Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/30

 22 MAURICE OF RIEVAULX January (1162). The letter was obviously written, in reply to letters from the archbishop, in the early days, when anxious men were con- cerned with the character rather than with the difficulties of Becket. Becket, turning at once to the Cistercians, who gave him hence- forth his greatest moral support, 1 wrote to Maurice, apparently to ask for his prayers, and sent the letter by his friend H[ugh] de Morville. Hugh, on his way north, turned aside twenty miles or more from his course, to visit Rievaulx. 2 Maurice was clearly surprised and slightly confused by the attentions of Archbishop Thomas. Gathering himself together, however, the second Bede, with protestations of the most profound humility, wrote the letter which is printed at the end of this paper. In spite of its prolixity, it deserves a place among the correspondence of St. Thomas. It was written by an interesting man of long experience in the religious life to a great man who was at the turning-point in his career. The archbishop had only just received priest's orders and had hitherto been known as an able administrator in secular affairs. He was now called to action on behalf of the church by an uncompromising disciple of St. Bernard, Maurice reminds him of his responsibilities. Let him beware lest, by forgetting Him who has entrusted him with them, he fails to fulfil them. He has great advantages, including the support oLa powerful and friendly king : ' In te concurrunt omnia que plurimum ualent ut talia nunc eliminentur mala, scilicet potentia principis apud quern specialem habes familiaritatis gratiam, robur etatis,' &c. Perhaps without having any definite instances of it in mind, Maurice quotes, from the letter ' De Officio Episcoporum ', St. Bernard's condemnation of the promotion of mere boys, ' scolares pueri et impubes adholescentuli ', to high ecclesiastical office. Hitherto we have been on fairly firm ground. It is certain 1 The support of the Cistercians was enlisted as soon as the differences began between king and archbishop (1163). See the letter from Becket's friend and former companion Bishop John of Poitiers, in Robertson, Materials, v. 57 (Rolls Series) : ' Ego Pontiniacum proficiscor ut illius religionis devotioni tarn vestram quam nostram commendem intentionem. Nam ibi implorandum est auxilium ubi humanum deesse videtur. Orationibus Clarevallensium per ipsum papam vos commendari fecimus.' It is quite likely that Maurice of Rievaulx was brought to the archbishop's notice by John, who when treasurer of York (1154-63) was frequently in touch with the affairs of Rievaulx (Cartularium Bievallense, pp. 33, 44, 144, 167-70). 2 Doubtless Hugh de Morville, one of Becket's companions and afterwards one of his murderers. He probably went north after the consecration of the archbishop on 3 June 1162, and he would naturally take the great north road on his way to his Cumberland estates (for these see the references given in the Diet . of Nat. Biog. xxxix. 168, and add Mr. J. Wilson's paper on the Cumberland Pipe Rolls in the Victoria County History, Cumberland, vol. i, especially the extract from Pipe 4 John, on p. 391). In Yorkshire Hugh had interests in Knaresborough, where he retired with his companions after the murder of Becket (Pipe 5 Henry II, pp. 29, 30 ; Benedict of Peterborough (ed. Stubbs), i. 13). He must be distinguished from the constable of King Malcolm of Scotland who died in this year 1162 at his foundation of Dryburgh (Chron. de Mailros, p. 78).