Note 128 — Chapter I · ARCHBISHOP THOMAS. 1162–1164.

[127] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, Becket, vol. iv.) p. 142. Isabel de Warren was the widow of Stephen’s son William, who of course was cousin in the third degree to William of Anjou.

[128]

“Hic” [i.e. Thomas] “regis fratrem pertæsum semper habebat, Ne consul foret hic, obvius ille fuit: Cum nata comitis comitem Warenna tulisset, Nobilis hic præsul ne nocuisset ei. Irâ permotus, nunquam rediturus, ab Anglis Advenit is, matri nunciat ista piæ. Hinc Beccum veniens fratrum se tradit amori.”

Draco Norm., l. ii. c. 8, vv. 441–447 (Howlett, Will. Newb., vol. ii. p. 676).

[129] Rob. Torigni, a. 1164. Draco Norm., l. ii. c. 8, vv. 448–450 (as above). The date is from the first-named writer.

[130] Draco Norm., l. ii. c. 8, vv. 453–456 (as above). Considering the abundance—one might almost say superabundance—of unquestionably authentic information which we already possess as to the origin and grounds of Henry’s quarrel with Thomas, I cannot attach so much importance as Mr. Howlett apparently does (ib. pref. pp. lxi–lxiii) to this new contribution from Stephen of Rouen. Stephen’s work is quasi-romantic in character and utterly unhistoric in style; and his view of the whole Becket controversy is simply ludicrous, for he ignores the clerical immunities and the Constitutions of Clarendon altogether, and attributes the quarrel wholly to two other causes—this affair about William, and Thomas’s supposed peculations while chancellor (ib. l. iii. c. 12, vv. 909–914, p. 741). That the domestic tragedy of which he gives such a highly-coloured account had some bearing upon the great political drama appears from the words of Richard le Breton to Thomas at his murder seven years later, “Hoc habeas pro amore domini mei Willelmi fratris regis” (Will. Fitz-Steph., Robertson, Becket, vol. iii. p. 142). But in these words there is no mention either of William’s death or of Henry’s feelings about it. Some allusion to either or both may have been in the speaker’s mind; but what he actually said implies nothing more than that he had been in William’s service, and had therefore resented the thwarting of his lord’s interests, and through them, it may be, of his own. Will. Fitz-Steph., after explaining what William’s grievance was, simply adds, “Unde Willelmus ... inconsolabiliter doluit; et omnes sui archiepiscopo inimici facti sunt.” Ibid.

[131] From a comparison of Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, Becket, vol. iii.), p. 46, with Ep. lv. (ib. vol. v. pp. 95–103), it appears that John was separated from Thomas before the council of Clarendon. After some months of wandering he found shelter at Reims, in the great abbey of S. Remigius of which his old friend Peter of Celle was now abbot, and there he chiefly dwelt during the next seven years.

[132] Will. Fitz-Steph., as above, says John was promoted for the purpose of getting him out of the way. He was consecrated by the Pope at the council of Tours; R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 311. It must be remembered that Henry had already had experience of John’s zeal for clerical immunities.

[133] Epp. xiii., xxvii., xxxvi., xli.–xliii., l., li., liii., liv. (Robertson, Becket, vol. v. pp. 21, 22, 44–46, 59, 60, 67–69, 85, 87, 88, 91, 94); Will. Cant. (ib. vol. i.), p. 24; E. Grim (ib. vol. ii.), p. 384; Anon. I. (ib. vol. iv.), pp. 38, 39; Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 39, 40; Thomas Saga (Magnusson), vol. i. pp. 179–181; Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 181.

[134] Ep. xxviii. (Robertson, Becket, vol. v. pp. 46, 47).

[135] Epp. xxxv., lxvii. (ib. pp. 56, 57, 130, 131).