Last updated 27/06/24: 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: 25 March 2011
The appearance of the contemporary archbishop of Canterbury in the crises and conflicts of later medieval England has never surprised historians. For not only by tradition but in terms of real political weight the archbishop, unlike his brother of York, had a part to play in the affairs of the realm which he could scarcely hope to avoid, no matter how invidious. Appointed almost invariably with the close and usually decisive interest of the Crown in mind, the archbishop could anticipate repeated calls from the Crown for his support, counsel and service. However, thoughtful contemporaries and broadminded historians alike have for the most part been at pains to put this particular aspect into the wider context of the archiepiscopal function as a whole; the approaching cloud of the Reformation has not deceived historians into underestimating the considerable stature and merits of the metropolitans of this period. Whatever unsatisfactory reasons of state, ambition or faction lay behind their promotion, almost to a man they performed their arduous duties, with their diverse and often contradictory obligations, with good intent, frequent self-sacrifice and more often than not considerable success, at least in the eyes of the orthodox churchmen of their own time. If their political appearances alone have entered the textbooks, closer observers have been aware that the care of the Church was their first concern, and political involvement a distraction and a burden. At times the service of two masters posed its dilemmas, but usually the Crown preserved the archiepiscopal position by a fundamental respect for its other loyalties to God, the pope and the Church, and did not call for an irrevocable commitment fracturing these obligations.
I would like to record my gratitude to Professor J. S. Roskell, Dr. J. H. Denton and the editor of this JOURNAL for their constructive criticisms of earlier drafts of this paper.
page 10 note 1 This is not to say that other dioceses flowed unthinkingly to royal protege's with little respect for their pastoral cares. Many bishops, however, were permitted to prove their active sense of duty towards, and affection for, the Church after their appointment.
page 10 note 2 Eulogium Historiarum, Rolls Series 1858–63, iii. 385–6; T. Rymer, Foedera, conventions, literae…, London 1704–35, ix. 170.
page 10 note 3 Warren, W. L., ‘A Re-appraisal of Simon of Sudbury, bishop of London, 1361–75, and archbishop of Canterbury, 1375–81’, in this Journal, x (1959), 139–52Google Scholar; Dahmus, J. H., William Courtenay, archbishop of Canterbury, 1381–96, Pennsylvania 1966 Google Scholar; Jacob, E. F., Archbishop Henry Chichele, London 1967 Google Scholar, for his latest statement; for Walden, inter alia, Literae Cantuarienses, Rolls Series 1887–9, iii 98–9, and Lambeth Palace Library: Reg[ister of Thomas] Arundel, [archbishop of] Canterbury, i. fols. 227–8.
page 11 note 1 Aston, M. E., Thomas Arundel, Oxford 1967 Google Scholar.
page 11 note 2 Arundel was chancellor of England on the following occasions: 24 October 1386–ante 4 May 1389; 27 September 1391–ante 15 November 1396; (23 August—c. 4 September 1399); 30 January 1407–21 December 1409; 5 January 1412–20 March 1413; Handbook of British Chronology, ed. Powicke, F. M. and Fryde, E. B., London 2nd ed. 1961, 85 Google Scholar.
page 11 note 3 In 1391 he attempted in vain to secure Neville's return; Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, Rolls Series 1865–86, ix. 264.
page 11 note 4 In 1424 Martin v, for reasons of his own, would have continued the line with Richard Fleming if he could have done so.
page 12 note 1 Thomas Arundel, chapters 2–4, 6–7 passim.
page 12 note 2 Ibid., 381–9 for detailed itinerary, 1373–97. The amount of time which a bishop was obliged to spend away from the diocese in parliaments and convocations was quite considerable. Under Richard n, for example, the bishop who dutifully attended the whole of each parliament would find on average over a month each year taken up in this way, quite apart from travelling time. Most bishops appear to have attended conscientiously even in the worst months of the year for travelling.
page 12 note 3 Thomas Arundel, 384; for additional references to his attendances cf. Reg. Sudbury (Canterbury) fol. 55; Reg. W. Courtenay (Canterbury) fol. 3.
page 12 note 4 For additional evidence of his attendances cf. Reg. W. Courtenay fols. 34, 84v.
page 12 note 5 This is, of course, an approximation. To Mrs. Aston's itinerary may be added further information, mostly extending Arundel's time in the diocese, chiefly secured from the surviving episcopal registers of other dioceses. The registers of institutions of bishop John Buckingham of Lincoln are particularly fruitful.
page 12 note 6 One source states that Arundel declined a place on the council in 1389 in order to attend to his archdiocese. This must be doubtful, although not impossible, but at least testifies to his good reputation in the north; Kirkstall Abbey Chronicles, ed. Taylor, J. (Thoresby Society 1952), 70 Google Scholar.
page 13 note 1 McKisack, M., The Fourteenth Century, Oxford 1959, 474 Google Scholar; Perroy, E., L'Angleterre et le grand Schisme d'Occident, Paris 1933, 341 Google Scholar.
page 13 note 2 Walsingham, T., Historia Anglicana, Rolls Series 1863–4, i. 428 Google Scholar
page 13 note 3 Ibid., ii. 222.
page 13 note 4 Dahmus, J. H., ‘The Metropolitical Visitations of Archbishop William Courtenay’, Illinois University Studies in the Social Sciences, xxi (ii) (1950)Google Scholar. Cf. London, Guildhall Library: Reg. Braybrooke (London) fols. 503v–512v; Reg. Trefnant (Hereford), ed. Capes, W. W., Canterbury and York Society 1917, 39–48, 102–3,114, 120–6Google Scholar.
page 13 note 5 A relevant parallel is with his earlier handling of Neville's bitter dispute with Beverley collegiate church: Thomas Arundel, 289–93.
page 13 note 6 Ibid., 301–2; William Thome's Chronicle of St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, ed. Davis, A. H., Oxford 1934, 677–81Google Scholar.
page 13 note 7 Cambridge University Library: Reg. Fordham (Ely) fol. 125v; Reg. Braybrooke (London) fol. 251.
page 14 note 1 Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) i. fob. 1r–v.
page 14 note 2 Maidstone, Diocesan Record Office: Reg. W. Bottlesham (Rochester) fols. 101V–2.
page 14 note 3 See above, 11 n. 2.
page 14 note 4 Thomas Arundel, 374.
page 14 note 5 Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) ii. fol. 22.
page 15 note 1 See above, 11 n. 2.
page 15 note 2 Brown, A. L., ‘The Commons and the Council in the reign of Henry IV’, English Historical Review, lxxix (1964), 1–30, especially 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kirby, J. L., ‘Councils and Councillors of Henry IV, 1399–1413’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Series xiv (1964), 35–66, especially 61–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 16 note 1 Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) ii. fols. 61v, 82.
page 16 note 2 Cf., inter alia, his letter to them when in exile: Literae Cantuarienses, iii. 70–2.
page 16 note 3 Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) i. fol. 408v.
page 16 note 4 Ibid., i. fols. 111v, 120, 330.
page 16 note 5 Ibid., i. fols. 31, 129r–297v, 333, 430v, 434v, 436v.
page 16 note 6 Ibid., i. fols. 134, 304, 358v; cf. Canterbury Cathedral Library: Register S (Letter Book, 1391–1500) fol. 56.
page 17 note 1 Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) ii. fols. 67v-8; Calender of the Letter Books of the city of London: I (1400-22), ed. R. R. Sharpe, London 1999, 115-16.
page 17 note 2 Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) ii. fols. 68, 93, 142.
page 17 note 3 Canterbury Administration, London 1933, i. 332-40; ii. 149-57.
page 17 note 4 Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) i. fols. 499v-500.
page 17 note 5 Ibid., i. fol. 134v.
page 18 note 1 Norwich, Diocesan Record Office: Reg. Despenser (Norwich) fols. 256-64; Anglo?Norman Letters and Petitions, ed. M. D. Legge, Oxford 1941, 11-15; Chronicon Adae de Usk, ed. E. M. Thompson, London 1904, 203.
page 18 note 2 Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) i. fols. w7, 286.
page 18 note 3 For his career, see A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Cambridge to 1500, Cambridge 1963, 76, sub Botelsham
page 18 note 4 Lichfield, Diocesan Reord Office: Reg. Burghill (Coventry & Lichfield) fols. 14v-5, 58v-9 2?v, and passim.
page 18 note 5 Chronicon Adae de Usk, 303.
page 18 note 6 Worcester, St. Helen's Record Office: Reg. Clifford (Worcester) fol. 86v and passim; Calendar of Ancient Corre. ondence relating to Wales, ed .]. G. Edwards, Cardiff 1935, 197.
page 19 note 1 Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) i. fols. 255v–6; ii. fob. 70r–v.
page 19 note 2 Ibid., i. fols. 256, 32Ov, 452.
page 19 note 3 Ibid., ii. fol. 56; British Museum: Arundel MS. 68 fol. 57.
page 19 note 4 For this crisis, see McFarlane, K. B., John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity, London 1952, 156–8Google Scholar.
page 19 note 5 Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) ii. fols. 123v–4; Public Record Office: Chancery Miscellanea, Ecclesiastical, 047/15/7(16).
page 20 note 1 Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) ii. fols. 69, 176.
page 20 note 2 Wylie, J. H., The Reign of Henry V, Cambridge 1914–29, i. 293 Google Scholar, for many details. He made his will on 12 February.
page 20 note 3 E.g., Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) i. fols. 105, 125, 138r–v, 390r–v, 407v, 411r–v, 432, 433.
page 20 note 4 Book of Margery Kempe (Early English Text Society, Original Series ccxii (1940), i. 33, 123Google Scholar.
page 20 note 5 Historia Anglicana, ii. 300.
page 21 note 1 Chillenden declined Rochester in 1404. Hallum was nominated by Arundel for London in the same year; Royal Letters of Henry IV, Rolls Series 1860, i. 415–16; Reg. Arundel (Canterbury) i. fols. 23–4, 465v.
page 21 note 2 Equally appropriate in the view of his enemies was the nature of his final illness, the seizure of the throat which left him speechless.
page 22 note 3 Sede Vacante Wills, Canterbury, ed. Woodruff, C. E. (Kent Archaeological Society, iii, 1914), 81–5Google Scholar. By his will Arundel sought to establish a chantry for himself, Chillenden, prior John Woodnesborough (then at Canterbury and buried with them in 1428), Gilbert Umfraville and Simon Felbrigg. The executors were not distinguished, only Umfraville being of note at that time. Edward, duke of York, was bequeathed a prayerbook.
page 22 note 4 St. Albans Chronicle, ed. Galbraith, V. H., Oxford 1937, 81 Google Scholar; Historia Anglicana, ii. 300.
