A HISTORY OF LONDON withstanding the alleged opposition of Foliot at this very time to Becket's appointment to Canterbury.^' Foliot was a Cluniac monk, and lived so strictly in the spirit of his rule that the pope himself exhorted him not to carry his asceticism so far as to impair his bodily strength." It is difficult to obtain any fair idea of his character, for all contemporary writers are strongly biased either for or against his great antagonist, Thomas Becket ; but it may at least be said that Becket's warmest partisans cannot hide Foliot's great ability, while his most violent detractors cannot altogether acquit his antagonist of ambitions which probably aspired to the see of Canterbury itself. The details of their quarrel do not concern the ecclesiastical history of London, but some points in connexion with it are interesting. The part taken in the matter by the clergy and people of London appears to have varied. When Becket excommunicated Foliot in 1169 the people murmured, but were pacified by the announcement that there would be no interference with the celebration in St. Paul's.*" William Bonhart writing to Becket claims to have protected his messenger from the possible violence of the crowd by covering him with his cappa (cape or hood), and so getting him safely to his lodging,*^ and the chapter of St. Paul's and the priests of London made a warm appeal to the pope on behalf of their bishop, their example being followed by the heads of many of the principal religious houses in London and elsewhere.*^ Yet when Becket went to London in 1 170, after his second excommunication of Foliot, he was 'honourably received by the Londoners ' and lodged in Southwark.^ Another interesting point is Foliot's claim of the metropolitan dignity for London. Since Lanfranc's decision in 1075 had secured to the Bishop of London the position of first suffragan bishop of England, the see had held its own. In 11 00 Henry I was crowned by Bishop Maurice in Anselm's absence,** and in 1108 Bishop Richard was employed by Anselm as dean, i.e. senior bishop, of the province of Canterbury in the proceedings against the Archbishop of York.*^ Apparently Richard had thought of claiming the metropolitan dignity for London, for when Anselm wrote to the pope in 1 109 asking him not to send the pall to the Archbishop of York until he had professed obedience to Canterbury, he added : ' I would suggest to your reverence concerning London, if the pallium, which he never has had, is sought by that bishop, in no way to give your assent to such a request.' *' The great importance of the see of London at this period is also shown by the letters written by Becket and King Henry to Foliot before his translation. The king urged Foliot to accept it, ' For there events of great moment happen, councils are held and counsel taken '; and Becket's letter is in the same strain, speaking of London as the most noble and famous city of the realm, and of the great importance of the position of its bishop." Foliot immediately on his accession paved the way for his later claim to the metropolitan dignity by refusing to renew his profession of obedience to " Stubbs in R. de Diceto, Op. Hist. (Rolls Ser.), i, p. xxxviii ; Materials for Hist, of Thos. Becket (Rolls Ser.), ii, 367 ; iii, 36 ; iv, 17. " Ibid. V, 42-4. " Ibid, iii, 90. *' Ibid, vi, 603. «' Ibid, vi, 606, 618 et seq. ^ R. de Diceto, Op. Hist. (Rolls Ser.), i, 342. " Flor. Wigorn. Chron. ii, 46 ; cf. Eadmer, Hist. Nov. (Rolls Ser.), 2 1 2.
- " Eadmer, op. cit. 204-10. ^ Wilkins, Concilia, i, 389.
" Materials for Hist, of Thomas Becket (Rolls Ser.), v, 25-6. 178
