St Anselm and the English investiture controversy reconsidered
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11892013 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sally N Vaughn (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1980 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 61-86 |
| Publication date | 1980-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Medieval History (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0304-4181 • E-ISSN: 1873-1279 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1016/0304-4181(80)90028-7 |
| OpenAlex | W2038968614 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 10 |
The Investiture Controversy in England has generally been viewed as a two-sided contest between king and pope. But in reality the struggle was between three parties — king, pope, and primate. St Anselm, devoted to his duties as God's steward of his office and its privileges, worked against both King Henry I and Pope Paschal II to bring into reality his idea of the proper status of the primate of all Britain. Anselm had a vision of a political model which he conceived as God's ‘right order’ in England, and all his efforts were directed toward fulfilling this vision.The Investiture Contest may be divided into two parts. The first phase began when Anselm was thwarted by Henry I's duplicity in the archbishop's attempt to force the king to accept the decrees of Rome at the height of a political crisis. Anselm may have seen these decrees as beneficial to the Canterbury primacy. From 1101 to 1103, Anselm wavered between supporting either party completely, meanwhile securing from Paschal all the most important privileges for the primacy of Canterbury. Each time Paschal refused to grant a dispensation for Henry, as Anselm requested, he granted Anselm a privilege for the primacy. Thus Anselm's vision of the primate as almost a patriarch of another world, nearly independent of the pope, was fulfilled by 1103.At this point, Anselm abandoned his vacillation between king and pope, and worked seemingly on behalf of Paschal, but in reality on behalf of the Canterbury primacy. During this second phase, Anselm's political adroitness becomes clear by a correlation, never before made, between the church-state controversy and Henry's campaign to conquer Normandy. By careful maneuvering and skilful propaganda, Anselm forced Henry to choose between submitting to the investiture decree or failing in his attempt to conquer Normandy. At the settlement, a compromise was worked out, Henry conceding on investitures, and Paschal conceding on homage. But investiture was only secondary to Anselm. He ended the dispute not when Henry submitted on investitures, but only when he had gained from Henry concessions which made the primate almost a co-ruler with the king, as his political vision demanded. Only after a public reconcilliation with his archbishop did Henry feel free to complete the Norman campaign.Thus the Investiture Controversy was a three-way struggle. Both king and pope compromised, each giving up some of their goals. But Anselm emerged from the contest having won nearly all his political objectives
Archbishop · CONTEST · Political science · Politics · Privilege (computing · Theology · History · Law · Medieval Literature and History · Philosophy
| Highly cited | No |
|---|