Notes and References

Prologue

No fewer than seven accounts of the events of 25 November 1120 and their aftermath survive, but only two appear to be based on first-hand information, those of Orderic Vitalis and William of Malmesbury: OV, IV, pp. 32–42; WM, pp. 454–7. The accounts differ in some of the smaller details, for example the exact phase of the moon and whether it was the king who took the decision to choose the White Ship or Prince William. Henry of Huntington’s brief account is from HH, pp. 248–9. Other accounts by Simeon of Durham, Eadmer, Hugh the Chanter and Robert of Torigni are too fragmentary to be much use. The most useful modern account of the wreck is T. Brett-Jones, ‘The White Ship Disaster: An Investigation into the Circumstances of the Loss’, The Historian, 64 (1999), pp. 23–6.

Chapter 1: Ancestry

‘Lux Londoniarum’ is from CUL, MS Ff.VI.8. A conflict exists over the year of Becket’s birth between different biographers and the unanimous liturgical tradition. An exhaustive analysis of this problem by Professor Frank Barlow has concluded that 1120 ‘has no persuasive rival’ as the correct date: see Barlow, p. 281. Information on the family’s house and its dimensions is from ‘St Mary Colechurch 105/18’ in D. J. Keene and Vanessa Harding, Historical Gazetteer of London before the Great Fire (London, 1987), pp. 490–517; A. J. Forey, ‘The Military Order of St Thomas of Acre’, EHR, 92 (1977), pp. 481–503; J. Watney, Some Account of the Hospital of St Thomas of Acon in the Cheap, London, and of the Mercers’ Company (2nd edn, London, 1906), pp. 10–11. See also A. Quiney, ‘Hall or Chamber? That is the Question. The Use of Rooms in Post-Conquest Houses’, Architectural History, 42 (1999), pp. 24–46. Most of what we know about Becket’s parents is from MTB, II, pp. 356–9; Staunton, pp. 40–42; Barlow, pp. 10–15; Radford, pp. 1–9. The legend of the Saracen princess is from MTB, II, pp. 451–8; HASD, cols. 1052–5. Information of the Beckets’ ancestry is from William fitz Stephen and ‘Anonymous II’ (both natives of London): MTB, III, pp. 14–15; MTB, IV, p. 81; Greenaway, pp. 35–7. Edward Grim’s account of Matilda Becket’s visions is from MTB, II, pp. 356–8. Becket’s defence of his middle-class ancestry is from CTB, I, pp. 403–5, 431–3. The social organization, government and civic institutions of London are from C. M. Barron, London in the Later Middle Ages: Government and People, 1200–1500 (Oxford, 2004); J. McEwan, ‘Medieval London: The Development of a Civic Political Community, c. 1100–1300 (University of London PhD thesis, 2007). Background on privileges and charters to the Londoners is from EHD, pp. 1011–17; J. S. P. Tatlock, ‘The Date of Henry I’s Charter to London’, Speculum, 11 (1936), pp. 461–9; J. A. Green, Henry I: King of England and Duke of Normandy (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 249–51, 298–301. Background on buildings, social customs and everyday life is from R. Bartlett, England under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075–1225 (Oxford, 2000); L. F. Salzman, English Life in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1926); K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings (2 vols., London, 1887). Gilbert Becket’s chapel in St Paul’s Churchyard is from Stow’s Survey of London, ed. H. B. Wheatley (London, 1956), p. 293.

Chapter 2: Upbringing

Thomas’s childhood is discussed by Barlow, pp. 11–19; Radford, pp. 1–11. Background on language and ethnicity is from J. Green, The Government of England under Henry I, pp. 11, 155–7; Green, Henry I, p. 317; H. M. Thomas, The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation and Identity. 1066–c. 1220 (Oxford, 2003). Accounts of Becket’s early education are from MTB, III, pp. 4–5, 14–15; TSE, I, pp. 19–21; Radford, pp. 13–16; Barlow, pp. 17–18; Duggan, pp. 9–11. The Ars Minor of Aelius Donatus is from the edition printed by Wynkyn de Worde (London, ?1496). Background is from N. Orme, ‘Children and Literature in Medieval England’, Medium Aevum, 68 (1999), pp. 218–46; N. Orme, ‘Children and the Church in Medieval England’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 45 (1994), pp. 563–87; N. Orme, ‘For Richer for Poorer? Free Education in England, c. 1380–1530’, Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth, 1 (2008), pp. 169–87. Thomas’s later summons to Robert of Merton is from MTB, III, p. 147. Sources for writing and dictation, including the comments of Orderic Vitalis, are from M. T. Clancy, From Memory to Written Record: England, 1066–1307 (Cambridge, MA, 1979), pp. 88–103. William fitz Stephen’s graphic description of London, its sports and recreations, food and amenities is from MTB, III, pp. 2–13; S. Pegge, Fitz Stephen’s Description of the City of London … with a Necessary Commentary (London, 1772). Becket’s digestive ailment is from D. Knowles, The Episcopal Colleagues of Thomas Becket (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 167–8; Barlow, p. 25; see also notes to Ch. 12. The career of Richer de l’Aigle is from K. Thompson, ‘The Lords of Laigle: Ambition and Insecurity on the Borders of Normandy’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 18 (1995), pp. 177–99; Radford, pp. 16–18; Green, Henry I, pp. 142, 149–50, 154; OV, III, pp. 472–3. Becket’s accident at the millstream is from MTB, II, pp. 360–61 (Edward Grim’s version); MTB, IV, pp. 6–7 (Roger of Pontigny’s version); Staunton, pp. 43–4; Radford, pp. 16–18. Robert of Cricklade’s more cynical account of Becket’s encounter with Richer de l’Aigle is from TSE, I, pp. 31–3; RC, pp. 384–5; Radford, p. 17, n. 3.

Chapter 3: Politics

Information on Henry I’s character and achievements is from OV, III, pp. 267–72, 386; OV, IV, pp. 148–54; WM, pp.331–3, 424–89; HH, pp. 240–60; PJS 1, p. 118. See also Green, Henry I; C. Warren Hollister, Henry I (New Haven and London, 2001); Green, Government of England under Henry I; C. Warren Hollister, ‘Royal Acts of Mutilation: The Case against Henry I’, Albion, 10 (1978), pp. 330–40; W. L. Warren, Henry II (2nd edn, London, 2000). Background on Henry I’s court is from C. Warren Hollister, ‘Courtly Culture and Courtly Style in the Anglo-Norman World’, Albion, 20 (1988), pp. 1–17. Henry’s movements are from W. Farrer, ‘An Outline Itinerary of King Henry the First’,EHR, 34 (1919), pp. 303–82, 505–79. His judicial role is from P. Wormald, ‘Lawyers and the State: The Varieties of Legal History’ (Selden Society: London, 2006), especially pp. 6–7. The Norman political and military background is from D. Douglas, William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact upon England (London, 1966); D. Bates,William the Conqueror (London, 2004); F. Barlow, William Rufus (London, 1983); C. W. David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy (Cambridge, MA, 1920); J. A. Green, ‘Robert Curthose Reassessed’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 22 (1999), pp. 95–116; A. L. Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087–1216 (2nd edn, Oxford, 1964). The Conqueror’s writ of 1072 is from EHD, pp. 647–8. Information on naval history and ship construction is from N. A. M. Rodger, The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain, I, 660–1649 (London, 1997).

Chapter 4: Paris

The background to Stephen’s reign and Matilda’s bid for the throne is from R. H. C. Davis, King Stephen, 1135–1154 (3rd edn, London, 1990); M. Chibnall, The Empress Matilda: Queen Consort, Queen Mother and Lady of the English (Oxford, 1991). The account of Stephen’s landing and coronation is from GS, pp. 2–7. John of Salisbury’s account of Stephen’s perjury is from HP, p. 83. The coronation charter is from SC, p. 142; the Oxford charter from SC, pp. 143–4. Peter of Celle’s warning of the temptations of Paris is from LPC, pp. 657–9; John of Salisbury’s account of its delights is from CTB, I, p. 69. The description of the city and the schools is from S. C. Ferruolo, The Origins of the University: The Schools of Paris and their Critics, 1100–1215 (Stanford, CA, 1985); Amy Kelly, Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings (Cambridge, MA, 1950); S. Roux, Paris in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia, PA, 2003). R. L. Poole, ‘The Masters of the Schools of Paris and Chartres in John of Salisbury’s Time’, EHR, 64 (1920), pp. 321–42, is dated but still useful. The most important accounts of Thomas’s studies and his mother’s death are those of William of Canterbury, John of Salisbury, William fitz Stephen, Roger of Pontigny, Herbert of Bosham and Edward Grim, and the Icelandic ‘Thomas Saga Erkibyskups’, which is based in part on the lost ‘life’ of Robert of Cricklade: MTB, I, pp. 3–4; MTB, II, pp. 302–3, 359–60; MTB, III, pp. 14–15, 163–6; MTB, IV, pp. 5–8; TSE, I, pp. 21–3; Staunton, pp. 42–3. Further information is from Radford, pp. 18–23; Duggan, pp. 10–12; Barlow, pp. 20–23. The accounts of the teaching of Hugh of St Victor, Robert of Melun and Robert Pullen are from Ferruolo, Origins of the University, pp. 22–44, 64–5, 227; Beryl Smalley, The Becket Conflict and the Schools (Oxford, 1973), pp. 28–30, 39–58; F. Courtney, Cardinal Robert Pullen: An English Theologian of the Twelfth Century (Rome, 1954). I follow Radford (p. 23) in believing that Becket’s mother’s death preceded his father’s and that his father had sustained a series of losses through fires. Edward Grim places these losses before the mother’s death. He also thought both Becket’s parents died at more or less the same time, but as he did not meet Becket until shortly before the murder, his chronology is likely to be confused: MTB, II, p. 359. The opinions of William of Canterbury and Herbert of Bosham as to why Becket abandoned his studies are from MTB, I, pp. 3–4; MTB, III, pp. 163–4. John of Salisbury’s comments about Becket’s ‘rakish pursuits’ and chastity are from MTB, II, p. 303. William of Canterbury makes a similar remark, but places it later in the story after Becket’s appointment as chancellor: MTB, I, pp. 5–6. The satirical verse is from Ferruolo, Origins of the University, p. 129.

Chapter 5: A Fresh Start

Becket’s employment with Osbert Huitdeniers is from Radford, pp. 23–6; Barlow, pp. 27–8. Information on Matilda’s invasion and the events following the battle of Lincoln is from Davis, King Stephen, pp. 34–51; Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, I, pp. 308–44. The background to the anarchy is from H. W. C. Davis, ‘The Anarchy of Stephen’s Reign’, EHR, 18 (1903), pp. 630–41; E. King, ‘The Anarchy of Stephen’s Reign’, TRHS, 34 (1984), pp. 133–53; E. J. Kealey, ‘King Stephen: Government and Anarchy’, Albion, 6 (1974), pp. 201–17. The archbishop of Rouen’s letter to the Londoners is from Davis, King Stephen, p. 55. Matilda’s arbitrary levy and berating of the citizens are from GS, pp. 122–4. The Peterborough chronicler’s description of the anarchy is from EHD, pp. 210–11 (where the account is placed in the wrong year). That from the Gesta Stephani is from GS, pp. 91–221. Becket’s letter to Bishop Roger of Worcester is from CTB, II, pp. 1219–25. His entry into Theobald’s household is from MTB, II, pp. 303–4, 361–3; MTB, III, pp. 15–17, 167–72; MTB, IV, pp. 9–12; A. Saltman, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1956), pp. 3–55, 165–77; Radford, pp. 27–56; Barlow, pp. 28–40. John of Salisbury’s role is from Saltman, Theobald, pp. 169–75. The fragment from Robert of Cricklade’s lost chronicle is from TSE, I, p. 37; RC, p. 385. The pact with Roger of Pont l’Évêque and John of Canterbury is from MTB, I, p. 4. Information about Thomas’s double rustication and reinstatement is from MTB, III, p. 16. Background on the archiepiscopal estates and on the movements and staffing of Theobald’s household is from F. R. H. Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury (New York, 1966), pp. 237–9, 251–64.

Chapter 6: Apprentice

William fitz Stephen’s account is from MTB, III, pp. 16–17; Edward Grim’s is from MTB, II, p. 361. Background on Roman and canon law is from J. A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law (London, 1995); D. Luscombe and J. Riley-Smith, The New Cambridge Medieval History of Europe, IV, Part I (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 368–460; Select Cases from the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Province of Canterbury, c. 1200–1301, ed. N. Adams and C. Donahue (Selden Society: London, 1981), intro. pp. 6–12. Becket’s studies at Bologna and Auxerre are from MTB, II, p. 304; MTB, III, p. 17. For Albert de Morra as his possible master at Bologna, see Henry II, p. 175, n. 2. Theobald’s support for the study of Roman and canon law is from Saltman, Theobald, pp. 166, 175–7. Roger of Pont l’Évêque’s nickname for Thomas is from MTB, IV, p. 10; Radford, p. 30. The rumours and superstitions are from Davis, King Stephen, pp. 86–7; The Life of Christina of Markyate: A Twelfth-Century Recluse, ed. C. H. Talbot (London, 1959), p. 185; H. Mayr-Harting, ‘Functions of a Twelfth-Century Recluse’, History, 60 (1975), pp. 337–52; Thomas, The English and the Normans, pp. 200–235. The events of the civil war are from Davis, King Stephen, pp. 75–107. Theobald’s visit to Paris is from Saltman, Theobald, pp. 23–4; his relationship with Bishop Henry of Winchester and earlier popes is from ibid., pp. 7–22. Henry of Anjou’s decision to retain Devizes is from King, ‘The Anarchy of Stephen’s Reign’, p. 140. John of Salisbury’s account of Theobald’s flight and the events of the Council of Rheims is from HP, pp. 6–52; see also Saltman, Theobald, pp. 25–30; Radford, pp. 42–4. Events after Theobald’s return are from HP, pp. 49–52, 78–9; Davis, King Stephen, pp. 101–3. Becket’s letter to Cardinal Boso is from CTB, I, pp. 719–21. The reports of his visits to Rome are from MTB, II, pp. 303–4; MTB, III, p. 16. The account of his role in securing Theobald’s papal legacy is from GH, p. 325, where the date is wrong. The correct year is established by Radford, pp. 39–41; Saltman,Theobald, pp. 30–33. The Murdac affair is from John of Salisbury, HP, p. 83. The subsequent mission of Roger of Pont l’Évêque is from CTB, I, pp. 720–21, where the editor notes that it was indeed he who had acted for Stephen; Radford, pp. 50–51. See also Davis, King Stephen, pp. 97–9, 102–3, 114; Saltman, Theobald, pp. 36–7. Gervase of Canterbury’s account of Becket’s diplomatic interventions is from GC, cols. 1371–2; GH, pp. 325–9. Becket’s letter citing the opinion of Cardinal Gregory is from CTB, I, pp. 777–87. Stephen’s further efforts to bully Theobald are from HH, pp. 288–9; John of Salisbury, HP, p. 83; Saltman, Theobald, pp. 37–9; Radford, pp. 45–52; Davis, King Stephen, pp. 113–14. The story from the anonymous ‘Life of Theobald’ repeated in the chronicle of Bec Abbey is from PL, vol. 150, cols. 733–4.

Chapter 7: Into the Limelight

The early biographers all describe Becket’s ecclesiastical preferments: MTB, I, pp. 4–5; MTB, II, pp. 303–4; MTB, III, pp. 17, 168; MTB, IV, pp. 10–11. See also Radford, pp. 52–6; Barlow, pp. 36–8; Saltman, Theobald, pp. 167–9. Thomas’s own account showing that he did not go unrewarded by Theobald is from CTB, I, pp. 431–3. The political events of the closing years of Stephen’s reign are from HH, pp. 290–96; GC, cols. 1369–75; GS, pp. 238–40; RH, I, pp. 213–14; Lyttelton, II, pp. 187–277; Davis, King Stephen, pp. 111–24; Warren, Henry II, pp. 42–53. The divorce of Eleanor of Aquitaine is from HP, pp. 52–3; WN, pp. 441–2; E. R. Labande, Pour une image véridique d’Aliénor d’Aquitaine (2nd edn, Poitiers, 2005), pp. 64–7. Information on Aquitaine and Eleanor’s ducal forebears is from J. Martindale, Status, Authority and Regional Power: Aquitaine and France, 9th to 12th Centuries (Aldershot, 1997), no. X, pp. 87–116; no. XI, pp. 17–50. The alleged affair between Eleanor and Geoffrey of Anjou is from Map, pp. 475–7. Robert of Torigni’s account of Eustace’s attack on Normandy is from Chronicles, IV, pp. 164–71. The peace negotiations at Wallingford and Winchester are from HH, pp. 294–5; Chronicles, IV, pp. 171–7; Saltman, Theobald, pp. 39–41. Theobald’s description of Becket as ‘his first and only councillor’ is from LJS, I, p. 198. Becket’s recollection of the hardships endured by Theobald is from CTB, II, p. 1267. His complaint to the pope about Henry’s oath-breaking is from CTB, I, p. 781; that to Cardinal Hubald is from CTB, II, p. 1017. Background to the Devizes affair is from Saltman, Theobald, pp. 40, 465–6; King, ‘The Anarchy of Stephen’s Reign’, p. 140. Essential background on the peace treaty and Henry’s accession is from E. King, ‘The Accession of Henry II’, in Henry II, pp. 24–46. The details of the Westminster charter are from Foedera, I, p. 18; EHD, pp. 436–8. The reconstruction of the fragments of Robert of Cricklade’s lost biography is from RC, p. 385. The chroniclers’ accounts of Eustace’s death are from GC, col. 1374; HH, p. 293. William of Canterbury’s and Roger of Pontigny’s comments on Becket’s promotion as archdeacon of Canterbury are from MTB, I, p. 4; MTB, IV, pp. 10–11. Gervase of Canterbury’s report of Stephen’s death and of Thomas’s appointment as chancellor at the very beginning of Henry II’s reign is from GC, cols. 1376–7.

Chapter 8: Arrival at Court

Becket’s arrival at court, where he witnessed charters in mid-January 1155, is from Eyton, pp. 3–5. The inner politics of his promotion are from MTB, III, pp. 17–18; MTB, IV, pp. 11–12; Staunton, pp. 47–8; Radford, pp. 57–61. Theobald’s later advice to Henry against the predatory barons is from LJS, I, p. 220. Robert of Cricklade’s interpretation is from RC, pp. 385–6; TSE, I, pp. 47, 57. Information on Theobald’s motives and values is from C. N. L. Brooke, ‘Adrian IV and John of Salisbury’, in Adrian IV, the English Pope, 1154–1159: Studies and Texts, ed. B. Bolton and A. J. Duggan (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 8–9; Saltman, Theobald, pp. 41–55, 153–64; K. J. Stringer, The Reign of King Stephen(London, 1993), pp. 61–72. Becket’s physical characteristics are from MTB, I, p. 3; MTB, III, pp. 17, 229, 327; MTB, IV, p. 84; TSE, I, p. 29. William fitz Stephen’s classic description of Henry II and Becket’s familiarity is from MTB, III, pp. 17–26; Staunton, pp. 48–53, 58–9. Henry’s character and description are from EHD, pp. 409–20; Map, pp. 471–501; Peter of Blois, Epistolae 14, 41, 66, 75 in PL, vol. 207, cols. 42–51, 121–2, 195–210, 229–31; RN, p. 169; MTB, III, p. 43; MTB, VII, pp. 570–76. Background on Henry’s court is from N. Vincent, ‘The Court of Henry II’, in Henry II, pp. 278–334. The letter to Becket about the constable of Normandy is from CTB, I, pp. 541–9. The affair of Northumbria is from Warren, Henry II, pp. 68–9. Information on Eleanor of Aquitaine is from Martindale, Status, Authority and Regional Power, no. XI, pp. 17–50; N. Vincent, ‘Patronage, Politics and Piety in the Charters of Eleanor of Aquitaine’, in Plantagenêts et Capétiens: Confrontations et Héritages, ed. M. Aurell and N. Tonnerre (Turnhout, 2006), pp. 17–60; E. A. R. Brown, ‘Eleanor of Aquitaine Reconsidered’, in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady, ed. B. Wheeler and J. C. Parsons (London, 2003), pp. 1–54; E. A. R. Brown, ‘Eleanor of Aquitaine: Parent, Queen and Duchess’, in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Parent and Politician, ed. W. W. Kibler (Austin, Tex., 1976), pp. 9–34; F. McMinn Chambers, ‘Some Legends Concerning Eleanor of Aquitaine’, Speculum, 16 (1941), pp. 459–68. Theobald’s report of her frustration with the bishop of Worcester is from LJS, I, pp. 151–2. Arnulf of Lisieux’s letter is from The Letters of Arnulf of Lisieux, ed. F. Barlow, Camden Society, Third Series, 61 (London, 1939), pp. 13–14. His character is from ibid., pp. xi–xxv.

Chapter 9: Royal Minister

John of Salisbury’s report of Henry II’s new vision of the monarchy is from LJS, II, p. 581. The report of Gervase of Canterbury is from GC, col. 1377. Henry’s policy on the restoration of law and order is from E. Amt, The Accession of Henry II in England: Royal Government Restored, 1149–1159 (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 21–6; G. J. White,Restoration and Reform, 1153–1165: Recovery from Civil War in England (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 104–12; Warren, Henry II, pp. 59–63. The confiscation of the castles is from GC, cols. 1377–8; WN, pp. 445–6. Bishop Henry of Winchester’s fascination with Domesday Book is from DSCDR, pp. 97–9. Information on Henry’s and Becket’s movements in England, Normandy, Anjou and Aquitaine, including a chronology of the charters and confirmations to lands issued during these years, is from Eyton, pp. 2–57. The rebellion of Geoffrey of Anjou and its aftermath is from GC, cols. 1378, 1380–81; WN, pp. 450–51; Radford, pp. 78–80; Warren, Henry II, pp. 64–6, 71–7; Barlow, pp. 54–5. An invaluable account by Robert of Torigni is from Chronicles, IV, pp. 186–97. Scutage is from F. Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism (2nd edn, Oxford, 1961), pp. 177–91; Radford, p. 157; Barlow, p. 59. Theobald’s petition for exemption is from LJS, I, pp. 21–2. Henry’s diplomacy with Louis in February 1156 is fromChronicles, IV, p. 186; RH, I, p. 215. Eleanor of Aquitaine’s movements are from Eyton, pp. 6, 18, 24, 30–31, 40–43, 49–52, 55. Becket’s diplomatic receptions are from MTB, III, p. 26; Radford, pp. 76–7. The embassy of the king of Valencia is from RM, p. 758. Becket’s return to England with Eleanor is from LJS, I, p. 51. William fitz Stephen’s unique account of Becket’s embassy to France is from MTB, III, pp. 29–33; Greenaway, pp. 45–7; Staunton, pp. 55–6. See also Radford, pp. 80–84; Warren, Henry II, pp. 71–2; Barlow, pp. 55–7; Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, I, pp. 445–8. Although Herbert of Bosham refers to the marriage treaty, he has in fact confused its terms with those reached by a later treaty of 1160 following the Toulouse campaign: MTB, III, p. 175; Radford, pp. 83–4, 93–4. The capture of Guy of Laval is from MTB, III, p. 33; Radford, p. 83; Barlow, p. 57. Henry’s confirmation as the hereditary high steward of France and the intervention in Brittany is from GC, cols. 1380–81; WN, p. 451; Chronicles, IV, pp. 196–7; Warren, Henry II, pp. 72–7; Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, I, pp. 449–53; J. Everard, Brittany and the Angevins: Province and Empire, 1158–1203 (Cambridge, 2000), p. 34. Henry’s diplomacy with Louis VII after his brother’s death is from GC, col. 1380; Chronicles, IV, pp. 197–9; RD, col. 531; Radford, pp. 84–7; Warren,Henry II, pp. 72–7. Gervase of Canterbury’s comment on the miraculous signals of the Anglo-French amity is from GC, col. 1380.

Chapter 10: Bureaucrat and Judge

The summary of Becket’s administrative duties is from DSCDR, pp. xx–xxv, xliv–xlviii, li–lv, 28–31, 197–9; MTB, III, pp. 18–19; Radford, pp. 68, 123–32; Barlow, pp. 42–3. The size of the scriptorium and the recruitment of clerks is from Kealey, ‘King Stephen: Government and Anarchy’, pp. 204–11 and n. 8; T. A. M. Bishop, Scriptores Regis(Oxford, 1960), pp. 1–30; MTB, III, p. 29; DSCDR, pp. li–lv; M. T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England, 1066–1307 (Cambridge, MA, 1979), pp. 41–6. The refurbishment of the palace of Westminster is from MTB, III, pp. 19–20 (wrongly annotated by the editor as the Tower of London). Becket’s duties in the Exchequer are from the account in DSCDR, pp. xx–xxv, lii–lv, and nn. 66, 73; Radford, pp. 123–33. John of Salisbury’s observation on Robert de Beaumont’s high view of kingship is from PJS 1, p. 137. Background on royal justice is from D. M. Stenton, English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter, 1066–1215 (London, 1965), pp. 22–87; S. F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I (2 vols., 2nd edn, Cambridge, 1968), I, pp. 108–73. Becket’s role as a circuit judge is from Radford, pp. 111–15. Useful correctives to the usual whiggish interpretations of Angevin justice are P. Wormald, Lawyers and the State: The Varieties of Legal History(Selden Society: London, 2006); R. V. Turner, ‘The Reputation of Royal Judges under the Angevin Kings’, Albion, 11 (1979), pp. 301–16. Becket’s attitude to justice is from MTB, III, pp. 22–6; RC, p. 386; Staunton, pp. 51–2; English Lawsuits from William I to Richard II, ed. R. C. van Caenegem (Selden Society: London, 1991), p. 361. The Battle Abbey case is from The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, ed. E. Searle (Oxford, 1980), pp. 176–215; English Lawsuits, ed. van Caenegem, pp. 310–23; Saltman, Theobald, pp. 91–2, 243; Radford, pp. 105–11; E. Searle, ‘Battle Abbey and Exemption: The Forged Charters’, EHR, 83 (1968), pp. 449–80; CTB, II, pp. 1394–5. Hilary of Chichester’s character is from H. Mayr-Harting, ‘Hilary, Bishop of Chichester (1147–1169) and Henry II’, EHR, 78 (1963), pp. 209–24. Professor Nicholas Vincent’s brilliant exposé of the Battle Abbey chronicler is from his article ‘King Henry II and the Monks of Battle: The Battle Chronicle Unmasked’, in Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages: Studies Presented to Henry Mayr-Harting, ed. R. Gameson and H. Leyser (Oxford, 2001), pp. 264–85. Becket’s letter to the pope referring to the case in 1168 is from CTB, I, p. 782.

Chapter 11: Warrior

An invaluable introduction to Becket’s military role is J. D. Hosler, ‘The Brief Military Career of Thomas Becket’, Haskins Journal, 15 (2006), pp. 88–100. John of Salisbury’s critique of hunting is from PJS 2, pp. 13–26. Edward Grim’s critique of Becket’s penchant for warfare is from MTB, II, p. 365; Radford, p. 92. John of Salisbury’s report of Becket’s resort to soothsayers is from PJS 2, pp. 127–8. Henry’s and Becket’s movements are from Eyton, pp. 27–52. Background on the campaign in north Wales is from J. D. Hosler, ‘Henry II’s Military Campaigns in Wales, 1157 and 1165’, Journal of Medieval Military History, 2 (2004), pp. 53–72; Warren, Henry II, pp. 69–71, 161–3. Gervase of Canterbury’s account is from GC, col. 1380. William of Newburgh’s description of the Welsh ambush and de Essex’s cowardice is from WN, pp. 447–8. Information on the Welsh vernacular chronicles is from Hosler, ‘Brief Military Career’, pp. 91–2. Eleanor’s role in pressing for the campaign in Aquitaine is from Brown, ‘Eleanor of Aquitaine Reconsidered’, in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady, p. 12. The Aquitaine campaign itself is from MTB, III, pp. 33–4; Staunton, p. 57. Other detail is from WN, pp. 454–9; RD, col. 531; GC, col. 1381; L. Combarieu and F. Cangardel, Histoire Général de la Province de Quercy (2 vols., Cahors, 1884), II, pp. 68–72; J. Raynal, Histoire de la Ville de Toulouse avec une Notice des Hommes Illustrés (Toulouse, 1759), pp. 59–60; M. J. M. Cayla and P. Paviot, Histoire de la Ville de Toulouse depuis sa Fondation jusqu’à Nos Jours (Toulouse, 1839), pp. 288–93. The loans from Henry and the Jews are from MTB, III, pp. 53–4. Information on the Vexin campaign and its aftermath is from MTB, III, pp. 34–5; RD, col. 532; Actes, I, pp. 251–3. Louis VII’s anger is from WN, p. 477. See also Radford, pp. 87–94. The events surrounding Prince Henry’s marriage to the infant Margaret are from L. Diggelmann, ‘Marriage as Tactical Response: Henry II and the Royal Wedding of 1160’, EHR, 119 (2004), pp. 954–64. Henry’s decision to place his son and heir in Becket’s household is from MTB, III, pp. 176–7. See also Greenaway, p. 43.

Chapter 12: A Solitary Man

William fitz Stephen’s stereotype is from MTB, III, pp. 17–26; Staunton, pp. 48–53, 58–9. Other verdicts on his relationship with Henry are from MTB, I, pp. 5–7 (William of Canterbury); MTB, II, pp. 304–9 (John of Salisbury); MTB, II, pp. 363–5 (Edward Grim); MTB, III, pp. 226–9 (Herbert of Bosham); MTB, IV, pp. 11–14 (Roger of Pontigny); RC, p. 387 (Robert of Cricklade). See also TSE, I, pp. 48–9; Radford, pp. 48–59. The parable of the beggar is from MTB, III, pp. 24–5; Staunton, pp. 52–3. The idea of the ‘charming joke’ is from C. S. Jaeger, The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideas in Medieval Europe, 950–1200 (Philadelphia, 1994), pp. 299–301. Arnulf of Lisieux’s reflections on Becket’s chancellorship are from CTB, I, pp. 184–5. Becket’s own, candid assessment is from CTB, II, p. 1167. Background on John of Salisbury is from A. Duggan, ‘John of Salisbury and Thomas Becket’, in The World of John of Salisbury, ed. M. Wilks (Oxford, 1984), pp. 427–38. John’s account of Henry and Becket’s relationship while Thomas was chancellor is from MTB, II, pp. 304–5; Staunton, p. 53. The best modern edition of the Entheticus de Dogmate Philosophorum is Laarhoven, I, pp. 104–227 (especially paras. 85–96). Notes and commentary are from ibid., I, pp. 14–64; ibid., II, pp. 253–424; R. Thomson, ‘What is the Entheticus?’, in World of John of Salisbury, pp. 287–301. For the identification of the characters, see also C. Petersen, Johannis Saresberiensis Entheticus de Dogmate Philosophorum (Hamburg, 1843), pp. 113–20. See also PJS 2, pp. 123–212. John’s swipe against Henry’s circus tricks is from Laarhoven, I, p. 200 (para. 95). William of Canterbury’s echo of John’s verdict is from MTB, I, p. 5. Historical background for ‘Hyrcanus’ is from L. H. Schiffman, Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of the Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism (Hoboken, NJ, 1998), pp. 187–506; J. C. Vanderkam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 30–33. The Battle Abbey chronicler’s account of the faction around Richard de Lucy is from Chronicle of Battle Abbey, ed. Searle, pp. 160–61. John of Salisbury’s dedication to Becket in his presentation of the Policraticus (usually known as the Entheticus in Policraticum) is from CCCC, MS 46, fos. i–ii^v; Laarhoven, I, pp. 230–49 (especially paras. 1–5). Becket as a ‘trifler in the court’ is fromLJS, II, pp. 245–7. Shrewd comments on the inequality of Henry and Thomas’s friendship are offered by E. Türk, Nugae Curialium: Le Règne d’Henri Deux Plantegenêt (1154–1189) et l’éthique politique (Geneva, 1977), pp. 14–16. Becket’s abstemiousness and dietary concerns are from Barlow, pp. 24–5. His medical condition is discussed by Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 167–8 (in relation to his illness in 1164 at Northampton), where renal colic due to kidney stones is suggested. However, this is not a lifelong condition, and I agree with Professor Barlow that colitis, an inflammatory disease of the large intestine, is more likely. Herbert of Bosham (MTB, III, p. 300) simply calls Becket’s illness ‘colic’. A diagnosis of renal colic depends on fitz Stephen’s use of the word ‘renes’ (MTB, III, p. 56), which in classical Latin means ‘kidneys’, but in ecclesiastical Latin means simply ‘loins’ in general. Becket’s piety and scourging are from MTB, III, p. 22; TSE, I, pp. 50–51; RC, p. 386; Staunton, p. 51; Radford, p. 231. The story told by Robert of Cricklade’s kinsman is from TSE, I, pp. 51–3; RC, p. 386; Radford, pp. 231–2. Becket’s chastity is from Guernes, pp. 11–12; MTB, I, p. 6; MTB, II, pp. 303, 365; MTB, III, p. 21; Staunton, pp. 50, 54–5; H. Vollrath, ‘Was Thomas Becket Chaste? Understanding Episodes in the Becket Lives’, in Anglo-Norman Studies, 27 (2005), pp. 198–209. The case of Richard of Ambly is from MTB, III, p. 21; Staunton, p. 50; Radford, p. 230. The case of Henry’s discarded mistress is from Guernes, pp. 12–13; Staunton, pp. 54–5; corroborative versions are from MTB, I, p. 6; TSE, I, pp. 53–5. Edward Grim’s qualification of Becket’s chastity is from MTB, II, p. 365. Roger of Pontigny’s report of the advice of his physicians is from MTB, IV, p. 14. John of Salisbury’s take on Becket’s chastity is from MTB, II, p. 303. In his review of Barlow’s biography in American Historical Review, 94 (1989), p. 422, Norman Cantor argues for a deep psychosexual tension between Henry and Thomas that made their final clash inevitable. Eleanor of Aquitaine’s biographer Professor Amy Kelly believes their intimacy, whether homosexual or not, would be a contributory cause to the eventual breakdown of Henry’s marriage. Becket as chancellor, she maintains, usurped Eleanor’s influence over her husband, sidelining her and leading her to ostracize Thomas as a dangerous rival. See Kelly,Eleanor of Aquitaine, pp. 97–149. Professor Barlow is more cautious. While hinting that Theobald and Henry may both have found Thomas physically attractive, he finds no evidence for homosexuality. Becket’s chastity, he argues, arose from an accidental convergence of stress, psychological repression and a personal lack of warmth combining to restrict his intimacy with either sex. See Barlow, p. 26. Useful background on sexuality and sexual crimes is from Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, pp. 566–72; J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe (Chicago, 1980), pp. 243–66; C. S. Jaeger, Ennobling Love: In Search of a Lost Sensibility(Philadelphia, 1999), pp. 1–58; D. F. Greenberg and M. H. Bystryn, ‘Christian Intolerance of Homosexuality’, American Journal of Sociology, 88 (1982), pp. 515–48; B. Holsinger and D. Townsend, ‘Ovidian Homoerotics in Twelfth-Century Paris’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 8 (2002), pp. 389–409. John of Salisbury’s exposé of Roger of Pont l’Évêque for sexual abuse, written on behalf of all Becket’s clerks and in their name, is from LJS, II, pp. 742–9. Heroic efforts have been made to deny his authorship, but the piece was attributed to him in his lifetime by Alan of Tewkesbury. In any case, he was one of the clerks in whose name it was composed. The quarrel with Roger could not have been more vitriolic, since he had also been accused of inciting Henry II to murder Becket and of paying the expenses of the murderers. Roger’s defence to the charges is from LJS, II, pp. 738–43.

Chapter 13: Render unto Caesar

Information on scutage and the other levies for the Toulouse campaign is from Radford pp. 99–100, 156–9; Barlow, pp. 59–60; Saltman, Theobald, pp. 44–5. Gervase of Canterbury’s estimate of the receipts is from GC, col. 1381. John of Salisbury’s letter of 1166 discussing Becket’s responsibility for taxing the Church is from LJS, II, pp. 105–7. Becket’s success in finding good candidates quickly for church appointments is from William fitz Stephen: MTB, III, p. 23; Staunton, pp. 51–2. Bartholomew of Exeter’s case is from LJS, I, pp. 221–3, 240–44; Radford, pp. 171–2. John of Salisbury’s praise for Becket’s energy in church appointments is from LJS, I, p. 223. The nominations of Robert of Melun and Prior William are from MTB, III, p. 24; Radford, pp. 166–7. The marriage of Mary, abbess of Romsey, is from Saltman, Theobald, pp. 52–4; Radford, pp. 94–5. Herbert of Bosham’s account of the case is from MTB, III, pp. 328–9; Robert of Torigni’s is from Chronicles, IV, p. 207. Norgate claims in England under the Angevin Kings, I, p. 469, that Henry had a papal licence, which is not supported by the evidence. It would, in any case, have been difficult to obtain one during the papal schism. Henry’s plans for Ireland are from Chronicles, IV, p. 186; Eyton, p. 12; A. J. Duggan, ‘Totus Christianus Caput: The Pope and the Princes’, in Adrian IV, the English Pope, ed. Bolton and Duggan, pp. 143–6; Warren, Henry II, pp. 187–92; K. Norgate, ‘The Bull Laudabiliter’, EHR, 8 (1893), pp. 18–52. John of Salisbury’s mission as Theobald’s envoy, leading to his disgrace, is from Brooke, ‘Adrian IV and John of Salisbury’, in Adrian IV, the English Pope, ed. Bolton and Duggan, pp. 1–11; G. Constable, ‘The Alleged Disgrace of John of Salisbury in 1159’, EHR, 69 (1954), pp. 67–76; Radford, p. 169. John of Salisbury’s own account of his troubles is from LJS, I, pp. 31–2, 33–4. His letter to Becket is from MTB, V, pp. 8–9; LJS, I, pp. 45–6. Another letter to Becket’s secretary, Master Ernulf, is from MTB, V, p. 7; LJS, I, p. 44. John’s account of the final outcome is from LJS, I, p. 48. Becket’s and Eleanor’s messages that Henry’s wrath had abated are from LJS, I, p. 51. Eleanor’s movements are from Eyton, p. 24. John’s fear of a treason trial is from LJS, I, p. 50. The schism in the papacy is from Saltman, Theobald, pp. 45–52; Radford, pp. 167–8; Barlow, pp. 60–61. Theobald’s letters to Henry about the papal decision are fromLJS, I, pp. 190–92, 197–8, 201–2, 215–17. The church councils and Henry’s extortions are from F. Barlow, ‘The English, Norman and French Councils Called to Deal with the Schism of 1159’, EHR, 51 (1936), pp. 264–8; Radford, p. 167. The attack on the two Norman prelates is from MTB, III, pp. 27–8; Radford, pp. 167–8. The canonization of Edward the Confessor is from Barlow, p. 61. Theobald’s illness is from LJS, I, pp. 14, 215. His letter to Becket on ‘second aids’ is from LJS, I, pp. 35–6; Radford, pp. 161–3. John of Salisbury’s advice on the matter is from LJS, I, pp. 45–6. Theobald’s last letters to Henry are from LJS, I, pp. 197–8, 199–200, 201–2, 203–4, 215–17, 218, 219–21. His last letter to Becket is from LJS, I, pp. 224–5. John of Salisbury’s warning is from LJS, I, pp. 221–3. The versions of Theobald’s will, and the codicil, are from LJS, I, pp. 245–8. His parting blessing and homily are from LJS, I, pp. 249–51. Background is from Radford, pp. 179–84; Saltman, Theobald, p. 54. The biblical quotation is from Matthew 6:24.

Chapter 14: Archbishop

Herbert of Bosham’s account of the politics of Becket’s nomination, election and consecration as archbishop is from MTB, III, pp. 180–89; Edward Grim’s is from MTB, II, pp. 365–8; John of Salisbury’s is from MTB, II, pp. 305–6; William fitz Stephen’s is from MTB, III, pp. 35–7; Roger of Pontigny’s is from MTB, IV, pp. 14–19; William of Canterbury’s is from MTB, I, pp. 6–10. Selected passages in translation can be found in Staunton, pp. 58–66; Greenaway, pp. 50–56. Invaluable modern accounts are from Radford, pp. 191–221; Barlow, pp. 64–73; Knowles, pp. 50–58. The chronicler Ralph of Diss provides a brief but factual description: RD, cols. 533–4. The version in the ‘Thomas Saga Erkibyskups’ to which the ‘lost’ Becket biography by Robert of Cricklade is closely related is from TSE, I, pp. 62–95; RC, p. 387. The first papal licence empowering Roger of Pont l’Évêque to crown Prince Henry is from MTB, VI, pp. 206–7. It was revoked by the pope in 1166: MTB, V, p. 323. The second licence allowing any bishop to perform the coronation does not survive, but the text can be inferred from the licence to Roger. See A. Heslin, ‘The Coronation of the Young King in 1170’, in Studies in Church History, 2 (1968), pp. 165–78. Becket’s retrospective account to the pope of Henry’s plans can be found in CTB, II, p. 1269. His reluctance to become primate is from MTB, I, pp. 7–8; MTB, III, pp. 25–6, 180–81; MTB, IV, pp. 85–8; TSE, I, pp. 64–5, 80–81. Henry’s council of the barons in February 1162 at Rouen is from Eyton, p. 55. Henry of Pisa’s interventions in the following May are from MTB, I, p. 8; MTB, II, p. 306; MTB, IV, pp. 18, 86; TSE, I, p. 77; Eyton, p. 56. Background to the wrangle over precedence between Roger of Pont l’Évêque and Becket is from F. Makower, The Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England (London, 1895), pp. 281–93. The pope’s confirmation of some of Roger’s claims in 1162 is from MTB, V, pp. 21–2. See also CTB, I, pp. 41–3, 63–5. Herbert of Bosham’s account of the general objections to Thomas is from MTB, III, pp. 182–4. The likely grounds of Gilbert Foliot’s protest are worked out from MTB, IV, p. 85; Guernes, pp. 17; CTB, I, pp. 503–7. Fitz Stephen’s quotation of Foliot’s murmuring afterwards is from MTB, III, p. 36. Foliot’s career is from Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 167–86; D. Knowles, Saints and Scholars(Cambridge, 1963), pp. 59–62; C. N. L. Brooke in ODNB, s.v. ‘Foliot, Gilbert’. For the scandal of the boy abused by Roger of Pont l’Évêque, see notes to Ch. 12. The case of the citizen of Scarborough is from MTB, III, pp. 43–5. Henry’s decree at Falaise is from Chronicles, IV, p. 327. A valuable modern discussion of the York case is from R. C. van Caenegem, ‘Public Prosecution of Crime in Twelfth-Century England’, in Church and Government in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to C. R. Cheney, ed. C. N. L. Brooke, D. Luscombe and D. Owen (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 41–76. Henry’s subsequent attitude to such cases is from MTB, IV, pp. 95–7. The fragment of the ‘lost’ life of Becket describing the order of service at his consecration is from MTB, IV, pp. 154–7 (from BL, Lansdowne MS 398). Foliot’s account of the ‘prognostic’ chosen by Becket from the Vulgate edition of Matthew 21:19 is from CTB, I, pp. 505–7. Herbert of Bosham’s account of the mission to collect the pallium is from MTB, III, p. 189. Fitz Stephen’s reference to the pallium as the ‘yoke of Christ’ is from MTB, III, p. 37. A putative account of the mission is from Guernes, pp. 24–5. Henry’s and Becket’s movements in 1161–2 are from Eyton, pp. 52–7.

Chapter 15: A Broken Relationship

Arnulf of Lisieux’s letter of congratulation is from CTB, I, p. 11. Becket’s resignation as chancellor is from MTB, I, p. 12; Guernes, p. 29. His pungent letter to Bishop Henry of Winchester is from CTB, I, pp. 17–19. William fitz Stephen’s account of Becket’s project to recover all the lands and privileges that rightfully belonged to the church of Canterbury is from MTB, III, pp. 42–3. Herbert of Bosham’s account is from MTB, III, pp. 250–52. See also RD, cols. 535–6; Staunton, pp. 70–72; Greenaway, pp. 59–60; Duggan, pp. 34–5. Becket’s own reflections in 1169 are from CTB, II, pp. 1057–9. See also CTB, I, pp. 259–61; Du Boulay, Lordship of Canterbury, pp. 361, 366–7. Information on John the Marshal is from J. H. Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville: A Study of the Anarchy (London, 1892), pp. 82, 131, 171, 195, 409; D. Crouch, William Marshal: Knighthood, War and Chivalry, 1147–1219 (London, 2002), pp. 12–23. Henry’s and Becket’s movements in the months before and after the king’s return from Normandy are from Eyton, pp. 58–62. Herbert of Bosham’s account of their reunion is from MTB, II, pp. 252–3. Ralph of Diss’s version is from RD, col. 534. A London-based chronicler, he tells a different story. In his version, Becket was politely but less honourably received. ‘He was admitted to the kiss of peace,’ he says, ‘but not to the fullness of grace, as could clearly be seen when the king quickly turned his face away from him in front of everyone.’ The secret meeting between Henry and Pope Alexander at Déols is from Pontificum Romanorum Vitae, ed. I. M. Watterich (2 vols., Leipzig, 1862), I, p. 393; B. A. Lees, ‘The Letters of Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine to Pope Celestine III’, EHR, 21 (1906), pp. 92–3. Information on the Council of Tours is from R. Somerville, Pope Alexander III and the Council of Tours (Berkeley, CA, 1977), pp. 1–67; Barlow, pp. 84–7. Herbert of Bosham’s account of the council is from MTB, III, pp. 253–5. Stephen of Rouen’s jibe against Becket is from Chronicles, II, p. 744. Gilbert Foliot’s refusal of obedience to Becket is from CTB, I, pp. 29–31. The Council of Woodstock is from MTB, II, pp. 373–4; MTB, IV, pp. 23–4; Staunton, pp. 76–7; J. Green, ‘The Last Century of Danegeld’, EHR, 96 (1981), pp. 255–8. Becket’s refusal of a licence for William’s marriage to Isabel de Warenne is from Chronicles, II, pp. 676–7; Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, II, p. 29; R. Foreville, L’Eglise et la Royauté en Angleterre sous Henri II Plantagenet, 1154–1189 (St-Dizier, 1943), pp. 242–3. For the feud it caused, see MTB, III, p. 142; Barlow, pp. 106, 236, 247. The sources are ambiguous as to the timing of this clash. It may have taken place shortly after Becket returned from the Council of Tours, or perhaps shortly before he left. William of Newburgh’s report of the complaint of the judges on criminous clerks is from WN, p. 466. Essential background is from C. Duggan, ‘The Becket Dispute and Criminous Clerks’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 35 (1962), pp. 1–28; Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 122–33; Foreville, L’Eglise et la Royauté, pp. 136–51; Barlow, pp. 90–95; Duggan, pp. 46–58. For older interpretations, see F. W. Maitland, ‘Henry II and Criminous Clerks’, EHR, 26 (1892), pp. 224–34; H. W. C. Davis, England under the Normans and Angevins (London, 1905), pp. 534–6. The early legal cases handled by Becket in which Henry showed an interest are fromMTB, III, pp. 45–6, 264–5; English Lawsuits, ed. van Caenegem, pp. 404–5, 419–20. The case of Osbert of Bayeux is from LJS, I, pp. 26–7, 30, 42–3, 261–2. William of Canterbury gives the fullest references to the canonical authorities for the exemption of clerks from lay judgement: MTB, I, pp. 26–8.

Chapter 16: Conversion

For the idea of a Damascene conversion, see especially the account by ‘Anonymous II’: MTB, IV, p. 19. Tennyson’s adaptation is from his Becket (London, 1884), p. 29. The most accurate and discriminating source for Becket’s altered lifestyle is Herbert of Bosham: MTB, III, pp. 198–238. John of Salisbury’s version is from MTB, II, pp. 306–9. William of Canterbury’s more florid account is from MTB, I, pp. 10–12; Edward Grim’s is from MTB, II, pp. 368–71; William fitz Stephen’s is from MTB, III, pp. 37–41; Roger of Pontigny’s is from MTB, IV, pp. 19–22. See also Staunton, pp. 62–9; Greenaway, pp. 55–8; Barlow, pp. 74–83. An invaluable modern guide to the way the earliest biographers handle this material is M. Staunton, Thomas Becket and His Biographers (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 82–96. Background on Herbert of Bosham as the new archbishop’s divinity tutor is from Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 35–6, 61–7. Herbert’s own account is from MTB, III, pp. 204–5; Staunton, pp. 75–6. Becket’s letters to Henry of Winchester and Gilbert Foliot are from CTB, I, pp. 16–19, 22–5. The early fourteenth-century inventory of his books is from ALCD, pp. 82–5. See also C. F. R. de Hamel, Glossed Books of the Bible and the Origins of the Paris Booktrade (Woodbridge, 1984), pp. 43–4, 90–91; Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 135–7. Books can be identified from their descriptions as recorded by Prior Henry Eastry using the cross-database search tool of the Brepolis electronic Library of Latin Texts, series A–B. Books possibly with Becket’s marginal annotation are CCCC, MS 46, and TCC, MSS B.3.29 and B.3.12. See also the notes to Ch. 17. Becket’s copy of Livy, recorded as a gift of John of Salisbury, is TCC, MS R.4.4. Books in which Eastry’s inscription of Thomas’s ownership can still be read on the flyleaf despite the efforts of Henry VIII’s commissioners to erase it include CCCC, MS 46, and TCC, MS B.16.17. John of Salisbury’s vignette is from LJS, II, pp. 725–39. The annotations on the manuscript of Lactantius are from B. Ross, ‘Audi Thoma … Henriciani Nota: A French Scholar Appeals to Thomas Becket?’, EHR, 89 (1974), pp. 333–8. The identification of Peter of Celle as their author is from L. K. Barber, ‘MS Bodl. Canon Pat. Lat. 131 and a Lost Lactantius of John of Salisbury: Evidence in Search of a French Critic of Thomas Becket’,Albion, 22 (1990), pp. 21–37. Peter of Celle’s letter to Becket is from Barber, ibid., p. 34; LPC, pp. 328–31. Modern scholars tend to follow Peter’s critical line. Revisiting the puzzle in 1931, Zachary Brooke depicts Becket as an ‘actor-saint’, even if his acting was only ‘unconscious’, the result of adapting himself to whatever role presented itself. ‘The only explanation of him that seems to me to fit the facts at all,’ he writes, ‘is that he was one of those men who, exalting to the full the role they have to play, picture themselves as the perfect representatives of their office, visualizing a type and making themselves the living impersonation of it; actors playing a part, but unconscious actors.’ Frank Barlow goes further, claiming in 1986 that pride, the deadliest of the cardinal sins, is the key to Becket’s character. Curiously he links Becket’s fondness for grand gestures to his modest social origins. ‘He had,’ he says (perhaps revealing his own prejudices in the process), ‘all the failings of a typical parvenu.’ See Z. N. Brooke, The English Church and the Papacy: From the Conquest to the Reign of John (Cambridge, 1931), pp. 191–214; Barlow, pp. 89, 270–75. For more balanced views, acknowledging Becket’s divided consciousness, see Knowles, pp. 54–5; Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 113–16. John of Salisbury’s viewpoint on criminous clerks is from Duggan, ‘The Becket Dispute and Criminous Clerks’, pp. 17–18; PJS 1, p. 205. See also Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 124–5. John’s theories of resistance to tyrants, too complex to summarize in full, are from PJS 1, pp. 190–225. Wary of criticizing Henry directly as the quarrel with Becket gathered pace, he would instead tend to denounce surrogates, such as Roger II of Sicily, who had died in 1154, castigating him as a tyrant for his crude attempts ‘to reduce the Church to slavery’ by handling church elections like palace appointments, preventing papal legates from entering his kingdom and anointing his son as his successor without consulting the pope. See HP, pp. 65–9. What appears to be Becket’s system of marginal symbols, pencilled into his presentation copy of John of Salisbury’s Policraticus, is worked out from the original manuscript: CCCC, MS 46, fos. 157^r–v, 164^v, 165^r–v, 167^r–v, 168^r–v, 169^r, 172^r–v, 173^r–v, 174^v, 176^v, 177^r, 179^r, 180^v, 182^r. A number of separate marginal notes and marks in red chalk or crayon, for example at fos. 96^r, 168^r, are in a much later hand. Passages from John’s Metalogicon, which follows in the same manuscript, marked with a small flag or banner, include fos. 201^v, 202^v, 203^v, 209^v. The quotations from Becket’s public pronouncement on Henry’s tyranny are from the draft of his address to the papal curia at Sens in November 1164: CTB, I, pp. 143–9.

Chapter 17: The Clash

Becket’s sermon is from MTB, IV, pp. 22–3. For Herbert of Bosham’s account of similar views expressed by Becket at the Council of Westminster, see MTB, III, pp. 268–9. The historical and ideological background to the image of the ‘two swords’ is from Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 26–31. Becket’s interpretation is from MTB, III, pp. 204–5; Staunton, pp. 75–6. His copy of the Exhortation of St Bernard is from ALCD, p. 84. The quoted passage is from PL, vol. 182, cols. 463–4. The case of Philip de Broi is from MTB, I, pp. 12–13; MTB, II, pp. 374–6; MTB, III, pp. 45, 265–6; MTB, IV, pp. 24–5; English Lawsuits, ed. van Caenegem, pp. 405–11; RD, cols. 536–7; Staunton, p. 77. The excommunication of William of Eynsford is from MTB, III, p. 43; RD, col. 536; Staunton, pp. 78–9. Although the date of the Council of Westminster is contested, the case for it beginning on 13 October with the translation of the bones of Edward the Confessor, relying as it does on the testimony of Richard of Cirencester, a monk of Canterbury, is strong. See W. H. Hutton, Thomas Becket: Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1910), p. 78 and n. 1; Barlow, p. 95 and n. 14. The events of the canonization and translation are from MTB, III, p. 261; F. Barlow, Edward the Confessor (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1970), pp. 280–85. The legend of St Wulfstan is from William of Malmesbury, Saints’ Lives, ed. M. Winterbottom and R. M. Thomson (Oxford, 2002), p. xxxiii. Accounts of the Council of Westminster and its aftermath survive in several versions, not all of which agree. I have mainly followed those by Roger of Pontigny from MTB, IV, pp. 25–7; Herbert of Bosham (who was present) from MTB, III, pp. 261–75 (although some of the material within these pages must relate to the Council of Clarendon); and that recorded in the paper entitled ‘Summa Causae Inter Regem et Thomam’ from MTB, IV, pp. 201–5. See also Staunton, pp. 79–83; Greenaway, pp. 62–4. The fullest and best version of Becket’s and Henry’s speeches at the council is the one that Robert of Cricklade obtained, which was afterwards translated into Old Norse and incorporated into the Icelandic ‘Thomas Saga Erkibyskups’, from TSE, I, pp. 147–57; RC, pp. 388–9. Herbert of Bosham’s role in teaching Becket the implications of the Greek Septuagint text is from Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 124–35. John of Salisbury’s role is from Duggan, ‘The Becket Dispute and Criminous Clerks’, pp. 17–18; PJS 1, p. 205. The text itself is Nahum 1:9. Background on the bishops is from Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 56–9. The interview at Northampton is from MTB, IV, pp. 27–9; Staunton, pp. 83–5; Greenaway, pp. 64–6. The role of Arnulf of Lisieux in building up a royalist party is from MTB, IV, pp. 29–30; RD, col. 536; Staunton, p. 85. See also Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 59–60. Hilary of Chichester’s visit to Teynham is from MTB, IV, pp. 30–31; Staunton, pp. 85–6. John of Salisbury’s attack on the royalist bishops is from LJS, II, pp. 153–79. Becket’s letters commissioning hisenvoys to the papal curia are from CTB, I, pp. 33–41. His letters to the pope are from CTB, I, pp. 31–3, 41–3. The letter of John of Canterbury to Becket is from CTB, I, pp. 43–7. Pope Alexander’s letter to Becket is from CTB, I, pp. 49–51. His letter to Gilbert Foliot is from MTB, V, pp. 61–2. The mission of Philip, abbot of l’Aumône, is from MTB, IV, pp. 31–2; Staunton, pp. 86–7. The meeting at Woodstock is from MTB, III, p. 277; MTB, IV, pp. 32–3; Staunton, p. 87. Information on John of Salisbury’s mission to France is from LJS, II, pp. 3–15. William fitz Stephen alleges that far from Becket sending John to France, it was Henry who exiled both him and John of Canterbury (who was sent to be bishop of Poitiers) in order to deprive Becket of their help and advice: MTB, III, p. 46. But this is not borne out by John’s letter to Becket.

Chapter 18: Clarendon

Information on the palace of Clarendon is from The King’s Works: Volume II, The Middle Ages, ed. R. Allen Brown, H. M. Colvin and A. J. Taylor (London, 1963), Part I, pp. 910–18. The contemporary accounts of the council contain gaps and serious contradictions, which I have attempted to resolve. William fitz Stephen and Herbert of Bosham appear to have been eyewitnesses, but fitz Stephen seems to be in error when he says that Becket signed the ‘ancestral customs’. Apart from Herbert of Bosham, the most useful narratives are by John of Salisbury, Edward Grim, William of Canterbury, Guernes of Pont-Sainte-Maxence and Roger of Pontigny. William’s account is from MTB, I, pp. 18–24; Herbert’s is from MTB, III, pp. 278–99; fitz Stephen’s is from MTB, III, pp. 46–8; John of Salisbury’s is from MTB, II, pp. 311–12; Edward Grim’s is from MTB, II, pp. 379–83; Roger of Pontigny’s is from MTB, IV, pp. 33–7. Guernes is unusually well-informed about this episode and several of the biographers copy him: Guernes, pp. 36–7. An invaluable corrective to the bias of these biographers is Gilbert Foliot’s letter of 1166, Multiplicem nobis: CTB, I, pp. 509–13. See Ch. 23. See also Staunton, pp. 88–96; EHD, pp. 766–71; Greenaway, pp. 67–73. A text apparently derived in part from a transcript of one copy of the record of the council contained in the chirograph is from MTB, V, pp. 71–9. The date of 25 January for when the council convened is from RD, col. 536. Essential modern interpretations are Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 60–65; Barlow, pp. 98–105; Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 122–33; Duggan, ‘The Becket Dispute and Criminous Clerks’, pp. 3–4, 24–5. Mary Cheney’s attempt to argue that ‘Roger of Norwich’ is a clerical error for Roger of Worcester rather than William of Norwich is unconvincing: M. G. Cheney, Roger, Bishop of Worcester, 1164–1179 (Oxford, 1980), pp. 19–20. It could be that Henry of Winchester is the correct identification, but Knowles is more likely to be right that this is a slip by Herbert of Bosham and that William of Norwich was meant. The reaction of Becket’s clerks to the events at Clarendon is from MTB, II, pp. 323–5; MTB, III, pp. 289–92. His rebuke on the road to Hilary of Chichester is from MTB, III, p. 292. His fasting and penances after his return to Canterbury are from MTB, I, p. 24; MTB, II, p. 325; MTB, III, p. 49. His repulse at Woodstock is from MTB, III, p. 49. His attempts to flee across the Channel and return to Canterbury are from MTB, I, p. 29; MTB, II, pp. 325–6, 389–90; MTB, III, pp. 49, 293; MTB, IV, p. 40; Guernes, pp. 49–50. See also Staunton, pp. 96–100; Greenaway, pp. 73–4. Pope Alexander’s letters to Becket are from CTB, I, pp. 63–5, 78–89. See also CTB, I, pp. 40–43. John of Salisbury’s letter is from CTB, I, pp. 88–95. Henry of Houghton’s letter is from CTB, I, pp. 96–9. John of Canterbury’s letters are from CTB, I, pp. 98–109, 127–33. Becket’s letter to King Louis is from CTB, I, pp. 134–5. John the Marshal’s case is from MTB, I, pp. 30–31; MTB, II, pp. 390–92; MTB, III, pp. 50–51, 295–6; MTB, IV, pp. 40–41. An invaluable chronology of events and royal itinerary in 1164 is from Eyton, pp. 67–77.

Chapter 19: Northampton

The best account of the case of John the Marshal is by M. G. Cheney, ‘The Litigation between John Marshal and Archbishop Thomas Becket in 1164: A Pointer to the Origin of Novel Disseisin?’, in Law and Social Change in British History, ed. John Guy and H. G. Beale (London, 1984), pp. 9–26. There are seven important contemporary accounts of the Council of Northampton by William fitz Stephen, Herbert of Bosham, William of Canterbury, Alan of Tewkesbury, Edward Grim, Roger of Pontigny and Guernes of Pont-Sainte-Maxence. Fitz Stephen’s account is from MTB, III, pp. 49–68; Staunton, pp. 100–115; Greenaway, pp. 75–8, 79–89. Herbert’s is from MTB, III, pp. 296–312; Greenaway, pp. 78–9. William’s is from MTB, I, pp. 30–40. Alan’s is from MTB, II, pp. 326–34. Edward’s is from MTB, II, pp. 390–98. Roger’s is from MTB, IV, pp. 41–52. Guernes of Pont-Sainte-Maxence’s account is from Guernes, pp. 50–70. Translations of the most important of these sources are from English Lawsuits, ed. van Caenegem, pp. 423–57. Becket’s illness is from MTB, I, p. 32; MTB, II, p. 392; MTB, III, pp. 56, 300–301; MTB, IV, p. 49. See also Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 167–8, who takes a different view as to the meaning of ‘colic’; see notes to Ch. 12. Roger of Howden’s account, which creates the impression that Becket was to be sentenced to life imprisonment, is from RH, I, pp. 224–9. A short note by Ralph of Diss can be found in RD, cols. 537–8. The best modern interpretation of the events and significance of the council is from Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 66–90, 163–6. The plan of Northampton Castle is from ibid., pp. 169–70. My interpretation differs in some important details, as I tend to prefer the accounts of William fitz Stephen and Herbert of Bosham, who were eyewitnesses, to that of Alan of Tewkesbury, who was out of the country at the time. But generally I follow Knowles on the key points of chronology and argument. An invaluable reassessment of the legal significance of the council and of fitz Stephen’s role is by A. J. Duggan, ‘Roman, Canon and Common Law in Twelfth-Century England: The Council of Northampton (1164) Re-Examined’, Historical Research, 83 (2010), pp. 379–408. See also Barlow, pp. 109–14; Duggan, pp. 61–83. The events at the priory of St Andrew once Becket had left the castle and decided to flee into exile are from MTB, I, pp. 40–41; MTB, II, pp. 334–5, 398–9; MTB, III, pp. 68–70, 312–13; MTB, IV, pp. 52–4; Guernes, pp. 70–71; Staunton, pp. 116–19; Greenaway, pp. 89–91. Henry’s retort after Becket’s departure is from MTB, IV, p. 55.

Chapter 20: Exile

The best accounts of Becket’s experiences on his journey from Northampton to St-Omer and Sens are by William fitz Stephen and Herbert of Bosham: MTB, III, pp. 69–72, 312–15, 318–35; Staunton, pp. 120–28; Greenaway, pp. 92–5. Other information is from MTB, I, pp. 41–5; MTB, II, pp. 335–7, 399–402; MTB, IV, pp. 54–60; Guernes, pp. 71–84; TSE, I, pp. 229–71. The stages of Becket’s progress and those of Henry’s envoys are from Eyton, pp. 74–7. See also Barlow, pp. 115–21. The composition of the king’s deputation to the pope is from Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 92–101. Invaluable background on Alexander’s situation is from Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 138–59. Arnulf of Lisieux’s advice to Becket is from CTB, I, pp. 183–201. The attitude of Louis VII as related to John of Salisbury is from CTB, I, pp. 172–3. Fitz Stephen’s description of Becket’s arrival at Sens is from MTB, III, p. 74. Apart from the earl of Arundel’s, which is too innocuous, the best versions of the rival speeches at the curia are those by Alan of Tewkesbury and Herbert Bosham: MTB, II, pp. 336–45; MTB, III, pp. 335–57; Staunton, pp. 128–34; Greenaway, pp. 95–100. The earl’s speech appears to have been better reported in the lost ‘life’ by Robert of Cricklade, later incorporated into the ‘Thomas Saga Erkibyskups’: TSE, I, pp. 283–5; RC, p. 390. The rough draft of Becket’s address to the pope is from CTB, I, pp. 143–9. William of Canterbury’s account of the conclave is from MTB, I, pp. 46–9. The account from the ‘Thomas Saga Erkibyskups’ is from TSE, I, pp. 271–311. Becket’s retrospective account of the pope’s absolution of him for binding himself to the ‘customs’ at Clarendon is from CTB, II, pp. 830–31. Other information on the conclave is from MTB, II, pp. 402–4; MTB, III, pp. 72–6; MTB, IV, pp. 60–65; Guernes, pp. 84–90. The description of Pontigny is from the author’s visit in 2009 and from C. Wiéner, Pontigny (St Léger Vaubin, 1994), pp. 3–6, 13–40. See also J. C. Robertson, Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1859), pp. 161–80. The fullest descriptions of Becket’s asceticism leading to illness are by Edward Grim and Herbert of Bosham: MTB, II, pp. 412–13; MTB, III, pp. 357–79; Staunton, pp. 136–8. See also MTB, I, p. 49; MTB, II, pp. 345–6; 404; MTB, III, pp. 76–7; MTB, IV, p. 65; TSE, I, pp. 311–19. A fine critical evaluation of these sources is by Barlow, pp. 124, 127–9, 134–5. Herbert of Bosham’s green tunic and cloak are from MTB, III, pp. 99–100. The scope of Becket’s studies in exile is from William fitz Stephen: MTB, III, p. 77. Becket’s book collecting at Pontigny is from ibid.; C. F. R. de Hamel, ‘A Contemporary Miniature of Thomas Becket’, in Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Margaret Gibson, ed. L. M. Smith and B. Ward (London, 1992), pp. 179–84; de Hamel, Glossed Books of the Bible, pp. 42–4. John of Salisbury’s advice is from CTB, I, pp. 172–3; LJS, II, p. 49. The manuscript of the Great Gloss is from Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 82–3. Three of its four volumes are now TCC, MSS B.5.4, B.5.6, B.5.7. Becket’s other glossed and illuminated books described in this chapter are TCC, MSS B.3.11, B.3.12, B.5.5. The de luxe copy of Gratian may be either J. Paul Getty Museum, MS Ludwig.XIV.2, or the broken copy of which fragments survive in the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Municipal Library at Auxerre as described by W. Cahn, ‘A Twelfth-Century Decretum Fragment from Pontigny’, Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 62 (1975), pp. 47–59. The full inventory of Becket’s books is from ALCD, pp. 82–5. See also Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 135–7. The significance of the philosophy of St Ambrose is from J. T. Muckle, ‘The De Officiis Ministrorum of Saint Ambrose’, Medieval Studies, 1 (1939), pp. 63–80.

Chapter 21: Attack and Counter-attack

Henry’s attack on Becket’s clerks and relatives, and on the Canterbury lands is from MTB, I, pp. 55–6; MTB, III, pp. 75–6, 373–5; Staunton, p. 135; Greenaway, pp. 101–2. See also Barlow, pp. 125–7. The exile to Sicily of one of Becket’s nephews is from CTB, I, pp. 736–7. William fitz Stephen’s prayer is from MTB, III, pp. 78–81. His meeting with Thomas at Fleury is from MTB, III, p. 59. Henry’s plans and preoccupations at the beginning of 1165 based on information supplied to Becket possibly by John of Canterbury are from CTB, I, pp. 177–9. Arnulf of Lisieux’s advice is from CTB, I, pp. 183–201. John of Salisbury’s advice is from CTB, I, pp. 171–7. The diplomacy with Matilda, Henry’s mother, is from CTB, I, pp. 155–73, 211–13, 227. Ernulf’s role in arranging the conference at Pontoise is from CTB, I, pp. 203–5. Its failure is from Guernes, p. 139. Information on the movements of Henry and Eleanor and their courts in the first half of 1165 is from Eyton, pp. 77–80, 85–6. The negotiations with Frederick Barbarossa are from MTB, V, pp. 184–95; RM, pp. 762–4; RD, col. 539; Warren, Henry II, p. 493; Hutton, Thomas Becket, p. 126; Barlow, pp. 136–7. The charge of perjury against John of Oxford is from LJS, I, pp. 183–5; CTB, I, pp. 391, 563, 569, 595. Pope Alexander’s return to Rome is from CTB, I, pp. 176 and n. 1, 205–7, 225–9; LJS, II, pp. 51–7; WN, pp. 468–9. The papal annulment of the sentence at Northampton is from CTB, I, p. 149. The pope’s restraint on Thomas with its deadline of Easter 1166 is from CTB, I, pp. 224–5. Henry’s campaign in Wales is from Hosler, ‘Henry II’s Military Campaigns in Wales, 1157 and 1165’, pp. 53–72; Warren, Henry II, pp. 163–5. Henry’s and Eleanor’s movements in 1166 are from Eyton, pp. 88–99. The birth of Philip Augustus is from J. Bradbury, The Capetians: Kings of France, 987–1328 (London, 2007), p. 167. The visit of King Louis to see Henry at Angers is from RM, p. 764. The audience of Becket’s clerks on 1 May is from MTB, III, pp. 98–101; LJS, II, pp. 21–3, 77, 85–7; Staunton, pp. 142–4. John of Salisbury’s attitude to Becket is from LJS, II, pp. 21–3, 49, 93–101; Duggan, ‘John of Salisbury and Thomas Becket’, pp. 430–38; Barlow, pp. 130–31. Henry’s council at Chinon, where he spoke angry words against those who would not help him to silence Becket, is from LJS, II, pp. 109–11. Pope Alexander’s letter confirming the end of the Easter deadline is from CTB, I, pp. 271–3. His grant of a papal legacy is from CTB, I, pp. 279–81. Becket’s calls to Henry to repent sent to him shortly before the council at Chinon are from CTB, I, pp. 267–71, 293–9. Becket’s pilgrimage to Soissons is from LJS, II, pp. 111–13; Barlow, pp. 146–7. His message to Matilda delivered by Nicholas of Rouen is from LJS, II, pp. 65–7; CTB, I, pp, 343–7. I have followed the editors of LJS, II, pp. xxvii–xxviii in dating this letter. Information on Vézelay is from the author’s visit and from J.-B. Auberger and J. Gréal, Vézelay (Paris, 2007), pp. 1–40. The Whit Sunday sermon and the Vézelay sentences are from MTB, III, pp. 391–2; CTB, I, pp. 309–17, 323–9; LJS, II, pp. 113–15; Staunton, pp. 144–5; Barlow, pp. 147–8; Duggan, pp. 101–23. Alexander’s letter of confirmation is from CTB, I, p. 489; Barlow, p. 149. Becket’s letter to Henry delivered by Gerard with its third and final call to repentance is from CTB, I, pp. 329–43. The political situation following the Vézelay sentences is from LJS, II, pp. 117, 147–9, 201–3, 225–9. The appeal of the English bishops is from MTB, I, pp. 56–8; MTB, V, pp. 403–8; LJS, II, pp. 123–7, 135–7, 153–65, 171–7; CTB, I, pp. 373–83; Staunton, pp. 146–7; Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 96–7. John of Salisbury’s comment on Robert of Melun is from LJS, II, p. 173. Henry’s letter to Rainald of Dassel is from MTB, V, pp. 428–9; CTB, I, p. xliii and n. 56; Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 130–31. His attack on the Cistercians is from MTB, II, pp. 413–14; CTB, I, pp. 317–19, 321–3; Staunton, p. 148.

Chapter 22: Search for a Settlement

Henry’s renewed intervention in Brittany is from Everard, Brittany and the Angevins, pp. 34–5, 43–4, 94. John of Canterbury’s report of the interception of Becket’s letter to the pope describing Henry as a ‘wicked tyrant’ is from CTB, I, p. 581. His account of Henry’s state of mind during the winter months of 1166–7 is from CTB, I, pp. 575–81. See also Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 130–31. The torture of Becket’s servant is from CTB, I, pp. 545, 551. The political situation is from CTB, I, pp. 555–63, 575–81, 587–95, 613–15, 623; LJS, II, pp. 231–355. Eleanor’s movements are from Eyton, pp. 108–9. Her attitude to Becket is from CTB, I, pp. 214–18. On the influence of Ralph de Faye, see also Vincent, ‘Patronage, Politics and Piety in the Charters of Eleanor of Aquitaine’, p. 48. Pope Alexander’s attempt at a soothing letter to Becket is from CTB, I, p. 573. The mission of William of Pavia and Otto of Brescia is from CTB, I, pp. 613–15, 619–21, 625–35, 639–733; MTB, III, pp. 408–15; Staunton, pp. 150–54; Greenaway, pp. 117–23; Duggan, pp. 125–42; Barlow, pp. 163–73. Becket’s explosive note is from CTB, I, p. 625. The pun on S. Pietro in Vincoli is from CTB, I, p. 627; LJS, II, pp. 423, 611. Alexander’s directions to the mediators on his arrival at Benevento are from MTB, VI, pp. 232–3. Gilbert Foliot’s exclamation is from CTB, I, p. 589. Becket’s letter to the pope on Frederick’s rout in Italy is from CTB, I, pp. 641–5. John of Salisbury’s report of Henry’s reception of the mediators at Argentan and the arrival of the delegation of bishops is from CTB, I, pp. 687–95. The European background in late 1167 and early 1168 is from LJS, II, pp. 553–83. Henry’s attempted blackmail at the curia is from LJS, II, p. 561. His offers of bribes and subsidies are from LJS, II, p. 661; CTB, II, pp. 944–5. Becket’s envoys to the curia are from CTB, I, pp. 729–33, 751–3. Alexander’s juggling act is from CTB, I, pp. 755, 765–7; MTB, VI, pp. 388–9. Becket’s reaction is from CTB, I, pp. 771–87. The commissioning of the papal arbitrators, overseen by Simon, prior of Mont-Dieu, and Bernard de la Coudre, prior of Le Bois, is from MTB, VI, pp. 394–6, 437–40; CTB, II, pp. 819–21; Duggan, pp. 146–9; Barlow, pp. 179–81. The political situation in late 1168 and early 1169 is from RM, pp. 770–72; Chronicles, IV, pp. 237–9; LJS, II, pp. 603–19, 625–35; Eyton, pp. 113–19; Warren, Henry II, pp. 107–10, 496–8. Becket’s critique of Henry’s tyranny sent to his envoy at the curia is from CTB, I, p. 591. The meeting at Montmirail is from CTB, II, pp. 819–25; LJS, II, pp. 637–49; MTB, I, pp. 73–5; MTB, III, pp. 96–7, 418–28; MTB, IV, pp. 113–14; MTB, VI, pp. 488–90; Staunton, pp. 154–62; Greenaway, pp. 123–7. Herbert of Bosham identifies the location as ‘in a flat field’: MTB, III, p. 427. Becket’s letters to the pope and cardinals giving his version of events are from CTB, II, pp. 821–5. His conciliatory letter to Henry is from CTB, II, p. 827. The falling out and reconciliation of the exiles with King Louis is from LJS, II, p. 643; MTB, II, pp. 349–51; MTB, III, pp. 438–40; Staunton, pp. 162–3. Becket’s letters to his allies at the curia are from CTB, II, pp. 939–63. The quotation is from p. 959.

Chapter 23: The Case against Becket

The critical analysis of Arnulf of Lisieux, sent in a letter to Becket dated February–March 1165, is from CTB, I, pp. 183–201. See also Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 166–7. For Becket’s comparison of Gilbert Foliot with Judas, see for instance CTB, II, pp. 923, 1155. John of Salisbury’s attacks on Foliot as Achitophel are from LJS, II, pp. 129–33, 153–65, 245–9; CTB, I, pp. 457–69. Becket’s appeal from Pontigny to Foliot’s spiritual loyalty is from CTB, I, pp. 251–5. Foliot’s reputation for eloquence as abbot of Gloucester is from Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 168–9. Foliot’s pièce justificative on behalf of the English bishops is from CTB, I, pp. 373–83. John of Salisbury’s responses, sent to Bartholomew of Exeter and Becket himself, are from LJS, II, pp. 139–65. Becket’s defence of his cause is from CTB, I, pp. 389–425. His letter of reproach to Foliot is from CTB, I, pp. 427–41. The text of Multiplicem nobis is from CTB, I, pp. 499–537. Its eighteenth-century rediscovery is from Lyttelton, IV, pp. 125–33. Mme Foreville’s critique is from L’Eglise et la Royauté, pp. 244–7. The proof of the document’s authenticity and Foliot’s authorship is from Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 122–7, 171–80. See also Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 182–4.

Chapter 24: Cat and Mouse

John of Salisbury’s account of the interview at St-Léger-en-Yvelines is from LJS, II, pp. 645–7. Becket’s version of the same events is from CTB, II, pp. 829–35. Prior Simon’s version is from MTB, VI, pp. 516–18. See also Duggan, pp. 153–4. The Clairvaux excommunications are from MTB, III, pp. 87–8; Staunton, p. 164; CTB, II, pp. 849–73, 913–21. Information on their enforcement is from CTB, II, pp. 901–9, 929–33; Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 101–15; Duggan, pp. 155–8. Henry’s fine levied on Adam of Charing is from CTB, II, p. 853, n. 6. Reports of the delivery of the letters of excommunication at St Paul’s Cathedral and Foliot’s synod are from CTB, II, pp. 901–9; MTB, III, pp. 88–90; Staunton, pp. 164–6. Background on Foliot’s claim of metropolitan status for the see of London is from Knowles, pp. 122–3; Makower, Constitutional History … of the Church of England, pp. 272–4. Becket’s letter to the pope seeking confirmation of the Clairvaux sentences is from CTB, II, pp. 865–9. The pope’s letters announcing the appointment of Vivian of Orvieto and Gratian of Pisa and suspending Becket’s disciplinary powers are from CTB, II, pp. 889–95, 909–11. Herbert of Bosham’s assessment of Gratian is from MTB, III, p. 442. The meeting of the papal envoys with John of Salisbury is from LJS, II, p. 651. Information on their series of meetings with Henry and Becket is from CTB, II, pp. 979–87; MTB, III, pp. 441–4; Staunton, pp. 166–8; Duggan, pp. 162–72. Henry’s letter to the Cistercians is from MTB, VII, pp. 90–92; CTB, I, p. lvi, n. 81. The second mission of Reginald fitz Jocelin and Ralph of Llandaff to the curia is from MTB, VII, pp. 82–8; Eyton, p. 129. Becket’s letter to the pope is from CTB, II, pp. 991–3. His letter to his envoys at the curia is from CTB, II, pp. 993–5. His reimposition of the Clairvaux sentences is from CTB, II, pp. 997–1001. The royal ordinances are from M. D. Knowles, A. J. Duggan and C. N. L. Brooke, ‘Henry II’s Supplement to the Constitutions of Clarendon’, EHR, 87 (1972), pp. 757–71, where a critical edition and commentary are provided as an appendix along with full references to sources. See also MTB, VII, pp. 147–51; RH, I, pp. 231–2; Duggan, pp. 174–5. Becket’s reaction to the new ordinances is from CTB, II, p. 1025. The backlash against the ordinances is from Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 131–5; Duggan, pp. 175–6. Becket’s anguished letter to his ally at the curia (Cardinal Hubald of Ostia) is from CTB, II, pp. 939–51; the quotations are from pp. 941, 943. The ‘axe’ remark from William fitz Stephen is from MTB, III, p. 102. Becket’s conditions for the talks at Montmartre are from CTB, II, pp. 1030–43. Herbert of Bosham’s account of the interview is from MTB, III, pp. 445–51; Staunton, pp. 168–72; Greenaway, pp. 129–30. See also Barlow, pp. 193–5; Duggan, pp. 176–8. Lord Lyttelton’s judgement is from Lyttelton, IV, p. 265. Becket’s reports are from CTB, II, pp. 1045–67. King Louis’s and Count Theobald’s opinions are from CTB, II, p. 1051. The haggling over reparations is from CTB, II, pp. 1057–9; MTB, VII, p. 206. Vivian’s disillusionment with Henry’s lies and duplicity is from CTB, II, pp. 1047–9, 1067–9. His own report to Pope Alexander is from MTB, III, pp. 167–9. Pope Alexander’s commissions to his special legates are from MTB, VII, pp. 198–204. See also Duggan, pp. 179–80. Becket’s advice to Bishop Bernard of Nevers is from CTB, II, pp. 1165–77.

Chapter 25: A Trial of Strength

Information on Becket’s sentences of excommunications and interdict after the failure of the peace conference at Montmartre is from CTB, II, pp. 1091–1119. The rival missions to Pope Alexander at Benevento are from LJS, II, pp. 691–7; Duggan, pp. 178–81; Barlow, pp. 196–7. John of Salisbury’s summary of Henry’s intentions is from LJS, II, pp. 691–5. Information on the absolutions of Gilbert Foliot and Jocelin of Salisbury is from MTB, VII, pp. 208–9, 273–6; CTB, II, pp. 1181–91; RD, cols. 551–2; Barlow, pp. 200–201. Becket’s angry protests to Pope Alexander and Cardinal Albert de Morra are from CTB, II, pp. 1181–9. His copy of St Cyprian’s letters is from ALCD, p. 84. Cyprian’s views on martyrdom and resistance are from Letters 31, 58 in The Epistles of St Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage and Martyr, with the Council of Carthage on the Baptism of Heretics, ed. H. Carey (Oxford. 1844), pp. 68–74, 142–50. Henry’s return to England and movements after his arrival at Portsmouth are from Eyton, pp. 135–40. Information on Prince Henry’s coronation and the events surrounding it is from MTB, III, pp. 103–7; MTB, IV, pp. 66–7; Staunton, pp. 173–4; Greenaway, pp. 132–5; CTB, II, pp. 1247–57; Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 136–7. The payment for the coronation robes for Princess Margaret and her ladies is from Eyton, p. 139. The papal and archiepiscopal decrees sent to Henry and the bishops in an attempt to prevent the ceremony going ahead are from MTB, VII, pp. 216–17, 256–7; CTB, II, pp. 1141–2, 1211–25, 1235–45. The role of ‘Idonea’ is from CTB, II, pp. 1233–5. See also LJS, II, pp. 705–6; Barlow, p. 311, n. 14. John of Salisbury’s information concerning the reception of the documents is from LJS, II, pp. 705–7. Alexander’s fresh commission to the special legates authorizing interdicts on Henry’s continental lands is from MTB, VII, pp. 210–12 (although sent in late April or early May before the coronation, it could not have arrived in Normandy until late June); Barlow, pp. 204–5. Becket’s letters of interdict are from CTB, II, pp. 1235–45. Master Ernulf’s criticism of the legates is from CTB, II, p. 1251. The preliminary negotiations to the peace of Fréteval are from Eyton, pp. 140–41. See also Duggan, pp. 182–3; Barlow, p. 208. Becket’s original terms as presented to Bernard of Nevers, which he was forced to dilute, are from CTB, II, pp. 1165–77. The three independent descriptions of the proceedings at the peace conference are from CTB, II, pp. 1261–79; MTB, III, pp. 107–12; MTB, III, pp. 465–7; Staunton, pp. 174–7; Greenaway, pp. 136–7. See also Barlow, pp. 208–12; Duggan, pp. 179–88. The text of Pope Alexander’s licence, issued in 1161, allowing a bishop of Henry’s choice to perform his son’s coronation, must be inferred from the licence to Roger of Pont l’Évêque, revoked in 1166, from MTB, VI, pp. 206–7. See A. Heslin, ‘The Coronation of the Young King in 1170’, in Studies in Church History, 2 (1968), pp. 165–78; Warren, Henry II, pp. 500–502. A letter purportedly securing a renewal of the archbishop of York’s right to crown is not to be found in a Vatican manuscript and is generally agreed to be a forgery: MTB, VI, pp. 206–7. See also MTB, VII, pp. 226–8. Arnulf of Lisieux’s intervention is from CTB, II, pp. 1275–7. Geoffrey Ridel’s outburst is from Guernes, p. 154. See also CTB, II, p. 1275–7. Pope Alexander’s letter establishing that Becket had informed him that Prince Henry had sworn an oath ‘to preserve the evil customs’ at his coronation is from CTB, II, pp. 1291–5. See also Barlow, p. 207. Foreville suggests that it is reasonable to assume that the younger Henry swore an oath to respect the liberties of the Church salvo honore regni mei, the same proviso his father inserted into the Fréteval agreement, but she cites no supporting evidence: Foreville, L’Eglise et la Royauté, p. 314. Henry’s illness and movements are from Eyton, pp. 143–6. The (slightly differing) versions of Henry’s writ to enforce the Fréteval peace are from CTB, II, pp. 1259–61; LJS, II, p. 710–11; MTB, VII, pp. 346–7; RD, cols. 552–3. Cardinal Albert’s opinion of the peace settlement is fromMTB, II, pp. 1340–41.

Chapter 26: Return to Canterbury

William fitz Stephen’s account of the meetings between Henry and Becket in the Loire Valley are from MTB, III, pp. 114–16; Staunton, pp. 179–80; Greenaway, pp. 139–41. Herbert of Bosham’s version is from MTB, III, pp. 468–71. The omission of the kiss of peace from the mass at Montlouis (or possibly Amboise) is from MTB, III, p. 469. See also Duggan, pp. 188–9; Barlow, pp. 214–15; 312–13, where the dates and places are carefully collated. Henry’s writ from Chinon is from MTB, III, p. 12; Eyton, pp. 148–9, where the full witness list is given. The reports from Becket’s advance party to England are from LJS, II, pp. 715–19 (strictly this is one of John of Salisbury’s letters to his friend Peter of Celle, but a similar report must have been sent to Becket since he had commissioned John to send him news); CTB, II, pp. 1303–9, perhaps written jointly by John and Herbert of Bosham. See also the report by William fitz Stephen from MTB, III, pp. 112–13; Staunton, pp. 177–8. Becket’s own account, based on the reports he received, is fromCTB, II, pp. 1345–9. The allegation of piracy is from CTB, II, p. 1309, n. 15; MTB, III, p. 124. Becket’s letter to the pope urging moderation in the cause of peace is from CTB, II, pp. 1321–9. See also the excellent accounts by Duggan, pp. 192–3; Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 136–7; Barlow, pp. 218–19. Pope Alexander’s letters and decrees sent to Becket in September and October 1170, which reinstated his excommunications and reinforced his legatine and disciplinary powers, are from CTB, II, pp. 1291–5, 1301, 1309–17. Those addressed to William of Sens and Archbishop Rotrou are from MTB, VII, pp. 376–9. See also MTB, VII, pp. 383–4, where an interdict is threatened on Henry’s continental lands. Becket’s last letter to Henry is from CTB, II, pp. 1333–5. The scene at Rouen is from MTB, III, pp. 116–17; Staunton, pp. 180–81; Greenaway, pp. 140–41. The scene at Wissant is from MTB, I, pp. 86–7; MTB, III, pp. 117–18, 471–2; Staunton, p. 182. The intelligence of Milo, dean of Boulogne, is fromMTB, I, pp. 86–7; Staunton, p. 182; CTB, II, p. 1349. Information on Becket’s landing at Sandwich and triumphant reception at Canterbury is from MTB, III, pp. 127–8, 476–80; TSE, I, pp. 489–95; Staunton, pp. 182–5; Greenaway, pp. 142–5; CTB, II, pp. 1345–55; LJS, II, p. 721. The clash with the delinquent bishops is from LJS, II, pp. 721–3;CTB, II, pp. 1349–53;MTB, III, pp. 480; Guernes (who supplies the figure of £10,000), pp. 173–4; TSE, I, pp. 497–501; Staunton, pp. 184–5, 188; Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 137–9. See also Duggan, pp. 198–200. The plot against Becket is from CTB, II, pp. 1353–5; LJS, II, p. 721. Becket’s failed journey to visit the junior King Henry is from LJS, II, p. 723;MTB, III, pp. 121–4; Staunton, pp. 185–6; Greenaway, pp. 143–5. His and the junior king’s movements are from Eyton, pp. 151–2. The mission of the abbot of St Albans is from MTB, III, p. 124; Staunton, pp. 186–7. The incident involving Reginald of Cornwall is from MTB, I, pp. 114–15; Barlow, p. 231; Duggan, pp. 203–4. The predations of the de Brocs in Canterbury are from MTB, III, pp. 126–7; TSE, I, pp. 495–6, 509; Staunton, p. 187. Information on Becket’s Christmas Day sermon and excommunications is from MTB, II, pp. 17–18; MTB, III, p. 130; Greenaway, pp. 146–7; RD, col. 555. The dispatch of Becket’s favourite clerks is from MTB, III, pp. 485–6; Staunton, p. 194; Greenaway, p. 147. Becket’s last letter to Bishop William of Norwich is from CTB, II, pp. 1360–61. Background of Bishop William is from Knowles, Episcopal Colleagues, pp. 61, 81, 108–9, 134. My reconstruction of the events in Normandy and of the charges levelled at the great council of barons and prelates is worked out from Guernes, pp. 174–8; MTB, I, pp. 121–3; MTB, II, pp. 428–9; MTB, III, pp. 127–30, 487–8; TSE, I, pp. 501–3, 512–15; Staunton, pp. 188–90, 191–2; Barlow, pp. 234–5; Duggan, pp. 205–7. For Henry’s opinion of Becket as a highly dangerous enemy who had broken the peace and maligned him, see also MTB, VII, pp. 418–20. For the charges levelled by Arnulf of Lisieux, seeLetters of Arnulf of Lisieux, ed. Barlow, pp. 104–12. Guernes’s version of Henry’s famous outburst is from Guernes, p. 175; Edward Grim’s version is from MTB, II, p. 429; Gervase of Canterbury’s version is from GC, col. 1414. The eighteenth-century renditions are from Lyttelton, IV, p. 353; T. Mortimer,A New History of England from the Earliest Accounts of Britain to the Ratification of the Peace of Versailles (2 vols., London, 1764–6), I, p. 268. Background on the four knights is from a brilliant reconstruction by Professor Nicholas Vincent, who clears up centuries of accumulated myth and confusion about their true identity and provides other invaluable information: ‘The Murderers of Thomas Becket’, in Bischofsmord in Mittelalter: Murder of Bishops, ed. N. Fryde and D. Reitz (Göttingen, 2003), pp. 211–72. Information on the journey of the four knights and their arrival at Canterbury is from MTB, II, pp. 429–30; MTB, III, pp. 128–30, 131–2, 487–8; Guernes, pp. 178–81; Staunton, pp. 194–5; Greenaway, p. 146, 148–9; Knowles, pp. 140–41. The reports of Edward Grim and Roger of Pontigny that the knights would have murdered Becket with the haft of his own cross at the very outset of the confrontation are from MTB, II, p. 431; MTB, IV, p. 71; Knowles, p. 142. Herbert of Bosham’s report of the terror of the knights after the murder is from MTB, III, pp. 512–13.

Chapter 27: Murder in the Cathedral

Some ten (if the ‘Thomas Saga Erkibyskups’ is counted as an independent source) accounts exist of Becket’s murder. I have done my best to produce a consolidated version, giving firm priority to those sources who are known to have been eyewitnesses. Of the five authorities present in the cathedral during the murder, Edward Grim’s account is fromMTB, II, pp. 430–39; EHD, pp. 812–20; Staunton, pp. 195–203. William fitz Stephen’s is from MTB, III, pp. 132–47; Greenaway, pp. 149–60. John of Salisbury’s is from LJS, II, pp. 725–39 (earliest version); MTB, II, pp. 316–21 (later versions). William of Canterbury’s is from MTB, I, pp. 128–36. Benedict of Peterborough’s is from MTB, II, pp. 1–16; Staunton, pp. 203–5. Of the most valuable supplementary accounts, Herbert of Bosham’s is from MTB, III, pp. 488–514; Roger of Pontigny’s is from MTB, IV, pp. 70–78; Gervase of Canterbury’s is from GC, cols. 1414–17; Guernes of Pont-Sainte-Maxence’s is from Guernes, pp. 181–95; and the account from the ‘Thomas Saga Erkibyskups’, possibly using material from the lost ‘life’ of Thomas by Robert of Cricklade, is from TSE, I, pp. 523–49. An invaluable collation and analysis of the different accounts, showing most of the minor inconsistencies and pinpointing a few serious discrepancies, still a standard work, is E. A. Abbott, St Thomas of Canterbury: His Death and Miracles (2 vols., London, 1898), I, pp. 27–174. See also Duggan, pp. 209–14; Barlow, pp. 240–48; Knowles, pp. 140–47; Vincent, ‘Murderers of Thomas Becket’, pp. 244–65. My account of the sequel to the murder and Becket’s burial is based on the three most authoritative eyewitness accounts. John of Salisbury’s is from LJS, II, pp. 735–7. Benedict of Peterborough’s is from MTB, II, pp. 14–19; Staunton, pp. 203–5; EHD, pp. 820–21. William fitz Stephen’s is from MTB, III, pp. 144–9; Greenaway, pp. 157–60. For much further debate and some speculation, see also Abbott, St Thomas of Canterbury, I, pp. 175–91; Duggan, pp. 214–23; Barlow, pp. 248–50; Knowles, pp. 147–9. The earliest miracles are from MTB, III, pp. 149–52; Staunton, pp. 205–6; LJS, II, p. 737. Further information on Becket’s interment is from W. Urry, ‘Some Notes on the Two Resting Places of St Thomas Becket at Canterbury’, in Thomas Becket: Actes du Colloque International de Sédières, 19–24 Aôut 1973, ed. R. Foreville (Paris, 1975), pp. 196–7.

Chapter 28: Aftermath

John of Salisbury’s newsletter is from LJS, II, pp. 725–39. Roger of Pont l’Évêque’s letter to his suffragans is from LJS, II, pp. 739–43. John’s counterattack is from LJS, II, pp. 743–9. The letter of Arnulf of Lisieux to the pope is from Letters of Arnulf of Lisieux, ed. Barlow, pp. 122–3; EHD, pp. 821–3; Greenaway, p. 161. Henry’s movements are from Eyton, pp. 150–57. His barefaced letter to the pope is from MTB, VII, p. 440. For this letter and the manoeuvres surrounding it, see also A. Duggan, ‘Diplomacy, Status and Conscience: Henry II’s Penance for Becket’s Murder’, in Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte: Peter Herde zum 65. Geburtstag von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen dargebracht, ed. K. Borchardt and E. Bünz (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1998), I, pp. 265–9. A report from Richard of Ilchester on the reception of Henry’s envoys at the curia is from MTB, VII, pp. 475–8; EHD, pp. 823–6. The letter of William of Sens to the pope is from MTB, VII, pp. 429–33. See also Greenaway, p. 162. Information on the mission of Cardinals Albert and Theodwin and the reconciliation at Avranches is from LJS, II, pp. 752–5; MTB, IV, pp. 173–4; MTB, VII, pp. 513–23; RH, II, pp. 35–9; EHD, pp. 825–7; Staunton, pp. 216–17; Greenaway, pp. 162–3; A. Duggan, ‘Ne in dubium: The Official Record of Henry II’s Reconciliation at Avranches, 21 May 1172’,EHR, 115 (2000), pp. 643–58; Duggan, ‘Diplomacy, Status and Conscience’, in Forschungen, I, pp. 272–8; A. Duggan, ‘Henry II, the English Church and the Papacy, 1154–76’, in Henry II, pp. 175–7; Foreville, L’Eglise et la Royauté, pp. 330–61; Barlow, pp. 260–61. Henry’s campaign in Ireland is from Warren, Henry II, pp. 193–201; Eyton, pp. 163–7. The impact of the settlement at Avranches is from Z. N. Brooke, ‘The Effect of Becket’s Murder on Papal Authority in England’, Cambridge Historical Journal, 2 (1928), pp. 213–28; M. G. Cheney, ‘The Compromise of Avranches and the Spread of Canon Law in England’, EHR, 56 (1941), pp. 177–97; Duggan, pp. 220–21. Herbert of Bosham’s complaint that some of the ‘obnoxious customs’ were still observed is from MTB, III, p. 546. Information on the amnesty and alms for Becket’s relatives is from Barlow, p. 262; Duggan, ‘Diplomacy, Status and Conscience’, in Forschungen, I, p. 281. Bishop Hamo’s murder is from Everard, Brittany and the Angevins, pp. 57–8, 69; Vincent, ‘Murderers of Thomas Becket’, p. 247. Robert of Torigni’s misleading entry for 1170 is from Chronicles, IV, p. 249. Ralph of Diss also throws up a smokescreen, reporting Becket’s murder, but ingeniously muffling its effects by coupling it to other near-contemporary assassinations. One was Hamo’s. The next was that of Hugh de Cervello, archbishop of Tarragona, a short-lived crusader principality in Muslim Spain, who would be brutally stabbed in April 1173 for (allegedly) insulting a commoner. The third was the revenge-killing of Raymond Trencavel, not a priest but the lord of Béziers, one of Henry’s more dependable allies in his Toulouse campaign of 1159. While standing before the high altar in the town’s cathedral in October 1167, attempting to do justice to a townsman, he was bloodily stabbed in a short-lived populist revolt. See RD, cols. 555–7; OV, IV, p. 117; WN, pp. 457–9; Vincent, ‘Murderers of Thomas Becket’, p. 247. The miracles at Becket’s tomb are from MTB, I, pp. 155–87; MTB, II, pp. 37–66; Staunton, pp. 207–10; Abbott, St Thomas of Canterbury, I, pp. 249–301; Barlow, pp. 264–9. Information on the tomb monument in the crypt is from Urry, ‘Some Notes on the Two Resting Places of St Thomas Becket at Canterbury’, pp. 196–9. The younger Henry’s visit to Canterbury is from Duggan, ‘Diplomacy, Status and Conscience’, inForschungen, I, p. 282. The younger Henry’s discontent is from T. M. Jones, ‘The Generation Gap of 1173–4: The War Between the Two Henries’, Albion, 5 (1973), pp. 24–40. Background on the revolt and civil war is from Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, II, pp. 120–68; Warren, Henry II, pp. 117–49. The elder Henry’s movements are from Eyton, pp. 172–87. His second penance at Canterbury is from GC, cols. 1427–8; Guernes, pp. 209–17; WN, pp. 493–5; MTB, II, pp. 445–8; Staunton, pp. 217–19; Duggan, ‘Diplomacy, Status and Conscience’, in Forschungen, I, pp. 278–84. Information on the last days of the four knights is from Vincent, ‘Murderers of Thomas Becket’, pp. 248–65. See also MTB, III, pp. 535–8; MTB, IV, pp. 161–4; Staunton, pp. 213–15. The quotation from Romuald of Salerno’s Annals is from Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores, XIX, ed. W. Arndt (Hanover, 1866), p. 439, l. 13. The knights’ epitaph recorded by Roger of Howden is from Chronicles, II, p. 17.

Chapter 29: Martyr

The disruption of the four knights’ inheritances is from Vincent, ‘Murderers of Thomas Becket’, pp. 237, 259–62. Henry’s deal to defer his departure on crusade is from Duggan, ‘Diplomacy, Status and Conscience’, in Forschungen, I, pp. 285–7. His monastic endowments at Eleanor’s expense are from Vincent, ‘Patronage, Politics and Piety in the Charters of Eleanor of Aquitaine’, p. 26. His cash hoard in the Middle East is from H. E. Mayer, ‘Henry II of England and the Holy Land’, EHR, 97 (1982), pp. 721–39. Becket’s critique of Henry’s methods is from CTB, II, pp. 1166–7; John of Salisbury’s is from LJS, II, pp. 32–3. The exchange over the ‘ancestral customs’ at Montmirail is from LJS, II, pp. 639–47. See also Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 160–63. Herbert of Bosham’s report of Henry’s attempted defence of the ‘ancestral customs’ is from MTB, III, pp. 266–7. Henry’s visits to Becket’s shrine at Canterbury are catalogued by Duggan, ‘Diplomacy, Status and Conscience’, in Forschungen, I, pp. 283–4. Information on royal burials and pilgrimages is from Urry, ‘Some Notes on the Two Resting Places of St Thomas Becket at Canterbury’, p. 207; M. Evans, Death of Kings: Royal Deaths in Medieval England (London, 2003), p. 27; H. Schnitker, ‘Margaret of York on Pilgrimage: The Exercise of Devotion and the Religious Traditions of the House of York’, inReputation and Representation in Fifteenth-Century Europe, ed. D. Biggs, S. D. Michalove and A. C. Reeves (Leiden, 2004), pp. 117–19; Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice and in Other Libraries of Northern Italy (38 vols., London, 1864–1947), III, pp. 14–16; Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J. S. Brewer, J. Gairdner and R. H. Brodie (21 vols. in 32 parts and Addenda, London, 1862–1932), III, p. 1541. The building history and appearance of the new shrine at Canterbury is from M. F. Hearn, ‘Canterbury Cathedral and the Cult of Becket’, Art Bulletin, 76 (1994), pp. 19–52; S. Blick, ‘Reconstructing the Shrine of St Thomas Becket, Canterbury Cathedral’, in Art and Architecture of Late Medieval Pilgrimage in Northern Europe and the British Isles, ed. S. Blick and R. Tekippe (2 vols., Leiden, 2005), pp. 405–41; Urry, ‘Some Notes on the Two Resting Places of St Thomas Becket at Canterbury’, pp. 197–207. See also R. Willis, The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral (London, 1845), pp. 97–113. Erasmus’s description is from Pilgrimages to Saint Mary of Walsingham and Saint Thomas of Canterbury, ed. J. G. Nichols (London, 1849), pp. 55–6. The ‘Book of Miracles’ is from MTB, I, pp. 137–546. The Becket legend from the ‘Golden Legend’ is from Legenda aurea sanctorum, ed. W. Caxton (London, 1483), fos. cv–cviii, ccxii–ccxiii. Peter of Celle’s letter to John of Salisbury is from LPC, pp. 669–71. Arnulf of Lisieux’s letter to the pope is from Letters of Arnulf of Lisieux, ed. Barlow, pp. 110–12. Becket’s appeal to St Alphege is from MTB, III, p. 141; MTB, IV, p. 77. A rare critic of the Becket cult was Master Roger the Norman, who argued that Thomas’s ‘obstinacy’ brought about his death: Staunton, p. 238; Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 201–2. Anselm’s opinion of St Alphege is from English Lawsuits, ed. van Caenegem, pp. 440–41. For similar views by Becket’s biographers, see MTB, II, pp. 14, 301–2, 323; Smalley, Becket Conflict and the Schools, p. 194. The speeches of the fourth tempter and Richard Brito from T. S. Eliot’s ‘pageant play’ are from Murder in the Cathedral (London, 1935), pp. 37–9, 81–2. Pope Paul III’s critique of Becket is from Letters and Papers, ed. Brewer, Gairdner and Brodie, VIII, p. 437. Peter of Celle’s letter to Bartholomew of Exeter is from LPC, p. 435. The spread of Becket’s cult across Europe is from K. B. Slocum, Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket (Toronto, 2004), pp. 98–126. Henry VIII’s attack on the shrine is from Pilgrimages to Saint Mary of Walsingham and Saint Thomas of Canterbury, ed. Nichols, p. 167; Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, ed. D. Wilkins (4 vols., London, 1737), III, pp. 835–6; A Chronicle of England during the Reigns of the Tudors, from A.D. 1485 to 1559, ed. W. D. Hamilton, Camden Society New Series, 11 (2 vols., London, 1875–7), I, pp. 86–7; Willis, Architectural History, p. 100. The evidence for the burning of Becket’s bones, including new documents discovered in the Vatican and the Mantuan State Archives, is brilliantly reassessed by T. F. Mayer, ‘Becket’s Bones Burnt! Cardinal Pole and the Invention and Dissemination of an Atrocity’, in Martyrs and Martyrdom in England, c. 1400–1700, ed. T. S. Freeman and T. F. Mayer (Woodbridge, 2007), pp. 126–43. See also A. J. Mason,What Became of the Bones of St Thomas? (Cambridge, 1920); J. Butler, The Quest for Becket’s Bones: the Mystery of the Relics of St Thomas of Canterbury (London, 1995). For the origins of the Tudor attack on Becket, see Letters and Papers, ed. Brewer, Gairdner and Brodie, VIII, pp. 236–7. Henry VIII’s proclamation against Becket is from Tudor Royal Proclamations, ed. P. L. Hughes and J. F. Larkin (3 vols., London, 1964–9), I, pp. 275–6. Professor Mayr-Harting’s assessment of Becket is from a feature in The Times, ‘A Vital Relic of Our Past’, 29 June 1996.