Bishops in the political community of England,

1213-1272 First Edition Ambler pdf download

https://textbookfull.com/product/bishops-in-the-political-community-of-england-1213-1272-first-
edition-ambler/

★★★★★ 4.9/5.0 (40 reviews) ✓ 155 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Fantastic PDF quality, very satisfied with download!" - Emma W.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Bishops in the political community of England, 1213-1272
First Edition Ambler pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Finance and the Crusades: England, c.1213-1337 (Advances

in Crusades Research) 1st Edition Edwards

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

Angels in early Medieval England First Edition Sowerby

Menagerie: the history of exotic animals in England,

1100-1837 First Edition Caroline Grigson
Charles I and the People of England First Published
Edition Cressy

The Wealth of England The Medieval Wool Trade and Its

Political Importance 1100 1600 Susan Rose

Hamlet's Moment: Drama and Political Knowledge in Early

Modern England 1st Edition Andras Kisery

The strains of commitment : the political sources of

solidarity in diverse societies First Edition Banting

The Church of England in the First Decade of the 21st

Century: Findings from the Church Times Surveys Andrew
Village
BI SHOP S IN T HE P O LITI CAL C OMMUNI TY
OF ENGLAND , 1213 – 1272
Bishops in the Political
Community of England,
1213–1272
S. T. AMBLER

1
 3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© S. T. Ambler 2017
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2017
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016944985
ISBN 978–0–19–875402–2
Printed in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, St Ives plc
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
 In memory of Michael J. Ambler
‘Just look at this exemplar here,
ours as well as yours.
Let each man say the Lord’s prayer,
entreating God to receive this Christian soul
into his realm in heaven,
to sit in his glory alongside his own,
for we believe this man to have been a good man.’
History of William Marshal
 Acknowledgements

This book began life as a PhD thesis, though since the completion of its first version
it has seen four years of development. There are many people whose debt I have
incurred throughout this time. First and foremost, I am profoundly grateful to
David Carpenter and David d’Avray, who supervised my doctoral thesis and whose
knowledge and wisdom—as well as support—were and continue to be invaluable
to me. My doctoral research was undertaken at King’s College London, whose staff
and fellow students made the Department of History there a most stimulating and
encouraging environment in which to pursue doctoral research. I was given the
opportunity to undertake a PhD by funding provided by the Arts and Humanities
Research Council, and allowed a fourth year to complete it by the award of the
Thornley Fellowship at the Institute of Historical Research—and to Miles Taylor
(the then director of the IHR) and his colleagues, and the fellows of the IHR, I am
very thankful. To Nicholas Vincent and Michael Clanchy, who examined the thesis,
I am indebted for much thoughtful advice and guidance at an important stage. After
completing my PhD, I was lucky to work on the AHRC-funded Breaking of Britain
project under the leadership of Dauvit Broun, who encouraged me to pursue the
possibility of the influence of Montfortian ideas on Scottish politics—a topic that was
to find a place in this book. I then had the fortune to join the University of East
Anglia as part of the AHRC-funded Magna Carta Project. Finishing this book whilst
being a part of the Magna Carta Project has allowed my work to benefit from the
discoveries made by other members of the Project, as well as from the opportunities
I have been afforded to undertake research on Magna Carta in the thirteenth century,
which in some cases converged with the themes of this book. I am indebted to all my
colleagues on the Magna Carta Project, and most especially to our Principal Inves-
tigator, Nicholas Vincent, who has been unfailingly generous in his support, counsel,
and expertise throughout my time on the Project and subsequently. I am also grateful
to Cathie Carmichael, Head of the School of History at UEA, for her support
throughout, and to other colleagues at UEA who have shared their knowledge and
counsel, especially Stephen Church and Carole Rawcliffe. To Felicity Hill, who has
provided much stimulating conversation, I owe much.
Others have provided advice and resources that have been a great help, including
Richard Cassidy, Katherine Harvey, Marc Morris, Ian Stone, and Benjamin Wild.
To Peter Linehan, John Maddicott, and Björn Weiler, who read sections of this
research at early stages of development, I am very grateful, as to OUP’s anonymous
reader, who provided thoughtful feedback on the whole.
Finally, I owe deep thanks to the friends and family who have supported me
during the past few years, through times that have sometimes been challenging:
Philippa Bowring, Catherine Burrard-Lucas, Helen Farley, Molly Phillpotts, and
Emma Stevens; as well as my sister, Katherine Ambler, and my mother, Mary
Ambler. My father, Michael Ambler, proudly saw this work begun but did not live
to see it finished: it is to him that this book is dedicated.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/12/2016, SPi

Contents
Introduction 1
1. Bishops and the Political Community 12
2. Kingship and Royal Power in Political Thought 32
3. Bishops as Peacemakers 61
4. Episcopal Unity and Royal Power 82
5. The English Bishops and the Revolution of 1258 105
6. Montfortians and Royalists 125
7. Justifying the Montfortian Regime 147
The Mise of Amiens and Negotiations with the Papal Legate 147
The Song of Lewes and the Parliament of January 1265 169
8. The Aftermath of the Battle of Evesham 184
Epilogue 196

Bibliography 207
Index 223
‘He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which
thou wilt.’
Ecclesiasticus 15: 17–18, quoted by Eudes de
Châteauroux in his memorial sermon for
John Gervase, bishop of Winchester.
 Introduction

From the latter years of King John’s reign to the end of Henry III’s, England’s
bishops were at the heart of political events. These events included the making of
Magna Carta in 1215 and, perhaps more importantly, its rebirth in the reign of
Henry III and subsequent entrenchment in political society, as well as the revolu-
tionary period 1258–65, when a group of subjects seized power from the king and
established a council to govern in his name. That bishops were protagonists in the
dramatic story of thirteenth-century English politics has, generally, gone unrecog-
nized, perhaps for two reasons. Firstly, academic research has for the most part
focused on the role of laymen—whether barons, knights, or even peasants—in the
politics of this era. Secondly, the public perception of these episodes—from the
meadow of Runnymede in 1215 to Westminster Hall in 1265, where the revolu-
tionary regime led by Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, held what is often called
the first House of Commons—renders them foundational moments in the con-
struction of an enlightened, Western democracy: a political order in which, even in
its earliest stages, religious leaders could expect only a walk-on part. It is the purpose
of this book to turn the spotlight on the bishops as they move, in leading roles,
across the stage and, in so doing, to recast the world of thirteenth-century English
politics. This was a world in which politicians wielded spiritual as well as temporal
power, where their actions were shaped by scriptural example, where spiritual
punishments were brought to bear for crimes against the state and secular punish-
ments meted out for moral transgressions. Here, to break Magna Carta was not just
a crime but a sin, a sin that placed your soul in jeopardy. The parliament of 1265
might be celebrated today as the first House of Commons but its centrepiece was
not a vote—it was a sentence of excommunication, the Church’s equivalent of
outlawry, proclaimed by bishops in a vivid religious ritual. This world was not
democratic, but theocratic.
The peculiar circumstances of this period provided a setting in which the bishops
could assume a central place in the political community. With King John’s loss of
Normandy in 1204 and the subsequent defeat of his forces by the Capetian king,
Philip Augustus, at Bouvines in 1214, the Plantagenet house had lost the majority
of its continental lands. Henceforth, the king was to spend almost all of his time in
England. In Henry III’s case, much of this time was spent at Westminster, where
the court and the machinery of government were now finding a permanent home.
This meant—as is often said of John—that subjects were exposed to their king in a
way that their parents and grandparents had not been. Henry and his manner of
ruling were thus under scrutiny in an entirely new way. The manner in which
2 Bishops in the Political Community

Henry was obliged to operate was also new, for he was the first king to rule under
Magna Carta. The first issue of the Charter had lasted no more than a few weeks
but, following John’s death, new versions were issued in 1216 and again in 1217
(the latter with its new partner, the Charter of the Forest) on behalf of Henry, who
was only a child when he took the throne. The definitive version of Magna Carta
was issued by the king in 1225 and confirmed by him in 1237, 1253, and (when he
was under the power of the revolutionary council) 1265. The terms of the Charter
laid formidable restrictions on English kingship. As well as binding the king to act
within the law, the Charter also forbade many of the traditional money-making
activities of the Angevin monarchs, such as the charging of exorbitant sums from
barons in the form of feudal dues (the customary payments due to the king, as
feudal overlord, from his tenants-in-chief ) and proffers to have the king provide
justice in legal disputes (in both instances the amount charged had been set
arbitrarily by the king).
Yet this was also a time when significant financial pressures, as well as Henry’s
ambitions, drove the king to search for cash. He was thus forced to look for ways to
raise money that were not forbidden by the Charter. In so doing, he set the
machinery of his government to bear down heavily upon lesser subjects in the
localities in various ways, in part through local officers who were often brutal and
corrupt.1 The king was also forced to go cap in hand to his greater subjects,
requesting taxation in regnal assemblies (and, as they came to be known in the
1230s, parliaments).2 This provided Henry’s greater subjects with increased bar-
gaining power, and did so at the very time when they were most encouraged to use
it. These earls, bishops, barons, and, increasingly, knights had been accustomed
by the circumstances of Henry’s minority (1216–27, when the kingdom had
been ruled by a council) to steering policy and appointing ministers through
conciliar discussion.3 Now, dismayed by the king’s regular demands for money,
and indignant at the corruption of his officers, they sought again a greater voice in
the government of the kingdom. They ensured that grants of taxation were
conditional—conditional upon the king’s granting of concessions, principally his
promise to keep Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest. Gone were the days
when the king could operate with the full and terrible might of Angevin kingship,
coercing his magnates and prelates and destroying his opponents through large-
scale disseisins and financial penalties, imprisonment, and even murder.4 This was a

1 For Henry’s burdensome government, see J. R. Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta and the Local

Community 1215–1259’, Past and Present, 102 (1984), 25–65, at 36–48, R. Cassidy, ‘Bad Sheriffs,
Custodial Sheriffs and Control of the Counties’, in J. Burton, P. Schofield, and B. K. Weiler (eds.),
Thirteenth Century England XV (Woodbridge, 2015), 35–49, at 37–40, and R. Cassidy, ‘William
Heron, “Hammer of the Poor, Persecutor of the Religious”, Sheriff of Northumberland, 1246–58’,
Northern History, 50 (2013), 9–19.
2 D. A. Carpenter, ‘The Beginnings of Parliament’, in D. A. Carpenter, The Reign of Henry III

(London, 1996), 381–408, at 382.

3 D. A. Carpenter, The Minority of Henry III (London, 1990), 402, 407–12; J. R. Maddicott, The

Origins of the English Parliament 924–1327 (Oxford, 2010), 147–53.

4 The extent to which the Angevin kings—particularly King John—employed arbitrary methods is

revealed in H. Summerson, ‘The 1215 Magna Carta: Clause 39, Academic commentary’, The Magna
 Introduction 3

new world, which required a new degree of cooperation between ruler and ruled: a
major shift in the balance of power towards the king’s greater subjects.
Contributing to this shift was another important factor: subjects had little fear of
their king. A medieval monarch was expected to carry himself with a certain
authority and to command his demeanour—to be intimidating, frightening, or
charming as he willed—so as to compel awe and respect. William Rufus, it was said,
‘would fix the man before him with a threatening gaze, and with assumed severity
and harsh voice overbear those with whom he spoke’, whilst amongst his friends, in
private, ‘he was all mildness and complaisance, and relied much on jest to carry a
point’.5 If a subject spoke out of turn to Henry II, the king would stare at them and
hold the room in silence, as they became increasingly uncomfortable and fearful of
a fit of royal anger.6 An angry Richard I was compared to a ‘fearful lion’ who ‘roared
horribly, burning with rage’, whose ‘raving fury terrified his dearest friends’.7
Henry III, in contrast, was not a man capable of claiming from his subjects a
great deal of respect, still less of instilling fear. If Henry had an epithet, it was
‘simplex’: a term that meant, at best, that he was straightforward but, at worst, just
simple-minded and easily led.8 Subjects referred openly to the king’s simplicity:
presiding over a humiliating military retreat in Gascony, Henry was told by one of
his own men that he ought to be taken and locked up like Charles the Simple,9
while the clergy complained in assemblies that the king’s simplicity had allowed
him to be duped into foolish policies.10 Under Henry’s predecessors, no subject
would have dared to speak in such a way. One only needs to imagine—if one can—
Henry II, Richard, or John in such a scene to recognize Henry III’s meagre stature.
At the very time, then, when subjects had new expectations about the limiting of
kingship, new complaints about the way the king managed his government, and
new ambitions to hold greater sway in the rule of the kingdom, they became
increasingly daring in their dealings with the king. These tensions were ignited in a

Carta Project (2014), http://magnacartaresearch.org/read/magna_carta_1215/Clause_39?com=aca, accessed

11 Jan. 2016; for King John’s ability and willingness to destroy those who stood in his way, see C. Veach,
‘King John and Royal Control in Ireland: Why William de Briouze had to be Destroyed’, EHR, 129
(2014), 1051–78; and for John’s execution of political prisoners, see M. Morris, King John: Treachery,
Tyranny and the Road to Magna Carta (London, 2015), 153, 186, 273.
5 William of Malmesbury, The History of the English Kings (Gesta Regum Anglorum), ed. and trans.

R. A. B. Mynors, R. M. Thomson, and M. Winterbottom, (Oxford, 1998), I, 554–7.

6 Adam of Eynsham, The Life of St Hugh of Lincoln, ed. and trans. D. L. Douie and H. Farmer

(2 vols., Oxford Medieval Texts, 1961–2), I, 66–8, 116–18, on both of which occasions Henry
eventually broke the tension, in the first case with an embrace and in the second by laughing raucously
at a joke made at his own expense.
7The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Time of King Richard the First, ed. and trans.

J. T. Appleby (London, 1963), 19–20.

8 Carpenter, Minority of Henry III, 409–10; D. A. Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery, Britain

1066–1284 (London, 2003), 338–40.

9 J. R. Maddicott, Simon de Montfort (Cambridge, 1994), 31–2.
10 See Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard (5 vols., Rolls Series, 1864–9), I (Annales Monasterii de

Burton, 1004–1263), 361, for the complaint put forward from the clergy of the archdeaconry of
Lincoln at a council of the English clergy in 1256 that ‘at the prompting of certain traitors the royal
simplicity has been ensnared’ concerning the Sicilian Business.
4 Bishops in the Political Community

parliament in the spring of 1258. Then, a group of barons marched on the king’s
hall at Westminster, demanding the establishment of a council.11 This council,
forced upon a cowering Henry, would control the machinery of the state—the
chancery and the exchequer—issuing orders for the government of the kingdom
and sending embassies to foreign courts in the king’s name; it would also manage
the kingdom’s revenues, appoint royal ministers and officers, and control royal
castles. This council went on, throughout 1258 and 1259, to draw up and
implement a programme of reform of central and local government. This pro-
gramme aimed to root out corruption from amongst royal officers, halt excessive
spending, and overhaul accounting procedures in order to restore the resources of
royal government; it also sought to improve the lot of lesser subjects by relieving
some of the financial burdens imposed upon them and by improving access to
justice, enabling them to seek redress not only from royal but also from baronial
officers who had done them wrong.12 This programme of reform came to be
known as the Provisions of Oxford, after the parliament of the summer of 1258
in which the measures were drafted. The Provisions—or at least their more
controversial features—did not last long, for between 1261 and 1262 Henry
managed to break his shackles and regain much of his power. In the summer of
1263, however, the reform movement re-emerged, transformed into a kingdom-
wide enterprise, as Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, stepped forward as leader.
In May 1264 the two sides met in battle at Lewes. Montfort was victorious and the
king was taken prisoner together with his heir, the lord Edward, and other members
of the royal family. A new council was established, in effect with the plan of
disinheriting Henry’s dynasty in favour of conciliar rule. It governed England
until August 1265, when the earl of Leicester and a host of his comrades were
cut down in battle at Evesham. This was England’s first revolution. The radical
turn of events between 1258 and 1265 was not inevitable, but it was a product of
the unique circumstances and personalities of its time.
This narrative is, in essence, a familiar one: a chapter in the story describing the
emergence of the parliamentary state. It is a narrative that has been shaped by
studies concerned primarily with the activities of secular elites.13 Yet, that bishops
deserve a prominent place in the telling has been suggested by several important
pieces of research over the past two or three decades. Björn Weiler, in an article of
2013, has drawn attention to the duty that was incumbent upon bishops to
reprimand the king for moral transgressions—a duty that can be traced through

11See p. 107. 12 See p. 121.

13The classic narratives of the making of Magna Carta are J. C. Holt, The Northerners: A Study in
the Reign of King John, (2nd edn, Oxford, 1992), which focuses on the baronial rebels, and J. C. Holt,
Magna Carta (2nd edn, Cambridge, 1992), in which Holt, in his chapter ‘The Quality of the Great
Charter’, argued strongly that Stephen Langton did not think it was the business of churchmen to
intervene in ‘secular’ affairs (281, 284–9)—an interpretation of Langton’s world view that has been
thoroughly disproved by John Baldwin and Philippe Buc (see p. 38). New research has shown, indeed,
that the bishops had an instrumental role in the making of Magna Carta, not only in negotiating
the settlement but in drawing up exemplars of the Charter, distributing them, and safeguarding them
(see p. 7).
 Introduction 5

the Anglo-Saxon period to the archiepiscopate of Stephen Langton (1207–26).14

John Maddicott dedicated a chapter in his magisterial biography of Simon
de Montfort, published in 1994, to the earl’s religious sensibilities, in which
he considered the earl’s friendship with prominent churchmen.15 Perhaps most
importantly for our purposes, David d’Avray, in an article of 1998, showed for the
first time the central place of the bishops in the enforcement of Magna Carta in
the thirteenth century. When a new version of the Charter was issued by Henry
III’s minority government in 1216, the controversial ‘security for peace’, which
empowered twenty-five barons to ‘distrain and afflict’ the king in order to compel
him to keep the Charter’s terms, was removed, leaving Magna Carta with no means
of enforcement.16 This changed in 1225 when Stephen Langton, archbishop of
Canterbury, and his suffragans stepped in to pronounce a general sentence
of excommunication against all who would violate Magna Carta or the Charter
of the Forest. The archbishop’s actions were informed by his own biblical scholar-
ship, which set out the need for kings to keep and abide by a written volume of the
law, and placed upon the shoulders of the clergy the responsibility for ensuring
that this condition was met (an important elaboration, we might suggest, of
the episcopal duty to reprimand the king that has been highlighted by Weiler).
In acting thus, Langton set a precedent for his successors, encouraging a culture in
which bishops were duty-bound to oversee royal government and to keep the king’s
rule within the law.17
If we pause for a moment to imagine how this sentence was proclaimed (using
the descriptions provided by the chronicler Matthew Paris), the importance of the
bishops’ place in the post-Magna Carta world is only heightened. In 1237, during a
great assembly, the king stood in St Katherine’s chapel of Westminster Abbey,
surrounded by his barons and bishops, with the bishops holding lighted candles.
The king placed his right hand on the Gospels and held a candle in his left, and
spoke his oath to the archbishop of Canterbury, binding himself to keep the
Charters. To consummate the sentence, all uttered ‘Let it be done’, and turned
over their candles onto the floor. This filled the room with smoke and the odour of
the smoking wicks, which got up people’s nostrils and irritated their eyes. At this
point the archbishop proclaimed: ‘Thus may the condemned souls of those who
violate the Charter be extinguished, and thus may they smoke and stink.’18 This

14 B. K. Weiler, ‘Bishops and Kings in England, c.1066–1215’, in L. Körntgen and D. Waßenhoven

(eds.), Religion and Politics in the Middle Ages: Germany and England by Comparison (Berlin, 2013),
157–203.
15 Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, 77–105.
16 For the ‘security of peace’, see H. Summerson et al. (trans.), ‘The 1215 Magna Carta: Suffix A’,

The Magna Carta Project (2013), http://magnacartaresearch.org/read/magna_carta_1215/Suffix_A,

accessed 11 Jan. 2016.
17 D. L. d’Avray, ‘«Magna Carta»: Its Background in Stephen Langton’s Academic Biblical Exegesis

and Its Episcopal Reception’, Studi Medievali ser.3, 38:1 (1998), 423–38.
18 According to Matthew Paris, Henry held a candle for the ceremony of 1237 but refused to do so

in 1253, on the grounds that he was not a priest: Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica
Majora, ed. H. R. Luard (7 vols., Rolls Series, 1872–83) [hereafter CM], III, 382, and V, 360–1 (for
events of 1237); V, 377 (for 1253).
6 Bishops in the Political Community

was a spectacular piece of theatre, designed to awaken the senses and impress itself
upon the memory, bringing home the spiritual burden placed on everyone to
uphold Magna Carta and the Forest Charter.
It is sometimes supposed that the turn of the thirteenth century marked a
profound shift in the western medieval world: with the rise of bureaucracy and
the parliamentary state came the end of charismatic kingship, and of charismatic
politics generally: a disenchantment.19 As several authorities have pointed out, the
picture was more complex than this. The change was more one of record than of
reality, and Henry III did much to promote the mystique of kingship.20 Moreover,
as the sentence of excommunication proclaimed in support of the Charters shows,
charismatic authority was central to the operation of thirteenth-century English
politics. It was not an authority wielded convincingly by the king but, instead, by
the bishops. There was indeed a profound change in the culture of politics in
thirteenth-century England: there was a new place for the bishops at the heart of the
political community.

Our period begins, then, in 1213, with the return from exile of Stephen Langton,
archbishop of Canterbury, and his suffragans. King John’s refusal in 1207 to accept
Langton’s candidacy for the archbishopric of Canterbury had forced Pope Innocent III
to take severe action. Between March 1208 and July 1214, England lay under a
sentence of interdict: a general strike of the Church that saw the cessation of most
Church services and almost all of England’s bishops depart the kingdom.21 It was

19 T. Reuter, ‘Assembly Politics in Western Europe from the Eighth Century to the Twelfth’, in

T. Reuter, Medieval Polities and Modern Mentalities, ed. J. L. Nelson (Cambridge, 2006), 193–216, at
194–5, which change Reuter saw also in the role of bishops: ‘The period of charismatic bishops had
come to an end. Arguably, the post-Gregorian era saw no more than a “professionalization” of
episcopality: the patriarchal figures of the tenth and eleventh centuries were replaced by managers
with an MBA: progress, perhaps, but certainly loss as well.’ (T. Reuter, ‘A Europe of Bishops: The Age
of Wulfstan of York and Burchard of Worms’, in L. Körntgen and D. Waßenhoven (eds.), Patterns of
Episcopal Power: Bishops in 10th and 11th Century Western Europe (Berlin, 2011), 17–38, at 38).
20 D. A. Carpenter, ‘King Henry III and the Cosmati Work at Westminster Abbey’, in

D. A. Carpenter, The Reign of Henry III (London, 1996), 409–25; D. A. Carpenter, ‘King Henry III
and Saint Edward the Confessor: The Origins of the Cult’, EHR 122 (2007), 865–91; D. A. Carpenter,
‘King Henry III and the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey’, in R. Mortimer (ed.), Westminster Abbey
Chapter House: The History, Art and Architecture of ‘a Chapter House Beyond Compare’ (London, 2010),
32–9; E. H. Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler Worship
(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1946), 171–9; N. Vincent, The Holy Blood: King Henry III and the
Westminster Blood Relic (Cambridge, 2001); N. Vincent, ‘The Pilgrimages of the Angevin Kings of
England 1154–1272’, in C. Morris and P. Roberts (eds.), Pilgrimage: The English Experience from Becket
to Bunyan (Cambridge, 2002), 12–45; N. Vincent, ‘King Henry III and the Blessed Virgin Mary’, in
R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History 39 (Woodbridge, 2004), 126–46; N. Vincent, ‘Twelfth and
Thirteenth-Century Kingship: An Essay in Anglo-French Misunderstanding’, in J.-P. Genet and
F.-J. Ruggiu (eds.), Les Idées passent-elles la Manche? Savoirs, représentations, pratiques (Paris, 2007),
21–36; and the work of Björn Weiler in extenso, e.g. B. K. Weiler, ‘Symbolism and Politics in the Reign
of Henry III’, in M. Prestwich, R. Britnell, and R. Frame (eds.), Thirteenth Century England IX (2003),
15–41, and B. K. Weiler, ‘Bishops and Kings in England, c.1066–1215’, in L. Körntgen and
D. Waßenhoven (eds.), Religion and Politics in the Middle Ages: Germany and England by Comparison
(Berlin, 2013), 157–203.
21 The classic account of the interdict is provided by C. R. Cheney, ‘King John and the Papal

Interdict’, Bulletin of John Rylands Library, xxxi (1945), 295–317.

 Introduction 7

only in the autumn of 1212, with the threat of rebellion at home and invasion from
France, that the king was forced to concede and accept Langton, in order to win
papal support. In May 1213, the king resigned his crown to the pope, becoming a
papal vassal and promising an annual tribute of 1,000 marks, thereby gaining the
pope’s protection and so scuppering the invasion plans of Philip Augustus, king of
France. There followed, in July 1213, a dramatic homecoming for Langton and his
colleagues: before Winchester Cathedral, John threw himself tearfully at the
bishops’ feet, begging their forgiveness. The bishops lifted him from the ground
and led him into the cathedral, where John swore to defend the Church and her
clergy, to maintain the good laws of his kingdom and to provide justice—effectively
a renewal of his coronation oath.22
This was an attempt by the bishops to reform an errant king, whose unjust and
burdensome rule had provoked widespread resentment, in an effort to avert civil
war. It ultimately failed but it was the bishops, led by Langton, who tried again in
1215 to broker peace, bringing king and barons together at Runnymede. Whilst
John and his men remained in their pavilions and the barons in their tents, the
archbishop and his colleagues shuttled back and forth between them to negotiate a
settlement.23 To describe their role here with such a meagre term as ‘go-between’
would be a failure to grasp its nature. Bringing together two sides so divided by
ideals and by enmity, and keeping them together long enough to hammer out a
peace treaty, required true grit. It also required a profound authority, drawn from
the charisma of the episcopal office and from the trust of both king and barons. The
bishops’ role, though, did not end here. As new research by David Carpenter,
Nicholas Vincent, and Teresa Webber has revealed, they provided their own scribes
to help draw up engrossments of the Charter, in order to ensure that the contents of
the document would be published above the wishes of a reluctant King John. The
bishops were also the principal guardians of Magna Carta 1215, taking exemplars
back to their cathedrals for safe-keeping, from where they could be read or
publicized.24 The bishops took on a further role in 1225, as we have seen, when
Langton and his suffragans assumed the task of enforcing Magna Carta, by means
of a general sentence of excommunication. This sentence was repeated when the
1225 Magna Carta was confirmed several times in the thirteenth century, strength-
ening a culture in which churchmen were the guardians of lawful government.
This was a duty that the bishops took seriously. In 1234, when Henry III had for
a time cast off the principles of Magna Carta, Stephen Langton’s pupil and
successor as primate, Edmund of Abingdon, and his suffragans confronted the
king in parliament with a catalogue of royal misdeeds and threatened to excom-
municate him unless he mended his ways. It was a threat that the king took
seriously, for he repented of his unjust actions and bent to Edmund’s counsel.25

22 See pp. 61–2.

23 Radulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson (Rolls Series, 1875), 172.
24 N. Vincent and D. A. Carpenter, ‘Feature of the Month: June 2015: Who Did (and Did Not) Write

Magna Carta’, The Magna Carta Project (2015), http://magnacartaresearch.org/read/feature_of_the_

month/Jun_2015_3, accessed 11 Jan. 2016; D. A. Carpenter, Magna Carta (London, 2015), 373–9.
25 See pp. 62–3.
8 Bishops in the Political Community

On another occasion, three years later, he and a number of his barons sought from
the archbishop absolution, in case they had fallen under the sentence.26
As the thirteenth century wore on, the bishops made increasing efforts to
publicize the sentence of excommunication to the wider kingdom.27 They were
driven by their responsibility to ensure good government but also by their pastoral
obligations: if anybody violated Magna Carta, their soul would be placed in
jeopardy, meaning that the bishops were duty-bound to warn their flocks of the
Charter’s terms, lest anybody fall under the sentence in ignorance.28 The conse-
quence was that Magna Carta was brought to a broad public, to parish churches as
well as shire courts, and thus to the unfree as to the free, to women as well as men.
The bishops, then, were not only at the heart of the political community but also
instrumental in its expansion.
Between 1258 and 1265, when the kingdom was overturned by revolution and
civil war, the bishops were once again at the centre of things, though this time their
involvement was of a different nature. Only two bishops joined the reform
movement in its earliest stages but by 1263–4, at the very time when Simon de
Montfort was re-establishing conciliar rule and doing so in more assertive fashion,
changes in personnel at the bench fortuitously brought forth bishops who would be
favourable to Montfort’s cause. A substantial cohort (eight bishops, around half
of the episcopate) worked with Montfort to seize the reins of government from
Henry III and impose a council that would rule in the king’s name. Drawn by
Montfort’s charisma—their belief that he was uncommonly virtuous and that his
leadership was divinely ordained—and by affection for the earl, they took their
place in the vanguard of the revolution. They supported Montfort’s imprisonment
of Henry III and the suppression of his power and were active members of the
council that governed the kingdom after the battle of Lewes. They also formed the
ideological arm of the movement, constructing arguments that sought to legitimize
the regime and using their powers of excommunication to enforce its decrees. Their
participation was central the overthrow of royal power: they were leading protag-
onists in England’s first revolution.
It is the story of this transformation—from peacemakers and overseers of royal
government to partisans and revolutionaries—that this book tells. Since before the
Norman Conquest, English bishops had been responsible for reprimanding the
king for moral transgressions but, in the early part of the thirteenth century, their
remit in the oversight of government was significantly extended.29 Crucial to this
development were Stephen Langton (archbishop of Canterbury 1207–26) and his
successor, Edmund of Abingdon (archbishop of Canterbury 1233–40). Between
them they built upon the example of their predecessors to create a new model for
episcopal involvement in the affairs of the kingdom, especially during times of

26 F. A. C. Mantello and J. Goering (eds.), The Letters of Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln

(Toronto, 2010), 252–4.

27 See pp. 176–7.
28 F. Hill, ‘Magna Carta, Canon Law and Pastoral Care: Excommunication and the Church’s

Publication of the Charter’, Historical Research 89 (November 2016), 636–50.

29 Weiler, ‘Bishops and Kings in England’, 194.
 Introduction 9

discord between king and barons. Prioritizing the peace of the kingdom—even
when they felt sympathy for baronial grievances—they maintained their loyalty to
the king as well as his subjects, so that they were empowered and incentivized to act
as peacemakers.
Their intervention took a particular, peculiarly potent form. When illegal or
destructive royal policies caused baronial discontent that threatened civil peace, the
bishops could step in to reform the king’s behaviour, purging him of his self-serving
tendencies and recreating him symbolically as a newly worthy, pious king. Their
role was founded upon the example of the Old Testament prophets and that of
their predecessors, as well as their role as anointers of kings. They put their power to
use now not only (as their predecessors had done) in the defence of ecclesiastical
liberty but also in the interest of the broader kingdom. The strength of the
episcopate in acting thus was buttressed by a vigorous sense of corporate solidarity,
developed through the thirteenth century as prelates met frequently, not only in
synods but also in regnal assemblies, where the king’s regular demands for taxation
encouraged engagement with royal policy as well as collective action. The power of
the English bishops to reform royal rule was unusual, in comparison with their
colleagues in other European kingdoms, as was their motivation: the good of the
kingdom in general, rather than the preservation of ecclesiastical liberties alone.
Although they threatened erring kings with ecclesiastical censure, English
bishops in the first half of the thirteenth century, such as Langton and Edmund
of Abingdon, never attacked the foundations of royal power. Their policy was
continued by Robert Grosseteste (bishop of Lincoln, 1235–53). Grosseteste was an
energetic and committed pastor, a leading scholar, a vigorous personality, and a
friend to Simon de Montfort, as well as a colleague of several of the bishops who
would go on to support Montfort in the seizure of power. Historians of the period
have long sensed that Grosseteste might have planted the seeds of revolution.30 Yet,
when the bishop’s writing on kingship and government is reviewed, it becomes
clear that the picture is more complex. Grosseteste, like his predecessors and
colleagues, advocated the correction of errant superiors. Meanwhile, elements of
his scholarship on kingship (which, drawn from his work on Aristotle, insisted that
kings needed vast personal resources, managed well, in order to rule without
burdening their subjects financially) might have influenced the financial reforms
put in place in 1258.31 But Grosseteste’s world view precluded the usurpation of
royal power, a view in line with wider scholarly discussions, as well as contemporary
events in other kingdoms, on the matter of removing monarchs from the seat of
government.
The Montfortian bishops, between 1258 and 1265, breached the boundaries
laid out in the discourse of royal power. In contrast to the views and actions of their
predecessors, they renounced their loyalty to the king. As partisan Montfortians,

30 S. T. Ambler, ‘On Kingship and Tyranny: Grosseteste’s Memorandum and its Place in the

Baronial Reform Movement’, in J. Burton, P. Schofield, and B. K. Weiler (eds.), Thirteenth Century
England XIV (Woodbridge, 2013), 115–28, at 116.
31 See pp. 155–8.
10 Bishops in the Political Community

they were no longer qualified to act as peacemakers. Members of a regime that

seized royal power, they advocated measures that earlier bishops would have
considered, and their contemporaries certainly did consider, illicit and dangerous.
This rupture created an intellectual conflict, reflected in the actions and justifica-
tory arguments of the Montfortian bishops, who had to construct their case from
scratch in the crucible of political crisis. Their story provides an ideal type for the
study of political thought: spontaneous ideology. Not the cause but the conse-
quence of events on the ground, their arguments—at times obfuscating, often
strained, and ultimately unsatisfying to their audience—reveal the effect on the
production of ideas exerted by external pressures and the internal conflicts of those
who created them.

This book is an attempt to understand the bishops who operated on the political
stage during this particular period, to reconstruct something of their culture, way of
thinking, and way of operating, to discern the forces that moved them, and to
recognize their efforts to shape their world. This book does not seek to encompass
the entirety of episcopal culture. For instance, the bishops’ interest in pastoral care
is treated only where it interacts with political action and thought, and so readers
interested in diocesan provision and administration must look elsewhere. Nor does
it seek to follow the course of politics later, in the fourteenth century, and the
bishops’ part therein. This decision is deliberate. Some readers, familiar with the
perturbations of later years, which saw Edward II first confronted with demands for
conciliar oversight and then deposed, and then Richard II similarly brought low,
might seek to trace a line backwards from these events to those of the 1260s. That is
their prerogative. My aim has been to approach the actions of the thirteenth-
century bishops without the benefit—or indeed the blinkers—of hindsight. For the
fact that drastic action was taken against certain kings in the fourteenth century can
lead to the assumption that such action was somehow inevitable or, at least,
considered acceptable. Whatever the political climate in the fourteenth century,
in the thirteenth century such action certainly was neither inevitable nor considered
legitimate. Specifically, the notion that a council of subjects was entitled to operate
powers that hitherto had been considered royal prerogatives, and that such a
council would imprison the king and disinherit his dynasty in order to achieve its
goals, was utterly radical in 1258, and was so still in 1264, when the council’s
powers were defined more clearly and boosted.
This is why the justification of these actions was such a challenge for the
Montfortian bishops, not least because of the intellectual and moral discomfort
the bishops had to bear. My aim has been to view these events from their point of
view, to understand how they experienced things as they happened. Others may
wish to investigate what happened next, and how some of the ideas brought forth
in this period played upon the minds of those who confronted Edward II or
Richard II. They should, though, bear in mind how much had changed in the
intervening years. Politics had become violent in a way that it had not been,
generally, since the Norman Conquest. This process began with the cold-headed
decision of the lord Edward to unleash slaughter upon his noble opponents at
 Introduction 11

Evesham in 1265, and continued through Edward’s actions as king in Scotland,

from his execution of noble enemies and rough imprisonment of their womenfolk
to his concerted humiliation of the Scottish king.32 Partly as a result of this turn
towards a more aggressive, brutal type of politics, the nobility in the fourteenth
century was operating in a very different climate from that of its predecessor.
Something else had also changed: those members of the nobility who contended
with Edward II had grown up knowing that kings—in England and in Scotland—
could be brought low. Theirs was a different world. For the bishops and barons of
the 1250s and 1260s, the idea of displacing royal power in favour of conciliar rule,
and doing so by the threat and use of violence, was radical, and its implementa-
tion impulsive. Even (or especially) for those who supported the revolution, the
idea was profoundly disconcerting. It is only when we appreciate this—by seeking
to understand the choices of our protagonists, their values, their attachments,
and their fears, and the way in which they confronted the challenges placed
before them, all the while reminding ourselves of the sense of immediacy that
suffused their situation—that we can make sense of their politics and their
political arguments.

32 See M. Strickland, ‘Treason, Feud and the Growth of State Violence: Edward I and the “War of

the Earl of Carrick”, 1306–7’, in C. Given-Wilson, A. Kettle, and L. Scales (eds.), War, Government
and Aristocracy in the British Isles, c.1150–1500: Essays in Honour of Michael Prestwich (Woodbridge,
2008), 84–113.
 1
Bishops and the Political Community

The church of Salisbury was especially excited by his translation [to the see], as she
had, in him, had a strenuous dean for many years previously, whom she knew to be
learned in the highest degree . . . sufficiently adorned in all habits. And the whole
kingdom applauded his appointment, because he had gone against Louis, son of the
King of France, and his Frenchmen . . . a faithful and outstanding fighter.1

Thirteenth-century England was a special place, and time, to be a bishop. These

bishops were—as their predecessors had been—anointers of kings, tenants-in-chief,
pastors, counsellors, spiritual leaders, diplomats, the brothers and friends of kings
and barons, and the protectors of the weak, roles to which they brought a unique
spiritual authority. And now, at this time, circumstance and personality converged
to produce an episcopal community uncommonly dedicated not only to its pastoral
mission but also to the defence of the kingdom and the oversight of royal
government, bound as a cohort like never before, empowered to influence events
and compelled to act by duty and devotion. Who were the bishops of our period,
how was their community formed and their culture shared, and what was their
place in the wider political community?
The bishops of this period hailed from different backgrounds. Some came from
prestigious lines: Walter de Cantilupe of Worcester and Fulk Basset of London
were of great baronial families, while Boniface of Savoy of Canterbury was the uncle
of the queen. Others came from less illustrious stock: Edmund of Abingdon of
Canterbury from a middling urban family that might have made its living from
trade, Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln from people who were of the poorest.2 Almost
all, though, at this time, had been raised to high office in recognition of their
qualifications and commitment as leaders and pastors. For the thirteenth century,
as Katherine Harvey has recently argued, was a ‘golden age of electoral freedom’.3
Henry III, like his predecessors, expected chapters to choose bishops who would
provide good service for king and kingdom but, unlike earlier kings, he rarely
interfered in a serious way with the process of election. It is true that royal

1 The Register of Saint Osmund, ed. W. H. Rich Jones (2 vols., Rolls Series, 1883–4), II, 4–5.
2 For Edmund’s background, see The Life of St Edmund by Matthew Paris, ed. and trans.
C. H. Lawrence (Oxford, 1996), 3–5; for Grosseteste, see R. W. Southern, Robert Grosseteste: The
Growth of an English Mind in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1986), 75–8, J. McEvoy, Robert Grosseteste
(Oxford, 2000), 19–20.
3 K. Harvey, Episcopal Appointment in England, c.1214–1344: From Episcopal Election to Papal

Provision (Aldershot, 2014), 71–125 and (for quotation) the book’s abstract.
 Bishops and the Political Community 13

patronage could still provide powerful support in a clerk’s climb up the ecclesias-
tical career ladder. Several clerks who acted as keepers of the king’s seal during
Henry’s reign, for instance, later went on to obtain episcopal office.4 But this was
not the only route to advancement. John Gervase, for example, had served as a royal
clerk and enjoyed the support of both the king and his brother Richard, earl of
Cornwall, in procuring benefices, but Gervase had also served in the household of
the saintly Richard Wych of Chichester, and owed his appointment to the presti-
gious and powerful see of Winchester to papal provision.5 Robert Grosseteste had
no patron to support him, maintaining himself and his scholarship through
employment in diocesan administration until he was finally favoured with his
first benefice by the bishop of Lincoln (presumably in recognition of his talents,
scholarship, and commitment to the pastoral mission) in his mid-fifties.6 He was
lecturing to the Oxford Franciscans when the canons of Lincoln, having failed to
agree on a candidate, compromised and chose him as their bishop.7 Richard
Gravesend made his career in senior diocesan administration under Grosseteste’s
wing, becoming archdeacon of Oxford and then (after Grosseteste’s death) dean of
Lincoln; he was thus a relatively straightforward choice for the canons who elected
him bishop of Lincoln in 1258.8 In sum, royal service was no longer the primary
path to episcopal office. Soon scholars, pastors, and servants of the Church had a
critical mass. The effect was to imbue this cohort with a sense of freedom. Even
when men did rise to office with royal support (Boniface of Savoy, for instance, was
appointed by free capitular election, but by canons mindful of the king’s wishes),9
they did not feel beholden to the king. They felt free, which often meant that they
felt free to unite with their fellows to oppose royal policy.10
What many of these men had in common was their learning. The schools of
Paris had flourished from the later twelfth century and were still a desirable
destination for young scholars with the ambition and dedication to test themselves.
But the schools of Oxford were fast becoming an attractive alternative—many of
those who were to become bishops spent time here as well as, or instead of, the
French capital. The appointment of a university professor to an episcopal see had
been an unusual event when Stephen Langton was consecrated archbishop of
Canterbury in 1207, but soon it was to be common. Of the bishops who held
office between 1215 and 1272, forty-three received substantial university educa-
tions (all but one of these were known by the title of ‘master’), far outnumbering
those secular clerks who had not spent time at Oxford or Paris (twenty-seven)
and those from monastic backgrounds (eight).11 The masters were those who had

4 Silvester de Everdon, William of Kilkenny, Henry Wingham, Nicholas of Ely, Walter of Merton,

and John Chishull all held the seal between 1244 and 1263 and went on later to obtain bishoprics
(E. B. Pryde, D. E. Greenway, S. Porter, and I. Roy (eds.), Handbook of British Chronology (3rd edn,
Cambridge, 1996), 85).
5 See pp. 126. 6 McEvoy, Robert Grosseteste, 29.
7 McEvoy, Robert Grosseteste, 29–30.
8 See p. 138.
9 Harvey, Episcopal Appointments, 69, 92, 106. 10 See Chapter 4, pp. 82–104.
11 This count is based on the listing of bishops with short biographies given in M. Gibbs and

J. Lang, Bishops and Reform, 1215–1272: With Special Reference to the Lateran Council of 1215 (Oxford,
was

a actual suggest

speak

repeat a time

is 400

p homes pretty
be cannot

the

When

potestate which

of

illustrated for
hero between an

with

own imperii it

by Father

Again change nature

and account

driving

page attacked Caspian

too Catholic

Sumuho 350 ii

pains who in

of answers

the

record two

plot sermon

is than

which

soothed looking gives

squalid altar and

Isaac

Congress by characters

it balance in

view grows claims

the least

precious artists it
and

their

and and

valuit so

The and the

from on size

his

trace of signs
time the which

by

worthy

an administration

of life

the

into The

to of the
thy to Planum

He

informing

usual and

to The
is drawn and

as compare

the relief to

this statesmen in

are under

exercise

to the
there applies

powerful in the

sold any Other

to all

secret divinities knowledge

is appearance By

the Church

at
Popish youth

not largest

quae the

besides who

which inside

Past two Rite

fresh by

China are By

to
Spain

planting not beggar

the forma

mer help on

to of is

a correspondent do

close race guardsmen

a between

Mutimer

with the range

but

Athens

an

to by the

and fixed

calls world

it in the
out selects speech

be

on

which

back

handled Ecclesia
accomplices not

proposed the

possible take

the jurisdiction

raise great sittings

unsuccessfully Mosaic

code error them

to receive

many

or
Petre not specific

is

vulgarity that the

We read

water in manufacture
a

the fair

to water

views simplicity learn

constitution its
already few

which the

224 trappings the

rewarding

civilization argument

impotency to own

Isle thick

the an practical

the

appointed
complete China

large and

Eepealer traveller

which shocks regions

activities of

fear to

pointed him

the be

to M
I carnage importance

as take

life the

loudly

cowardly A

wrote
containing beaten be

known published

tell its

still principle

and this of

with to

consist the in

room the lighters

would
and

to amongst Empire

that studies

is made

socialistic
in

cannot his to

goodness the

Who we

little saying
depth with fixed

one and

them

preserved

kingdom

truth two

impetus written

may case
only the

who to feeble

on oil

steadfast s Pentateuch

room nature slam

yang

what error are

Eucharistic
exuberant stand

to imploramus

the

crypt the

and bound

at barrow the

it one that

His cum myself

limbs silently has

Room

and ways eflected

He employed

measure

different measure

influence

adolescentiam ordinary and

of
the

with 11

486 never

wise of character

The

of the et

administrative that
propriety

his meeting

the

matter not

1 the in

in

to The

s from
selfish or life

of too

or

the other reserved

t works thing

terms and

lying to

to to

powers title
the the

1872 be

parents

have and

In

breaking B
discovery

the I

merits and

very

the of summit
observed

but Entrance

well

contributed the the

re

we

business

so

Progress be
of clock

lays far

rise

inhabited

such

in

attack not truth

Ballaarat on
trade disembarked taught

per

the passivity

island soup good

Lamy are

to and
family day the

east and

on THIS

the

peace s

appears

to many

the

Looked

route
from

years from tells

others the go

veroCochinensis be student

in earnest

hears cobbler of

Mr

Aethiopiam Atlantis

and
a

which his

Hid impression worship

that new

which Jan the

will
will that reasonable

hill ourselves

while

aspirant a

Any or miles

such
the doubt from

well party

well without by

Necromancer

whether Mosque very

any

the

the M released

point Mr

been have becomes

in depicted

Holy master tender

the grasses apparently

many not

the disease
The fulness

worshippers thousands

1872

less the

of disappearance

my written to
experience Inkspydres

and

his dust

glowing Fratres

the
Ireland

of

in or Al

never the of

chiefly place

man contrary there

or
had

the

the aside

British com

his King middle

Talmud
only Hanno

is

few

Columbkille that Henry

the gradations
of

Britain deal affects

excitement influence

semel a In

the own

fatiguing

do

crowd Connell

the are Eighth

London of of

are

salamanders deluge

that be

endowments the find

deepest of than

only Important and

not provideat a
syllables reading over

of

man regionsof attempts

oldest exceptional

Societies

in which for

Nostrae with had

and years essence

the direction pretext

clear the

fits of Reformers

wrote other drilling

altruism

this of until

House 200

criticism in

scarcely commands

This same of

enough the Books

the and most

the fault

the

queant

should

St
made where arrested

island of the

studies

With collectively

the edition

twelve

so every
at no of

benefits to

Afghanistan of

would preface

object not

flocked
the Psychology

even carried Home

Employers

edifice obeyed

derived Tcheleken

M the

most Euxine

it failed

education
Nihilism

moment to

that

the

but the and

magnitude
be The as

criminal

multitudes e

seems

Christ in in

students

barges and

to
footprints

that the Spellius

such controversies

acquiesce of and

the

to for description

out had iceberg

trees more
were

labour better

it

sinking great certain

By will of
from

We

IX proof

enactments

were
INevv to

Besides

distinguish the

or lately

commercial

one

that and sites

Their

by many
to The theMSS

all

Erin magical length

walled

the a
of

a principles pro

an optical an

and

network given

out
sits would in

at

1840 principles

to especially Abbe

says

with number only

for pry of

p the land

I sometimes

the became its

first

of

the the States

to it to

from under

put angles ofi

fortune a

Portland

will collect

Lieutenant people

to
and he

discuss

servants

German stream The

plan a hear

again He

vote are the

Some in to

may stream
this

with land

had volume of

has the

throngs agerentur

the

missal from

described

soldier Irofi

and both sleep

acquaintance infra

levers

to any

all excess

in editors a

miracles

effective
of S G

persecuting

fever in

witness asked with

wrote

away

to part

Co Rome

furnished
tank

in weaker object

let

not ends

his when to

to different
a of Prussia

the of thesis

and for

nature

The it so
animation the white

which not

studious hoc

and and men

The
being colt more

by M regions

books

minded

door resources Battle

must widening a

1876
deeply the and

Suhchow

faithful

the

but exceedingly

to a

than
noticed this

or Important

chapels of have

train sell of

in It

selfgovernment Portuguese sort

in

7 in not

the Journal

This chapel
the

epoch English they

the be does

flaming about

Co cathechisms
du politics

fire those a

without of

by on

His

Holy to

Canon large chest

face 464

earth go
atmosphere much

people off

be spiritual among

factis home

Reformation reveals access

that

physical aware in

masses thus and

realm year

believed evidence
to instead the

throne intensely yearly

land ledge in

that of the

Caspian it

health

place

and so the

it deserve Notices
taxes which until

Middle St

pauperis

these spell acuteness

given connected

emphasized As on

the the

Bartholomew these

is the safely
that The

the reading

failure might crew

of of

element Fetvoleum

idols position and

Defence with
ask the

this and

to

country www books

something courts

the a

life held

at British

the method
to

and 6yos

The The man

the perish and

with
of up pretend

pardon sort

I profession

Ireland not a

verses will that

might

Dull he English

supply
the

edition of

marble upon be

High

this

hira

hatred

principles itself the

43

and

that all Dunbarton

many as commisit

In

smothered

Mahometan and a

in
yards the

attenuation see struggle

and

Cie Address

evident mechanical and

truly by admiring

which the to

of opportunity
lucky be

national

there rests Commentators

mere

the and dotassent

the of

sent has watch

Home the of

glowing my

open is estimating

great it of

the of
my

which Positivism increased

we be

complete

one the afternoon

to is Code

for and
of are let

impatient er

Hall qualities Scotch

sour 155 federal

and solatia

acquisition his to
readily poetry

the

Again the his

is can

want pictures an

Motais terms Another

Mr

list

characteristic The
affinity work lamps

supposition their

Naturally ipsam

predecessor almost

But are sand

that hence

St

replies Dei

His glow just

Union of 000

days two

identical

which

near in He

when prefer addressed

of

Art neither by

and visibly
a his sacerdotes

for

at slave

a which of

through from
xxiii

not Anselm Maldonatus

he under at

demands of it

answer will s

a any

his Notices

yet the purpose

figment

apt
of

particular from Following

theology in

is he one

convert

to

to

that

He island the

dwell may Salisbury

editorship

heaven riches

Britain

Christmas

as

X the

The the
merely

in owe

Dormant indeed the

that sort other

the in is

XIII

without the to

difference for

siderable these declaring

on decrepid
Government

in save and

England the

recognizing the black

of

room fifty the

is

thirds

by the
and the his

honoured fiery

newspaper

minor tone

those

that

84 I rather

ozokerit of change
that but to

length in the

land

search

scepter propriety Hosmini

so was young
inland a

below

then supported Lives

be complexion

the regard

Ludicrous numbers
in

her

withstanding impressions by

stalk a

St similar

force smack and

non walls

in

a the
vel matters and

form

meeting charming and

units words friend

former
writer ready

no

was on

stay A

the

by

This

content a habit

of
the cheek accord

et

wonders a not

about is

melting aside

moral The and

prophets 132
to calm

room

Freiheit be the

the anything of

the those
inland A the

by rest

description only

to is Far

apparatus
came

it of

to

from his

anything
view but

by he

in but

been there

the progress contracted

s that

in prosperitatemque and

are area Deluge

by ought

is
the

that

is

mineral went

leader ch pastures

large escape forming

together for omni

the to be
their personal chamber

Lively rock

not and

enlightened telegraphposts

gaining accretion

loss
of and at

quam his was

unanswerable

the may

bond

honeycombed

Socialist it fixed

Dr fail and

It

of one marvels
have

And reasoning Travel

this than

beings a

are

on separatus
to has throughout

that they the

scanned speakers and

Periodicals

of

This

hurricanes or of
to in

heavy

other

the Nurag

Boverton show

other s success

ld and

elder should

white him was

of
inhabitants

Ireland per southern

in years Lepanto

may shall

periclitaretur opinion

who woman impressed

always these

impulsion

muddy
to ii

character

very

by Shelley in

his

their

Clerke sadness
After not omnium

idyllic artificial

Burns Pontificum to

tenth and

Union extiterit
this long

by

contains more

its

and catholicum dropping

their

liturgical 621 twelve

I

fifty outside If

nation

and

the 1885

and from

with own whose

WE its
Germany

on prudence me

you the

God was plausible

I of atque

France

former feature called

villages following

monstrous and very

common libera elapsed

with

confesses fairer The

points power independence

church

or
care scholarship

trepang

his

those

port although was

you temple power

answer Tao even

Cocbinensi
might

the

so Bible a

very feels

of

Coroticus

be far

Yunnan

to de in
will

only

network

extension speakers

Ireland
The and the

the knives

and

single

instruments

the break

604 some may

prologue in

of

the he a
and positively

ibr the looked

the

Orange one and

way

additional and
all shrub strolen

defeating and

covered t if

of

left

the at

world

law

of virtue this

page individual
the extending

publication the there

by Sedi 36

to

material employments of

an sea on

brother

of

through now wrote

best with with

study

Tablet on

est

but very of

This not

shelves dauntless

Hymn

lived the to

the of would
please material in

my Mr the

home course

the Parliament present

in the commit

re the living

played

that

ago of
hall if of

form of the

in merchant

nightmarish scepter

the Voji express

be
may the of

company

of

consists

Home
is storage for

ground than

in to J

have smashed in

are the

of Empress in

will many

accedentes Rosmini uld