We have in another place2 expressed our sentiments as to the motives which may have influenced Leicester in entering upon that course of bold and dangerous policy which resulted in extorting the provisions of Oxford from the unwilling but overawed monarch. It would lead us into a discussion greatly too long for our present purpose, were we to attempt to settle the question how far ambition, animated by the prospect of a crown brought within his view by his royal alliance, actuated the conduct of Leicester in this matter. The administration of the twenty-four guardians was a scheme devised, cherished, and chiefly supported by the policy and address of Leicester. If ambition was the secret spring of his actions, he met with a formidable opponent in the earl of Gloucester who headed a party which, though ostensibly pursuing the same public ends, never failed to set itself in opposition to the personal interests of Leicester. The success of his rival at one time induced Leicester to retire to France, but upon the death of the former, Leicester again returned to England, and received a new and valuable auxiliary in Gilbert de Clare, the son and successor of Gloucester, who resigned himself entirely to the guidance of the man who had been his father's most powerful rival. Henry had, unexpectedly, resumed his authority in the state, and dismissed the council of twenty-four; but the return of Leicester rallied the confederates, and the arbitration of the king of France alone prevented an instant civil war. Both parties had solemnly sworn to abide by the decision of the French monarch. And on the 30th of February, 1264, Louis pronounced his award enjoining the restoration of all castles, provinces, and royal rights enjoyed by the crown before the parliament of Oxford, on condition of universal amnesty, and of the full enjoyment of the charter. But the barons, who saw in this decision no provision against a return of grievances, instantly rejected it as contrary to truth and justice, and the flames of civil war burst forth in every part of the kingdom. In the north, and in Cornwall and Devon, the royalists possessed the superiority; the midland counties, and the marches of Wales were pretty equally divided; but in the Cinque Ports, the metropolis, and the neighbouring districts, Leicester governed without opposition. Henry was joined by Comyn, Bruce, and Baliol, the lords of the Scottish borders, and the first successes were gained by the royalists. But on the 14th of May, 1265, the strength of the two parties was fairly tried in battle at Lewes, where the royalists sustained a complete defeat; and the king and his son being subsequently made prisoners, were compelled to confer the administration of the kingdom on the earls of Leicester and Gloucester. In this battle about 5000 men are said to have fallen on each side. Prince Edward afterwards escaped, and put himself at the head of the royalists, whose principal strength lay among the lords of the Welsh and Scottish borders. Leicester on his part, called in the aid of Llewellyn, prince of Wales. In our historical introduction to this period we have adverted to the question, what share the earl of Leicester probably had in the introduction of the principle of popular representation into the British constitution. Whether he is justly entitled to the praise of this great practical P. 170. discovery or not, and whatever might be his real motives in endeavouring to enfuse a larger proportion of popular elements into the national councils, it is certain that his measures were hailed by the nation at large as wise and generous, and won for his memory in subsequent generations, the honourable title of Sir Simon the Righteous.3 The escape of Edward proved the signal for a general rising among the royalists, who instantly secured to themselves the command of the Severn, and out-manœuvred Leicester, who with difficulty made good his retreat into Wales. On the 6th of August, 1265, a bloody battle was fought at Evesham between the prince and Leicester, in which the royalists, who were greatly superior in numbers, obtained a decisive victory. The old king who had been compelled to appear in the field by Leicester, was slightly wounded, and would probably have been killed, had he not cried out to his antagonist, "Hold fellow, I am Henry of Winchester!" The prince caught the voice of his father, sprung to his rescue, and conducted him to a place of safety. In his absence Leicester's horse was killed under him, and as he fought on foot he asked if they gave quarter. A voice replied, "There is no quarter for traitors." Henry de Montfort, his eldest son, fell at his feet; and the dead body was soon afterwards covered by that of the father. Of Leicester's partisans all the barons and knights were slain with the exception of about ten. His own body, after being mangled and mutilated, was buried by the king's orders in the church of Evesham abbey. II. ECCLESIASTICAL SERIES. Lanfranc. BORN A. D. 1005.-DIED A. D. 1089. It is impossible to pursue the details of early English history, on the plan we have prescribed to ourselves, without occasionally giving a place in our biographical sketches to notices of some eminent men who, though foreigners by birth, became Englishmen by adoption, and exercised a powerful influence over the destinies of our nation by the prominent part which they acted in the church or state. Of such exceptions to our general rule, the present section will contain two or three distinguished instances: and the first we shall select is the célebrated Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury. Lanfranc was an Italian by birth, and born at Pavia in 1005. At the age of thirty-seven he emigrated to Normandy, and soon after assumed the monk's habit in the abbey of Bec.1 Here he opened a school, and in a short time obtained such high reputation as a teacher, that pupils flocked to him from all quarters of Europe. The Chronicon Beccense,' printed at the end of Lanfranc's works, says that he at first gained a hard livelihood in Normandy, and existed for some time in a state of the greatest poverty, yet this 'poor emigrant school Fabian.-West. 395. ' Ord. Vit. 519.-Dupin, Cent. 11. c. 3. master,' as Turner remarks, became the acknowledged cause of the revival of Latin literature, and the liberal arts in France.2 Vitalis's testimony on this point is very direct and conclusive ::-" Under this master the Normans first explored the literary arts. Before him, under the six preceding dukes, scarcely any Norman had pursued the liberal studies. They had not a competent teacher till God, the provider of all things, sent Lanfranc into the Norman territory." His success as a teacher is said to have excited the envy of Berenger, then principal of the public school at Tours, and afterwards archdeacon of Angers, and to have been the secret motive which stimulated that eloquent and erudite writer, to eclipse his rival's fame, by becoming the founder of a new sect in the church. To whatever motives Berenger's conduct may be traced, it is certain that the controversy then occasioned was chiefly maintained betwixt himself and Lanfranc. There is reason to believe that the famous Gregory VII. studied at Bec under Lanfranc;1 and we know that Pope Alexander, on Lanfranc's going to Rome to receive the pall, publicly expressed his gratitude for the instructions he had received from the archbishop while filling the humbler station of preceptor in a Norman abbey.5 In 1062, William, duke of Normandy, invited him to his court, and made him one of his confidential counsellors, and abbot of his newly erected monastery of St Stephen, at Caen. Here he established a new academy, which soon became as much celebrated as his former one at Bec. Soon after William had seated himself on the throne of England, Lanfranc was elevated to the see of Canterbury, in the room of Stigand who had been deposed by the pope's legate. Thomas, canon of Bayeux, was at the same time appointed to the see of York. But the two archbishops signalized their elevation by a violent dispute as to their respective pretensions to the primacy of England, which was only settled by the intervention of the king and his council, who decided in favour of Lanfranc, and ordered York to make profession of canonical obedience to his brother of Canterbury,—a decision which was afterwards reviewed and confirmed in two great councils held in 1072.7 Lanfranc, of course, introduced his doctrinal views into the church of England. It would appear that the dogma afterwards called transubstantiation was little known in the island previous to the Norman conquest. But Lanfranc had taken too deep an interest in that article of belief not to urge its adoption wherever his influence extended; both before and after his elevation to the see of Canterbury, he preached, wrote, and disputed in its defence. Its general reception by the English priests was probably as much due to the influence of his station as to the subtlety of the logic employed in recommending it. It is difficult to say what share Lanfranc took in William's ecclesiastical reforms. He certainly enjoyed for a considerable period the confidence of his sovereign, but the Conqueror was accustomed to exercise his supremacy in church and state with a high hand, and probably seldom consulted his spiritual chiefs in questions of general polity. We can hardly suppose Lanfranc advising his sovereign to reject the demand of homage made by Gregory VII., or of his own free choice declining to Hist. of Engl. vol. i. p. 402. Vita Lanfr. p. 11. SP. 519. Gul. Pictav. 194. attend on the papal see when summoned to Rome by the holy father." It is also matter of history, that our archbishop's interference in some affairs of state lost him the royal favour, and that he was ever afterwards regarded with a jealous eye by the Conqueror, whom he survived only for the space of one year and eight months. 9 Our early historians are loud in the praise of Lanfranc's wisdom, learning, and munificence. His liberality was certainly profuse, and is a sufficient proof of the great revenues of the see of Canterbury in that early age. In one year, his charities are said to have amounted to £500,―a sum equal to £7500 of our present currency. He also expended large sums in building and endowing monasteries, and defending the immunities of the church. A remarkable suit which he successfully prosecuted against Odo, bishop of Bayeux and earl of Kent, put him in possession of no fewer that twenty-five estates which had been unjustly seized by that ambitious prelate. Lanfranc's writings consist of commentaries on St Paul's epistles, sermons on various subjects, letters to the most distinguished personages of his time, and his famous treatise on the eucharist, against Berenger, which has obtained for him the most lavish encomiums from the literary historians of the church of Rome.10 They were collected by father Luke D'Achery, a Benedictine monk, and published at Paris in 1648. Lanfranc was succeeded in his school at Bec, and afterwards in his archiepiscopal see, by Anselm, a man of still more distinguished talents, and to whom the early literature of England lies under still more extensive obligations. Anselm. BORN CIRC. A. D. 1034.-DIED CIRC. A. D. 1105. ANSELM, who was raised to the see of Canterbury by William Rufus, was a Piedmontese by birth, his native place being Aosta, a town at the foot of the Alps which then belonged to the duke of Burgundy. He was descended of a considerable family; and after having finished his studies and travelled for some time in Burgundy and France, he took the monastic habit in the abbey of Bec in Normandy, of which Lanfranc was then prior. When Lanfranc was made abbot of the monastery of Caen, in 1062, Anselm succeeded him in the priory of Bec, and when Herluin the abbot of Bec died, Anselm was promoted to the abbacy. The fame of his piety and learning first brought him to England, which he visited about the year 1092, at the invitation of Hugh, earl of Chester, who requested his spiritual consolation in his sickness. Since the death of Lanfranc in 1089, the see of Canterbury had remained vacant, the king retaining the revenue in his own hands Falling into a dangerous sickness he was seized with remorse of conscience; and being importuned by the clergy and nobles to make atonement for the multiplied sacrileges and misdeeds of which he had been guilty, he sent for Anselm to court, who then lived in the Greg. Epist. lib. ix. ep. 20. Gervase, Act. Pont. col. 1655, 10 Hist. Lit. de la France, viii. 260-305. neighbourhood of Gloucester, and nominated him to the vacant see of Canterbury. The appointment was far from according with the wishes of the pious Italian; he earnestly refused the dignity, fell on his knees, wept and entreated the king to change his purpose. The bishops expostulated, declaring his refusal to be a desertion of his duty; the king was urgent and pathetic, asking him "why he endeavoured to ruin him in the other world, which would infallibly happen in case he died before the archbishopric was filled up." Notwithstanding these touching appeals, Anselm's scruples were with great difficulty removed; and when the pastoral staff and ring were forced upon him in the royal presence, he kept his fist so fast clenched-a reluctance rare in modern timesthat it required some violence on the part of his friends to open it, and induce him to receive the ensigns of office. Before his consecration he obtained a promise from William for the restitution of all the lands and revenues which his see possessed in Lanfranc's time; and having thus secured the temporalities of the archbishopric, and done homage to the king, he was consecrated with great solemnity on the 4th of December, 1093. Shortly after his accession, he had a dispute with the bishop of London, as to the right of consecrating churches beyond the bounds of his own diocese. The controversy was referred to Wulstan, bishop of Worcester, the only Saxon prelate then living, who gave his opinion in favour of the archbishop's pretensions; and, in consequence, Anselm performed the ceremony of consecrating churches, and executing the other parts of his functions, in any of the towns belonging to the see of London, without moving for the consent of the diocesan. The reputation for piety, which Anselm had already acquired, increased greatly in England, from the vehement zeal with which he preached against abuses of all kinds, more especially those in dress and ornament. The fashion which prevailed in that age throughout Europe, both among men and women, was to give an enormous length to their shoes; to draw the toe to a sharp point, terminating with the figure of a bird's bill, or some such fantastic device, which was turned upwards, and not uncommonly fastened to the knee by chains of gold or silver The clergy were scandalized at this sort of ornament, which they said was an attempt to belie the Scriptures, which affirm distinctly that no man can add a cubit to his stature. The pulpits denounced it with zealous indignation, and synods were assembled who absolutely condemned it. Yet such is the strange perversity of human nature, that the eloquence which could overturn thrones, and march armies of crusaders into the deserts of Asia, could never prevail against the longpointed shoes! During several centuries, this mode maintained its ground; and had not the church ceased from her persecution, Europeans might have been still walking with their toes chained to their knees. Another extravagance of the toilette, peculiar to the eleventh century, was the long hair and curled locks worn by the courtiers. The eloquence of the archbishop was more successful in decrying this fashion, which would appear not to have taken such fast hold of the people's affections. He refused the ashes on Ash-Wednesday to these frizzled fops, and the consequence of his pious exertions was, that the young men universally abandoned their ringlets, and appeared in the 'Malm. 125.-Eadmer, p. 16-18. |