Anselm's rebuke of the King. and he had given him no personal offence. As soon as the approach of the Abbot of Bec was announced, the King arose, met him at the door, exchanged the kiss of peace, and led him by the hand to his seat.[1] A friendly discourse followed. Perhaps the very friendliness of William's greeting brought it more fully home to Anselm's mind that it would be a failure of duty on his own part if he spoke only of the worldly affairs of his abbey. He must seize the moment to give a word of warning to a sinner whose evil deeds were so black, and who disgraced at the same time so lofty an office and such high natural gifts. Anselm asked that all others might withdraw; he wished for a private interview with the King. The affairs of the house of Bec were, for the moment at least, passed by; the welfare of the kingdom of England, and the soul's health of its king, were objects which came first. Anselm told Rufus in plain words that the men of his kingdom, both secretly and openly, daily said things of him which in no way became his kingly office.[2] From later appeals of Anselm to the conscience of Rufus, we may conceive that this general description took in at once the special wrongs done to the Church, the general abuses of William's government, and the personal excesses of William's own life. Anselm was not the man to hold his peace on any one of those three subjects; but we have no details of Anselm's discourse from his own biographer, nor does he give us any notice of the way in which William received his rebuke.[3] Yet it would seem*
- ↑ Vit. Ans. ii. 1. 1. "Rex ipse solio exsilit, et ad ostium domus viro gaudens occurrit, ac in oscula ruens per dexteram eum ad sedem suam perducit."
- ↑ Ib. "Regem de his quæ fama de eo ferebat Anselmus arguere cœpit, nec quidquam eorum quæ illi dicenda esse sciebat, silentio pressit. Pene etenim totius regni homines omnes talia quotidie nunc clam nunc palam de eo dicebant, qualia regiam dignitatem nequaquam decebant."
- ↑ The language of Eadmer quoted in the last note is quite vague. In William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 79) we get one of those remarkable cases in which he first wrote something strong, and then altered it. He seems
