Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2011
No one has ever really doubted the oft-asserted theory that no part of the middle ages can be studied apart from the Christian Church. All-embracing in its influence from the fall of Rome to the Reformation, it is generally conceded to have reached its zenith during the pontificate of Innocent III, not only because of the perfection of its organization at that time but also by reason of its readiness under his leadership to take issue with any or all of the secular powers of Europe over a variety of questions which, in only too many instances, had little obvious connection with the Christian faith. Its ambitions were large but, by methods which were sometimes unscrupulous, they were almost always realized.
1 The principal sources for the history of the Norman Church under Richard and John are to be found among the following: Appropriate volumes of the Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. Bouquet, Martin, new edition by L. Delisle, Paris, 1869–1904Google Scholar (cited as H. F.); Gallia Christiana, ed. P. Piolin, xi (Rouen), Paris, 1874; Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Colleclio, ed. Mansi, J. D., xxii, Venice, 1778Google Scholar; Hefele, C.-J., Histoire des conciles d'après les documents originaux, ed. Leclerq, H., Paris, 1915, v, 2Google Scholar; Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, ed. Jaffé, R., Berlin, 1851Google Scholar, also A. Potthast, Berlin, 1873, i; Concilia Rotomagensis Provinciae, ed. Bessin, Rouen, 1717; Patrologiae Cursus Completus, ed. J.-P. Migne, ccxiv-ccxvii (Letters of Innocent III); Le cartulaire normand de Philippe-Auguste, etc., ed. Delisle, L., in Mémoires de la société des antiquaires de Normandie, xvi, Paris, 1852Google Scholar; English chancery rolls, patent rolls, charter rolls, etc., see Gross, C., The Sources and Literature of English History, London, 1915Google Scholar; Calendar of documents preserved in France illustrative of the history of Great Britain and Ireland, ed. Round, J. H., i, Rolls series, London, 1899Google Scholar; Historiae Normannorum Scriptores Antiquae, ed. Duchesne, A., Paris, 1619Google Scholar; Antiquus Cartularius Ecclesiae Baiocensis, ed. Bourrienne, V., Paris, 1902–03Google Scholar (cited as Livre Noir); and elsewhere, notably in the unpublished cartularies of Normandy, see Stein, H., Bibliographie générale des cartulaires français, Paris, 1907Google Scholar, for descriptions and repositories.
The Norman Church in the years immediately preceding 1204 has never been adequately studied. Incidental and scattered material may be found in Powicke, F. M., The Loss of Normandy, Manchester, 1913Google Scholar; Professor Haskins has dealt thoroughly with the Norman Church in the time of Henry II in his Norman Institutions, Cambridge, 1918, and has constructed a guide to the archive materials for the history of ducal Normandy (Appendix A) which is indispensable for all subsequent investigation. The Histoire littéraire de la France, Paris, 1733–1914Google Scholar, abounds in biographical material. One may also consult especially the following: Luchaire, A., Innocent III, les royautés vassales du Saint-Siège, Paris, 1908Google Scholar; Böhmer, H., Kirche und Staat, Leipzig, 1899Google Scholar; Krehbiel, E. B., The Interdict, Washington, 1909Google Scholar; Norgate, K., John Lackland, London, 1902Google Scholar; F. M. Powicke, “Archbishop of Rouen and Philip Augustus,” English Historical Review, xxvii.
The relations of church and state in Normandy which arose from the special problem of the administration of justice have been separately studied in connection with the judicial institutions of the duchy on the eve of the French conquest, and are not dealt with in the present paper.
2 Powicke, 266, for the problem of ducal and archiepiscopal boundaries which did not coincide. The complications in time of hostilities, either secular or ecclesiastical, may be imagined.
3 This would have involved friendly relations with Innocent III, at whatever cost, and the rallying of the Norman baronage and church to the fight against the Frenchman by concessions and by popular leaders. It would have been a costly procedure for John, but both barons and clergy took as much or more by force a little later. The financial and military problems could not have been solved by this method, but their logical consequences could have been delayed.
4 Cartellieri, A., Philipp II. August, iii, Paris, 1910, pp. 57Google Scholar ff.; Davidsohn, R., Philipp II. August von Frankreich und Ingeborg, Stuttgart, 1888Google Scholar.
5 Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, Rolls series, 1874, ii, 484; infra, pp. 38 ff.
6 Philip Augustus could hardly have held these lands in the face of a concerted opposition on the part of both clergy and pope.
7 England did not become involved in the struggle with the pope until the disputed election at Canterbury in 1205, after the loss of the duchy.
8 Powicke, 169, for the sufferings of the church due to the Anglo-French wars in Normandy; also Round, No. 67; Ymagines historiarum, Diceto, Ralph de, Rolls series, London, 1876, ii, 144Google Scholar, for effect of the wars upon Rouen. Delisle, L., Étude sur l'agriculture el la classe agricole en Normandie, Évreux, 1851, p. 631Google Scholar, asserts that war had been continuous in Normandy since the time of Stephen, the reigns of Richard and John being by far the worst; Genestal, R., Rôle des monastères comme établissements de crédit; étudié en Normandie, Paris, 1901, p. 196Google Scholar, for the sufferings of the abbeys as seen in their activities as credit agents.
9 John's interest in the business of government and his skill as an administrator are everywhere patent in the chronicles and chancery enrollments, yet both contemporaries and modern scholars have differed radically in their judgement of his ability as a ruler. Matthew Paris, ii, 478–479, H. F., xvii, 260 ff., H. F., xxiv, 761–762, and Chronicon Anglicanum, Ralph of Coggeshall, Rolls series, London, 1875, pp. 37–38, should be compared with Matthew Paris, ii, 481–482, 489, and Gervase of Canterbury, ii, 96, Rolls series. W. Stubbs, Historical Introductions to the Rolls Series, ed. A. Hassall, London, 1902, p. 251, for the classical denunciation of John; cf. Green, J. R., History of the English People, i, London, 1881, p. 230Google Scholar, for the opposing view. All will agree that he was essentially a poor leader.
10 Haskins, 189, 36 and note; cf. Senn, F., L'institution des avoueries ecclésiastiques en France, Paris, 1903, pp. 98–99Google Scholar; also Senn, F., L'institution des vidamies en France, Paris, 1907, pp. 96–99Google Scholar; Luchaire, A., Manuel des institutions françaises, période des Capétiens directs, Paris, 1892, p. 505Google Scholar. Bibliothèque municipale de Rouen, Ms. 1227, Cartulary of St. George of Boscherville, f. 82, gives a description of an impressive ceremony at the abbey on the occasion of the knighting of young William of the house of Tancarville. One suspects that the young knight may have considered himself as the especial protector of the family altar and the monastery which contained it.
11 Historiae Ecclesiasticae, Ordericus Vitalis, ed. A. Le Prévost, Paris, 1835–55, ii, 84.
12 Haskins, 154; Stubbs, Introductions, 251, Normandy was placed under the interdict in 1191 because the steward of the archbishop, his master being in England, would not admit papal legates without the royal consent.
13 Ordericus Vitalis, iv, 373. Henry I instructed the Norman clergy who were about to attend a council at Rheims not to bring any innovations into his lands.
14 Luchaire, Manuel, 274. Mansi, xxii, col. 591, for the clerical view of the right of free election; Rotuli de Liberate, ed. T. D. Hardy, London, 1844, p. 72, for the ducal view. Cf. Viollet, P., Histoire des institutions politiques et administratives de la France, Paris, 1890–1903, ii, 340–841Google Scholar.
15 Ordericus Vitalis, iv, 433–438, for a typical election of an abbot “with the consent” of the duke; Pommeraye, J. F., Histoire des archevesques de Rouen, Rouen, 1667, p. 375Google Scholar, for an election of 1183 “by order of the king”; Rotuli Normanniae, ed. T. D. Hardy, London, 1835, pp. 23–24, for direct orders in chancery for minor elections.
16 Haskins, 153; Luchaire, Les royautés vassales, 182 ff.; Gallia Christiana, xi, 483; Migne, ccxiv, col. 419.
17 Most historians have neglected to point out the importance of this event. Cf. Green, History of the English People, i, 178, with the contemporaneous account in the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, Rolls series, London, 1867, i, 31–32Google Scholar, and in the Materials for the history of Thomas Becket, Rolls series, London, 1885, vii, 513–516Google Scholar. The stage-setting was superb, as any visitor at Avranches even to-day will testify.
18 Pommeraye, Archevesques, 376; Chesnel, P., Le Cotentin et l'Avranchin sous les dues de Normandie, 911–1204, Caen, 1912, pp. 59–63, 179–180Google Scholar.
19 Duchesne, 1056; Brussel, N., Nouvel examen de l'usage générale des fiefs en France, Paris, 1727, i, 282–283Google Scholar.
20 Ordericus Vitalis, iii, 312–314, iv, 448; Viollet, Institutions, ii, 345–349. The ducal possession of the regalia of the archbishop of Rouen, together with the clerical counter-claims, is of some interest; Duchesne, 1056; Pommeraye, Archevesques, 377–388; Brussel, i, 282–283; Cartulaire normand, No. 166; Bessin, ii, 33; Luchaire, Manuel, 49, 50.
21 William the Conqueror had degraded an archbishop of Rouen, Ordericus Vitalis, i, 184; members of the ducal household could not be excommunicated without the knowledge of the duke, Duchesne, 1060; Round, No. 1318.
22 Haskins, 37–38; Powicke, 93–98; Semichon, E., La paix et la trêve de Dieu, Paris, 1851Google Scholar, i, passim; Round, Nos. 290, 1318; Canel, A., Le combat judiciaire en Normandie, Mémoires de la société des antiquaires de Normandie, xxii, 579Google Scholar; Pollock, and Maitland, , The History of the English Law, Cambridge, 1898, i, 52.Google Scholar
23 Haskins, 35–36, 170–171, for Lillebonne; more generally, Ordericus Vitalis, ii, 306, 228; Chronica, Robert of Torigny, ed. L. Delisle, Rouen, 1872–73, i, 59, 64. All excommunicated persons were in the mercy of the duke for a year and a day, Coutumiers de Normandie, ed. E.-J. Tardif, Rouen, 1881, i, I, Le Très Ancien Coutumier de Normandie, c. 2.
24 Tardif, cc. 5–6; some cases were taken out of the ecclesiastical courts, especially cases in regard to dowry rights, mainly because of the complicated system of appeals in the clerical courts which delayed justice. Also Tardif, c. 2; Valin, L., Le duc de Normandie et sa cour, 912–1204, Paris, 1910, pièces justificatives, No. 281Google Scholar.
25 Rotuli chartarum, 1199–1216, ed. T. D. Hardy, London, 1837, p. 15; Pigeon, E. A.Le diocèse d'Avranches, Coutances, 1888, ii, 324Google Scholar; E.-J. Tardif, Étude sur les sources de l'ancien droit normand, Extrait du Congrès du Millénaire Normand, Rouen, 1911, p. 5; Coville, A., Les états de Normandie, Paris, 1894, pp. 10–16, 247–256Google Scholar; Valin, 101, 104; the later difficulties of the French kings with the Norman bishops may have been due in part to this tradition of secular activity, Petit-Dutaillis, C., Étude sur la vie et le règne de Louis VIII, Paris, 1894, p. 408Google Scholar.
26 Cartulaire normand, No. 132; H. F. xxiii, 694; Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae, London, 1840–44, ed. T. Stapleton, ii, 296, 476, 547; some lands were not granted to churchmen on account of the kind of service required, Tardif, c. 48; the tendency to limit ecclesiastical exemptions can be seen in a document of 1204, Bessin, 102; the exemption was often of little use in an emergency, H. F. xxiv, Preuves, No. 22.
27 Rabasse, M., Du régime des fiefs en Normandie au moyen-âge, Paris, 1905, pp. 56–69Google Scholar; Chesnel, 205–206.
28 The ducal officers even paid tithes and fixed charges granted by barons on tolls which had subsequently come into the hands of the duke, Stapleton, i, pp. lxiv, cxviii, 8, 14, 17, 82; Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. A. Hughes, C. G. Crump, C. Johnson, Oxford, 1902, ii, c. 10. Typical gifts and exemptions: Bibliothèque du chapitre de Bayeux, Ms. No. 163, f. 19; exemption from the tallage of the king for the churches of Évreux, Archives of the Eure, G 123, No. 456; the acquisition of land by an abbey by paying a nominal sum to a Jewish creditor of the grantee, ibid. H 490; ibid. H 506; Bessin, 100; Cartulaire normand, Nos. 31, 46–47, etc.
29 His personal morals were typical of those of his father and brothers and will not bear investigation, Pigeon, Avranches, ii, 319–320.
30 Bessin, 90 ff.; Pollock and Maitland, i, 111; Brunner, H., Die Entstehung der Schwurgerichte, Berlin, 1872, p. 250Google Scholar.
31 Archives of the Calvados, H 2; Cartulaire normand, Nos. 31, 46–47; Livre noir, i, No. 20; Ms. Latin n. a. 1244 (Bibliothèque nationale), ff. 94, 101, 158, 163, 190, 214, 218, 278, 292, 390, 434; Ms. Lat. 1105, f. 26.
32 Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae, etc., ed. T. Rymer, Record Commission, 1816, i, 74, for his testament.
33 Stubbs, Introductions, 320; Powicke, 157.
34 Migne, ccxiv, col. 415 (1198), col. 595 (1199); Chronica, Roger of Hoveden, Rolls series, London, 1868–71, iv, 19 (1197).
35 H. F. xvii, 178 (Philippis); Coggeshall, 77; Hoveden, iv, 21, 23, 40–42, 78–79; Cartellieri, iii, 18–19.
36 Viollet, Institutions, ii, 402–403.
37 Infra, p. 29. Diceto, ii, 111, for the not uncertain manner in which he informs the archbishop that royal writs are to be obeyed.
38 Rotuli Chartarum, 75–76, 100; Round, No. 257; Ms. Latin n. a. 1244, f. 160; Ms. Latin n. a. 1428, No. 66; Archives of the Eure, H 1264; Archives of the Manche, H 188; ibid. Cartulary of Savigny, f. 147; Archives of the Orne, H 928, No. cclxx; Cartulaire de l'abbaye royale de Notre Dame de Bon-Port, ed. J. Andrieux, Évreux, 1862, pp. 29–30.
39 Stapleton, ii, 547; Rotuli Normanniae, 34; Sauvage, R. N., L'abbaye de Saint-Martin de Troarn, Caen, 1911, pp. 64–65Google Scholar. He disregarded the compromise of 1190 (Diceto, ii, 86–88) and imposed a tallage upon ecclesiastical property, Rotuli Normanniae, 65.
40 Norgate, John Lackland, 62, 66; Magna Vita S. Hugonis Episcopi Lincolniensis, Rolls series, London, 1864, pp. 288–294Google Scholar.
41 Migne, ccxiv, cols. 1175–77: a list of John's offences as drawn up by Innocent III follows:
Preventing papal legates from travelling in Normandy.
Expulsion of the bishop of Limoges and seizure of his revenues.
Destruction of the church at Poitiers.
Prevention of elections in order to get the revenue of vacant sees.
Oppression of the canons of Séez and the continued non-admission of their bishop to the diocese.
That which you did at Coutances which you think we do not know.
The exile of the archbishop of York.
42 The best source for the whole affair of the disputed election of Séez of 1201–03 is the letter of Innocent III to the prior and canons of Séez in 1202, Migne, ccxiv, col. 1038 ff. This should be supplemented by various entries in the patent rolls, many of which are printed together as pièces justificatives for the only secondary account of any importance, Guilloreau, Dom L., Revue catholique de Normandie, xxv, (1916), 423 ffGoogle Scholar. This article is almost a literal translation of the principal documents; no attempt is made to put the events in their historical setting. Also see Gallia Christiana, xi, 691–692; Brussel, i, 285–286.
43 Rev. cath. de Normandie, xxv, 423, for list of alienations; Gallia Christiana, xi, 169, for list of possessions as confirmed by Innocent III in 1199. For documents concerning Lisiard, see Ms. Latin 11055, f. 119; Ms. Latin 11058, ff. 34–35, 43; Bibliothèque municipale d'Alençon, Ms. 190, passim; Archives of the Orne, H 1773. For donations to the church of Séez in the years 1190–1220, see Ms. Latin 11059, ff. 24–215, especially ff. 55–79; Ms. Latin 11058, passim. The successor to Lisiard made some alienations, Ms. Latin 5424, f. 119.
44 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, ed. T. D. Hardy, London, 1835, p. 8.
45 Migne, ccxiv, col. 1041.
46 Rot. Litt. Pat. 6, for the safe-conduct of the prior and seven canons.
47 Chesnel, 168–180, lists the precedents; Luchaire, Manuel, 32, for the case of 1144 when ducal officials mutilated the bishop-elect at the instigation of Geoffrey.
48 Rot. Litt. Pat. 7.
49 Ibid., 6, 8.
50 Ibid., 8.
51 Ibid., 16.
52 Ibid., 13, 22, John writes to Rouen and Sens telling them of the measures taken against the clergy who tried to aid Sylvester. The last two letters are printed in the Rev. cath. de Normandie, xxv, 437, Nos. 7–8, but with erroneous dates.
53 Rot. Litt. Pat. 33.
54 Rotuli de Liberate, ed. T. D. Hardy, 1844, p. 72. The text of the writ is not without its interest. “Audivimus dici S. Sagiensem archidiaconum electum esse et consecratum non requisite assensu nostro, quod est contra dignitatem et libertatem nostram et terre nostre.” He then provides that Sylvester shall be admitted within the diocese and for the indemnification of his clergy. “Nos siquidem loco et temporedomino Pape jus nostrum significabimus sicud Alia vice significavimus et ab eo nobis justiciam fieri super hoc postulabimus secundum jus et dignitas nostra et antiqua et approbata nostri ducatus exigit consuetude” John was not through with Innocent HI at this point by any means. England was under the interdict in 1208; John was excommunicated in 1209; he surrendered to the pope in 1213.
55 We have several documents which Sylvester sealed as bishop in 1203, e.g. Ms. Latin, 11059, f. 90. Inventaire sommaire des archives départementales, Orne, Série H, ii (Alençon, 1894), ii, H 2162, mentions Sylvester as a bishop in the summary of a document of 1200. The real date of the document is 1205.
56 For the activities of Sylvester as bishop, see Ms. Latin 11059, ff. 24–215; Ms. Latin 10065, f. 79; Archives of the Calvados, H 117; Delisle, Recueil de jugements de l'échiquier de Normandie, Paris, 1864, pp. 263–264Google Scholar.
57 Supra, Nos. 12–15; Viollet, Institutions, ii, 341–342, for a similar contest of Louis VII and the chapter of Bourges; David, C. W., Robert Curthose, Cambridge, 1920, 154–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 C. W. David, Robert Curthose, 156–157.
59 Migne, ccxiv-ccxvii; Poole, R. L., Lectures on the History of the Papal Chancery down to the Time of Innocent III, Cambridge, 1915Google Scholar.
61 Bessin, 101.
62 Migne, ccxiv, cols. 222, 497, 868,180; ibid., ccxv, col. 269; Livre noir, ii, No. 827; Bessin, ii, 39.
63 Migne, ccxiv, col. 352; the Livre noir abounds in papal directions to the clergy of Bayeux to keep up their claims, e.g., Nos. clviii, clxii, clxiii, cbriv, clxv, cxcii, cxcv, cxcviii.
64 For instructions to bishops, Migne, ccxiv, cols. 196, 222, 195; Bessin, 101, “ab uno episcopo excommunicatus, ab aliis pariter est vitandus; et ad episcopum suum remitti absolvendus.” For letters upholding the powers of a bishop, see Bessin, ii, 525–526.
65 A whole group of letters is devoted to the affairs of the various peace embassies, of which that of the abbot of Casamare in 1203–04 was the most important; Migne, ccxv, cols. 176, 181, 182, 329, 425; Hefele, v. 2, pp. 1230–1231; Mansi, xxii, 745–750.
66 Migne, ccxv, col. 182, and ibid., col. 176, where he claims to settle the disputes of John and Philip Augustus, not “de jure,” but “de peccato.” Also see Viollet, Institutions, ii, 278–279; Figgis, J. N., Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, Cambridge, 1907, pp. 4, 230Google Scholar; Magna Carta Commemoration Essays, 1917, pp. xxvii–xxviii, 26 ff. (G. B. Adams, Innocent HI and the Great Charter).
67 Migne, ccxv, cols. 562, 831, 839, 1043–44, 1048, 1208.
68 Innocent also befriended Richard, Cartellieri, iii, 171; he saw to it that his widow got her dowry from John (no trivial accomplishment), Migne, ccxv, cols. 220, 1537.
69 Migne, ccxiv, col. 984.
70 French bishops were present in Rome in 1203–04 to plead the cause of Philip Augustus; neither English nor Norman prelates were sent to present John's case, Hefele, v, 2, pp. 1230–1231.
71 Philip Augustus seems to have been the only participant in the events of 1203–04 who properly appreciated their importance.
72 He was under no illusions as to the suffering of the church in time of war, Migne, ccxv, col. 64.
73 Ibid., ccxv, col. 564.
74 For the importance of the archbishop in Norman history, Prentout, H., La Normandie, Paris, 1914, p. 58Google Scholar; Tardif, Sources, 26.
75 Pommeraye, Archevesques, 373; Delisle, L., Recueil des actes de Henri II, Paris, 1909Google Scholar, introduction, 106; cf. Histoire Littéraire, xvi, 536, which argues for French origin.
76 Histoire Littéraire, xvi, 541–544; Gallia Christiana, xi, 52–54; Diceto, ii, 125 (the great friendship of Walter and the emperor), 112, 158.
77 Histoire Littéraire, xvi, 541.
78 Diceto, ii, 90, 112; he also held pleas in Wiltshire as late as 1203–04, Public Record Office, Pipe Roll No. 50 (1203–04), membrane 19. Stubbs, Introductions, 246, does not estimate the abilities of Walter very highly; see also Delisle, Henri II, 106 ff. for his activities in England.
79 Histoire Littéraire, xvi, 555–560, for a list of his writings. For additional biographical material, see Dictionary of National Biography; Pommeraye, Archevesques, 373–438; Bonnin, T., Cartulaire de Louviers, i, 13, Nos. 5 ff. (Paris, 1870–83)Google Scholar.
80 Powicke, 175, suggests that Walter was one of the founders of the Gallican liberties. The comparison with Becket cannot be pushed too far.
81 Ms. Latin n. a. 1244, f. 398, Richard tells him that he will evict him from his lands and take over all his revenue if the archbishop will not consent to act as a pledge for his peace with Philip Augustus; see also Diceto, ii, 111.
82 Yet the “Stabilimentum” of 1205 (Duchesne, 1059–61) shows Walter allowing ducal restrictions upon the courts Christian which should have caused the opposition of a less energetic man. Cf. Stubbs, W., Select Charters, Oxford, 1913, p. 161Google Scholar, c. 3 (Constitutions of Clarendon). This seems to reopen the old question as to just what Becket objected to in the latter document and with what right.
83 Migne, ccxiv, cols. 93, 195, 205, 219, 222; Mansi, xxii, 620; Gallia Christiana, xi, 58; Archives of the Seine-Inférieure, G 1119.
84 Migne, ccxiv, col. 219, where the reply was delayed some two years.
85 Archives of the Seine-Inférieure, G 3593, for bull of Eugenius III confirming the primacy of Normandy to Rouen; cf. Viollet, Institutions, ii, 320.
86 Histoire Littéraire, xvi, 551; Krehbiel, Interdict, 20–21.
87 Archives of the Seine-Inférieure, G 3706, a letter to the canons thanking them for their aid in the defence of the property of the cathedral.
88 Cheruel, A., Histoire de Rouen, Rouen, 1843, i, 40–54Google Scholar; Gallia Christiana, xi, 53–54; Round, Nos. 64, 65, 67.
89 Rotuli Normanniae, 3; cf. supra, note No. 82.
90 Mansi, xxii, 582–586, and elsewhere with varying dates; Pommeraye, Archevesques, 384–388, gives 29 canons in place of the usual 32.
91 The question was that of the transference of a bishop-elect from one diocese to another, a right which the pope claimed as his exclusive privilege at this time; Bessin, ii, 368; H. F. xix, 361–374; Pigeon, Avranches, ii, 332; Luchaire, Manuel, 47.
92 Walter was able to place some of his relatives in high office; Gallia Christiana, xi, 146, for Sanson, abbot of Caen and continuously in charge of the exchequer in this period.
93 H. F. xix, 334–335.
94 Migne, ccxiv, col. 984.
95 Gallia Christiana, xi, 54; Diceto, ii, 135–137; Epistolae, Peter of Blois, ed. J. A. Giles, Oxford, 1846–47, Nos. 124–125; Cartellieri, iii, 124–125.
96 Powicke has put a great deal of emphasis upon this episode in an article in the English Historical Review (xxvii) under title ‘Philip Augustus and the Archbishop of Rouen,’ but the same material may be found in the Histoire Littéraire, xvi, 545–546.
97 Migne, ccxv, col. 255.
98 Gallia Christiana, xi, 55; Cheruel, Rouen, i, 52; Archives of the Seine-Inféraieure, G 3678; cf. Round, No. 389.
99 Migne, ccvii, col. 369; Peter of Blois, Epistolae, No. 138.
100 Rotuli Normanniae, 1–2; Rotuli Chartarum, 59, 69; Diceto, ii, 148–158; Hoveden.iv, 16–19, 125; Cartulaire Normand, Nos. 45–46; also Powicke, 172–173, for the literature of the subject.
101 Matthew Paris, ii, 120.
102 Hoveden, iv, 17–18.
103 Pommeraye, Archevesques, 425, gives the text of the inscriptions which Walter had placed upon the crosses set up to mark the new boundaries of his lands. It begins with the phrase “Vicisti, Galtere, tui sunt signa triumphi,” and then proceeds to a metrical enumeration.
104 Great care was taken in the drawing up of these documents. Walter, Richard, John, Philip Augustus, Celestine III, and Innocent III all sealed the final document. John's confirmation gives up to Walter the disputed points in a number of minor differences between them, but he retained judicial rights, especially the control of the pleas of the sword when held in the primate's court. This confirmation is at once one of the most important and one of the most puzzling of our sources of information concerning the administration of justice in the duchy in this period.
105 Diceto, ii, 157.
106 Peter of Blois, Epistolae, No. 138, for a letter of congratulation elicited by the event.
107 Krehbiel, The Interdict, 86 ff. There were twenty-seven threats of the interdict between 1198 and 1216, and seven of them concerned John. There were seventy-five local general interdicts between the fourth century and 1159 and fifty-seven between 1198 and 1216. The secular powers had some protection against the indiscriminate use of the interdict and of excommunication. Mansi, xxii, 620; H. F. xvii, 51.
108 Mansi, xxii, 616; Ms. Latin 5423; f. 61, “… clausis januis, exclusis excommunicatis et interdictis, non pulsatis campanis, suppressa voce, …”
109 The enforcement of the interdict could be real enough on occasion, Hoveden, iv, 16.
110 Other prelates in Normandy also used the interdict rather widely; Archives of the Orne, H 2162, for Sylvester of Séez; ibid., H 2156; other examples may be found in the other dioceses, e.g., Archives of the Manche, H 429; Archives of the Eure, G 122; Archives of the Seine-Inférieure, G 1118; Cartulaire de Bon-Port, ed. Andrieux, 44, No. xliii.
111 Poignant, A., Histoire de la conquête de la Normandie par Philippe Auguste en 1204, Paris, 1854, pp. 112–113, 158Google Scholar, thinks that Walter was not in Rouen when the city capitulated in 1204.
112 Walter occupied the archiepiscopal chair for twenty-two years.
113 After 1204 Walter makes few appearances in the records. He invested Philip Augustus with the duchy, his third performance of that ceremony. He made no objection to the inquest of 1205, although a clause was included which prohibited the excommunication of members of the ducal household without ducal consent; Henry II and Becket had fought over a similar clause forty years before. In 1207 he asked Philip Augustus for a new procedure for the determination of the ownership of presentations, and received it. He died in 1207. Peter of Blois, Epistolae, No. 448 and Histoire Littéraire, xvi, 554–555, for eulogies: Pommeraye, Archevesques, 438, prints some of the inscriptions inspired by his death.
114 Cartulaire normand, Nos. 1066, 1068–69, 59, 64–65, for gifts of new privileges to the Norman clergy; Powicke, 385, for their effect upon Rouen. Cartulaire normand, Nos. 1064, 55, 61, 294–295, for specific grants of the right of free election, but see Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, 406, who thinks that he merely meant that elections should take place in accordance with the usual forms. The whole question of the relations between Philip and the Norman clergy in the year of the conquest and in the years immediately following needs further investigation.
115 Migne, ccxv, col. 564.
