
influence and Lanfranc’s position in respect to his king necessitated him to go to people
within the Norman world.
What Lanfranc does show us is that he planned for the future of one governable English
church. He created a church in which Englishmen and Frenchmen felt welcome. His actions
show that although in his mind the English weren’t ready to lead divisions of the church yet,
Lanfranc still believed that if they followed the correct educations and were properly
instructed, they would be able to do so within a short period of time. Creating
opportunities which were equal for both Normans as Englishmen and formed the basis for a
shared identity within the next century.
59
Primary Sources
The Monastic Agreement of monks and nuns of the English nation, Dom Thomas Symons
(ed.) (1953)
Lanfrancus Cantuariensis, The letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, Helen Clover
and Margaret Gibson (ed.) (1979)
Lanfrancus Cantuariensis, The monastic constitutions of Lanfranc, Dom David Knowles (ed.)
(2002)
Internet sources
Sint Benedictus, ‘Regel voor monniken’, in: Intratex CT, available at:
http://www.intratext.com/X/DUT0023.htm
Cowdrey, H.E.J, ‘Robert of Jumieges’, in: The Oxford dictionary of national biography,
available at: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23717
Greenway, Diana E, ‘List of bishops of Chichester: list 1’, Website of British History Online,
available at: http://british-history.ac.uk/
Bibliography
Abulafia, Anna Sapir and G. Evans, The works of Gilbert Crispin (Londres 1986)
Banton, Nicholas, ‘Monastic reform and the unification of tenth-century England’, in Studies
in church history 18 (1982) 71-85
Barlow, Frank, The English church 1000- 1066: a history of the Anglo-Saxon church (London
1979)
Barrow, Julia, ‘English cathedral communities and reform in the late tenth and the eleventh
centuries’ in: David Rollason, Margaret Harvey and Michael Prestwich (ed.), Anglo-Norman
Durham: 1093-1193 (Woodbridge 1994)
Bartlett, Robert, The making of Europe: conquest, colonization and cultural change 9501350 (London 1993)
Blair, John, ‘A handlist of Anglo-Saxon saints’, in Alan Thacker and Richard Sharpe (ed.),
Local saints and local churches in the early medieval west (Oxford 2002) 495-595
Blair, John, ‘A saint for every minster? Local cults in Anglo-Saxon England’, in Alan Thacker
and Richard Sharpe (ed.), Local saints and local churches in the early medieval west (Oxford
2002) 455-494
Blair, John, The church in Anglo-Saxon society (Oxford 2005)
Bremmer, Rolf H, ‘The Gesta Herewardi: Transforming an Anglo-Saxon in an Englishman’ in:
The Summerfield and Keith Busby (ed.), People and texts: relationships in literature
(Amsterdam/ New York 2007) 29-42
60
Chibnall, M, Anglo-Norman England: 1066-1166 (Oxford 1986)
Clayton, Mary, ‘Centralism and uniformity versus localism and diversity; the Virgin and
native saints in the monastic reform’ in Peritia: Journal of the Medieval Academy of Ireland
8 (1994) 95-106
Cowdrey, H.E.J, Lanfranc : scholar, monk and archbishop (Oxford, 2003)
Cowdrey, H. E. John, ‘Lanfranc, the papacy, and the see of Canterbury’, in H.E.J. Cowdrey
(ed.), Popes and church reform in the 11th century (Aldershot 2000) 439-500
Cowdrey, H. E. John, ‘The enigma of Archbishop Lanfranc’, in H.E.J. Cowdrey (ed.),Popes
and church reform in the 11th century (Aldershot 2000) 129-152
Cowdrey, H.E.J, ’The Gregorian reform in the Anglo-Norman lands and Scandinavia’ in:
H.E.J. Cowdrey, (ed.), Popes and church reform in the 11th century (Suffolk 2000) 321-352
Cubitt, Catherine, ‘Universal and local saints in Anglo-Saxon England’, in: Alan Thacker and
Richard Sharpe (ed.), Local saints and local churches in the early medieval west (Oxford
2002) 423-453.
Dawtry, A, ‘The Benedictine revival of the north’, in Stuart Mews (ed.), Religion and
national identity (Oxford 1982) 87-98
Easthope, Antony, Englishness and national culture (London 1999)
Foreville, Raymonde, ‘Lanfranc et la politique ecclesiastique de Guillaume le Conquérant’
in: Guilio D’Onofrio (ed.) Italia sacra: studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica 51: Lanfranco
di Pavia e l’Europa de secolo XI: nel IX centenario della morte (1089-1989) (Roma 1993) 409423
Frame, Robin, 'The wider world' in: Rosemary Horrox and W. Mark Ormrod (ed.), A social
history of England 1200-1500 (Cambridge 2006) 435-453, 502-503
Galbraith, Vivian H, 'Nationality and language in medieval England' in: idem, Kings and
chroniclers: essays in English medieval history (London 1982) 113-128
Gellner, Ernest, Nations and nationalism (Oxford 1983)
Gibson, Margaret, Lanfranc of Bec (London 1978)
Gibson, M, ‘Lanfranc’s notes on patristic texts’ in: Journal of theological studies 22 (1971)
435-450
Gibson, Margaret, ’The image of Lanfranc’ in: Guilio D’Onofrio (ed.) Italia sacra: studi e
documenti di storia ecclesiastica 51: Lanfranco di Pavia e l’Europa de secolo XI: nel IX
centenario della morte (1089-1989) (Roma 1993) 21-28
61
Gibson, Margaret, ‘The Vita Lanfranci’ in: Guilio D’Onofrio (ed.) Italia sacra: studi e
documenti di storia ecclesiastica 51: Lanfranco di Pavia e l’Europa de secolo XI: nel IX
centenario della morte (1089-1989) (Roma 1993) 661-715
Gillingham, John, The English in the twelfth century: imperialism, national identity and
political values (Woodbridge 2000)
Hastings, Adrian, The construction of nationhood: ethnicity, religion, and nationalism
(Cambridge 1997)
Hobsbawm, E.J, Nations and nationalism since 1780: programme, myth, reality (Cambridge
1992)
Holt, J.C, Colonial England: 1066-1215 (London 1997)
Knowles, Dom David, Saints and scholars: twenty-five medieval portraits (New
York/Cambridge 1962)
Lavezzo, Kathy, Angels on the edge of the world: geography, literature, and English
community, 1000-1534 (Ithaca 2002)
Oostrom, Frits van, 'Spatial struggles: medieval studies between nationalism and
globalization', Journal of English and Germanic philology (2006)
Pfaff , Richard W, ‘Lanfranc’s supposed purge of the Anglo-Saxon calendar’, in Richard W.
Pfaff (ed.), Liturgical calendars, saints, and services in medieval England (Aldershot 1998)
95-108
Philpott, Mark, ‘Lanfranc’s canonical collection and the law of the church’ in: Guilio
D’Onofrio (ed.) Italia sacra: studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica 51: Lanfranco di Pavia e
l’Europa de secolo XI: nel IX centenario della morte (1089-1989) (Roma 1993) 131-147
Rubenstein, Jay, ‘Liturgy against history: the competing visions of Lanfranc and Eadmer of
Canterbury’, Speculum: a journal of medieval studies 74, no. 2 (1999) 279-309
Ruud, Marylou, ‘”Unworthy servants”: The rhetoric of resignation at Canterbury, 1070-1170’
in: The journal of religious history 22.1 (1998) 1-13
Saul, Nigel, The Oxford illustrated history of medieval England (Oxford 1997)
Smyth, A. P, Medieval Europeans: studies in ethnic identity and national perspectives in
medieval Europe (London 1998)
Thomas, Hugh M, The English and the Normans: ethnic hostility, assimilation and identity:
1066-1220 (Oxford 2003)
Warren Hollister, C. (ed.), Anglo-Norman culture and the political renaissance: proceedings
of the Borchard conference on Anglo-Norman history (Woodbridge 1995)
Williams, Ann, The English and the Norman Conquest (Ipswich 2000)
62