Front matter

Front matter

Is : is-.;jar.» ■"'*afi —•*KU-

111..;:,': V■:■••.■■■:■■'-•-1:

^feSl'

^n-t;;!K!riVII-:.v.r|::i?:|;:ii::..:t :.s|;f,:;i-:-.;.;;-. ;;M':'j;i-k-^.!'. •."•••:\ L!: y.--:,-. : .-.r._.:; ;:*-'H: ?-..; - |- ;•. .. ■ .*• :'■ •

Hlliliial"s» Lii! , i!^|WlHFHl-: lt *''"' ' ' illilili:

.;" i a%Vi!?i!FfeMa«h5W*SB!aS

THE CHURCH IN NORMANDY c. 1066

NUNC COCNOSCO EX PARTE

THOMAS J. BATA LI BRARY

TRENT UNIVERSITY

MONASTERIES:

ROUEN EVREUX BAYEUX 1. Fecamp 2. Montivillicrs 3. St Wandrille 4. Jumieges 5. St Ouen 6. La Croix St Leufroi 7. St Taurin 8. Conches 13. Troarn 14. Fontenay 15. St Etienne (Caen) 16. Trinite (Caen) 17. St Gabriel 18. St Vigor (Bayeux) 19. Cerisy LISIEUX 9. St Evroult 10. Bemay 11. Cormeilles 12. Beaumont

LEGEND:

Towns • 24. St Pierre sur Dives 25. St Martin (Seez) 20. Montebourg 21. St Sauveur 22. Lessay Monasteries t Bishoprics ♦

AVRANCHES

Archbishoprics i 23. Mont St Michel

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation https://archive.org/details/lettersofsaintan0001anse

Cistercian Studies Series: Number Ninety-Six

THE LETTERS OF SAINT ANSELM OF CANTERBURY

CISTERCIAN STUDIES SERIES: NUMBER NINETY-SIX

THE LETTERS

SAINT ANSELM

OF CANTERBURY

Translated and annotated with an Introduction by Walter Frohlich Thomas J. Bafa Library R us 1 v/NiVERSi i V fERBQROUGH, QNiARiQ Cistercian Publications Kalamazoo, Michigan

>sm- . ftsJo ftn ma i/.

This translation is based on the text in volume three of the criti cal edition of F.S. Schmitt, OSB, Anselmi Opera Omnia six volumes

(Edinburgh, 1946-1963: rpt. Stuttgart, 1968).

© Copyright Cistercian Publications Inc., 1990 Cistercian Publications Inc. Editorial Offices

Institute of Cistercian Studies Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, MI 49008 Orders should be sent to Cistercian Publications St Joseph's Abbey Spencer, MA 01562 The work of Cistercian Publications is made possible in part through support from Western Michigan University to the Institute of Cistercian Studies.

Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Typography by Ideas In Graphics, Grand Rapids, MI Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface.1

Introduction.5

Abbreviations.67

The Letters of Anselm.71

Appendix ..

Bibliography

PREFACE HE ANSELMI OPERA OMNIA were critically reedited by Dom F.S. Schmitt in five volumes from 1938

JL to 1963, and to them a volume of Prolegomena seu Ratio editionis was prefixed and a volume of indices added.

Since then English translations of Anselm's philosophical and theological works and tracts, his prayers and medita tions, and his philosophical fragments have been published.

The body of Anselm's correspondence, four-hundredseventy-five items constituting about half Dom Schmitt's edition, has never been translated into English as a whole although various selections of letters have appeared in var ious publications since the nineteenth century. This pres ent translation fills a major lacuna.

Translation is always in danger of harming or even dis torting the original. One language is never completely con gruous with another, for they differ not merely in vocabulary and syntax but also in imagery, aspect, pattern of tenses, word order, and sentence cadence. Being aware of these difficulties, a translator is continually forced to choose a cer tain word, image, or expression from a number of possibil-

The Letters of St. Anselm ities not all of which may always faithfully render the author's original intentions.

I have tried to make this translation of the Letters of St Anselm readable in modern English while remaining close enough to the original Latin text that the grammatical struc ture and the rhetorical figures of speech of the Latin origi nal may be followed. I have endeavoured to convey the undertones of humour, criticism, satire, impatience, firm command, the warmth of friendship or the coolness of for mal politeness contained in Anselm's brilliant style.

Nevertheless I am fully aware that translation can never lay claim to replacing the original and is always to be seen as a helpful crutch for those unable easily to read the original.

During the long period of preparing the translation and annotation of The Letters of St Anselm I received help and encouragement from many scholars and friends. It is im possible to thank all of them but I must mention a few.First and foremost I am greatly indebted to Dom F.S. Schmitt who initiated me into the study of Anselm's letters in 1961 and supported my interest in Anselm studies until his death in 1972. It is a pleasure to record my thanks to the late

Professor Johannes Sporl and to Professor Frank Barlow for introducing me to the conflict between Church and Crown in the Anglo-Norman period, and to Professor Laetitia

Boehm, Dr Majorie Chibnall, and Professors Christopher Brooke, Richard Campbell, and Jasper Hopkins for their con stant interest and support. I am most grateful to Professor

Sir Richard Southern for fruitful discussions about the gen esis of Anselm's letter collections and to Dr David Dumville for offering helpful suggestions on this issue. Professor

Bernhard Bischof and Miss A.M. Oakley gave me invalu able information on paleographic details which greatly fur thered my research. Professor C. Warren Hollister has shown great interest in my work and supported it by invit ing me to speak at several important conferences in America.

Great thanks are due to the late Professor R. Allen Brown who invited me to present my findings at various meetings

Preface

of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies and to the members of this distinguished circle, who have been a constant stimulus and corrective. Encouragement and help over many years were extended to me by Professors Karl

Schnith and Donald Dietrich, who also read drafts of the introduction and suggested many improvements for which I am grateful. My thanks also go out to Dr Helmut Wolff for advising me on the annotations, to my friend Dr Theo

Gerke, who clarified certain medical points, and to Profes sor Richard Heinzmann for permitting me to use the facili ties of the Grabmann Institut. To Cistercian Publications and their editor Dr. Rozanne Elder I owe a great debt for over coming all the difficulties of working with a far-distant au thor with unfailing patience and tranquillity. She is to be thanked for her choice of correctors and advisors who all handled the project with admirable scholarship and insight.

Since English is not my mother-tongue I was constrained to ask for help from native-speakers whose advice has been profound and ungrudging. First of all, I wish to thank my wife Leonora who has indefatigably corrected and improved my use of the English language for many years; she spent endless hours typing and correcting drafts and proofs, and without her help this translation would never have been finished. For this reason it is gratefully dedicated to her and to my sons, who were deprived of their father's undivided attention for a long time. Moreover, I wish to record my gratitude to Professors Patrick Ryan and Paul Crittenden, and to Dom David Morland for checking the translation, to Dom Philip Holdsworth and Dom Alberic Stacpoole for advice on monastic usage. And last but not least I docu ment my thanks to my father-in-law, Michael J. Ward, who scoured the whole manuscript with unfailing pertinacity and tried to polish my English. Despite the generous help of all above mentioned any remaining errors or weaknesses must be imputed to me alone.

Walter Frohlich Miinchen, 21 April 1987

INTRODUCTION

The Life and Times of St Anselm of Canterbury ANSELM WAS BORN AT AOSTA, on the confines of Lombardy, in 1033/34, into a noble Burgundian family of declining fortunes.1 His father Gundulf, a spendthrift Lombard nobleman, had married Eremberga, related to Count Humbert II of Maurienne and heiress to a small barony situated in the Aosta valley at the southern foot of the Great Saint Bernard pass. While his father in volved himself almost totally in secular and business affairs, his mother practised an intense spiritual life. She instilled in her son a deep love of God and the Church. At school he soon displayed a keen intelligence and, early in his boyhood, certainly by the time he was fourteen, he held the ecclesiastical rank of canon and was placed under a pri vate tutor. At this age he attempted to join a monastery but was refused admission because he had not obtained his father's permission. After his mother died, the antagonism between Anselm and his business-minded father decided him to leave home, never to return. After a number of years spent attending various schools in France, he was drawn to Bee in Normandy in 1059 by the reputation of a fellow-

The Letters of St. Anselm countryman, Lanfranc, the most eminent teacher of his time.2 Lanfranc had joined the recently established (1034) community of Bee in 1042, and in 1045 had been appointed prior and master of the abbey school by Herluin, the founder-abbot of Bee.3 After some years of doubt and hesi tation, Anselm became a monk at Bee, making his monas tic profession to Abbot Herluin in 1060. When, in 1063, Duke

William4 of Normandy chose Prior Lanfranc to be the first abbot of St Stephen's, his monastic foundation at Caen, An selm was appointed prior despite considerable opposition from various senior members of the community. By his con siderate manner, humility, and kindness, Anselm was able in time to overcome this opposition and to conciliate the ill-feeling.

Just as Lanfranc had done before him, Anselm success fully combined the office of prior with that of master of the flourishing school at Bee. His fame as a teacher drew a great number of brilliant young minds to Bee.5 Encouraged, some times even bullied, by his pupils, Anselm committed his insights and teaching to writing and thus began to publish his theological works from about 1076 onwards.6

His theological predecessors had been content with merely collecting authoritative statements from Holy Scripture and the Fathers, and then attempting to harmonise conflicting and contradicting statements. Anselm undertook the for midable task of freeing theology from these limitations and laying completely new foundations for it.7 Anselm did not consider tradition and the transmission of authorities to be the sole basis of his theological thinking; he aimed at achiev ing the conclusiveness of his argumentation sola ratione. Fol lowing his motto fides quaerens intellecturn—faith seeking understanding—, he used reason to investigate faith in the hope of perceiving the truths of faith and of attaining the vision of God. Having laid this foundation, Anselm em barked on the attempt to convince the unbeliever of the reasonableness of the truths of faith. To this end he had to modify his method and adapt his argument. He

Introduction

developed an original scientific method of his own by us ing ratio necessariae without referring to Holy Scripture or any other authority.

Employing this new method of investigation sola ratione and deductive conclusions, yet firmly rooted in Augustinian thought, Anselm presented his findings—originally test ed with his students at Bee—in three major works8:

In the Monologion (1076) Anselm did not in a chain of log ical arguments simply prove that God was the Supreme

Good, the Supreme Nature, the Supreme Being. In fact he was attempting to show that the existence of good things requires the existence of one highest thing, which is God; that the existence of superior and inferior natures requires the existence of one Supreme Nature, which is God; that the existence of being per aliud requires the existence of one being per se, which is likewise God.

In the Proslogion (1077/78) he presented his long-sought for unum argumentum, which, because of its simplicity, can be presented to every man: 'Considering this work [the Monologion] to be a chain of many interlinking arguments,

I began to ask myself whether perhaps one argument could be found which constituted an independent proof and scuffed by itself to demonstrate that (1) God really exists, that (2) he is the Supreme Good, needing no one else yet needed by all else in order to exist and to exist well, and that (3) he is whatever else we believe about Divine Sub stance', Anselm writes in the preface of Proslogion. He then concludes in chapter 2: 'Hence, without doubt, something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the understanding and in reality.' This Anselmian conclusion has divided philosophers into two camps up to the pres ent day: one group (Leibnitz, Hartshorn) regards Anselm's leap from thought to essence as a product of profound wis dom and is able to follow him, whereas the other, oppos ing, camp (Kant, Russell, Kolakowsky) dreams, like

Anselm's contemporary critic, the monk Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, of the most beautiful possible island but is

The Letters of St. Anselm unable to find it since what can be thought of does not neces sarily exist. For this reason this group of philosophers has rejected Anselm's unum argumentum—the ontological argu ment for the existence of God.

In Cur Deus Homo (1098) the early Christian and early medieval teaching of the redemption of man by ransom is superseded by Anselm's concept of atonement by repre sentative satisfaction (satisfactio vacaria). Only Jesus the Christ in whom limited human nature and infinite divine nature are anointed together is able to render satisfaction for Adam's sin of infinite offence to God.

Anselm deals with a number of different issues in De grammatico, De veritate, De libertate arbitrii (these three 1080-1085),

De casu diaboli (1085-1090), Epistola de incamatione verbi (1093), De conceptu virginali et de originali peccato (1099/1100), et alia.

For his Prayers and Meditations (about 1070) Anselm required the reader to seek solitude and have his heart stirred to con trition and the love of God.

In presenting his arguments Anselm abandoned the commonly-accepted monological form of the tractatus in fa vor of the dialogue. In this thought he not only drew the individual Christian or unbeliever into his thought but also endeavored to express that thought as an argument, using the interplay of question and answer between master and disciple to advance step by step. Once the initial skepticism towards the novelty of his approach had been dispelled,

Anselm's work earned him fame all over Europe. He was generally recognized as the foremost philosophical and theo logical mind of his time. At the Synod of Bari in 1098, Pope

Urban II called on him as the leading authority of the Latin Church to settle the long-standing controversy with the Greeks over the filioque clause of the Creed. Anselm con vincingly argued the procession of the Holy Spirit from God the Father and from God the Son and refuted as heresy the teaching of the Greeks, who believed in the procession of the Holy Spirit from God the Father. The Synod of Bari followed Anselm's argument and defined the correct

Introduction

reading with the passage as: 'et (credo) in Spiritum Sanc tum, Dominum et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit'. Thus the authority of Anselm's teaching and thought had a lasting impact on a number of theological issues.9

On the death of Abbot Herluin in 1078, the brethren of the community at Bee unanimously elected Anselm as their second abbot. Protesting violently and weeping, Anselm finally complied with their will, perceiving in their persist ent demands the will of God.10 Following the precedent set by his predecessor, Anselm was blessed on 22 February 1079 as abbot of Bee by Gilbert, Bishop of Evreux, without hav ing first sworn fealty to the Duke of Normandy or made profession of obedience to the Archbishop of Rouen. This procedure, established at the foundation of the monastery and renewed and confirmed by Anselm, conferred on the abbot of Bee a legal position similar to that of the abbot of Cluny. When founding Cluny in 908, William of Aquitaine had relinquished his rights to his ecclesia propria and present ed his foundation to Saint Peter, thus granting it freedom from all feudal ties and obligations. In a similar way Her luin obtained release from his feudal obligations to the Count of Brionne and founded his monastery on his own property (allodium), entrusting his foundation to the pro tection of Mary, the Mother of God.

As prior and abbot of Bee, Anselm successfully pursued both his secular and spiritual obligations. He maintained and increased the possessions of the monastery; three times he crossed the Channel to inspect Bee's estates in England.11

His influence in improving the spirituality of his monks, a task to which his sensitive, compassionate nature disposed him, spread beyond the walls of his own monastery and drew many young men to the school of Bee. One hundred twenty-two novices made their monastic profession into the hands of Abbot Anselm.12 His advice and counsel were also sought by many from far and near, by letter and in per son. Thus his humility and kindness, his wisdom and pru dence, his writings as well as his administration made

The Letters of St. Anselm Anselm a prominent figure all over Europe and across the Channel in the Anglo-Norman kingdom.13

These qualities recommended Anselm to the bishops and barons of England, who pressed King William II Rufus dur ing his serious illness in March 1093, to fill the widowed see of Canterbury. Fearing imminent death and God's vengeance for having kept Canterbury vacant for nearly four years following Archbishop Lanfranc's death on 26 May

1089, the King consented to the pleas of his crown vassals.

Despite Anselm's resistance, a natural distaste for high of fice and his protestations of his own incompetence and un suitability, the King forcibly invested him on 6 March 1093, by pressing the staff onto his clenched hand. Anselm was then 'carried rather than led' by the crown vassals to the neighbouring church, where the Te Deum was chanted.14

These unusual circumstances at his investiture notwith standing, Anselm paid homage to the King in early Sep tember and was consecrated primate of all Britain and of the adjacent regions on 4 December 1093, by Archbishop

Thomas of York, supported by all the bishops of England.

Anselm had given in to their persistent demands because he recognised in them the will of God.15

For sixteen years Anselm administered the office of arch bishop of Canterbury. These years were troubled by four major problems: the dispute with William II over the con stitutional law of usus atque leges (1094-1097); the later con troversy with Henry I on the investiture of clerics

(1100-1107); the reform of the Church and moral conduct in England; and finally, the renewed outbreak of an old quarrel concerning the supremacy of Canterbury over York

(1108-1109). (For an account of the Normanisation of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, see below, pp. 20-23.)

Anselm considered the reform of the Church and the im provement of moral conduct within the Anglo-Norman kingdom his prime task. In pursuing this reform, he came into bitter conflict with William Rufus who, like his father, considered himself advocatus et protector ecclesiae and there-

Introduction

fore claimed absolute control over the Church within his realm and prevented the convening of any reforming syn ods. He did this partly for personal reasons, for he himself and several members of his court were said to be involved in homosexual practices.16 William Rufus based his claim on the Norman usus atque leges which his father William the Conqueror had transferred as constitutional law from the duchy of Normandy to the kingdom of England.17 Usus, cus toms, exalted the king above the Church and insulated the Anglo-Norman kingdom from alien or hostile influences.

They enabled the king to control the entry or exit of any individual or of any written or verbal information; they placed him as guardian and protector above the Church, and gave him alone the right to acknowledge any pope, to call synods, and to ratify the canons.

Anselm's conflict with William II grew out of the arch bishop's repeated request for royal leave to visit Pope

Urban II, whom he had acknowledged as rightful pope while still abbot of Bee. He needed to go in order to obtain the pallium confirming his archiepiscopal consecration and to seek papal advice for the reform of the ecclesia in Anglia.

The king refused, since he had not yet decided whether to recognise Urban II or Clement III as rightful bishop of Rome.

By delaying he could hold back the 'romascot', or Peter's pence, which he had been collecting in the pope's name.

This led Anselm to question the lawfulness and rightful ness of these usus atque leges. In his opinion they were the arbitrary law of a mortal man, and, when confronted with the eternal law of God and his Church, he felt himself bound to oppose them. When, relying on rectitudo and in obedience to the law of God and the Church, Anselm openly resisted royal usus atque leges at the curia regis at Rockingham in February 109518 and again at Winchester in October 1097,19 nearly all his episcopal colleagues20 deserted their primate.

They rallied around the king to defend him and those Nor man customs which supported their own position. The quarrel with the king and episcopal antagonism drove

The Letters of St. Anselm Anselm into exile from November 1097 to September 1100.

He spent his first exile partly in Rome and in Bari as the honoured guest of Urban II, partly at Sclavia as the guest of a former pupil, John, the abbot of San Salvatore at Telese and later Cardinal and Bishop of Tusculum/Frascati.

But he spent the longest part of it, from June 1099 to Au gust 1100, with his friend. Archbishop Hugh at Lyon, mak ing visits from there to Cluny in spring 1100 and to La

Chaise-Dieu in early August of the same year.21

Anselm's return to England in September 1100 pre cipitated the second serious conflict of his pontificate: the controversy over the investiture of clerics by 'lay' nobles and the oath of fealty such clerics made into the hands of laymen.22 On 2 August 1100, William Rufus was killed while hunting in the New Forest near Winchester. His younger brother Henry succeeded him the following morning and was crowned King Henry I at Westminster two days later.

To strengthen his position—for his elder brother Robert, Duke of Normandy, one of the gallant and renowned lead ers of the first crusade, was returning from Palestine and already quite close to home—the new king immediately recalled Anselm from exile to his see. When Anselm returned to England he was joyfully welcomed by King Hen ry and asked for the customary renewal of homagium. Hav ing brought with him and being determined to impose the papal decrees forbidding lay investiture and homage by cler ics to laymen, Anselm refused this oath of fealty. By this he introduced these decrees into the Anglo-Norman king dom which had hitherto been effectively protected against unwelcome outside influences by the Norman usus atque leges of William I. But as Anselm had been present at the promulgation of these decrees at the lenten synod in Rome in March 1099, he considered himself absolutely bound by them in obedience to the pope.23

During the ensuing dispute with King Henry over the en forcement of these papal decrees in England, the Arch bishop of Canterbury regarded himself as vicar of Pope

Introduction

Paschal II,24 the successor of Urban II, and not as the op ponent of the King in an issue of his own concern, as had been the case with William Rufus. For this reason, as far as Anselm was concerned, a mitigation or an annulment of the papal decrees and a solution to the investiture con troversy between king and pope could not be granted by him, but could only be obtained from the pope himself.

Three embassies travelled from England to Rome to win this mitigation or annulment.25 None achieved the results hoped for. Finally, at the Easter court of 1103, the king, support ed by his barons and bishops, persuaded Anselm, already aged seventy, to undertake the strenuous journey to Rome in order to bring about a satisfactory solution. Anselm com plied to the royal wish; he stated, however: 'if I succeed in reaching the Pope, you must understand that I shall not ask or advise him to do anything which might be prejudi cial to the liberty of the Church or to my own credit.'26 Given this attitude, it is not surprising that Anselm did not achieve the purpose for which the king had sent him to Rome. In December 1103, therefore, Henry I forbade him to return to England. Anselm was forced to bear the hardship of a second exile.

The banished Archbishop of Canterbury spent most of this, his second exile, again at Lyon and the rest at Bee. Pa pal excommunication in March 1105 of Henry's chief coun sellor, Count Robert of Meulan,27 Anselm's threat to excommunicate the King himself and to place England un der interdict,28 and Henry's fervent desire to remain in the good graces of the Church in order not to jeopardise his chances of winning the duchy of Normandy, eventually led to a reconciliation between archbishop and king. On 22 June

1105, the eve of Henry's successful campaign to wrest the duchy of Normandy from his brother Robert, Anselm and the King reached the 'compromise of L'Aigle' to end the controversy on the investiture of clerics for the AngloNorman kingdom. It allowed Church elections to ecclesias tical offices to be carried out within the curia regis and

The Letters of St. Anselm left the king control of ecclesiastical fiefs.29 In this conflict, as before, nearly all Anselm's episcopal colleagues first rallied in defence of the King and supported him against papal claims which they regarded as damaging to the auctoritas regis and, in turn, to their own position, which rested upon royal power. In due course, however, some of the bishops30 perceived changing trends and supported Anselm and the 'compromise of L'Aigle'. After Paschal's consent to the compromise of March 1106, these bishops made its acceptance possible at the stormy meeting of the curia regis at Westminster in early August 1107.31 The pattern set by this 'Concordat of London'—the separation of spiritual of fice from ecclesiastical fiefs—also contributed to the solu tion of the dispute on investitures between pope and emperor in the Concordat of Worms in 1122.32

Anselm's conflicts with William II over the usus atque leges and with Henry I over lay investiture of clerics had hindered him from carrying out the prime tasks of his pontificate: the reform of the Church and the improvement of moral conduct in the Anglo-Norman kingdom. At last, in Septem ber 1102 and again at Whitsun 1108, Henry granted him per mission to convene reforming councils.33 While the council of 1108 was solely devoted to the enforcement of clerical celibacy, the earlier one had dealt with the public conduct of the clergy, monastic issues, marriage and consanguini ty, men with long hair, and sodomy as well as celibacy.

Since a number of Anselm's fellow-bishops themselves con travened the intentions of the canons of these synods by their example, and, since the lower clergy resisted them stubbornly, however, their enforcement was not entirely successful. Later synods, of 1125 and 1127, had to deal with the same issues again.

In the long drawn-out supremacy dispute between Canterbury and York,34 Anselm secured a wider recogni tion for the primacy of Canterbury than his predecessor Lanfranc had achieved.35 The sees of Wales, Ireland, and parts of Scotland acknowledged it,36 while York was forced to

Introduction

accept a papal decision favouring the supremacy of Anselm and Canterbury.37 Nevertheless, the last year of Anselm's life was overshadowed by a new outbreak of the dispute.38

It flared up when Thomas II, Archbishop-elect of York, three times evaded Anselm's invitation to come to Canterbury to make his profession of obedience to the primate and receive his consecration at the hands of the archbishop of Canterbury.39 In this dispute Anselm enjoyed the whole hearted support of all the bishops of the realm, save that of Durham.

On the Wednesday of Holy Week, 21 April 1109, Anselm died at the age of seventy-six. He did not live to hear and see Thomas's profession of obedience and his consecration at London on 27 June in the same year. An outstanding philosopher and theologian, Anselm was also a competent administrator and a gentle and humble teacher with a sen sitive and intuitive mind who inspired his monks and en couraged many outside his monastery. As archbishop of Canterbury he staunchly defended the rights of the Church and upheld papal demands for the libertas ecclesiae. Soon after his death Anselm was venerated as a saint and in 1720 named a Doctor of the Church, the most important Chris tian thinker and writer between Saint Augustine and Saint

Thomas Aquinas.

The 'Pontifical Kingship' of the Salian Emperors and the Struggle for 'libertas ecclesiae'.40

Anselm and his younger sister Richeza41 grew up in an epoch of increasing spiritual and political tension. In 1032

King Rudolf III of Burgundy bequeathed his kingdom, the Aosta valley being part of it, to Emperor Conrad II (1024-1039). Burgundy thus became part of the Holy Roman

Empire. Renewed during the reigns of Charlemagne (768-814) and Otto I (936-973), the Empire reached the pin nacle of its authority and power when, in 1046 at the synods of Sutri and Rome, Emperor Henry III (1039-1056), Conrad's

The Letters of St. Anselm successor, deposed three popes and appointed Bishop Suitger of Bamberg as Pope Clement II (1046-1047). In pursuit of the welfare of the Church, the reform-minded Henry III then acted as protector et advocatus ecclesiae.

The Emperors had risen to this position of dominance within the Church during a period of papal decline in the tenth century. During his reign Otto I had incorporated the Church into the governance of his German kingdom by em ploying bishops as trusty administrators of fiefs, for which they had done homage and sworn an oath of fealty. When he began to extend his rule to Italy in 951 he introduced his 'Ottoman Church' system of government—later adapted and perfected as the 'Ottonian-Salian-Church'—there as well. Christian spirituality,42 Roman tradition43 and German ic law and custom44 had fused into a uniquely medieval in stitution. Christian spirituality had already transformed

Germanic kingship when, in the year 751, Pipin, Charlemagne's father, was anointed, as is a bishop at his consecration, as the first rex Francorum in biblical and Span ish tradition by Saint Boniface at Soissons. Made king 'by the grace of God', Pipin was therefore like Melchisedek or David 'the Lord's anointed' (christus Domini). In 754, Pope

Stephen II (752-757) travelled to the abbey of Saint Denis near Paris, and repeated this unction by anointing Pipin and his sons Charlemagne and Carloman as dei gratia regis Fran corum and creating them patricii Romanorum, thus entrust ing them with the responsibility of protecting Rome, its citizens and Church. Their successors regarded themselves as vicarii Christi because of this unction, repeated during the liturgy of each king's coronation. At the coronation of Carolus rex Francorum with the imperial crown by Pope Leo

III (795-816) at Rome in 800 and of Otto I rex Francorum et Saxonicorum by Pope John XII (955-964) at Rome in 962 the translatio Imperii Romanorum was carried out; the Roman Em pire was renewed and grafted onto the office of rex Franco rum; as the poetess Roswitha of Gandersheim wrote: 'God commanded that the noble Empire of the Franks be trans-

Introduction

ferred to the renowned people of the Saxons just as the Em pire had earlier been transferred from the Romans to the Franks.'45 By this translation of the Empire, the Saxon Otto

I was entrusted with the protection of the Church and Rome.

In due course the Emperor managed to subject Rome and its bishops to his imperial power. Moreover the king up held and maintained the Germanic law of ecclesia propria: the founder of a church remained in full possession of the church and was responsible for the proper maintenance and control of its clergy and services.

The emperors, as the 'Lord's anointed', patricius Romanorum and advocatus ecclesiae considered themselves respon sible for the protection, administration, and reform of the Church. This concept of pontifical kingship formed the ba sis of the Salian emperor's action in the year 1046/47.

In 1048 Henry III found the pope he had been seeking to reform the Church in his cousin Bruno, count of Egisheim/Alsace. Through the marriage of Bruno's broth er, Conrad of Egisheim, to the sister of Anselm's mother,

Eremberga, this pope, Leo IX, was Anselm's uncle. After being trained at the court and chancery of Conrad II, Bru no had been made bishop of Toul in 1026. In this office he was a loyal supporter of the Emperors Conrad and Henry

III within the Ottonian-Salian imperial church system. In 1048 Henry made him pope at Worms. When Bruno received the acclamation of the clergy and people of Rome, he accepted consecration and styled himself Leo IX (1049-1054). As bishop he had become familiar with the ideas of the church reform which had sprung up in Burgundy

(Cluny) and in Lorraine (Gorze)46 and had endeavoured to apply them in his diocese through reforming synods. He brought these ideas with him to Rome and adapted them to the demands of the papacy which under his rule em barked on a process of purifying and reforming the Church, not in opposition to but in cooperation with the emperor.

A few years later, under Gregory VII (1073-1085), however, the papacy emerged as the champion of the struggle for

The Letters of St. Anselm the Church's emancipation from lay influence and lay con trol at all levels by propagating libertas ecclesiae. The Gregori an reform of the Church initiated the bitter conflict of the investiture controversy which occupied the last three de cades of the eleventh century and the first two of the twelfth century. It was brought to an end by the Concordat of Worms in 1122.

The quarrel between emperor and pope as to who should hold supreme authority within the ecclesia and who could therefore legally and rightfully invest a bishop with ring and staff flamed into a revolutionary upheaval within western society and brought about a fundamental functional realign ment of the religious and secular powers.

The struggle was sparked off by severe moral abuses in the prevailing ordo. The Gregorian reformers regarded the influence of men they considered laymen in the appoint ment to ecclesiastical offices and the administration of sacra ments as simony. Led by men like Hildebrand (later Gregory

VII), Humbert of Silvia Candida, and Peter Damian, they condemned simony as heresy and fought for the abolition of clerical marriage. In seeking to put an end to both abuses, they relied on the support of the emperor and the reges justi, such as William the Conqueror.

Yet radicals among the Gregorian reformers were not satisfied with achieving these goals. They complained about the domination of the Church by laymen and the Church's involvement in feudal obligations. Under the guise of the orthodox reform of the Church, some of them (Hildebrand and Humbert) worked for the overthrow and destruction of the old ordo and its replacement with a new one. They sought to shake off the crown's tutelage of the Church and win freedom from any royal control for the Church. They negated the sacramental character which the unction of their coronations had bestowed on kings since Pipin, and they demanded recognition of the pope as caput ecclesiae over emperors, kings and princes. Put into practice, these new ideas would create a new—and in the view of the radical

Introduction

reformers—ideal order by restoring what they believed was the ancient and good order and by destroying the present one.

This is why the revolution of the Gregorian reformers pro voked fierce and persistent opposition from, on the one hand, those with vested interests and, on the other hand, from sincere supporters and defenders of the prevailing or do.

In a flood of polemical literature, the Gregorian reformers as well as the defenders of the old order,47 although bitter enemies, both clung to the classical concept that God had divided the governance of the ecclesia between his spiritual representatives, the bishops, and his temporal representa tives, the secular rulers. Both offices, that of rex as well as sacerdos had a spiritual as well as temporal character. A clear division of their tasks, however, could not be put into prac tice. Emperors and kings, because of their power, their unc tion and their spiritual responsibility, demanded the right to appoint and invest sacerdotes and to control the adminis tration of their offices. As a result of their spiritual authori ty and large possessions, however, popes and bishops claimed supremacy over emperors and kings even in tem poral matters.

Partisans of the papal claim introduced a shift into the classical image48 that Christ, or in his place Saint Peter, had handed the sword of secular power to emperors and kings and the sword of spiritual power to popes and bishops, in favour of the sacerdos. They argued that God does indeed bestow secular power on secular rulers but the potestas regalis was bestowed onto emperors, kings, and princes only in directly through the auctoritas sacra pontificum of popes and bishops. Consequently, they maintained, all secular Chris tian government was subordinate to priestly control and leadership. Such arguments fundamentally undermined the old order and the conceptual support for the position of secular rulers—emperors and kings alike. 'According to this concept the worldly ruler at the same time held the offices of bishop and king within the ecclesia: he was rex sacerdotalis

The Letters of St. Anselm and caput ecclesiae'. Within the constitutional framework of the Ottonian-Salian church system, this concept of kingship had provided secular rulers with the right to interfere in nearly all church affairs with the exception of administer ing sacraments. This concept of royal office, upheld by Ot toman and Salian emperors, the Norman dukes and the Anglo-Norman kings, had been radically called into ques tion.

There was no common ground for agreement between these two opposing concepts of the Salian rex sacerdotalis and the Gregorian sacerdos regalis. When, after a bitter strug gle which had lasted for nearly fifty years, the practical moderates took over from the radical theorists, they were able to achieve the 'Compromise of L'Aigle' (1105) which led on to the 'Concordat of London' (1107) and then to the Concordat of Worms (1122). This compromise brought about the secularisation of the royal and imperial office. The divest ment of the king of all spiritual and sacred authority led to the irreparable weakening of royal power and dignity.

The Church benefited by gaining considerable freedom from lay control. This situation, however, misled the Church to the pursuit of temporalia during the high Middle Ages and resulted in the popes becoming rivals of the secular rulers for worldly power and wealth. Through this revolutionary upheaval in western society the Church became a power ful state governed by a papacy endangered by the risk of losing sight of its spiritual task.

Church and State in the Anglo-Norman Realm.

It was in 1093, in the midst of the struggle between rex and sacerdos, that Anselm was made Archbishop of Canter bury by William II Rufus, with the consent of all the spiritual and temporal crown vassals of the Anglo-Norman realm.

William Rufus's father, William the Conqueror, had worked symbiotically with Lanfranc, monk of Bee (1042-1063), abbot of St Stephan's monastery, Caen (1063-1070), and Arch bishop of Canterbury (1070-1089), like 'two oxen under the

Introduction

yoke in a plough team', Eadmer says, in the organisation and Normanisation of the ecclesia in Anglia.49

Before 1070 the church in England had been organised into two provinces:50 the archbishopric of Canterbury with ten suffragans; and the metropolitan church of York with two suffragan sees. The reforms of 1070-1072 and 1074-1076 transformed this dual pattern of the ecclesia in Anglia into the monolithic ecclesiastical structure of the Norman duchy, with its head at Canterbury.

After years of strife William, dux Normannorum, had achieved undisputed control of the duchy and acquired a king-like position in it because he had been able to disregard, sometimes acrimoniously, his feudal obligations to his liege lord, the king of France. The political power of William as Duke of Normandy was extended into the spiritual field by the subjection of the archbishop of Rouen to the Duke. The pinnacle of tcmporalia and spiritualia was the duke; in both fields initiative and decision rested solely with him. The archbishop of Rouen was responsible for the implementa tion of ducal decisions regarding the appointments to va cant sees and abbeys as well as the convening and organising of the synods summoned for the reform of cler gy and monasteries.51 The bishops of the Norman province of the church were subject to their metropolitan in Rouen who in turn received his orders from the duke. This Nor man pattern was in accordance with the ideal of the rex justus of the pre-Gregorian reformers: cuncta ergo divina simul Hu mana regis nutum expectabant,52 Thus regnum and sacerdotium merged in the rex justus who was responsible for the welfare of both state and church.

After the conquest of England, William the Conqueror to gether with the loyal cooperation of Archbishop Lanfranc worked to transfer this Norman pattern to the kingdom of England. Since this required the establishment of only one ecclesiastical province in the whole Anglo-Norman kingdom the metropolitan of York had to be subjected to the prima cy of the archbishop of Canterbury. Thus the close unity

The Letters of St. Anselm of church and state grew under the joint leadership of the Conqueror and Archbishop Lanfranc who shared the King's views in this matter. In the course of this process a num ber of sees were translated to more important cities.53 The building of new cathedrals and the reconstruction of old ones demonstrated the vitality of Norman rule.54

As constitutional law for the relations between church and state, between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the King,

William I introduced to his English kingdom the usus atque leges which he had established in his Norman duchy.

Eadmer, Anselm's secretary, chaplain, admirer and biogra pher says of these usus atque leges:

... I will set down here some of the usages which William introduced to be observed throughout En gland. From a few examples the rest may be in ferred. He would not, for example, allow anyone in all his dominion, except on his instructions, to recognise the established Pontiff of the City of Rome as Pope or under any circumstances to ac cept any letter from him, if it had not first been submitted to the King himself. Also he would not let the primate of his kingdom, by which I mean the Archbishop of Canterbury, otherwise Dorobernia, if he were presiding over a general council of bishops, lay down any ordinance or prohibition unless these were agreeable to the King's wishes and had been first settled by him.

Then again he would not allow any one of his bishops, except on his express instructions, to pro ceed against or excommunicate one of his barons or officers for incest or adultery or any other cardi nal offence, even when notoriously guilty, or lay upon him any punishment of ecclesiastical dis cipline.55

In this way the usus atque leges created a 'glass house' which protected the Anglo-Norman kingdom from any influences which could have endangered the absolute position of the

Introduction

rex within the realm. This was the realm into which An selm was placed as Archbishop of Canterbury. The constitu tional framework which Lanfranc had helped to establish in the plough team with William I became a burdensome yoke for Anselm when, as he had warned the crown vas sals before they had proposed him for the primacy, 'an un tamed, young bull and an old feeble sheep were yoked together'.56 The previous harmony between king and arch bishop of Canterbury turned into discord and bitter strife between Anselm and his liege lords, William II and Henry

I. Anselm's controversy with William II over the lawfulness of the usus atque leges and his conflict with Henry I over the papal claim forbidding lay investiture were each followed by a period of about three years of exile.

Medieval Letter-Writing and Collections of Letters.

The medieval letter has, as C. Erdmann has conclusively demonstrated, primarily a literary character.57 It differs fun damentally from charters, official and business correspon dence, and writs. Documents of the latter kind contain legal definitions and are therefore intended to serve as witness es for later times; they are not merely directed to a specific recipient but are designed to have lasting duration. The me dieval private letter, on the other hand, contains commu nications of a private or semi-public character as well as information of a scientific, literary, or artistic nature. It is intended for a recipient at a distant place. Its basic dimen sion is primarily a regional and contemporary one. It is an exchange of a written communication from one place to another.

Popular during the Carolingian era,58 the custom of writ ing letters, and of collecting and publishing them in letter collections, reappeared towards the close of the tenth and at the beginning of the eleventh century. The continuous development of medieval epistolary literature started with Gerbert of Aurillac, Pope Sylvester II from 999-1003. Dur ing the eleventh and twelfth centuries letter collections as

The Letters of St. Anselm a literary form gained great popularity in western Europe.

In fact, the wealth of large letter collections is one of the striking features which distinguish the intellectual life of these centuries from those immediately preceding and fol lowing them.59 Letter collections were compiled, edited, and circulated in France, Germany, Italy and at the papal court as well as in the Anglo-Norman kingdom.60 Outstanding examples in the last-named area are the collections of Lanfranc and Anselm of Canterbury and Herbert Losinga of Norwich.

Letter-writing was closely linked to writing didactic verses.

Both exercises were conscientiously practised in the schools of monasteries and cathedrals. The two activities were ex pressed by the same verb, dictare, which can be rendered as 'to write according to dictation' or 'to write poetry'. The art of letter-writing which blossomed in these schools be came an important and self-conscious genre for the culture of the age and displayed the learning of the writers. Among the most important medieval letter-writers were the teachers and scholars from these schools. Their learning recommend ed them for promotion to abbacies and episcopal sees, and thus they came to occupy important political positions. The letter, one of the historical sources which has survived events and personalities concerned, gives later generations the opportunity of capturing the atmosphere of that time.

While its value can be distorted if the letter is altered when copied, the letter can enable the modern historian to per ceive the author and his spiritual world within the medi eval ordo,61 The basic form of the medieval letter was inherited from the schools of the Roman rhetoricians.62 It followed the pat tern of salutation, introduction, narration, request, and con clusion. The salutation at the beginning of the letter contained the name of the sender—not necessarily identi cal with the writer—in the nominative case and that of the recipient in the dative, as well as a greeting. Because the order of the names was carefully observed, any deviation

Introduction

from the usual practice indicated a change in relationship.

Thus, for reasons of status or courtesy, the order of the names of the sender and recipient could be reversed. At the end of the letter there was often a final wish but no sig nature or any other closing formula as is found in charters or other legal documents. The custom of dating documents, which continued throughout the eleventh century in chart ers, was almost completely abandoned in private letters dur ing this period. Towards the end of the century, however, papal letter-writers readopted dating, and in imitation of this practice the dating of letters was generally reintroduced, although slowly, during the course of the twelfth century.

Various forms of polite address within the body of the letter continued to demonstrate the relationship between the sender and the receiver of the letter. The former might address the latter in the second person singular or plural or a mixture of both. The writer might refer to himself in what are called 'formulas of humility', such as parvitas mea, nostra humilitas, nostra pauper parvitas,63 while he addressed the receiver in such lofty abstract terms as vestra reverenda jratemitas, sublimitas vestra, beatitudo vestra, caritas vestra, vestra dives nobilitas, patemitas vestra.64 By so doing the writer em phasised the recipient's status or the qualities he wished to stress. Literary conventions further required the writer to adorn his composition with appropriate rhetorical figures and commonplaces, allusions to classical authors, quotations from Holy Scripture and the writings of the Fathers, but without losing sight of the traditional ideal of epistolary brevity.65

Moreover, the medieval letter was intended to be read aloud.66 Careful attention was paid therefore to the sound of words, and it was for this reason that the art of rhyme and metrical patterns was adopted to set off the ends of clauses and sentences. Writing a letter was an arduous task, and a well-written letter was regarded as a fine gift to send a friend. Therefore, even personal letters might be widely circulated. A writer conscious of his literary reputation kept

The Letters of St. Anselm copies or asked for the return of his letters, and he himself revised, edited and arranged them and saw to their publi cation within a collection.67

The preservation of medieval letters, then, occurred, not primarily for documentary, but almost exclusively for liter ary purposes. Original letters of this period are very rare but the texts of thousands of letters were preserved because of their literary value. They were collected in codices which were often copied and placed into libraries in the literature section. A large number of individual letters and small groups of letters as well as the letter collections of authors have survived in this way. They were the fruit of a conscious policy aimed at preserving material to promote the ars dictandi;68 this practice of cultivated poetic and epistolary com position was to be handed on by demonstrating the achievements of past writers and by providing patterns for reading and imitation.

The Growth of Anselm's Collection of Letters* Anselm's collection of letters has been handed down to us in about a dozen manuscripts of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries.69 Since the collection of letters grew larger over the years and the chronological sequence of the letters was continually being corrected, it is possible to see how the manuscripts are interrelated and interdependent one on another.

The order70 in which the manuscripts containing collec tions of letters seem to have been written is as follows: a) The oldest manuscript to include a collection of Anselm's letters is 'N',71 for it is the only manu script to style him merely as prior and abbot of Bee.72 It contains ninety-nine letters on one hun dred forty two pages. Some pages are missing at 'This section is an adapted version of the paper given at the Third International Anselm

Conference at Canterbury in 1979 and is published as 'Die Entstehung der Briefsammlung

Anselms von Canterbury', Historisches Jahrbuch 100 (1980) 457-466, and 'The Genesis of the Collections of St. Anselm's Letters', American Benedictine Review 35 (1984) 249-266.

Introduction

the end but these lost letters can be reconstruct ed, in part, from William of Malmesbury's auto graph of Anselm's works, for which'N' was a source.73 His manuscript, 'M', will be discussed below.

'N' represents the first collection of Anselmian letters. Eight letters which Anselm wrote to Maurice are not included.74 The letters follow no strict chronological order, apart from the clear di vision between the letters written as prior and those written as abbot of Bee. b) The next stage in the development of the col lection can be established to have occurred a few years later. This is in the first part of 'E', and in cludes the letters of the prior and the abbot of Bee respectively. This first part of 'E' contains the same letters as 'N' with the addition of new let ters, including the eight to Maurice. All the let ters in 'E' are in chronological order, showing that the first part of 'E' is later than 'N'. c) From this point, the letters first of the prior and later of the abbot of Bee show a different develop ment in Bee and in Canterbury. These develop ments are to be found in the first parts of 'V' and 'L'. They differ from 'N' and 'E' and from each other by the addition of further letters and in the chronological sequence of the letters which they contain. The first part of 'L' contains 130 letters, while the first part of 'V' contains 156, of which twenty-seven are duplicates.

In this first part of the collection of Anselmian letters, the contents of 'E' are dependent on 'N' which is the earliest, and the contents of both 'L' and 'V' seem dependent on 'E'.

The Letters of St. Anselm d) The earliest collection of the letters written by Anselm as archbishop of Canterbury is to be found in the second part of 'I/, since all other manuscripts containing letters written during the archiepiscopal period depend on the second part of 'L'. It contains 259 letters from the time when

Anselm was archbishop; an appendix, 'La', of 31 pages, containing letters, tracts, poems, and other documents, is added to this. e) Two manuscripts depend on 'L'. These are 'P', which appears to have been written at Christ

Church, Canterbury, and the second part of 'E'.

They differ from each other only in respect of the appendix, 'La'. yP' does not contain this appen dix, whereas in 'E' the letters contained in the ap pendix of 'La' have been fitted into the chronological order marked by the symbols in 'L'.

This would indicate that 'P' is earlier than 'E' and that there is obviously a lapse of time between 'L' and 'La'. f) The manuscript containing the greatest num ber of letters—415—is 'C', which also appears to be a direct copy of 'L'. g) In addition to the manuscripts referred to in sub-paragraphs a) to f) above, there are a few manuscripts containing further letters of Anselm, differing in the order and the number of the let ters they contain. The main manuscript of this group is 'M', the autograph of William of Malmes bury.75 William used three sources: 'N'; Eadmer's

Historia Novorum; and 'F', which appears to be a copy of 'L'. Manuscripts 'B' and 'U' are depen dent on 'M'.

Introduction

It is possible to determine the date and provenance of the various stages of the collections of Anselm's letters.

1. Several indications suggest that 'N' was written at Bee in 1090. a) 'N' contains letters of Lanfranc as well as of An selm. They appear to be written by the same hand.

This observation is confirmed by the fact that AEp 30 and 31—Lanfranc to Anselm and Lanfranc to his nephew—do not appear in the collection of Anselm's letters because they are already among Lanfranc's letters.76 b) Two rubrics refer to Anselm as prior or abbot only.77 As the second rubric is written on an era sure it must be the work of the original scribe and not of a copyist. This would indicate that the scribe knew Anselm only as abbot and not yet as arch bishop. In the absence of conflicting evidence this would strongly support the view that 'N' not only contains the first stage of the collection but that it is also the oldest manuscript containing any col lection of Saint Anselm's letters.

The Letters of St. Anselm c) In AEp 104 Anselm complains that Maurice has not yet returned the eight letters which he had written to him while at Canterbury. As these let ters are missing from 'N', 'N' must have been completed before they were returned. d) In letters AEp 104 and 106, Anselm refers to his recent illness.78 In AEp 106 he congratulates his former fellow-monk Gilbert Crispin on the oc casion of his promotion as abbot of Westminster

Abbey. As this occurred in 1085, the writing of 'N' must have taken place after that date. e) It is possible to date 'N' even more closely: two letters, AEp 145 and 146, which are no longer found in 'N', can be assigned to 'N' on the evi dence of 'M' whose scribe, William of Malmes bury, used it as a source. Anselm sent AEp 145 to Abbot Ralph of Seez, who was promoted to this office in 1089. Thus the writing of 'N' seems to have taken place during 1089-90. As the Itinerary of St Anselm does not show any absence of the abbot of Bee from his monastery at that time, and he asks Maurice, who was in Conflans, to return the letters to him, it would seem that 'N' was com piled and written at Bee.79 f) Thus 'N' must have come into existence under Anselm's supervision and with his help. The death of Archbishop Lanfranc, in May 1089, and the compilation of the collection of his letters could have been an incentive to Anselm to do likewise.80

AEp 104, however, written to Maurice in about 1085, seems to point to the probability that An selm had been thinking about collecting his let ters for some time, for this letter closes with the following sentence: 'We are still waiting for our

Introduction

letters which Dom Maurice is supposed to have sent us.' An edition of Anselm's philosophical and theological writings completed up to that time can be found in two manuscripts of the late eleventh century.81 This would further support the likeli hood of his interest in publishing his letters. g) 'N' is a small book, measuring 11.8 x 15.0 cm.

The collection of Anselm's letters in 'N', folios 41/r/-112/v/, covers 142 pages and contains about 29,000 words. A careful count of the number of corrections, omissions, and repetitions in the part of the manuscript containing Anselm's letters gives an average of one mistake per 290 words; in all, about 100 corrections, less than one per page. Letter AEp 6 appears twice in the collection: as N5, fol. 44/v/, and as N30, fol. 60Ivl. In 25 let ters of the 99 letters contained in 'N' the names of the writer and of the recipient are reduced to the first initial.82

2. The first part of MS 'E' appears to represent the next stage in the compilation of Anselm's letters. a) In this manuscript, as in 'N', Anselm is men tioned only as prior or abbot. Therefore, this col lection must have been completed before 6 March

1093. b) In AEp 147 Anselm writes to Prior Baldric, ask ing for certain writings and letters, because King

William II is making him stay in England: 'Send me the "Prayer to St Nicholas" which I wrote, and the "Letter" which I had started writing

"against the propositions of Roscelin", and if Dom Maurice has any other letters of ours which he has not sent, send them as well.'83 It would appear that Anselm intended to use this period

The Letters of St. Anselm of enforced leisure to improve the first collection of his letters. Accordingly, he asked for all the let ters which had been collected at Bee since the com pletion of 'N' to be sent to him at Westminister.

He improved the rough chronology of 'N', which had only divided the letters into those written as prior and those as abbot, by rearranging all the letters in their proper order. He also inserted in the order of their writing, five of the letters to Maurice, which had meanwhile been returned to him.84 c) Abbot Anselm's enforced sojourn in England took place in the winter of 1092-93. He stayed with his friend, Abbot Gilbert Crispin, at Saint Peter,

Westminster.85 Therefore, this second edition of his letters would seem to belong to this period and to have been executed at Westminster.

3. A number of criteria can be gathered to determine the date and provenance of 'L'. a) Apart from manuscript Oxford Bodleian Bodley 271, manuscript 'L', measuring 35 x 25 cm., is the largest of the early manuscripts containing writings of Saint Anselm. The script, the colour ing of the capitals, and the shelf marks indicate that it was written at Christ Church, Canterbury, and was originally kept in the library there.86 b) It is more difficult to determine the date when it was written. M.R. James classifies the script used in this manuscript as the same as that Lanfranc brought over from Bee, and calls it the 'Lanfrancian' or the 'Christ Church, Canterbury' script.87 This enables us to date it either at the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century.

Introduction

c) A comparison of the script of 'L' with the scripts found in the manuscript of the Canterbury Roll of Professions88 might seem useful in dating this manuscript, but may also lead to false conclusions since, according to A.M. Oakley, librarian of Canterbury Cathedral Library, 'it would appear that the archaic hand was deliberately retained for some reason after it ceased to be used in prac tice'.89 Any attempt at dating 'L', relying solely on the script of the Roll of Professions, may there fore result in assigning a later date than was ac tually the case. Since the method of comparing scripts can achieve only a limited degree of accura cy, it would seem advisable to collect other evidence. d) 'L' consists of two parts. The first part runs from fol. l/r/-fol. 160/v/, which we call 'L'; the sec ond part from 160/v/-190/r/, which we call 'La'.

'L' contains 389 letters of Anselm's collection divided into two books according to the time when he was (1) prior and abbot of Bee and (2) archbishop of Canterbury.90 e) Originally, there were no additions to or mis placements of letters in 'LL This can be shown first by the comments and directions for insert ing additional letters in 'La', and secondly by ex amining 'P' and 'F', copies of 'L' which do not contain any of these letters, which were added later.91 f) Erasures are corrections made by the scribe or by a corrector working at the same scriptorium at the same time92 in order to preserve a sound text.

There is a total of 200 corrections and omissions in 'L'. In a manuscript of 320 pages, or roughly

The Letters of St. Anselm 100,000 words, this comes to considerably less than one correction or omission per page, or one mistake per 500 words. This incidence classifies

'L' as a very good, if not excellent, scribal achievement. g) 'La' comprises fol. 160/v/ to fol. 190/r/,93 and is split into two parts by nine and a half empty pages.94 The first part of 'La' consists of a letter,95 a tract,96 a deathbed confession,97 a sermon,98 three other tracts,99 two poems in praise of An selm,100 Anselm's covering letter for Cur Deus

Homo to Urban II,101 another letter,102 the canons of the synods of London of 1102 and 1108103 and, finally, seven other letters.104 Three of these ten letters were written by Anselm and seven received by him. All the letters, except the one to Urban II, are marked in the margin with symbols and in structions to show where they should be insert ed into the main collection of 'L'.105 The remaining folios after the gap of nine and a half pages con tain, in a different hand, a miscellaneous collec tion of writings as follows: two letters,106 two tracts,107 one a repetition of those written before the gap, a repetition of the deathbed confession,108 another letter,109 a draft of a part of Anselm's tract

De concordia,110 Anselm's epitaph on Hugh,111 a fragment of a tract on the presence of God in the Blessed Sacrament,112 a distich of two lines,113 a legal document114 and a repetition of the first poem in praise of Anselm.115 This detailed listing of the contents of the two parts of 'La' conveys the impression that the guiding hand of the au thor was not available to the scribe of this liter ary heritage. Could it be that all the literary works left by Anselm at his death were copied at ran dom, regardless of whether they were half-

Introduction

finished or completed philosophical or theologi cal tracts, documents regarding his disposition of certain lands, poems of praise, or even letters to and from him? The fact that there are no coloured initials116 at the opening words of the items in the second part of 'La' strengthen the feeling that the work was not carried out in a very accurate fashion.

All this emphasises that the order, accuracy and clarity which mark 'L' are missing in the disor der, untidiness, and repetitiousness of 'La'. In deed 'La' is the 'carelessly written' part of 'L',

'with many corrections, misplacements, omissions and later additions', as R.W. Southern has described it.117

These observations can guide us to the date of the manu script, for it would appear that 'L' was written before An selm's death, whereas 'La' shows many signs of having been written after this event. This impression is further strengthened by the fact that 'P' and 'F' are copies of 'L' but contain none of the additons which occur in 'La'. There fore some time must have passed between the writing of 'L' and the writing of 'La'.

4. Certain findings relating to internal criteria seem to sup port even further the evidence collected in the evaluation of the external criteria. a) Between the end of the text of 'La', the repeti tion of the first poem on St Anselm, and the signature-phrase118 of the 'La' scribe, there is a hexameter in the hand of the 'L' scribe: Que restant modici sunt scripta manu Thidrici. The mean ing of Que restant.. . has puzzled many. As they are the initial words of the penultimate line of 'La' they appear to refer to what has gone before. It could therefore be argued that the hexameter

The Letters of St. Anselm points to a similar explanation as that derived from the examination of the contents of 'U and 'La' dis cussed above. Did the 'L' scribe, that is, Thidricus, write 'The other things were written by the hand of the humble Thidricus' in order to free himself from any accusation of being the scribe of the untidy work found in 'La'? b) That Thidricus was a monk and scribe in Christ

Church, Canterbury, can be proven from manuscripts and catalogues,119 although he does not appear in Searle's list of 'Deans, Priors and Monks of Christ Church, Canterbury'.120 Yet an other scribe of Christ Church, Canterbury, the monk Eadwine, who signed his name at the end of his work and also drew a full-page sketch of himself, and who is known to have been the scribe and artistic creator of the magnificent Psalter of Canterbury,121 is not listed there either. M.R.

James is of the opinion that Thidricus was among the monks of Bee who went to Canterbury, via

Caen, with Lanfranc. According to James, Thidri cus exercised a formative influence on the scrip torium of Christ Church, Canterbury.122 c) Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.3.32, is an excellent example of Thidricus' work. On fol. 1/r/ he identifies himself as scribe. The script, coloured capitals, and brilliantly executed initials make this manuscript one of the most beautiful of its kind.

Thidricus displayed certain marked characteristics in his writing and drawing. For example, he used different types of the same capital alternately, sometimes in the same word; this also occurs in 'L' and also in Oxford Bodleian, MS Bodley 271.123

He also seems to have had a particular affection for dogs, four of which twist themselves around

Introduction

an initial L in MS B.3.32.124 In 'L' there is only one such initial: on fol. 64/r/, a winged dog with typi cally Thidrician long ears climbs around the ini tial S. d) 'L' contains two letters addressed to Thidricus,125 both neatly fitted into the sequence of 389 letters. In them Anselm gives Thidricus instruc tions about the work on De Conceptu and tells him that certain letters should not be preserved. Since the Archbishop was absent from Canterbury from December 1103 to September 1106 on his second exile, it would seem reasonable that these letters,

AEpp 334 and 379, were then sent to the scribe working on the final edition of his works126 and letters at Canterbury. This would place the exe cution of Oxford Bodleian, MS Bodley 271 and London Lambeth, MS 59, which contain this fi nal edition of Anselm's works and letters, be tween the years 1104 and 1108. e) Work on 'L', which consisted first of copying old letters (during the years 1105 and 1106) and then of writing down recent letters, seems to have been carried on right into the late autumn of 1108, since correspondence dealing with the renewed outbreak of the supremacy controversy between Canterbury and York constitutes the last entries in 'L' before 'La' was added.

The supremacy dispute broke out anew after the death of Archbishop Gerard of York on 21 May

1108 and the election of Thomas of Beverly as his successor. Three times Anselm invited Thomas to come to Canterbury, make his profession of obe dience to the archbishop of Canterbury, and re ceive consecration at his hands.127 Each time, however, Thomas and the Chapter of York tried

The Letters of St. Anselm to delay the consecration and the profession linked with it, expecting Anselm to die at any time and hoping to gain advantages for York during the ensuing vacancy at Canterbury.128 Anselm's third invitation requested Thomas to come to Canterbury on 8 November 1108. When the elect of York again found reasons for delay, Anselm for bade him, in AEp 472, to perform his priestly duties until he had made his profession and received consecration. He also ordered the Bish op of London to ensure that Thomas make this profession at all costs (AEp 471). Eight of the twelve extant letters dealing with the supremacy dispute are contained in 'L'.129 Letters AEpp 471 and 472, written at the end of 1108, are L 388 and L 389. They are the last entries in 'L' before 'La' was added. All eight letters are also in 'P', which copied nothing from 'La'. Does this not suggest that 'P' was copied from 'L' during the last six months of Anselm's life? AEpp 471 and 472 are repeated in the untidy second part of the manu script, as La 399 and La 400, on fol. 187r. This points to the likelihood that the 'La' scribe did not know what had already been copied into 'L' and was without the author's guiding hand. f) In the first part of 'La', we find two poems, on fol. 175/r/ and fol. 176/r/, praising Anselm, and in the second part of 'La' we discover a repeti tion of the first poem on fol. 189/v/. About the year

1100, Anselm had forbidden his secretary Eadmer to collect any material or to write any biography of him, and had ordered the destruction of any such existing writings.130 For this reason it can be assumed with great certainty that these poems were written into 'La' after Anselm's death. How long after Anselm's death is suggested by the

Introduction

rubric for the second of these poems. This rubric must have been written by the scribe just before he copied the poem. It reads: 'Item versus de eodem Praesulis Anselmi quern nuper obisse dolemus'.

If nuper can be translated as 'recently', as Anselm himself had used it in AEp 104,131 all the evidence seems to converge in support of the view that 'La' was written shortly after Anselm's death on 21

April 1109, but that 'L' (and very likely 'P' and 'F') were written during his lifetime.

On the basis of these findings we conclude that all copies of Anselm's collection of letters which depend on 'L' and 'La' were made after his death. For this reason they can not lay claim to the authority which the first three editions possess.

The Design of Anselm's Collection of Letters* The final edition which Anselm made of his letters is to be found in 'L'. It contains 389 letters. The most recent edi tion of Anselmi Opera Omnia by F.S. Schmitt contains 475 letters. Dom Schmitt excluded a considerable number of spurious letters which had found their way into the collec tion of Anselm's letters during the course of the centuries.132

This leaves a difference of 86 letters. Had Anselm kept all the letters written to him requesting a reply, his collection would have been much larger still, since in at least 120 let ters he refers to some written supplication as the cause for his written reply.133 In all there are some 206 letters that did not find their way into 'L'. This would amount to about 30% of Anselm's total correspondence or nearly 53% of the collection entered into 'L'. A detailed examination of these omitted letters will provide reasons for their ommission and may point to Anselm's method and intention in compiling his collection.

*This section is an adapted version of the paper read at the Sixth Battle Conference in 1983 and publshed as The Letters Omitted from Anselm's Collection of Letters', Anglo-Norman

Studies 6 (1984) 58-71.

The Letters of St. Anselm The eighty-six letters134 not found in L can be divided into two groups: twelve date from the period while Anselm was prior and abbot of Bee,135 the remaining seventy-four to the time of his archiepiscopate.

THE FIRST GROUP OF TWEFVE LETTERS. One was

received from, and all the others sent to, ecclesiastics. Two went to Archbishop Lanfranc and two to Pope Urban. Ten letters deal with pastoral problems and contain advice to abbots and other monks on how to deal with excommuni cates, with married priests, or with secretly penitent priests.

Anselm also interceded with monastic superiors on behalf of monks and advised monks on day-to-day problems.

These letters were most likely omitted from 'L' because of their relative unimportance, their purely local relevance, some criticism Anselm may have made or let slip about Archbishop Lanfranc, or their rather lenient treatment of transgressing priests, which clashed with Anselm's rigor ous attitude of later years.

The two letters sent to Pope Urban (AEpp 126, 127) deal with Bishop Fulk of Beauvais, who had been a monk of Bee.

As abbot, Anselm had consented to Fulk's uncanonical pro motion by appointment by King Philip I of France in 1088.

Having been pardoned by Pope Urban and reinstated as bishop of Beauvais, Fulk found himself unable for various reasons to administer his diocese. In AEp 126 Anselm begs

Urban's help on Fulk's behalf, and in AEp 127 he implores him secretly to relieve Fulk of the burden of episcopal of fice which he is too weak to bear. He ends this letter: 'If it pleases you, I wish and beg that this letter be for your eyes alone'. It seems likely that this embarrassing affair caused the exclusion of these letters from 'L'. A third letter dealing with this problem—written when Anselm was Arch bishop of Canterbury—AEp 193, was also omitted from 'L', probably for the same reason. The deliberate suppression of these letters is confirmed by evidence supplied by the manuscript itself. Not only would there have been enough

Introduction

space for both letters on fol. 54 of 'L', but the folio between the present folios 53 and 54, that is to say, the original fol.

54 probably bearing these two letters, has been removed, possibly on Anselm's instructions. AEp 193, also omitted from 'L', was later added as the first item in 'La'.136

THE 74 LETTERS ANSELM WROTE AS ARCHBISHOP

OF CANTERBURY but which are not to be found in 'L' are too numerous to be examined individually. These letters can be divided into 9 groups; this will account for 57 of them while 17 will be left undiscussed.

1) A large batch of nineteen letters were all sent to the monks of Bee as a community or to individual members of it.137 Some were forwarded via Bee to other individuals, e.g.AEp 159 went to Bishop Gilbert of Evreux, AEp 167 to Countess Ida of Boulogne and AEp 176 to Archbishop Hugh of Lyon, and, for this reason, were preserved in 'V', form ing the Bee tradition of Anselm's letter collection.138 This does not, however, explain why they were not preserved in 'L' at Canterbury, since they were written there. Hav ing collected his letters for some ten years up to that time and having compiled them into 'N' in 1090 and the later

'E,' in 1092/93, Anselm almost certainly kept drafts and copies of the letters he sent to his old monastery following his investiture as archbishop of Canterbury on 6 March 1093.

A review of the subject matter of these letters may pro vide some clue to the reason for their omission from 'L'.

A few (AEpp 156, 159, 160, 164) were written in reply to the widespread gossip about Anselm's cupidity for the arch bishopric. This gossip seems to have been common in and around Bee, in the diocese of Evreux, and throughout the duchy of Normandy. Anselm felt repeatedly forced to pro test his innocence and lack of cupidity when he travelled to England in summer 1092 and to emphasise his surprise at being made archbishop in March 1093 by King William II, by the clergy and people, the bishops and barons of the Anglo-Norman kingdom.139 In their persistent demand that he accept the burden of archiepiscopal office, he perceived

The Letters of St. Anselm the will of God which he was obliged to obey. Despite An selm's assurances a number of the community of Bee were not convinced and refused their consent to his relinquish ing the abbatial office in order to accept the archbishopric of Canterbury (AEpp 150, 155). They pointed out that they were bound to him in obedience and he to them for ever.

Anselm replied that his obedience to God transcended his commitment to the community but, on the other hand, he demanded their obedience in accepting his choice in the election of his successor. Moreover, he expected their con tinued obedience to him for the rest of his life, even after the election of a new abbot. And in fact, the monk Boso, disregarding the authority of his new abbot, obediently fol lowed Anselm's call to Canterbury (AEpp 174, 209).

In order to assure that William of Beaumont was elected abbot of Bee, Anselm suggested him as candidate in AEp

157, which is included in 'L'. Two letters, however, are miss ing from 'L', in which he assures the monks of the duke's

(AEp 163) as well as the king's protection (AEp 164) and re quests the help of his old friend Odo (AEp 163) in the elec tion of his candidate. Did he suppress these in order to conceal the extent of his interference? His behaviour con travenes the Rule of St Benedict, which does not allow for any bond of obedience between an abbot and members of his community after the abbot's departure from the mon astery, and postulates the free election of an abbot by the members of the community. The procedure of electing Wil liam of Beaumont as Anselm's successor, drawn out from August to October 1093, amply demonstrates the commu nity's resentment at Anselm's intrusion in this matter.

Anselm's exclusion of these letters from 'L' could point to the damage he felt his reputation might suffer from their publication or the realisation that his too-frequent disavow als of greed for the archbishopric might raise suspicion that he did indeed protest too much!

Introduction

2) The next group of eight letters, not preserved in 'L', were written to Bishop Osmund of Salisbury and various nuns at monasteries in his diocese: two to Gunhilda, daugh ter of King Harold and nun at Wilton (AEpp 168, 169), two to Abbess Eulalia of Shaftesbury (AEpp 183, 337), one to the nun M., the daughter of Earl Richard Clare (AEp 184), and three to Bishop Osmund (AEpp 171, 190, 195).140

At first sight it is surprising that these letters to nuns were not entered into 'L'. They abound in advice and encourage ment to persevere on the path towards the celestial king dom by leading a good life as a spouse of Christ, abandoning the secular world of sin and misery. Yet Anselm's first let ter to bishop Osmund in spring 1094 might hold the rea son for their exclusion. Anselm intimates to the bishop of Salisbury that pastoral care and canon law ought to have moved him to act on behalf of a certain filia perdita. The lady here referred to is Eadgyth, filia regis Scotorum, the daugh ter of Malcolm, King of Scotland, and Margaret, the kins woman of Edward, of the royal family of England, and neice of Edgar the Atheling.141 Possibly Eadgyth had gone to En gland with her aunt Christina in 1086. In 1093 both were at Wilton, where Christina was a nun. King Malcolm had never intended his daughter to become a nun. In fact, since she was at the marriageable age of about fifteen, she played an important part in his political plans and was to be mar ried to Count Alan Rufus, Lord of Richmond and most powerful baron in the North of England. This marriage plan came to nothing, however, since Alan Rufus became in volved with a nun, Gunhilda, whom he abducted from Wil ton, and he died on 4 August 1093. His brother. Count Alan

Niger, who succeeded not only to his estates but also his matrimonial plans also died soon afterwards.142 Gunhilda seems to have returned to Wilton as she was later remem bered there with honour.143

When King Henry I ascended the throne in 1100 he pro posed marriage to Eadgyth, known as Matilda, as a calcu lated political move. To open the way for the marriage,

The Letters of St. Anselm Anselm had to conduct a complicated procedure designed to prove that Matilda/Eadgyth had never been a nun al though she had worn the veil. For his part in all this An selm was harshly criticised; Eadmer reports that many people maligned Anselm, saying he had not kept 'the path of strict right in this matter'.144 After Matilda's marriage to King Henry, on 11 November 1100, Anselm became her spiritual advisor, and a number of letters bear witness to their subsequent relationship.145 That he had referred to the queen as a filia perdita in the early stages of his episcopate may have been embarrassing for Anselm in later years.

Moreover, the inclusion of this letter and others connected with it might have stirred the sleep of dormant critics and blown about the dust of past scandal. Such considerations would explain the omission of these eight letters from 'L'.

3) The complete collection of Anselm's letters contains fifty-four missives which name King Henry or Queen

Matilda as sender or recipient. Eight of these which bear not only the names of the king or queen but also that of Pope Paschal II are omitted from 'L'.146

King Henry initiated this correspondence in January 1101 by congratulating Pope Paschal on his election (AEp 215) and offering friendship, obedience, and payment of Peter's

Pence as his predecessors had done. In return he, like his predecessors, expected to hold his kingdom unimpaired.

At the end of the same year he requested the pallium for Archbishop Gerard of York (AEp 221). In reply, Paschal praised Henry for the good beginning of his reign and ad monished him to abstain from investitures for the sake of the liberty of the Church (AEp 224). By the authority of Holy

Scripture and the Fathers the pope demonstrated that the right of investing bishops and abbots belonged to the Church and not to kings. He promised to grant the King whatever he asked, provided he gave up investitures (AEp

216).

Introduction

In November 1103, after four royal embassies to Rome had failed to obtain a mitigation of the papal decrees on lay in vestiture and the homage of clerics, the pope resumed di rect relations with the king, congratulating him on the birth of his first-born son and heir, William. Once more he ad monished the king to abandon investitures (AEp 305). A year later Paschal assured Henry of his concern for his salvation

(AEp 348). He informed him that he was detaining his roy al messengers until the approaching lenten synod (1105) so that Henry's queries on homage and investiture might be answered according to the will of God. He chided the king for having sent Anselm into exile once again and for hav ing despoiled him of his possessions. The pope praised the king, however, because the decrees of the Westminster

Council of 1102 were being implemented. A few months later, in January/February 1105, the pope admonished the king yet a third time not to despise the Church, to receive

Anselm back in accordance with the papal decrees, and to allow Anselm to publish them, to protect the Church in her lawful liberty, and to give up his evil advisors, two of whom he was planning to excommunicate (AEp 351). At the same time the pope urged Queen Matilda to persuade her hus band to foreswear investitures and to obey the will of God so that he might not lose what God had given him. He warned her as well about the King's evil advisors and their imminent excommunication (AEp 352). These letters rep resent the entire preserved correspondence between the king/queen and the pope. They are all omitted from 'L'.

Yet other letters in 'U hint at even further items of this cor respondence which have not yet come to light.147

The fact that the pope's correspondence with King Hen ry and Queen Matilda was excluded from 'L' recalls An selm's letter from exile in 1105 to Thidricus. There he explained that he was not sending the scribe the king's let ters to the pope because he did not see the usefulness of preserving them: 'Litteras quas quaeris regis ad papam, non tibi mitto, quia non intelligo utile esse, si serventur' (AEp

379). This letter most likely refers to Thidricus's work.

The Letters of St. Anselm begun about 1105, of collecting the archbishop's letters and copying them into 'L'. Thidricus obediently followed An selm's instruction by omitting from 'L' all but one (AEp 323) of the letters in the correspondence between the king, the queen, and Pope Paschal II.148 This correspondence was not entirely suppressed, however, for six of these eight letters are found in a separate integral collection of 23 letters from Christ Church, Canterbury.149

The pope's cautious negotiations with the king and his lenient treatment of him while Anselm was suffering the hardship of exile for having upheld papal decrees might well explain Anselm's exclusion of this correspondence from 'L'.

4) Also missing from 'L' are the two letters of December 1102 from the pope (AEp 282) and Cardinal John (AEp 284).

Paschal reminded Anselm of the condemnation of simony by the Council of Bari and restated his advice on dealing with married priests and deacons. Cardinal John thought it necessary to encourage Anselm to defend the right of the Church against the king and the false bishops. In view of the second exile which Anselm was suffering because of his defence of the liberty of the Church in England and the propagation of its reform, these letters must have irked him somewhat, which would explain their exclusion from the main collection of his letters.150

5) A small group of three very short letters representing the correspondence between Bishop Lambert of Arras and Anselm is also omitted from 'L'. In the first of these letters

Anselm asked Lambert for safe conduct for a papal cleric through his diocese (AEp 437). In reply Lambert enquired about Anselm's health and sent greetings to Dom Baldwin

(AEp 438). Anselm replied very briefly that he was himself healthy in body but getting steadily weaker (AEp 439).

Anselm's contacts with Flanders, and Arras in particu lar, had been intensive ever since Girard, the moneyer of Arras, and Baldwin had entered the monastery at Bee.151

Introduction

Bishop Lambert, together with the exiled Anselm, was pres ent at the synod of Rome in 1099 when Urban pronounced sentence of excommunication on 'all lay persons who con ferred investitures of churches, all persons accepting such investitures from their hands, and all persons administer ing consecration to anybody accepting such' preferment.152

During his stay in Rome, moreover, Anselm, in the face of some opposition, had helped secure papal promotion for John, the archdeacon of Arras, to the see of Therouanne.

Anselm and the bishop of Arras had become close friends, as Anselm's letter of summer 1103 to Dom Conus, includ ed in 'L', testifies (AEp 285).

The intimate friendship between Anselm and Lambert can be perceived in the fact that after Anselm's death the monks of Christ Church Canterbury sent their late archbishop's personal manuscript of his works to Arras, where it is still kept.153 Despite this close connection, these three short let ters were omitted from 'L', probably because they seemed to be of no moment.

6) Shortly after the Council of Westminster at Whitsun 1108, Anselm wrote to Pope Paschal requesting confirma tion of the Council's decision to divide the diocese of Lin coln to create the new bishopric of Ely (AEp 441). Ely Abbey was to be the see and the monks were to form the bishop's cathedral chapter.154 Paschal's letters to King Henry and Archbishop Anselm granting and confirming the creation of the new see and the nomination of Hervey of Bangor as first bishop are not included in 'LL These four letters (AEpp

457, 458, 459, 460) were all issued at Troia on 21 November 1108. Allowing at least eight weeks for a winter journey from Troia near Foggia in Southern Italy to England, they would not have been delivered until January or February 1109, af ter work on manuscript 'L' had been completed and was in its turn being copied. They might not even have arrived before Anselm's death in April. They were never incorpo rated into any copy of the Anselmian letter collection.155

The Letters of St. Anselm 7) Another group of five letters is missing from 'L'. These are part of a correspondence dealing with the renewed out break of the primatial controversy between Canterbury and York following the promotion of Thomas of Beverley to the see of York in autumn 1108.

The complete correspondence on this issue numbers thir teen letters, eight of which are in 'L'.156 Three of the miss ing letters are from Thomas, the elect of York, and the Chapter of York to Anselm at Canterbury. They dispute the archbishop's right to demand a profession of obedience from the elect before his consecration at the primate's hands

(AEpp 453, 454, 456).157 Another letter (AEp 470) from the king requests Anselm to defer the consecration of the elect of York until Easter 1109, so that he could return to England and himself settle the case between the two metropolitans.158

Because the letters from York demonstrate the local opin ion in this dispute and the king did not side wholehearted ly with Canterbury, it seems that the open and veiled threats to the primatial claim of the archbishop of Canterbury were the reason these letters were omitted from 'L'. In light of this, it is surprising that Anselm's letter to Ranulf of Durham, representing the Canterbury point of view in this controversy (AEp 442), is also missing from the collection.159

In this letter Anselm states that Turgot, the elect of Saint Andrews in Scotland, could not be consecrated by anybody but the archbishop of Canterbury as long as Thomas had not yet received his consecration at Canterbury.

8) Five of the thirteen letters which constitute the cor respondence with Archbishop Gerard of York are omitted from 'L'.160 The first of these (AEp 255), written by Gerard to Anselm after the Council of Westminster 1102, informed

Anselm that clerics were ignoring the statutes of the Council and sought his help against those who evaded the canons through sophistry. Gerard also confessed to a sin of simo ny he had once committed, and demonstrated his zeal for church reform and his personal repentance.

Introduction

After Gerard and the bishops of Norwich and Chester returned from Rome in the summer of 1102, however, the relationship between Anselm and Gerard deteriorated con siderably. The royal envoys delivered a report on their negotiations with Pope Paschal about the mitigation of the decrees forbidding lay investiture which was vehemently contradicted by Anselm's messengers. The Pope refuted the bishops' report as a lie, and excommunicated the royal en voys and anybody who had received investiture or had con secrated those thus invested since August 1102. Gerard precipitated further disagreement when, at the king's com mand, he was prepared to consecrate the recently invest ed bishops of Winchester, Hereford, and Salisbury after Anselm had refused their consecration on the ground of the papal decrees of 1099, confirmed by Paschal in 1101 and 1102.161 Paschal's letter to Gerard in spring 1105 (AEp 354) reprimanded him for his wrongdoing and for not having been a support to Anselm, and it is indeed included in 'L'.

Gerard's reply (AEp 362), not included in 'L', points out that the papal charge was based on false reports and that he had always favoured Anselm's cause. In summer and winter 1105/6, Gerard sent two letters to Anselm inform ing him that, since he had realised the validity of the papal decrees, he and many others would be obedient to the arch bishop (AEp 363) and admitted that he now perceived the danger of lay investiture (AEp 373). He begged Anselm's prayers to assist him in his good intentions. In spring 1108,

Gerard sought Anselm's help at the recommendation of Pope Paschal (AEp 440). These last four letters, demonstrat ing Gerard's conversion to the pope's and Anselm's posi tion on investiture and his renewed harmony with the Pope are missing from 'L'. They and the letter of 1102 all show

Gerard in a favourable light.

The remaining seven letters of this correspondence, in cluded in 'L', present a negative image of Archbishop

Gerard of York as a wicked, bickering, and obstinate man.

Only one letter (AEp 386) somewhat mitigates this picture:

The Letters of St. Anselm together with other bishops, Gerard beseeched Anselm late in 1105 to return to England and promised him their help.

It would appear that Anselm omitted this correspondence with Gerard, his ecclesiastical opponent in the investiture dispute, even though its inclusion might have improved the bad impression conveyed by the other letters from Gerard retained in 'L'. This supports the contention that Anselm intentionally omitted these letters. No doubt the injury in flicted by Gerard's behaviour and actions during the con troversy still rankled.

9) Three more omitted letters level harsh criticism at An selm for his prolonged absence from the see of Canterbury and the Church in England during his second exile from December 1103 to September 1106.162 A member of the com munity of Christ Church Canterbury, possibly Prior Ernulf himself, informed the Archbishop that evil had increased because of his long absence from England (AEp 310). He declared Anselm's absence unbearable and his presence es sential to any improvement. He entreated him urgently to return to England to resume his duties. Another anonymous person judged the long-drawn-out quarrel between King

Henry and Archbishop Anselm as nothing but the illusion of diabolic tricks and complained that it was causing the destruction of the whole Church of the English. He blamed all England's misery on Anselm's failure to return (AEp 365).

Moreover, in a long poem, Gilbert Crispin, abbot of West minster and Anselm's friend, displayed to the absent arch bishop the evils which had invaded the Church of England because of the pastor's absence and beseeched Anselm to return to his flock (AEp 366). Apart from these three voices, many people did not understand the reason for Anselm's refusal to return to England. Even after the agreement of L'Aigle (21 July 1105) Anselm delayed his return because he had not yet received the pope's endorsement to the com promise agreed on there, nor his explicit permission to ab solve excommunicated persons and to associate with them,

Introduction

even though he was aware that the English churches were suffering hardship because of his absence. In their ignorance of the dealings between the pope, the king and the arch bishop, a number of Anselm's friends and episcopal col leagues (AEpp 386, 387) and many other people criticised the absent archbishop and informed him that his absence was causing more evil than good.163 Since in Anselm's eyes this criticism was unjustified, it would appear that he ex cluded these letters in order not to mar the image of him self which he wanted to convey and preserve.

This survey of letters omitted from 'L' has covered the contents of sixty-nine of the missing eighty-six letters.164

Why did Anselm omit certain letters from the final edition of his letter collection in 'L'? Apart from those left out be cause of their triviality or lack of general interest, these omis sions on the one hand suggest that everything was suppressed which might have caused embarrassment (criti cism of Lanfranc, the case of Bishop Fulk of Beauvais,

Anselm's part in arranging the king's marriage with Eadgyth/Matilda) or revive criticism of Anselm's supposed cupidity for the wealthy archbishopric or of his long ab sences from England. In addition, letters which might have challenged Anselm's claim to be the sole advocate of the reform and freedom of the Church (not allowing any cred it to Henry I or Archbishop Gerard) and the mighty defender of the primatial claim of Canterbury were also omitted.

On the other hand, in the compilation of the last edition of his letters Anselm seems to have wished to create a com pendium of his thought on a great variety of spiritual mat ters as well as the theories underlying his disagreements with the kings of the Anglo-Norman realm on the issues of usus atque leges and lay investiture.

Even more important, the letter collection displays An selm as a faithful monk and ardent soldier of Christ who devoted his life totally to God and his service. He appears as a zealous labourer, creating a loving and truly Christian

The Letters of St. Anselm community of monks, and as an active reformer of the Church of God in unity with the pope and in agreement with papal ordinances. Thus he set the example of the im peccable Christian prelate whose faultless public conduct was to serve as a model and a precedent for others to act in the same way. The image of his behaviour was intended to create binding customs and eventually good laws. An selm's letter collection was to be a manual of examples for his own day and for the future.

Therefore manuscript 'U containing this letter collection is a deliberate monument to Anselm's righteousness and firm demeanour as a churchman vigorously pursuing the demand for libertas et reformatio ecclesiae and defending the Church of God resolutely in the face of threats and isola tion as well as personal suffering and disadvantage. This survey of the letters omitted from this manuscript would make it appear that Anselm took great care to suppress any correspondence which would have damaged the picture of himself which he intended for posterity.

Introduction: Notes

NOTES TO INTRODUCTION

1. See VA 3-11; Rule I, 1-68; B. Secret, 'Saint Anselme, Bourguignon d'Aoste', Spicilegium Beccense I: 561-566; Southern, Anselm, 3-12; see also Select Bibliography below.

2. The Letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. and transl. by H. Clover and M. Gibson (Oxford, 1979); M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bee

(Oxford, 1978).

3. Herluin, see S.N. Vaughn, The Abbey of Bee and the Anglo-Norman State 1034-1136 (Woodbridge, 1981) 9-21, 67-86; A. Poree, Histoirede

L'Abbaye du Bee, 2 vols (Evreux, 1901) vol. I: 30-45 and passim; C.

Harper-Bill, Herluin, Abbot of Bee and his Biographer, Religious Motiva tion (Oxford, 1978) 15-25.

4. D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (London, 1964).

5. Among those who studied at Bee when Lanfranc and Anselm taught at the school were Pope Alexander II, Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, Guitmond, archbishop of Aversa, William Bona Anima, archbishop of Rouen, Ivo, bishop of Chartres, Ernost, Gundulf, and Ernulf, bishops of Rochester, Paul, abbot of St Albans, William of Merseburg, Richard and Geoffrey, bishops of Evreux, William, abbot of Cormeilles, Ralph, abbot of Battle, Richard, Michael, and Vincent, abbots of Preaux, Robert, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel,

Nicholas, prior of Rochester, Hamelin, prior of St Albans, John, ab bot of Telese and cardinal bishop of Tusculum, Fulk, bishop of Beau vais, Richard, bishop of Ely, Richard, abbot of St Wandrille, Elmer, prior of Christchurch Canterbury, Ralph d'Escures, bishop of Roch ester and then archbishop of Canterbury. See S.N. Vaughn, The Ab bey of Bee and the Anglo-Norman State 1034-1136, 148-49; the most complete list is in T. Maze, 'L'Abbaye du Bee au XI Siecle', in La

Normandie Benedictine au temps de Guillaume le Conquerant (Lille, 1967) 234; see also A.J. Macdonald, Lanfranc (London2, 1944) 26, and A.

Poree, Histoire de L'Abbaye du Bee, I: 102.

6. See the Prologue of the Monologion in AOO I, p. 7; Prooemium of the Proslogion in AOO I: 93; Praefatio of Cur Deus Homo in AOO II, 42;

Also AOO, pp. 40*-63* and 132*-203*.

7. F.S. Schmitt, 'Die wissenschaftliche Methode Anselms in Cur Deus Homo', in Spicilegium Beccense II: 349-70.

8. For a careful analysis of these works see J. Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of Saint Anselm (Minneapolis, 1972) 67-89; 187-212.

9. HN 104-110, AEpp 72, 77, 83; AOO 11:177-219; R. Heinzmann, 'An selm von Canterbury', in Klassiker der Theologie (Miinchen, 1981)

163-180.

10. VA 44-45 and AEp 52.

11. Anselm went to England to inspect the English dependencies of Bee in 1080/81 (AEp 90), again in mid-lent to shortly after Whitsun 1086

(AEp 118) and from September 1092 to 6 March 1093, when he was made archbishop of Canterbury (AEp 147).

The Letters of St. Anselm 12. 'Nomina Monachorum Becci', in M. Rule, I, 394-396 and A. Poree,

Histoire de L'Abbaye du Bee, I, 629-645.

13. HN 29-30.

14. HN 31-37, AEp 148 and also AEpp 149, 150, 151, 156.

15. HN 41-43, AEp 148; AEpp 156, 157, 159.

16. HN 47-52.

17. HN 10, see below, p. 22; for the development in the Norman duchy before the conquest of England, see D. Bates, Normandy before 1066

(London, 1982).

18. HN 52-67.

19. HN 79-87.

20. For the stand Anselm's episcopal colleagues took in the four major issues of Anselm's pontificate, see W. Frohlich, 'Die bischoflichen

Kollegen Erzbischof Anselms von Canterbury', in Analecta Anselmiana I (1969) 223-267 and 2 (1970) 117-168; and an enlarged version of these articles (Miinchen, 1971); F. Barlow, English Church, 54-103,

268-310 and passim; W. Frohlich, 'Anselm and the bishops of the province of Canterbury', Spicilegium Beccense II: 125-145.

21. See the itinerary, below p. 340. For Anselm's relationship with Hugh, Archbishop of Lyon, see AEp 100.

22. HN 118-187.

23. HN 114.

24. Reg 549.

25. William de Warelwast went to Rome, late in 1100, hoping to return for Easter 1101, but he was delayed till September (HN 120, AEpp

214, 215, 216); Archbishop Gerard of York and bishops Herbert Losinga of Norwich and Robert of Chester, together with the monks

Baldwin and Alexander, went to Rome late 1101 or early 1102; they were in Rome for Easter and returned in August (HN 132-138, AEpp

222, 224, 226); Anselm sent a messenger in October/November 1102 to clarify the conflicting reports of the bishops and monks (HN 139,

146-47, AEpp 281, 282).

26. HN 148; for Anselm's itinerary see below p. 341.

27. AEp 353; see S. Vaughn, 'Robert of Meulan and Raison d'Etat in the Anglo-Norman State, 1093-1118', in Albion 10 (1979) 352-373; idem.,

Anselm of Bee and Robert of Meulan, The hinocence of the Dove and the Wisdom of the Serpent (Berkeley, California, 1987).

28. HN 164-167.

29. HN 165-168, AEpp 364, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 376, 377, 378, 388, 389, 390, 396, 397, 430.

30. AEpp 373, 386, 387; HN 171-75.

31. AEp 397;HN 186-87, HC 14. The presence of the above-mentioned bishops at the meeting of the curia regis at Westminster in early Au gust 1107 can be inferred from a synopsis of royal charters, Reg 825,

826, 827, 828, 831, 832.

32. See A. Hofmeister, 'Das Wormser Konkordat', in Festschrift D. Schafer (1915, reprinted Darmstadt 1979), and H. Hoffman, 'Ivo von Chartres und die Losing des Investiturproblems', Deutsches Archiv 15 (1959)

393-440.

Introduction: Notes

33. HN141-144;HN 193-195; CS 643-705; see also Barlow, English Church 121-128 and passim, 43, 302, 129; C.N.L. Brooke, 'The Gregorian Re form in Action: Clerical Marriage in England', Cambridge Historical

Journal 12 (1956) 1-12; W. Frohlich, 'Ubi unus clericus et Aelfgyva...Zur Zolibatspraxis im anglo-normannischen England', in Liber ad Magistrumfiir J. Sporl (Munich, 1964) 53-61. See also note 51 below.

34. HN 42-43, 186-87; HC 1-33; see also Barlow, English Church, 31-45, M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bee, 116-131, 231-237, Southern, Anselm

132-142.

35. HN 73-77, AEpp 198, 201, 202, 207, 277, 278, 426, 428, 429, 435.

36. See Southern, Anselm 132-135; Barlow, English Church, 29-46.

37. Early in 1101, Guy, archbishop of Vienne, visited England as papal legate (HN 126); in September 1101 (AEp 214) Anselm begged Pope

Paschal to restore the ancient custom of papal legation to the church of Canterbury; on 15 April 1102, the pope restored papal legatine power over England to Anselm personally (AEp 222).

38. HN 199-206; HC 15-33; AEpp 443, 444, 445, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 462, 464, 465, 467, 470, 471, 472.

39. Anselm invited Thomas to come to Canterbury to receive his con secration on 6 September (AEp 443), 27 September (AEp 445) and 8 November 1108 (AEp 455).

40. This summary sketch is based on the studies of A. Fliche, La Reforme gregorienne, 3 vols. (Louvain-Paris, 1923-37); idem, La Querelle des in vestitures (Paris, 1946); G. Kallen, Der Investiturstreit als Katnpf zwischen germanischem und romanischem Denken (Koln, 1937); G. Tellenbach,

Libertas. Kirche und Weltordnung im Zeitalter des Investiturstreits (Stutt gart, 1936), English translation by R.F. Bennet, Church, State and Christian Society (Oxford, 1940); N.F. Cantor, Church, Kingship and Lay Investiture in England 1089-1135 (Princeton, 1958) 6-9; K.F. Mor rison, Imperial Lives and Letters of the Eleventh Century, Records of Civilization Sources and Studies, 67 (New York: Columbia UP, 1962)

3-42; W. Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (London, 1955).

41. See AEpp 211, 258, 264, 268, 328.

42. F. Kern, Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht (1915), English trans lation by S.B. Chrimes, Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages (Oxford,

1950).

43. P.E. Schramm, Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio, 2 vols (1929); G. Barraclough. The Medieval Empire, Idea and Reality (London: The histori cal association, 1959).

44. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent (Oxford, 1971); U. Stutz, Die Eigenkirche als Element des mittelalterlich-germanischen Kirchenrechtes (Berlin, 1895), English trans lation by G. Barraclough, 'The Proprietary Church as an Element of Medieval Germanic Ecclesiastical Law', in Studies in Medieval His tory, ed. G. Barraclough (Oxford, 1948) vol. 2:35-70.

The Letters of St. Anselm 45. Gesta OAdonis imperatoris, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, IV: 317.

46. K. Hallinger, Gorze-Kluny, Studien zu den monastischen Lebensformen und Gegensdtzen im Hochmittelalter, Studia Anselmiana 32-35 (Rome,

1950/51); H.E.J. Cowdrey, The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform (Ox ford, 1970); and Cluny, 'Beitrage zu Gestalt und Wirkung der cluniazensischen Reform', ed. H. Richter, Wege der Forschung, vol. 241

(Darmstadt, 1975).

47. It is collected in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Libelli de lite, 3 vols.

(reprinted Munich, 1956/57); C. Mirbt, Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII (Leipzig, 1894); I.S. Robinson, Authority and Resistance in the Investiture Contest (New York: Manchester UP, 1978); K. Pellens,

Die Texte des Normannischen Anonymus (Wiesbaden, 1966); idem., Das Kirchendenken des Normannischen Anonymous (Wiesbaden, 1973).

48. Following Lk 22:35-38, Pope Gelasius I (492-496) wrote to Emperor Anastasius I (491-518): 'Duo sunt . . . quibus principaliter his mundus regitur: auctoritas sacra Pontificum, et regalis potestas', (there are two . . . through whom this world is mainly governed: the holy authority of the pope and royal power) Migne, Patrologia Latina 59:190

(Ep 12). The concept that pope and emperor were joint leaders of the corpus Christianorum was reiterated under Leo III (795-816); see the mosaic in the refectory in the Latreran palace. For the develop ment of the concept, see L. Knabe, Die gelasianische Zweigewaltentheorie bis zum Ende des Investiturestreites (Berlin, 1936).

49. HN 36-37.

50. F. Barlow, The English Church 1066-1154 (London, 1979) 29-103.

51. The Norman ecclesiastical councils of 1046, 1047, 1054/5, 1063, 1064 and 1066, met at the command and under the supervision of the duke: see William of Poitiers, Histoire de Guillaume le Conguerant, ed.

R. Foreville (Paris, 1952) 124; R. Foreville, 'The Synod of the Prov ince of Rouen in the 11th and 12th centuries', in Church Government

(Cambridge, 1976) 19-39; K. Schnith, 'Die englischen Reichskonzilien 1070-1086', in 'Spiegel der anglonormannischen Geschichtsschreibung', Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 13 (1980) 183-197. D.C.

Douglas, William the Conqueror (London, 1964) 105-132. For the normanisation of England, see Proceedings of the Battle Conferences, ed. by R.A. Brown, since 1978 annually.

52. HN 9.

53. The sees translated were: from Wells to Bath in 1090; from Lichfield to Chester in 1073, from there to Coventry in 1087; from Selsey to Chichester in 1075; from Crediton to Exeter in 1050; from Dorchester to Lincoln in 1072; from Elmham to Thetford in 1075, from there to Norwich in 1094/95; in 1058 Ramsbury was united with Sherborne, and in 1078 translated from there to Old Sarum, and in 1218 moved again to Salisbury.

54. New cathedrals were built at Canterbury, Bath, Chichester, Durham, Norwich, Lincoln, London, Rochester, Salisbury, Winchester,

Worcester, and York.

55. HN 10, English translation by G. Bosanquet, 10.

Introduction: Notes

56. HN 36-37.

57. The study of the medieval letter and letter collections has been greatly advanced by B. Schmeidler and C. Erdmann. What follows is a sum mary of the results of their research: B. Schmeidler, iiber Briefsammlungen des friihen Mittelalters in Deutschland und ihre kritische

Verwertung, Vetenkaps-Societeten i Lund (Arsbok, 1926) 1-27; idem., 'Die Briefsammlung Froumunds von Tegernsee. Bemerkungen zur

Beschaffenheit friihmittelalterlicher Briefsammlungen iiberhaupt', Historisches Jahrbuch 62-69 (1949-49) 220-238; C. Erdmann, Studien zur

Briefliteratur Deutschlands im elften Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1938); idem., 'Briefsammlungen', in Wattenbach-Holtzmann, Deutschlands

Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, part 2, newly published by F.J.

Schmale (Darmstadt, 1967) 415-442. The work of these scholars en couraged others whose contributions are summarized by Giles Con stable, ed.. The Letters of Peter the Venerable, Harvard Historical Studies

78 (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1967) vol. II: 1-12; H.E.J. Cowdrey, ed., trans.. The Epistolae Vagantes of Pope Gregory VII, (Oxford, 1972) xxiixxiii; and F. Behrends, ed., trans., The Letters and Poems of Fulbert of Chartres (Oxford, 1976) xxxvii-xxxviii, G. Constable, 'Letters and Letter-Collections', in Typologie des Sources du Moyen Age occidental

(Turnhout, 1976).

58. Outstanding letter writers of the Carolingian era were: Aldheim of Malmesbury (640-709), Boniface (672/75-754), Lul of Mainz (705-786),

Alcuin (730-804), Agobard of Lyon (769-840), Einhard (770-840), Hrabanus Maurus (780-856), Lupus of Ferrieres (805-862), and Hincmar of Rheims (806-882).

59. R. Klibansky, 'Peter Abailard and Bernhard of Clairvaux: A Letter by Abailard', in Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 5 1961) 1; there is no complete bibliography of medieval letter collections, but a sum mary list of over two hundred, from the entire Middle Ages, is giv en in H. Oesterley, Wegiveiser durch die Literatur der

Urkundensammlungen (Berlin, 1885-86) I: 19-45.

60. A few of the great many medieval letter collections that have sur vived: Fulbert of Chartres (960-1028), Berengar of Tours (1010-1088),

Ivo of Chartres (1040-1116), Geoffrey of Vedome (1093-1132), Hildebert of Laverdin (1056-1134), Abbo of Fleury (945-1004), Peter Abaelard (1079-1142), Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), Gerbert of Aurillac/Rheims (940/50-1003), Marbod of Rennes (1035-1123), Pe ter the Venerable (1092/94-1156), Peter of Blois (1130-1204), Ralph

Tortaritus (1063-1114), Froumund of Tegernsee (956-1008), Nothker Labeo of St Gallen (950-1022), Bern of Reichenau (+1048), the anony mous letter collection of Worms (about 1030-45), Meinhard of Bamberg (+1088), the letter collection of Hildesheim (about 1065-85),

Walo of St Arnulf, near Metz (writing about 1073-74), Epistolae rhetoricae of Regensburg (about 1085), Emperor Henry IV (1054-1106),

Gerhoh of Reichersberg (1093/4-1169), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), Rather of Verona (890-974), Peter Damian (1007-1072),

Petrus de Vinea ( + 1249), Leo IX (1048-54), Alexander II (1061-73),

The Letters of St. Anselm Gregory VII (1073-85), Urban II (1088-99), Lanfranc (1005-89), An selm (1033/4-1109), Herbert de Losinga of Norwich (c. 1056/9-1119)

AEp 254, John of Salisbury (1115-80), Arnulf of Lisieux (+1184), Gil bert Foliot ( + 1187).

61. J.D. Loughlin, Saint Anselm as Letter Writer (Washington, 1967) 51-66.

62. F. Behrends, Letters ofFulbert of Chartres (Oxford, 1976) xxxvii-xxxviii.

63. AEpp 2,10 and passim.

64. AEpp 1, 2, 10, 6, 7, 10, 1 and passim.

65. AEp 2, line 71; AEp 37; for references to epistolary brevity and mo dus epistolaris brevitatis, see the works of Alcuin, cited by L. Wallach,

Alcuin and Charlemagne, Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 32 (Itha ca, 1959) 54-55.

66. See AEp 359 and also J.D. Loughlin, Saint Anselm as Letter Writer, 62.

67. F. Behrends, Letters of Fulbert of Chartres, xxxviii; for Anselm's ob servance of epistolary conventions, see J.D. Loughlin, Saint Anselm as Letter Writer, 18-153.

68. The innovator of the ars dictandi was Alberich of Montecassino ( + 1105), a contemporary of Gregory VII. See C. Erdmann, 'Brief sammlungen' in Wattenbuch-Holtzmann, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, II, 435.

69. MS N = London British Library, MS Cotton Nero A. VII MS E = Cambridge Corpus Christi College, MS 135

MS V = Paris Bibliotheque Nationale, MS Latin 14762 MS L = London Lambeth Palace, MS 59 MS P = Paris Bibliotheque Nationale, MS Latin 2478

MS C = London British Library, MS Cotton Claudius A. XI MS M = London Lambeth Palace, MS 224 = William of Malmes bury's autograph MS F = London British Library, MS Roayl 5.F.IX MS U = Cambridge University Library, MS Ed. IX. 5

MS B = Cambridge Corpus Christi College, MS 299 There is description of these manuscripts in AOO 213*-225*.

70. The relationship and dating of the manuscripts has been established by F.S. Schmitt, 'Zur Entstehung der handschriftlichen Briefsammlungen', in Revue Benedictine 48 (1936) 300-317, now in AOO 154*-171*; and idem., 'Die Chronologie der Briefe., in Revue Benedictine 64 (1954)

176-207, now in AOO 172*-203*, and idem., 'Die unter Anselm veranstaltete Ausgabe seiner Werke und Briefe: die Codices Bodley 271 und Lambeth 59', in Scriptorium 9 (1955) 64-75, now in AOO

226*-239*. Schmitt's dating has been criticized by R.W. Southern, Anselm 67, footnote 2; 238, footnote 37. Schmitt's reply is in AOO

239*, footnote 35.

71. Fols. 41/r/-112/v/.

72. See below, footnote 77.

73. AEpp 132, 134, 135, 145, 146.

74. Maurice was a monk of Bee (Bee profession list, no. 73: see M. Rule, 394) and one of Anselm's pupils. He spent some years training at Christ Church, Canterbury, during the years 1073-1077. While at Canterbury Anselm sent him AEpp 42, 43, 47, 60, 64, 69, 74, 79.

Introduction: Notes

75. See H. Farmer, 'William of Malmesbury's Life and Works', in Jour nal of Ecclesiastical History 12 (1962) 39-54; N.R. Ker, 'William of Malmesbury's handwriting', English Historical Review 59 (1944)

371-376; R.M. Thomson, 'The Reading of William of Malmesbury', in Revue Benedictine 85 (1975) 362-402; and idem., 'The Reading of Wil liam of Malmesbury: further additions and Reflections', in Revue

Benedictine 89 (1979) 313-324; now collected and enlarged: idem, Wil liam of Malmesbury (Woodbridge, 1987).

76. Lanfranci Epistolae 18 and 19, in The Letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. and trans. by H. Clover and M. Gibson (Oxford, 1979)

96-101.

77. N. fol. 41/v/: 'Incipit liber Epistolarum Domini Anselmi Abbatis'; and at the bottom of fol. 94/r/: 'Hactenus continentur epistole domni

Anselmi abbatis, quas fecit donee prior Beccensis fuit. Quae vero iam deinceps sequuntur, egit postquam abbatis nomen et officium suscepit.'

78. AEp 104: '. . .aegritudo, quam nuper habui'.

79. For the Itinerary of Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury, see below p. 335.

80. A number of letters in Anselm's collection, e.g. AEpp 66, 72, 74 and 76, give information about the busy exchange of. manuscripts between the monasteries of Bee and Christ Church, Canterbury. In such a context it would seem quite logical that the collection of Lanfranc's letters was sent to his old monastery to be copied there. To this copy seems to have been added the first collection of Anselm's letters, as the facts described above as well as the interrelation show. See also Clover-Gibson, The Letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury,

10-16 and 26.

81. Arras Bibliotheque Municipale, MS 455; Paris Bibliotheque Nationale, MS Latin 13413; on the date of these manuscripts see AOO I,

214* and 221*.

82. N, fols 64/r/-94/v/: N 34 = AEp 41; N 35 = AEp 40; N 36 = AEp 38; N 37 = AEp 39; N 38 = AEp 66; N 39 = AEp 45; N 41 = AEp 61;

N 44 = AEp 68; N 45 = AEp 46; N 46 = AEp 26; N 47 = AEp 59; N 48 = AEp 27; N 53 = AEp 71; N 54 = AEp 57; N 55 = AEp 76;

N 57 = AEp 67; N 58 = AEp 37; N 59 = AEp 78; N 60 = AEp 53; N 61 = AEp 80; N 62 = AEp 81; N 64 = AEp 83; N 65 = AEp 84;

N 66 = AEp 85; N 70 = AEp 89.

83. AEp 147 = letter 114 in 'E': 'nondum vobis possum aliquid mandare de utilitate nostri itineris in Angliam, quantum pertinet ad nostram ecclesiam. Differt enim adhuc rex respondere petitioni nostrae, quamvis ipse et alii principes Angliae mihi nimis ultra mensuram meam amorem et honorem exhibeat.... Mittite mihi Orationem ad sanctum Nicolaum quam feci, et Epistolam quam contra dicta Roscelini facere incoavi, et si quas aliis nostris epistolis habet domnus

Mauritius, quae non misit.' For the missing letters, see above, note 74.

84. These five letters are AEpp 42, 43, 47, 74, 79.

The Letters of St. Anselm / 85. See below.

86. M.R. James, Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace, part I (Cambridge, 1930) 91-92; also AOO I, 234*-239*.

87. M.R. James, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover, (Cambridge, 1903) p. xxx: The hand in which this is written is well-marked and noteworthy. The letters are written prolific of "apices", giving the whole a somewhat "prickly appearance".' M.R. James, Descriptive

Catalogue, p. 91: 1 . . .in the hand characteristic of Christ Church, Canterbury; very finely written'. N.R. Ker confirms James's judge ment, but prefers the latter terminology since the script was not ful ly developed until after Lanfranc's death. See N.R. Ker, English

Manuscripts in the Century after the Norman Conquest (Oxford, 1960) 25-29, p. 26.

88. Cathedral Archives and Library, Canterbury, C 117; for a sample, see N.R. Ker, English Manuscripts, plate 9.

89. A.M. Oakley, 'Christ Church Cathedral Priory, Canterbury, Chartae Antiquae C 115, C 117, a description in type-script: (Canterbury,

1972) 2; see also T.J. Brown, 'Description of the Manuscript', in Canterbury Professions, ed. M. Richter in The Canterbury and York

Society, vol 67, (1973) xxiv-xxxvi. A.M. Oakley's statement con tradicts C.R. Dodwell's comparison in The Canterbury School of Illu mination 1066-1200 (Cambridge, 1954), 6-7: 'Before being consecrated, it was the custom for bishops and abbots to make a profession of canonical obedience to the primate. This was written out by a Christ

Church scribe according to a given formula, and signed by the dig nitary concerned with a cross. By the greatest good fortune, the origi nals of these professions, beginning in the year 1086, and continuing throughout and beyond the twelfth century actually survive in the library of Canterbury Cathedral. They provide an unparalleled se ries of palaeographical documents showing, almost yearly, the de velopment of script at Canterbury. It is on this evidence that the Canterbury manuscripts have been dated in the present work.' See also N.R. Ker, English Manuscripts in the Century after the Norman Con quest (Oxford, 1960) 17-18.

90. Book one contains 131 letters, book two 258 letters.

91. On fol. 180/v/ of 'La', for example, a green symbol in the form of a circle with an intersecting ellipse in the margin marks letter 393 in 'La' = AEp 212. In 'L' we find the same green symbol in the mar gin of fol. 78/v/ between L 158 (= AEp 210) and L 159 (= AEp 213) accompanied by the following instruction: 'Ante isti scribatur epistolam quam in fine habetur quae his incipit Henricus dei gratia rex.

Ad predictum signum.' The same method is used in fol. 160/v/ for La 390 (= AEp 193), on fol. 178/r/ for La 391 (= AEp 411), fol. 179/v/ for La 392 (= AEp 331), fol. 181/v/ for La 394 (= AEp 440) and fol.

182/v/ for La 398 (= AEp 207). Letters in La 399 = AEp 471, fol. 187/r/, La 400 (= AEp 472, fol. 187/r/), La 401 (= AEp 469, fol. 188/v/ and La 402 (= AEp 475, fol. 189/v/) in the second part of 'La' are neither marked by a symbol in 'La' nor by a symbol accompanied by an instruction in 'L'.

Introduction: Notes

92. N.R. Ker, English Manuscripts in the Century after the Norman Con quest, 50-53.

93. F.S. Schmitt first reviewed and published the contents of 'La'. He rearranged the writings into a logical order and entitled them 'Ein neues unvollendetes Werk des hi. Anselm von Canterbury', in Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, 33

(1936) part 3. The main part of 'La' was edited a second time in R.W. Southern and F.S. Schmitt, Memorials of St Anselm, (London,

1969) 333-354. Here again the various items were rearranged in a slightly different sequence from the order in which they appear in 'La'. An English translation of the philosophical fragments is found in J. Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St Anselm (Minneapolis,

1972) 215-242, and a philosophical appreciation in D.P. Henry, The Logic of Saint Anselm (Oxford, 1967) 121-133, 181-221. See also

E.F. Serene, 'Agency and Responsibility in the Lambeth Frag ments', in Anselm Studies 1 (1983) 144-156.

94. Fols. 182/r/-186/v/.

95. Fols. 160/v/-161/r/: La 390 = AEp 193; this letter fills four lines above and six lines below the margin as well as the usual writing area of two columns of 31 lines of fol. 160/v/, and spills five lines right across into the bottom margin of fol. 161/r/.

96. Fols. 161/r/-161/v/: On the varieties of velle, voluntas: 'Est considerandum quia volumus . . . quod non vult earn violari, quod est quarto modo'; Memorials, pp. 334-336.

97. Fols. 161/v/-162/r/: death bed confession 'Letaris quod in fide Chris tiana moreris ...spiritum meum'; Memorials, pp. 353-354.

98. Fols. 162/r/-169/v/: Sermon on the bliss of eternal life: 'Multi ho mines . . .a diabolo precipitati depereunt'; Memorials, pp. 274-288.

This sermon was delivered by Anselm at Cluny in 1099/1100 or be tween 1103 and 1105. Eadmer, Anselm's secretary and biographer, wrote it down and sent it to Cluny at the request of William, a monk.

At the end of a later addition to his work (Memorials, pp. 288-291) Eadmer stated: 'Therefore let anyone who deigns to read this work know that Anselm himself often read and heard it, and commend ed it with his own hand and authority to be read and transcribed for posterity'. See also R.W. Southern, Anselm, 362-364.

99. Fols. 169/v/-171/v/: On kinds of aliquid: 'Quattuor modis . . .quasi sint aliquid'; and on facere: 'Verbum hoc quod est facere . .. alia per absentiam'; Memorials, pp. 336-340.

Fols. 171/v/-174/v/: Dialogue on De potestate: 'Discipulus: Plura sunt . . . Magister: In sequentibus intellegentes'. On the varieties of fa cere: 'Est et alia consideratio ... aliquando bead': Memorials, pp.

341-349.

Fols. 174/v/ -175/r/: Dialogue on different modes of causa: 'Discipu lus: Video plane ... cum potest'; Memorials, pp. 349-351. The last tract is joined to the previous by this rubric: 'Haec ad praedicta per tinent'.

100. 175/r/-177/v/: Two poems in praise of Anselm: 'Haud habiture ...

Vale' and 'Item versus de eodem Praesulis Anselmi quern nuper

The Letters of St. Anselm obisse dolemus ... gloria magna deo. Amen.'; Migne, Patrologia latina, 158:135-137. On the author of these poems, see F.S. Schmitt,

'Ein neues unvollendetes Werk des hi Anselm', p. 6.

101. Fol. 178/r/: Commendatio operis ad Urbanum Papam II: 'Quamvis post apostolos ... iudicio', in AOO II 39-40.

102. Fol. 178/r/: La 391 = AEp 411.

103. Fols. 178/v/-179/r/: Canons of the synods of London of 1102 and 1108, in HN 141-144 and 193-195.

104. Fols. 179/r/-182/r/: Seven letters: La 392 = AEp 331, La 393 = AEp 212, La 394 = AEp 255, La 395 = AEp 202, La 396 = AEp 200, La

397 = AEp 440, La 398 = AEp 207.

105. See endnote 91.

106. Fol. 187/r/: Two letters: La 399 = AEp 471 begins abruptly in the middle of the seventh word <oboedi> entiam. The missing address and words are supplied by an early hand. La 400 = AEp 472.

107. Fols. 187/r/-188//r: Repetition of the tract on the varieties of velle, voluntas: 'Est considerandum ... quod est quarto modo,' see endnote 96. A short paragraph (6 lines) on willing: 'Velle eisdem . . . propter salutem', in Memorials, p. 351.

108. Fol. 188/r/: Repetition of deathbed confession, see endnote 97.

109. Fols. 188/r/-188/v/: La 401 = AEp 469.

110. Fols. 188/v/-189/r/: A draft of a part of De concordia: 'Voluntas equivoce . . . nobis displicet.' in AOO II, 279-282.

111. Fols. 189/r/-189/v/: Anselm's epitaph on Hugh: 'Hie cognoscetis . . . fulgeat in requie.' in Memorials, p. 351.

112. Fol. 189/v/: Statement about the presence of God in the Blessed Sacrament: 'Idem ad interrogationem ... potest ut deus.' in Memori als, pp. 351-352.

113. Fol. 189/v/: A distich: 'Cum te plasmavi .. . redemi.' in Memorials, pp. 351-352.

114. Fol. 189/v/: La 402 = AEp 475.

115. Fols. 189/v/-190/r/: Repetition of the first poem in praise of Anselm; see endnote 100.

116. There is a gap for the initials of the first words of: AEp 472: < A> nselmus., see endnote 106.

On varieties of velle, voluntas: < E > st ..., see endnote 107. Death bed confession: <L>aetaris ..., see endnote 108.

AEp 469; <A>nselmus ..., see endnote 1099..

Draft of de concordia: <V>oluntas ..., see endnote 110.

Epitaph on Hugh: <H>ic .. ., see endnote 111.

Statement about the presence of God: <C>cum ..., see endnote 112.

Distich: <C>um ..., see endnote 113.

AEp 475: <A>nselmus ..., see endnote 114.

Repetition of poem in praise of Anselm: <H>aud ..., see endnote 115.

117. R.W. Southern, St Anselm, p. 67; see also endnote 70.

Introduction: Notes

118. Fol. 190/r/: 'Tu solus turn dis es medicina reis'. See also W. Wattenbach, Das Schriftwesen des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1958) 278-283 and 491-496.

119. Arras Bibliotheque Municipale, MS 484; Cambridge Trinity College, MS B.3.32; London Lambeth, MS 59; Oxford Bodleian, MS Bodley 271; see also M.R. James, Descriptive Catalogue, pp. 28-29.

120. W.G. Searle, 'Christ Church, Canterbury', Proceedings of the Cam bridge Antiquarian Society (1902) 153-169.

121. M.R. James, The Canterbury Psalter (Cambridge, 1935) 2; see also W. Wattenbach, Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter, p. 505.

122. M.R. James, Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover, pp. xxx-xxxi; in the 'Nomina Monachorum Becci', ed. M. Rule (London, 1883)

394, 395, there are three monks of this name. Thidricus is most likely no. 45.

123. He seems to use two types of the capitals of E and M: see e.g. Cam bridge Trinity College, MS B.3.32. fols. 84Ivl and 87/v/; compare these, for example, with Oxford Bodleian, MS Bodley 271, fols.

160/r/ and 166/r/.

124. See fol. 42/r/.

125. AEpp 334 and 379; they are L267 and L312.

126. Thidricus seems to have acknowledged the guiding influence when he inserted 'ab Anselmo editus' into the incipit and explicit rubrics of De veritatis (fols. 36/r/ and 43Ivl, De libertate arbitrii (fols. 43Ivl and 49Ivl), De casu diaboli (fols. 50/r/ and 62Ivl), De sacrificio azimi

(fol. 125/v/), Orationes sive meditationes (fol. 139/r/ of Oxford Bod leian, MS Bodley 271.

127. Thomas was invited to Canterbury for 6 September and 27 Sep tember and 8 November 1108. See AEpp 443, 445, and 455.

128. See HN 119-206, HC 15-31.

129. In 'L', L 367 = AEp 443; L 368 = AEp 444; L 369 = AEp 445; L 376 = AEp 455; L 382 = AEp 464; L 383 = AEp 465;

L 388/La 399 = AEp 471; L 389/La 400 = AEp 472. not in 'L', AEp 453 and AEp 454 are in HC 19-21; AEp 456 and AEp 470 are in HN 204-205.

130. See VA 150-151.

131. See endnote 78; the Concordance to the Works of St Anselm, ed. G.R. Evans (Milwood, New York, 1982) lists another thirty usages of nuper. All these seem to convey the same notion of re cent occurrence.

132. F.S. Schmitt, 'Die echten und unechten Stiicke der Korrespondenz Anselms von Canterbury', Revue Benedictine 65 (1955) 218-227 =

AOO 204*-212*.

133. See e.g. AEpp 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 23, 24, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 52, 53, 57, 58, 60, 61, 65, 73, 77, 80, 83, 85, 87, 88,

97, 100, 109, 113, 118, 121, 132, 138, 147, 148, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 173, 175, 186, 187, 191, 192, 204, 209, 218, 223, 232, 233, 246,

247, 250, 254, 262, 263, 264., 292, 293, 294, 298, 299, 300, 301, 305, 307, 315, 316, 319, 320, 322, 323, 327, 328, 328, 330, 331, 333, 334,

The Letters of St. Anselm 343, 345, 347, 348, 349, 355, 356, 357, 361, 363, 364, 375, 376, 379,

395, 399, 406, 407, 413, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 421, 425, 432, 433, 440, 447, 451, 457, 458, 460.

134. These are AEpp 18, 26, 27, 63, 64, 65, 88, 123, 124, 126, 127, 145, 148, 150, 151, 152, 155, 159, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 172, 173,

174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 183, 184, 190, 195, 204, 205, 208, 209, 215, 216, 224, 225, 226, 239, 282, 284, 304, 305, 310, 337, 348,

351, 352, 362, 363, 365, 366, 367, 373, 398, 407, 437, 438, 439, 442, 453, 454, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 470, 473 and the ten letters from 'La': AEpp 193, 200, 202, 207, 212, 255, 331, 411, 440, 475. See endnotes 91-116 above.

135. AEpp 18, 26, 27, 63, 64, 65, 88, 123, 124, 126, 127, 145.

136. This letter fills four lines above and six lines below the margin as well as the usual writing area of two columns of thirty-one lines on fol. 160/v/ and spills five lines right across into the bottom mar gin of fol. 161/r/.

137. AEpp 148, 150, 151, 152, 155, 163, 165, 166, 173, 174, 178, 179, 205, 209.

138. See AOO 156*-162*.

139. See HN 27-37, and AEpp 156, 158, 159, 160, 164.

140. According to F.S. Schmitt, AEpp 177, 183, 184, 190, 195 form a small local collection preserved on folios 67 and 68 in Cambridge, Trinity

College MS B.I.37. See Schmitt: 'Zur Uberlieferung der Korrespondenz Anselms von Canterbury', Revue Benedictine 43 (1931) 230-238.

AEp 337 is in M and AEpp '168 and 169 in Trier, Stadbibliothek MS 728. See also Andre Wilmart Revue Benedictine 38 (1926) 331-334, endnote 3.

141. ASC 1100.

142. See D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (London, 1964) 267-269, 426.

143. See R.R. Darlington, ed., William of Malmesbury, Vita Wulfstani, Cam den Society, 3rd series, 40 (1928) 34.

144. HN 121, see OVIV 272; M. Chibnall, The World of Ordericus Vitalis (Oxford, 1984) 200.

145. AEpp 252, 243, 246, 288, 296, 317, 320, 321, 323, 346, 347, 384, 385, 395, 400, 406. See also F.S. Schmitt, Revue Benedictine 43 (1931)

231-234.

146. AEpp 215, 216, 221, 224, 305, 348, 351, 352.

147. See, for example, AEpp 315, 318, 323, 368.

148. R.W. Southern, Anselm 67, footnote 2 is of different opinion. He holds that 'there is not the slightest reason to think that this letter

AEp 379 refers to the making of this or any other collection of let ters.' Southern relied merely on palaeographic evidence; see W.

Frohlich, 'The Genesis of Anselm's collection of letters', American Benedictione Review 35 (1984) 250.

149. This is British Library, MS Add. 32091; for a description of the manu script, see Walter Holtzmann, Papsturkunden in England, vol. 1 (Ber lin, 1930/31) 166-167, 221-231. The letters are AEp 216 = Add 5; AEp

224 = Add 10; AEp 305 = Add 16; AEp 348 = Add 17; AEp

Introduction: Notes

351 = Add 18; AEp 352 = Add 19; AEpp 215 and 221 are preserved in Quadripartitus, ed. R. Liebermann (Halle, 1892) 151-152.

150. They are preserved: AEp 282 = M83; AEp 284 = Add 12.

151. See AEpp 14, 15, 23, 124, 151, 164, 223, 283, 339, 349, 367, 371, 377, 378, 390, 397, 430, 438, 462; 86, 180, 248, 249, 298.

152. HN 114. Anselm sent three Paschal letters, AEpp 222, 281, 353, to Lambert. These papal letters to Anselm are in accordance with the decrees of Urban's synod of 1099 and represent Paschal's hard line on investitures. Anselm included them in 'L' as L 162, L 226 and L 287 and sent copies of them to Flanders. They were incorporated into a collection of canonical material of the bishopric of Therouanne in the second half of the twelfth century (letters 11, 12 and 13; Max

Sdralek dealt with the material in Wolfenbiittler Eragmente [Munster, 1891] 55-59). It seems very unlikely that Lambert received more than these three letters. Otherwise they would have been entered into this collection. See also CS vol. I: 658, 660.

153. Arras, Stadtbibliothek MS 484, catalogue nr. 805; see AOO 91*-94*, 213*.

154. AEp 441 = L 370.

155. They are 6210 (AEp 458), 6211 (AEp 459), 6212 (AEp 457), 6213 (AEp 460) in P. Jaffe and S. Lowenfeld, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, vol. I (Leipzig, 1885).

156. AEp 443 = L 367; AEp 444 = L 368; AEp 445 = L 369; AEp 455 = L 376; AEp 464 = L 382; AEp 465 = L 383; AEp 471 = L 388 and again in 'La', L 399; AEp 472 = L 389 and, again in 'La', L 400.

157. They are in HC 19 = AEp 453; 20 = AEp 454; AEp 456 =HN 204.

158. AEp 470 =HN 205.

159. AEp 442 = M 102.

160. AEpp 238, 250, 253, 255, 256, 283, 326, 354, 362, 363, 373, 386, 440.

Those italicized are omitted from 'L'. They are elsewhere preserved:

AEp 255 = La 394; AEpp 362, 363, 373 = Quadripartitus 155-159; AEp 440 = La 397.

161. See AEpp 216, 219, 222, 224, 281.

162. AEpp 310, 365, 366.

163. See HN 162, 167,171; AEpp386, 387.

164. The following letters were not dealt with: AEppl8\, 200, 202, 204, 207, 208, 212, 225, 226, 239, 255, 304, 331, 367, 398, 407, 411, 473

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations of works frequently referred to in the footnotes.

AA Analecta Anselmiana. Frankfurt, 1969AEp Anselmi Epistola AOO Anselmi Opera Omnia, ed. F.S.

Schmitt. Edinburgh 1946-1961.

Stuttgart, [2] 1968 containing the editor's Prolegomena seu Ratio editionis, pages marked with an asterisk *.

ASC Anglo-Saxon Chronicle F. Barlow, The English Church Barlow, English Church 1066-1154. London, 1979.

The Letters of St. Anselm Bee profession-roll in Rule I: 394-396.

Bede, EH Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. B. Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors. Oxford, [2] 1972.

CS Councils and Synods with other docu ments relating to the English Church, I, 871-1204, ed. D. Whitelock, M.

Brett, C.N.L. Brooke. Oxford, 1981.

CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum series. Vienna, 1866-.

EHD II English Historical Documents, ed.

D.C. Douglas, vol. II, 1042-1189.

London, 1961.

EHR English Historial Review.

W. Frohlich, 'Die bischoflichen Kollegen des hi Erzbischofs An selm von Canterbury', AA 1(1969) 223-267; 2 (1970) 117-168.

Frohlich, 'Bischofliche Kollegen'

GC Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa, 16 vols.

Paris, 1856-1899.

Heads The Heads of Religious Houses, En gland and Wales 940-1216, ed. D.

Knowles, C.N.L. Brooke, V.C.

London. Cambridge, 1972.

HC Hugh the Chantor, The History of the Church of York 1066-1127, ed.

C. Johnson. Oxford, 1961.

Abbreviations

HN Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule. London, 1884, Repr.

1965; transl. by G. Bosanquet.

London, 1964.

Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Collec ts, 31 vols. Venice 1757-1798, repr. Graz, 1960.

Mansi Medieval and Renaissance Studies MARS Manuscript Lambeth Palace Li brary 59, London.

MS L The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. M. Chibnall, 6 vols.

Oxford, 1969-1980.

OV Regula monachorum sancti Benedicts Rule of St Benedict RB Regesta Regum AngloNormannorum 1066-1154, Vol I,

1066-1100, ed. H.W.C. Davis and R.J. Whitwell, Oxford, 1913; Vol II, 1100-1135, ed. C. Johnson and H.A. Cronne, Oxford, 1956.

Reg M. Rule, The Eife and Times of St Anselm, 2 vols, London, 1883.

Rule Anselm R.W. Southern, Saint Anselm and Southern, his Biographer, Cambridge, 1963.

H. Tillmann, Die papstlichen Legaten in England bis zur Beendigung der Legation Gualas

(1218), Bonn, 1926.

Tillmann, Legaten

VA Eadmeri Vita Sancti Anselmi, ed.

The Letters of St. Anselm R.W. Southern, Edinburgh ,1962; Oxford, 1972.

To these could be added, Blumenthal, Paschal U.-R., Blumenthal, The Early Councils of Pope Paschal II, 1100-1110, Studies and Texts of the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, vol. 43. Toronto, 1978.

Canterbury Canterbury Professions, ed. M.

Professions Richter, Canterbury and York So ciety, 67 (1973).

Chibnall, Relations M. Chibnall, 'The Relations of St Anselm with the English Depen dencies of the Abbey of Bee 1079-1093', in Spicilegium Beccense.

Paris, 1959. Pp. 521-530.

Douglas, William D.C. Douglas, William the Con queror. London, 1964.

IER Irish Ecclesiastical Records.

Mason, Laymen J.F.A. Mason, 'Saint Anselm's Re lations with Laymen: Selected Letters', Spicilegium Beccense, Paris, 1959. Pp 547-560.

THE LETTERS OF

ANSELM

↑ Back to top