Letters222 Letter CCXXII. To Joscelyn, bishop of Soissons, and Suger, abbot of s. Denys. (A.D. 1142)
Letter CCXXII. To Joscelyn, bishop of Soissons, and Suger, abbot of s. Denys. (A.D. 1142)
He complains to them, as the King's counsellors, of his unjust attacks upon Count Theobald.
1. I had written to the King, rebuking him for the wrongs done in his kingdom, which are said to be done by his consent, and I have thought it fit to bring his reply before you who are of his council. For I wonder if he believes what he says, and if he does not, I wonder how he expects to make me believe it, when, as you know, I am aware of everything which took place with a view to making peace. For he says, as you can see in his letters, when he was trying to prove that the agreement had not been well kept by the Count, " Our Bishops still remain suspended, our land is still under an interdict," as though it belonged to Count Theobald to put an end to any ecclesiastical interdict whatever, or as if he ever promised that he would. He says, " Count Ralph was mocked and his excommunication renewed/' And what has this to do with Count Theobald? Did he not faithfully carry out and effectually perform whatever promise he made about this matter? Rather, was not the King caught in his own craftiness, and did he not fall into the pit which he made? Was this the sole reason why the King made void the agreement which he had made and which your lips pronounced? Was it right for this that the anger of the King should be kindled against God and against His Church, against himself and his kingdom? Because of this ought he to have so forgotten his honour as to send his brother to overcome his vassal, whom he had not even declared war against, much less warned privately or reasoned with, and that, too, through Chalons, and you know the agreement come to between the King and Count about this state especially.
2. But the King makes it a further complaint that the Count, contrary to the allegiance due to him, is endeavouring to ally himself by marriage with the Count of Flanders and Soissons. Well, a suspicion about his fidelity is not a certitude; moreover, you can see the morality of setting aside fixed agreements because of empty suspicions. Nor ought suspicion of such a man as the Count to be entertained at all. Are, then, those to whom the Count allies himself necessarily the King's enemies, and not his vassals or his friends? Is not the Count of Flanders a relation of the King by blood, and, as he says himself, the staff of his kingdom? In what way, then, does his vassal and faithful servant act against the allegiance that he owes the King, if he allies himself by the marriage of those of his own house, to the King's friends? If any one were to consider the matter with an unprejudiced eye, would he not rather see that it greatly adds to the peace, strength, and security of the kingdom?
3. Hut I do wonder how the King can dare to say that he had ascertained that I knew that Count Theobald had endeavoured to draw over Count Ralph to his side against the King. For he said more to my messenger than he wrote; that I had very often told Count Ralph that I would take on myself the greatest part of his sins if he would join himself to Count Theobald. If the man exists by whom I sent such messages, let him come forward and accuse me openly. If I wrote it in letters, let them be produced. Let the King see whom he has believed. I am certain that I have never known anything of what he alleges. I think the same, too, about Count Theobald, for he denies it in every way. May God look upon and judge the King for accusing Count Theobald on suspicion, when he himself, against his agreements, against the precepts of God, and the sentence of the Supreme Pontiff, is keeping Count Ralph close by him, and is communicating with one that is an adulterer and excommunicate.
4. The King also says: "I have almost had upon my hands two bitter assailants." And the prophet answers in scorn: They feared where no fear was (Ps. xiv. 5). Lo he says, I am assailed, I, who did not assail any one; I, who persecuted not, suffer persecution. Who, I ask, who is assailing him? Or who is persecuting him? Is not the Count entreating him, and that humbly? Is he not ready to honour the King, to serve and obey him as his liege-lord? Is he not earnestly praying for peace, and doing all he can to win the King's good will? Suppose that it is not so, but that it is the Count rather who is doing all this wrong to the King; should he not have had recourse to that which you know was determined on? For they agreed between them that, if any controversy or difference should arise about any of the articles agreed upon they would neither do nor seek any injury to each other until the matter had been ventilated and discussed between us three and the Bishop of Auxerre, for we were then the mediators; and if any quarrel arose we ought to have been called on to settle it. And that the Count in every way asks for, but the King refuses.
5. In short, even if the Count has deserved punishment, why has the Church of God deserved it? I mean not only the Church of Bourges, but also that of Chalons, and even of Rheims, and of Paris. Suppose that the King has right on his side against the Count, by what right, I ask, by what right does he presume to lay waste the possessions and lands of the Church, to prevent pastors being set over the sheep of Christ, to forbid those elected to be promoted to their head? By what right does he bring about the postponement of an election (a thing hitherto unheard of) until he has swallowed up all the revenues, carried off the goods of the poor, and until the land is wholly made desolate? Do you advise him to this? It is wonderful, indeed, if it is done against your advice; still more wonderful and mischievous if it is by your advice. For to advise to this is manifestly to create a schism, to resist God, to make a tool of the Church, and to reduce to slavery our ecclesiastical liberty. If any one is a faithful servant of God and His Church, he will certainly stand up and oppose himself as a wall as far as he can in defence of the house of God. For how can you yourselves, if you desire the peace of the Church, as behoves children of peace, I do not say give such evil counsel, but even have any part in it? For whatever evil is done is rightly imputed, not to the King, but to his aged advisers.
1. Scripseram Regi, arguens eum super malis quae fiunt in regno ejus, ipsius, sicut dicitur, assensu: et quod rescripsit, dignum duxi vobis, qui de consilio ejus estis, insinuandum. Miror enim si ita credit ut loquitur, et, si non credit, quomodo conscio mihi utique omnium (sicut scitis) quae ad pacem reformandam facta fuerunt, ista persuadere conatur. Ait enim, sicut potestis videre in litteris ejus, cum male servata in parte Comitis pacta conaretur ostendere: « Adhuc suspensi manent episcopi nostri: adhuc terra nostra interdicta est. » Quasi vero cujusquam ecclesiastici absolutio interdicti ad comitem Theobaldum pertineat, aut hoc ipse aliquo modo pepigerit se facturum. « Illusus est, » ait, « comes Radulfus, et iterum relegatus est. » Et hoc quid ad comitem Theobaldum? Nonne quidquid de hac re promisit, fideliter elaboravit, et efficaciter adimplevit? Ille vero deprehensus est in astutia sua, et cecidit in foveam quam fecit. En est hoc totum cur irrita faceret Rex pacta sua, quae distinxerunt labia vestra? An propter hoc decuit incandescere iram Regis contra Deum et Ecclesiam ejus, contra se ipsum et regnum suum? Itane propter hoc debuit oblivisci honoris sui, ut, ad debellandum hominem suum, quem non dico diffidaverat, sed nec submonuerat vel posuerat ad rationem, mitteret fratrem suum, idque per Catalaunum 206, de qua potissimum civitate scitis quid Rex cum comite Theobaldo pepigerit?
2. Sed Rex adhuc aliud addit, quod matrimoniis sibi moliatur conjungere, contra ejus fidelitatem, comitem Flandrensem et Suessionensem. Et de fidelitate quidem suspicio est, non certitudo. Porro inanes suspiciones certis pactionibus praejudicare quale sit, vos videritis. Quanquam id omnino credendum non fuerit de tali viro. Numquid enim hostes sunt Regis, quibus alligatur Comes, et non magis homines ejus et ejus amici? Nonne consanguineus Regis, et, sicut fatetur, baculus regni comes Flandrensis est? Quid ergo contra Regis fidelitatem facit ejus homo, et fidelis ipsius, si aliis ejus amicis, suorum matrimoniis copulatur? Nonne si quis simplici oculo rem, ut est, consideraret, magna potius pax regni, magnumque robur, et magna posset putari securitas?
3. Illud autem miror, quomodo Rex dicere non timuerit, cognoscere se quia noverim ego, comitem Theobaldum in partem suam, contra Regem, comitem Radulfum trahere attentasse. Nam et viva voce nuntio nostro plus dixit quam scripserit, quod mandaverim saepius dicto Radulfo maximam partem peccatorum ejus me suscipere, si vellet comiti Theobaldo adhaerere. Si natus est homo ille per quem ista mandaverim, veniat et arguat me palam: si scripsi litteras, proferantur in medium. Viderit ipse cui crediderit: certus ego sum quia nunquam noverim quod imponit. Idem arbitror et de comite Theobaldo, quia et ipse omnimodis diffitetur. Videat proinde Deus et judicet, quod nunc de suspicione comes Theobaldus arguitur ab eo qui manifeste contra pactiones suas ipsum sibi attraxit comitem Radulfum, contra Dei praecepta, contra sententiam summi Pontificis adultero et excommunicato communicans.
4. Ait quoque Rex: « Pene habuimus duos gravissimos oppugnatores. » Et propheta subsannans respondet: Ibi trepidaverunt timore, ubi non erat timor. « Ecce, » inquit, « oppugnamur, qui non oppugnavimus: persecutionem patimur, qui non persecuti fuimus. » Quis oppugnat, obsecro? quis oppugnat, quisve persequitur? Nonne comes obsecrat et humiliatur, honorare paratus ut regem, servire et obsequi tanquam domino suo, obnixe pro pace supplicans, et bonam Regis (quod in se est) sibi conciliare satagens voluntatem? Esto quod non sit ita, sed magis Comes Regi mala omnia moliatur: nonne ad id quod statutum fuisse scitis, fuerat recurrendum? Sic enim inter se pepigerunt ut, si qua de conventionibus illis controversia aut dissensio nasceretur, nihil mali sibi invicem facerent aut quaererent, donec coram nobis tribus pariter, et domino Autissiodorensi, ventilata res esset atque discussa, qui et tunc mediatores fuimus: et si quid emergeret controversiae, debuimus esse reconciliatores. At id modo omnimodis Comes flagitat: sed Rex abnuit.
5. Denique esto quod omnino male meruit Comes: sed Ecclesia Dei quid meruit? Quid, inquam, meruit, non jam sola Bituricensis Ecclesia, sed et Catalaunensis, etiam et Remensis, etiam et Parisiensis? Habeat Rex adversus Comitem jus: sed de quo jure, obsecro, de quo jure praesumit ut Ecclesiarum possessiones et terras devastet, ut Christi ovibus pastores praefici non permittat: ut his quidem electorum promotionem prohibeat, aliis vero, quod hactenus inauditum est, dilationem electionis indicat, donec universa consumpserit, donec diripuerit pauperum facultates, donec penitus desoletur terra? An vos ei consulitis talia? Mirum valde, si contra vestrum consilium fiunt haec: mirum magis et malum, si vestro consilio fiunt. Etenim consulere talia, manifeste schisma fabricare est, Deo resistere, Ecclesiam ancillare, et novam in servitutem ecclesiasticam redigere libertatem. Si quis Dei fidelis, si quis Ecclesiae filius est, profecto stabit et opponet se, quoad poterit, murum pro domo Dei. Nam et vos ipsi, si pacem desideratis Ecclesiae, sicut oportet filios pacis, quomodo non dicam tractatis ea, sed vel interestis consiliis tam malignis? Quidquid enim mali fecerit, merito non Regi juveni, sed consiliariis senibus imputatur.