be driven from the city. Meanwhile, during
the rebellion of Ode and the Norman lords
in 1068, Lanfranc, htzgether with his suffagans and the English people, stood by the
king. In November, when the rebellion was
put down, he attended the kings court at
Salisbury, where William of St. Calais,
bishop of Durham, was tried, and he took a
prominent part in the kings
right of jurisdiction over the bishop, who
tried to shelter himself under his spiritual
character. In putting aside as trivial the
bishop's objection that both he and the bishops
who were to judge him should have been
wearing their robes, Lanfranc implied that
the bishop stood there, not as an ecclesiastical
dignitary but as one of the kings tenants in
chief, while he and the other bishops who
were judging him were in like manner doing
their service ss members of the king's court.
Again, as he is said to have suggested a distinction beteeen the eccleaiastal and civil characters borne by Odo, so one of his answers
to the Bishop of Durham implied that the
term ‘bishopric’ had two significations, that
the bishop's spiritual office was separable from
his temporalities which he had received from
the king, and which were liable to be resumed.
While he did not directly oppose the bishop's
appeal to Rome, he maintained that the king
a right to imprison him, and his words
excited the a lause of the la barons, who
cried, ‘Take him, take him! that old gaoler
says well.' He further pointed out if
the bishop went to Rome In the king's
damage his lands might reasonably be seized.
The part which he took in these proceedings
illustrates his view of the relations between
the crown and its spiritual subjects. He
was not acting as a mere instrument of the
royal will, for he checked the king when
was proposed to carry the case against the
bishop further than the law allowed (Monasticon, i. 246-9- William Rufus, i. 96-115).
Useful as Lanfranc was to him, William did
not keep his promise that he would be guided
by his counsel, grew angry when on one occasion the archbishop reminded him of it,
and from that time ceased to regard him with
favour. Yet it is certain that as long as
Ianfranc lived the kin ut some restraint
on his evil nature. In May 1089 Lanfranc
was seized with a fever at Canterbury; his
physicians urged him to take some draught
which they prescribed. He delayed drinking
it till he had received the sacrament; it
had a bsd effect on him, and he died on the
24th, after s primacy of eighteen years and
nine months. He was buried in is cathedral. When Anselm built the new choir
Lanhanc’s body was removed and placed in
another part of the church; no trace of his
tomb remains. When his body was removed
one of the monks secretly cut off a part of
his coffin, which was to emit s fragrant
odour; this was taken as a proof of his holiness.
He is styled saint in the ‘Benedictine
Martyrology,' and there were pictures of him
in the abbey churches of Caen and Bec; as,
however, he had no commemorative office, he
should perhaps be styled 'Beatus’ rather
than ‘Sanctus.’ Although a large part of
his life was spent in transacting ecclesiastical
and civil affairs, he never lost habits and
tastes which he had acquired at Bec; he remained a devout man, constant in the discharge of his religious duties. Strenuous in all 'far-seeing and wise, resolute in
purposes, stern towards those who persisted in opposing his policy, and not over-scrupulous as to the justice of the means which he employed in carrying it out, or the sufferings which it entailed on others, he was in many
respects like his master and friend, William
the Conqueror, and men looked on the king and the archbishop as well matched in strength of character (Brevis Relatio, p, 10), In Lanfranc there was, moreover, the subtlety of the Italian lawyer, and his power of drawing distinctions, the quickness of his perception, and the acuteness of his intellect must have rendered him vastly superior to the church-men and nobles of the court. Combined with these traits were others more suited to his profession, for he was humble, munificent, and, when no question of policy was concerned, gentle and considerate towards all. His munificenoe was not oonfined to gifts to churches, such as those which he made to
St. Albans, where the great works of Abbot Paul were carried out largely at his expense; he gave liberally to widows and the poor. If he saw any one in trouble he always inquired the cause, and endeavoured to remove it. Over the brethren of his large monastery he exercised a fatherly care, not only promoting their comfort, but providing for their poor relatives. His death was mourned by all, and especially by those who knew him most intimately (Vita, c. 52; Eadmmer, Historic Novorum, co 854, 356).
As archblshop Lanfranc kept up the learned pursuits of his earlier days, and gave much of his time to correcting the English manuscripts of the scriptures and the fathers, which had been corrupted by the errors of copyists. His latinity was much admired; his style, although good and simple, is often antithetical, and plays on words. His writings, which, considering his fame as a scholar, were few, were first published collectively by Luc d’Achery, Paris, 1648, fol., in a volume
