[1238] This deprivation of Herbert by the King—most likely with the consent of somebody, but we are not told—is quite as contrary to strict ecclesiastical notions as the deprivation of Stigand by the English people. The Parliaments of Elizabeth, William and Mary, George the First, followed that precedent. I will not speak of the reign of Edward the Sixth, as that was a time of “unlaw” nearly equal to the days of Rufus himself.
[1239] See Appendix X.
[1240] Here we come personally across the class of offenders of whom we have before spoken generally (see above, [p. 158], and Appendix G). Eadmer draws their picture; “Eo tempore curialis juventus ferme tota crines suos juvencularum more nutriebat, et quotidie pexa, ac irreligiosis nutibus circumspectans, delicatis vestigiis, tenero incessu, obambulare solita erat. De quibus cum in capite jejunii sermonem in populo ad missam suam et ad cineres confluente idem pater habuisset, copiosam turbam ex illis in pœnitentiam egit, et attonsis crinibus, in virilem formam redegit.”
[1241] See Appendix G.
[1242] This is pointed out by Eadmer. “Die quadam ad eum ex more ivit, et juxta illum sedens eum his verbis alloqui cœpit.” We shall come to other instances of this custom of the Archbishop sitting down beside the King.
[1243] “Obsecro primum, fer opem et consilium qualiter in hoc regno tuo Christianitas, quæ jam fere tota in multis periit, in statum suum redigi possit. Respondit, ‘Quam opem, quod consilium?’”
[1244] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 437.
[1245] Anselm is made to say; “Generale concilium episcoporum ex quo tu rex factus fuisti non fuit in Anglia celebratum, nec retroactis pluribus annis.” Yet Lanfranc had held many synods, and one notable one as late as 1085. See N. C. vol. iv. p. 687.
[1246] He passes by the smaller matters—“ut illicita consanguineorum connubia et alia multa rerum detestandarum facinorosa negotia taceam”—and goes straight to the sin of the reign, “noviter in hac terra divulgatum,” which “jam plurimum pullulavit multosque sua immanitate fœdavit.” See Appendix G.
[1247] “Conemur una, quæso, tu regia potestate et ego pontificali auctoritate, quantus tale quid inde statuatur, quod cum per totum fuerit regnum divulgatum, solo etiam auditu quicunque illius fautor est paveat et deprimatur.” What would have been the nature of the punishment? Something more, one would think, than an ecclesiastical censure, as it was to be a decree of the King. Anselm had no objection to very severe punishments on occasion (see N. C. vol. v. p. 159; cf. vol. iv. p. 621). But when he was able to legislate on this subject (see N. C. vol. v. p. 223), it was in an ecclesiastical synod, and the penalties are milder.