Aelred of Rievaulx

In 1134, a man in his 20s entered Rievaulx, a Cistercian abbey in North Yorkshire. A sentence like this has been written many times in this blog, but it usually refers to a younger son of a family who had no prospects in life other than the church. In this case, however, the young man had already had a significant career that could have lasted his whole lifetime, and he gave it all up. A monk at Rievaulx who knew Aelred, Walter Daniel, wrote a biography of Aelred, giving us more biographical detail than we usually have on anyone from this time period.

Aelred of Rievaulx was born c.1110 in Hexham in Northumberland, one of three sons of a priest named Eilaf. (Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury's prohibition against clerical marriage was very recent.) Although priests still had sons, a 1095 order from the Council of Claremont forbade the sons of priests to become priests (the idea was to prevent inheritance of benefices, since a bishop or higher-ranking prelate should decide where a benefice goes when a priest dies).

He would have been educated at the cathedral school at Durham. We know he spent several years at the court of King David I of Scotland, and was there long enough to rise to the title echonomus, a word related to "economy" and indicating that he was a steward or seneschal, possible the steward of the king's household, managing all of the "below stairs" members of staff. While in this role, Walter Daniel tells us of an incident where a knight harassed him and used a degrading sexual slur. Daniel uses this anecdote as an example of Aelred's capacity for forgiveness, but the incident seems to have made Aelred depressed and disillusioned with court life.

On a mission for David to Thurstan, Archbishop of York, Aelred learned of Rievaulx Abbey, founded only two years earlier by monks from Clairvaux Abbey in northeastern France. Aelred realized that a religious life was his true calling, and joined Rievaulx. A few years later he was part of a delegation to Rome to see Pope Innocent II. The purpose was to present northern England delegates who opposed the election of Henry de Sully as Archbishop of York; although de Sully was an abbot, his main qualification was that he was a nephew of Stephen of Blois, whose seizing of the throne of England caused The Anarchy. Their delegation was successful.

After Rome, Aelred in 1143 was made abbot of Revesby Abbey in Lincolnshire, founded that year as a daughter house of Rievaulx. Not long after, in 1147, he was made abbot of Rievaulx itself. According to his biographer, Aelred "doubled everything" at Rievaulx. The buildings, the members, the resources—all increased under Aelred at what was an already flourishing complex.

Tomorrow, we'll talk more about Aelred's leadership and authorship. See you then.

Anselm's Legacy

One of Anselm's last challenges was dealing with a challenge to his authority, but this time not from a secular source. England had two archbishops, Canterbury and York (seen here in 2023). Traditionally, the Archbishop of Canterbury was the primate of England with authority over the English Church. The Archbishop of York was secondary, but this was not acceptable to many of the men who sat in that seat.

In 1108, the Archbishop of York was Thomas II of York. Thomas refused to profess obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The cathedral chapters of each place supported their archbishops. The lay investiture debate—whether secular lords like the king could determine religious titles—was raging, and it would have been against the church's best interests to appeal to the king for help in resolving their primacy issue.

The question had already been resolved in 1071 when Anselm's predecessor, Lanfranc, and the Archbishop of York, Thomas of Bayeaux, appealed to Pope Alexander II, who sided with Canterbury (although he refused to resolve a different dispute between the two, leaving it to the king's council).

Thomas of York's point was that he had received his pallium directly from Pope Paschal II (he had sent the dean of York Cathedral to Rome to fetch it). He therefore felt he did not owe anything to Canterbury.

An old and ill Anselm, from his sickbed, declared anathema any who failed to recognize the superiority of Canterbury. This was a sign that excommunication was on the table, and Henry stepped in, ordering Thomas to profess obedience to Canterbury. Anselm, hearing this, declared himself content. He died 21 April 1109, and was interred near Lanfranc at Canterbury Cathedral in what is now St. Thomas's Chapel. His current remains are unknown, having been relocated after a fire in the 1170s.

Anselm left a body of writing that is considered some of the sharpest intellectual discussions of Christianity in the Middle Ages. They were copied and spread far and wide, and influenced many including Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham. He also spoke out strongly against slavery, although his declarations did not bring about any changes.

His lifelong battle to separate church authority from lay investiture had an unintended consequence, that put Pope Paschal at odds with Anselm's successor. I'll explain the Pope's problem with England and the next Archbishop of Canterbury tomorrow.

Anselm and Henry Working Together

As mentioned here, the relationship between Archbishop of Canterbury Anselm and King Henry I of England was not completely adversarial. Henry wanted desperately to rule England, even if his elder brother Robert Curthose had a valid claim, and Henry wanted allies. He even apologized in a letter to Anselm (who was on the continent, having been exiled by Henry's other brother, King William II) for being crowned by Bishop Maurice of London, rather than waiting for the archbishop, as was traditional.

Anselm also approved the marriage of Henry to Matilda of Scotland, after convening a council to decide if Matilda, although she had been living in a convent as a nun for many years, had actually become a nun. Anselm helped Henry deal with some of his enemies: he supported Henry deposing Ranulph Flambard, the Bishop of Durham who had been loyal to William II but not to Henry; Anselm also threatened Robert Curthose with excommunication, when Robert (then as Duke of Normandy) wanted to invade England and take the throne from Henry. Anselm was involved in persuading Robert to accept the Treaty of Alton.

There was one crucial item where Anselm and Henry did not see eye-to-eye, and that was the question of authority between church and king. Henry still wanted approval of clerical positions (lay investiture), including that of archbishop. Anselm had to pull out his "big gun" if he was to resolve this: he made clear that Henry was facing excommunication, also sending the message obliquely through Henry's sister, Adela. For Henry, not being seen as a faithful member of the Catholic Church would undermine his attempt to be seen as a "good king" after the corruption of his predecessor.

Henry had to compromise. Henry was willing to leave investing of bishops and priests to the Church, but if those positions held lands, they needed to acknowledge that the lands were held in trust from the king and do him homage as landowners. (Anselm and Pope Paschal both agreed to this, but still hoped to eliminate this homage in the future.) Henry also asked that the excommunication of his advisors (see the first link above) be lifted. This Anselm did himself (though later Paschal criticized him for "overturning" the pope's decision without consulting him.)

Anselm was not satisfied, however, and would not return to Canterbury until the king met with him. Henry traveled to Bec in August 1106. Anselm demanded the return of all lands once belonging to Canterbury that William had confiscated. Henry had taxed married clergy, but after Anselm had forbidden clerical marriage, Henry made up for the loss of revenue by taxing all clergy. Anselm forced Henry to make clergy exempt for three years from tax. These changes were enough to satisfy Anselm, who returned. He lived two more years, attending to the duties of Archbishop of Canterbury.

Before concluding Anselm's life, we are going on a side quest. I (and far more consequential historians) have written much about William the Conqueror's sons Robert, William, and Henry. He had other children, and they also had influence. I want to introduce you Henry's older sister, Adela, who was very likely instrumental in convincing him to accept Anselm's demands. See you tomorrow.

Anselm and Henry I

I have written before of how William II of England died unexpectedly, and how his younger brother Henry quickly assumed control of England in spite of the elder brother Robert's claim (sibling rivalry among princes is especially consequential, but Robert was far away on the First Crusade), and how Henry was accepted by the nobles probably because he offered to undo the corrupt practices of William in his Charter of Liberties.

One of the other benefits of Henry being a very different person from William is that Anselm of Bec was able to resume his position at Canterbury as archbishop. Unfortunately, although Henry asked Anselm back and was going to give him all the states connected to Canterbury, he did ask Anselm to do him homage, and wanted to invest him (again) with the ring and crozier of his station. This would have meant that the king had authority to invest an archbishop, to which Anselm immediately refused. Henry even asked permission for this from Pope Paschal II, but Paschal would not grant it for the same reason that Anselm refused it.

Not everything between Anselm and Henry was hostile. Anselm supported Henry against his brother, Robert Curthose, who asserted a claim to England. Anselm also supported Henry's deposing of the Bishop of Durham, Ranulph (Ralph) Flambard, who was responsible for some of the corruption of William's administration. (Flambard was the first person to be imprisoned in the Tower of London, as well as the first person ever to escape. I told that story here.)

Anselm also supported Henry in his desire to marry Matilda of Scotland (illustration), despite Matilda's status as a nun(!). At a different council, however, Anselm established the Gregorian reforms, prohibiting marriage, concubinage, and drunkenness among clerics. He also regulated clerical dress and condemned the British slave trade. Henry supported Anselm's reforms, but still asserted that he had authority over Anselm himself. Henry dispatched three bishops to Rome to get the pope's approval for his authority, and upon their return claimed that the pope had given it. Anselm decided to travel to Rome himself to verify this, along with William Warelwast whom he had sent to Rome earlier. Upon learning of the king's deception, Pope Paschal excommunicated the three bishops who had lied for Henry.

When word of the pope's actions reached Henry, he sent a message to Anselm, telling him not to return to England. In this second exile, Anselm decided it was time to go on the offensive. He made Henry an offer he dare not refuse. I'll explain tomorrow.

Why God Man?

The early Church fathers struggled to explain exactly how salvation worked; that is, what was the actual way that Christ's death and resurrection achieved atonement for Adam's Original Sin? There were different theories of atonement, but they were not satisfactory for various reasons.

It was Anselm of Bec (also called "of Canterbury" when he became archbishop there) who in the late 11th century provided an explanation of why God had to become a man for salvation in his treatise Cur Deus Homo (literally "Why God Man?"). His explanation came to be called the satisfaction theory of atonement.

Previous theories of atonement suggested that the souls that needed saving were out of reach because satan (who held them in hell) had some kind of right or authority to keep them because of Adam's transgression. This idea made no sense to Anselm; God could not "owe" anything to satan. Anselm's view was likely influenced by the contemporaneous feudal system. In it, loyalty and duty were owed to your lord. Transgressing against your lord was unthinkable, but in those cases where it happened, you owed restitution, the restoration of what has been taken from the lord.

Original Sin, therefore, was not an act that put man in satan's power; it was a transgression against the Lord, and restitution was owed to Him, not satan. We humans owed God a debt of honor. As Anselm writes in Chapter I of Cur Deus Homo:

This is the debt which man and angel owe to God, and no one who pays this debt commits sin; but every one who does not pay it sins. This is justice, or uprightness of will, which makes a being just or upright in heart, that is, in will; and this is the sole and complete debt of honor which we owe to God, and which God requires of us. [link to translation]

Adam had failed in "uprightness of will" and transgressed. Restitution needed to be made.

How was one to do that? Man is inadequate to make restitution to the divine; we did not have that capacity in us. What was needed for divine transgression was divine restitution. For that to happen, a man was needed who was more than a man; hence, the Incarnation.

Through the birth of Jesus, there now existed someone whose divine essence gave him the supererogatory ability to "pay back" to God more than a simple man could. His death is not the only part of the restitution, however. As Aquinas later stresses, the Passion—especially the suffering and scourging he experiences prior to Crucifixion—was especially needed to pay back the honor that was taken from God by Adam and even more.*

Anselm seems to apply this salvation universally, although some later writers suggested that it only applied to some individuals.

Anselm completed this c.1098, while in exile. Why was the Archbishop of Canterbury in exile? Well, England's King William "Rufus" was the reason. William had seized all his lands, and their differences of opinion on lay investiture and the church's independence made England unsafe for Anselm, even though he retained his title. William was about to die in a suspicious hunting accident, however, and Anselm's situation could change. Could. We'll talk about that tomorrow.

*In the film Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), immediately after the 39 lashes, the scene changes and the actor is seen all cleaned up in a radiant white robe with the triumphant strains of the title song playing. This moment reveals him truly as divine. It seems to me the director was familiar with the idea that it was this particular suffering that was the "turning point" in Christ's role in guaranteeing salvation.

Theories of Atonement

Even during all the political troubles that Anselm of Bec was having with William Rufus because of Anselm's role as Archbishop of Canterbury, he was proving himself to be one of the sharpest minds of his century regarding theological writing. The prime example of this is the treatise he called Cur Deus Homo, or "Why God Human?" (sometimes translated for clarity sake as "Why God Became a Man). In it, he finally came up with a satisfactory explanation for the "mechanics" of how Christ's crucifixion and resurrection wiped out the effect of Adam's original sin and provided salvation for all mankind.

The early Church fathers had struggled with the topic of atonement and how it worked theologically. Since Adam, no human being could go to Heaven; they were all trapped in Hell with the Devil/Satan/Lucifer (and those were three different entities who were conflated over time, but I'm not going to get into that).

One idea was the "ransom theory of atonement." Augustine of Hippo explained it thusly:

The Redeemer came and the deceiver was overcome. What did our Redeemer do to our Captor? In payment for us He set the trap, His Cross, with His blood for bait. He [Satan] could indeed shed that blood; but he deserved not to drink it. By shedding the blood of One who was not his debtor, he was forced to release his debtors

The idea was that Satan could hold God's creations as captives and they needed ransoming, suggesting that Satan therefore had "rights" of ownership that had to be satisfied. This understandably bothered some people. Why didn't God just overpower Satan and take His people?

Irenaeus in the 1st century talked about the "recapitulation theory of atonement." In it, Jesus was a second Adam, succeeding where Adam had fallen. So Christ's life is like a "do over" of some kind, and humanity is re-set back to the ability to achieve salvation through free will, not stuck because of Adam's failure. Why didn't God just forgive the original sin, if he was going to forgive it after Christ went through those motions?

There is also the "penal substitution theory." This is a much later development, and promoted by Martin Luther during the Reformation. The penal substitution theory of atonement says that Christ, having voluntarily given himself up as a sacrifice, "took the hit" in place of sinners. This treated Christ as a "whipping boy," which was a profession historically in which a boy would be raised alongside a prince and made to suffer corporal punishment when the prince was a bad boy, because it wasn't appropriate to beat a prince. (It was hoped that the prince, seeing the harsh punishment meted out, would feel bad and reform his ways.) "He died for your sins" is oft quoted in this context, especially by Protestant groups.

Anselm was not comfortable that the ideas of "ransom" or "recapitulation" were proper solutions, and so decided he needed to offer his own explanation. He was influenced by his time, specifically (as Irenaeus and Augustine would not have been) by the by-then-well-developed feudal system. Anselm's solution is called the "satisfaction theory of atonement." I'll explain it tomorrow.

Anselm versus Rufus

The professional relationship between Anselm of Canterbury and King William II of England was as rocky as any similar pairing through England's Middle Ages. The ongoing debate over lay investiture—secular lords appointing priests and bishops—was ripping apart the continent as well, leading to rival popes. Anselm, like those before and after in his position as Archbishop of Canterbury, wanted the clergy to be independent.

Even as Anselm was being invested as archbishop and it seemed he and William had reconciled their differences, William made a move that caused the first big clash. William's father, William the Conqueror, had left him England, but William Senior's original possession of Normandy on the continent went to his elder son, Robert Curthose. William Junior wanted to rule Normandy as well, so planned a takeover. Plans like this required soldiers and supplies, and those required money. The quickest way to raise cash was to tell everyone to give you some.

So William sent to Anselm, asking for £1000. Anselm offered £500. William felt he was owed money for Anselm's new position (something called annates, which maybe we'll go into someday). Anselm decided to pursue his own agenda. He asked William to fill all the vacant church positions and allow Anselm to enforce canon law. William refused. Anselm withdrew any offer of funds, saying "that he [Anselm] disdained to purchase his master's favor as he would a horse or ass." William was said to reply that he didn't want Anselm's money or blessing for the endeavor, because "I hated him before, I hate him now, and shall hate him still more hereafter."

Anselm really wanted to make his appointment official by receiving a pallium from the pope; William had refused Anselm's travel for this purpose earlier. A meeting of nobles and bishops gathered to discuss this. William ordered the bishops not to treat Anselm as their archbishop, and they caved to the king. The nobles, however (many of whom did not approve of William's rule) supported Anselm. Secretly, Anselm asked two men to travel to Pope Urban II and request the pallium. They were Bishop of Exeter William of Warelwast (uncle of Bishop of Exeter Robert Warelwast mentioned here) and Archbishop Gerard of York.

They persuaded Urban to send a papal legate with the pallium. The legate met with the Bishop of Durham, who represented the king (and had argued against allowing Anselm to go get the pallium himself). William agreed that he would support Urban (over Antipope Clement III), in exchange for the right to block papal legates and intercept any papal letters to clerics. This was unacceptable, so William tried to sell the pallium to anyone who would take it and replace Anselm. No one would take it (or the price was too high). He tried to get money from Anselm for the allium; Anselm refused. William then wanted to personally put the pallium on Anselm, but Anselm refused again: this act would suggest that the king had the authority of a pope over the archbishop.

Finally, the pallium was placed on the altar at Canterbury Cathedral, and on 10 June 1095 Anselm placed it on himself (seen above in a 20th century representation by E.M.Wilmot-Buxton).

A few months later, Urban would declare the First Crusade. William continued to deny Anselm's attempts at reform and church independence, and Anselm even had to go into exile. But it was around this time that he wrote the most consequential piece of Christian theology in the Middle Ages, an essay titled Cur Deus Homo. It's time to talk about that.

Anselm Becomes Archbishop

Anselm of Bec was the natural successor to Lanfranc as Archbishop of Canterbury, but King William II "Rufus" left the see vacant so he could appropriate the revenues of its estates to himself. At Christmas 1092, William swore that no one would take the position at Canterbury while he was alive. Anselm decided it was not a good idea to pursue the position in opposition to the king, so he stayed away from England.

A few months later, William fell ill—so seriously ill that he feared that this was a punishment from God for his sinful ways. In order to atone, he summoned Anselm to hear his confession and administer last rites. Anselm was actually back in England, having been begged by the Earl of Chester to help establish a new monastery. (This was a Benedictine monastery dedicated to St. Werburgh; the abbey church is now Chester Cathedral.) William undid some of his horrible acts by releasing captives and promising to rule according to the law. He also nominated Anselm to take the position at Canterbury.

The monks at Canterbury were all for it—they carried him to the church and pushed the crozier into his hands (see the 19th-century illustration of the event)—but Anselm himself claimed advanced age (he was 60) as a reason to deny the position. Also, he was still officially abbot at Bec, and Bec refused to allow him to abandon that position. Negotiators were chosen to arrange the matter. Anselm in August gave William his conditions for assuming the archbishopric.

• William had to return the church lands he had seized
• William needed to accept the Gregorian Reforms
• William needed to listen to Anselm in spiritual matters
• William had to reject Antipope Clement III and support Urban II (William had not yet chosen sides)

William accepted these terms, but a few days later changed his mind and blocked Anselm's appointment. Public pressure made him relent, and he returned all the lands of Canterbury on the day Anselm was invested, 25 September 1093.

Traditionally, to become archbishop meant being given the pallium by the pope, and Anselm wanted to travel to Rome for that purpose to make it official. The Investiture Controversy (see several recent posts) made this dangerous. The Holy Roman Emperor and the pope in Rome had been at odds and were constantly each declaring the other deposed. This also led to the antipope situation mentioned above. William had not yet decided which pope he would support, so was not going to send Anselm to either one. Anselm was invested without a pallium.

So, let's sum up: Anselm was now Archbishop of Canterbury, Canterbury's lands were returned to it, William Rufus had repented and chosen to become a better king, and Rufus and Anselm were now on the same page. One of those statements is inaccurate, and we will be looking at the continued conflicts between Archbishop and King (and whether anyone was the winner) tomorrow.

Anselm of Canterbury

Anselm of Canterbury has been referred to in this blog a few times by one of his other names, Anselm of Bec. He was born 1033/34 in the Upper Burgundy (Italy) region. His parents were both from noble families. His father was a Lombard noble, Gundulph; his mother, Ermenberge, was the granddaughter of Conrad the Peaceful, one-time King of Burgundy. Unfortunately, wars in Burgundy caused partitioning and transferring of territory, and Anselm's parents lost many of their estates.

The loss of political power in the family did not matter to Anselm, who at the age of 15 decided to pursue a religious life. His father opposed this, and Anselm fell ill for a time, perhaps psychosomatically, after which he gave up on education and acted the carefree youth. When Ermenberge passed away, possibly when giving birth to Anselm's sister, Gundulph became obsessively religious himself and entered a monastery when Anselm was 23. Anselm left home with a single attendant and spent the next three years wandering through Burgundy and France.

His wandering drew him to the Benedictine Abbey of Bec, whose abbot was the renowned and learned Lanfranc. When Anselm's father died, the young man asked Lanfranc's advice: return home and use the wealth of the family's remaining estates to provide alms for the poor, or give them up altogether and become a monk? Lanfranc, feeling his advice would be a conflict of interest, sent Anselm to Archbishop Maurilius of Rouen. Maurilius told Anselm to become a novice at Bec. Anselm was 27.

Anselm threw himself into his studies at Bec, and in his first year produced his first of many writings, a fictional discussion of grammar that resolves some of the inconsistencies and paradoxes that arise from Latin nouns and adjectives. It begins:

Student. Concerning (an) expert-in-grammar I ask that you make me certain whether it is a substance or a quality, so that once I know this I will know what I ought to think about other things which in a similar way are spoken of paronymously.
Teacher. First tell me why you are in doubt.
S. Because, apparently, both alternatives—viz., that it is and is not [the one or the other]—can be proved by compelling reasons.
T. Prove them, then.
S. Do not be quick to contradict what I am going to say; but allow me to bring my speech to its conclusion, and then either approve it or improve it.
T. As you wish.

S. The premises

(i) Every/Everything expert-in-grammar is a man,

(ii) Every man is a substance,

[link]

It is heavily influenced by Boethius and his writings on Aristotle.  It is not casual reading for anyone today.

In 1063, when Anselm was 30, William the Conqueror asked Lanfranc to become abbot of a new abbey William built at Caen in Normandy. The monks at Bec elected Anselm to become prior, a lesser role but the person in charge in the absence of an abbot. He maintained a strict Benedictine Rule; after 15 years he was finally named abbot.

Bec attracted students from all over due to its reputation for learning during Anselm's time in charge. He continued to write, and he fought for the abbey's independence from secular influence, as well as from religious influence from people such as the archbishop of Rouen. Bec was enhanced by being granted lands in England after 1066. Anselm would sometimes visit England to check on the abbey's estates, to appear before his secular lord, William, and to visit Lanfranc, who by now was Archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm impressed William, and he was probably by then on a "short list" of candidates for Archbishop of Canterbury to succeed Lanfranc.

When Lanfranc died in 1089, however, William was gone and the throne was held by his son, William II "Rufus." Rufus had other plans. I'll tell you about Anselm's rocky path to archbishop next time.

Matilda's End

Matilda of Tuscany had become a powerful woman with a great deal of influence in northern Italy. She had a big concern, however: she was the last of the House of Canossa, and there was no one to whom to leave her position and possessions. She needed an heir. A daughter born of her first marriage to Godfrey the Hunchback, Beatrice, died within a few weeks. She also wanted allies in her ongoing hostility with Hole Roman Emperor Henry IV, and political marriages were a traditional way to make allies.

In 1089, she married Welf (the illustration is their marriage from a 14th century history by Giovanni Villani), who in 1101 would become Duke of Bavaria. Matilda was in her 40s by now, and Welf was a teenager. Cosmas of Prague in his Chronicle of Bohemians records a letter from Matilda to Welf:

Not for feminine lightness or recklessness, but for the good of all my kingdom, I send you this letter: agreeing to it, you take with it myself and the rule over the whole of Lombardy. I'll give you so many cities, so many castles and noble palaces, so much gold and silver, that you will have a famous name, if you endear yourself to me; do not reproof me for boldness because I first address you with the proposal. It's reason for both male and female to desire a legitimate union, and it makes no difference whether the man or the woman broaches the first line of love, sofar as an indissoluble marriage is sought. Goodbye.

This "letter" is now considered fictional, but it is a clue from a contemporary historian regarding what he thought the motivations would be for the teen to marry Matilda. There were 120 days of wedding festivities. Cosmas also suggests that Welf was reluctant to act the proper husband; whatever the reason, the two separated by the spring of 1095. There was no annulment or divorce, but the two were no longer together. Matilda had another idea for an heir, however.

Around 1099, she turned to her allies in Florence, the Guidi Family, adopting one member of the family, Guido Guerra. He appears in records as adoptivus filius domine comitisse Matilde ("her adoptive son accompanied count Matilda"). Unfortunately for Guido, she donated all her possessions to the Apostolic See at Canossa in 1102. Guido, realizing he had nothing to inherit, left her side. If she had not adopted Guido or made the donation, Welf would have inherited, since there is no record of the marriage being dissolved. She cut them both out of the picture with what is called the Matildine Donation.

That seems to be another story, however. Scholars now believe the Matildine Donation is a faked document from the 1130s, long after her death. The pope did not want Canossa's ownership to go outside of Italy to Bavaria, which it would have done because of the marriage to Welf. So the Church faked the Donation.

In reality, references to the Matildine Donation are only found in religious documents, not in any other secular collection of records. In her later years, Matilda had better relations with Henry IV's heir, Henry V. In May of 1111, Henry V visited her, and from that visit apparently came an inheritance agreement that Henry V would be her heir and all hostilities and penalties that had been imposed upon her by her opposition to Henry IV would be dropped.

Matilda's life became quieter in her final years. Donizo of Canossa, a monk, wrote a history of the House of Canossa, part of it especially focusing on Matilda. She continued to promote the arts and literature, especially religious literature. One work dedicated to her was the Orationes sive meditationes ("Prayers and Meditations") by Anselm of Canterbury.

She died on 24 July 1115, but her prominence in life led to legendary status in death. She became known (erroneously) as the sole benefactor of several churches and monasteries in northern Italy. She can be seen at night at the Savignano Castle, riding a white horse during the full moon. A fountain she asked the pope to bless can get a woman pregnant with a single drink from it. Scholars looking at the Investiture Controversy give her plenty of attention.

Anselm of Canterbury (also known as Anselm of Bec), who dedicated a work to her, was not an ordinary figure. Despite being Italian by birth, he rose to the highest clerical position in England, Archbishop of Canterbury. He also wrote what was probably the most significant work of theology in the history of Roman Catholicism. Let's look at him tomorrow.

Guibert of Nogent

Guibert of Nogent, a Benedictine  was not remarkable in his time, but his extensive writings and autobiography have more recently provided insight into daily life in the Middle Ages.

Born c.1055 to minor nobility, his was a breech birth. His family made an offering to the Virgin Mary the he would be dedicated to a religious life if he survived. Guibert's father (according to his autobiography) was violent man who died while Guibert was still young. Guibert believed his father would have broken the vow and would have tried to get Guibert to become a knight.

At the age of 12, after six years of a strict tutor for the boy, his mother retired to an abbey near saint-Germer-de-Fly. Soon after, Guibert entered the Order of Saint-Germer, studying classical works. The influence of Anselm of Bec inspired him to change his focus to theology.

The first major literary work of his was the Dei gesta per Francos ("God's deeds through the Franks"). It is a more polished version of the anonymous Gesta Francorum. His additions give us more information about the reaction to the Crusade in France.

His autobiography is also patterned after another work, the Confessions of St. Augustine. It is a lengthy work dealing with his youth and upbringing and his life in a monastery. There are references that give us insight into daily life, such as when he denigrates someone for their manner of dress:

But because there are no good things, that do not at times give occasion to some wickedness, when he was one day in a village engaged on some business or other, behold there stood before him a man in a scarlet cloak and silken hose that had the soles cut away in a damnable fashion, with hair effeminately parted in front and sweeping the tops of his shoulders looking more like a lover than a traveller.

Guibert's criticisms tell us something about attitude toward certain fashions. 

He had a skeptical view on saints:

I have indeed seen, and blush to relate, how a common boy, nearly related to a certain most renowned abbot, and squire (it was said) to some knight, died in a village hard by Beauvais .on Good Friday, two days before Easter. Then, for the sake of that sacred day whereon he had died, men began to impute a gratuitous sanctity to the dead boy. When this had been rumoured among the country-folk, all agape for something new, then forthwith oblations and waxen tapers were brought to his tomb by the villagers of all that country round. What need of more words? A monument was built over him, the pot was hedged in with a stone building, and from the very confines of Brittany there came great companies of country-folk, though without admixture of the higher sort. That most wise abbot with his religious monks, seeing this, and being enticed by the multitude of gifts that were brought, suffered the fabrication of false miracles. [Treatise on Relics]

...and on saints' relics:

Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, eagerly desired the body of St Exuperius, his predecessor, who was honoured with special worship in the town of Corbeil. He paid, therefore, the sum of one hundred pounds to the sacristan of the church which possessed these relics that he might take them for himself. But the sacristan cunningly dug up the bones of a peasant named Exuperius and brought them to the Bishop. The Bishop, not content with assertion, exacted from him an oath that these bones brought were those of Saint Exuperius. "I swear," replied the man, "that these are the bones of Exuperius: as to his sanctity I cannot swear, since many earn the title of saints are far indeed from holiness." [Treatise on Relics]

He died in 1124.

Speaking of deeds of the Franks, there should be some interesting items to glean from the aforementioned Gesta Francorum. Stay tuned.

The Problems of Pope Paschal

Pope Paschal II speaking to Anselm of Canterbury

On 13 August 1099, a Cluniac monk from northwest of Rome named Ranierius was named Pope Paschal II, following Pope Urban II. He sat the chair of Peter until 21 January 1118—a long stretch compared to many popes.

Like other popes, he had to deal with the controversy over investiture; in his case, specifically, he weighed in on England's trouble between King Henry I and Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury, finding the same solution later settled in the Concordat of Worms: agree that the pope names clergy and confers religious titles, but the king of England can confer secular titles and grant land.

As for the relations between Paschal and the Holy Roman Emperor: Henry V proved to be more difficult in some ways than his father had been, even marching an army into Italy against Paschal over the Investiture Controversy. Paschal had to agree to give up all properties and possessions it had received since the days of Charlemagne. Only for this would Henry give up his "rights" of investiture.  The agreement was to take place in February 1111, but the Romans objected very strongly to a German army trying to change the status quo: they revolted, and Henry retreated, but not before capturing Paschal and 16 cardinals! The pope was imprisoned for two months; a rescue mission by Robert I of Capua with 300 men failed. Paschal was released after agreeing to allow Henry to invest priests and bishops. (Months later, with Henry safely back across the alps, a council and Paschal would excommunicate him for his actions.)

Paschal also had the opportunity during his reign to unite the Catholic (Western) and Orthodox (Eastern) churches; Emperor Alexios I was willing. Paschal, however, laid down the condition that the pope be seen as the ultimate ruler of all churches throughout the world, and this the Patriarch of Constantinople would not agree to.

One of Paschal's appointments in 1112 was of a priest named Erik Gnúpsson to be Episcopus Groenlandia regionnumque finitimarum ["Bishop of Greenland and nearby regions"]. Norseman had settled Greenland in the 10th century, and there was another land to the west called "Vinland," which was almost certainly Newfoundland. This gives Paschal the privilege of having appointed the first bishop of the Americas. (Gnúpsson left for Vinland in 1121 and never returned, alas.)*

*Vatican and Icelandic records both mention this; see These Stones Bear Witness, by Richard White for more on the Norse presence in North America.

To Marry a Nun

Seal of Queen Matilda

When King William II died mysteriously in 1100, his brother immediately ascended the throne. Needing a queen, he turned to Matilda of Scotland, then about 20 years old. There was one potential problem with this plan, however: Matilda was a nun.

Or was she?

Matilda was the daughter of Queen (later Saint) Margaret and Malcolm Canmore, King of Scotland (and the model for the Malcolm in Shakespeare's MacBeth). Her mother raised her with daily religious instruction and a ruthless attention to discipline: the steward had permission to beat any of her children if they exhibited bad manners.

At the age of six, Matilda (along with her three-year-old sister, Mary) was sent to Romsey Abbey in Hampshire, where their mother's sister was abbess. "Aunt Cristina" dressed the girls in the heavy black clothing of nuns and beat them regularly to remind them that they were sinful. Several years later, they were sent by their mother's instructions to Wilton Abbey in Wiltshire for further education, saving them from their aunt. Instruction included more than catechism: Matilda knew English, French and Latin, and was able to read St. Augustine and the Bible.

Romsey Abbey today

In 1100, Henry I's wish to marry her created a controversy. Was she a nun and ineligible for marriage? Henry wasn't sure, so he turned to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm of Bec (c.1033-1109). Anselm, recently returned to England after a long time away, shied away from making that decision—although he was a brilliant theologian, he was possibly torn between betraying the Church and annoying a King—and called a council of bishops to debate the matter.

Matilda herself testified that she was never meant to be a nun, that her parents only sent her to abbeys because they wished her to be educated, and that she hated the nun's life and tore off the veil whenever she was out of sight of Abbess Cristina. The council concluded that Matilda was never supposed to be a nun after all, and gave permission for the marriage.

Anselm of Laon Explains the Bible

Anselm of Laon (d.15 July 1117) studied under one of the great names of the day, St. Anselm of Bec, whom I teased about here. He became a master of the new scholastic theology, and helped establish two schools of theology and created a new way to read the Bible.

Scholastic theology was a blend of two traditions: patristic learning (that is, writings from the fathers of the early church, such as Augustine), and the reasoning skills derived from reading the non-Christian thinkers such as Greek philosophers and Jewish scholars (which at this point were usually available because of Islamic scholars). The Scholastics were no longer content to shake their heads and simply accept apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. Their goal was to order and understand the entire world, and that meant first understanding the Bible.

17th century edition of Anselm's Bible

Consequently, Anselm produced an edition of the Bible called the Glossa interlinearis, so-called because his commentary was written above or next to each line.* Anselm's work was groundbreaking in that it presented a discussion and explanation for the Bible in an easily accessible manner, verse by verse.

His other notable contribution to theology was at the university in Paris, which he co-founded with William of Champeaux. Here theologians promoted Realism, the philosophy that our reality is independent of our beliefs, perceptions, and language. For Realists, truth is understood as one learns of and conforms to reality.

Anselm of Laon became so well-known for his understanding of theology that, when he moved to Laon to start a school there, scholars traveled to study with him. One of these, Peter Abelard, would be expelled from the school by Anselm in 1113 after debates over the validity of Realism, but would go on to become, in his turn, one of the groundbreaking theologians of the next generation. Anselm, though not well known now, would have been happy to know that his glosses on the Bible were re-printed several times over the following centuries.

*Modern scholars think it more likely that the Glossa was compiled by Anselm's students after his death, using Anselm's lectures and (now lost) writings.  This was one of two chief commentaries on the Bible. The other was the Glossa ordinaria of Walafrid Strabo (808-849).