Open main menu


The Early Career of John Cumin, Archbishop of Dublin

The importance of the primacy of John Cumin, the first English archbishop of Dublin and the immediate successor of St Laurence O'Toole, is duly recognised by the writers of Irish history. The conquest of Ireland had proceeded apace since the first Normans landed in 1167. King Henry the Second, jealous from the outset of the exploits of the invaders and dreading their possible assertion of independence, had himself spent six months in the country from October 1171 to April of the following year. In 1176 Strongbow died, and the next year Henry created his son John, then in his tenth year, 'Lord of Ireland'. Hugh de Lacy was appointed viceroy: his rule was strong and peaceful; but Henry, thinking perhaps that he was becoming too powerful, recalled him for a brief period in 1181. In November 1180 the last Celtic archbishop of Dublin had passed away, and the king determined to take the opportunity thus offered of appointing in his place a faithful official of his own, one of his 'new men', and so creating a fresh power in the conquered territory which should counterbalance the Dower of his nobles. In September 1181 some of the Dublin clergy met the king at the abbey of Evesham, and John Cumin, 'his clerk and a member of his household', was given them as their new archbishop.[1]

A curious error has prevailed as to John Cumin's antecedents: for it has been stated again and again that the king selected for this post of responsibility a monk of the abbey in which the election took place. The late Professor Stokes speaks of John Cumin as ' a monk of that abbey '; and even so careful a historian as Mr. G. H. Orpen calls him a ' monk of the abbey of Evesham in Worcestershire '. Moreover, in that standard work of reference, Gams' Series Episcoporum, the letters O.S.B. are attached to his name, and we are pointed in a note to D'Alton's Memoirs of the Archbishops of Dublin, which was published in 1838, and which describes him as 'a monk of the Benedictine abbey of Evesham'. It is possible that with D'Alton the mistake may have begun, for we do not find it in the Antiquities of Ireland of Sir James Ware, who died in 1666.[2] In view of this and other misconceptions regarding so important a figure in Irish history, it is worth while to review John Cumin's early career and to bring together some scattered facts which have not hitherto received attention.

The first occasion of interest on which we meet with John Cumin's name is the famous assembly at Woodstock in the early days of July 1163, when Becket crossed the king's will in the matter of the sheriff's aid. Among other items of business then transacted we find from the chartulary of Bruton Priory that Thomas the archbishop in the presence of the king and his court confirmed to the prior and canons the church of Ban well, lately given them by Bishop Robert of Bath. The king's confirmation which follows is attested by the archbishop, Richard archdeacon of Poitiers, John Cumin, and others.[3] The position in which his attestation occurs indicates that John Cumin was already at this time a prominent official in the royal chancery.[4]

The next mention of his name is an incidental reference in a letter written towards the end of the same year, when the real conflict between Henry and his archbishop had broken out at the council of Westminster. In order to understand it we must briefly recall the events which had brought the papacy into a position of unusual weakness and distress. On 7 September 1159 Alexander the Third had been elected pope; but a minority of the cardinals had chosen Octavian, who claimed the papal throne under the title of Victor. The antipope was supported by the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa, and Alexander the Third was soon obliged to quit Rome. France and England agreed to recognise Alexander, who aftei some wanderings settled his court at Sens, some seventy miles south-east of Paris; here he stayed from 30 September 1163 till 4 April 1165. It was on the day after the pope's arrival at Sens that the council assembled at Westminster which brought Henry and Becket into open collision on the subject of the trial of criminous clerks. A few weeks later the letter was written to which reference has been made above. A trusty messenger of the archbishop is reporting his visits, first to the French king and then to the pope. As to the latter he says that on hearing the news of the council at Westminster the papal court was filled with admiration at a courage which was in strange contrast to their own timidity. They were in no position to quarrel with any prince, least of all with the English king. Two special causes of their dismay are mentioned by the writer of the letter—viz. the capture by the imperialists in Tuscany of the brother and nephews of the pope, and the long delay of John Cumin at the emperor's court.[5] We gather from this that although Henry had recognised Alexander the Third, he felt it desirable to keep in touch with the emperor, and was at least open to the suspicion of playing a double part. Frederic was then at the height of his triumph in North Italy, and was holding his court together with the antipope Victor at Lodi.[6] We may be certain that the envoy to whom Henry had entrusted a mission of such delicacy was a man of whose capacity and fidelity he had reason to feel sure.

The exact nature of John Cumin's business at the imperial court is not recorded, nor do we know the length of his stay.[7] But it is of some importance for our estimate of his subsequent history that we should follow the course of the papal schism. The antipope Victor died in April 1164. The emperor's more prudent counsellors advised him to take the opportunity which providence thus offered him of reconsidering his position. But the hasty action of Reginald, the militant archbishop-elect of Cologne, brought about the immediate election of Guido de Crema, who assumed the style of Paschal the Third. The emperor held his hand for a time, and the archbishop of Cologne and other envoys were sent to K. Henry in April 1165, to negotiate a marriage between the princess Matilda and Henry duke of Saxony. When they returned the king despatched Richard of Ilchester, archdeacon of Poitiers, and John of Oxford as ambassadors to the emperor to carry forward the negotiations. At Whitsuntide the emperor held a solemn court at Wurzburg to consider the question of the papacy. There was great uncertainty as to who should now be recognised: most of the bishops were inclined to the side of Alexander the Third. Then the archbishop of Cologne intervened. He told the emperor that all that he had done against Alexander would be thrown away unless he should now follow his counsel. He had the effrontery to declare that he had won over fifty English bishops and more to accept Paschal as pope, if the emperor should recognise him: moreover, he said, the two English envoys would swear in the name of their king that he also would abide by the emperor's decision.

Thereupon Frederic agreed to recognise Paschal, and called on the bishops to take an oath with him to that effect. But the bishops refused, saying that they "would sooner resign their 'regalia'. Upon being further pressed they agreed that if the archbishop of Cologne would take the oath first, and would also swear to receive ordination and consecration from Paschal, they in their turn would swear to be true to Paschal so long as they retained their 'regalia'. The archbishop, however, refused, and the emperor turned on him with anger, and denounced him as a traitor who had misled him to the peril of his soul. On this the archbishop gave way, and swore as was proposed. The bishops for the most part took their conditional oath; and the English envoys swore an oath which seems to have been diversely interpreted. The emperor's interpretation is plainly given in two documents which he issued immediately afterwards: they had sworn, he declares, on their king's behalf that Henry and his whole realm would stand faithfully by the emperor, would adhere always to Paschal as pope, and would henceforth have no dealings with Roland the schismatic—that is with Alexander the Third. A less explicit account of the oath is found in two contemporary reports transmitted to pope Alexander—viz. that the English envoys swore on the king's behalf that he would observe whatsoever the emperor swore to observe in the matter.[8] Probably their oath was even less definite than this: for a story preserved by John of Salisbury suggests that their instructions must have been that the king of England would stand by the emperor 'against all men, except only the king of France'. When the emperor through his interpreter said 'Alexander is a mortal man, and he is not the king of France: I take it then that he is not excepted from the phrase against all men. Say whether you accept my interpretation or not'; then John of Oxford replied that the emperor's meaning was his also, and in this sense he would take the oath.[9]

The whole incident is perplexing; but if this story be true—and some truth there must be in it—we have a clue to the strange fact that John of Oxford had to bear the brunt of subsequent accusations, while his fellow envoy escaped the charge of perjury. The intervention of an interpreter may have had something to do with the emperor's misunderstanding; and it is certain that he was wholly deceived by the archbishop of Cologne, who had assured him that the English king and bishops would be with him. The English envoys were men of high standing and exceptional ability, and it is quite inconceivable that they should have ventured to commit K. Henry to the extent that the emperor imagined. The moment the report of the proceedings reached Normandy, Rotrou the archbishop of Rouen wrote to the cardinal Henry, who had come to France on the Becket affair, and expressly denied on the king's behalf that either by himself or his envoys he had sworn to recognise Paschal, or had made any promise to that effect. In the former negotiations about the marriage, he said, the German ambassadors had tried hard to extract such a promise, but in vain; for the king refused to do anything inconsistent with his loyalty to the pope and the king of France. The absurdity of the story, he added, was shown by the fact that the English king had not got so many as fifty bishops.

In the sequel, as we have said, Richard of Ilchester does not seem to have been expressly charged with having sworn to recognise Paschal. John of Oxford was so charged again and again, and Becket excommunicated him at Vezelay on Whitsunday 1166 on this ground as well as on another.[10] It is true that Richard of Ilchester was excommunicated among several other persons on the same day, but we are not told that this was the charge laid against him. John of Oxford himself soon afterwards got release from the pope and was restored to his deanery at Salisbury, having explained the Wurzburg incident and having sworn that he had done nothing to the injury of the Church or of Alexander. We must conclude, then, that the oath taken at Wurzburg was capable of two interpretations, and that the emperor was deceived as to the pledge which he supposed was being made on behalf of the English king.

With the events here narrated John Cumin was not directly concerned: but his own earlier mission had helped to lead up to them, and we shall presently find him again suspected of playing with schism. Meanwhile, in the middle of July 1166 he was with the king in Brittany, where he attests three charters in the camp outside Fougeres, to which Henry was laying siege.[11] Then in November the king sent him and Ralph de Tamworth to Rome whither the papal court had now returned. They were successful in obtaining the promise of a mission of legates with full powers to settle the controversy between the king and the archbishop: these legates were to start in January 1167. At Rome John Cumin met with John of Oxford and Reginald archdeacon of Salisbury, son of Bishop Jocelin of Salisbury and afterwards bishop of Bath. John of Oxford, as we have seen, was under sentence of excommunication for a double offence. Apart from the question of his oath at Wurzburg, he was in trouble about his deanery of Salisbury, to which he had got appointed in an irregular manner. Jocelin, his bishop, had taken his part, and had thereupon been suspended by Becket. Reginald, Jocelin's son, had come to plead his father's cause. To Becket's intense chagrin John of Oxford found favour with the pope, and was absolved and reinstated.[12]

In a letter dated 2 February 1167 John bishop of Poitiers, a steadfast friend of Becket, recounts that he had met John Cumin and Ralph de Tamworth at Tours on their return from Rome.[13] He had not been able to get much out of them directly, but he had learned something from the dean of St Maurice, with whom they had stayed.[14] The dean and another clerk had informed him that William, cardinal of Pavia, and Otto were coming as legates. John of Oxford's success with the pope was said by John Cumin and Ralph de Tamworth to have been gained by his assuring the pope that the king could be reconciled if properly approached by such a person as himself; and they called him a traitor for this. They had further told the dean that they had got copies of Becket's letter to the pope against the king, and also similar letters from unsuspected bishops and members of the royal household, but who the writers were they refused to say. John Cumin boasted more particularly that he had got the letter beginning 'Satis superque', which had been taken from Becket's messenger at Viterbo, though it was more probable that he had found it in the papal chancery.

Shortly after this Becket himself, writing to the pope, complained that John Cumin, 'wandering over France and invading Burgundy', had reported in the houses of various nobles that the archbishop's overthrow was at hand, and that he could tell the very time and manner of it, but that he dared not reveal the papal secrets.[15] It would seem from all this that John Cumin had got on well with the pope, but had talked a little too freely on his way home. Trouble at any rate was in store for him. On 7 May 1167 the pope writes to William and Otto, his legates, to say that after they had started rumours had reached him that John of Oxford had given out that the legates were to condemn and depose Becket; and also that John Cumin had shown copies of the pope's letter to Guido de Crema the antipope: if this latter charge were found to be true, the culprit must be severely dealt with as a warning to others.[16] This charge of collusion with the schismatic pope is of interest, whether it be true or false, on account of John Cumin's earlier mission to the imperial court. It also helps us to interpret a strange phrase in a letter written about this time by John of Salisbury to the subprior of Canterbury. After warning the subprior against holding any intercourse with the excommunicate Balph de Broc, he adds 'If what I have written seems somewhat harsh in its tone, I know that I am speaking neither to the devil nor to the schismatic of Bath'.[17] Those who are familiar with John of Salisbury's allusive style, and also with the nicknames with which the opponents of Becket were decorated by his partisans, will possibly surmise that by 'the devil' is here meant Geoffrey Ridel, the archdeacon of Canterbury, whom his archbishop called not 'archidiaconus' but 'archidiabolus'. But who is 'the schismatic of Bath'?

No answer appears to be forthcoming to this question. Let us try what we can make of it. In a letter, which Jaffé conjecturally assigns to May 1168, Alexander the Third writes to John Cumin as follows:

We are greatly astonished, and we take it altogether amiss, that you have presumed, as we have now for some time been aware, to claim for yourself the archdeaconry of Bath on the ground of a lay appointment; and that you have not scrupled to take it away from our venerable brother the bishop of Worcester, in the person of Master Baldwin, to whom we had confirmed it by our formal writ while the bishop of Bath was still alive.

The pope commands him to resign it at once into the bishop of Worcester's hands: if he should fail to do so within twenty days of receiving this letter, the bishop has been charged to excommunicate him; and should the bishop be unwilling to act orders have been given to the archbishop of Canterbury to pronounce the sentence: the pope will further order his excommunication by all the bishops of England.[18]

Now Robert, the bishop of Bath, had died on 31 August 1166; and the Pipe Rolls for 1166-7 and the next six years, during which the bishopric remained in the king's hand, afford evidence that John Cumin was all this time in possession of the archdeaconry of Bath.[19] The entries in which his name occurs would require for their elucidation a discussion too elaborate to be attempted here. It will suffice to say that they are of two kinds: there is a payment to John Cumin of 2l., 'for his prebend, by the king's writ': that is for the year 1166-7, and there is a like payment the next year, but not afterwards: possibly it was a pension paid to him till a prebend should fall vacant. But there is, on the other hand, an annual charge of twenty shillings against John Cumin, which never gets paid, and which stands as a bad debt of 6l. in the sheriff's account at the close of the vacancy of the see. This was a payment due to the bishopric from the rents of the archdeaconry of Bath, as we learn from the Pipe Roll of 1174-5, where it still stands as unpaid. In 1176-7 the debt was pardoned to John Cumin by a writ of the king.

It would appear that, when the see of Bath was vacant, the king, who claimed the episcopal patronage, had given the archdeaconry of Bath to his faithful servant, John Cumin, in spite of the fact that already in Bishop Robert's lifetime the pope had granted it in another direction. This, then, was the 'lay appointment', which. the pope took so much amiss. But so angry a letter as the pope writes must have had something more behind it. John Cumin was marked out for the papal wrath. What the bishop of Worcester did we do not know; but Ave find John Cumin's name in an undated list of those whom Becket excommunicated.[20] And it is at least a fair conjecture that he was ' the schismatic of Bath'.

But we must go back a little to note some activities of a different kind. On 27 February 1167 the bishopric of Hereford fell vacant, and John Cumin was placed by the king in charge of the temporalities, for which he accounts until 1173. In the Pipe Rolls of 1169-70 and the two following years he holds pleas as an itinerant justice, together with Reginald de Warren, in the counties of Hants, Wilts, Somerset and Devon. The first entry under Somerset is a fine imposed on the dean of Wells, for a servant of the king whom he had imprisoned. The dean cannot have enjoyed being fined by the archdeacon of Bath. We may here observe that, although it is certain that John Cumin held the archdeaconry of Bath, in such sense at least that he could be commanded by the pope to resign it, and also that he could be debited in the Pipe Rolls with an archidiaconal due of twenty shillings a year for six years during the vacancy of the bishopric, yet we have no evidence of his ever having performed any archidiaconal function in person; and, what is still more strange for that period, there appear to be but two instances in which the actual title of archdeacon of Bath is given to him. In the Wells records his name does occur once during the tenure of the office: for he witnesses a royal licence authorising Reginald bishop of Bath to keep hounds for the chase, as his predecessors did, throughout Somerset; but the licence was granted at Clarendon, and this is not one of the two occasions on which he attests as archdeacon.[21] The first of these occasions is a royal grant issued 'apud Beauveeir super Moiram', a locality which Delisle has identified with Bourg-le-roi.[22] The other is a charter, which seems to belong to the summer of 1171, to which date indeed the former might also be assigned. In both these charters we have the attestation of John archdeacon of Bath; and there is no other archdeacon of Bath at that period who bears this name.

There is no reason to suppose that John Cumin relaxed his hold on the archdeaconry until he became archbishop of Dublin. He was consecrated, as we shall see, on Palm Sunday 1182; and in that year, at some time between the beginning of March and the end of June, Peter of Blois became archdeacon of Bath.[23] So it would seem that Peter was John Cumin's successor, and it is curious to read a letter of his in which he remonstrates with his bishop, who for a petty arrear of twenty shillings has suspended his vice-archdeacon.[24] Apparently John Cumin's bad example was followed by his successor, not only in the discharge of his duties by a deputy, but also in the failure to pay his archidiaconal dues.

But we must return from this digression to take up the thread of our story. Our first sight of John Cumin was at the council of Woodstock in 1163, at the very beginning of the conflict between Becket and the king. Then we saw him at Rome in the midst of the negotiations at the end of 1166. We have now to follow him as he is sent for the second time to the papal court, when the miserable controversy is nearing its tragic close. The archbishop had landed on 1 December 1170. On that very day renewed sentences were served by order of the unforgiving prelate on the archbishop of York and the bishops of London and Salisbury: the former was suspended, the latter were excommunicated, as before. All three crossed to Normandy and laid their complaint before the king. Thereupon John Cumin was despatched by Henry to the pope, and, travelling at high speed, he arrived at Frascati a full fortnight before the envoys of the bishops. But for some time he applied in vain for a hearing. At last a promise of five hundred marks is said to have gained admission for himself and the others, who had arrived in the meantime. After that matters went well, and they were on the point of getting absolution for the bishops when the terrible news of Becket's murder suddenly changed the situation. John Cumin's labours were thrown away, and his place was soon taken by a fresh embassy from the king with a much more serious task to perform.[25]

He appears to be back in Normandy with the king in July 1171;[26] and he probably returned with him to England at the beginning of August. He was again on circuit this year in the south-western counties; but the next year he was holding an assize in Gloucestershire and Herefordshire, being associated for the former county with the famous Walter Map. In 1173 Richard of Ilchester, the archdeacon of Poitiers, became bishop-elect of Winchester; and John Cumin took over a good deal of business on his behalf in Somerset. The Pipe Boll of 1174-5 shows him crossing the Channel on some business for the king, of which we have no further knowledge.

The spring of 1177 took him to Spain. On 13 March the king had held a great council in London, at which the rival claims of the kings of Castile and Navarre were submitted to his arbitration. The award having been given, Henry dismissed the Spanish ambassadors and retired to Marlborough. Thence he sent into Spain a mission of three envoys, of whom John Cumin was the chief. Their instructions were, first, to receive the formal replies of the two kings, and then to visit Ferdinand king of Leon, in whose territory lay the great church of St James of Compostella: they were to inform K. Ferdinand that the king of England had long meditated a pilgrimage to the famous shrine, and to solicit from him letters of safe-conduct for this purpose.[27]

At Easter 1179 a council was held at Windsor, when the kingdom was divided into four circuits for the administration of justice; and John Cumin was one of the judges appointed for the northern division. In this and the following year he several times occurs in the Pipe Rolls as charged with conveying the royal treasure from place to place in England, and once he is spoken of as one of the king's chamberlains. In 1180-1 he accounts for the revenues of the vacant abbey of Glastonbury; he is described as 'custos' of the abbey, and in that capacity he made certain administrative changes, which are afterwards referred to in the Inquisition taken in 1189 by the new abbot, Henry de Sully.[28] At Michaelmas 1182 his account as warden of Glastonbury is rendered by three clerks in his name, and covers only the half-year ending at Easter. The reason of this is to be found in the great promotion which had in the meantime rewarded his long and faithful service of the king.

He must by now have wellnigh reached his fiftieth year. He was only in deacon's orders, but this was not uncommon with archdeacons at that time. Thomas Becket was only a deacon when he held the archdeaconry of Canterbury, and Peter of Blois, John Cumin's successor in the archdeaconry of Bath, wrote an angry letter of expostulation and self-justification when he was urged to go on to the priesthood.[29] The name of John Cumin appears in Le Neve's list of the prebendaries of Hoxton in St Paul's, but this is the only other preferment which he is known to have held. He had proved himself a vigorous and capable official, and Henry, who was a good judge of men, now selected him for a post of exceptional difficulty and responsibility. To the see of Dublin he was elected, as we have already said, at the abbey of Evesham in September 1181. Early in the next year he proceeded as archbishop-elect to the papal court, which he had last visited at the unhappy close of the Becket tragedy. The great pope, Alexander III, was gone: he had died but a few days before John Cumin was elected to Dublin. His pitifully weak successor, Lucius III, received the archbishop-elect at Velletri with high honour. He made him a cardinal, we are told, 'in order that with the more satisfaction the supreme pontiff might ordain and consecrate him'.[30] On 13 March 1182 the pope ordained him to the priesthood, and ten days later, on Palm Sunday, which was also the feast of St Benet the Abbot, he gave him episcopal consecration. The statement as to the cardinalate, which comes to us with so much circumstantiality, is confirmed by Giraldus Cambrensis, who speaks of him as 'presbyter cardinalis'. But there is no ground for supposing that he retained his position as a cardinal: it is hardly conceivable that he could have done so at that time without actual residence at the papal court. The explanation may be that it would have been infra dignitatem for the pope himself to ordain a priest save to the title of one of the Roman churches, and that his subsequent consecration to the see of Dublin was held to vacate the dignity which had been conferred for a special purpose.

It would be beyond the scope of the present study to follow John Cumin through the thirty years of his further career as archbishop and statesman in Ireland. One point only in his ecclesiastical policy claims our attention. His enduring monument is the cathedral church of St Patrick. Whether any part of the existing building can be assigned to him is doubted by those who have the best right to an opinion: yet we are tempted to think that he was the first to bring over the Somerset stone of which it is built. Be this as it may, the foundation of a second cathedral in one diocese is almost unique, and that this was due to John Cumin is rendered certain by the concurrence of the two chapters in the election of his successor. St Laurence O'Toole had introduced into his cathedral church of Holy Trinity, afterwards known as Christ Church, regular canons of the Augustinian order under the reformed rule of St Nicholas of Aroasia. He had himself shared their quasi-monastic life. The new archbishop was no monk, but a man of the world. He soon gave up the site of the archiepiscopal lodgings to the canons for the enlargement of their domestic buildings, and erected a new palace for himself outside the city walls, near the ancient church of St Patrick, which he began to rebuild and endow for a college of secular canons. There was precedent in England for the co-existence of a secular and a monastic chapter with equal privileges in the same diocese. In the time of William Rufus the bishop of Wells had removed his seat to the abbey of Bath, of which he became abbot, having the prior and monks as his cathedral chapter. He took the style of bishop of Bath. But the canons of Wells recovered from their humiliation under Bishop Robert in the reign of Stephen. They were re-founded after the pattern of Sarum with a dean and other dignitaries; and they successfully asserted their claim as a cathedral chapter, and co-operated with the monks of Bath in the election of Bishop Reginald in 1173 . Seventy years later they succeeded in getting the name of their church added to the style of the bishop, who has ever since borne the double title of Bath and Wells. When, therefore, John Cumin founded a second cathedral in his diocese of Dublin, he was reproducing a situation with which he was familiar as archdeacon of Bath.

  1. 'Clericus et familiaris suus', Gesta Henrici II (Rolls Series), i. 280.
  2. See Stokes, Anglo-Norman Church (ed. 2), p. 206; Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, ii. 59 f.; D'Alton, Memoirs of the Archbishops of Dublin, p. 19.
  3. An inspeximus of this charter is given in Cal. of Charter Rolls, March 1, 1314. The charter is of interest as one of the earliest in which Richard of Ilchester attests as archdeacon of Poitiers, and as the latest known mention of Dean Ivo of Wells, who has hitherto been held to have died in 1160.
  4. He appears in the Pipe Roll of 1159-60 as excused certain payments by royal writs to the sheriffs of Somerset and Worcester. In 1161-2 there are similar entries under Somerset, Carlisle, and London; in 1163-4 under Carlisle only.
  5. Materials for Hist. of Becket (Rolls Series), v. 59 'Quod Iohannes Cumin tam diu apud imperatorem moratur.'
  6. Testa, War of Frederick I in Lombardy, pp. 300 f.
  7. He attests a royal charter at Brewood (Staffs.) c. September 1165, according to the very probable date assigned by Eyton, Itinerary, p. 83.
  8. Materials for Hist. of Becket, v. 182-94.
  9. Ibid. v. 433.
  10. The nickname of 'jurator' was given him in consequence, and we find him referred to under this appellation in John of Salisbury's letters.
  11. Round, Doc. preserved in France, pp. 271 f. The third charter is found in an inspeximus, Cal. of Charter Rolls, 20 Nov. 1251.
  12. Materials for Hist. of Becket, vi. 68, 84, 203.
  13. Ibid. vi. 146 ff.
  14. The cathedral church at Tours, now St Gatien's, was formerly dedicated to St Maurice.
  15. Ibid. vii. 237: the letter is dated 1170 by the editor, but it must belong to the early part of 1167.
  16. Materials for Hist. of Becket, vi. 200.
  17. Ibid. vi. 300 ' Si haec duriuscule videantur esse concepts, scio quod nee diabolo loquor, nee schismatico Bathoniensi.'
  18. Ibid. vi. 422.
  19. See above, p. 80.
  20. Probably on Ascension Day, 29 May 1169, if not before; see Eyton, Itinerary, p. 122.
  21. R. i. 15.
  22. Notes sur les chartes orig. de Henri II, pp. 15, 30. Delisle suggests c. 1170 as the date.
  23. Not in 1175, as is commonly stated.
  24. Petri Blesensis epist. 58.
  25. Materials, &c., vii. 476.
  26. Eyton, Itinerary, p. 158 n., referred to above.
  27. Gesta Henrici II (Rolls Series), i. 157: Pipe Roll 1176-7.
  28. Liber Henrici de Soliaco (ed. Jackson), pp. 15, 17.
  29. See below, p. 123.
  30. Gesta Hen. II, i. 287 ' Ab eodem factus est cardinalis, ut gratius imponeret ei summus pontifex munus ordinationis et consecrationis '; cf. Giraldus Cambrensis (Rolls Series), v. 358.