the first century of anglo-irish relations

T H E F I R S T C E N T U R Y O F A N G L O - I R I S H R E L A T I O N S

M I C H A E L R I C H T E R

THE INVASION OF IRELAND from Wales in 1169 is normally regarded as the starting point of Anglo-Irish relations. This event is not very well documented, although its chief historian, Giraldus Cambrensis, wrote, towards the end of the twelfth century, a book entitled Expugnatio Hibernica. This work is at present being subjected to renewed analysis, and there can be little doubt that Giraldus will emerge eventually as a valuable and sober, although by no means unbiased, narrator of the invasion. Appropriately, this reassessment is undertaken by historians in Ireland where in the past Giraldus was dis- missed too quickly as a partisan witness. This, of course, he was, to some extent at least, but it remains true nevertheless that his book provides much information of great value. It is not the intention of this article to assess Giraldus as a historian of the invasion of Ireland. This task belongs to the editors of the Expugnatio Hibernica.’ Instead, we shall attempt to probe a little deeper into the background of the invasion, a field where Giraldus is of little help. He wrote several years after the invasion had been started, and he did not feel the need to trace its long-term background. We assume, however, that there was a long-term background, and that the invasion took place after, and as a result of, yet another century of close contact between England and Ireland. What appears in Giraldus’ book as an effect of the ad hoc decisions of a few individuals in Ireland and England, will be seen more in proportion when set against the background of some events in the preceding century.

In the course of this article, we shall have to pass over ground which has been covered in depth in recent years, notably the reform of the Irish Church. We also have to touch on the much debated papal bull Lmdabiliter in which Adrian IV granted Henry I1 the right to invade Ireland.2 No historian who deals with this bull fails to point out that Adrian IV was English by birth, although this statement taken by itself does not say a great deal. In this bull, the pope did not mince his words about the Irish, but it would be rash to assume a causal relation between the pope’s nationality and the expressed or,

The new edition of the Expugnatio Hibernica is Wig prepared by Professor F. X. Martin and Dr. A. B. Scott. We shall refer to the edition by J. F. Dimock, Giraldus Cam- brensis, Opera, v, Rolls Series 21, 1867. For the political aspects of the invasion from an English point of view see W. L. Warren, ‘The Interpretation of Twelfthantury Irish History’, Historical Studies, vii, ed. 5. C. Beckett (London, 1969), pp. 1-20.

a We use the text of M. P. Sheehy, Pont$cia Hibernica. Medieval Papal Chancery Docu- ments Concerning Ireland, 640-1261, vol. i (Dublin, 1962), no. 4. pp. 15-16 (henceforth Sheehy). An English translation is found in D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenaway, edd., English Historical Documents, vol. ii, 1042-1189 h n d o n , 1953), no. 159, pp. 776-7 (henceforth EHD).

195

196 THE FIRST CENTURY OF ANGLO-IRISH RELATIONS

even worse, the implied, intentions contained in Luudabiliter. From this document alone it appears that a clear distinction should be made between what one might call objective factors in Anglo-Irish relations and the subjective attitudes held by the individuals involved. The objective factors are easy to enumerate, but they do not appear to contain the whole story, a t least in the minds of some people. Thus as early as the fourteenth century, Irishmen argued that the pope’s nationality played a significant part in the granting of Laudabiliter. In a letter to Pope John XXII, of 1317, the Irish called Adrian ‘a man not only of English descent but also of English inclination^',^ and they believed that the pope backed his compatriots in what they regarded as the first major confrontation between the two nations.

It is said that there is no effect without cause. We believe that this also applies to the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland. The causes, however, would appear to be more complex than has been suggested in the past. Let us start with the immediate aftermath of the invasion to see how it appeared to some of the personalities involved. The pope at that time, Alexander 111, was not an Englishman, and he did not normally have much regard for Henry I1 who was still under the stigma of having had a part in the murder of his archbishop, Thomas Becket. Yet in a letter to the Irish kings and chief- tains, Alexander hailed Henry I1 as an exemplary Christian king, and his words leave no doubt about where his sympathies lay concerning the invasion of Ireland :

Our heart has been filled with joy at this news since, through the power of that king, a greater peace and tranquillity will, with the help of God, be made to pre- vail in your land; and the Irish people, who have fallen so far through the enormity and foulness of their vices, will thus become more readily accustomed to the practice of Christian worship, and will submit better to the discipline of Christian faith.4

Alexander was clearly pleased with the arrival of Henry I1 in Ireland and trusted that the effect of the invasion would be beneficial to the Irish. At the same time, he expressed firm and unfavourable views about the moral conduct of the Irish and considered that the introduction of proper Christian practices was sufficient justification for the intervention of the English king. Church reform was the one and only objective of the invasion as expressed by the pope. In a letter to King Henry I1 himself, the pope expressed a similar opinion, and again the Irish were castigated in a very outspoken manner:

Now we have learnt that you, a pious and majestic prince, have wonderfully and mightily triumphed, and by the favour of God, by whose inspiration we are assured you acted, have extended over that barbarous and uncouth people the plenitude of your peace . . . that the seeds of virtue might be planted in place of the weeds of vice; and that, with the aid of God, this people might, through you, be brought to abjure the foulness of their sins, and to submit themselves to the

Johannis de Fordun Scotichronicon, ed. T. Hearne (1722). 3 vols., iii, pp. 910-1 1; English translation in E. Curtis and R. B. McDowell, edd., Irish Historical Documents, 1172-1922 (London, 1943), no. 12, pp. 38-47, at p. 39 (translation slightly altered).

Sheehy, no. 7, pp. 22-3; EHD no. 161, p. 778 (translation slightly altered).

MICHAEL RICHTER 197 discipline of Christian practice. Thus might you deserve an imperishable crown of eternal glory, and this people be brought to salvati~n.~

The pope made his attitude equally clear in a letter to the Irish prelates:

Through your letters, and through the reliable report of others, it has come to the notice of the apostolic see how great are the enormities of vice into which the people of Ireland have lapsed, and how they have departed from the fear of God and the established practice of the Christian faith, so that souls have been placed in peril. We have further learnt from your letter that Henry, the noble king of the English, our dearest son in Christ, moved by inspiration from God and summoning all his strength, has subjugated this barbarous and uncouth people which is ignorant of divine law. . . .6

The pope had formed his critical view of the Irish on the basis of information which he had obtained, so it appears, from various sources. He mentioned as his informers both the bishops of Ireland and Ralph, archdeacon of Llandaff, ‘a prudent and discreet man . . . who has seen these things with the eyes of faith.” What the malpractices of the Irish were which justified a step as drastic as the invasion of a foreign country is rather difficult to establish. They are specified in only one instance:

The men of this people (it is said) have intercourse with their step-mothers, and do not blush to get them with child; men, likewise, degrade themselves with their sisters-in-law while their brothers are still alive; and many have intercourse with the daughters of mothers they have deserted. Further, all of them eat meat during Lent; they do not pay tithes; and they do not reverence, as they should, either the churches of God or those ecclesiastical persons who serve them.*

These critical comments of the pope about the Irish were expressed, as we have seen, after Henry II’s invasion of the country, and they might be taken as attempts to justify this invasion expostfacto were it not for the fact that already fifteen years earlier, Adrian 1V had granted Henry I1 the right to invade Ireland, on similar terms. The bull Laudabiliter, in which this grant was formulated, was issued with the precise intention of converting the Irish to a Christian way of life. Formerly, some historians doubted whether Laudabiliter was not a forgery, but more recent research has established that this bull should be regarded as gen~ inc .~ Once this has been said, another issue assumes greater importance. Both popes, Adrian IV and Alexander III, claimed that the Irish Church was in urgent need of reform, yet as recently as 1152 the papacy had given the final approval to a substantial reform which had taken place in Ireland during the preceding century, granting the Irish Church the status of an independent national church with its own hierarchy consisting of four archbishops (one of them primate) and a host of bishops.1°

Sheehy, no. 6, pp. 21-2; EHD no. 162, pp. 779-80. Sheehy, no. 5 , pp. 19-20; EHD no. 160, pp. 777-8.

See especially, J. F. O’Doherty, ‘Rome and the Anglo-Norman Invasion of Ireland‘, Z(rish) E(cc1esiastical) R(ecord), 42, 1933, pp. 13145; J. A. Watt, ‘Laudabiliter in Medieval Diplomacy and Propaganda’, ZER, 87,1952, pp. 420-32; M. P. Sheehy, ‘The Bull “Lauda- biliter”: A Problem in Medieval “Diplomatique” and History’, Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Societ 29, 1961, pp. 45-70.

lo Kathleen Hughes, The Churctin h l y Irish Society (London, 1966, pp. 253-74; J. A. Watt, The Church and the Two Nations in Medieval Ireland (Cambridge Studies in

’ Sheehy, no. 6 ; EHD, no. 162. Zbid.

198 THE FIRST CENTCTRY OF ANGLO-IRISH RELATIONS

Luudabiliter and the letters of Alexander III, however, read as if this reform had never taken place. This calls for comment, particularly since the reform of the Irish Church had been undertaken, in part, with the assistance of the English hierarchy. How was it that this first century of Anglo-Irish relations, which culminated in the invasion, had given rise to anti-Irish feelings in England and with the papacy?

While some sections of Lauaizbiliter will command our attention subsequently, it may be convenient to summarize the results of recent research on this document, as far as they are relevant here. Laudabiliter has not been preserved in its original form, but only in undated copies from the twelfth century, notably in the writings of Giraldus Cambrensis, but also of other historians.” More important, Laudabiliter may not even be the actual grant but is perhaps a letter which accompanied that grant.’* It is, however, well established, on the authority of no less a man than John of Salisbury, that the papal grant was issued in response to a request made to the pope on behalf of Henry II:I3 in fact at the initiative of John of Salisbury himself.

Three different issues will be discussed below:

I the English involvement in the reform of the Irish Church from the

I1 a change in Anglo-papal relations between 1152 and the issuing of

111 the potential contribution of John of Salisbury to the attitudes ex-

mid-eleventh century onwards;

Laudabiliter; and

pressed towards the Irish in the bull of Adrian IV.

I The reform of the Irish Church in the century before 1152 is one of the best- explored aspects of Irish medieval history and does not have to be discussed here in detail.14 It may suffice to draw attention to the main outlines. First, one should speak more correctly of a number of different reform movements which were brought into line at the legatine council of Kells in 1152. Church reform was introduced, on the one hand, from Canterbury through the Hiberno-Norse towns, primarily Dublin, Waterford, and Limerick. Enough

Medieval Life and Thought, Third Series, vol. 3, Cambridge, 1970), pp. 1-34; A. Gwynn, The Twelfth-Century Reform (A History of Irish Catholicism, 2, 1, Dublin/Sydney, 1968); H. J. Lawlor, ‘A fresh Authority for the Synod of Kells’, Proceedings ofthe Royd Irish Academy, vol. m i , Sect. C, no. 3, 1922, pp. 16-22. ’ Sheehy, no. 4. Unfortunately, the editor of this crucial document remains undecided whether Ralph Diceto draws on Giraldus or both on a common original.

‘Giraldus probably transcribed the wrong document’, Sheehy (as above, note 9), p. 63.

l 3 Ioannis Saresberiensis Episcopi Carnotensis Melalogicon, ed. C. C. I. Webb (Oxford, 1929), iv, 42, p. 217. Like the text of Luudabiliter itself, John mentions that on the basis of the Donation of Constantine Ireland, as all islands, belonged to the See of St. Peter and could legitimately be given to anybody the pope regarded a8 suitable. On such implications of the Donation see R. W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in rhe Middle Ages (The Pelican History of the Church: 2, 1970), p. 91 ff. One of the reasons why Henry 11 dld not subsequently make use of Luudabilirer was, it 1s generally agreed, that he had no 111- tention of becoming a papal vassal for Ireland.

l 4 Cf. above, note 10.

MICHAEL RICHTER 199 evidence has been preserved to assess the English influence in some depth. This will be done later. There was also, however, a reform movement from within the native Irish Church itself, not by way of contacts with England and Canterbury, but through direct contacts between Irish dignitaries such as Gilbert of Limerick and St. Malachy of Armagh and continental reformers, such as the popes and St. Bernard of Clairvau~.’~ It is more difficult to assess this reform movement fully since the more important stages of it remain unrecorded; what is important to notice is that at some point the native reform movement assumed greater momentum than that sponsored by Canter- bury, and apparently this native reform was sanctioned by the mission of the papal legate John Paparo to the synod of Kells in 1152. By that time, it might have appeared that the reform of the Irish Church, if not actually completed, was well on the way, and that the pope expressed his trust in its vitality by establishing a hierarchy subject to himself alone. Such an attitude was no longer taken in Rome a few years later.

It is necessary at this stage to touch briefly on the contribution of the archbishops of Canterbury to the reform of the Irish Church. Some historians see the beginning of this involvement as early as the first half of the eleventh century;16 the issue becomes clear, however, only from 1074 onwards. In that year, a man called Patrick was consecrated to the see of Dublin by Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury. It is significant that Patrick’s see was called, on two occasions, the metropolis of 1reland.l’ In both instances, the documents concerned were produced at Canterbury, and there can be little doubt that Lanfranc initially envisaged Dublin as a metropolitan see: Dublin was to be an archbishopric, subject to Canterbury’s primacy, but having jurisdiction over the Irish Church.

For reasons unknown to us, this original plan for the organization of the Irish Church was abandoned by Lanfranc within a few years. The next three

I6A. Gwynn, ‘The Origins of the See of Dublin’, ZER, 57, 1941, pp. 40-55, 97-112; A. Gwynn, ‘The First Bishops of Dublin’, Repertorium Novum, 1, 1955, pp. 1-26. What has to be questioned is not the existence of a bishop of Dublin before 1074 but whether he was appointed in the same manner as his successors. Three arguments appear to favour the view that this had been the case: (I) the petition of the clergy and people of Dublin to archbishop Lanfranc demandmg the consecration of their elect : Vestrae paternitati est cognitum, quod ecclesia Dublinensis, quae Hiberniae insulae metropolis est, suo sit viduata pastore ac destitura rectore . . . , James Ussher, ‘Veterum Epistolarum Hibedcarum Sylloge’, The Whole Works of.. . . James Ussher, vol. iv, ed. Elrington (London, 1847), p. 488 (henceforth Ussher). Thls letter was written according to the standard form used at Canterbury and does not necessarily cover the actual historical situation, see Canterbury Professions, ed. M. Richter, Canterbury and York Society, vol. lxvii, 1973, especially pp. 112-13. (2) There is an entry in The Cartularies of St Mary’s Abbey, Dublin, ed. T. J. Gilbert, Rolls Series 80, 1884, vol. ii, p. 249, claiming that Patrick was consecrated accepta prius ab ips0 examinato professione de sua obedientia, more antecassorum suorum, sibi suhque successoribus exhibenda. (3) A similar phrase is used in one of Lanfranc’s letters to Gothric, king of Dublin, concerning Patrick, quem . . . sacraturn ad sedem propriarn cum testimonio litterarum nostrarum, more antecessorum nostrorum, remisimus . . . , Ussher, iv, p. 490. Presumably we are confronted with a situation, not unknown otherwise, of Canter- bury claiming continuity when in fact a precedence was established, cf. Canterbury Pro- fessions, p. IxxXvS; Watt, op. cit., p 6. Liturgical practice in eleventh-century England, however, would appear to testify against such early involvement of the archbishops of Canter- bury in Irish affairs, see Canterbury Professions, passim.

Canterbury Professions, no. 36, p. 29; Ussher, iv, p. 488; A. Gwynn and D. F. Gleeson, A History of the Diocese of Killaloe (Dublin, 1962), p. 102.

Watt, op. cit., p. 6 ff.


bishops of Dublin, Donatus (1085), Samuel (1096), and Gregory (1121) were consecrated by the archbishops of Canterbury,’* but the see of Dublin was no longer called the metropolis of Ireland. While Canterbury changed its policy towards Dublin, it seems that this change was not immediately recog- nized in Dublin. Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury later complained to Malchus, bishop of Waterford, that Samuel, bishop of Dublin, had a cross carried before him on his travels,lg a clear sign that Samuel intended to be an archbishop in fact even though Anselm had withheld the title from him. One is confronted with the first friction between Canterbury and those bishops in Ireland who were consecrated in England.

The involvement of Canterbury in affairs of the Irish Church came to an end half a century after its beginnings can be traced,20 after the consecration of the four candidates to the see of Dublin already mentioned and that of Malchus (1096) to the see of Waterford.21 From the records which have been preserved it appears that the high-water mark of Canterbury’s contribution to the Irish reform had been passed by the time of Anselm’s death in 1109; the next archbishop of Canterbury, Ralph d’Escures, had to be reminded in unusually strong terms to fulfill his duties as consecrator for the last candidate of Dublin, Gregory.22 There was-it is true-one further consecration of a bishop to an Irish see by an archbishop of Canterbury, that of Patrick to Limerick (1 140) by archbishop T h e ~ b a l d , ~ ~ but this attempt to revive Canter- bury’s overlordship over the Irish bishops was manifestly unsuccessful, since the bishop was never able to take possession of his see.

It would be advisable, then, to distinguish three phases of Canterbury’s involvement in the affairs of the Irish Church during the first century of Anglo-Irish relations. First, a phase of active and successful involvement during the pontificates of Lanfranc and Anselm ; secondly, a slackening and eventual ending of Canterbury’s activities during the pontificate of Ralph d’Escures; and finally, an unsuccessful attempt to revive the previous involvement, by Theobald. As we shall see, this last phase should be regarded more appropriately as an overture to a new attitude taken by Theobald which was to find a much more forceful expression in Luudabiliter itself.

What remains is to discuss briefly the impact Canterbury made on the early stages of the Irish Church reform, as well as the impression the Irish Church gave to observers in England. Only a few letters between Lanfranc, Anselm and their Irish colleagues have been preserved. They may be sum- marized at this stage under two separate heads. On the one hand, the archbishops were prepared to offer advice and guidance when asked to do so,

Is Canterbury Professions, nos. 42, 51, 69. l9 Ussher, iv. pp. 528. 530. See also A. Gwynn. ‘St. Anselm and the Irish Church’, ZER, - .

59, 1942, pp. i l i 4 . lo Cf. J. A. Watt, op. cit., p. 7: ‘With Bishop Patrick began a constitutional conneion

between the Norse-Irish sees and Canterbury which lasted until 1140. Four archblshops.of Canterbury were thus involved in Irish affairs, more espec!ally the Feat Anselm’ mine). As we shall see below, this statement, while being stnctly speabg correct, r e q w qualification. l1 Canterbury Professions, no. 54.

2 2 Ussher, iv, pp. 532. 534; also Watt, op. cit., p. 18; Canterbury Professions, pp. xciv- xcv, and see below, n. 31.

23 Ibid., no. 81; A. Saltrnan, Theobold, Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1956). p. 95.

MICHAEL RICHTER 201 and did so mostly, but not always, in friendly terms.24 On the other hand some prevalent abuses were pointed out repeatedly, without there being much sign of effective alterations, notably the unacceptable marriage cus- t o m ~ , ~ ~ and uncanonical practices with regard to the episcopal office-the main criticisms in this respect being that bishops were consecrated by one bishop instead of the canonically required three,26 and that in some instances they were not assigned to fixed cathedral sees.”

Although not much directly relevant information has been preserved, it can be inferred that substantial changes took place in the organization of the Irish episcopate during the first half century of the reform. More important to our inquiry, however, is the fact that the archbishops of Canterbury apparently accepted reforms even in cases in which they did not actively take part. The point comes unmistakably in the letter which Anselm wrote to Gilbert, bishop of Limerick, congratulating him on his accession in terms which leave no doubt that Gilbert had been consecrated according to the requirements of canon law but without Anselm’s participation.28 Similarly, a petition directed to Anselm, concerning the consecration of Malchus, elect of Waterford, was signed by two bishops who almost certainly had not been consecrated by either Lanfranc or Anselm, namely ‘Idunan bishop of Meath‘ and ‘Ferdomnachus bishop of the Leinster people’.29 The titles held by these two bishops were such as had given ground for complaints by Anselm that Irish bishops were consecrated sine certo loco, and he may have referred to just these two bishops when pointing out Irish malpractices in this matter. It should be kept in mind that the bulk of this correspondence between Canterbury and Ireland ante-dates the meetings of the two major Church councils in Ireland, at Cashel in 110130 and at RBith Bresail in 1111 where genuine attempts were made to legislate against the most blatant abuses. Whether directly or indirectly, Canterbury’s involvement was beneficial to the early stages of the Irish Church reform.

After the death of Anselm, however, the signs became unmistakable that the participation of Canterbury was no longer desired by the native reformers. In the petition of the people of Dublin to Ralph d’Escures, archbishop of Canterbury, concerning the consecration of their bishop-elect Gregory, it was said that ‘the bishops of Ireland are very angry with us, and especially the bishop of Armagh, because we do not want to submit to their domination but instead always want to be under your rule.’31 But the Dubliners were unable to maintain their link with Canterbury. The native reform had gathered

For a decidedly cold reaction see the letter of Lanfranc to Bishop Donatus, Ussher, iv, p. 497; cf. Denis Bethell, ‘English Monks and Irish Reform in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’, Historical Studies, viii, 1971, pp. 111-35, especially p. 128.

Ussher, iv, Epp. 26, 27, 35, 36, pp. 4904,492-3, 520-1, 523-4. 26 Zbid., Epp. 27, 35, 36. l7 Ibid., Ep. 36. 28 Ibid., Ep. 32; see also Gwynn and Gleeion, Hisrory of Killaloe, p. 120. l9 Ibid., Ep. 34: Idunan episcopus Midiae and Ferdomanchus Laginensium episcopus. ”See above, note 10, and A. Gwynn, ‘The First Synod of Cashel’, IER, 66, 1945,

E$iscopi Hiberniae maximum zelum erga nos habent, et maxime ille episcopus qui habitat Archimachae, quia nos nolumus obedire eorum ordinationi, sed semper sub vestro dominio esse volumus, Ussher iv, Ep. 40 (his text reads: Ardimachae).

pp. 81-92; IER, 67, 1946, pp. 109-22.

202 THE FIRST CENTURY OF ANGLX)-IRISH RELATIONS

enough momentum not to be too much concerned about the bishop of Dublin, and he was passed over in the new arrangements made by the native reformers; by 1152 he submitted to the reform which was approved by the papacy and which severed the last shadow of a Canterbury involvement which may have survived until then.32

Besides the correspondence between Lanfranc and Anselm with the Irish ecclesiastics there is a further source of information about the state of the Irish Church in the early twelfth century, the Life of Mdachy of Armagh, written by his close friend, an ardent reformer himself, St. Bernard of Clair-

St. Bernard was the spiritual father of Eugenius 111, the pope who sent his legate John Paparo to the synod of Kells in 1152. St. Malachy, St. Bernard and Eugenius 111 worked hand in glove, and if their achievements in the field of Irish Church reform would later be disregarded, as they were in Lmdubiliter, this was a comment as much on the state of the Irish Church as on the zeal shown by these personalities. When considering the statements made about the Irish by Bernard, one should bear in mind that they were dictated, partly at least, by the basic conventions of hagiography: the background against which the saint worked had to be painted in dark colours to make the hero shine all the brighter.

Bernard opens his Life with a statement, repeated several times, that the Irish were a barbarous people.34 This theme is taken up again in the course of the Life, when Bernard speaks about Malachy as ‘a saint in a not saintly people, giving law to a people that lived without law’.3* Paganism and pseudo- Christianity had been widespread in Ireland before Malachy started his

Yet apart from these conventional literary devices, there are also instances in which Bernard castigated Irish shortcomings more specifically, among them the marriage customs3’ and the instability of b i shopr i~s .~~ At one point, Bernard was carried away by rhetoric and exclaimed: ‘how can the limbs be healthy if the head be sick?39 But Malachy would have been a poor saint had his work been ineffective. His achievements, which understandably were painted all the more glowingly, were summed up in one phrase: ‘Bar- barous laws are abolished, Roman (i.e. canon) laws are in t rod~ced . ’~~

We have reviewed briefly the information which has been preserved from the first century of Anglo-Irish relations concerning the Irish Church in par- ticular and Irish society more generally. We have also seen that much of this

32 Watt; Hughes, passim. 33 ‘Vita Sancti Malachiae’, ed. J. Leclercq, H. M. Rochais and A. Gwynn, S. Bernardi

Opera, vol. iii, Ed. Cisterciensis (Rome. 1963), pp. 307-78 (henceforth VM). 34 VM, p. 309: Malachias noster, ortus Hibernia & populo barbaro, ibi educatus, ibi

Iitteras edoctus est. Ceterum & natali barbarie traxit nihil, non magis quam Pisces maris de sale materno. Quam vero suave, quod inculta nobis barbaries tam urbanum protulit civem Sanctorum et domesticum Dei? Note especially the term cives with connotations taken up later in the statement concerning the introduction into Ireland of Roman (canon) law, below, note 40. See also Watt, op. cit., p. 20 f.

3 5 VM, p. 315,l. 8-10. ’’ VM, p. 316.1. 6-9.

40 VM, p. 326; Fimt de medio barbaricae leges, Romanae introducuntur. On ‘barbarous’ see W. R. Jones, ‘The Image of the Barbarian in Medieval Europe’, Comparative S t d e s in Society and History, 13, 1971, pp. 376-407.

36 VM, p. 330,l. 4-6. 38 VM, p. 330,l. 6-9.

39 VM, p. 330,l. 9-10.

MICHAEL RICHTER 203 information was unflattering to the Irish. It should be stated, however, that by 1152, when the papacy sanctioned the completion of the Irish Church reform, attempts had been made, with varying degrees of success, to amend some unacceptable practices of Irish society. Part of the criticism which had been justified at the beginning of the century was not equally relevant in the middle of the century.

I1

As has been said above, there is an unmistakable inconsistency in papal policy, since only a few years after Pope Eugenius I11 had shown his approval of the effects of an almost century-old reform movement in Ireland, another pope, Adrian IV, issued Laudabiliter. In this document the pope:

(1) Commends the intention of the Catholic prince (Henry 11) to extend the boundaries of the Church and to bring the Christian faith to un- educated peoples, and applauds the king’s move to ask for papal advice in this matter;

(2) Reminds the king that Ireland, as all islands, belongs (because of the Donation of Constantine) to St. Peter and the Roman Church;

(3) States that the king has declared his intention to enter Ireland in order to subject the people to law and to extirpate vice, and has offered to pay Peter’s Pence; applauds this intention and specifies the king’s duties as (i) extending the frontiers of the Church (ii) restraining vice (iii) correcting morals and instilling virtue (iv) increasing the Christian religion.

The pope thus granted the English king the right to invade Ireland in the service of the Church, and for the benefit of the Church, with one of the main objectives being a reform of the moral conduct of the Irish which was objectionable in many ways. If there was any political dimension to the pro- jected invasion of Ireland at that time, it was not mentioned.

To account for a change of papal policy towards Ireland between 1152 and Laudabiliter, it is necessary first to take note of the change of personalities which occurred at that time both in England and Rome. In England, Henry I1 succeeded Stephen; and within a fortnight, in Rome, Adrian IV succeeded (after the brief pontificate of Anastasius IV) Pope Eugenius 111. We must therefore deal briefly with Anglo-papal relations during the pontificate of Eugenius 11141 in order to see the extent to which the change of personalities may have caused a change of policy.

So far as King Stephen was concerned, the relations between England and the papacy were at a low ebb, particularly from 1148 onwards. In that year, the king attempted, unsuccessfully, to bar the English episcopate from attending the Council of Rheims. Those bishops who wanted to go did so and

41 For a fuller discussion see Charles Duggan, ‘From the Conquest to the Death of John’, The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages, ed. C. H. Lawrence (London, 1965) pp. 63-115, especially 85 ff.

204 THE FIRST CENTURY OF ANGLO-WSH RELATIONS

thereby incurred the king’s wrath, prominent among them being Theobald, archbishop of C a n t e r b ~ r y . ~ ~ Theobald earned the pope’s warm commenda- tion for attending the council in the face of grave difficulties, but was states- man enough to persuade the pope not to lay an interdict over England as a reprisal against the king’s behaviour, which would have aggravated an already tense situation. Soon Anglo-papal relations were delicate in another sphere also. Pope Eugenius I11 had tried desperately to save the marriage between Louis VII, king of France, and his wife Eleanor;43 despite his efforts, Eleanor left her husband to marry Henry of Anjou, the future king of England. Had Eugenius I11 lived longer, this would certainly have been a complicating factor in Anglo-papal relations.

Turning now to the ecclesiastical personnel, the picture looks very different. Theobald had sufficient reasons to keep on good terms with the pope, and the pope had to be friendly towards Theobald. The pope had averted grave threats to the province of Canterbury which had been endangered at that time mainly from the Welsh bishops who attempted to establish a separate

but also from Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester, the king’s brother and an old enemy of Theobald‘~.~~ Yet papal support of Canterbury was not unlimited. The pope severed the last links which may have existed between Canterbury and parts of the Irish hierarchy. If it is true that these links had become increasingly tenuous after the death of Anselm, we have noted above some indications of Theobald trying to revive them. As it turned out, his efforts were abortive.

In very broad terms these were the objective factors in Anglo-papal relations under Eugenius 111, but it is, fortunately, possible to probe a little deeper and see how the papacy was regarded by an Englishman at that time, John of Salisbury. The man who played a great part in securing Laudubiliter was also a fine writer and one of the best-informed Englishmen concerning the affairs of the papal curia. When we turn to his Historia Pontificalis, we get his personal impressions of the men responsible for the synod of Kells. The character-sketches of John of Salisbury, subjective opinions though they may be, assume a greater importance in the light of the part he played in the following years.

In his writings, John of Salisbury is a man who stresses the nuance rather than bold outlines, and his judgement should be respected even when it is not shared. Let us turn to the picture he gives of John Paparo, the papal legate who presided over the synod of Kells. At the beginning of the Historia Pontificalis, John of Salisbury mentions that King Stephen ‘refused to allow John Paparo, cardinal deacon and legate in Ireland, to travel through England to the province delegated to him’.46 The same story is told again

42 John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, ed. Marjorie Chibnall (London, 1956), pp. 6-8 (henceforth H P ) ; Saltman, Theobald, 25-8.

43 HP, p. 61 : ‘The pope made them sleep the same bed, which he had had decked with priceless hangings of his own; and daily dunng their brief w i t he strove by friendly con- verse to restore love between them.’

44 M. Richter, Gira1c-k Cambrewis (Aberystwyth, 1972). pp. 40-54. 45 HP, pp. 78-9. 46 HP, p. 6 ; Saltman. pp. 1 3 5 4 .

MICHAEL RICHTER 205 towards the end of the book, where more details are given. John reports that Paparo, not daring to travel through England, received a friendly welcome in Scotland by promising that ‘he would persuade the Lord Pope and the Roman Church to grant the pallium to the bishop of St. Andrews, so that his see might become the metropolitan of Scotland . . .’.47 This apparently factual account assumes a different shade of colour when read against a character- sketch which John had given of Paparo previously. According to that account, Paparo behaved in a disgraceful fashion at the papal court when he was made cardinal-priest ; when Pope Eugenius had not complied with Paparo’s wishes, ‘he was moved with such anger . . . that he threatened to return to the city and incite the Romans to create another pope who would restore peace: for he was ingenious in planning st rate gem^'.^^ In the light of these remarks, Paparo’s promises in Scotland may be taken as implying a certain craftiness on the part of the cardinal.

John of Salisbury also leaves a lively impression of Pope Eugenius 111. He remarks with amazement on the ease with which that pope reversed judgements he had given previously. To John, the pope seemed an unstable and weak man. No malice should be read into his assessment, but rather an attempt to be fair to Eugenius, when he writes: ‘I think there were two reasons for his suspicion: both weakness of character and consciousness of the failings of his “flanks”, as he used to call his assessors and co~nsellors.’~~

In John of Salisbury’s opinion, the two men who had been instrumental in the mission to Ireland in 1152 were men of small stature, and this may also reflect the way in which John regarded the mission of 1152 itself, although he never commented on it specifically. It is difficult to say to what extent, if at all, there was an anti-monastic bias in John, or more specifically disapproval of the extent to which St. Bernard of Clairvaux wielded power in the Western Church. The possibility of this can only be inferred from John’s other writings, but a central theme of his political thought was that each man was bound to keep the place in society for which he was created.50 Was not Bernard, the monk, pope in fact if not in name?

Be that as it may, with the change’of personalities in England and Rome, a fresh start could be made. If it is true that the relations between England and the papacy improved only temporarily in 1155, it was during this brief dkfenfeS1 that John of Salisbury procured Laudabiliter. And yet, there can be no question of great English sympathies on the part of the pope who, though an Englishman by birth, had been out of his native country since 1 12052 and had no reasons to cherish warm feelings towards England. As far as the pope was concerned, Laudabiliter should be taken at its face value, a document testifying to the reforming zeal of the papacy rather than as evidence of anti-

‘’ HP, p. 72. HP, p. 13.

‘9 HP, p. 51. In another context, however, John did not hesitate to call Eugenius I11 a

50 See John of Salisbury, Policraticus, ed. C. C. I. Webb, 2 Vols. (London, 1909), especi-

d l R. W. Southern, ‘Pope Adrian IV’ ,Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (New York,

‘great pope’, ibid., p. 82.

ally V, 2, vol. i, pp. 282-4.

19701, pp. 234-52, at 244. 52 Ibid., pp. 234-5.

206 THE FIRST CENTURY OF ANGUEIRISH RELATIONS

Irish feelings on the part of Nicholas Break~peare.~~ This does not exclude the personal factor altogether, but admits it on a different level. John of Salisbury was a close personal friend of the new pope as well as a prominent member of Archbishop The~bald‘sjamilia.~~ In this respect, Luudabiliter can be regarded as a token of goodwill to the archbishop of Canterbury and the king, procured through the intervention of a man who had the confidence of both parties. Although no explicit jurisdiction over the Irish Church was granted to Canterbury and Theobald, the archbishop could hardly fail to gain some influence as the spiritual adviser of the king who was sent to Ireland to help reform the Church there.55 Kells was not undone, but it was passed over in silence.

I11

It is no accident that in the course of our discussion increasing prominence had to be given to John of Salisbury. We may go a step further now and see whether John can be held responsible not only for the procuring of the grant but also for the unfavourable attitude towards the Irish expressed in the papal bull. Let us briefly recall the terms of Luudabiliter. The pope commends the king for his zeal ‘to expound the truth of the Christian faith to ignorant and barbarous peoples, and to root out the weeds of vice from the Lord’s field’. This phrase does not apply merely to the Irish situation; it has a close echo in Boso’s Life of Pope Adrian,56 underlining this pope’s interest in Church reform generally. But Luudabiliter also contains specific references to Ireland. Henry I1 intends to enter the island ‘for the purpose of subjecting its people to the laws and rooting out from it the weeds of vice’; then, the pope enumer- ates the duties of the king in Ireland as ‘the restraint of vice, the correction of morals and the implanting of virtues’ (and we may point out that John of Salisbury uses a very similar phrase in his Policraticus when describing the duties of the Christian king5’). Finally, the pope exhorts the king to ‘strive to imbue that people with good morals’.

As can be seen, the few references in Luudabiliter to the Irish situation and to the duties of the Christian king are in accord with John’s views of what a Christian king should do. The charges laid against the Irish are spelled out in the most general terms: leges and mores are to be improved, vitia are to be turned into virtutes. That is all. Yet, general as these terms may be, it should

53 set W. Ullmam, ‘The Pontificate of Adrian N’, Cambridge Historical Journal, 11,

s4 ‘He (i.e. the pope) used to say privately and publicly that he loved me more than any other human being’, Metalogicon, p. 217; Southern, loc. cit., p. 245.

s5 This is precisely what happened after 1172, see Watt, op. cit., passim, and below, note 72.

56 Liber Pontifcalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 3 vols. (Paris, 1955-7), ii, p. 388, referring to Nicholas Breakspeare’s legatine mission to Norway: gentem illam barbaram et rudem in lege Christiana diligenter instruxit et ecclesiasticis eruditwnibus informavit, while the passage in Laudabiliter reads ad declarandam indoctis et rudibus populis Christianae fidei veritatem et vitiorum plantaria de agro dominico exstirpanda.

51 Policraticus, V, 4, vol. i, p. 295: Ministri vero sunt, quas dispositio divina vocavit, ut corripiendo et corrigendo vitia, aut virtutes inserendo, aut propagando. suam et aliorum pro- cwent saluiem, while the passage in Luuhbiliter reads pro vitiorum restringendo decursu, pro corrigendis moribus et virtutibus inserendis.

1953-5, pp. 233-52.

MICHAEL RICHTER 207 not be assumed that they were used without any reference to the actual situation as it appeared to those who pressed for Laudabiliter. There is no reason to assume that either the pope or John of Salisbury did not believe that the leges, mores and vitiu of the Irish were such that a step as drastic as an invasion should be envisaged. Adrian is not known to have had any first- hand knowledge of Ireland, and he may be left out of consideration here. But what about John? It is not known that he ever was in Ireland, nor does he anywhere in his works, apart from the reference to his contribution towards the procuring of Laudabiliter, refer to Ireland or the Irish. The scathing words which he finds for the Welsh recall an attitude similar to that apparent in Laudabiliter,58 but references to the Celtic societies are very few in John’s works generally, not enough to allow for the formulation of a balanced view.

If John did not actually deceive the pope about his view on Ireland- something difficult to imagine in one who is known generally for his integrity -he possibly relied on second-hand information. We cannot say how far there existed at that time in England an Irish lore, nor how likely it would have been for such lore to influence John, but there was written information available at Canterbury for those who wished to have it, in the correspondence between Lanfranc, Anselm and the Irish ecclesiastics. It may be well to remember that the initiative for Laudabiliter should be sought with Arch- bishop Theobald rather than the king. In fact, such an effort to reassert Canterbury’s lost authority over the Irish Church by new means was not the only instance in which Theobald took up ideas previously developed by L a n f r a n ~ . ~ ~ For John of Salisbury, Theobald’s secretary, it would have been natural to obtain written information about the Irish at the most convenient and nearest source, the archives of Canterbury cathedral.

Lanfranc refers in his letters to the ‘pertinacity of their bad deeds’;60 again, he speaks about the Irish way of life as being ‘against the authority of the Gospel and the Apostles’, and also mentions the ‘wicked customs and all other things that are forbidden by holy Similarly critical views occur in the letters of Anselm, who commented on the Irish marriage customs ‘against the prohibitions of canon law’,62 and declared that things were done by this people which were altogether contrary to Christian religion, ‘for it is said that the men swap wives as freely and openly as others swap horses. Everybody who knows the Christian law appreciates how evil that is.’63 In these comments, based, as we have seen before, on information provided from Ireland, reference is made to exactly those things which are singled out in Laudabiliter as being in need of reform: leges, mores, vitia.

Although there is no further evidence for any written information available to John except possibly Bernard’s Life of St. Malachy, we may, by way of

sa Ep. 87 (to Pope Alexander III): . . . legis divinae ignaram, et canonicas constitutioncs penitus ignorantem. Gens enim rudis et indornita, bestiali more vivens, aspernatur verbum vile, et Christum norninetenus pmfitentes, vita et modus diBtentw, W. J. Miller, H. E. Butler, C. N. L. Brooke, edd., The Letters of John of Salisbury, vol. i (London, 1955), p. 135. Note the recurrence of the three key concepts: leges, mores, vith.

61 Ibid., Ep. 21, p. 493. 63 Ibid., Ep. 36. p. 523.

”See Canterbury Professions, pp. h i , lxxviii. Usher, iv, Ep. 26, p, 491. Ibid., Ep. 35, p. 521.

208 THE FRST CENTURY OF ANGLO-IRISH RELATIONS

complementing our assessment of John’s mentality, refer to some relevant remarks which occur elsewhere in his writings. He says, for example, in the Policraticus: ‘Civilized life imitates nature which we have often pointed out as being the best guide-line to life. The opposite is not only called uncivilized but rather bestial and brutal.’64 Similarly, in his correspondence he makes abundantly clear what are the criteria for his moral outlook: ‘No-one lives well who neglects the law of God which is in all things the safest guide-line to life, and whoever leaves the footsteps of the Fathers cannot enter into their community in Heaven.’65

Thus the way in which the Irish are characterized in Laudabiliter has parallels in earlier pronouncements of English observers, pronouncements which implied value-judgements based on information provided from Ireland. It is hardly necessary to stress that the political intentions behind Luudabiliter were not completely altruistic, but too much has been made of them in the past. Archbishop Theobald was certainly an astute politician as well as a conscientious and devout Christian, and both characteristics might explain his pressing for an invasion of Ireland, which the king did not want on the terms which Adrian IV granted.

When reviewing the evidence for Irish malpractices in the century before the Anglo-Norman invasion, we have seen that one of the recurring themes was the complaint about the Irish marriage customs which were blatantly different from the rules of the Church.66 The regulations provided by the native Brehon law could not, under any circumstances, satisfy the serious twelfth-century reformers. It was perhaps due to tactical considerations that the Irish reformers tackled easier problems first, like the creation of tem- torial dioceses and compliance with canon law requirements concerning the consecration of bishops.

It is true that the native reformers discussed the marriage customs as well. The synod of Cashel (1101) passed a canon (c. 8) regulating that ‘in Ireland no one shall have to wife either his father’s or his grandfather’s wife, his wife’s sister or her daughter, or his brother’s wife, or any woman at all thus near akin’.67 If such a canon was necessary, implying that this law was not actually observed in Irish society, the reformers may have taken a courageous step towards improving the Irish marriage customs, but when seen from Rome, where canon law prohibited marriage within the seventh degree of affinity, this situation would have horrified the reformers and shown how deep was the gulf that divided Irish society from that envisaged by the Western Church.

Marriage customs assumed an extraordinary importance in the discussion because in them secular and ecclesiastical standards clashed in a field which wouId affect the majority of the aristocracy. No real compromise was possible from the point of view of the Church, but immediate reform was too much

64Policratic~, VI, 21, vol. ii, p. 591. 65 Ep. 207 (Migne, PL 199, col. 231) to the archdeacon Robert of Faversham. 66 See Studies in Eurly Irish Law, by R. Thurneysen and others (Dublin, 1936). 67 The English version is taken from Gwynn and Gleeson, History of Killaloe, p. 112;

it is discussed at some length by A. Gwynn in ZER, 67, 1946, pp. 109-22. For a different interpretation of this difficult canon see Hughes, p. 264 and note 6.

MICHAEL RICHTER 209 for Irish society to come to terms with. Bernard of Clairvaux contrasted barbarity and law, and he showed clearly that compromise was impossible. We have seen that LaudubiZiter advocated the subjection of the Irish to law, also the law of the Church. Pope Adrian IV was quite openly assigning to Henry I1 the function of promoter of Christianity in the form of canon law. When John of Salisbury said that nobody lived well who neglected the law of God he made the same point.

Here we touch on one of the more sensitive points of medieval history, namely the role of the Roman Church in imposing increasing degrees of uniformity on Western society. By the mid-twelfth century, Rome had made her impact throughout Western Europe, and Ireland was one of the last great anomalies from the Roman point of view. The growing preoccupa- tion of the Church at that time with canon law would only deepen the gulf which divided Irish Christians from Roman Christians. If this attitude is translated into medieval terminology, Irish society would qualify for the adjectives ‘barbarous, uncivilized, uncouth‘, not living according to the Christian faith. It is well to remember that although such an attitude would have been shared by the majority of Christians in Western society, it was none the less a subjective attitude. As such it reflects the Christian message which is ‘grounded on notions of spiritual and moral unity.’68 Equally, the concept of barbarism could, and did at times, become ‘a means of self-congratulation and a rationalization for aggres~ion.’~~

In conclusion, we may state that there exists a small but important body of evidence which makes it possible to trace a century of Anglo-Irish relations before the invasion of 1169. It has also become clear that Anglo-Irish relations cannot be fully understood unless one takes into account both the policy of the papacy and outspoken or tacit views of some key personalities. When Henry 11’s invasion is seen in the way it was intended by Pope Adrian IV and commended by Pope Alexander 111, it falls into place and becomes a remarkable consummation of a policy started a century earlier. Vis-d-VL the Irish, similar values were shared by the pope and the English king and which justified the invasion.

One of the first acts of the new regime in Ireland was still in line with the previous policies. At the synod of Cashel in 1172, the first canon which was passed was concerned with the reform of the Irish marriage customs. But Giraldus, to whom we owe our information in this case, indicates, perhaps unconsciously, a significant change of emphasis which foreshadowed the future of Anglo-Irish relations. He says: ‘For it is worthy and most just that, since Ireland has chosen, by the will of God, a lord and king from England, she should also accept from there a better way of life.’7o Ireland was no longer by-passed by history, as William of Newburgh had remarked shortly before with ama~ement.’~ Church reform may have been behind the first a W. R. Jones ‘Barbarian’ (as above note 40). p. 380. 69 Ibid., p. 311. 70 Giraldus Cambrensis, Exp. Hib.. i, 35, p. 283. 71 William of Newburgh, ‘Historia Renrm Anglicarum’, The Chronicles of the Reigns of

Sfephen, Henry ZIund Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, Rolls Series, 1884-9, vol. i, p. 166. a-I


century of Anglo-Irish relations, but already in 1172 a new epoch was dawn- ing. Henry LI had called the synod of Cashel to bring the Irish Church into line, not with the Church in general, but, as Giraldus tells us, with the English Church, ecclesie illius statum ad Anglicane ecclesie formam redigere modis omnibus eIaborando.'2

7 2 Exp. Hib., i, 34, p. 280-1; similarly Ewp. Hib., ii, 5, p. 315; ipsum (populum) infidei rudimentis incultissimum, ecclesiasticis normis et disciplinis juxta Anglicanae ecclesiae mores informandi.

The author wishes to thank Dr. Kathleen Hughes, Professor Patrick O'Farrell and Mr. Charles Doherty for their comments on earlier versions of this article.