Ecclesiastical Liberties from Thomas Becket to Thomas More, 1170-1535
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Louisiana Tech University Louisiana Tech Digital Commons Master's Theses Graduate School Spring 5-2020 The English Quarrel of Crown and Mitre: Ecclesiastical Liberties from Thomas Becket to Thomas More, 1170-1535 Matthew Flanders Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.latech.edu/theses Part of the History Commons THE ENGLISH QUARREL OF CROWN AND MITRE: ECCLESIASTICAL LIBERTIES FROM THOMAS BECKET TO THOMAS MORE 1170-1535 by Matthew Flanders, B.A. A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree Master of Arts COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY May 2020 LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL March 26, 2020 Date of thesis defense We hereby recommend that the thesis prepared by Matthew Flanders entitled The English Quarrel of Crown and Mitre: Ecclesiastical Liberties from Thomas Becket to Thomas More, 1170-1535 be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History V. Elaine Thompson Dr. Elaine Thompson Supervisor of Thesis Research ___________________________________________________ Dr. Jason Pigg Director, School of History & Social Science Thesis Committee Members: Dr. Elaine Thompson Dr. Bryan Zygmont Dr. Jeffrey Hankins Approved: Approved: __________________________________ __________________________________ Donald Kaczvinsky Ramu Ramachandran Dean of Liberal Arts Dean of the Graduate School GS Form 13 (01/20) ABSTRACT Two rival sets of law, canon and common, warred for supremacy in England from 1170-1535. Just as with any battle, casualties followed. Where Becket and Henry II fought the first battle in this clash of legal systems, More and Henry VIII would end it. The deaths of Thomas Becket in the twelfth century and Thomas More in the sixteenth century bear a striking resemblance, but while this superficially indicates a consistency of outcome, it also probes further into a consistency of conditions which made such an outcome likely. The difference between common and canon law, and the feud born therein, was not due to the choice characteristics of any individual canonist or common lawyer. It was, rather, born from the very nature of each set of law and the subset of rival principles each employed. This thesis coordinates both the political and principled understandings of each martyrdom as to construct a more holistic account of common law’s ascendance and dominance over canon law from 1170-1535. Frederick Maitland and Frederick Pollock’s “enemy theory,” the idea that there were lasting conflicts between the church and state in England, is relevant for this discussion, but it has fallen prey to insightful critiques by David J. Seipp. Therefore, before the “enemy theory” can be used, it must be resuscitated and altered. The Becket controversy of the twelfth century begins the process of the enemy theory’s revival through a demonstration that, despite the deep friendship Becket and Henry enjoyed, the two still quarreled as both became increasingly entrenched by their adherence to their own separating principles. iii iv Thomas More, likewise, concludes this process of revival through a demonstration of his commitment to the common law insofar as he was not yet called to choose between them. Once Henry VIII moved to consolidate the spiritual and temporal powers and place himself as the arbiter of theology of the Church of England, More recused himself to silence; he argued that he could not profess two rival principles concurrently. The revival of this theory of quarrel will therefore go into great detail of the personal characteristics of the important figures involved to demonstrate how, even in spite of the fellowship each enjoyed, the underlying tension of principles remained. APPROVAL FOR SCHOLARLY DISSEMINATION The author grants to the Prescott Memorial Library of Louisiana Tech University the right to reproduce, by appropriate methods, upon request, any or all portions of this Thesis. It is understood that “proper request” consists of the agreement, on the part of the requesting party, that said reproduction is for his personal use and that subsequent reproduction will not occur without written approval of the author of this Thesis. Further, any portions of the Thesis used in books, papers, and other works must be appropriately referenced to this Thesis. Finally, the author of this Thesis reserves the right to publish freely, in the literature, at any time, any or all portions of this Thesis. Author _____________________________ Date _____________________________03/26/2020 GS Form 14 (8/10) DEDICATION For Olivia, amor animusque vitae meae, that these sacrifices might all be worth it yet. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii APPROVAL FOR SCHOLARLY DISSEMINATION ..................................................... v DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 2 HISTORIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 22 CHAPTER 3 THOMAS BECKET AND HENRY II ....................................................... 49 CHAPTER 4 THOMAS MORE AND HENRY VIII....................................................... 90 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION......................................................................................... 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 143 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my family for supporting me throughout this entire process. To my parents I owe my life and my character. For their guidance and sacrifice may this humble work begin to repay this honorable debt. I would like to thank my professors, Dr. Daniel Sportiello, Dr. Elaine Thompson, Dr. Jeffrey Hankins, and Dr. Bryan Zygmont. To these professors I owe each a sincere gratitude, without whom I would be a weak and shallow creature, clever only in the second rate and worldly arts. Without their corrections and guidance through the great crucible of academia, this thesis would be far weaker, and I much poorer. Lastly, I would like to thank Olivia, my wife and my support. For someone who has sacrificed so much for me, I hope this work might prove it was not done in vain. viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This is the first precept of law, that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this: so that whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends as man's good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided. – Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I.II Q94, A2 Quite simply, the object of law is justice. Immediately, however, questions of whose justice or which rationality to follow complicate that simplicity the law strives to have. English law from 1170-1535 exposes this foundational problem of jurisprudence through the dramatic episodic clashes between secular and religious persons. Two rival sets of law, canon and common, warred for supremacy in England. Just as with any battle, casualties followed. The deaths of Thomas Becket in the twelfth century and Thomas More in the sixteenth century bear a striking resemblance, but while this superficially indicates a consistency of outcome, it also probes further into a consistency of conditions which made such an outcome likely. The growing tension between ecclesiastical and regal courts, which had lain mostly dormant since the Conquest in 1066, exploded into a rage between Thomas Becket and Henry II with insults and 1 2 censures flying from the throne of London and the seat of Canterbury. The Becket feud overturned the “peace” established by William the Conqueror following the aftermath of the Norman invasion. William had granted the Church some liberties regarding the use of separate ecclesiastical courts, but the issue of jurisdiction remained relatively quiet.1 This silence was not the product of a harmony of principles, but rather, a quiet non-aggression pact between the Crown and the Mitre. Becket’s defiance of Henry II did not create the issue of legal supremacy, instead it rendered explicit the tension that was already brewing as far back as Pope Gregory VII’s humiliation of Henry IV at Canossa a century prior in 1076. Becket’s defiance ended with his martyrdom, but the conditions which marched Becket to the sword were not the same as those which led More to the executioner. Where Becket and Henry II fought the first battle in this clash of legal systems, More and Henry VIII would end it. The common law which laid the foundation of the Becket controversy would be consummated with the martyrdom of Thomas More in 1535. Common law’s triumph over canon law through Thomas More’s martyrdom and Henry VIII’s break from Rome held far reaching legal, political, and theological ramifications. Legally, Henry VIII merged common and canon law together through caesaropapism.2 No longer would there be two rival sets of law; Henry VIII would dissolve the problem of jurisdiction by definitively placing the King’s courts above the ecclesiastical. Canon law would continue to be practiced, but never again would it hold the same stature