The text of a pallium grant of Pope Nicholas ii (1059–61) for Archbishop Ealdred of York (1061–9) survives, with minor variants, in two fourteenth-century York cartularies: British Library, London, ms Lansdowne 402, fo. 29r–v, and Minster and Library Archives, York, ms L 2/1, part i, fos 40v–41r, also known as the Magnum Registrum Album. The only edition to date was published in the late nineteenth century by James Raine, who was only aware of the latter, slightly later version of the text, the Latin of which he often amended silently.Footnote 1 Since then, Nicholas's pallium privilege has gone largely unnoticed within modern scholarship on both the late Anglo-Saxon Church and the reform papacy, and those few studies which have addressed it have generally done so with suspicion.Footnote 2 This article aims to reinstate Nicholas ii’s privilege as an important, substantially authentic text. It also provides (see Appendix) a new edition of the text, based on a collation of the two manuscripts, and a translation.
Scholars’ relative lack of interest in this papal document is particularly remarkable considering that the circumstances surrounding its production in 1061 are also dealt with in several other sources, of both English and Roman origin. Though differing in length, detail and emphasis, taken together they allow one to establish that in the spring of 1061 a group of English magnates and bishops, including Ealdred, bishop of Worcester, recently elected to the archbishopric of York, reached Rome and, over the Easter period, participated in a synod presided over by Nicholas ii.Footnote 3 The English embassy had a number of different matters to deal with in Rome, including Ealdred's archiepiscopal pallium, which he had gone to collect personally, as several of his predecessors had also done shortly after their election.Footnote 4 Unexpected difficulties emerged, however, and Ealdred had to leave frustrated. On the way back home, he and his companions were attacked and robbed, and had to return to Rome, where the pope reversed his earlier decision and finally granted him the pallium. The papal privilege would thus represent one outcome of these dramatic events and, if authentic, would constitute the earliest source to relate them. However, in spite of its date and importance for the study of the English Church before and after the Conquest, it has normally been ignored in relevant publications, including those discussing in detail the consequences of Ealdred's journey to Rome, which, by contrast, often rely on the later accounts of William of Malmesbury.Footnote 5 In order to assess the possible authenticity of the privilege and its significance, in this article I will first provide a brief introduction on the archiepiscopal pallium in the period up to the reform papacy so as to contextualise Nicholas ii's grant for Ealdred. This will be followed by an analysis of the text's language and features, with reference to other contemporary products of the papal chancery. Subsequently, the contents of the privilege will be compared with those of other surviving sources dealing with the events referred to in the text, in order to establish parallels, differences and possible relations. These suggest that the document is essentially authentic.
The archiepiscopal pallium from its origins to the reforming papacy
The importance of the pallium, the white woollen band marked with crosses which was worn during the celebration of mass as a symbol of papal authority, increased significantly from the sixth century, when it is first attested in Latin Europe as a gift bestowed by the pope on a restricted number of bishops, to the mid-eleventh century. While in the East, where it was called an omophorion, all bishops wore it, in the Christian West the pope was the only person entitled to wear the pallium in his own right; the other bishops allowed to wear it could do so thanks to a special privilege granted by the pope.Footnote 6 In the sixth century the motivations for such a grant varied noticeably, but there was at this stage no connection between metropolitan authority and the liturgical garb. As has been recently shown by Steven Schoenig, it was Gregory the Great's grant of this liturgical vestment to Augustine of Canterbury in 601 that established a new model, with far-reaching consequences. In Augustine's case the pallium was accompanied by the right to consecrate bishops in his province, a system which was later exported to the Continent through the English missionaries Willibrord and Boniface.Footnote 7 Thus, from the eighth century the history of the pallium runs parallel to that of the relationships between the papacy and the bishops who had metropolitan authority in Western Christian Europe, as well as between the popes and the secular rulers of the polities within which those bishops operated. Although it continued to be referred to as a gift freely granted by the pope, by the end of the ninth century the pallium had become a requirement needed by all metropolitans if they were to be able to consecrate suffragan bishops.
In the course of the tenth century the conferment of the pallium became a routine practice, with popes rarely denying it. Moreover, the vestment was normally sent and only sporadically fetched in person. English archbishops represented an important exception in this respect as from the early decades of the tenth century they began to go to Rome in person to obtain the pallium, at a time when the papacy was not yet requiring petitioners to appear in person. The reasons for this practice are not entirely clear, though it has been suggested that its origins may be related to the need to obtain papal approval for the frequently uncanonical translations from one see to another which characterised archiepiscopal promotion in England at this time.Footnote 8 Ealdred's position was indeed irregular from a canonical point of view, as he had held Hereford and Worcester in plurality and intended to hold on to the Worcester bishopric after his elevation to York, as several of his recent predecessors had also done.Footnote 9 It is unlikely that he was expecting to encounter any serious opposition to his plans in Rome. However, attitudes to such irregular practices were changing. Ealdred's journey to the Eternal City occurred at the start of a new and important phase in the history of the pallium; one in which popes were beginning to impose a tighter control on petitioners’ requests, including the pallium. From the mid-eleventh century this liturgical garb became a powerful tool in the hands of the reforming popes, with pallium privileges providing significant opportunities to admonish archbishops. Although no other pallium privilege survives from the brief but significant pontificate of Nicholas ii, Ealdred's case casts precious light on such new attitudes. It demonstrates that popes could withhold the pallium if there were doubts about the petitioners’ canonical elevation, and that the grant of this papal insignia was still very much a gift emanating from the kindness of the apostolic see and, as such, was not to be taken for granted by any newly elected metropolitan.Footnote 10
The English mission of 1061 also throws light on the complex political scenario which characterised Rome in the mid-eleventh century, when members of the reforming group were pitted against a faction of the Roman nobility unwilling to give up the control over papal elections that they had long enjoyed. Nicholas ii himself was elected to counteract the election of the antipope Benedict x in April 1058, which had taken place very shortly after the death of his predecessor Pope Stephen ix. Benedict's swift election represented an attempt on the part of such leading Roman aristocrats as Gregory of Tuscolo and Gerard of Galeria to regain control of the papacy at a time of confusion and disorientation within the reforming party, when Hildebrand of Sovana – one of the main reformers – was away on a mission at the German court. It was only after his return that the reform faction elected Bishop Gerard of Florence, of Burgundian origins, as Pope Nicholas ii.Footnote 11 The attack of 1061 on Ealdred and his companions, which took place after the English prelate's first unsuccessful attempt to obtain the pallium, would appear to be related to the animosity between these opposing Roman groups, as attested by Peter Damian, who in his Disceptatio synodalis openly accused Gerard of Galeria of the attack on the English party.Footnote 12 It is likely therefore that their misfortunes were not due to a random act of violence, but rather that the English mission was caught in the crossfire between the reformers and their adversaries.
The text of Nicholas II’s pallium privilege
The text of the pallium grant for Archbishop Ealdred only survives in two fourteenth-century York cartularies. The edition provided in the Appendix below shows that the Lansdowne manuscript, i.e. the earlier of the two cartularies, has preserved a slightly better text, as is apparent, for instance, in the omission from the later manuscript of significant words, such as ‘dignitatis’ in the sentence ‘pallium pontificalis dignitatis ad hoc concedimus’. The text opens with the protocol, which is similar to those contained in other privileges of Nicholas ii, including those in favour of bishops Giso of Wells and Wulfwig of Dorchester, also issued in the spring of 1061.Footnote 13 Unlike these two privileges, however, the grant for Ealdred also includes the salutatio ‘apostolice benedictionis priuilegium et salutem’. The presence of both a perpetuity clause (‘suisque successoribus … inperpetuum’) and a salutatio in the opening formula is unusual and would appear to merge the format of a privilege with that of a letter; it could therefore be the result of an interpolation, though it should be noted that a similar mixture of elements traditionally belonging to different types of papal documents can be found in at least one other privilege of Nicholas ii.Footnote 14 The protocol is followed by the arenga or preamble (‘Quia diuinitatis … omnibus prodesse’). Although this is unique to Ealdred's pallium grant, its features accord with the preambles of other papal privileges from this period, which were meant to state explicitly the will of the reforming papacy and to assert its authority by developing the doctrinal theme of Roman primacy and by proclaiming the universality and necessity of the papal office.Footnote 15 In its turn, the preamble is followed by the narratio, which is fairly long, though understandably so, given the exceptional circumstances which led to the issuing of this privilege.Footnote 16 In this section we are told that in the course of a synod, i.e. the Easter synod of 1061, which had to deal with various matters, the bishops who had gathered in Rome came to address the case of Ealdred.Footnote 17 The pope thus learned that he had recently moved from one episcopal see to another (that is, from Worcester to York) without papal authorisation (‘de sede ad sedem sine apostolica auctoritate’) and for this reason, following the statutes of the holy fathers, Nicholas had to deprive Ealdred of both sees (‘utraque priuauimus’).Footnote 18 However, thanks to some witnesses described as ‘idoneis testibus’, who were also at the synod, presumably Ealdred's English companions, the pope understood that the bishop had not acted out of ambition,Footnote 19 but because he was compelled by the orders of King Edward, and for this reason, shortly afterwards, Nicholas agreed to restore Ealdred to his former see, i.e. that of Worcester (‘priori te postmodum sedi misericorditer restituimus’). The privilege then goes on to report on the attack and robbery which Ealdred and his companions suffered after leaving Rome to go back to England and which obliged them to return to Rome where everybody was moved by what had happened and where, at the request of all the cardinals, bishops and priests, the pope finally granted Ealdred the archiepiscopal pallium.Footnote 20
Among those who had a change of heart, explicit mention is made of Archdeacon Hildebrand of Sovana (‘supplicatione omnium cardinalium confratrum ac filiorum nostrorum … et specialiter et precipue karissimi filii nostri Heldebrandi archidiaconi’). This reference might arouse suspicion, as it could be seen as an historicising element that sought to enlist the future Pope Gregory vii on the side of those who supported Ealdred's archiepiscopal election. It should be noted, however, that by 1061 such characters as Hildebrand of Sovana and Peter Damian had already become very influential as leading exponents of the reform party and, as a result, are often mentioned in contemporary sources. Hildebrand in particular, as archdeacon of the Roman Church, was at the time the most important figure within the papal administration and the leader of the city's clergy.Footnote 21 He had been actively involved in the deposition, excommunication and incarceration of the antipope Benedict x, who in 1059 had taken refuge in the castle of Galeria, headquarters of count Gerard, the same man who, according to Peter Damian, led the attack against the English party in 1061.Footnote 22 Hildebrand may have had a direct interest in providing help, support and consolation to someone like Ealdred who had been robbed by one of his worst enemies. If Hildebrand had played a major role within the 1061 synod by pleading for the granting of the pallium to Ealdred, it would have seemed entirely appropriate to the pope and/or the drafters of the document to spell out his name, which, incidentally, is also explicitly mentioned in at least three other documents issued by Nicholas ii: a letter of c. 1059 addressed to Gervasius, archbishop of Reims,Footnote 23 and two privileges of January 1060, granting land to the Florentine churches of San Lorenzo and San Michele e Eusebio, of which the former still survives on its original parchment.Footnote 24
The text of the papal privilege for Ealdred then proceeds to list the dates on which the pallium could be worn. This starts with Maundy Thursday (‘in Cena Domini’), rather than Christmas Day as was normally the case for such lists.Footnote 25 This anomaly could be explained through possible adherence to the incarnational year (which placed the beginning of the year on 25 March) instead of the more typical year starting on Christmas Day.Footnote 26 Interestingly, among the places which used the incarnational dating system at this time were Pisa and Florence, the latter being the see which Nicholas occupied before his election to the papacy and which he continued to hold along with Rome; he spent a substantial amount of time in Florence after his elevation to the papacy and employed Florentine scribes while residing there. According to Paul Kehr, at least two of them later followed the pope to Rome where they were active alongside the Roman scriniarii.Footnote 27 Some of the documents that the pope issued while in Florence make use of the incarnational dating system,Footnote 28 and one cannot help but wonder whether this reliance on Florentine scribes and practices may have had some bearing on the anomaly in the ordering of the feasts mentioned in Ealdred's privilege. One of the bulls issued in the context of the Easter synod of 1061, which still survives on its original single sheet, was indeed written by one of the Florentine scribes who moved with Nicholas ii to Rome;Footnote 29 the same person could have also written the pallium privilege for Ealdred.
The passage on the pallium days is followed by a statement declaring that the papal dispensation granted to Ealdred should not constitute a precedent for Ealdred's successors or any other bishop wishing to move from one see to another. This in turn is followed by the very last sentence starting with the words ‘Te autem, karissime confrater’, which is an invitation to Ealdred to strive to be irreproachable in everything, so that he may never cause the pope to repent of the mercy and kindness that he has shown towards him. The emphasis on the pope's generosity represents a common theme of the pallium privileges granted in this period.Footnote 30 In this respect it can also be noted that in the main narrative portion of the privilege dealing with the pope's decision to finally grant the pallium, the text explicitly says ‘condescending to doing what we could be persuaded to do by no prayers or payments’. In spite of the insistence placed on the pallium as a freely-given gift, the practicalities of petitioning for it in Rome inevitably involved some sort of counter-gift or donation for the pope, even though numerous canonical collections from this period contain explicit condemnations of simoniacal handlings of the pallium.Footnote 31 We do not know what kind of gifts Ealdred and his companions had brought to Rome, but it is very unlikely that they had gone empty-handed. In fact, in his reference to the robbery inflicted on the English party, Peter Damian specifies that Gerard of Galeria ‘stole from them the weight/value of up to 1000 pounds in Pavian money’.Footnote 32 It is not possible to establish whether they had meant to use (part of) this money as a donation to the papacy following a successful pallium petition, but in light of earlier English evidence complaining about the payments required for the conferment of the archiepiscopal pallium, that is certainly a possibility.Footnote 33
In the text's final exhortation Ealdred is told that he should consecrate another bishop in his stead at Worcester (‘consecrato a te canonice in tua priori sede altero episcopo’), which is what happened when he went back to England and consecrated Wulfstan, who held the bishopric from 1062 to 1095.Footnote 34 It is possible that these words contributed to the suspicion with which the privilege has been received, as they could be seen as an attempt to put Worcester under the direct control of York.Footnote 35 In the 1050s and 1060s, however, it had become customary to try to avoid a consecration by the irregular Stigand of Canterbury, who had obtained his archiepiscopal pallium from the antipope Benedict x.Footnote 36 In fact, the English legation to Rome of 1061 included Giso of Wells and Walter of Hereford, who had embarked on a journey to the Eternal City to be consecrated bishops by Nicholas ii.Footnote 37 The pope, therefore, was very well aware of this issue, and the reference to Ealdred's subsequent consecration of his successor at Worcester can be explained bearing in mind Stigand's situation.
Neither of the two manuscripts preserving Nicholas's grant contains the closing notarial formula (or eschatocol) which would have named the date and place of issue of the privilege. This is obviously an important missing element which hinders comparison with the other documents issued by the same pope, especially those produced in the context of the Easter synod of 1061. As a result, it is not possible to establish whether the document for Ealdred was issued when Humbert, bishop of Silva Candida, was still bibliothecarius of the apostolic see and responsible for issuing papal documents. This is the name that can be found in the closing formula of the privilege that Nicholas granted to Giso, bishop of Wells, on 25 April 1061.Footnote 38 By contrast, the grant for Bishop Wulfwig of Dorchester, dated 3 May, names Bernard, bishop of the suburbicarian see of Palestrina, as datarius and issuing agency.Footnote 39 The appearance of a different name in the notarial formula can be explained bearing in mind that Humbert had seemingly stopped acting as datarius shortly before his death, which occurred on 5 May.Footnote 40 The privilege for Ealdred would have probably also named Bernard rather than Humbert, as it was issued after the English bishop had first been denied the pallium, then had left to go back to England, had been attacked and robbed, and had finally returned to Rome. In any case, the absence of the closing notarial formula from either of the York cartularies in which the papal privilege has survived does not represent per se a reason for doubting its authenticity, as cartularies’ compilers often left out such technical sections. It can indeed be observed that the dating formula is also missing from the surviving text of the pallium privilege which Pope Alexander ii issued in 1070 or 1071 for Archbishop Thomas, Ealdred's successor at York, and which was copied into the same two manuscripts that contain the bull for Ealdred.Footnote 41
More relevant is the fact that the text of Ealdred's privilege does not follow any of the four formulae for pallium grants contained in the Liber diurnus, the miscellaneous formulary compiled in the early Middle Ages and used in the papal chancery until the mid-eleventh century, when it started to fall into disuse.Footnote 42 It would seem that the last pallium privilege to follow for the most part one of the Liber diurnus formulae (no. 45) was Leo ix’s grant for Hartwig of Bamberg dated 1053, though elements of the same formula can be found in the pallium grants of Pope Alexander ii, with that in favour of Archbishop Thomas of York, Ealdred's successor, representing a new version of this model.Footnote 43 Given the special circumstances in which Ealdred's grant was issued and which required a more detailed narration of the events that led the pope to reverse his initial decision to deny the pallium, close adherence to any formula should probably not be expected. It should be noted, however, that in the sections of the text which did not depend on the specifics of Ealdred's case, it is possible to find several themes akin to those contained in the Liber diurnus formulae as well as some shared vocabulary. The arenga, for instance, has several words in common with formula 46:
[Liber diurnus]
Exhibeamus ergo quod dicimus & quibus diuini dispensatione consilii preesse nos contigit prodesse quantum possumus festinemus ….Footnote 44
[Nicholas's pallium grant]
Quia diuinitatis occulta uoluit dispensatio nos omnibus preesse, ex iniuncta uniuersalis officii cura cogimur prescire et [pro]posse nostro omnibus prodesse.
Furthermore, the dispositio refers to a recurrent theme of pallium grants, namely the desired correspondence between outer decoration and proper behaviour (‘quod specie gestaueris moribus pretendas, et quod prefulget in habitu … factis pariter et dictis ostendas’).Footnote 45 In this context the people assigned to the archbishop's pastoral care are referred to as ‘subiectis tibi gregibus’, thus employing the image that opens another frequently employed pallium formula (no. 45: ‘Si pastores ouium solem geluque pro gregis sui custodia die ac nocte ferre contenti sunt’). The word inreprehensibilem used in the closing exhortation of Nicholas's privilege can also be found in the formula in the same singular accusative case.Footnote 46
In sum, the structure, language and imagery of the pallium grant for Ealdred can be accepted as the result of the papacy's contemporary preoccupations, intentions and objectives – tailored to fit the exceptional circumstances in which the privilege was issued. The document's occasional reliance on various formulae of the Liber diurnus reinforces the hypothesis of a Roman origin rather than a York one. Many earlier English bishops had moved from one see to another,Footnote 47 but Ealdred was the first one to encounter serious difficulties in this respect. The pallium grant insists on the exceptional nature of the concession made to Ealdred in relation to his uncanonical transfer from Worcester to York, thus casting important light on the intentions and directions of the reform papacy, which was no longer willing to accept such situations and increasingly employed the pallium as a disciplinary tool that could be denied or withheld.Footnote 48 Nicholas's privilege thus appears to match the spirit, language and interests of its time, as well as the unique conditions of Ealdred's visit to Rome in 1061.
The embassy of 1061 in English sources
The events referred to in the privilege for Ealdred are better known within Anglophone historiography through the accounts provided by a number of narrative sources which originated in England. A characteristically brief reference to Ealdred's journey to Rome and the ‘hardship’ he experienced on the way home is provided by a version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which is likely to have originated at Worcester.Footnote 49 A much fuller account can be found in the anonymous Vita Ædwardi regis, a work commissioned by Queen Edith and written around the time of the Norman Conquest.Footnote 50 The Vita Ædwardi’s main focus at this point in the narration is on Earl Tostig, brother of Queen Edith, and his trip to Rome via Saxony, accompanied by his wife.Footnote 51 In Rome he was received by the pope and was allowed to take a seat of honour next to him at the synod over which Nicholas presided, i.e. the Easter synod of 1061. It is only at this point that Ealdred is brought into the narration as the bishop of Worcester ‘who had just been presented with the archbishopric of York by the most holy King Edward’. Ealdred is said to have gone to Rome to plead some unspecified royal business (‘regię legationis causam’) and to obtain the use of the pallium. He was therefore questioned on how he had obtained the sacred orders and was discovered, by his own admission, to have transferred from the bishopric of his first ordination (i.e. Worcester) to another (York), contrary to canon law. At this point, after considering all the relevant decretals, the whole synod gave its judgement, and Ealdred failed in his request to the extent that not only was he denied the pallium, but was also deposed from his episcopal rank, and had to go away frustrated. The Vita Ædwardi then introduces two more characters – Giso of Wells and Walter of Hereford – who had gone to Rome to be ordained as bishops by the pope. When they had completed their business, the English party left, but on the same day was attacked by thieves, robbed and plundered, and had to return to Rome. The passage on the robbery is much longer and more detailed than in the papal letter as it also contains a vivid account of the bravery of a member of the English party, a certain thegn named Gospatric who was kidnapped by the attackers when he made them believe that he was Earl Tostig. The narrative then carries on as follows:
when [they] returned in confusion and distress, sorrowful compassion was felt in Rome; and the lord pope, afraid most of all of an attack from so famous an earl [i.e. Tostig], and calling to mind especially the bishop's free confession and his humble acceptance of the mortification which they had inflicted by degrading him, and advised by the Roman fathers that important persons should not depart from the holiness of St Peter in such distress, both pillaged and embarrassed, made all rejoice by reinstating the bishop and giving him the honour of the pallium, so that they would persevere in their kingdom in greater fidelity and worship of the apostle.Footnote 52
There are numerous parallels between the account given in the Vita Ædwardi and the contents of Nicholas's pallium privilege, but also some differences.Footnote 53 In general, the succession of the events described is very similar: in both texts we are told about a synod presided over by the pope which examined Ealdred's case and learnt about his transfer from one see to another, for which responsibility is assigned to the king. Following what in one source are called ‘apostolicis et pontificalibus decretis’ and in the other ‘sanctorum patrum statuta’, Ealdred was deposed from his episcopal rank. It is at this point that we can identify the main difference between the two reports: while the papal grant says that shortly afterwards Ealdred was mercifully reassigned to his former see (i.e. Worcester), the Vita Ædwardi has him leave Rome deprived of his episcopal rank.Footnote 54 Similarities, however, resume immediately afterwards, when the two texts come to deal with the attack and robbery, even though the account in the anonymous Vita is much more detailed.
The pallium grant and the Vita Ædwardi also share some vocabulary; the most significant instance can be found in the following corresponding passages:Footnote 55
[Nicholas's pallium grant]
‘quia te de sede ad sedem sine auctoritate apostolica migrasse comperimus’
[Vita Ædwardi]
‘eo gratuito confitente inuentus est a primo ordinationis suę episcopio ad aliud conmigrasse contra canones’
The verb migro and related forms were among the most frequently used words to refer to the thorny issue of episcopal translation and, by Nicholas ii’s time, such usage could rely on a long tradition.Footnote 56 The construction of a sentence on Ealdred's transfer relying on the same verbal tense of (con)migro in both texts is however striking and suggests that the drafter of one of the two texts may have had access to the other. If such a contact did take place, it is much more probable that the author of the anonymous Vita saw the papal letter rather than the other way around. As shown by Tom Licence, the Vita Ædwardi often appears to provide shorter and more condensed phrases than those employed in the papal letter to convey the same meaning, making it unlikely that the pallium grant could have been fabricated or interpolated on the basis of the account in the anonymous narrative.Footnote 57
None of the other sources dealing with the English mission of 1061 share with the papal privilege the amount of information that can also be found in the Vita Ædwardi. The Latin chronicle associated with Florence and John of Worcester, the compilation of which began in about 1095, refers to Ealdred's trip to Rome to collect the pallium but makes no mention of the difficulties encountered on the way back. However, under the year 1062, it contains a detailed account of Wulfstan's accession to the Worcester see and refers to two papal legates (one of whom is named as Ermenfrid, bishop of Sion) as playing an important role in confirming the choice of Wulfstan as successor to Ealdred at Worcester.Footnote 58 The events of 1061 were also recounted and elaborated upon in two different works by William of Malmesbury (d. c. 1143). In his Vita Wulfstani, which is based on the Old English Life of Wulfstan written by Coleman, he presents the events that preceded the robbery under a significantly different light, saying that Ealdred was initially denied the pallium by the pope because he was not willing to give up Worcester.Footnote 59 Another interesting aspect of the incident recorded only in William's works is Earl Tostig's threat ‘that the money paid yearly by England to the pope of Rome would not be forthcoming any longer’; this may well be the fruit of William's elaboration on what the Vita Ædwardi says about Tostig in Rome rather than a credible reference to the role that the English Peter's Pence would have played in the events of 1061.Footnote 60 In his Gesta pontificum Anglorum, moreover, William squarely assigned responsibility for the complications encountered by the English embassy to Ealdred, who is accused of having imposed on King Edward's innocent nature when he took on York without giving up Worcester.Footnote 61 In William's works, pluralism rather than uncanonical episcopal translation has become the main issue, departing from what both the papal letter and the Vita Ædwardi report.Footnote 62
Nicholas's bull at York after 1061
The privilege recording the conferral of the pallium to Ealdred for York adds significantly to our understanding of the events of 1061. The attention that it subsequently attracted at York and the ways in which its contents were bent to fit in with the archbishopric's later preoccupations are worth exploring briefly. The earliest evidence for knowledge of Nicholas's privilege within the York community is provided by the anonymous Chronicle of the archbishops of York which survives in Bodleian Library, Oxford, ms Digby 14.Footnote 63 The date of the text is not certain, but much of the material it contains is derived from Hugh the Chanter, and it would seem that it was written shortly after the latter's death in about 1140.Footnote 64 The Chronicle's section on Archbishop Ealdred is full of interesting information which, however, does not come from Hugh. The account of Ealdred's trip to Rome, Nicholas's initial refusal to grant the pallium and the robbers’ attack is very close to that provided in the papal privilege. Its incipit is also quoted in the Chronicle, showing that the text was already available at York in the first half of the twelfth century. The papal text is introduced in the narration through the following words:
Itaque papa Nicholaus super eum [i.e. Ealdred] pietate motus, et totius curiæ intercessione pro eo exoratus, et archiepiscopatum ei dato pallio confirmavit, et ordinandi pro se alterum ad episcopatum Wigornensem potestatem dedit, et hoc totum privilegio ei confirmavit, quod sic incipit: ‘Nicholaus episcopus, servus servorum Dei, dilecto confratri et coepiscopo, Aldredo Eboracensi archiepiscopo …. Quia Divinitatis occulta dispensatio etc.Footnote 65
Even though the word potestas was not contained in the papal document and was probably introduced to give more strength to the privilege granted to Ealdred, up to this point the report seems to be relatively neutral and not particularly helpful for York's later claims. But what comes afterwards is very revealing. The narrative goes on to say that following his return to England, Ealdred went to King Edward and read out the papal privilege to him and the optimates of the kingdom. Ealdred is then described as being in high favour with the king who was happy to obey the pope's ordinance and confirmed the papal privilege with another privilege of his own. The incipit of Edward's diploma is also provided and the narration then goes on to deal with Ealdred's consecration of Wulfstan. The full text of Edward's alleged document for Ealdred, confirming the papal privilege, is not given in this narrative, but can be found in the Magnum Registrum Album. It has recently been edited by David Woodman, who has shown it to be an outright forgery.Footnote 66 In it Edward is made to say that he was granting Archbishop Ealdred and his successors at York the bishopric of Worcester (‘Donauimus ei eiusque posteris ordinationem Wiricestris episcopii’) and that in the carrying out of episcopal care at Worcester, Ealdred could rely on a uicarius, just as the blessed Pope Nicholas had said in his privilege (‘utque a beato papa Nicholao in eius scriptum habetur priuilegio’). As has been shown, however, Nicholas's privilege does not quite say that: neither Ealdred nor his successors were supposed to be in charge of the Worcester diocese, nor were they expected to rely on a uicarius, a word that is nowhere to be found in the papal text.
Although it does not seem possible at this stage to determine when exactly Edward's diploma was forged, it is clear that the Church of York had plenty of opportunities and motives to raise the claims contained in this text. Although Ealdred did consecrate Wulfstan in his stead at Worcester, following Nicholas ii’s directions, he was certainly hoping to maintain at least some control of the southern bishopric. The Vita Wulfstani is very eloquent in this respect, referring repeatedly to the number of Worcester estates that Ealdred managed to keep until his death in 1069.Footnote 67 When in the following year Thomas of Bayeux succeeded to Ealdred at York, Wulfstan saw an opportunity to claim his lands back, but ‘Thomas, for his part, not merely thought the estates should not be given back, but … claimed that the church of Worcester was his. Rule over it, he said, belonged to him by lawful succession, as it had belonged to his predecessors’.Footnote 68 The struggle went on and although the Vita Wulfstani is mainly interested in the local issues concerning Wulfstan and his full control of his diocese and its resources, it also indicates how the dispute between Thomas and Wulfstan became part of a bigger one, that is, the primacy dispute between Canterbury and York, which began shortly after Thomas's election and generated an especially fertile territory for forgeries.Footnote 69 Worcester featured prominently in it. Although it had traditionally been included within the southern metropolitan province, it was one of the three sees over which York claimed jurisdiction, together with Lichfield and Dorchester, as it was crucial for the northern metropolitan see to demonstrate that it had at least the three suffragans needed to consecrate a new archbishop. Whatever the specific context in which the alleged diploma of Edward was concocted, it is clear that the Church of York tried to exploit Nicholas's privilege for Ealdred by misrepresenting its contents. The papal document does not quite say the things that York would have liked to see in it, thus making it unlikely that it was forged there.
Ealdred's pallium grant has been here examined from three different perspectives: first, through a close analysis of the text itself, bearing in mind the earlier tradition of bestowing the pallium as well as contemporary attitudes towards episcopal transfer; secondly, in relation to other surviving sources reporting on Ealdred's and his companions’ vicissitudes in Rome; and thirdly, through a brief analysis of the way in which it was later exploited at York. The study of its structure, language and contents has shown that the pallium grant can be accepted as a product of Nicholas ii’s chancery, and that there is no reason to think that it was forged to support York's claims over the diocese of Worcester. The text does not grant the archbishop of York any special authority over the southern see, and the instruction to consecrate another bishop there was most likely due to Archbishop Stigand's irregular position. Of course, it was this very portion of the papal letter that attracted most attention at York, where it was used for the fabrication of a royal grant which deliberately amplified and misrepresented the contents of the papal privilege. In spite of its late manuscript transmission, a close analysis of the text reveals that it does not contain any major suspicious element. In light of all the evidence gathered here it is possible to conclude that the pallium privilege of Nicholas ii for Ealdred of York has been unfairly ignored by most modern scholarship, given the important light that it casts on eleventh-century history, including the relationships between the English Church and the papacy on the eve of the Norman Conquest, the developments in the Roman Church's attitudes towards episcopal transfer and, last but not least, the role of the English mission of 1061 in the history of the reform papacy.
APPENDIX
[AD 1061] Pope Nicholas II (1059–61) grants the pallium to Archbishop Ealdred of York (1061–9): Jaffé, Regesta, no. 4463
L: British Library, London, ms Lansdowne 402, fo. 29r–v, c. 1309 (G. R. C. Davis, Medieval cartularies of Great Britain and Ireland, rev. edn, London 2010, no. 1085; W. Holtzmann, Papsturkunden in England, I: Bibliotheken und Archive in London, i: Berichte und Handschriftenbeschreibungen, Berlin 1930, 143–4)
R: Minster Library and Archives, York, ms L 2/1 (Magnum Registrum Album), part i, fos 40v–41r, s. xivmed (Davis, Medieval cartularies, no. 1087; W. Holtzmann, Papsturkunden in England, II: Die kirchlichen Archive und Bibliotheken, i: Berichte und Handschriftenbeschreibungen, Berlin 1935, 103–6)
NicholausFootnote a episcopus, seruus seruorum Dei.Footnote b Dilecto confratri et coepiscopo Aldredo Eboracensi archiepiscopo, apostolice benedictionis priuilegium et salutem, per eum sue ecclesie suisque successoribus canonice promouendis inperpetuum.Footnote c Quia diuinitatis occulta duoluit dispensatioFootnote d nos omnibus preesse, ex iniunctaFootnote e uniuersalis officii cura cogimur prescire etFootnote f [pro] posse nostro omnibus prodesse. Quocirca, congregatis quamplurimis confratribus coepiscopis nostris, gRomane synodo presidentes,Footnote g atque deFootnote h ecclesiasticis utilitatibus, tum generaliter, tum uniuersaliter, cum eis tractantes, dum ad te, iconfrater karissime,Footnote i uentum esset, quia te de sede ad sedem sine jauctoritate apostolicaFootnote j migrasse comperimus, sanctorum patrumFootnote k statuta sequentes te utraque priuauimus, set quia hoc te non ambitione set iussione filii nostri regis coactum fecisse idoneis testibus in eademFootnote l sinodo comprobauimus, interuentu omnium confratrum nostrorum episcoporum priori te postmodum sedi misericorditer restituimus. Quibus ita peractis, dum inimici Dei omnipotentis et sancti Petri apostolorum principis te de seruitio eius reuertentemFootnote m in itinere ceperunt,Footnote n et ablatis omnibus que habebas, uulneratisque tuis, et cesis,Footnote o nimis te crudeliter tractauerunt. Tuis cum omnibus Romane ecclesie filiis precordialiter calamitatibus condolentes, et ut multiplicem angustiam tribulationis tue consolaremurFootnote p ad hoc, quod nullis umquamFootnote q precibus uel pretiis flecti potuimus condescentes, supplicationeFootnote r omnium cardinalium confratrum ac filiorum nostrorum, episcoporum uidelicet, ac presbyterorum et specialiter etFootnote s precipue karissimi filii nostri HeldebrandiFootnote t archidiaconi, dilectioni tue, karissime confrater, palliumFootnote u pontificalis dignitatisFootnote v ad hoc concedimus, ut quod specie gestaueris moribus pretendas, et quodFootnote w prefulget in habituFootnote x subiectis tibiFootnote y gregibus religiose uite ac salutaris doctrine factis pariter et dictis ostendas. Ita tamen ut concessa tibi dignitate palleiFootnote z non semper tibi licere uti memineris, set certis temporum diebus, scilicet in Cena Domini, Pascha,Footnote a2 et Ascensione,Footnote b2 Pentecoste,Footnote c2 et in tua ordinatione, et in beate Marie semperqueFootnote d2 uirginis, et sancti Iohannis, omniumqueFootnote e2 Apostolorum festiuitatibus, necnonFootnote f2 in consecratione ecclesiarum, et benedictione episcoporum ac presbyterorum, et in anniuersario tue ecclesie dedicationis atque festiuitate, et inFootnote g2 Natiuitate Domini, atque Epiphania. Denunciauimus preterea ut nullus tuorum successorum, uel quisquam in toto mundo episcoporum, hoc quod in te misericorditer et dispensatiue potius quam auctorizatiueFootnote h2 gessimus, in exemplum auctoritatis sibi assumere audeat, uel deinceps ad tale aliquid aspirareFootnote i2 presumat. Tu autem, karissime confrater, consecrato a te canoniceFootnote j2 in tua priori sede altero episcopo, talem te in omnibus et ita inreprehensibilemFootnote k2 exhibereFootnote l2 studeas, ut nos de misericordia et benignitate quamFootnote m2 erga te habuimus nunquam penitere, set de pio sollicitudinis tue studio hic et in eternum gaudere facias.
(‘Nicholas, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Ealdred, his beloved brother and fellow-bishop, archbishop of York, [sends] the privilege of apostolic blessing and greetings, [and] through him to his church and to his successors to be canonically appointed there in perpetuity. Since the hidden dispensation of the Divinity wants us to be in charge of all, because of the duty of care pertaining to the universal [papal] office, we are compelled to know in advance and, to the best of our abilities, to benefit everybody. Wherefore, with a great many of our brothers and fellow-bishops having been gathered, [we were] presiding over a Roman synod and discussing with them ecclesiastical matters, not only generally, but also universally, until we came to you, dearest brother; because we learnt that you had moved from one see to another see without papal authority, following the statutes of the holy fathers, we deprived you of both, but because we verified at that same synod through suitable witnesses that you did this not out of ambition but were compelled by the order of our son the king, at the intervention of all our brothers the bishops, shortly afterwards we mercifully restored you to your former see. After these things had happened, some enemies of God the Almighty and St Peter, prince of the Apostles, seized you during the journey while returning from his service and, with everything that you had having been stolen from you, and with your companions having been wounded and struck down, they treated you very cruelly. Feeling deeply sorry with all the sons of the Roman Church for your misfortunes, and so that we might alleviate the numerous difficulties of your tribulation, condescending to doing what we could be persuaded to do by no prayers or payments, at the request of all the cardinals, our brothers and sons, that is, the bishops, and also the priests, and especially and chiefly our dearest son, Archdeacon Hildebrand, we granted to your affection, most dear brother, the pallium of the pontifical office, so that what you wear in appearance, you may present in behaviour, and what shines forth in dress, you may show to the flocks subject to you equally in the deeds and in the words of religious life and salvific teaching. You should nevertheless remember that you are not allowed to use the authority of the pallium at all times, but only on specific occasions; namely, on Maundy Thursday, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, and on the anniversary of your ordination, on the feasts of the ever Blessed Virgin Mary, of St John [the Baptsist], and of all the apostles, as well as at the consecration of churches, the blessing of bishops and priests, and on the anniversary of the dedication of your church, and on the feast [of your church], and at Christmas and Epiphany. In addition, we warned that none of your successors, nor any other bishop in the whole world, should dare obtain for himself, following as an authoritative precedent this which we have conveyed to you mercifully and by virtue of dispensation rather than according to authority, or thereafter dare aspire to such a thing. But you, most dear brother, once you have consecrated another bishop canonically in your former see, should strive to present yourself as greatly irreproachable in everything, so that you may never make us repent of the mercy and kindness that we harboured towards you, but make us rejoice in the pious zeal of your solicitude here and forever.’)
