POEMS OF AN ANGLO-GERMAN GROUP

At the very end of A there stands a group of curious poems distinguished by a highly polemical atmosphere and by several names markedly Teutonic, but probably connected with England. These five poems thus appear in an unusual milieu and offer certain attractive possibilities for conjecture. The attribution of these poems to Henry of Avranches is not beyond doubt, and the time and place of composition are open to question.

As we have stated, the personal names are distinctly German: Lambekin, Lambert, and Conradulus. The last named person was engaged in a debate with an Englishman. One poem is addressed to St Alban, the patron saint of a great English monastery and protomartyr of England. In this poem the author calls himself a ‘servus Pantaleonis,’ a phrase which will require explanation. Elsewhere he states that he was born in Germany. With German personal names and English background, we may well look for a German group in England.

English documents of the early part of the thirteenth century present interesting possibilities. A Lambekin of Cologne holds a fief in England in 1205, is granted certain liberties along with a seneschal of the emperor, Otto IV, in 1208, and as a messenger of the same emperor receives a payment from the English king in 1213.1. In 1224 a Lambekin appears in England as the messenger of Archbishop Engelbert of Cologne.2. As Lambekin is a rare name, the first three references to Lambekin of Cologne are probably to the same person,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 26 ]] 
and the last items may refer to him also. In 1199 a ‘Lambertus Teutonicus’ holds a fief in England and makes a grant in the reign of Richard I.3. This latter document suggests a personal interest in the king, a fact easily explained if we assume that the king had given him the land originally. This seems to be probable, since the king granted it again to another in 1216, apparently upon Lambert’s death.4. Lambert was a fairly common name, but there are very few men of German associations upon the English rolls of the time.

A Conrad de Wilre, the seneschal of Otto IV who was associated with Lambekin of Cologne in the mission of 1213, holds fiefs of like tenure in Lincolnshire with a ‘Terri Teutonicus.’5. A Master Henry of Cologne appears as a messenger also of Otto IV in 1214.6.

As to the ‘servus Pantaleonis,’ one might expect that the author had some connection with a church dedicated to St Pantaleon. The outstanding church dedicated to him was a church in Cologne. But why should a reference to this saint appear in a poem to St Alban? It seems that the church of St Pantaleon of Cologne possessed relics of St Alban and even had a fraternity of that saint in the cathedral, although the latter may be of a later date than the poems.7. Pretty clearly the author had some connection with Cologne.

Who was the author? Winkelmann, noticing that a note, ‘fr M,’ appears at the top of a folio near the end of the volume above this verse, conjectured that Matthew Paris might be the author. However, that chronicler probably was not born in Germany, and his associations in England are not known to have been with Germans. Very probably that notation simply recorded his ownership of the volume. One might conjecture that since the poems in this manuscript are almost entirely by Master Henry of Avranches he might be the author of this verse also. Could he be that Master Henry of Cologne who appeared in England in November of 1214 as a representative of Otto IV?

What were the connections of Master Henry of Avranches with Germany? In No. 9 the poet expresses the wish
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 27 ]] 
that England might return him to Germany. Why Germany, if he had no close connections there? The only friend whom he mentions that was not clearly a patron is Conrad of Heimbach, a town near Cologne. The poet had two archbishops of Cologne as patrons and spent a part of his maturity in Germany. The fact that he probably wrote for King John in 1214-1215 and certainly for Otto IV in 1216 rather suggests such acquaintance with the two monarchs as envoys might have. There is little reason to believe that these poems could not have been written by Master Henry of Avranches.

But was the author the envoy Master Henry of Cologne? Such an identification would certainly explain the author’s writing for King John and Otto IV in successive years. It might explain another interesting coincidence. It would probably explain why a Master ‘Heinricus Coloniensis’ was transcribing a translation by Michael Scot from the exemplar of Emperor Frederick II, completing it at Melfi on 9 August 1232.8. At just this time Master Henry of Avranches, who had Frederick II as a patron and was interested in Michael Scot, was in Italy. As can be seen from No. 127, he was at the papal Curia only a few weeks later. The hypothesis that Henry was called ‘of Cologne’ early in life is attractive because it would explain so much. Other men of German connections became prominent in England at the time. One has only to examine the career of Arnald Fitzthedmar for an instance of a German who rose to high position in London in the thirteenth century.

One further conjecture fits in with the hypothesis that these poems were composed in England by Henry of Avranches late in the reign of King John. No. 91a, The Poet’s Reception in England, rather suggests that the poet had only recently arrived in England. He was evidently defending this reception against the aspersions of his fellow countrymen in that country. Now the earliest evidence of the poet’s presence in England comes from the reign of King John, and probably near the end of that reign. If these conjectures are correct, the poems tend to show that upon his arrival in England the poet, although naturally associating with Germans there, used his connection with St Pantaleon to approach the monastery of St Albans and probably used his position as envoy to invoke the patronage of the English nobility. A very interesting construction; would that the evidence were less shaky!

No. 97, the controversy between Henry and a ‘Leonius Teutonicus,’ has been described as probably a
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 28 ]] 
composition of Master Henry.9. It is included in this group because the atmosphere seems German, but not of Germany, since Henry’s opponent is called ‘Teutonicus,’ which would have no point in Germany itself. Leonius seems unknown. It is barely possible that ‘Leonius’ is a paleographical mistake for Ledulphus. A Ledulphus Teutonicus turns up in a document of 1245 in England.10.

DE LAMBEKINO THEUTONICO. ALTERCATIO INTER . . . . . CONRADULO

POEMS FOR KING JOHN

Two poems, at least, seem to have been written by Henry of Avranches for King John. Unfortunately one has not survived, and the evidence that the king was the patron of the other is not beyond doubt. An entry in a list of manuscripts formerly possessed by Peterborough Abbey reads, ‘Certamen inter regem I. et barones versifice per Mag. H. de Hariench.’1. This monastery possessed a number of manuscripts of the poet, and he seems to have been well received there.2. This poem was probably written during the conflict between King John and the barons in 1214-1215 and before the poet went to the court of Otto IV some time in 1216. To have had the story of Magna Carta from the royalist point of view would have been very valuable. While many of the poems of Master Henry are either short pieces of flattery intended to attract largess or wordy versifications of old prose, upon occasion he could produce literature of importance for the subject itself.3.

No. 37 is a short begging poem addressed to a patron named John. Since the poems following this one are about Eustace Falconberg and Ralph Neville, courtiers of King John, and since the poet is not known to have had another patron of that name, the immediate presumption is in favor of the king as the patron. The statement that John as a word means ‘by divine grace’ might simply refer to the meaning of the word itself. Or, if the patron were the king, it might refer to the current theory of divine sanction for kingship, as expressed on one side of the royal seal, ‘Johannes, Dei gratia, Rex
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 31 ]] 
Anglie, Dominus Hibernie.’4. The copyist evidently found an epigram, probably by Master Henry, upon the seal of John, and quoted it. Henry wrote one upon the seal of the abbot of Ramsey. Both the poem and the epigram, which perhaps should be considered as a separate poem, emphasize royal generosity. This does seem to have been one of John’s good points.5.

Of the centers of literary patronage in England the royal court might be expected to be among the greatest.6. The king usually had more means to reward favorites than any noble, lay or clerical. If he himself were not generous, at least there congregated at his court large numbers of the more important people of the realm. However, all the contemporary kings were patrons to some extent, and as such have received attention from scholars. For John and Henry III the instance of Henry of Avranches is the most conspicuous example of patronage. The most detailed study of the intellectual relations of the court of King John is in need of some revision and is published in a relatively inaccessible place.7.

Besides the two poems mentioned above, which were probably written for the king, the only other direct evidence of patronage is a dedication to John of the Conquest of Ireland by Gerald of Wales.8. Gerald even suggested that his treatise be translated into the vernacular, so that ‘I might reap the fruits of my toil, which hitherto, under illiterate princes, have been lost because there were few who could understand my works.’9. Evidently Gerald thought that this was a compliment. There is other evidence of the king’s interest in books. Bishop Stubbs observed that ‘he once borrowed a book from St Albans.’10. To this Miss Bateson added the following:11.

John has hardly had justice done to him as a book lender, and therefore possibly a book lover. The extracts from the close-rolls12. have long been in print which show him ordering Reginald of Cornhill to send him at once a copy of the ‘Romance of English History.’ To the Abbot of Reading he acknowledges the receipt of six books, the Old and New Testament, the works of Hugh of St Victor, the ‘Sentences’ of Peter Lombard, Augustine’s ‘De Civitate,’ and his letters, ‘Valerianus De Moribus,’ Origen on the Old Testament, no doubt the Latin homilies, ‘Candidus Arianus’ ‘De generatione divina ad Marium,’ and so acquits the abbot and sacrist of responsibility for the same. On another occasion the king discharged the same abbot from responsibility for the Pliny which had been lent to him. That such were not John’s daily reading we may well believe, but the records show the nature of the court library and the orderly arrangements for the loan and return of books.

The other evidence of the king’s patronage of letters is, at best, indirect. An anonymous writer or writers favored the king against the exiled bishops during the time of the interdict and even against Pope Innocent III.13. A portion of Geoffrey de Vinsauf’s Poetria Nova, Bishop Stubbs suggested was a petition to the pope to be reconciled to King John.14. The king was also defended by a Master Alexander ‘Cementarius’ of St Albans, more probably in oral fashion than in writing. He was also on friendly terms with a second Master Alexander of St Albans, Alexander Neckam, whom he may have helped make abbot of Cirencester.15. He had as chaplain early in his reign Abbot John of Ford, a theologian who has left some writings.16.

Many of the courtiers of the king appear as patrons of Master Henry, as we shall see. These include Geoffrey of Bocland, Eustace de Falkenberg, Richard Marsh, Ralph Neville, Stephen Langton, and Peter des Roches. While most of the poems for these people seem to be later than the end of
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 33 ]] 
John’s reign, No. 91a, which may be earlier than this, mentions the author’s favorable reception by Englishmen of high birth. The record of the reign of King John is not high with regard to patronage of letters. We should expect this both from the troublous character of the times and the none too promising character of the man. However, he did borrow and lend books, at least one book and probably several poems were addressed directly to him, and about him were men who either wrote or appreciated literature.

EARLY RELIGIOUS POEMS

Like many of the other poems of Master Henry of Avranches, the chronological indications for these four pieces are rather tenuous, but such as they are they point to the years before 1220. Nos. 27, 43, and 22 are the first three among the poems with similar conclusions. Thus they were probably composed before 1220, if we admit the chronological implications of the data.1. Their lack of either introduction or epilogue also suggests an early date. Neither of the poems upon St Thomas à Becket mentions the translation of that saint in 1220, which, as we shall see, was a ceremony of such splendor that we might have expected it to be mentioned, especially in No. 27. On the other hand, interest in St Thomas, probably eclipsed in large part by the civil wars of 1214-1217, was accelerated by the approach of the translation. The poet was apparently in Germany in 1215 and possibly for some time thereafter; it seems fairly safe to suggest the two years before 1220 as the most probable date of composition for these two poems, at least.

The story of St Thomas à Becket, the greatest saint of England, is too familiar to students of English civilization to need repetition here. In No. 27 the poet is already using phrases which were to become common in his hagiographical verse. The martyr fought successfully against his ever present enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil.2.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 35 ]] 
Among the achievements of this mighty soul was the conquest of himself.3. Occasionally the poet offers items which may be valuable for information about contemporary life and thought. Did Master Henry really believe that Ceres was the mother of Diana?4. What kinds of tablecloths were used at that time?5. Were all of the musical instruments mentioned by the poet played then?6. No. 6 is possibly the Sancti scripta Thome miracula which according to No. 9 the poet wrote for the prior of Canterbury. If it is that poem, it was probably written shortly before No. 9, possibly in 1221. Its position in A rather suggests an earlier date.7. Of the several pieces about St Thomas No. 6 fits the title most aptly and is in the same MS group as No. 9. The poet states that he wrote the Sancti scripta Thome miracula in a week. But since the poet says also that he destroyed this piece in an outburst of disappointment, we have to assume that he later thought better of his work and rewrote it, all of which reduces the identification to a bare conjecture.

In the absence of definite information such a piece as No. 22 may be presumed to have been prepared for those to whom St Fremund was of most interest--those in whose monastic or cathedral church his relics lay. In the thirteenth century the body of St Fremund was at Dunstable; earlier than this it had been at Dorchester.8. Dunstable was a monastic dependency of St Albans. We have seen that the poet had some connections, probably even very close ones, with that great house.9. From the position of the conclusion of this poem in the list of similar conclusions, the years 1219-1220 are suggested as the probable period of composition.10. The poem is organized very simply, with neither prologue or epilogue. The saint’s feast was May 11.

The feast of All Saints was probably a popular festival in mediaeval England. An authority upon church dedications in that country has the following to say about dedications to ‘All Saints’:11.

The immense number of English churches dedicated to the honour of no one Apostle or Martyr by name, but to ‘All Saints,’ is some measure of the hold which this most catholic of festivals has taken upon the hearts of Englishmen. Dedications in this name mount up to more than twelve hundred, and in point of number rank second only to the churches dedicated in honour of the Blessed Virgin. The dedication is one which is borne by churches belonging to all periods of English ecclesiastical history; it is one which was as much in favor after the Reformation as before, and which has never incurred the danger of being condemned as superstitious.

For this reason it seems probable that No. 43 was written for English patronage. Two other facts add weight to this assumption. In A it appears between poems to English patrons. From the position of the concluding lines among poems with similar conclusions it would appear to have been written about 1219, when the poet is known to have been in England.12. This is, we should notice, three years earlier than the Synod of Oxford, which, as has been suggested, preserves the earliest known mention of All Saints’ Day.13.

The saints were not venerated, officially at least, in a haphazard fashion. The ordines were ranked as follows: the Blessed Virgin Mary, Seraphim, Cherubim, dominions, thrones, powers, principalities, virtues, archangels, and angels. The saints were the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, and virgins. From the poet’s description it is not clear whether widows were included. The supernatural world was peopled with an orderly host.

This emphasis upon order is interesting. A hierarchy of celestial beings, the citizens of Jerusalem on High, paralleled the hierarchy of the Church on earth. The idea of social order in mediaeval society went farther until every person might be presumed to have a definite place. It appeared in attention to dress, to precedence in seating arrangements, and in other human contacts. Even within the same rank, and not very high rank at that, individuals were placed.14. It is difficult to comprehend mediaeval social thought unless this pervading attention to orderliness and social status is understood.

EARLY COURTIER POEMS

Before 1220 Master Henry seems to have been at the court of Henry III, but with the present data the length of his stay can hardly be determined accurately. Three poems were probably written there at this time. The lost epitaph upon William Marshall was almost certainly written at the time of his death on 14 May 1219, or immediately thereafter. For while it is possible that it was written later, that occasion would have been the most appropriate, and court poetry to be effective must be timely.

Both the other poems occur in a MS group the arrangement of which seems to have some chronological significance.1. No. 43, which lies between the two in the MS, also belongs to the group of poems with similar conclusions for which the evidence points to a date of composition before 1220.2. A reading of the two poems reveals a marked similarity between them and suggests that they were written at about the same time. Since Stephen Langton was out of England or at odds with the poet’s patron, King John, until about 1218, it hardly seems probable that the poem to him was written earlier. On the other hand the poet fails to mention the translation of St. Thomas, although he specifically stresses Langton’s position as his successor, even punning upon the point that ‘not an atom distinguishes you from Thomas (a Thoma).’ The translation of St Thomas, as we shall see, was probably the most brilliant event of Langton’s eventful life.

Archbishop Langton, like the regent William Marshall, was one of the outstanding men of the court. He had
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 53 ]] 
had a notable career as a professor at the University of Paris before he became archbishop of Canterbury and a cardinal. It is not surprising to find the poet emphasizing the renown of his patron as a philosopher, using the phraseology of the schools, and finally classing himself among the philosophers. Upon such grounds the poet might reasonably hope to appeal to the archbishop, whose vast resources of patronage must have been singularly attractive to the poet.

The poem to Geoffrey de Bocland was for a patron of a different type. Bocland was a courtier and judge whose career commenced at least as early as the reign of Richard (1189-1199) and ended in the autumn of 1225.3. He was a man of some wealth, a holder of several livings, and what was more important to a young clerk, the patron of at least one.4. In the poem to Geoffrey, Master Henry uses three English words, ‘bocland’ (bookland), ‘fri’ (free), and ‘friman’ (freeman). It would be interesting to know how much farther his knowledge of English extended.

No. 99, Epitaph of William Marshall, does not seem to be extant, but both an early note in the margin of a MS of the Chronica Majora of Matthew Paris and the old index of A refer to the presence at an early date of the epitaphs of William Marshall in that MS.5. They were probably lost in rebinding. The Marshall family was apparently an exception to the rule that English families were seldom patrons of letters. For this family the life of William Marshall was written in a famous Anglo-Norman poem by a certain John.6. Besides this lost epitaph by Henry of Avranches another was written by Master Gervase of Melcheley, according to Matthew Paris.7. Marshall had an amazing career which ended as regent of England and Earl of Pembroke.8.

METRICAL TREATISE ON GRAMMAR

Probably October 1216-May 1220, possibly 1219

This long grammatical poem of approximately 2200 lines was first considered as possibly the work of Henry of Avranches because of its concluding lines.1. The clue was confirmed by an examination of rotographs of the piece,2. which occupies the whole of MS Rawlinson G 50 of the Bodleian Library. The poem has several lines in common with another grammatical poem whose opening lines name a Henry as the author.3. This is not conclusive evidence of Henry’s authorship, since No. 103 is a compilation embodying many lines verbatim from earlier works. The poem is organized somewhat like the Life of St Thomas à Becket, No. 1, and its conclusion has the same Virgilian expression of the difficulty of ascent and ease of descent that appears in No. 8. The poem is interesting not only for its information about grammar but also for the probable circumstances of its composition.

The preface of the poem states that it was written to spare some boys the difficulty of studying the multitude of contemporary books on grammar. In the conclusion the patron, rather than patrons, is described. He is of high birth, ‘apex generis,’ and of pleasing appearance. He is fortunate in his parents; death has separated them, but they will be reunited in Heaven. The badly mutilated preface contains an invocation of the Virgin, and ends with some statement about the name of the boys for whom the poem is written. This statement,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 57 ]] 
which would doubtless establish their identity, unfortunately remains indecipherable. If the poem is by Henry of Avranches, and if the order of similar conclusions of his poems has chronological significance, this poem was probably written in 1220 or earlier.4.

The poet was in England in 1219 and 1220. The ‘apex generis,’ suggesting a king, would then be Henry III. Death had separated his parents in 1216; the hope that they would be reunited in Heaven must have been written before May 1220, when John’s widow made such a suggestion tactless by marrying again. The patrons of the preface, Henry and his brother Richard, were of proper age (9-13, 7-11) from 1216 to 1220 to learn their grammar, but their ages suggest the time toward the end of the four years.

Upon the history of England the advisers of Henry III had a remarkable influence, largely because he followed the advice of others so readily. Thus new evidence in regard to these advisers and especially in regard to the childhood of the king is welcome. The close relationship of the poet to Peter des Roches is evident in several poems.5. This bishop was in charge of the king from the death of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, in 1219 until the king came of age, In rather summary fashion Henry dismissed the bishop and his associates in 1227. Roger of Wendover wrote of it as follows:6.

Eodem tempore rex Anglorum, mense Februario apud Oxoniam concilio congregato, denuntiavit coram omnibus se legitime esse etatis, et de cetero solutus a custodia regia notitia ipse principaliter ordinaret; et sic qui prius tutorem habuit et rectorem Willelmum Mareschallem dum viveret, et postmodum Petrum Wintoniensem episcopum, excussit se per consilium Huberti de Burgo, Justiciarii regni, de concilio et gubernatione dicti episcopi et suorum qui regi fuerant prius quasi pedagogi, ita quod omnes illos a curia sua et cohabitatione removit.

In view of this long grammatical treatise and of the poet’s relationship to the bishop, it is not difficult to conjecture that Master Henry was one of the pedagogues of the king and taught him his grammar.

The poem itself, although it was probably dedicated to a king, never attained popularity. It was written
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 58 ]] 
much after the style of the Doctrinale of Alexander of Villedieu (of the year 1199) and the Grecismus (of 1212), from both of which Master Henry appropriated much. However, our poet’s work is arranged differently and probably better than those of his predecessors whose poems were to remain famous for centuries. The piece follows to a certain extent the order of Priscian’s Institutes, the great grammar of the time. It is not so easy to trace the indebtedness of the poet to other grammarians whose works have not yet been printed. The comprehensiveness of the long grammatical treatise by Master Henry makes it an excellent text for use in the study of Latin grammar about 1216-1220.

Master Henry also versified the short, elementary Ars Minor, a popular grammatical treatise of Donatus. It was probably an early effort of the poet.7.

OLD DEAN HAMO

Upon the leap day of a leap year Dean Hamo, according to the poem, passed away.1. Too good for an ordinary day, his departure had been reserved by the calendar for a special day. The poet seized the opportunity of describing with apt phrase each month of the year, producing a set of pictures which Camden used as an illustration of mediaeval verse.2. Such a piece would probably have been read to the chapter of which Hamo was dean and might have been read at the time of his funeral. This, of course, assumes that the person designated in the poem was a real person. Fortunately the poem gives sufficient information about Dean Hamo so that he may be identified in the documents of the time. According to the verse Dean Hamo had in the course of his long career served as canon, precentor, then archdeacon and ‘custos’ (that is treasurer)3. at the same time.

Le Neve’s Fasti offer only two choices of a ‘Dean Hamo’ in this period: a dean of Lincoln who died in 1195 and is thus ruled out, and a dean of York, the date of whose death is not given.4. The career of the latter, however, may be traced in some detail over a period of more than thirty years, since the affairs of the York chapter are relatively well known. Hamo was a canon of York before 1186.5. Already
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 61 ]] 
precentor in that year, he was one of five candidates presented by the York chapter for the vacant archbishopric.6. Henry II refused to accept any of them. His activity as precentor can be followed in the years 1189-90 and 1192-95 as a member of the rather boisterous York chapter.7.

In 1199 or earlier he was promoted to the office of treasurer and appears as such in 1206, 1213, and 1214.8. In this year Hamo probably became dean, although an enrolled letter patent of that year conferred the office upon a certain William Testard, archdeacon of Nottingham.9. The latter never appears as dean in the many documents of the period and was still archdeacon while Hamo was dean according to the witness lists of two charters.10. On the other hand, Hamo as dean attests many documents, mostly undated.11. However, he does appear in two documents of 1217 and in a third in the time of Walter, archbishop of York and Richard, bishop of Durham.12.

The Magnum Registrum Album of York Cathedral, fol. 34^r, contains two charters, one of Archbishop Walter and the other of Dean Hamo and the Chapter of York, stating that the offices of treasurer and the archdeaconry of the East Riding of Yorkshire, which had been held by one person, were now to be separated. This confirms the statement of Master Henry (line 17) that no one after Hamo combined these offices.

Roger of Insula, who attested three charters as dean in 1220, probably succeeded Hamo in that office. The earliest of the charters was executed on 24 June, and the other two in September.13.

Dean Hamo thus fulfils the conditions mentioned in the poem. He had been canon, precentor, and treasurer. Since he is said by the poet to have been archdeacon and treasurer at the same time, he would probably not be given the lesser title of archdeacon in the documents. A successor appears in the deanship within a few months of the leap day of the leap year, 1220. That the poet was in northern England at Durham at some time in this general period is clear from No. 34. It thus appears that this curious poem concerns Dean Hamo of York and may have been read before the York chapter sometime after the dean’s death in 1220.

LIFE AND TRANSLATION OF ST THOMAS À BECKET

Written in an even and beautiful hand, the Life of St Thomas à Becket (followed by the Translation of St Thomas à Becket) occupies the first place and the position of honor in A. The choice was justified by the preëminence of that saint. The close relationship of the two poems, which might even be regarded as a single entity, indicates they were composed at the same time and probably for the occasion which is the subject of the Translation. The ceremony of translation took place on 7 July 1220.

The Life itself need not detain us long. It seems to be the versification of an older prose work, the earlier Quadrilogus. This collection of the biographies of the saint was compiled at Croyland Abbey in 1199, revised in 1213, and presented to Archbishop Stephen Langton by the abbot of Croyland, Henry Longchamp, in 1220.1. These poems may also have been presented to Langton by Master Henry, but for this there is no direct evidence. The poet had not as yet developed the habit of naming his patron in his prologue. The archbishop was the obvious patron for such a work.

A considerable number of accounts of the ceremony of translation in 1220 are extant, but for the most part they are short and lacking in much detail.2. That it was a magnificent occasion the almost unanimous use of superlatives indicates at once. From the chroniclers and other writers some conception of the event may be drawn. The translation was in the hands of Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, a very capable prelate. He had taken care of the matter from the initial act of securing the benediction of the pope to the conclusion of the ceremony, upon 7 July 1220. This date, as the
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 65 ]] 
chroniclers noted, was the anniversary of the death of the saint’s great antagonist, Henry II.

An early account gives the story of the interesting pretranslation ceremony.3. In the evening of 27 June a group of men gathered in the crypt of the cathedral of Canterbury. It included Archbishop Langton, Bishop Richard of Salisbury, and the prior and monks of Canterbury. After praying for a time they removed the cover from the sepulchre and gazed upon the remains of the saint. Some of the monks then removed the body from the marble coffin and placed it in a ‘capsa’ where Langton arranged it for entombment. Langton retained a few small bones to distribute to great men and churches for the honor of the saint. Then the coffin was nailed and placed in safekeeping until the day of the translation.

While this was taking place the pilgrims to the shrine were gathering from all sides. For such an occasion many indulgences had been announced. According to one chronicler:4.

The Lord Pope had granted an indulgence of forty days to all who on this day of the translation of the blessed Thomas the Martyr should come to Canterbury for reverence’s sake, or within fifteen days thereafter. Likewise the Legate granted forty days; each of the three archbishops granted forty days also and each of the bishops (17) granted twenty days. Counting up all of the days they were found to be 540.

At Canterbury a cordial reception was awaiting the pilgrims. The same chronicler adds:

However, concerning the liberality and sumptuous bounty with which the aforesaid Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, was eager to offer to all of those who were coming devoutly to the translation of the martyr both rich and poor, foreigners and citizens, it is superfluous to narrate in detail.

The chronicler of Waverley also comments upon the splendid arrangements made by the archbishop to care for the crowd.5. A third chronicler relates that Langton provided fodder and food for everyone in need of either all the way from London to
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 66 ]] 
Canterbury. On the date of the translation he provided wine in various parts of the city. The debt incurred for this occasion had hardly been paid off by the time of Archbishop Boniface, the fourth archbishop after Langton.6. Obviously this account had been written late enough for the glamor of the occasion to have given place to the hard facts of finance. But even then the chronicler knew of the lasting if probably exaggerated fame of the occasion when food and drink had been so plentiful.

The crowd which poured into Canterbury was innumerable, according to the testimony of several sources.7. The annalist of Waverley says that there had never been such a crowd in one place in England.8. If the tremendous numbers were impressive, so also were the numbers of great men who were present. King Henry III attended, as well as a large group of laymen. However, the chroniclers do not mention them by name. One does say the throng could hardly be held by Canterbury and the neighboring towns. The higher churchmen present can be identified somewhat more easily. The account in ‘Walter of Coventry’ (which was evidently written almost at the time, since it calls the king Henry IV) says that besides Pandulph, the papal legate, there were three archbishops there, of Reims, of Canterbury, and one from Hungary.9. Besides these there were seventeen bishops present and, of course, a vast throng of other churchmen.

The new shrine of Becket, behind the great altar, had been designed and made by two incomparable artists, Master Walter of Colchester, sacristan of St Albans, and Master Elias of Dereham, canon of Salisbury. The shrine and the other arrangements were ‘irreprehensibly prepared’ according to Matthew Paris.10. Of these two artists the first is not well known, but the latter in a long and rather amazing life was responsible for Salisbury Cathedral and probably many another architectural achievement of the time.11. Two representations
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 67 ]] 
of the shrine are extant, one in a thirteenth-century window on the north side of Trinity Chapel, and the other in a manuscript, which was partially destroyed by fire in 1731. These, in addition to the descriptions left by Erasmus and others, leave little doubt as to its appearance.12.

At the hour of Terce the bells pealed forth as the procession passed along the nave. It was headed by the young King Henry III, who, on account of his tender years, was not allowed to assist in carrying the feretory. Then followed Pandulf, the Legate, Archbishop Langton and the Primate of France; four of the highest nobles of the realm bore on their shoulders the reliquary containing the martyr’s bones, and on either side prelates carried tapers......During Mass the feretory rested beneath a canopy of cloth of gold, before an altar erected for the occasion in front of the choir screen, in sight of all the people; and it was afterwards deposited in the shrine prepared for it.13.

Behind the meager details preserved in the chronicles we can imagine the tremendous throng of pilgrims and the solemn ceremonies. In reading through the accounts it is obvious that the writers were impressed by different phases of the occasion. Even the one adverse criticism--too much expense--serves to heighten the picture of careful arrangement, of magnificence, and of splendor. Such an achievement was what might be expected of Archbishop Stephen Langton. He was doubtless proud of his translation of his predecessor. His discourse upon the occasion fortunately remains with us, but tells nothing of the details.14.

The poem of Master Henry, No. 2, adds another and apparently independent account of the ceremonies of translation. But the poet’s point of view is quite dissimilar from the others, emphasizing the social side very heavily. In fact, he is the only source for a knowledge of two banquets during the festivities; the second of these actually receives more attention than any other event. Only in the latter part of the poem, where the feast is described in fond detail, does Henry show his usual eloquence.

From two remarks in the poem it would seem that some time, probably a few weeks at least, had elapsed before Henry had composed his work. In the first he states that perhaps great men have already written of the event.15. Then he mentions the explanation which a divine vision had given to a pious countess for the secret raising of the body of St. Thomas from the old tomb.16. Neither remark seems to signify a long passage of time since the translation.

The ceremonies, according to Master Henry, began on the fourth day before the actual translation with a great banquet attended by 33000 persons. This is truly a mediaeval estimate, since they are all alleged to have been fed in one hall. This probably took place on Saturday, 4 July. Then on the evening of the next day took place the raising of the body of St Thomas from his tomb in the crypt and its placement in a secret and safe place until the actual translation. The date is considerably at variance with the other account, which gives 27 June as the day when this occurred. However, several factors make the account of Master Henry seem the more probable. 27 June is somewhat early for the event. The words, fifth Kalends of July, can be easily emended to the fifth of July.

On 7 July the great multitude assembled in and near the church. At daybreak many had congregated near the old tomb to see the removal of the remains of St Thomas from it and were very much disappointed.17. The poet’s account of the most important part of the ceremony is treated in relatively few lines. He does mention that the Archbishop of Reims officiated at the high altar, assisted by the other prelates present.

Although the poet gives the impression that all the visitors were well cared for, he actually focuses his attention upon two tables in the large hall. At one sat the king and his guests; at another the greater prelates according to rank. The description of the banquet thus is a description of the service and food given the highest ranks of guests. It can hardly be assumed that the other guests of lower classes were furnished the same fare. For, to say the least, the food was amazing. The menu below is arranged according to the order of serving suggested by the poet. It ran largely to meat, wine, and spices, with little to suggest attention to fruits,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 69 ]] 
nuts, or vegetables, but perhaps they were there also. Master Henry’s conclusion is quite suggestive; the banquet passed without any untoward incident due either to wine or the devil.

Venison, boiled, baked, fricassee with peppers, and in pie Bear and other wild flesh

LIFE OF ST HUGH OF LINCOLN

St Hugh of Avalon, Bishop of Lincoln (1186-1200), was an extremely popular and vigorous character. Following his death, evidences of his sanctity accumulated rapidly and with them a growing demand for his canonization. A preliminary hearing was granted in 1219 and the inquisition was made by Archbishop Langton and the Abbot of Fountains.1. The bull of canonization, dated 17 February at Viterbo, ordered that his feast be celebrated upon the day of his death.2. This was on 17 November.3. The story of the canonization of St. Hugh at Rome incorporated in ‘Walter of Coventry’ states that the account of St Hugh’s sanctity was so astonishing that ‘idem papa omnibus in curia Romana existentibus inhibuit, ne quis eorum pro hoc negotio exsequendo aliquod munusculum presumeret accipere.’4.

The authoritative biography of St Hugh was written by Adam of Eynsham about 1212.5. Master Henry used this prose work as the basis for his versification, but he carried the account on through the first celebration of the canonization in the autumn of 1220. Although he probably wrote to take advantage of the enthusiasm engendered by the event, he gives a very meager account of it. Almost no details are given by the many chroniclers who mention the event; one states that the archbishop, Stephen Langton, was present.6. Of course the Bishop of Lincoln, Hugh II, of Welles, was also present and in charge of the ceremonies. The poet compares the bishop
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 80 ]] 
with his predecessor, St Hugh,7. as he had done earlier with Langton and Becket.

Si quorum vero perfectio restat, Hugonis

perficietur opus primi sub Hugone secundo.

We suspect that the poet hoped for and possibly secured the Bishop of Lincoln for a patron of this work.

UPON THE ELECTION OF THE BISHOP OF LONDON, 1221

In the early months of 1221 there occurred a series of events in the bishopric of London which are the subjects of a trilogy of Master Henry’s verse. At the beginning of the year the bishop was William de Sainte-Mere-Eglise, then growing old and feeble. On 26 January in the presence of the papal legate and of other prelates he resigned his bishopric.1. Ample provision was made for his life, which lasted only two more years.2. Several candidates seem to have been nominated for William’s place. The subsequent election by the canons of St Paul’s was hotly contested and lasted several weeks. No. 8 was written before the choice was finally made. In it the poet eulogizes one as the outstanding candidate. He may well have been Eustace Falconberg, the ultimate choice of the canons, but the description is so vague that it may have been appropriate to almost any of them.

Eustace, a canon of St Paul’s, was a royal clerk and archdeacon, and an important character at the court of King John and of the young Henry III. He was one of the men to whom faithful service to the king brought ecclesiastical promotion.

There is no ambiguity about the patron of No. 38, in which Eustace is addressed in the first line. This piece was probably written soon after the election of 25 February.3.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 82 ]] 
The poet launches upon a fervent laudation of his patron, etymologizing a hybrid derivation of his name. The flattery is not very subtle. At the end the poet angles for patronage upon the curious ground that he is a reformed character, and so worthy of preferment.

The third poem, No. 47, written after the consecration of Eustace on the second Sunday after Easter, 26 April, at Westminster, throws some interesting light upon the feeling caused by the ceremony. The poet contrasts the loveliness of spring outside with the moroseness of the assembly in which his patron was consecrated. He justifies his mention of what was an unfortunate feature of the occasion by explaining that only the great arouse hostility.

A curious charter4. drawn up by the Bishop of Rochester explains the dispute which arose on the occasion of the consecration. The right to consecrate belonged to the senior bishop of the province of Canterbury, normally the Archbishop of Canterbury. After him ranked the Bishops of London and Winchester; but the former had resigned, and the latter was, like Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, away from England. The usual course would be for the first bishop in point of seniority to consecrate. Since the archbishop was away, the dean and chapter of St Paul’s had applied to the papal delegate Pandulf for permission to consecrate and it had been given. But when the group gathered in St. Katherine’s Chapel, Westminster, a dispute at once arose. The Bishop of Bath claimed the right to consecrate as the first in point of seniority of consecration. Then the Bishop of Salisbury claimed that as the Bishops of London and Winchester were regarded as dean and subdean, so he was regarded as a precentor in the province of Canterbury, and thus outranked the others. To complete the confusion the Bishop of Rochester insisted that he was really bishop-coadjutor, and thus entitled to act in place of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The dean and chapter of St Paul’s decided in favor of letting the Bishop of Rochester act, but without prejudicing the claims of the other two.5. The witness list of the charter gives us the names of the principal men. They were, besides the contending churchmen, the Bishops of Coventry, Chichester, Ely, and the former Bishop of London, the Archdeacons of Essex and Colchester, the Chancellor and Treasurer of London, and several of the bishops’
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 83 ]] 
clerks. The ‘et aliis’ at the end probably included our poet.

A number of ideas and expressions in these poems reappear in others. In No. 8 are ‘levis est descensus Averni,’6. ‘oneris-honoris,’7. and ‘clarum-clerum.’8. In both this poem and No. 38 occurs a series of metaphors in which the patron is contrasted with his rivals, a device which the poet liked well.9. Six lines in No. 47 are also in No. 9.10.

Explicit.

COURTIER POEMS IN AND ABOUT 1221-1222

Most of the patrons of letters at the English court were bishops. This group of poems written in and about 1221-1222 was addressed to five men, four of whom had attained to episcopal office by this time. The fifth, Robert Passelewe, although elected as the successor of Neville years later, saw his election quashed by bishops who proved him a not very learned clerk. Yet not erudition but association with the royal court was the distinguishing feature of the careers of these men. With them the poet was on various terms of intimacy and appealed to each in a different fashion. However, we find him using in No. 9 a block of six lines which he had previously employed in No. 47 and the curious phrase ‘inangulor apud Anglos’ turns up in both No. 9 and No. 34. Such repetition seems an indication of nearness in time of composition and thus helps in dating the poems. Aside from these repetitions the poems preserve individuality more than might have been expected.

The more formal pieces are the two written for Ralph Neville, No. 36 for Robert Passelewe, and the three lines to Pandulf. All play upon the name of the patron in a manner employed by contemporaries, who were constantly looking for signs and portents. No. 40 has an odd poetical device, repetition of the last sound in the line as the first in the next line.1. The two poems to Neville were written upon the occasion
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 89 ]] 
of his election as Bishop of Chichester on 1 November 1222. Neville was probably a member of one of the greater baronial families and had been a courtier and judge. He was to succeed Richard Marsh as chancellor of England and to remain popular with the mass of English people, well liked for both his episcopal and political activity.

Like Neville, Richard Marsh was among the churchmen who were rewarded for diligent service to King John by ecclesiastical promotion. He became Bishop of Durham in 1217, holding a majestic see which combined heavy episcopal responsibilities with the duties of a marcher lord in the county palatine of Durham. But Bishop Richard was apparently a better servant than master. He immediately fell into great difficulties with the dean and chapter at Durham and plunged the bishopric into heavy debt. The quarrel with his chapter at Durham took him to Rome in 1221.

In his poem to the bishop Master Henry recalls his services in the bishop’s behalf at Durham, where he says he spoke against the bishop’s enemies. The poem may have been written just before the bishop’s journey to Rome in 1221. As stated above, this piece has a phrase in common with No. 9, probably of the same year. The date of Master Henry’s speech at Durham is not known, but the poet was probably in the north of England at York soon after 25 February 1220.2. He may have been at that time in company with Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester, who is described in the poem as the judge in the case between Bishop Marsh and the Durham chapter.

The poet’s problem was as usual to make a successful appeal to his patron’s interests. The bishop was a master, like the poet. Upon occasion he could appeal to the classics: in a complaint to Ralph Neville that the latter had neglected to call him chancellor of England, a title of which he was proud, he misquoted Cicero.3. To a renowned scholar, Adam Marsh, probably a relative, he left his biblioteca, Bible or library.4. The poet did not appeal to his patron’s erudition as he had done in the case of Stephen Langton. Nor for obvious reasons did the poet celebrate the capacities for which the age thought Marsh most remarkable: his eating and drinking. A contemporary epitaph celebrated his mighty drinking, and he died after a heavy meal.5. If these achievements were hardly the proper ones to elaborate upon, at least they offered signs
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 90 ]] 
of hope to a hungry and thirsty seeker of patronage. After adopting the stern attitude of an impartial observer, scorning to flatter, the poet proceeds with encomiums upon the virtues of the bishop--wealth and generosity.

The last ten lines are in different meter from the rest and might have been a part of any begging poem. The poet may have used them before in similar circumstances.

To one accustomed to enjoy the largess of monasteries the great house of Christchurch, Canterbury would hardly be overlooked as a source of patronage. No. 9 is, in part, the story of an attempt to secure such patronage. The poet had spent a week writing a piece to present to the prior of Canterbury, choosing to glorify the patron saint of the house, St Thomas à Becket. The story has not a happy ending. The prior had refused to reward the poet for his ‘miracula scripta sancti Thome,’ and the latter in rage seems to have destroyed his week’s work. For consolation apparently he addressed this piece (No. 9) to Archbishop Stephen Langton, the patron of other poems (Nos. 44 and possibly 1 and 2). Master Henry is in a very gloomy mood, a wandering poet, an exile, in debt, and a fameless and unappreciated author. The rebuff at Canterbury made bad matters worse. He desires to return, not to Normandy as we might expect, but to Germany!

Conjecture upon the date of composition depends largely upon the references to Langton’s career. The poet stresses Langton’s journeys to Rome to protect the liberty of the Church and speaks of the ‘avarum regnum’ of the Apostolic See. Do these refer to Langton’s trip of 1217-18 or of 1220-21? On first thought the former seems preferable; upon that occasion the archbishop had fought for the sake of English liberty against King John’s views and had even incurred the displeasure of the pope. Yet the poet himself was probably quite in harmony with that king, who had been his patron, and in 1218 Langton had returned from Italy with papal blessing and permission to translate St Thomas à Becket, neither of which is mentioned in the poem. In 1220-21 Langton had secured from Pope Honorius III the privilege of not having a papal legate in England. This may have been the achievement to which the poet refers. The ‘miracula scripta sancti Thome’ mentioned in the poem offer little help in dating the poem.6.

The career of Passelewe was that of a royal clerk, a follower first of the notorious Falkes de Breauté and later of Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester.7. His connection with these men was never forgotten, and the chroniclers, who were mostly hostile to them, had few good words for him. In his funeral eulogy Master Henry stated that he had sung of Passelewe many times.8. Of these pieces No. 36 with its etymologizing is hard to date. It appears in manuscript among early poems of Master Henry; upon such evidence it is included here rather than later. The other poem for Passelewe, No. 77, presents an interesting problem. The expression ‘ascending the height of honor and burden,’ a phrase used elsewhere to designate becoming a bishop, might seem to refer to the election of Passelewe as Bishop of Chichester in 1244.9. The acts of examination by the bishops, of their quashing of his election, and of later acquiescence by the king, may be considered as evidence of ingratitude, but the other items do not tally with the known facts of Passelewe’s life.

Passelewe is not known to have made any successful trip to the Papal Curia at any date which might be referred to in such a manner by the poet in 1244. Moreover, if this poem were written then it is later than any of the other poems in MS A, most of which were written in England before 1230. It seems likely that this poem refers to earlier events in the life of Passelewe. A papal mandate of 15 May 1219 to Pandulf states that Passelewe had boldly opposed the king’s enemies.10. Speaking in 1225 of earlier events, the author of the collection incorporated in the Memoriale Fratris Walteri de Coventria tells that Robert Passelewe and Robert de Cantia, sent by the Earl of Chester and others to the Papal Curia, had been severely questioned before leaving and forced to swear that they would do the kingdom no harm. Upon returning they were charged with treason and forced into exile.11. At the instance of the earl and of Archbishop Langton, Robert was allowed to return to England, but remained under royal displeasure until 1227. It seems probable that this poem was written upon the return of Passelewe from his successful trip to Rome
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 92 ]] 
at the time that he was being charged with treason, sometime between 1219 and 1225.12.

SOME MONASTIC PATRONS

To a seeker of largess such as our wandering poet the wealthy monasteries of England had a natural attraction. For the three houses of Ramsey, St Albans, and St Edmundsbury the evidence of a desire for patronage or the receipt of it is not so clear as it is with Croyland and Peterborough. For Ramsey there is a line upon the seal of the abbey and a suggestion in an ancient library catalogue that the monastery once possessed some of the poet’s works.1. Ramsey, however, was hardly in the same class as an intellectual center with the other two, and it is not surprising to find such little evidence of patronage.

Bury St Edmunds probably was the greatest monastic center of learning at the time, although some might feel that St Albans, with its chroniclers Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris, had that distinction. Against these St Edmundsbury could oppose the amazingly intimate chronicler, Joscelin of Brakelonde, and the more formal John of Taxster and John of Everisden. There also an astronomer and translator from the Arabic, Roger Infans of Hereford, compiled his Expositiones Vocabulorum que sunt in Biblia.2. Vernacular writers such as Simon of Walsingham, Everard of Gately, and Denis Piramus wrote there. Add to this array of writers the house’s magnificent library, and the splendid position of the monastery in the field of letters is clear. In spite of the fact that the poems about St Edmund name no patron, the monastery dedicated to this saint was the obvious patron. The date of composition of No. 24 is conjectured to be 1220-27 upon the position of the
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 99 ]] 
last lines among the poems with similar conclusions.3.

For our poet, St Albans seems to have been a hospitable place. To this house he addressed several lines, No. 92. The eminent chronicler, Matthew Paris, possessed the largest collection of his poems, A, and quoted occasionally from his verse. Indeed No. 94 itself was kept in one of the chronicler’s volumes, his Liber Additamentorum. If Master Henry had been a member of the fraternity of St Albans at St Pantaleons of Cologne there would be greater reason for the monastery to cherish the poet.4. Doubtless there were other connections between the poet and St Albans which we are unable to trace now. It seems strange, for instance, that there is no long poem known to have been written for this monastery, when several exist for other houses. The poem itself is rather disappointing. The etymologizing proceeds as in many another of the author’s pieces. Again he shows a knowledge of English, analyzing ‘Willermus’ into ‘will’ and ‘arms.’

ON GENERATION AND CORRUPTION

The Latin translation of Aristotle’s treatise on generation and corruption came into circulation in western Europe at the end of the twelfth century along with translations of other Aristotelian and Arabic works dealing with natural science. Master Henry shows some interest in this general field. He mentions John Blund’s enthusiasm for the new Arabic knowledge,1. and the death of Michael Scot, astrologer and Arabic translator. If the poet was Henry of Cologne, he copied Michael Scot’s translation of a work on natural science in 1232.2. No. 35 is the strongest evidence of Master Henry’s interest in natural science. Against these indications of his interest is the denial by Michael of Cornwall that Henry was learned in ‘naturalia.’3.

The theme of No. 35 is obviously suitable only for a university audience. The prologue corroborates this assumption, but fails to name the institution. Paris is excluded, since that university is said to be stupefied at the brilliance of the group which the poet is addressing. Henry’s life suggests two places, Angers and Oxford. In one poem Henry speaks of intending to teach at Angers, and Michael says that Henry tried to teach at Oxford. If the poem was written for Angers it must be placed within the years 1229-34 when a temporary migration from Paris made Angers a distinguished center of learning.4. The structure of No. 35, however, suggests a date somewhat earlier than 1229. The well-developed prologue makes the poem seem as late as Nos. 1 and 95 of 1220, while the failure to be more explicit about the patrons would place it earlier than Nos. 19, 23 or 48. In this period the poet was apparently in England; in this country Oxford would be the only place at all comparable to Paris. This method of
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 102 ]] 
dating is very tentative, since the long poems written after 1232 by Master Henry were either few or mostly lost.

Henry’s poem was written in competition with an unnamed adversary. It must have been a curious kind of contest.

LIFE OF ST GUTHLAC

For Abbot Henry Longchamp of Croyland, Master Henry wrote a longer saint’s life than for any other English patron. At the end of the piece in A the number of verses is said to be MDCLXVI, but the meaning of this curious number is not given. The monastery of Croyland was a wealthy house and one which seems to have been the center of considerable intellectual activity, especially in the time of Abbot Henry. Since much of the verse and prose composed there is dedicated to him, while little was produced at Croyland at other times, it seems fair to consider the abbot its source and inspiration. Two studies of this center have already been made, both of which are in need of some correction.1. The story of Croyland throws some light upon the motives of monastic patronage and presents more than its share of interesting critical problems.

At Croyland there were both local and cosmopolitan writers. Of the two the problems of the first are still somewhat uncertain and will be taken up first. The literary interests of both were largely hagiographical. This is apparently due to the abbot, whose devotion is attested by his translation of local saints: St Guthlac in 1195, St Neot in 1213, and St Waltheof in 1219.2. To Archbishop Langton in 1220 the abbot sent a compilation of the lives of Becket, now usually called the first Quadrilogus, probably as an earnest of his regret that he could not attend the translation exercises of Becket in that year3..

The Quadrilogus preserves two prologues, both dedicated to the abbot and both by monks of Croyland. In 1199 Elias of Evesham completed a compilation of the four biographies of Becket written by John of Salisbury, Alan of Tewkesbury, William Fitzstephen, and Herbert Bosham. This compilation was revised by Roger of Croyland in 1213.4. The work was used by Master Henry apparently for the versification of the Life of St Thomas, written in 1220 (No. 1). The poet may thus have been in touch with the abbey by that time. In Leland’s Itinerary, among several pieces about St Waltheof, appears an epitaph about the same saint, which was written by another poet, a certain William. This William,5. otherwise unknown, seems to have been the starting point for Leland’s conjectures which produced a supposititious character, ‘William of Ramsey.’6. How much of the literature about Waltheof (or about St Neot) was produced at this time or by these monks is uncertain.7.

Another instance of local writing seems to appear in the alleged letter of the abbot to Peter of Blois.8. This raises the question of these letters, which have been unreservedly condemned by Liebermann as forgeries.9. However, Liebermann’s view was influenced by the fact that he accepted the attribution of the metrical Life of St Guthlac to ‘William of Ramsey,’ and knew that the continuation of the pseudo-Ingulph chronicle was not by Peter of Blois. He rejected the plain statement of a Peterborough chronicler that for Abbot Henry Longchamp both Peter and Henry had written biographies of St Guthlac.10. As we have seen, the evidence that Master Henry wrote No. 19 is very strong.11. That Peter of Blois wrote such a life is also probable. Bale saw it in manuscript (possibly that copy now in the library of Trinity College, Dublin) with a dedication by Peter of Blois to the abbot.12.

The exchange of letters between the abbot and Peter of Blois prefixed to the forged chronicle is left in a peculiar position. Both letters refer to the authentic Life of St Guthlac and to the forged chronicle. It will be readily granted that the parts of the letters in which Peter is requested to continue a fourteenth-century forgery are also forgeries. In both letters they form the latter part. The question is in regard to the first parts in which the abbot invites the writer to compose a Life of St Guthlac, and Peter accepts the invitation. In the first parts nothing but a biography is assumed; all the classical references are to biographers. This is in itself rather strange, if a chronicle had actually been the subject of correspondence. Then in Peter’s answer there is a definite break between the two parts; the continuation has a transition based clearly upon the mistaken presumption that a history had already been mentioned. The authenticity of the first paragraphs of both letters may be considered a separate problem from that of the latter parts.

Within the first parts of the two letters the evidence of authenticity is satisfactory. The milieu, Croyland as a literary center and the abbot as a patron, seems accurate, as we have seen. The one statement which Liebermann thought an anachronism is one of the best bits of evidence for its authenticity. The abbot calls Peter vice-chancellor and protonotary, a very peculiar combination.13. Professor Tout has shown that these two offices were separated by the reign of John.14. An easy conjecture is that Peter himself brought that curious title, protonotary, from Sicily to designate himself as chief clerk of his friend, William Longchamp, a brother of Abbot Henry Longchamp. The time of the correspondence was probably before January 1196, the date of William Longchamp’s death, when Peter probably lost his position. Another letter from Peter to the abbot remains in the collections of the former’s letters; a reference in it would seem to show that it had been written about 1198, as the archdeacon was preparing, somewhat fearfully it seems, to cross the channel with Archbishop Hubert Walter.15.

In the letter to Peter the abbot gives as the reason for asking him to write the Life of St Guthlac that it
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 108 ]] 
was the custom for great writers to give attention to the biographies of great men. Peter is included among the great authors, with men such as Suetonius, Valerius Maximus, Cicero, Sallust, Homer, Vergil, St Gregory, Sulpicius Severus, St Jerome, and St Bernard. Abbot Henry therefore paid Peter of Blois a high tribute by inviting him to write a biography of the patron saint of his house. We can assume also that it was a tribute to the reputation of Master Henry of Avranches that the abbot requested him to versify the biography of the same saint.

THE TRANSLATION OF SALISBURY CATHEDRAL

Of the ancient and beautiful churches of England the cathedral of Salisbury is one of the most outstanding. About the great bishop who was responsible for its construction and the architect who built it, there is fortunately much information.1. Bishop Richard Poore (1217-1228) was a very able prelate and a very religious man, the best type of churchman. He was a constant attendant at the court, as is shown by the witness lists of the charters of Henry III from 1226 to 1234. His architect, Elias of Dereham, had a many-sided personality with interests of a very wide nature. This poem by Henry of Avranches enlarges upon the reasons why the church was translated from the height of Old Sarum to the new site of Salisbury. The building was not finished, and its completion must have been a long way off, since he says, ‘Happy the man who will live to see the cathedral completed.’2. The building was well started, however. The old structure had already fallen in.3.

It would be interesting to know upon what occasion this poem was recited. The pope had given permission to build the cathedral in 1219, and work had been begun in the following year.4. The cornerstones were laid on 28 April. The first convocation in the new cathedral was held on 28 September 1225. A great multitude of people was present; it included a papal legate, the Archbishops of Canterbury and Dublin and a great number of magnates.5. Three altars were dedicated. Was
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 110 ]] 
this the occasion for which the poem was written? There is little in the poem to suggest any particular occasion. Two hints exist. Services were evidently being held in the new building, since the fall of the old hall is mentioned. Moreover, the name of Bishop Richard is given but not the name of his successor.6. The date and even the occasion must remain uncertain for the present.

The purposes of the translation are clearly stated by the poet. Old Sarum had been a fort, possibly from a very ancient time.7. In 1075 the bishopric had been established there within the fort. From the first there seem to have been difficulties because of the overlapping of jurisdiction. On top of the hill was only the great castle and its fortifications. In the contemporary description of the situation much is made of the miserable conditions within the fort:8. the soldiers abused the hospitality of the cathedral and its chapter. Just as intolerable were the climatic conditions in Old Sarum. The hill was, according to the poet, bleak, windy, without water, difficult of ascent, and because of its chalkiness blinding to the eyes. To be contrasted with these hostile conditions were the very pleasant surroundings of the new site. Well wooded, well watered, and beautiful, the chosen situation was all that nature could give. The poet’s encomiums upon the beauties of nature and of freedom are perhaps more the product of his life as a wandering poet than of his education. They may, of course, reflect the interests of his patron rather than his own feelings.

LIFE OF ST OSWALD

The introduction of the Life of St Oswald allows us a partial view of the recitation of the poem. The poet addresses not only the abbot but also the other higher officers in person and the convent as a group. He praises the sacristan for the care with which that official had bound his poems. He includes that touch of personality which is lacking in his other works written for monastic audiences. Such bits are very valuable; they give detail to our general knowledge that the patronage of monasteries was important for thirteenth-century literature.1.

The picture is one which Father Grosjean has already used effectively.2. Probably the entire monastery is before the poet, possibly upon the saint’s day, 5 August. The poet addresses the head of the monastery first. Abbot Martin is, according to the poet, the flower of the clergy and the first of the abbots; compared with the other abbots he is a sun among the stars, a flower in the grass, a Phoenix among the birds, laurel in bramble, wine alongside beer, and topaz in sand. He repeats these flattering comparisons: let none miss them! Then addressing himself to Roger the Prior and Simon the Sacristan he puns upon the former’s name, ‘rosam geris,’ and upon the latter’s title, ‘sacris instans.’ Next he speaks of Walter, who is to Simon as Solomon to David, Elisha to Elijah, or Joshua to Moses. Evidently Simon had recently been promoted to be sacristan from another office to which Walter was then elected. Following three higher officers of the monastery, Walter would probably be a fourth, almoner or cellarer, both of great significance to a poet for their control of gifts. Finally the poet appeals to the whole monastic group and ends by asking them not to be restrained in their applause.

Of Simon the Sacristan we have already spoken in the introduction: the praise bestowed upon him was not unmerited. The early catalogue of the Peterborough library shows that that house had a considerable collection of the poet’s works.3. Of these a majority has survived. They included the Life of St Hugh, No. 95, and the Certamen inter regem I et barones in one volume; both were written before 1227. Tropi de B. Virgine appear in two manuscripts; they might be No. 102 or other pieces and, of course, the time of composition is hard to discover. Then there is the ‘altercatio’ between Henry and Michael, which has not survived, but was written long after 1227. Simon can hardly be blamed for the terrible form, ‘Hamrincham,’ attached to the author’s name of this poem, and of the verses on canon law. Another volume contained the ‘Versus magistri Henrici de vita S. Oswaldi et aliorum,’ No. 48, and others. Among the ‘others’ was probably the Life of St Guthlac, No. 19, which a later Peterborough chronicler attributes to ‘Master Henry.’ Altogether the monastery possessed a considerable collection of the poet’s works.

The names of the several officers of Peterborough enable one to fix the date of composition with some accuracy. Abbot Martin was elected at the end of 1226 (in the Octave of St Anthony) and died on 25 June 1233.4. Simon the Sacristan was succeeded by a certain William in 1229,5. which brings the date of composition within the years 1227-1229. The promotions of Simon to the sacristy and of Walter to the vacated office, if the poem really hints at such, may well have followed the election of Abbot Walter in 1227. The evidence of the similar conclusions, which would show that this poem was completed before No. 23, also points to the year 1227.6.

As in the preface to other long hagiographies, Master Henry likens his hero, Oswald, to ancient heroes, Hercules, Alexander, and Caesar. Rather a pagan group for a mediaeval saint to be compared with in the presence of a monastic audience! The deeds of these heroes were celebrated by great poets, Homer, Lucan, and Walter of Chatillon. Master
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 119 ]] 
Henry modestly calls himself a dwarf in comparison with these giants. The juxtaposition of the three is rather striking, although it seems more natural if we remember that there were not many more centuries between Walter and Lucan than between the latter and Homer. Obviously the classical world lived for Master Henry and probably for the Abbey of Peterborough. If, he asserts, the ancient bards excelled him, the ancient philosophers also excelled the contemporary philosophers. In fact, one of the cleverest phases of the poem is the way in which he begins. Like a famous classical writer he is retelling old tales and versifying older prose; so his initial lines commence as do the Metamorphoses of Ovid.

POEMS FOR PETER DES ROCHES, BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

In the life of Master Henry of Avranches, Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester, seems to have been a very important factor. As regent for the young Henry III he was in possession of tremendous resources for patronage. How closely he was associated with the bishop is not entirely clear. In his poetry he mentions the patron several times. At one time he defended the Bishop of Durham, Richard Marsh, in the bishop’s presence.1. In 1232 he is found defending des Roches’ candidate for Archbishop of Canterbury. About the same time, in a poem to the emperor, Frederick II, he recalls a statement of the Bishop of Winchester, lauding the emperor. Bishop Peter fell from power in 1227 and left England on a crusade. The poet also seems to have left England about this time, not to return for many years. Thus it is possible to believe that the poet shared very largely in the fortunes of the bishop, even though an examination of the printed charters of the bishop reveals no Master Henry in his household.

2.These two poems are the best bits of direct evidence of patronage on the part of the bishop. The Life of St Birin, if we may believe the evidence of the similar conclusions, was the last of the long saints’ lives written for English patrons which are now extant.3. The choice of St Birin as the subject rather than the saints Swithun, Adelwold, and Martin, all mentioned by the poet, may have been caused by the agitation over his place of burial at the time. Both Dorchester and Winchester claimed his remains, and the question was carried to Pope Honorius III, who decided in favor of Winchester in 1224-1225. The poem was probably written after this affair, since the concluding lines of the poem give Winchester as the burial place. If the poem was written after No. 48,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 124 ]] 
which at its earliest must have been written in 1227, No. 23 must have been composed in the first seven months of that year. For Bishop Peter had left on his crusade by the tenth of August.4. A few lines on beer from this poem have had a long and curious history. They appeared separately in another MS from the long poem but with the correct ascription of authorship.5.

No. 155 was written after No. 23, which it mentions. Evidently the bishop had not given the poet his reward for the writing of No. 23; Henry hints that he would appreciate receiving it. Among the compliments heaped upon the bishop is an unusual one: the walls of Jerusalem are said to rejoice in anticipation of Peter’s arrival. The poem then was written in the spring or early summer of 1227, before his departure on crusade.6.

TO GREGORY IX IN FAVOR OF JOHN BLUND, ARCHBISHOP-ELECT OF CANTERBURY

In this long poem Master Henry supports before Pope Gregory IX the attempt of John Blund to secure papal confirmation of his election as Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1232. Since only Christian names are given, identification is necessary, but fortunately a few references make the situation clear. Addressed to a pope (L. 1) the poet pleads for a candidate named John (L. 5). Mention of the prior of Dover (L. 65) fixes the see as that of Canterbury. The previous incumbent was named Richard (L. 4); he must be the Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury, who died in 1229. John Blund was elected on 26 August 12321. and received royal permission to go to Rome three days later.2. The recitation probably occurred within the next few weeks. The poem gives information upon the question at issue and upon the rather brilliant career of Master John.

The election of the Archbishop of Canterbury had fallen afoul of politics in England. The struggle for political domination was between the adherents of Peter des Roches and Hubert de Burgh. Peter had lost out in 1227 and had chosen the occasion for a crusade to Palestine. Upon his return in 1231 he had regained his influence over the king. The struggle centered upon the appointment of the household officers and has recently been described by the late Professor Tout.3. Des Roches seems to have supported or perhaps even sponsored the candidacy of John Blund for the archbishopric. It was feared by many that the confirmation of Blund would place the Church in England as well as the state under Peter’s control.4. The opposition at Rome was led by Simon Langton, whose
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 128 ]] 
career was marked by violent controversies. He was, at this time, Archdeacon of Canterbury. The poet, who had enjoyed the patronage of Bishop Peter des Roches, is found upon the side of his patron’s candidate, as is to be expected.

The charges laid against John Blund were two: first, that the election itself was irregular (Ll. 65-72). The opposition said that the prior of Dover had not been present. There had been a controversy over this matter and it was not yet settled, but the absence of the prior had never been allowed to invalidate previous elections.5. In this case, moreover, the poet says that Blund had a letter of approval of his election from the prior and convent of Dover. The second charge was that John Blund had held two benefices with cure of souls after the Lateran Council of 1215 (Ll. 118-122), a charge that the poet does not deny. He asserts that the invalidation of Blund’s election would not be the proper penalty in any case (Ll. 133-147). For such an offense he should have lost his right to the first church as soon as the second was secured. But (Ll. 145-151) this was not necessary, since John had papal permission to hold two churches, permission secured while he was a professor at Oxford.

The only plausible objection left was that the character of John Blund was unworthy of the great honor of the archbishopric. The poet then lauds Blund’s fine character, thorough training, and high reputation (Ll. 77 ff.). The archbishop-elect had devoted attention to the works of Aristotle when they first appeared in western Europe (Ll. 77-84), being among the first to read them both at Oxford and at Paris. Then he turned to theology and became master of it after twelve years (Ll. 85-86). Although his opponents alleged that he had committed unworthy acts at Oxford, every element there testified to his honorable life (Ll. 87-94).

Some of the references to contemporary conditions are rather interesting. The passage illustrating the cosmopolitanism of the University of Paris is striking (Ll. 95-105). The mention of ‘nations’ there is one of the earliest known.6. The poet makes one particularly adroit move against the opponents of Blund. He refers first to the old custom of the Roman populace of sacking the apartments of deceased popes
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 129 ]] 
and cardinals,7. a custom which must have been thoroughly distasteful to the pope. Then he compares it to the recent antiforeign outbreak in England, where, after the death of the late archbishop, the lands of various foreign holders of benefices were pillaged.8. This outburst in England was thought to have been instigated by Hubert de Burgh, the chief enemy of Peter des Roches in English politics.9. The inference is that those who were opposing Blund were also implicated in this anti-foreign movement.

This poem was one of a rather large number composed by Master Henry for various patrons at the Papal Curia, most of whom were involved in legal difficulties. They show a certain amount of interest in canon law on the part of the poet. Indeed, a fuller interest is indicated by his versification of considerable portions of it.10. The poem also illustrates well the international character of mediaeval civilization. A poet bearing a French surname, but probably born and reared in Germany, pleads in Latin at the Papal Curia in behalf of an Englishman who was a famous professor at Paris and Oxford, probably at the instigation of a Poitevin who was Bishop of Winchester.

LITERARY PATRONAGE OF HENRY III

King Henry III, who reigned in England for over half a century (1216-1272), is known to have had superior artistic taste.1. His court is also said to have been a literary center, but of this little evidence has been offered.2. The king was interested in the chronicles of Matthew Paris and honored him upon several occasions, but he can hardly be regarded as Paris’ patron.3. This writer’s volume, our manuscript A, contains items in its ancient index which seem to suggest that two poets, Michael of Cornwall and Paulin Piper, may have been in the royal literary circle which is already known to have included John of Hoveden and Henry of Avranches.

One of these items is ‘De crure I. Mansel Curando Mich’.’ Of this phrase the meaning of all but the ‘Mich’’ is clear: it refers to a poem purporting to be versification of a speech by King Henry III to two physicians attending the broken leg of John Mansel.4. ‘Mich’’ is probably the abbreviation for Michael. The only poet of this time whose name was Michael was Henry’s enemy, Michael of Cornwall. The poem resembles the verse of that poet, which is rather crude, more than the more polished verse of Master Henry; there are also two quite distinctive phrases in common.5. The date of the poem, 1243, is many years later than any other
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 138 ]] 
piece in A. Taken together, the evidence points to the authorship of Michael of Cornwall rather than that of Master Henry. It would show that Michael was at court at the time of writing.

Mansel possessed great wealth and was even reputed by contemporaries the richest clerk in England, with the magnificent income of four thousand marks a year.6. Much of his wealth he owed to the king, with whom he was a great favorite. About Mansel’s intellectual interests little is known: he seems to have brought a book with him from Spain to England.7. He was apparently not a master, but he had a nephew of the same name who bore the title, and who was probably the D.D. of Paris lauded by John of Garland as a patron.8.

In the poem neither the time nor the place of the accident to Mansel is given. Fortunately we know from Matthew Paris that such an incident took place during the siege of Verines in the summer of 1243 in the course of Henry III’s campaign against Louis IX.9. The king is lecturing two surgeons, Cincius Romanus and Roger, upon their fate if they should fail to cure the patient.10. Cincius was probably a canon of St. Paul’s, and was among the Italians caught in the anti-foreign outbreak in England about 1231.11. Roger has not been identified. Although the records do not reveal the outcome of the efforts of these surgeons, they do show that large credit was given to another surgeon, Peter de Montibus, for Mansel’s recovery.12.

The other item in the index of A reads ‘Quedam rithmice composita de Sancto Georgio per Paulinum Piper,’ verse which has not yet been discovered. Paulin is described
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 139 ]] 
by Matthew Paris as a ‘miles literatus sive clericus militaris’ who died on 5 June 1251 after a rather interesting career at the royal court, where he rose from poverty to wealth through the favor of the king, who made him a steward and special counselor.13. A glance through the indexes of the printed collections of rolls confirms the statement about the king’s interest in Piper and enables us to place the first appearance of Piper at court probably in the summer of 1238.14. If this item in the index of A indicates Piper as a poet, he was evidently one of the few non-ecclesiastical writers of the thirteenth century; unlike most of them he was married and a crusader.15. The choice of a subject is also of interest. Since Henry III paid Henry of Avranches for a Life of this same St. George, it would seem this saint was a favorite of the king.

John of Hoveden is known to have written a pious poem entitled Philomena for Queen Eleanor, wife of Henry III.16. In the manuscripts of this poem and in royal documents he is called her clerk. At his instance in 1268 and again the following year several men received pardons from the king.17. On 3 September 1275 he was granted a prebend in the church of Bruges.18. He is called master so seldom that it seems probable the contemporary astrologer, Master John of Hoveden, is another person.19. The poet had a weakness for numbers and fancy names in his titles: Philomena, Cythara, Viola, Quindecim Gaudia Virginis, Quinquaginta Salutationes beate Virginis.

In a fourteenth-century manuscript containing among other odds and ends a fragment of Michael’s poem against
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 140 ]] 
Master Henry, and a poem by ‘Magister Henricus versificator magnus’ (probably Henry of Avranches), there is a group of proverbs which begins ‘Incipit inventum quod habet proverbia centum.’20. We should expect the king to be Henry III and the author to have been one of the poets at his court. Several of these might seem to have some claim as the author of the poems. In the manuscript mentioned above the Inventum followed the fragment of Michael’s poem; Henry of Avranches is known to have been well patronized by the king; the use of an unusual name and number suggests John of Hoveden. Actually the poem was written by a certain Wipo two centuries earlier for a future emperor of the Holy Roman Empire while he was still king. It has been published several times.21. This illustrates the hazards of assigning authorship by circumstantial evidence.

In contrast to these meager items about the relationship to the court of Michael of Cornwall, Paulin Piper, and John of Hoveden are the very full Exchequer records showing the extensive rewards which Henry of Avranches received.22. He was granted twenty shillings a month from 20 October 1243 to 5 April 1244. On 7 March 1245 he was given ten marks for the Lives of St. Edward and St. George. For some years after this his name disappears from the rolls, to reappear in the summer of 1251. He had permission to collect the arrears of his salary, one hundred shillings. Since he is not known to have had a salary since 1243-44 the arrears may go back to that time. He was paid another hundred shillings the following year and probably received two gifts of ten pounds each. In 1256 he received odd gifts of sixty, twenty-five, and eleven shillings. For these irregular gifts the king substituted in 1255 and 1256 two pensions of three pence a day. The Tellers’ Rolls show that the poet often collected his pension in small sums possibly at such short intervals as four and six days. He collected in full until Easter 1260. There are no payments in money after this, though rewards of other sorts continue until June 1262. Probably the triumph of the barons
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 141 ]] 
in 1260 was responsible for the cessation of Exchequer payments. They reduced the revenues of aliens in England in all directions; our Henry probably suffered along with the rest.

In the summer of 1251 the first evidence of royal wine grants is recorded; by a letter close of 2 August Henry was given two jars of wine (‘vini meri et optimi’) and on the thirtieth of the same month he received another of wine described as ‘peroptimum.’ On 5 March 1255 and on 23 June 1256 he received other gifts of wine, always of the best.23. In 1257 by a letter patent he was to receive yearly for life a tun of vintage and a tun of rack, ‘que rex concessit per annum ad sustentationem suam.’24. Apparently he might get them when he wished, since the writs show no regularity in time of collection.25. He received also special grants of good wine on 23 May 1259 and of the king’s best on 25 July 1261.26.

Another form of gift was that of robes, which Michael of Cornwall said his opponent received from the queen,27. and which the close rolls show were granted to him on 20 May 1260, 13 October 1260, 14 December 1260, 5 January 1262, and 8 June 1262.28. The final item is the last reference to him in the records, showing him still alive in the summer of 1262.

Master Henry was evidently a well-paid courtier of the king. He was rewarded specifically for the versification of the lives of two royal saints. What else, if anything, did he do to earn these rewards? Probably he wrote other verse which has not survived. Of one such piece we know only the theme (No. 166), but the king thought so highly of it that he caused it to be borne by the monks of Westminster in a ceremony in honor of St. Thomas the Apostle.29. Some poems to the courtiers also remain. All in all, there is enough to discount the disparaging statements of Michael that Henry was merely a ‘histrio regis’ who never read divine stories and
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 142 ]] 
kept his readings in the court upon a very low plane.30.

But if we are not to accept Michael’s low estimate of Master Henry, are we to rank him as an unofficial poet laureate? Like most of them Henry had his enemies; like them he also received pensions and wine grants, but these might have been the lot of any favored courtier. That he was ever crowned with the laurel is improbable, although it was occasionally done in that century. In the records he is designated as ‘versificator’ or ‘versifier,’ but not even as ‘versificator regis.’ And Michael’s designation of him as ‘archipoeta,’ upon which fond hopes have been raised, apparently has another meaning.31. If by poet laureate is meant the poet consistently honored and rewarded beyond other poets by the king, probably our poet may be considered at least a precursor of the poets laureate of later English history.

Our knowledge of the patronage of King Henry is still very meager. We know of nothing dedicated specifically to him, and there may have been none. The writers whom we have identified as having some connection with the court were all poets and much of their writing was devotional or hagiographical. This is quite in keeping with the interests of king and queen. The poetry of John and Henry is fair poetry, that of Michael, poor. Probably many of the anonymous epigrams which appear in contemporary chronicles came from these and other poets of the court circle, but this is largely conjecture. To say the least, the study of the intellectual interests of Henry III and his court is an elusive one.

COURTIER POEMS AFTER 1243

Of the poetical activity of Master Henry of Avranches during the years after he rejoined Henry III about 1243 little has survived except a series of courtier poems. In content and expression these do not differ greatly from his earlier ones. He still cannot resist the temptation to beg, although his income from the king alone was not a small sum. As before, he resorts frequently to etymologizing; for the names Fulk Basset and Robert Passelewe he uses French as well as Latin.1. His patrons are still bishops.

Fulk Basset, Bishop of London, was held in high esteem by another poet, John of Garland, and was possibly his patron.2. The circumstances of composition of the piece to Basset cannot be determined from the poem. No. 154, to William of York, Bishop of Salisbury, tells us that the patron was entertaining the king and his friends in a castle. Evidently this was not the first of such hospitable occasions, since the poet mentions entertainment of the king as a frequent occupation of the bishop (L. 23). Probably the poet was in the royal party at the time. The wandering poet’s ideal of plenty of food and wine is clearly the basis for the assertion that the patron was ‘ab omni parte beatus’; they were still as attractive to him as they were in the days of the translation of St Thomas à Becket. A somewhat sadder strain appears in the other poems; the events mentioned in them enable us to fix the dates of composition with some accuracy. For the rest the time of
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 144 ]] 
the episcopate of the patron is the only chronological indication.

The Bishop of Winchester, William of Raleigh, had such difficulty with the king that he went into exile and did not return until 5 April 1244.3. The poem was written after that day, since the opening lines refer to the dispute. It was probably composed before the poet’s apparent absence from England about 1244 or 1245 to 1250.4. The bishop’s benediction solicited by the poet upon his departure may have been for a journey either from England or merely from the bishop’s presence.

The death of Robert Passelewe on 6 June 1252 at Waltham removed from the court of Henry III not only a royal favorite and judge but a friend of the poet. One poem and probably both were written upon the day of the death or funeral of Passelewe.5. For the last time the poet played upon name of a friend for whom, he says, he had sung many times. Passelewe had been a friend of probably thirty years’ standing; his passing must have awakened sad thoughts in the mind of the poet. The figure of a ‘harbor of safety’ was written with some feeling by Master Henry. He too was old and had spent his life traveling about the earth; probably by this time he was ready to make England his harbor for the remainder of his life. He wrote of Robert that he had been the strength of judgment, of law, and of warfare, and had become through his death the incense of sacrifice, of grace, and of holiness.

CONTROVERSY WITH MICHAEL OF CORNWALL

The ancient catalogue of Peterborough Abbey contained the title of an ‘altercatio’ between Master Henry and Master Michael which has probably not survived.1. At first thought this might seem to refer to a very long poem or series of poems, Michael’s side of the controversy, which is extant.2. This assumes that the cataloguer had the title wrong. But since in another place he has given the title of the extant work correctly, this assumption does not seem probable.3. It is no matter for surprise that Peterborough, which had a good collection of Master Henry’s work, should have possessed this poem. Nor should we be surprised that he participated in a controversy on such a distinctly low plane. Some of his other poems abound in vituperation.4.

Very probably Master Henry’s share in the controversy would have revealed much about the life of Michael of Cornwall. The loss is the greater, since so little of this poet’s life is known. He has been called Michael Blaunpayn, but the evidence for it is not very impressive.5. There is a possibility that ‘blaunpayn’ was a nickname occasioned by the name, Michael, as it appears that the loaf of white bread given each day as a part of a corrody was called a ‘mich.’6. Michael’s
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 150 ]] 
surname may have been ‘le Poter.’ The Versus magistri Michaelis le Poter de Corn. in a Bodleian manuscript has the same curious form of verse as lines 1206 ff. of Michael’s long tirade.7. It is possible but not probable that there were two Master Michaels, both of Cornwall and both writing such verse. Michael was a very uncommon name among contemporary writers.

A third piece possibly by Michael is the Lament upon the Death of Montfort,8. of about 1265. Written within fifteen years of the time of his long tirade against Henry of Avranches, the poem has some striking similarities to the other piece.9. Both include a curious use of single letters, of the names of towns,10. the use of dates at some length,11. the identical expression ‘non sit tibi cura,’12. and the frequent use of O and cur. If this poem is by Michael, it shows that he was an anti-royalist and was still alive in 1265. If No. 62 is by him rather than by Henry his career began at least as early as 1243.

Michael’s poem gives but little information about himself in comparison with the hints about his opponent. He was younger than Henry,13. and had probably studied rhetoric under him.14. He considered himself a philosopher with a better knowledge of logic than Henry,15. although he admits his adversary’s superiority in verse.16. His vision was somewhat
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 151 ]] 
defective also, although he was still young at the time of the controversy.17. He had evidently been accused of plagiarism by Henry.18. His attitude of respect toward his opponent, apparent in the first hundred lines, changes suddenly to one of extreme disparagement.

What sort of a controversy was this in which Michael and Henry were engaged? It does not seem to have been based upon the versification of a particular topic, like Henry’s Upon Generation and Corruption. Michael’s verse is written for definite audiences, as was Master Henry’s. This contest was apparently a test of poetic skill in several forms of verse.19. Lacking a central theme, the contest quickly turned to personalities and thus to savage comments upon each other. Between the necessities of meter and rhyme and the vigor of personal invectives the poetry becomes ‘schwierig und dunkel,’ to use Professor Hilka’s apt expression. Thomas Fuller describes the verse as follows:20.

Henry....had traduced Cornwall as an inconsiderable country, cast out by nature in contempt into a corner of the land. Our Michael could not endure this affront, but full of Poeticall fury falls upon the Libeller; take a tast (little thereof will go far) of his strains.

From the rubrics it is clear that Michael’s poem was composed in three parts, ending at lines 368, 626, and 1276, respectively. Master Henry was present, ready to read his verse.21. The judges of the first part were the Abbot of Westminster and the Dean of St Paul’s, and the contest was held in the church of St Mary of the Arches in London, on Wednesday after Purification.22. Apparently it was recited
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 152 ]] 
again before Hugh, bishop of Ely, and the chancellor and university of Cambridge.23. Hugh Mortimer, official of the Archbishop of Canterbury, was the presiding officer of the contest for the second part, which was apparently held before Easter.24. Of the third part the Bishop-Elect of Winchester and the Bishop of Rochester were the judges.25. The year or years are unknown, but it was between 1250, when Aymer de Valence became Bishop-Elect of Winchester, and 1254, when Hugh, Bishop of Ely, died. Michael is quite proud of his efforts, asserting that Henry desired a truce after the first bout, which he won,26. and later claims three victories over his opponent, apparently for two recitations of the first part and one of the second.27. From the quality of the judges it would seem that these poetical contests were rather important in the eyes of contemporaries.

Michael alleges a great deal about Henry, most of which is probably exaggerated. According to him, Henry’s father was a thief and his mother a prostitute; the poet himself has tended swine, hanged thieves, and cleaned cesspools.28.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 153 ]] 
The family was Norman,29. and the father’s name was Troteman.30. It would be interesting if he were related to the distinguished Troteman family of Wells. King John promoted one member, Hugh, to be Bishop of Lincoln, and another, Joscelin, to be Bishop of Bath and Wells.31. To judge from Michael’s lines, such a relationship was improbable. Henry was alleged to have married a cobbler’s daughter: possibly the red-haired prostitute to whom he gave a garment presented to him by the queen.32. Henry was doubtless old by this time, almost blind, and with a poor memory.33. Michael’s description of his opponent reaches a climax in the following lines (350-4); they have been widely quoted.

Est tibi gamba capri,      crus passeris et latus apri,

os leporis, catuli      nasus, dens et gena muli,

frons vetule, tauri      caput et color undique Mauri.

Hiis argumentis,      quibus est argucia mentis,

quod non a monstro      differs, satis hoc tibi monstro.

While Michael charges his opponent with plagiarism,34. he adds the more serious charge that Henry with a low fellow named Nicholas or Colinus Suihud broke into his chest
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 154 ]] 
and stole both poems and money.35. If Michael’s statement that Henry stole his savings of thirty years be true Michael can hardly be called a boy. This incident, which looks like a rather rough practical joke, possibly occurred between the readings of the first and second parts and may explain the change in attitude toward Master Henry by Michael. There are other things with which Michael taunts Henry: the latter’s restless disposition, his association with the excommunicate emperor, Frederick II, his failure to find Louis IX a patron, his finding favor in England alone, his heavy drinking, and his interminable versifying of old prose.36. On the score of reciting only frivolous and obscene verse at court our edition acquits him,37. and in the light of this mistake we may seriously discount many other charges perhaps as ill founded.

In one respect the poetry of Michael gives valuable evidence about Henry. The title of Master borne by him evidently came from some university, but there is, in Henry’s poetry, little evidence of specific academic connections. Michael states that his opponent tried to teach at both Oxford
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 155 ]] 
and Paris.38. In another passage he mentions his teaching, in another, his school, and in a third his attempt to teach the English the ars dictandi.39. The ars dictaminis, business correspondence, was a very popular subject, regarded as highly practical, before which the study of the classics had been steadily declining. It was closely associated with rhetoric, in which, as we have seen, Michael had probably been a student of Henry.40.

Finally, a number of Michael’s allusions to Henry help to explain each other and to clear up what is at first a rather perplexing situation. He calls Henry ‘histrio regis’ reciting ‘gulias,’ a mime, ‘primas primus,’ ‘primatum primas,’ and ‘archipoeta.’41. Taken alone ‘primas’ and ‘archipoeta’ might be adduced as evidence that Henry occupied an especially distinguished position at court. ‘Gulias’ suggests that Michael had in mind the goliards, wandering scholars and poets reciting lively and often scandalous verse, of whom the most famous had been called Primas and Archipoeta. Or it may possibly be that among contemporary goliards Henry was honored by such names.42. More probably Michael is just being humorous at Henry’s expense, using archpoet in a different and derogatory sense from that which his position as pensioner of the king might suggest. In any case ‘primas’ and ‘archipoeta’ are not to be considered lightly as synonyms for poet laureate.