Lanfranc (DNB00)

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

LANFRANC (1005?–1089), Archbishop of Canterbury, born about 1005 (Marillon), was son of Hanbald and Roza, citizens of Pavia, of senatorial rank. Hanbald, who was a lawyer, held office in the civic magistracy. From early youth Lanfranc was educated in all the secular learning of the time, and seems to have had a knowledge of Greek. Specially applying himself to the study of law he became so skillful a pleader that while he was a young man the older advocates of the city were worsted by his knowledge and eloquence, and his opinions were adopted by doctors and judges. His father died in his son's youth, a instead of succeeding to Hanbald's office and dignity he left the city, bent on devoting himself to learning. He went to France, where he gathered some scholars round him, and hearing that there were was a great lack of learning in Normandy, and that might therefore expect to gain wealth and honour there, he moved to Avranches, where he set up a school in 1089. He soon became famous as a teacher, and many scholars resorted to him. Among the was one whom he named Paul, afterwards abbot of St. Albans, one of his relations, and, according to tradition, his son (Vitæ Abbatum, i. 52). Religion gained power`over him, and he determined to become a monk in the poorest and most despised monastery that he could find. He left Avranches secretly, taking Paul with him. As he journeyed towards Rouen, in the forest of Ouche he fell among thieves, who robbed, stripped, and bound him to a tree, leaving him his cap tilted over his eyes. In the night he wished to say the appointed office but found himself unable to repeat it. Struck by the contrast between the time which he had devoted to secular learning and his ignorance of divine things, he renewed his vow of self-dedication. In the morning some some passers-by released him, and in answer to his inquiry after a poor and despised monastery directed him to the house which Herlwin was building at Bec. Herlwin, the founder and abbot, gladly received him as a member of the convent, and found his knowled of affairs very useful. Lanfranc applied himself to the study of the Ignorant as the abbot was of wordly learning, for he had passed his life as a warrior, Lanfranc listen with admiration to his expositions of the Bible, and obeyed him and the prior implicitly in all things. Being dissatisfied with the character of his fellow-monks, and knowing of that some of them envied him, for the abbot treated him with respect and affection, he formed the design of becoming a hermit. Herlwin dissuaded him, and in or about 1045 appointed him prior. He opened a school in the monastery, which quickly became famous, and scholars flocked to him from France, Gascony, Brittany, Flanders, Germany, and Italy, some of them clerks, and others young men of the highest rank. About 1049 he was sent with three monks to St. Evroul, which was for a short time in the possession of the convent of Bec; but he soon returned to Bec. Among his scholars was Ernest and Gundulf both afterwards bishops of Rochester ; Guitmund, bishop of Avranches; William de Bona Anima, archbishop of Rouen ; and Anselm of Badagio, afterwards Pope Alexander II. Anselm [q.v.], his successor at Canterbury, joined the convent while he was prior. As the number of his scholars increased the monastery became too small for them, and the place beings unhealthy he persuaded Herlwin about 1058 to remove the convent and erect new buildings on another site in the neighborhood.

Meanwhile the Duke William had heard of his renown, had made him his counsellor, and trusted him in all matters. However, probably in l040, he incurred the duke's displeasure by opposing, on the ground of consanguinity his proposed marriage with Matilda. He had enemies, and mischief was made. The duke sent an order that he was at once to leave his dominions. Lanfranc left Bec with one servant, and on a lame horse, the best which the house could give him. On his way he met William, and said pleasantly that he was obeying his command as well as he could, and would obey it better if the duke would give him a better horse. William was pleased with his spirit, entered into conversation, and was reconciled to him, Lanfranc promising to advocate the duke’s cause at Rome, whither he was going to attend the council held in May 1060. At this council the opinions of Berengar of Tours on the sacrament of the altar was discussed. Though Lanfranc had been one of Berengar's friend he differed from him on this subject, holding that by divine operation through the ministry of the priest a change was wrought in the essence of the elements, which was convened into the essence of the Lord’s body, the sensible qualities of the bread and wine still remaining (Lanfranci Opera, i. 17, ii. 180), while Berengar maintained the doctrine of John Scotus or Erigena [q. v.] Berengar wrote in a somewhat contemptuous strain to Lanfranc on their difference. His letter was brought to Bec while Lanfranc was at Rome; Lanfranc's friends sent it on to him, and talked freely of the heresy which it contained. The news was carried to Rome that Berengar had written heresy to Lanfranc, and, according to Lanfranc‘s account of the matter, he became as much an object of suspicion as Berengar. He produced the letter; it was read before the council, and Berengar was at once condemned on the grounds of its contents. Then, at the bidding of Pope Leo IX, Lanfranc, to exculpate himself, expounded his own belief ; his speech was approved by all, and he became the champion of the catholic doctrine. At the council of Vercelli held in September he again, at the pope's request, maintained the orthodox cause. In 1055 he confuted Berengar at the council of Tours, and in 1059 again overcame him in the Lateran council held by Pope Nicolas II. Berengar acknowledged his error, but did not desist from teaching it, and Lanfranc at a later date wrote is book, ‘De Corpore et Sanguine Domini,’ against him; it was received with universal admiration. At the Lateran council he obtained the papal dispensation for the duke's marriage, performed six years before. In June 1066; he unwillingly yielded to William’s solicitations, left Bec, and was installed abbot of the duke’s new monastery, St. Stephen's, at Caen.

Though Lanfranc’s name is not mentioned in connection with the duke’s negotiations with Alexander II concerning the invasion of Englsnd, there can be no doubt that William was guided by him in the policy which gave the expedition something of the character of a holy war. Successful as this policy was, as far as the conquest was concerned, it eventually strenghened the papal power at the cost of the English crown by calling in the pope to decide who was the rightful possessor of the kingdom (Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 274). On the death of Maurilius archbishop of Rouen, in August 1067, Lanfranc was unanimously elected his successor; he declined the promotion, actuated, it is said, by humility, though it is probable that he was aware that a greater office was in store for him. In accordance with his wish the Bishop of Avranches was translated to Rouen, and Lanfranc went to Rome to fetch the pall for the new archbishop and to consult the pope on ecclesiastical matters, acting, of course, as the Conqueror's representative. In 1070, Stigand having been deprived of the archbishopric of Canterbury by a legatine council held in April, the Conqueror, after consulting the nobles, fixed on Lanfranc as the new archbishop, and two legates went to Normandy to urge him to accept the office. The matter was settled in a synod of the Norman church; Lanfranc professed unwillingness, all pressed to yield, Queen Matilda and her son Robert entreated him, and his old friend and master, Herlwin, bade him not refuse. He yielded, crossed over to England, received the archbishopric from the king on 15 Aug., and was consecrated at Canterbury on the 29th by the Bishop of London and eight other bishops of his province.

As archbishop, Lanfranc worked in full accord with the Conqueror; he continued to be his chief counsellor, carried out, and, it may fairly be supposed, often suggested his ecclesiastical policy, and by means proper to his office contributed largely to the complete subjugation of the English. His policy as primate was directed towards the exaltation of the church, and though, as was natural in a statesman who in early manhood had been a lawyer in the imperialist city of Pavia, he was by no means subservient to Rome, he nevertheless strengthened the papal power in England. The measures by which he and the king-for in ecclesiastical matters it is often impossible to separate their work-imparted a new character to the national church, destroyed its isolation, brought it into close connection with the continent, and laid the foundation of its independence of the state in legislation and election, tended to raise its dignity, and to give opportunity for the exercise of papal control. As long as two men so strong as William and Lanfranc worked in harmony-the one supreme alike in church and in state, the other administering the affairs of the church-there was no risk that the spiritual power would come into collision with the temporal. When Lanfranc was himself consecrated, he declined to consecrate Thomas of Bayeux to the see of York until Thomas made profession of canonical obedience to the church of Canterbury. Thomas appealed to the king, who at first took his part, but Lanfranc convinced the whole court of the justice of his claim; and won over the representation independent metropolitan of the north might be politically dangerous. Finally Thomas made a personal profession to Lanfranc, the general question being deferred to the future decision of a competent ecclesiastical council. Lanfranc then consecrated him. In 1071 he went to Rome for his pall, and was received with special honour by Alexander II, formerly his pupil. Thomas also came for his pall at the same time, and is said to have been indebted to Lanfranc's good offices with the pope. The pope referred Thomas's claim to include three of the suffragan sees of Canterbury in his province to an ecclesiastical council to be held in England. The case was argued at Winchester in the king‘s court, in the presence of prelates and laymen, at Easter 1072, and was decided at Windsor in an ecclesiastical assembly held at Whitsuntide. The sees were adjudged to belong to Canterbury, and it was declared that Thomas and his successors owed obedience to Lanfranc and his successors (Lanfranci Opera, 1. 23-27, 303-5). In addition to this victory Lanfranc raised the dignity of his see in the estimation of Christendom (see ib. p. 276, and also under Anselm, his successor). He was consulted by one archbishop of Dublin on sacramental doctrine, consecrated the two next archbishop of Dublin, and wrote to two of the Irish kings, exhorting them to correct abuses in morals and church discipline. Margaret, queen of Malcolm of Scotland, sought help in her work of ecclesiastical reformation (Epp. 36, 39, 41, 43, 44).

Instead of leaving ecclesiastical legislation to mixed assemblies of clergy and laymen, according to the English custom, Lanfranc held frequent councils, which seem to have met at the same times and places as the national assemblies. His revival and constant use of synodical meetings had much to do with growth of the usage by which convocation is summoned to meet at the same time as parliament though as distinct from it. The policy of assigning different spheres of action to the church and to the state was further carried out by the Conqueror's writ separating the spiritual from the temporal courts, in which the assent and counsel of the two archbishop among others are expressly noted. In Lanfranc's synods the subjugation of the English was forwarded by the deposition of native churchmen. Only two native bishops still held their sees when he came to England. One of these, however, Wulfatan, bishop of Worcester, whom he is said to have determined to depose at a synod held in 1075, escaped deposition, and Lanfranc employed him, and successfully upheld his cause in a suit against his own rival of York. His hand was heavy on the native abbots, for the monasteries were the strongholds of national feeling, and it was good policy to restrain the monks by giving foreign superiors. In accomplishing this Langfranc was often unjust, and did not always even go through the form of consulting a synod (Orderic, p. 523). In ecclesiastical appointments it is evident that he was consulted by the king, for the new bishops were generally 'scholars and divines' (Contitutional History, i. 283). Some of the abbots were men of a lower stamp, and oppressed their monks. Almost without an exception foreigners alone were promoted to high office in the church, and brought with them ideas and fashions that tended to assimilate the English church to the churches of the continent. Lanfranc held the ignorance of the native clergy in scorn. While, however, he remained a foreigner to the English, to the world at large assumed the position of an Englishman, writing ‘we English' and ‘our island.’ One effect of the appointment of foreigner; prelates was the decree of the council of London in l075, which removed bishops' sees from villages to cities. The change had begun in the of the Confessor; but rt was largely developed under Lanfranc, in accordance with continental custom. In another synod which he held at Winchester in April 1076 a decree enjoined clerical celibacy. On this point, which was then one of the principal futures of the papal policy the English custom was lax. Lanfranc refrained from laying too heavy a burden on the married clergy. But no canons were allowed to have wives, and for the future no married man was to be ordained deacon or priest. The parish priests who already had wives were not, however, compelled to part with them. The laity were warn against giving their daughters in marriage without the rites of the church. A comparison between the writings of Abbot Ælfric (fl. 1006) [q. v.] and the frequent stories of miracles connected with the holy elements in books written in England utter the Norman conquest points to a change in the position of the national church wit reference to eucharistic doctrine, which, to a large extent, must no douby the attributed to the influenoe of Lanfranc.

Later in the year Lanfranc, accompanied by the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Dorchester went to Rome to obtain certain privileges for the ring from Greggry VII, and carried rich gifts from William to the pope. On their return in 1077 they stayed or some time in Normandy, and were present with the king and queen at the dedication of the cathedrals of Evreux and Bayeux, and of the church of Lanfranc's former house, St. Stephen's at Caen. He visited Bec and while there lived as one of the brethren of the house. In October he dedicated the church of Bec, which had been begun when, at his request, Herlwin moved the convent. His affection for monasticism was evident in his administration of the English church, and one English chronicler calls him ‘the father and lover of monks.’ An attempt, led by Walkelin, bishop of Winchester, to displace monks by canons in his and other cathedral chapters, and even in the church of Canterbury, though approved by the king, was defeated by Lanfranc, who obtain a bull condemning the scheme, and ordering that the metropolitan church should be by monks. At the same time it is doubtful whether he approved of the exemption of abbeys from episcopal jurisdiction, which was then becoming frequent, for Gregory VII blamed him for not checking the efforts of Bishop Herfast [q. v.] to bring St. Edmund’s Abbey under his control.

Owing to William’s determination to he supreme alike in church and state, Lanfranc's relations with the papacy were sometimes strained. When the king refused some demands made by a legate on behalf of the pope, Gregory laid the blame on Lanfranc. The archbishop answered that he had tried to persuade the king to act differently. About 1079 Gregory reproved him for keeping away from Rome; he was not to allow any fear of the king to hinder him from coming ; it was his duty to reprove William for his conduct towards the holy see. Lanfranc declined this and similar invitations until (in 1082) Gregory summoned him to appear at Rome on the ensuing l Nov. under pain of suspension from his office. There is nothing to prove that this threat drew Lanfranc to Rome. On the question of the schism in the papacy he wrote with caution; while rebuking a correspondent for abusing Gregory he informed him that England had not yet acknowledged either of the rivals (Ep. 65).

Lanfranc asserted his full rights within his diocese and brought a suit against Bishop Odo for the restoration of lands and rights belonging to his see. The cause was decided in his favour by the shire-moot of Kent on Ponnenden Heath under the presidency of Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances, and Lanfranc regained the lands unjustly taken from his church by other a besides Odo, and established his claim to certain rights and immunities, both in his own lands and in the lands of the king. The decision of the local court was approved by the king and his council. Lanfranc spent his revenues magnificently. His cathedral church had been burned in 1067. In the short space of seven years he rebuilt it in the Norman style. His new church was cruciform, with two western towers, a central lantern, and a nave of eight bays; the ceilings were illuminated, and it was furnished with gorgeous vestments. He gradually and by gentle means brought the members of his chapter to forsake their worldly and luxurious ways of living, raised their number to 150, and made the constitution of the house completely monastic, placing it under a prior instead of a dean, and probably causing canons to take monastic vows, for previously the chapter seems to have been of a mixed character. He also either separated, or confirmed the separation of, the estates of the convent from those of the archbishop. He built a palace for himself, and several good churches and houses on his estates. At Canterbury he also built two hospitals for the sick and poor of both sexes, and the church of St. Gregory, which he placed in the hands of regular canons, giving them charge of the poor in his hospitals. The foundation of this priory seems to have been the first introduction of regular canons into England. The church of Rochester Lanfranc made his special care [see under Gundulf]. His friendship with Scotland, abbot of St. Augustine's at Canterbury, enabled him quietly to take measures that lessened the independence of the monastery, and prepared the way for his attack on its privileges after the Conqueror's death.

In secular matters Lanfranc played a conspicuous part during the reign of the Conqueror. He was sometimes, as in the case of the dispute between Bishop Herfast and St. Edmund's Abbey [see under Baldwin, d 1098], commissioned by the king ti preside over a secular court. During one or more of the hing;s absences from England he was the principal vicegerent of the kingdom, a function subsequently annexed to the later office of the chief justicar, and so that title is sometimes assigned to him. While William was in Normandy in 1074-5 Lanfranc appears to have suspected that Roger, earl of Hereford, was unfaithful to the king, and when his suspicion was confirmed excommunicated the earl, and would not absolve him until he had thrown himself on the king's mercy. About the same time Earl Waltheof came to Lanfranc, and confessed that he had been drawn into the conspiracy of the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk. Lanfranc appointed him a penance, and bade him go and tell all to the king. In 1076 he visited Waltheof in prison, and used to speak warmly of hiss repentance and of his innocence of the crime for which he was put to death. Meanwhile, the earls having taken up arms, the leaders of the royal forces sent reports of their doings to Lanfranc, who wrote to the king the news of victory. Lanfranc is credited with encouraging William in 1082 to arrest Bishop Odo, his old opponent, to whom the king had given the earldom of Kent. The king scrupled to imprison 'a clerk,' but the archbishop answered merrily, 'It is no the Bishop of Bayeux whom you will arrest, but the Earl of Kent.' At the Whitsuntide court at Westminster in 1086 Lanfranc armed the king's youngest son, Henry, on receiving knighthood, as he had armed his brother Rufus on a like occasion. In September 1087 the news of the Conqueror's death filled him with such anguish that his monks feared that he would die.

As it pertained to Lanfranc's office to crown a new king, and probably also because he possessed great power and influence, his action at this crisis is represented as of paramount importance (see William Rufus, i. 10, ii. 459). When William Rufus came to him at Cantebury, bringing a letter in which the Conqueror had when dying expressed to his old minister his wish that William should succeed to his kingdom, Lanfranc appears to have hesitated; but being unwilling to prolong the interregnum he accepted William, and on the 26th crowned him at Westminster, receiving from him, in addition to the coronation oath, the promise that he would in all things be led by the archbishop's counsel. He attended the new king's court at Christmas, and ot must have been against his will that the king then reinstated Bishop Odo, the archbishop's implacable enemy, as Earl of Kent. On the death of Abbot Scotland in September 1087, Lanfranc renewed his attack on the independence of St. Augustine's, and hallowed as abbot Guy, apparently the king's nominee. The next day Lanfranc, accompanied by bishop Odo as Earl, wnet to the monastety, and demanded if the monks would accept Guy as their abbot. They refused. He bade all who would not submit to leave the house, and installed Guy. Most of the monks withdrew to the precincts of St. Mildred's Church, but the prior and some others were sent to prison. When dinner-time came most of the seceding monks, being humgry, made their peace, and promised obedience to the abbot; the rest Lanfranc sent to different monasteries until they grew submissive. Before long a conspiracy was made against Guy, and a monk named Columban, being brought before the archbishop, owned that he had intended to spay the abbot. On this Lanfranc caused him to be tied naked before the gate of the abbey and flogged in the presence of the people, and then bade that his cowl should be cut off and he should 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 ofthe 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 containing:

  1. 'Commentaries on the Epistes of St. Paul,’ consisting of short notes, probably used in lectures.
  2. 'Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Domini nostri,' his book against Berengar, written, as is proved by internal evidence, not earlier than 1079, and printed at Basle in 1528, 1551, with Paschasius Radbert in 1540, with works of other authors at Louvain in 1561, and in various early collections.
  3. ‘Annotatiunculæ in nonnullas J. Cassiani collationes,’ merely four short notes.
  4. ‘Decreta pro ordine S. Benedicti,’ printed in Reyner's 'Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia,’ 1626, contains a complete ritual of the Benedictine use in England, with rules for the order; it brought about a revival of discipline (Gesta Abbatum S. Albani, i. 52; Matthew of Westminster, ann. 1071, 1077).
  5. ‘Epistolarum liber,' sixty letters.
  6. 'Oratio in concilio habita,' report of speech on the primacy of Canterbury, an extract from William of Malmesbury's 'Gesta Pontificum,' lib. i. c. 41.
  7. A treatise, ‘De Celanda Confessione,’ of doubtful authorship. Besides these Luc d'Achery printed a short tract, ‘Sermo vel Sententiæ,' on the duties of religious persons, in his ‘Spicilegium,' iv. 227, first edition 1677.

These pieces, with the exception of the ‘Annotatiunculæ’ and the ‘Oratio,’ were reprinted in ‘Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum,’ xviii. 621 sqq., Lyons, 1677. They are all in Migne's ‘Patrologia Lat.’ cl., and were reprinted by Giles in 1844 in his edition of Lanfranc's works, 2 vols. of ‘Patres Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ’ series, including the ‘Chronicon Beccense,’ the ‘Vitæ Abbatum Beccensium,’ and other pieces, together with a work entitled ‘Elucidarium,’ a dialogue between a master and pupil on obscure theological matters, attributed to Lanfranc in a twelth-century copy in the Brit. Mus. MS. Reg. 5 E. vi., but of doubtful authorship (Histoire Littéraire, viii. 200). A oommentary on the Psalms by him and a history of the church of Canterbury in his own time (Eadmer, Historia Novorum, col. 356), which is perhaps the same as book attributed to him on the deeds of William the Conqueror (Histoire Littéraire, viii. 294), are not now known to exist. Other lost works have been attributed to him, in some cases at least erroneously.

[Freeman's Norman Conquest, ii. iii. iv. passim. and William Rufus, i. 1-140 passim, and ii. 359-360, give a full account of Lanfranc's work in England, while his William the Conqueror, pp. 14l-6 (Engl. Statesmen Ser.), contains an excellent sketch of his policy and work, for which see also Stubbs's Const. Hist. i. 281-8, 347. Hook's Life in Archbishops of Cant. ii. 73 sqq. is unsatisfactory; Charma's Lanfranc, Notica Biographue, forms a valuable monograph. Vita Lancfranci, by Milo Crispin, cantor of Boc, written from recollection of Lanfranc's contemporaries, was printed by Giles in his Lanfranci Opp. i. 281 sqq., along with Chron. Beccense, Epistles, and other pieces. See also Letters from Gregory VII in Jaffé's Mon. Greg. pp. 49, 356, 494, 520, Eadmer’s Hist. Nov. cols. 352-61, ed. Migne; William of Jumièges, vi. 9. vii. 26, viii. 2, ed. Duchesne; Brevis Relatio in Giles's Gesta Willelmi, i. 10, and ib. p. 175, Carmen de morte Lanfranci; Orderic. pp. 494, 507, 523, 548, 566, ed. Duchesne; A.-S. Chron. ann. 1070, 1087, 1089. with the Latin Life in App. pp. 386-9 (Rolls Ser.); Flor. Wig. ann. 1074, 1076 (Engl. Hist. Soc.); William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum, cc. 447, 450, 462, 486, 495 (Engl. Hist. Soc.), and Gesta Pontiff. pp. 37-78, 322, 428 (Rolls Ser.); Gervase of Cant. 1. 9-16, for Lanfranc's rebuilding of Christ Church, and 43. 70, ii. 363-8 (Rolls Ser.); Willis's Hist. of Canterbury, pp. 13, 14, 65; Walsingham's Gesta Abbatum S. Albani. i. 46, 47, 52, 58 (Rolls Ser.) For the York side of the dispute with Archbishop Thomas. consult Hugh the Chantor ap. Historians of York, ii 99-101, and T. Stubbs, ib. 357, 358 (Rolls Ser.); for the suit on Pennenden Heath, Anglia Sacra i. 334 sqq.; for the St. Augustine's version of Lanfranc's dealings Thorn's untrustworthy account in Decem Scriptores, cols. 1791-1793; for Bishop of Durham's trial, Dugdale's Monasticon, i. 246 sqq., and vi. 614, 615; for writs sent to Lanfranc as a vicegerent, Liber Eliensis, pp. 256-60 (Anglia. Christ.) Gallia Christiana, xi. 219 sqq.; Labbe's Concilia, xix. 759, 774, 859, 901; Mabillon's Acta SS. O.S.B. v. sqq.; Acta SS. Bolland., May v. 822 sqq.; Wilkins's Concilia, i. 367; Hist. Litt. de France, viii. 197 sqq.; Wright's Biog. Lit. ii. 1-14, are also useful.]

W. H.