We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
By the time that Henry, archdeacon of Huntingdon, completed the first edition of his Historia Anglorum, about 1129, four reform councils had made it quite clear, even to the stubbornly resistant English clergy, that subdeacons, deacons and priests should not have wives, concubines or sons with clerical ambitions. Henry, who had uncanonically succeeded his father, Nicholas, in his archdeaconry, was by 1129 about forty-five years old and had at least one son, probably in minor orders. His major literary works, Historia Anglorum and the epistle De Contemptu Mundi, contain explicit information about his father and the succession of the archdeaconry of Huntingdon, but Henry's careful silence has kept several further generations of this clerical family virtually hidden from readers. Needless to say, he was not pleased with the notions of clerical celibacy that some, in increasing numbers during his lifetime, chose to call reform. Modified by a wary reluctance to state his objections openly, Henry's angry inability to accept that central issue of Gregorian reform shaped his account of the introduction of Gregorian reform to England with insinuation, slander and prevaricating silence. The particular interest of Henry of Huntingdon's treatment of reform councils and reformers lies in its tense delineation of the discomfort felt by many of the higher clergy and their families caught when the reform ideal of celibacy was no longer a startling novelty, but was still not universally accepted, not yet venerable as custom, certainly not easy.
I wish to thank Professor Robert Brentano for reading this paper and for several important corrections and suggestions he offered. I also wish to thank the staff of The Newberry Library, Chicago, for their prompt and courteous assistance.
1. Henry, of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. Arnold, T., Rolls Series 74, Intro., xi (hereafter cited as Historia).Google Scholar
2. Ibid., xxxi-xxxiii; Henry's son is discussed below.
3. Printed following the Historia in Rolls Series 74.
4. A good general account of the history of clerical celibacy is by Vacandard, E., “Les Origines du Célibat Ecclésiastique,” in Études de Critique et d'Histoire Religieuse (Paris, 1906), pp. 69–120Google Scholar; see also Herman, E., “Célibat des Clercs,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique (Paris, 1942), 3:132–156Google Scholar; a somewhat unreliable but lively and full treatment is Lea, H., An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church (2d ed.; Boston, 1884)Google Scholar; an important related subject is Jombart, E., “Concubinage,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canoinique, 3:1513–1524Google Scholar. For the history of clerical celibacy in England, I am much indebted to the discussion and bibliography of Brooke, C. N. L., “Gregorian Reform in Action: Clerical Marriage in England, 1050–1200,” Cambridge Historical Journal 12 (1956): 187–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Darlington, R. R., “Ecclesiastical Reform in the Late Old English Period,” English Historical Review 51 (1936): 385–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kemp, B. R., “Hereditary Benefices in the Medieval English Church: a Herefordshire Example,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 42 (1970): 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sandford, W. A. C., “Medieval Clerical Celibacy in England,” The Genealogists' Magazine 12 (1957): 371–373, 401–403Google Scholar; Frazee, Charles A., “The Origins of Clerical Celibacy in the Western Church,” Church History. 41 (1972): 149–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Liotta, Filippo, La Continenza dei Chierici nel Pensiero Canonistico Classico, da Graziano a Gregorio IX (Milan, 1971).Google Scholar
5. Historia, p. 234, “eodem anno ad festum Sancti Michaelis tenuit Anselmus archiepiscopus concilium apud Londoniam, in quo prohibuit sacerdotibus uxores Anglorum, antea non prohibitas. Quod quibusdam mundissimum visum est, quibusdam periculosum; ne, dum munditias viribus majores appeterent, in immunditias horribiles ad Christiani nominis summum dedecus inciderent. In illo autem concilio multi abbates qui adquisiverant abbatias suas sicut Dens noluit, amiserunt eas sicut Deus voluit.” All translations in the text are my own. Text of the council in Mansi, J. D., Concilia, 20:1150.Google Scholar
6. Brooke, pp. 7–11; Darlington, pp. 404–407, cites only a few examples of reformers attempting to impose celibacy on clerks and no evidence of any success; Deanesly, M., Sidelights on the Anglo-Saxon Church (London, 1962), pp. 134–136Google Scholar, gives interesting evidence for the respectabality of married clergy in Anglo-Saxon England; Lea, pp. 161–169, 175; Cheney, C. R., From Becket to Langton: English Church Government, 1170–1513 (Manchester, 1956), pp. 14–15, 137–138Google Scholar, for comments on the later period that imply lax enforcement in the earlier; Dickinson, J. C., The Origins of the Austin Canons (London, 1950), p. 91Google Scholar and n. 1, quotes the Merton Annals for 1074, “Gregorius papa …celebrata synodo symoniacos anathematizauit, uxoratos sacerdotes a diuino officio remouit et laicis missam eorum audire interdixit, novo exemplo et—ut multis visum est— inconsiderato preiudicio contra sanctorum patrum sentenciam” (CCC Camb. MS. 59 f. 152 r.) as an example of “that distrust of the Hildebrandine reform which pervaded the English Church of his [Gregory VII's] day…”
7. Darlington, p. 406; N. Cantor disagrees with Darlington's views on reform in the preconquest church in Church, Kingship, and Lay Investiture in. England, 1089–1135 (Princeton, 1958), pp. 34–35 n. 109.Google Scholar
8. Wilkins, David, Concilia Magnae Britanniae, 4 vols. (London, 1737), 1:367.Google Scholar
9. Brooke, Z. N., The English Church and the Papacy (Cambridge, 1931), pp. 59–79.Google Scholar
10. Woolley, R. M., Catalogue Of The Manuscripts Of Lincoln Cathedral Chapter Library (London, 1927), p. vGoogle Scholar.; Statutes Of Lincoln Cathedral, ed. H. Bradshaw and C. Wordsworth (Cambridge, 1897), 1: ccxxiii and n. 1.Google Scholar
11. In The English Church and the Papacy Z. N. Brooke discusses the knowledge and acceptance of canon law in eleventh and twelfth-century England; for the twelfth century, see Kuttner, S., and Rathbone, E., “Anglo-Norman Canonists Of The Twelfth Century,” Traditio 7 (1949-1951): 279–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Duggan, C., Twelfth-Century Decretal Collections (London, 1963)Google Scholar; Barraclough, G., review of Kuttner, S., Repertorium der Kanonistik, in English Historical Review 53 (1938): 492–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cheney, M., “The Compromise of Avranches of 1172 and the Spread of Canon Law in England,” English Historical Review 56 (1941): 177–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in which, p. 178, Henry of Huntingdon's complaint about unaccustomed appeals to the papal curia is cited as evidence for the increase of papal jurisdiction; see Historia, p. 282.
12. Anon, of York, “An Liceat Sacerdotibus Inire Matrimonium,” ed. Boehmer, H., in MGH, Libelli de Lite (Hanover, 1897), 3:646Google Scholar; for the history of scholarly opinion of the provenance and authorship of the tractates see Cantor, pp. 174–195, who argues for the authorship of Gerard, archbishop of York. Since Gerard was one of the few prelates who tried to enforce celibacy in his diocese after the council of 1102, it is unlikely that he wrote in favor of clerical marriage about 1100—the date given to the tractates. Morey, A. and Brooke, C. N. L., Gilbert Foliot and His Letters (Cambridge, 1965), p. 175Google Scholar, comment that in the twelfth century, “it became increasingly rare for anti-papal views to be stated in writing”, as the strength of conservative opinion declined. Some later attempts to combat clerical celibacy are discussed by Baldwin, J. W., “A Campaign to Reduce Clerical Celibacy at the Turn of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” Études d'Histoire du Droit Canonique Dédiées à Gabriel Le Bras, (Paris, 1965), 2:1041–1053.Google Scholar
13. Cantor, p. 42.
14. Anselm, St., Opera Omnia, ed. Schmitt, F. S. (Edinburgh, 1949), 4, epp. 254, 255, 256, 257.Google Scholar
15. Wilkins, 1:387.
16. The rules codified by John Lange for the use of the argument from silence do, I believe, support my use of it; see “The Argument from Silence,” History and Theory 5 (1966): 288–301.Google Scholar
17. Eadmer, , Historia Novorum In Anglia, ed. Rule, M., Rolls Series 81 (London, 1884): 193Google Scholar, “Quod incontinentiae crimen rex subvertere cupiens…”
18. Mansi, 20:1150.
19. Gréa, A, “Essai Historique sur les Archidiacres,” Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartres (1857), 12:220Google Scholar. For the development and duties of the archdeaconal office, see also Amanieu, A., “Archidiacre,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, 1: 948–1004Google Scholar; discussions of the arehdeaconry in England are Thompson, A. Hamilton, “Diocesan Organization In The Middle Ages, Archdeacons and Rural Deans,” Proceedings of the British Academy, 29 (1943): 153–194Google Scholar; Scammell, Jean, “The Rural Chapter in England from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Century,” English Historical Review 86 (1971): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deanesly, pp. 140, 145–170; Cheney, C. R., Becket to Langton, pp. 145–146, 150–153Google Scholar; Cheney, C. R., English Bishops' Chanceries, 1100–1250 (Manchester, 1950), pp. 7–8, 110–118, 145–146Google Scholar; Scammell, G. V., Hugh du Puiset, Bishop of Durham (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 126–127, 162Google Scholar; Brentano, R., Two Churches (Princeton, N.J., 1968), pp. 66–68, 66 n. 8.Google Scholar
20. Jean Scammell's “Rural Chapter” gives an exciting, vivid idea of the functioning of a rural chapter and its power; G. V. Scammell also offers a fine illustration of the repute in which archdeacons were held: “by 1190 a preacher could find no more effective parable to demonstrate the mutability of human fortunes than to declare to his congregation that even popes and archdeacons died,” Hugh de Puiset, p. 92 and n. 1.
21. Amanieu, p. 976.
22. Ibid., p. 971.
23. Mansi, 23:1225, dates the fifty questions of the “Inquisitones Per Archidiaconatus Episcopatus Lincolniensis, a Singulis Archidiaconis Faciendae” as ca. 1233 with no further information; q.s. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 20, 32 and 46 concern incontinent clerks.
24. Mansi, 20:1229–1230, e. 1, 7, 8; both Nicholas and Henry were prohibited from marriage in any case by virtue of their status as canons of Lincoln. The fact that even clerks in minor orders could not marry if they were also canons has been discussed by McLaughlin, T. P.., “The Prohibition of Marriage against Canons in the Early Twelfth Century,” Mediaevai Studies 3 (1941): 94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Brooke, C. N. L., “Married Men,” p. 187Google Scholar; another suggestion of anti-reformist feeling in the diocese of Lincoln under Robert Bloet is the presence of Theobald of Étampes, a secular clerk who defended the right of priests' sons to take clerical orders at Oxford under the patronage of Walter, archdeacon of Oxford; see Nicholl, Donald, Thurstan, Archbishop of York (York, 1964), p. 188.Google Scholar
26. Scammell, Jean, “Rural Chapter,” p. 6.Google Scholar
27. Historia, p. 327, “Obierat autem Anselmus Arehiepiscopus, Christi philosophus, in Quadragesima.”
28. Ibid., pp. 237–238, “Eodem anno Nicholaus, pater illius qui hanc scripsit historiam, mortis legibus concessit, et sepultus est apud Lincoliam. De quo dictum est: ‘Stella cadit cleri, splendor marcet Nicholai; /Stella cadens eleri, splendeat are Dei.’ Hoc ideo scriptor suo inseruit operi, ut apud ommes legentes mutuum laboris obtineat, quatenus pietatis affectu dicere dignentur, ‘Anima ejus in pace requiescat. Amen.’”
29. R. W. Southern notices Henry's peculiar account of Anselm's career, “Henry of Huntingdon, who was old enough to have known the period of Anseim's pontificate, relies on the Chronicles for his main outline, but elaborates the Chronicler's account of the first exile to make it appear a purely secular struggle, and ignores the second exile; as the son of a priest, his chief interest was Anselm's legislation against clerical marriage,” in Saint Anselm and his Biographer (Cambridge, 1963), p. 143Google Scholar. Although I do not know on exactly what evidence Southern calls Henry's father a “priest”, he incisively suggests the influence of Henry's family loyalties on the Historia.
30. Historia, pp. 245–246, “ad Pascha vero Johannes Cremensis, cardinalis Romanus, descendit in Angliam, perendinansque per episcopatus et abbatias, non sine magnis muneribus, ad nativitatem Sanetae Maniae celebravit concilium solemne apud Londoniam. Sed quia Moyses Dei secretanius in historia sancta parentum etiam suorum, ut virtutes, scripsit et vitia, scelicet facinus Loth, scelus Ruben, proditionem Simeon et Levi, inhumanitatem fratrum Joseph, nos quoque veram historiae legem de bonis et malis sequi dignum est. Quod si alicui Romano vel praelato displicuerit, taceat tamen, ne Johannein Cremensem sequi voile videatur. Cum igitur in concilio severissime do uxoribus sacerdotum tractasset, dicens summum scelus esse a latere meretricis ad corpus Chnisti conficiendum surgere, cum eadem die corpus Christi confecisset, cum meretnice post vesperam interceptus est. Res apertissima negari non potuit, celari non debuit. Summus honor ubique habitus in summum dedecus versum est. Repedavit igitur in sua Dei judicio confusus et inglorius.”
31. Cartularium Monastenii de Rameseia, ed. W. H. Hart, 3 vols., Rolls Series 79 (hereafter cited as Cart. Ram).Google Scholar
32. Information from the Ramsey Cartulary of Henry's family history seems to have been found and published first by D. L. Powell writing on the parish of Little Stukeley for the Victoria County History, “Little Stukeley,” in History of the County of Huntingdon, (London, 1932), 2:235Google Scholar, and later was used by Charles Clay in his detailed biographical sketch of Henry's grandson, Aristotle, , “Master Aristotle,” English Historical Review 76 (1961): 303–308Google Scholar. The information does not seem to have been known by T. Arnold, editor of the Historia for the Rolls Series, Hardy, T., Descriptive Catalogue of Materials Relating to the History of Great Britain and Ireland, Rolls Series 26 (London, 1865)Google Scholar or H. R. Luard, “Henry of Huntingdon,” in Dictionary of National Biography.
33. See below, n. 40.
34. Cart. Ram., 1:392, “Et pertinent ad eandem [ecclesia] decem acrae terrae, quae Henricus Archidiaconus, feodi firmarius de Stivecleya, ipsam ecclesiam fabricari fecit et dedicari”; and Ibid., 2:260, “Carta Reinaldi ejusdem Abbatis … in Giddinge, praeter eam partem quam habet Henricus Archidiaconus…”
35. Ibid., 1:396, “De Stivecleya … Henricus filius Thomae tenet unam dimidiam virgatam, quae aliguando fuit de dominico, per Henricum Arch [idiaconum], qui quondam fuit firmarius, illam contulit Henrico le Stiward, avo ipsius Henrici, ad reddendum pro ea per annum quatuor solidos. Quo Henrio Stiwarde mortuo, successit ei Thomas filius suus, qui Thomas contraxit, postea cum nepte Magistri Adae, qui suceessit praedicto Henrico Archer in firma de Stivecle. [The editor adds that Archer is “a mistake for Archidiacono. Most probably Henry of Huntingdou the historian.”] Idem autem Adam remisit eidem Thomae tres solidos”, Ibid., 3:274–275, “Adam filius Henrici Arehidianconi tenet modo ipsam villam [Stivecle: pro octo libris…” The scribe was at obvious pains to specify the various Henrys and their heirs as clearly as possible.
36. Ibid., 1:328, “Adam de Stivecle tenent unam virgatam…”
37. Ibid., p. 106, “Conventio inter Robertum abbatem [1180–1200], et Adam de Stivecle, et Aristotilem filium ejus, de firma de Stivecle”; Ibid., p. 230, (A.D. 1206), “… Styvecle Aristotle…” Henry's grandson and great-grandson, Nicholas, appear to have been in priest's orders and to have suffered no penalty for their uncanonical descent, Clay, pp. 304–306.
38. Cart. Ram., 2:217–218.
40. By 1125, about the time of the Historia was being written, the marriages of men in higher orders were no longer valid. Calixtus II, at Lateran Council of 1123, had declared that marriages contracted by clerks in higher orders were nullified and subsequent popes repeated that law; Vacandard, pp. 119; Herman, p. 135. Regardless of whether Henry knew of decree, he must have known that the reformers' rhetoric tended to degrade and insult clerical wives with the purpose of creating an aura of immorality and sin about clerical marriage. Henry's consistent use of uxor is, I think, quite conscious, and leads me to consider that his personal arrangement was that of marriage rather than simple concubinage.
41. The Peterborough Chronicle, trans. H. A. Rositzke (New York, 1951), p. 151Google Scholar; other hostile chroniclers did relate even more unlikely versions of the legate's lust; for example, the Winchester Annals in Rolls Series 36:2, pp. 47–48.
42. Brooke, C. N. L., “Greg. Reform,” p. 19 n. 62Google Scholar; A. Morey and C. N. L. Brooke, pp. 240–241.
43. Historia, pp. 250–251, “Tenuit [Henry I] igitur coneilium maximum ad kalendas Augusti apud Londoniam, de uxoribus sacerdotum prohibendis. Interrerant siquidem illi concilio Willelmus Cantauriensis archiepiscopus [The Historia lists the other bishops present including Bishop Alexander of Lincoln] Hi columnae regni erant et radii sanctitatis hoc tempore. Verum rex decepit eos simplicitate Willelmi archiepiseopi. Concesserunt namque regi juatitiam de uxoribus sacerdotum, et improvidi habiti sunt, quod postea patuit, cum tea summo dedecore terminata eat. Accepit enim rex pecumiam hafinitam de preabyteris, et redemit eos. Tunc, sed frustra, concessionis suae poenituit episcopos, cum pateret in oculis omnium gentium deceptio praelatorum et depressio subjectorum.”
