Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/868

 LANFRANCO

786

LANFRANCO

destruction by fire in 1067, improving the archiepisco- pal estates by his good management, founding hospi- tals for the sick and indigent of both sexes, and giving liberally to widows and to the poor. His munificence was not confined, however, to his own see; he con- tributed largely, for example, to St. Albans, whose abbot, his relative Paul, had initiated there a vast scheme of rebuilding. His lifelong love of learning prompted him to foster studies; and even when im- mersed in the multituiiinous and anxious affairs at- tached to his office and to his secular position as chief counsellor to the king, his pen was not idle, as the list of his works, which (considering the calls on his time) is a long one, testifies. His writings were published collectively by d'Ach^ry in 164S; they may also be consulted in Sligne, P. L., CL, and in Dr. Giles's edi- tion of his works, published in 1844. Other treatises, now lost, have been attributed to him, amongst which are some that should rightly be ascribed to others.

When William had to leave England to attend to the affairs of his continental dominions, Lanfranc acted as his vicegerent, or regent, in England, and dis- played not only activity and sagacity as a temporal ruler, but military qualities of no mean order as well in the repression of a rising against the Conqueror in 1074. It was probably by his advice, too, that, not- withstanding the violence of that young prince's char- acter, William the Conqueror left England to his second son William Rufus, as by right of conquest, Normandy to his eldest son Robert, by right of inherit- ance, and only a large sum of money to his son Henry. The choice of Rufus was, doubtless, because, as having been Lanfranc's pupil, and as having received his knighthood from him, the archbishop's influence over him might be presumed to be of some weight. Lan- franc crowned him at Westminster less than three weeks after the Conqueror's death.

Lanfranc's name is, with that of his successor, St. Anselm, inseparably coupled with the thorny question of investitures, for the differences between king and primate, which came to a head under St. Anselm, showed their beginnings under Lanfranc. Here it is enough to say that his influence over a great ruler, such as the Conqueror was, prevented any hut worthy appointments in the Church. But the root of the future evil lay in regarding sees merely as portions of the temporal fiefs attached to them, instead of keeping their spiritual character wholly separate from their temporal adjuncts. So long as a ruler — such as the Conqueror — was right-minded, no great harm was to be feared, but when a godless savage like William Rufus saw fit to intrude unworthy men into sees, or kept sees vacant in order to enjoy their revenues, then great evils arose, and such men were likely to assume — as Rufus did — that spiritual power and jurisdiction was derived from them by means of investiture with staff and ring, as well as tenure of the temporalities whose outward symbols were at that time, unfortunately, the same instruments. Lanfranc saw clearly the distinc- tion between the civil and ecclesiastical capacities in which the same man might be regarded and might act, and it is related of him that in 1082 he encouraged the Conqueror to arrest his brother. Bishop Odo. The king scrupled to imprison a clerk, but Lanfranc grimly pointed out that he would not \x arresting the Bishop of Bayeux (as it was not for an ecclesiastical offence), but the Earl of Kent — a title he held. Again, in 1088, when William de S. Carilef, Bishop of Durham, was being tried for his share in the rebellion of Odo and the Norman lords, that prelate endeavoured to shield him- self under his episcopal character. Lanfranc reminded him, first, that he was nf)t at the bar as a bishop, but as a tenant-in-chief of the king; secondly, that the bishops judging him were acting in a like temporal capacity. Hail that dislini'tinii bcfu recognized and borne in mind l)y Williain Kiifus, the troubles of his reign about investitures need never have arisen.

Lanfranc endeavoured to check the extravagances of the Red King, who, however, proved deaf to his entreaties and remonstrances. Nevertheless, it is cer- tain that, as long as Lanfranc lived, his influence slight as it might be, caused Rufus to put some sort of restraint upon his evil nature. His faithlessness to his engagements and promises, however, was a source of bitter sorrow to the aged archbishop, and doubtless hastened his death. It had been his accustomed prayer that he might die of some malady which would not affect his reason or his speech, and his petition was granted. An attack of fever in May, 1089, in a few days brought him to the grave. On 24 May, the last day of his life, his physicians having ordered him a certain draught, he asked to defer it until he had con- fessed and received the Holy Viaticum. When this was done, he took the cup of medicine in his hand, but instead of swallowing it, calmly breathed his last. He was buried in his own cathedral. In the " Nova Legenda" Lanfranc has the title of Saint, and else- where he is called Blessed; but it does not appear that the public honours of sanctity were accorded to him.

His character may here fitly be summed up in words written in the "North American Review" (XCII, 257): "An Italian by birth, trained to new thoughts by long residence in France, he brought the subtile mind of his birth-land, refineil by the use of French policy, to his new home, and into contact with the clear, hard sense of the English; and ruled in that realm with more than the skill of a native. ... he was called on ... so to frame and regulate the institu- tions of the Church, that they might conform to and sus- tain the altered constitutions of the State. . . . vig- our of intellect and energy of purpose were .... demanded in one who must displace an old hierarchy, long and deeply established in the affection of the peo- ple, and mainly form anew the entire internal economy of their religious sentiment.s and worship." In every capacity, as scholar, as author, as politician, and as divine, Lanfranc cxhiljited the sound sense, rare tact, and singular ability that marked the great man amongst his fellows, and that gained for him a memory enduring through eight centuries even to our own day.

Hunt in Diet. Nat. Biog., s. v.; Freeman, Norman Conquest (Oxford, 1887); Stdbbs, ConstitiUional History (O-xford, 1875- 78); Giles, Lan/ranri Opera (Loudon. 1844); Vita Lanjraneii in .MiGNE, P. L., CL (Paris, 1854); William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum and Gesta Pontifieum in Rolls Series- \V. and M. WiLKs, The Three Archbishops (London, 1858); St.\nton, Menology of England and Wales (London. 1887); Rdle. Abp. Lanfranc and his Modern Critics in Dublin Rev. (1881), 3rd series, VI, 406 (a very valuable article, as it explodes modern misunderstandings of the ancient chroniclers' statements); Works of Abp. Lanfranc in North Am. Rev. (1861), XCII, 256; Charma, Lanfranc, Notice biographique (Paris, 1850); C^ozals, Lanfranc, sa vie, son enseignement, sa politique (Paris, 1877); Longuemare, Lanfranc, Conseiller politique de Guillaume le Conqueiant (Caen, 1902); Bohmer, Die Falschungen Erzbischof Lanfranks (Leipzig, 1902) ; Idem., Kirche und Staat in England (Leipzig, 1899).

Henry Norbert Birt.

Lanfranco, Giovanni, also known as Cavaliere Giovanni di Stefano, decorative painter, b. at Parma, 1581 ; d. in Rome, 1647. As a boy Lanfranco was a page at Piacenza in the service of Count Scotti, and developing a talent for drawing was placed by the count under Agostino Carracci, with whom he re- mained for some years, but before he was sixteen he had painted a picture of the Virgin and Saints, which was so much admired that it was considered worthy of being placed in the church of Sant' Ago.stino at Pia- cenza. On the death (if Carracci, Lanfranco went to Rome and assisted Annibale Carracci in decorative work in the Farnese (iallery, in the Vatican, and in various Roman churches. By clever scheming, he was able to carry otT a commission which had been promised to Donienieliiiio, his great rival, who was i)orn on the .same day as liiiiiself, and ex<'rtiiig him.self to the utmost of his ability to out-do his opponent, he