Bishops and Reform

Marion E. Gibbs

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429685071
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

First published in 1934, this volume explores the varied roles of bishops alongside monks, administrators, magnates and scholars in the reforms surrounding the Lateran Council of 1215 and the Council of Trent, with a particular focus on approaches to their implementation in England. The book was originally written in the form of two theses published in 1931 under the titles of 'The Episcopate during the Reign of Henry III' by Marion Gibbs and 'The Enforcement of the Decrees of the Lateran Council of 1215 in England during the Reign of Henry III' by Jane Lang. They have been made into one volume here, with the first two parts by Marion Gibbs and the third by Jane Lang.

Part I
The Personnel of the Episcopate 1215–1272

I
Introductory

BISHOPS in the period 1215–72 could be heedless but not ignorant of their office; for of their duty as episcopi there was a traditional interpretation, an inheritance from which there was no escape. It was referred to in biblical commentaries and moral works, in the Legatine Constitutions of 1237, in the commonplaces of pastoral letters, of sermons and probably of daily conversation; and learned theologians like Grosseteste and Adam Marsh, when discussing ordinary episcopal problems, would insist on drawing out its full meaning, with suitable scriptural illustrations.¹ The bishop’s was the highest of all callings, and his negligence in it mortal sin. The bishop within his diocese was as the Pope to the whole Church. He should be like Moses, the type of the true prelate, who, from contemplating God on Mount Sinai, came down to help and teach His people; or again, to use the more common illustration, he should be as the ‘Pastor’, guiding and feeding and watching over his flock night and day, and prepared to suffer for it. In other words the bishop must practice the vita contemplativa et activa, a life of prayer and fasting and meditation, and a life spent in his diocese, visiting, reforming, and preaching. It followed that a person devout and inspiring was needed, familiar with theology as well as the ordinary working of a diocese and the courts; in short, a contemplative, administrator, and scholar.

¹ What follows is generalized from passages in the letters and sermons of Robert Grosseteste and the letter of Adam Marsh to Archbishop Sewal of Bovill, expounding the nature of the bishop’s office: Roberti Grosseteste Bpistolae (ed. H. R. Luard), Letters 25, 51, 60, 67, 73, 86, 127; Brown, Fasciculus, Appendix, pp. 250–74; Adam Marsh’s Letters, in Monumenta Fransiscana (ed. Brewer), i 440 seq. 3843–3 B

In court circles where there was a tendency to forget that a bishop was a pastor first and foremost, and only incidentally a tenant-in-chief, an entirely different set of qualifications was sometimes required. It was essential that the bishop should be utilis regno et regi; alive to the needs of the kingdom, and prepared on occasion to act as ambassador, judge, regent, sheriff, or custos of a royal castle. This necessity was also traditional. Not unprecedented was Henry III’s plea in 1237, when he appealed against the election of Prior Thomas to the Durham see on the ground that his doubtful loyalty made it inexpedient for the king to entrust him with the defence of the Palatinate and the guardianship of its castles.¹ A Canterbury monk of the thirteenth century, detailing customary exceptions to the person of a bishop-elect, recognized the royal point of view: ‘cavendum ne eligendus in aliquo sit reprehensibilis, hocest … ne sit ignobilis, quia hoc moveret regem et sic forte curiam; ne sit servihs conditionis; ne certa ratione possit allegari inimicus vel suspectus regi: ne possit notari de avaritia; ne sit supra modum simplex.’²

¹ Historiae DunelmensisScriptorens Tres (ed J. Raine), Appendix LXXII-LXXIII.

² ‘DeModis Electionis Celebrandis’ in Gervase of Canterbury (ed. W. Stubbs), ii. 126.

These conventional requirements must be related to actual contemporary problems in order to realize what type of person was needed as bishop in the period 1215–72. On the ecclesiastical side there was the need for reform and reorganization, mainly on the lines suggested by the Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1215, a task requiring the greatest wisdom and knowledge and persistency; for in every diocese, custom, ignorance, and indifference stood in the way. The recruiting and discipline of the clergy were involved, and the direction of the activities of the friars, potential assistants in the task. Instruction in doctrine, in the proper administration of the Sacraments, in new developments of canon law and its procedure was needed. Monasteries and secular cathedrals had to be reformed, and their relation to the bishops adjusted. Vicarages needed to be founded, the boundaries of parishes and dioceses defined. The work was almost limitless, and all of it the energetic bishop should direct. Then over and above local problems, urgent matters demanded the attention of the episcopate as a whole: papal provisions and taxation, Metropolitan rights, unrestrained appeals from court to court, the daily encroachments of secular jurisdictions. At the same time, on the political side, another group of problems emerged, requiring equal understanding, most important for the bishop being the restoration of order during the Minority, and the possibility thereafter of enlightening both royal policy ana baronial counsels.

Such were contemporary needs and expectations. As a commentary on these we may regard the actual characters and achievements of the bishops of the period. As one would expect, even the best fell short of the standard in some respect, in the opinion of some section of society. But to what extent? From the studies of the early careers of the bishops it is often possible to find rough indications of the ways in which their early experience had qualified them for some part of their manifold duties. For the majority advanced to the episcopate through conspicuous ability, or after long service in monastery, bishop’s household, or secular cathedral, or in the king’s court, or in the schools of Oxford or Paris. It was in these professional circles that the bishops were prepared for their episcopal work. They were centres of vigorous activity, clearly distinguishable in the kind of experience they could give. Hence, the first step in describing the episcopate may well be that of separating curiales from magistri, and these from religious and seculars.

In such a division there is some overlapping and uncertainty, a secular, for example, often combining academic and diocesan experience; but results may be generally summarized thus:

Eight were monks, a remarkably small number in a total of seventy-eight.

Forty-two have been included in a group of ‘administrators and magnates’, of whom twenty-two were officials of the normal type, employed in the household, exchequer, or law departments of the Curia Regis. Fourteen seem to have been magistri, and of these four have been described in the list of magistri:—M. Benedict Sansetun, M. Richard le Poore, and M. Nicholas Farnham, because they are known to have been scholars or authoritative teachers; M. Walter Cantilupe, because he was the friend and confident of Robert Grosseteste and Adam Marsh.

Of the forty magistri, there were thirty bishops, whose academic experience seems to have been a factor in promotion or a real influence in their lives. About half of these were scholars of some contemporary distinction; twenty-three had actively engaged in work in the dioceses.

In the group of ‘seculars’ it is interesting that eight came from Salisbury, seven from Lincoln, six from York, and at least one bishop, Pandulf, and probably Alexander Stavensby and John Gervais, from the Papal Curia.¹

¹ Below, pp. 29, 82.

These statistics show roughly the proportion in which various communities were represented in the episcopate, providing a basis for a more particular examination of the careers and achievements of the bishops. This can be neither systematic nor fundamental, as the biographical detail which can be collected from existing records is some-what casual and superficial; but generally an attempt has been made to stress whatever facts seem personal enough to illustrate the different experiences and characters of the various bishops, and these have been arranged, so far as possible, to show the different contributions to the life of their time of men who had had a monastic, administrative, academic, or pastoral preparation for episcopal work.

II
The Monks

FROM the point of view of general history, the monks represented in the episcopate were unimportant. This seems true not only because of their numerical insignificance, but because in comparison with their colleagues from the schools and the royal court, there is no record of any formative work they carried out in Church or State.¹ Nor had they much opportunity, for, as a glance at the outline of facts given in the Appendix² is sufficient to show, three ruled over the small diocese of Ely: four, elected during the minority, had remarkably short episcopates, and three were elected during the troubles of the last part of the reign. And the relatively small number of monks who became bishops is emphasized by a proportionately large number, who, duly elected, were rejected by King or Pope for various reasons.³

¹ Hugh Belsham issued synodal constitutions. See below, pp. 113, 184.

² Appendix C, Part I.

³ Details given below, pp. 80, 82.

This result is unexpected, if we remember the large number of monastic chapters in England and the tradition of great monk bishops. In the twelfth century, for example, the great reformers, saints, and haters of secularity among the bishops had nearly all been monks. That this was not so in the thirteenth century is suggestive of the change in the function of monasteries in English life. Monasteries were becoming, if not less learned and religious in personnel, more exclusive and self-centred; secular chapters were being encouraged at the expense of existing monastic chapters; new religious orders had arisen, more attractive and progressive; and the great secular schools, especially those of Oxford and Paris, now outrivalled them as training grounds of churchmen. Finally, and this is impo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Series Page
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• PREFACE
• CONTENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• Part I. THE PERSONNEL OF THE EPISCOPATE
• Part II. EXTERNAL INFLUENCES IN ELECTIONS AND THEIR EFFECT ON THE PERSONNEL OF THE EPISCOPATE
• Part III. THE REFORM WORK OF THE EPISCOPATE ON THE LINES LAID DOWN BY THE LATERAN COUNCIL OF 1215
• CONCLUSION
• Appendix A. BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE LATERAN DECREES
• Appendix B. LIST OF LEQATINE, PROVINCIAL, AND EPISCOPAL CONSTITUTIONS KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED DURING THE REIGN OF HENRY III
• Appendix C. CLASSIFICATION OF THE BISHOPS. 1215–1272
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
• INDEX OF BISHOPS. 1215–1272
• INDEX