Anselm then saw that he was casting his words to the winds,[1] he rose and went his way.
Lanfranc and Anselm.
No need to rebuke the Conqueror on these points.
Estimate of Anselm's conduct.
It may be that William Rufus spoke truly, and that
Lanfranc would not, in any case, have dared to speak to
the Conqueror as Anselm dared to speak to him. Lanfranc,
with much that was great and good in him, was
not a prophet of righteousness like Anselm. But it is
far more certain that Lanfranc was never put to the
test. The Conqueror never gave him any need to
speak to him as Anselm had now need to speak to his
son. What we blame in William the Great, what men
like Wimund of Saint Leutfred dared to blame in him,
Lanfranc could not blame. The position of Lanfranc in
England involved the position of William. And, once
granting that position, there was comparatively little to
blame in the elder William. The beheading of Waltheof,
the making of the New Forest, stand almost alone; and
the beheading of Waltheof was at least no private murder;
it was the judgement of what was in form a competent
court. The harshness and greediness with which the
Conqueror is justly charged was, after all, a small
matter compared with the utter unlaw of his son's reign.
And on the two subjects of Anselm's present discourse,
the elder William needed no rebuke at any time. His
private life was at all times absolutely blameless, and,
neither as Duke nor as King, did he ever turn his ecclesiastical
supremacy into a source of gain. On both those
points Lanfranc had as good a right to speak as Anselm;
but on those points he was never called on to speak to
his own master. Whether, in Anselm's place, he would
have dared to speak as Anselm did, we cannot tell. But
surely the holy boldness of Anselm cannot be looked on
as in any way blameworthy, as either insolent or untimed.
To him at least the time doubtless seemed most fitting.
- ↑ "Intellexit ergo Anselmus se verba in ventum proferre, et surgens abiit."
