allegiance was transferred to a kingdom where Urban was not acknowledged. William, not unnaturally, took no heed of Anselm's personal obligations. Whatever the Abbot of Bec might have done, neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor any other English subject could acknowledge any Pope without the King's leave. After all, Anselm's acknowledgement of Urban had not yet gone further than speaking of him as Pope. He had had no dealings with him of any kind. He indeed proposed to do an act which would have been the fullest acknowledgement of Urban's claims. But he had proposed to do it only with the King's leave. What he should do in case the King refused to give him leave to go, he had not said, very likely he had not settled in his own mind. He would do nothing contrary to his obedience to Urban; but as yet his obedience to Urban was wholly in theory. The King's words now made it a practical question; any kind of adhesion to Urban was declared by the King's own mouth to be inconsistent with the duties of one who was the man of the King of England.
Twofold duty of the Archbishop.
He asks for an assembly to discuss the question.
Anselm, it is plain, was most anxious to do his duty
alike as churchman and as subject. He saw no kind of
inconsistency between the two. No such questions had
been raised in the days of Lanfranc, and he had not
done, or proposed to do, anything but what Lanfranc
had done before him. Reasonably enough, he was not
prepared to admit the King's interpretation of the law
which declared that he could not be the friend at once
of Urban and of William. And, in a thoroughly constitutional
spirit, he demanded that the question should be
referred to a lawful assembly of the kingdom. Let the
bishops, abbots, and lay nobles come together, and let
them decide whether the two duties were so inconsistent
with each other as the King said they were.[1] By their*
- ↑ Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 26. "Petivit inducias ad istius rei examinationem
