How corrupt was the English church? Tuesday 9 th December Do Now: What arguments did the Normans use to achieve papal support for their invasion of England?

Objectives Establish knowledge of pre-conquest church as a basis to consider change Evaluate the condition of the pre-conquest church Do now answers: -Alleged breaking of vows by Harold -Pluralism of Stigand -Harold (allegedly) crowned by Stigand -Reform English church, esp. payment of Peter’s Pence

Half of you are a papal enquiry who have the job of assembling evidence the English church is corrupt and in need of reform. The other half are the English church’s defense team who must argue they are not significantly different to the church elsewhere. Use Purser pp.85-6 and the extract from Barlow to form your arguments.

Plenary How corrupt was the English church? How far is our view coloured by Norman propaganda?

“There was no need for William to reform the English Church”. Explain why you agree or disagree with this view. Points/factors/evidence which agree(s) might include: there was little evidence of corruption. Few of the episcopacy were married – a situation which was more prevalent on the Continent – and only Stigand was a pluralist there were already links to wider continental reforms through the non-English bishops appointed by the Confessor there were strong links with the papacy and English bishops attended papal councils English monasticism was a strong institution William had failed to improve clerical morals in Normandy. Points/factors/evidence which disagree(s) might include: William was a genuinely pious man who felt that England lagged behind more recent changes in the Church the loyalty and support of the episcopacy he appointed strengthened unity the revived spirituality and organisation benefitted the Church as an organisation. Good answers are likely to/may conclude that the pace of reform was accelerated by the Conquest and prevented the English Church from becoming a sleepy backwater. However, William’s motivation seemed to be mainly that he needed Divine support and that he utilised his power within the Church to consolidate the Conquest rather than bring about reform for its own sake.

L3: Answers will show a developed understanding of the demands of the question. They will provide some assessment, backed by relevant and appropriately selected evidence, but they will lack depth and/or balance. There will be some understanding of varying historical interpretations. Answers will, for the most part, be clearly expressed and show some organisation in the presentation of material L4: Answers will show explicit understanding of the demands of the question. They will develop a balanced argument backed by a good range of appropriately selected evidence and a good understanding of historical interpretations. Answers will, for the most part, show organisation and good skills of written communication L5: Answers will be well-focused and closely argued. The arguments will be supported by precisely selected evidence leading to a relevant conclusion/judgement, incorporating well- developed understanding of historical interpretations and debate. Answers will, for the most part, be carefully organised and fluently written, using appropriate vocabulary

There was certainly no ‘need’ for William to reform the English Church but there was certainly a benefit. William used allegations of corruption to bend the church to his will. The accusations of church corruption were central to William gaining papal support for the conquest. Central to the argument that the English church needed reform was the figure of Stigand. Stigand was guilty of pluralism through holding both Canterbury and Winchester. This was problematic for the English Church and the papacy and was clear evidence that reform was necessary. A second argument in favour of reforming the English church was that there were questions surrounding the quality of their clergy. The usual accusations of clerical abuses surrounding marriage and moral deficiency were levelled at the English clergy as much as elsewhere due to the growing reforming zeal of Europe. It was perhaps particularly easy to paint the English church as corrupt in this respect owing to the numebr of churches over which bishops and the central church had little influence. Anglo-Saxon England had witnessed significant church building taking place on the land of independent thegns who proceeded to appoint their own priests. This was an unusual feature of the English church. Although we have no reason to suspect these ‘thegn-appointed’ clerics were worse than any other, they nonetheless provided ammunition to reformists. Finally, the English church was in need of organisational reform. The centres of dioceses were often in obscure places owing to the legacy of petty kingdoms in England. This meant that, compared to the metropolitan dioceses of the continent, the English church appeared backward and in need of reform. However, all of these potential ‘needs’ to reform are secondary to William’s desire to reform. Stigand’s pluralism was indeed problematic but he had been recognised by the papacy when given his pallium in Furthermore, it is unlikely that William removed Stigand in 1070 because he was corrupt but rather because his loyalty was uncertain. William eventually removed all English bishops (except Wulfstan of Worcester) to be replaced by Normans despite the fact we have no evidence of any corruption on their part. It is true to say Stigand was corrupt but it is questionable to say reform was the reason he was removed. Secondly, as briefly mentioned earlier, there was no great need to reform the clergy – certainly no more than anywhere else in Europe. English clergy were as celibate (or not) as their continental counterparts, they still collected tithe in line with the continent and they maintained close ties with the papacy. Numerous English bishops, and even earls, regularly visited Rome. Furthermore in some ways, such as the production of literature, the English church was in fact superior to the continental church. If there was a ‘need’ to reform the English clergy, it was no greater a need than elsewhere in Europe. Any reform of the clergy was driven by Lanfranc, who was appointed by William for reasons of control rather than reform. To conclude, there was not a need for reform. The English church was certainly a little out of date but it was not as corrupt as its leader, Stigand. Rather, there were excuses to reform. Like any church in Europe there were faults to be found and in the reforming climate of eleventh century Europe these faults were used by William to mobilise papal and spiritual support for his conquest and its consolidation. The idea of reform was used to bring church centres into urban centres and to replace English clergy with Norman. Whilst both of these moves no doubt modernised the English church, they also tightened William’s grip over his new kingdom. Reform was not needed in the English church but it was a comfortable bedfellow to William’s authority over his conquest.