Medieval clerics and their relationship with warfare have long been a topic of research and Craig M. Nakashian enters this discussion with his book on English warrior clerics. In the introduction, Nakashian lays out the type of cleric he is examining: men who clearly fought or led others into battle. Using well-known examples, the author surveys not only the lives and activities of these clergymen, but also the debate among their contemporaries over the “nature and acceptability of clerical military action” (13). He acknowledges the research that has come before him, especially on the German episcopate, and helpfully identifies four general categories in the existing historiography before providing thoughtful critiques on each of these approaches.
Nakashian divides his book into two parts, the first provides examples of both warrior clerics in the first millennium and the various writings that appeared during this time on clergy participating in military activities. He also brings in some very interesting thoughts on the examples found in chivalric literature. The second part of the book provides clear and more focused studies of martial clergymen and their contemporaries’ reactions. These case studies demonstrate that many modern historians have taken the ideology of medieval reformers as the normative, majority opinion, a view not necessarily supported by the evidence. Overall, the two halves work well together, as the first part sets up the cultural milieu for the second half. The first half, however, does start to feel long toward the end, as the reader begins to wonder when the martial clergymen of medieval England will actually be examined.
In the first chapter, the author provides the intellectual background to the debate on warrior clergymen in the eleventh through thirteenth centuries by means of a succinct history of the varying opinions in the first millennium. He also provides some clear examples of martial clerics found across Europe in the first half of the Middle Ages. In general, the flow between theoretical and practical is effective and he devotes extra space to the Anglo-Saxon clergy and their debates on the topic, in keeping with his focus on England. The second chapter provides an overview of church canons, which did not always agree with each other, as well as a move by the eleventh-century popes towards greater centralization of papal power. The author clearly shows that while many (but not all) official statements forbade clergy from being involved in warfare, in reality warrior clerics were tacitly accepted if not employed by popes themselves. The third chapter approaches militant clergy in a way not used by all scholars, the cultural mores of the medieval period as portrayed in chivalric literature. Through this chapter Nakashian adds depth and nuance to his attempt to engage with the debate going on within the contemporary culture.
Chapters four through nine put the theoretical to the test as they each examine at least two clerical figures who were active in England. Working together, chapters four and five deal with the Norman Conquest and the new world of Anglo-Norman England. Chapter six examines the civil war which followed Henry I's death, focusing primarily on Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester. The final two chapters survey warrior clerics under the Angevins, both at home and on Crusade. Throughout the case studies found in these chapters, Nakashian closely examines contemporary reactions to these warrior clerics. Despite canons forbidding clerical involvement in warfare, many of these clerics’ martial activities were praised by their contemporaries. It is only when these clergymen acted too worldly or against the political leanings of those commenting that truly negative reactions appear. Involvement in warfare itself, particularly if the cause was deemed licit, generally did not elicit much criticism. It is only if the clerics performed other actions outside the bounds of their ordo that they received negative comments.
Nakashian does many things well and his survey of contemporary responses generally reveals tacit acceptance and even praise for warrior clerics. He does demonstrate that the reforming ideology, taken for granted by many modern historians as the medieval response to warrior clerics, needs to be reexamined as contemporary literary and historical sources reveal a much wider variety of opinions. His arguments for the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries are particularly strong. Yet, one issue does arise over his use of the year 1000 as the beginning of the survey when he truly starts with post-Conquest clerics.
Given his interest in later clerics who were involved in martial activities on the Anglo-Welsh border, Nakashian's failure to address the actions of Aldred (Ealdred), bishop of Worcester and later archbishop of York, during the 1040s and1050s is surprising. Even more glaring is the complete omission of Bishop Leofgar of Hereford, who is the only Anglo-Saxon bishop which the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle explicitly states fought in battle with worldly weapons. This particular prelate died in 1056 against the Welsh and thus falls well within the preview of this study. Also, despite his in-depth discussion of Bishop Odo of Bayeux, he fails to draw a necessary distinction. Odo, unlike Anglo-Saxon bishops, was granted a secular title in addition to secular responsibilities, which may also have contributed to contemporary reactions.
This book adds to the on-going scholarship on the topic and the use of chivalric literature alongside the more generally cited ecclesiastical texts helps to create a better understanding of the cultural milieu of these clerics. Nakashian's careful treatment of contemporary writers is well done and necessary for further development of scholarship in this area. His work on later Anglo-Norman and Angevine clerics really underscores his overall points and would be beneficial to anyone interested in those particular periods. However, those hoping for a survey which includes clergy on both sides of the Norman Conquest will need to look elsewhere, and even certain aspects of the early Anglo-Norman episcopate may need to be supplemented.
