and shows the author to have been really superior to the other writers in the true instincts of a biographical chronicler. It is a remarkable fact, that his life, quite as favourable to the Archbishop as any of the rest, and quite as unfavourable to the King, should not be referred to by any contemporary biographer, nor Fitzstephen's name be even mentioned once. reasons why unknown to poraries. To this day this has been a puzzle to the historians Probable of Thomas. It has been suggested, that the reason of his life was this silence might be, that Fitzstephen had offended the contem partisans of the Archbishop, by taking too lukewarm an interest in the cause of the church. But after their hero's death nothing could have been more welcome to a party so offended than Fitzstephen's thorough-going and unmistakeably whole-hearted glorification of him. In our opinion this silence is to be accounted for by a different theory. The obvious suggestion is, that the contemporary writers did not know of the existence of this Life; that its author had his own reasons for not allowing it to pass into public circulation, until the time had passed, within which the contemporary Lives were written. It was composed at a time, when the passions of both parties ran at their highest, and by an author, who was so peculiarly circumstanced, that the publication of it would certainly be detrimental, if not altogether fatal, to his personal interests. He shows himself to have been a polished man of the world, and an easy courtier. He, an official of the Chancery and an avowed partisan of the archbishop, succeeded by a scholarly address to king Henry, besides other means, no doubt, to purchase peace and grace for himself at a time, when the rest of the archbishop's friends were persecuted and banished without mercy. Now Fitzstephen is identified by a very learned authority with a person of that name who, in the first year after the murder, was appointed sheriff of Gloucestershire, and afterwards acted as judge itinerant, probably to his death, which John of His friend ship with and relations to Thomas. is stated to have occurred in 1191.1 In such circum- 3. JOHN OF SALISBURY, bishop of Chartres 11761180, universally regarded by his contemporaries as the most eminent English man of letters of the time, studied in France under Abelard and other famous teachers and, returning to England, became secretary to archbishop Theobald of Canterbury. On Thomas's entering the service of that prelate, an attachment was formed between him and the secretary, which lasted to the former's hour of death unbroken, although John of Salisbury did not hesitate, on given occasion, frankly to remonstrate with him on his wilful impetuosity and want of tact, or to warn him against unwholesome Why he is studies in ecclesiastical law." We place this author the third in the third in the series, because Roger de Pontigny, in the preface to his Life, mentions him, beside Benedict as, apparently, the only other author he knew of a Life of Thomas :-" porro aliqua de beati viri vita et actibus "pretiosæque mortis ejus triumpho vir illustris Johannes "Saresberiensis claro quidem et fideli, sed admodum "succincto edidit eloquio." Not only is the author not yet a bishop, but Benedict is prior of Canterbury at the time-"De his autem quibus post mortem "Dominus sanctum suum mirificavit, vir venerabilis "Benedictus, Cantuariensis ecclesiæ prior, copiosam placed the catena. E. Foss., Judges of England, 2 Benedict, Mat., II. 9. 3 Ep. 138, Joh. Sarisb. opera, ed. Giles, vol. i. p. 196. 4 Mat., IV. 2. 1 of his narra appointed poraries. "texuit relationem." " John of Salisbury having been appointed bishop in 1176 and Benedict prior of Canterbury in 1175, it follows, that John of Salisbury could not have written his "succinctum eloquium" later than 1175-76. When he wrote, he himself states, however, that many and voluminous writings on the subject were already in existence :-" nam gestorum ejus seriem nosse "si cui forte in voto est, a magnis, quæ ab illo et de "illo scripta sunt, voluminibus erit mutuanda." It is The brevity noticeable that this author's brevity gave a certain tive disumbrage to his contemporaries. Thus Roger de Pon- the contemtigny, who undoubtedly reflects general opinion on the subject, says, continuing the above quotation, "in quo, etsi devotioni fidelium plurimum profuit, ad plenum "tamen minime satisfecit, compendiario (ut ipse asserit) "utens sermone, ne illa scilicet quæ tunc temporis "notissima et vulgata habebantur diffusius et expres"sius prosequens, non tam necessarius quam superfluus videretur. Sane si hoc eidem Johanni facere placuisset, nullus proculdubio utilius vel melius illo id efficere potuisset, cui et dicendi facultas erat incom"parabilis, et rerum gestarum certissima inerat notitia."s 66 46 Grim, the murder. 4. EDWARD GRIM was a secular clerk of Cambridge, Edward who happened to be on a visit to Canterbury at the present at time of the murder, and was the only person present on the occasion who made any show of manly courage, with the exception of the Archbishop himself. In warding off the first blow aimed at the Archbishop he had his arm severely wounded. His Life, which bears strong His life resemblance to those of Garnier and Roger de Pontigny, that of Garwas finished after Benedict's promotion to the priorate of Roger de Christ Church, as we learn from a story he tells at the Date of 1 Mat., VI. 2. 2 Mat., II. 302. This is the only mention we know of Thomas of Canterbury's having left written 3 Mat., IV. 2. 4 Mat. III., 139, 498, 529-30, resembles nier and Pontigny. composition. Died before 1186-87. His editorial end of his biography, setting forth how, through Thomas's intercession, in a dream Benedict, who had fallen into disfavour at court, was restored to royal grace. In this story Benedict is thus referred to:"antequam prioratum Cantuariæ suscepisset, dominus "Benedictus offensam regis incurrit ;" and again,--" igi"tur, ut prior affuit, exponitur visio;" and further,— "beatus igitur Thomas, cujus martyrium et miracula "vir iste de quo loquimur eleganti stylo transmisit ad "posteros." The nature of the story would require that Grim should have alluded to Benedict as abbot of Peterborough, if he really was so at the time, when this was written; but the fact that no allusion is made to him as such, is a negative proof of Grim's having composed his life during Benedict's priorate of Christchurch, that is, before 1177. That he composed it after 1174 is evident from the manner in which he alludes to king Henry's penance at the martyr's tomb in that year. The date of this life, therefore, must be between 1175-1177. When Herbert wrote his "Catalogus eruditorum Thomæ," in 1186-87, he mentions Grim as "jam a rebus humanis "exemptus."4 3 Of his manner as editor Grim, strongly reminding of procedure. Garnier, makes the profession :-" Pie igitur parere "cupientes quorundam devotioni, . Roger de quæ ad nos"tram pervenere notitiam, illorum scilicet relatu, qui "viventi familiarius adhæserunt, vel nos ipsi perspexi"mus, ipsius de quo loquimur patrocinantibus meritis "stilo perstringere satagemus, præmonentes lectorem, "minime consonare veritati quicquid hinc alii vel scrip"serunt vel scripturi sunt, quod huic narrationi nostræ probetur esse contrarium."5 5. ROGER DE PONTIGNY. By this name we quote Anonymus the life, which Canon Robertson, on grounds of insuffi Pontigny, or I." Identity uncertain. cient identification of the author, ascribes to "Anonymus "I." The author professes to have ministered to the archbishop during his exile, and to have been ordained by him. In Thomas of Froimont's composite life of the Archbishop, a monk, named Roger, is stated to have been the holy man's minister, while an exile for Christ at Pontigny. This is all the evidence on which the identification of the author, as Roger de Pontigny, rests. But this Life having for a long time been quoted in the name of this author, we do it also, more for the sake of convenience than from conviction. That he Probably was at Pontigny, when the archbishop was there, is with Poncertain; that he was of Pontigny, not unlikely. In describing the archbishop's arrival at that monastery the author speaks of the joy of the monks, as if he were not one of their number at the time. Afterwards, speaking from the point of time when he was writing the Life, he refers to them as his brethren, which would seem to mean that then he was a member of their brotherhood.* connected tigny. ality. It may be noticed, that in Thomas Froymont's com- His nationposite Life of the Archbishop there are several passages introduced under the name of 'Rogerus,' doubtless the same person as the author with whom we are dealing, and among these occurs one, describing the Archbishop's dislodgment from Pontigny, in a much more circum 1 Mat., IV. 2. 2 Giles. S. Thom. Cant., II. 52. 3 Mat., IV. 64. Pontiniacences vero de adventu tanti hospitis supra modum gavisi sunt, gratias agentes ei quod ad eos declinasset, maxime autem domino papæ, qui eos tanto hospite honorari dignatus fuerit. 4 Mat., IV. 64: Ipse vero vir reverendissimus, quam sancte, quam religiose, se ibidem habuerit referre supersedemus, ne et fratribus nostris notam (nota) ingeramus, et brevitatis metas excedamus. We doubt not that "nota," well known 5 Anecdota Bedae. Ed. J. A. |