SOURCE: Andrea, Alfred J. “Walter, Archdeacon of London, and the Historia Occidentalis of Jacques de Vitry.” Church History 50, no. 2 (June 1981): 144-51.

[In the following essay, Andrea confirms the validity of Jacques's reference to Master Walter of London, an archdeacon and influential preacher.]

Jacques de Vitry's Historia Occidentalis is one of the more remarkable and informative studies of contemporary western Christendom to come out of the thirteenth century.¹ As numerous commentators have pointed out, it is unmistakably the product of the spiritual-intellectual school of Master Peter the Chanter of Paris, who inspired a generation of scholars and churchmen to marry popular preaching with the theology of the schools.² Written early in the third decade of the thirteenth century,³ the Historia Occidentalis analyzes the moral state of the western church and juxtaposes in full relief the modes of both degeneracy and religious renewal within that society. Its thesis is that despite all the evils of the day, God is still working in and through the various elements of Christian society to sanctify his people; and these Christian people, for all of their failings, continue to share in the spiritual regeneration of Providence. The Historia Occidentalis has been characterized by one modern historian as “pulpit history.”⁴ However, it might be regarded equally as religious sociology for the manner in which its author attempts to fit a bewildering variety of societal phenomena into an integrated and analytical study of the moral workings of the Latin West. Vitry was a keen observer of the contemporary scene. Beyond that he had an ability to perceive patterns among the bewildering complexities of his day. Each phenomenon and person which he describes, from the disorder of university life at Paris to the new order represented by Francis and the Order of Friars Minor, adds in turn to the development of his thesis, and each appears to be something or someone about whom the author has detailed knowledge and, very often, firsthand experience. Moreover, although he uses these carefully selected details to argue a moral-spiritual position, there appears to be no attempt on Vitry's part to doctor the evidence, even though exaggerations, the stock-in-trade of all moralists, can be found. While certainly the Historia [Historia Orientalis] cannot be judged by the standards of modern scholarship, Jacques de Vitry is knowledgeable and honest about what he reports, and his study serves as a valuable and perceptive record of his religious culture.

The Historia has its inevitable factual errors, but blatantly obvious ones are remarkably few. More frequently Vitry introduces details which apparently cannot be independently verified. One such detail is his reference to Master Walter of London, whose identity has puzzled a number of historians. This study will show that Master Walter did exist and was correctly identified by Vitry. Beyond simply proving Vitry correct on a very minor point, I will argue that Master Walter of London, archdeacon of Saint Paul's from either 1212 or 1213 to 1214,⁵ was an alumnus of the University of Paris, where he had been an associate of the circle of Peter the Chanter. He returned to his native England to become not only archdeacon but also a significant evangelical preacher, whose efforts in this vocation were appreciated and used by the Roman curia.

Late twelfth-century Europe boasted a significant number of dynamic, popular preachers. In France none was better known or more widely respected than Fulk of Neuilly.⁶ Originally he had preached a general evangelical message, but in 1198 this priest of the country church of Neuilly-sur-Marne turned his attention to the forthcoming crusade—the Fourth. Before death intervened in May 1202, Fulk had succeeded in convincing large numbers of people to assume the Cross. This great success had not been achieved easily. If we are to believe his contemporary biographers, Fulk's career as a preacher had begun rather inauspiciously. His first efforts at preaching had been ill received, and it was not until he came under the influence of Master Peter the Chanter at Paris that Fulk began to excite his audiences. Vitry informs us that Fulk carefully copied the master's sermons and committed his style of rhetoric and subject matter to memory, and when he returned home to Neuilly on Sundays and feast days to perform his priestly functions, he repeated what he had learned. Soon his fame as a preacher spread beyond his parish, and his sphere of activities and success widened.⁷

Although death had suddenly ended Fulk's activities, Vitry was not prepared to believe that this man's mission of moral reformation had died with him. Such a conclusion was inconsistent with the underlying theme of the Historia. Consequently, in chapter nine Vitry provides a list of contemporary preachers who carried on Fulk's work. What follows is a literal translation of that short chapter, complete with its charming and quite characteristic mixed metaphors:

With the death of that aforementioned athlete of Christ, who had begun to awaken the world with pious yelping and who had partially illuminated darkened regions with the light of truth, many inflamed with the zeal of love and encouraged by his example began to preach and teach, instructing many in righteousness and extricating through pious exhortations the souls of sinners from Leviathan's jaws. Principal among these and of greater reputation, like stars in the firmament of heaven were: the venerable father, Master Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury; and Master Walter of London; and Master Robert de Courçon, who later was appointed cardinal; the abbot of Perseigne, of the Cistercian order; Master Alberic of Laon, who later was made archbishop of Rheims, [thereby] changing from running water to a channel; Master John de Liro and his associate, Master John de Nivelles, a humble and reverential man, who was bedecked with the pearls of every virtue. Along with many others whose names are written in the book of life, laboring faithfully and skillfully in the Lord's field, they pursued beasts from rocky caverns and mountains, pulling out with nets and snares fish from the lake of filth and misery.⁸

There is good reason to believe that each of those seven men had been, at one time or another, an associate of Vitry and also shared with him a connection with the circle of Peter the Chanter at Paris.

The case for five of them is very strong. Clearly Stephen Langton and Robert de Courçon fit that pattern of association. Langton, who served as primate of England from 1207 to 1228, had been a student of the Chanter at Paris during the 1180s and subsequently became a professor of theology at that same university. He held this position until early 1206 when he was called to Rome. Here he briefly served as a cardinal priest until his December election as archbishop of Canterbury.⁹ Courçon, also a native of England, although subsequently a Frenchman by adoption, had been a student at Paris during the 1190s and around 1200 became a professor of theology there. During these years he also became associated with the school of Peter the Chanter.¹⁰ Alberic of Laon, archbishop of Laon from 1207 to 1218, had also studied at Paris, was actively engaged in preaching there in association with Fulk of Neuilly, and, prior to his promotion to Rheims, served as archdeacon of Notre Dame.¹¹ Along with Vitry, he and Courçon preached the Albigensian Crusade and participated in the expedition to Damietta known as the Fifth Crusade.¹² John de Nivelles also preached the Fifth Crusade, but that was one of the least of his ties to Vitry.¹³ Nivelles, dean of Saint Lambert in Liege and later an Augustinian, was a late twelfth-century magister of Paris who received a law degree there but then turned to the care of souls, apparently under the influence of Peter the Chanter.¹⁴ Later he became the spiritual adviser of Saint Mary Oignies and other pious women of the Low Countries, and in this capacity he became closely associated with Jacques de Vitry, onetime auxiliary bishop of Liege and supporter of the feminine religious movement in that region.¹⁵ Even while Vitry was in the East he continued to correspond with Master John.¹⁶ The other John, John de Liro, was also associated with Liege, where he probably served as a parish priest. His name is often linked to that of John de Nivelles in chartularies.¹⁷ In addition, he served as spiritual guide to the Cistercian Saint Lutgarde and the Beguines of his diocese. He died in the Alps while on his way to Rome to secure papal recognition of these women. Shortly thereafter Vitry completed that mission.¹⁸ Liro has been identified as a product of the Paris reformers, and the theory also has been offered that he and Jacques de Vitry first met in Paris.¹⁹

Adam, abbot of Perseigne from about 1188 to 1221, was one of the more significant spiritual writers and confessors of his day, but his connections to Peter the Chanter and Vitry have never been established.²⁰ John Baldwin does not claim him for the Chanter's circle, noting that Adam's extant letters show little of the Chanter's influence.²¹ To be sure, Baldwin is correct in pointing out the significant differences in tone and subject matter that separate Abbot Adam's letters from the writings of known associates of the Chanter. The abbot's epistles were clearly written according to the model of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux—a tradition of contemplative spirituality that differed greatly from the theology of the schools. Yet, I reject the conclusion that this proves that Adam had not been associated with Peter at Paris. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to link Adam with that very master.

We do not have any clear information about Adam's formal education. His biographer has presented the theory that he was grounded in the liberal arts at one of the better episcopal schools in his home region of Champagne.²² That seems likely, but it is equally likely that, while a secular cleric, he migrated to Paris sometime in the early 1170s and studied theology there under Master Peter. Adam seems to have spent a long period of searching before he ultimately found the religious life that offered him the modes of spirituality he needed. In successive stages he passed from the secular clergy to a house of canons regular, to a Benedictine monastery, and finally to the still ascetic Order of Citeaux. This spiritual odyssey probably explains why his Cistercian letters are devoid of any clear connection with the teachings of the Chanter. We can assume that upon accepting the life of a Cistercian he attempted to place behind him the old man of the schools and to become totally the new man of the cloister. Saint Bernard now became his model and teacher. However, Abbot Adam could not totally forget what he had learned at Paris or the man who had taught him. His affection for his old teacher comes through in one extant letter. Moreover, he continued, even as a Cistercian, to preach publicly and to associate with another Parisian student of the Chanter.

In a letter of about 1197 to Odo of Sully, bishop of Paris, Adam chided the churchman for not mourning the recent death of Peter the Chanter. Adam wrote:

The time has come for the splendor of your glory to shine forth more brilliantly, now that he who was the Morning Star has set from the firmament of the church. So often had he earlier illuminated the hemisphere with the rays of his life and the luster of his teachings. I think you know—for I am speaking to a wise man—that I have been referring to the Chanter of Paris, of pious memory. Would that you grieved at the death of such a great man! In the opinion of certain people, you have shown very little sorrow at his absence; but I could not believe that.²³

Adam was also associated with Fulk of Neuilly. In September 1201, Fulk secured Abbot Adam's full participation in the Fourth Crusade.²⁴ Adam was not the only Cistercian whom Fulk attracted as a helper and who continued to preach the crusade after Fulk's death. Abbot Guy of Vaux-de-Cernay and the anonymous abbot of Cercanceaux also joined Fulk's company at this time and continued to be active in the crusade well beyond May of 1202. Yet Adam was the only monk named by Vitry as one of Fulk's successors. I believe that his inclusion in this exclusive list was due to old schoolboy connections. We may never know, however, in what particular ways Vitry and Adam knew one another.

Six of these “stars in the firmament of heaven” have been accounted for. The question remains, who was Master Walter of London, and what might have been his connection with Vitry?

John Hinnebusch despaired of identifying this person. He noted that a number of Walters have been suggested: Walter of Tournai, archdeacon of Acre; Walter of Utrecht, abbot of Villers; Walter of Florence, bishop of Acre; Walter, historian of Arrouaise; Walter l'Anglais, archbishop of Palermo; Walter of Coutances, archbishop of Rouen; Walter de Marvis, bishop of Tournai; and Hubert Walter, archbishop of Canterbury.²⁵ For various reasons none of these persons adequately fits the sketchy profile which we can construct from Vitry's account: a person associated with London and probably, therefore, English; someone of deep spirituality; possibly a scholar, although that is not certain, since the term Master was freely accorded to preachers; a cleric who had not become a prelate prior to the composition of the Historia, since Vitry had noted the ecclesiastical promotions of Langton, Courçon, and Alberic of Laon; and someone who was actively preaching after May of 1202.

Hinnebusch has suggested that Walter is possibly a scribal misreading of Peter, and Jacques de Vitry actually referred to Peter of Blois, archdeacon of London from about 1200 to 1212.²⁶ Peter was a significant ecclesiastical figure who had been a scholar at Paris and may well have been associated with Vitry there.²⁷ Hinnebusch also suggested that Galterus might be a misreading of Guillelmus. According to him, in 1212 Pope Innocent III commissioned a Master William of London to preach the crusade throughout England.²⁸ Paleographic error is not the answer; all the manuscripts clearly read magister Galterus de Londonia. However, Hinnebusch was closer to the answer than he realized. Master Walter of London was Peter of Blois's successor as archdeacon of Saint Paul's, and it was he, not some William, who was commissioned in 1213 by the papacy to preach the Fifth Crusade in England.

The crucial document that proves this is the general papal letter Pium et sanctum, which was issued between April and mid-May of 1213.²⁹ Copies of this papal commission were sent to a number of persons throughout Europe. According to papal records, its English recipients were Walter, archdeacon of London, the chancellor, and Master Philip of Oxford, who were assigned the task of preaching the Cross throughout all of England. Presumably the unnamed chancellor was Master John of Kent, chancellor of London.³⁰ The Annals of Dunstable Priory are at slight variance with this evidence. There we read: “In this same year [1212], in the month of September, the pope sent into England three preachers: namely Master W. of London, and Master Leo, dean of Wells, and Master Philip of Oxford.”³¹ The date of 1212 is patently wrong, since Pope Innocent did not begin appeals for the Fifth Crusade until April of 1213;³² and both Ralph of Coggeshall and the Annals of Waverly Abbey record the activities of three unnamed papal preachers in their respective entries for the year 1214, although the Waverly chronicler notes that the papal letters of commission had been received quite a bit earlier.³³ The absence of the chancellor of London's name and its replacement with that of the dean of Wells might well have been due to the fact that John of Kent died in 1214.³⁴ Apparently Master Leo replaced him. However, these two men do not concern us, but Master W. of London does. Henry Richards Luard, the editor of the Annals of Dunstable Priory, for reasons known only to him, filled in the name William for the cryptic W. He erred and ultimately led Hinnebusch astray. Clearly the archdeacon of London who received that papal commission was named Walter, not William. Three extant charters of Saint Paul's Cathedral dated to the period 1212-1214 bear the witness of Archdeacon Walter.³⁵

So we have found a Walter of London who was active as a preacher in the years following Fulk of Neuilly's death. The fact that he preached the Fifth Crusade is also significant. As mentioned above, John de Nivelles preached the crusade, and both Courçon and Alberic of Laon died while participating in it. Jacques de Vitry also sailed to Damietta, but he survived the ordeal and wrote extensively about it.³⁶ Of course, the Fifth Crusade had many preachers, but in this particular passage Vitry singled out only four. The reason for this, as I have suggested above, must lie in the fact that each was an acquaintance and friend.

I suspect that Vitry knew Walter from his university days at Paris, where Walter had probably been among the last group of students to study under Peter the Chanter. Following completion of his formal studies, Walter probably returned to England, where he pursued a career in episcopal administration, rising ultimately to the office of archdeacon. It is tempting to picture Walter serving as the deputy of his predecessor, the aged Peter of Blois, himself a former student of theology at Paris and a careerist who throughout most of his life seems to have looked upon his successive offices largely as sources of income and platforms from which to gain fame and higher station.³⁷ However, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that this was the case.³⁸ Indeed, I know of no English records that mention Walter before 1212. It is safe to assume, however, that during the period between his leaving Paris and his succession to the archdeaconry of London he was an active evangelist. Certainly his fame as a local preacher was sufficient to make him a natural choice of the curia in 1213 to preach its new crusade—a crusade which was instilled with a deep millenarian flavor by Pope Innocent III, another theologian trained in Paris.

Walter passed away in 1214, leaving this last task uncompleted, and there is no evidence to indicate how much he had contributed to the effort before his death. However, he may have left behind a document that helped carry on his labors even after death. Walter and his two associates had commissioned a number of assistants.³⁹ Apparently to guide these helpers, one or more of the three men composed a preacher's manual entitled Ordinacio de Predicatione Sanctae Crucis in Anglia. The work exists in two Oxford manuscripts and has been edited by Reinhold Röhricht, who hypothetically identified its author as Master Philip of Oxford.⁴⁰ This ascription may well be correct, but we will never know. Again we are faced with the problem of evidence or, rather, its absence. We know virtually nothing about Master Philip. Extant Oxford records indicate that there were at least three masters with this name who flourished during the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries: Philip, vice-archdeacon of Oxford; Philip de Hanneye; and Philip de Haya. The vice-archdeacon served around 1174-1175 and, by virtue of his age, probably was not the Master Philip of the Fifth Crusade.⁴¹ Philip de Hanneye, a friend of Saint Frideswide's Priory, made a bequest to that same house between 1190 and 1200 and also served as a papal judge subdelegate about 1224 in a case involving Saint Frideswide's.⁴² Philip de Haya was similarly a friend of the regular clergy and was also involved in settling ecclesiastical disputes. In 1229 he lent a sum of money to Oseney Abbey and earlier in 1225 he had witnessed a settlement by papal judges delegate at Oxford.⁴³ Either of these latter two men could be our Master Philip. Whatever his surname, Master Philip was probably one of the charitable masters of theology who Alexander Neckham praised in his treatise De Artificioso Modo Predicandi, which dates from the early thirteenth century. In this tract on the art of preaching, Neckham informs us:

At the time when I was a student, there were few such founts of learning. [He has just explained that these founts are masters who teach theology without exacting a fee.] There were scarcely any masters to be found whose aim was not ambitious, whose teaching was not mercenary and whose tongues were not venal. But now, by the grace of God, there are many who teach without a fee. Many are the founts of the Saviour, ever open to those wishing to draw from them. Almost every city has such a fount, at Northampton Master [here unfortunately there is a blank in the MS.] at Oxford Master Philip, at Exeter Master John and others elsewhere.⁴⁴

This is the sum of our evidence. Where sources fail, imagination takes over, and I like to believe that Master Philip had also been educated at Paris, where he came under the influence of the school of the Chanter. This is an attractive thesis in light of the fact that the Chanter and his students wrestled with the question of academic fees, and Master Peter had taught that beneficed theologians could not licitly charge their students since such fees were tantamount to simony.⁴⁵ However, prudence dictates that I should not attempt to associate Philip with the Chanter on the basis of such a flimsy argument. All we can reasonably infer is that Philip was a highly respected churchman, teacher, and preacher, who was noted for his high standards of personal conduct and piety. By the end of 1214 he was the lone survivor of the original company of three preachers appointed by the pope, and at some unknown date Philip and/or one or more of his colleagues composed the Ordinacio.

The manual is largely a rambling collection of anecdotes, aphorisms, and commentaries on disjointed biblical passages. It was probably meant to serve as a mine of illustrative materials from which preachers in the field could select appropriate items with which to spice up their sermons.⁴⁶ The stories and homilies appear to be largely aimed at the level of an unsophisticated lay audience. This certainly was consonant with Innocent III's stated aim of enlisting all levels of society in this new crusade and with what we know of the activities of these English preachers who, according to the Annals of Waverly, induced large numbers of men, women, and even children to take the Cross.⁴⁷ What is more, it certainly was in keeping with the activities and philosophy of the circle of the Chanter.⁴⁸

We will never know if Walter ever penned a word of the Ordinacio, but undoubtedly this work reflects, in spirit and form, the type of preaching engaged in by this archdeacon. Our meager evidence does not allow us to say anything more about Master Walter, and it is unfortunate that he will remain forever a shadowy historical figure at best. His talents were obviously significant enough to merit curial notice, and one of his age's leading commentators upon contemporary religious phenomena saw fit to number him among the evangelical giants of the day.

Notes

1. John F. Hinnebusch, O.P., ed., The Historia Occidentalis of Jacques de Vitry: A Critical Edition, in Spicilegium Friburgense, Texts Concerning the History of Christian Life 17 (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1972). Vitry (ca. 1170-1240) served as bishop of Acre from 1216 to about 1228 and was cardinal bishop of Tusculum from 1229 to his death. The standard study of his life is Philipp Funk, Jakob von Vitry, Leben und Werke (Leipzig, 1909). Ernest W. McDonnell, The Beguines and Beghards in Medieval Culture (1954; reprint ed., New York, 1969), pp. 21-39, gives a good short biography.

2. Peter served as chanter of Notre Dame from 1183 to his death in 1197 and was probably already a master of theology in Paris around 1170. John W. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circle (Princeton, N.J., 1970), 2 vols., is the best work to date on Peter and his students.

3. Hinnebusch, Historia Occidentalis, pp. 16-20.

4. Beryl Smalley, Historians in the Middle Ages (New York, 1974), pp. 165-172.

5. Diana E. Greenway, comp., John Le Neve: Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300 (London, 1968-), 1:10.

6. The best studies of Fulk are John M. O'Brien, “Fulk of Neuilly,” in Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society 13 (1969): 109-148, and Milton R. Gutsch, “A Twelfth-Century Preacher—Fulk of Neuilly,” in Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro by His Former Students, ed. Louis J. Paetow (New York, 1928), pp. 183-206.

7. Vitry in Hinnebusch, Historia Occidentalis, pp. 94-101.

8. Ibid., pp. 102-103. The translation is my own.

9. Dictionary of National Biography, (hereafter cited as DNB), s.v. “Langton, Stephen”; Frederick Powicke, Stephen Langton (1928; reprint ed., Oxford, 1965). Baldwin, Masters, Princes, Merchants, 1:25-31, places him clearly within the school of the Chanter.

10. Robert de Courçon was cardinal priest of Saint Stephen in Celius, 1212-1219. Marcel and Christiane Dickson, “Le Cardinal Robert de Courçon, sa vie,” in Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 9 (1934): 53-142. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, Merchants, 1:19-25, places him also within the Chanter's circle.

11. Hinnebusch, Historia Occidentalis, p. 257.

12. Austin P. Evans, “The Albigensian Crusade,” in A History of the Crusades, 4 vols., ed. Kenneth M. Setton et al. (Madison, Wis., 1969), 2:287, 300, and 304; Norman P. Zacour, “The Children's Crusade,” ibid., p. 326; Thomas C. Van Cleve, “The Fifth Crusade,” ibid., pp. 379-380, 386, 402, and 406. Both Archbishop Alberic and Cardinal Robert perished in the course of this latter campaign.

13. McDonnell, Beguines and Beghards, p. 41.

14. McDonnell provides a good biography in ibid., pp. 40-45. See also Hinnebusch, Historia Occidentalis, p. 286.

15. McDonnell, Beguines and Beghards, p. 21 and pp. 20-39, passim.

16. Ibid., pp. 17 and 20 and Hinnebusch, Historia Occidentalis, p. 286.

17. McDonnell, Beguines and Beghards, p. 40.

18. Ibid., p. 47.

19. Ibid., p. 47, on the basis of chapter nine of Vitry quoted above; Hinnebusch, Historia Occidentalis, p. 285.

20. On Adam's life see Jean Bouvet, “Biographie d'Adam de Perseigne,” in Collectanae Ordinis Cisterciensium Reformatorum 20 (1958): 16-26 and 145-152. This is also printed in Adam of Perseigne, Lettres, ed. J. Bouvet, Sources chrétiennes 66 (Paris, 1960), pp. 7-29.

21. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, Merchants, 1:39.

22. Bouvet, “Biographie,” p. 17.

23. J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, series latina, 221 vols. (Paris, 1844-1855), 211:598 (hereafter cited as Migne, PL). The translation is my own.

24. Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Joseph Stevenson (London, 1875), p. 130.

25. Hinnebusch, Historia Occidentalis, pp. 298-299.

26. Ibid., p. 298; Greenway, John Le Neve, 1:10.

27. DNB, s.v. “Peter of Blois”; Baldwin, Masters, Princes, Merchants, 1:85. See note 37 below.

28. Hinnebusch, Historia Occidentalis, p. 298.

29. August Potthast, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 2 vols. (1874; reprint ed., Graz, 1957), 1:410-411, no. 4727; Migne, PL, 216:822-823; C. R. and Mary G. Cheney, The Letters of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) Concerning England and Wales (Oxford, 1967), p. 152, no. 918. Angel Manrique, Cistercienses seu verius ecclesiastici Annales a condito Cistercio, 4 vols. (Lyons, 1642-1659), 3:386, printed this letter and erroneously dated it to the third year of Innocent's pontificate (23 February 1200 through 22 February 1201), thereby wrongly linking it with the Fourth Crusade. Moreover, he gravely misquoted its list of recipients. For reasons that are not at all clear, he recorded Walter and the Cistercian abbot of Rievaulx as the sole English recipients.

30. The papal register is ambiguous. It records that copy of the general letter which was sent to Abbot Everard of Salem and Peter, former abbot of Neubourg, who were assigned the province of Mainz. There follows a list of persons who received similar letters, along with notes on the territories assigned them. In that list we read: “In eundum modum Galterum Londoniensem archidiaconum, cancellarium et magistrum Phi[lippum] de Oxonia … per Angliam.” At first glance it appears that Philip is accorded a double title, Chancellor and Master, but that does not seem possible. Lincoln's chancellors in 1213 were Master William de Montibus and his successor Master Roger de Insula (Greenway, John Le Neve, 3:16-17). As far as we know, Robert Grosseteste was the first person to bear officially the title chancellor of Oxford, and that title does not seem to have been recognized by the Roman curia until around 1221. It follows that this chancellor had to have been a person other than Philip or Walter. Christopher R. Cheney, Pope Innocent III and England (Stuttgart, 1976), p. 263, suggests plausibly that this unnamed chancellor was Master John Kent of London. The evidence cited in notes 31, 33, and 34 below, leads me to accept Cheney's suggestion.

31. Annales Monastici, vol. 3, Annales Prioratus de Dunstaplia, ed. H. R. Luard (London, 1866), p. 40.

32. Potthast, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 1:410, no. 4725, letter of 19-29 April 1213; Migne, PL, 216:817-822; Cheney and Cheney, Letters, p. 152, no. 917.

33. Coggeshall, Chronicum Anglicanum, p. 168; Annales Monastici, vol. 2, Annales Monasterii de Waverleia, ed. H. R. Luard (London, 1865), p. 281.

34. Greenway, John LeNeve, 1:26.

35. Marion Gibbs, Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, London, Camden, 3d ser., vol. 58 (London, 1939), nos. 255, 263, and 307.

36. Vitry's two major contributions to our sources for the Fifth Crusade are his: Historia Iherosolimitana in J. Bongars, ed., Gesta Dei per Francos, 2 vols. (Hanover, 1611), 1:1047-1124; and Epistolae, 1216-1221, ed. R. Röhricht, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 14 (1892-1894): 97-118; 15 (1894-1895): 568-587; 16 (1895-1896): 72-114.

37. R. W. Southern, “Peter of Blois: A Twelfth Century Humanist?,” in Medieval Humanism (New York, 1970), pp. 107-112 and 122-123, provides a sketch of Blois's career. He appears to have studied theology at Paris around 1155, more than a decade, therefore, before the Chanter's appearance there as a master (p. 109). It is not clear what relationship, if any, he enjoyed with the Chanter. Blois certainly knew one of Peter the Chanter's works, the Verbum Abbreviatum, from which he borrowed heavily in one of the intermediate recensions of his letters (ibid., p. 124). Until the manuscripts of that recension are edited, however, any connections which we attempt to establish between these two Peters will be hypothetical, at best. See Baldwin, Masters, Princes, Merchants, 2:9, n. 5. Southern also points out on pp. 123-124 and 128 that toward the end of his long life Peter of Blois exhibited increasing signs of sincere religious devotion.

38. Study of those letters of Peter which are published in Migne, PL, 207:1-560, has revealed no mention of any Walter whom I can connect with Walter of London. On occasion Blois does write to or about an associate and friend G. (for example, letter 17, cols. 62-65), and in one letter he speaks affectionately of a Master G. (letter 65, cols. 190-193). Moreover, while serving as archdeacon of Bath, Peter had a vicar named G., whom he instructed to be scrupulous in his care of souls (letter 157, cols. 450-452). It would be convenient to be able to conclude that G. stood for Gwalterus or Galterus. However, whenever Peter spells out the name Walter (for example, letter 66, cols. 193-210, to Walter, archbishop of Palermo), he uses an initial W not a G. It is possible that Walter of London or a Gwalterus will appear in other, yet unprinted recensions of Blois's oft reworked letters.

39. The Prior of Dunstable, for example, served as their vicar in the counties of Huntington, Bedford, and Hartford. Annales Monastici, 3:40.

40. [Philip of Oxford], “Ordinacio de Predicatione Sanctae Crucis in Anglia,” in Quinti Belli Sacri Scriptores Minores, ed. R. Röhricht (Geneva, 1879), pp. 3-26. Röhricht provisionally ascribes its authorship to Philip on p. x.

41. A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1957-1959), 3:1475.

42. Ibid., 2:867.

43. Ibid., 2:893.

44. With the exception of the italics, this is quoted directly from R. W. Hunt, “English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century,” Royal Historical Society Transactions, 4th ser. 19 (1936): 20.

45. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, Merchants, 1:124-127.

46. Beatrice N. Siedschlag, English Participation in the Crusades 1150-1220 (Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College, 1939, privately printed), p. 35, first suggested this. Röhricht, p. ix, believed that the Ordinacio was an incomplete commentary on a sermon.

47. Paul Alphandéry, La Chrétienté et l'idée de croisade, 2 vols. (Paris, 1959), 2:151-153; Helmut Roscher, Papst Innocenz III. und die Kreuzzüge (Göttingen, 1969), pp. 143-147; Annales Monasticii, 2:281.

48. According to Van Cleve, “The Fifth Crusade,” “The preaching of Robert of Courçon, like that of his greater contemporary James of Vitry, was most successful among the masses, the unfortunate, and the weak. He permitted all who volunteered to accept the cross: old men, women, children, cripples, the deaf, and the blind” (p. 380).