ON ST. NOTHELM, CONFESSOR, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, IN ENGLAND,
IN THE YEAR 738.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
The sacred calendars, the translation, literary correspondence with the Ven. Bede and St.
Boniface, the priesthood at London, the monastic life and episcopate at Canterbury,
ordinations of bishops, the time of his death.
Nothelm, archbishop and confessor, at Canterbury in England. (S.)
V. D. B.
St. Nothelm, commemorated in several sacred calendars, We shall not deny that we hesitated doubtful for some time whether
St. Nothelm should be referred among those passed over at
this day, or rather among the Saints of
whose cult there is certainty.
There stood in the way, on the one side, that most English
writers, whether Catholic or heterodox, do not honour him with the title
of Saint: in which number come (to recount a few
out of many) Richard Challoner, bishop
and vicar apostolic of the London district,
who in his Britannia Sacra [Britannia Sacra, or the Lives of the most celebrated British, English, Scottish and Irish Saints; cf. p. 206 and following.] passes him over entirely;
Richard Whitford in the English version
of the old Martyrology of Salisbury
[The Martiloge in Englyssche, after the use of the Chyrche of Salisbury,
an as it is redde in Syon, with Addicyons. London, 1526; cf. at the 17th of
October.]; Alford or
Griffith, similarly omitting him in the Catalogue of the Saints of England
and in the Ecclesiastical History itself not calling him
Saint; Butler making mention of him as a
Saint neither in the Lives of the Saints, nor at the end in
the Chronological Index, etc. On the other
side, however, it occurred that long ago by Henschenius
Act. SS., vol. I of February, p. 318. at the 3rd day of February, among the Passed Over,
there had been noted the death of St. Anthelm, bishop of Canterbury,
in the year 740, in England, from a manuscript Florarium. There occurred
also at this day the Additions to Usuard
of Greven, printed in the years 1515 and 1521 with the Martyrology of Cologne,
having thus In Sollerius, Martyrol. Usuardi, p. 608.: In Kent, of Nodelinus,
bishop and confessor. I saw also Le Chastelain,
most difficult in admitting Saints and most versed in sifting
Calendars of every kind,
referring also to this day in his Universal
Martyrology St. Nothelm, archbishop of Canterbury.
There was at hand also a learned English little work
arranged in the form of a Martyrology A Memorial of ancient British piety, or a British Martyrology, London 1761., in which at
the present day you have an excellent encomium of St. Nothelm.
Likewise the Benedictine ecclesiastical Calendar,
published by a monk at Holy Cross in Donauwörth in the year
1786 [Kirchenkalender aller Heiligen, welche unter der Regel des H. Benedictus gelebet haben, p. 202 and following.], displaying St. Nothelm in the first place at
the present day. Whence it is sufficiently apparent that we should now not
be detained by Papebroch Act. SS., vol. VI of May, p. 439. when he asserts
that Nothelm was reported among the Saints by no one.
But we have even more illustrious documents.
[2] in the 8th century he was invoked and held as a saint, Henry Wharton first published certain fragments
concerning the bishops of Canterbury, which he excerpted
from a manuscript codex containing their Lives as far as
St. Bregwin, who died in the year 762 [Cf. Monasticum Anglic. nov., vol. I, p. 82; Mabillon, Annal. Bened. at the year 762, n. 66, vol. II, p. 186; etc.]. Whence these
verses, pertaining to the close of the 8th century, have the title:
Life of St. Nothelm, tenth archbishop of Canterbury,
and they run thus Anglia Sacra, part II, p. 71.:
Soon is chosen for the see the prelate of London,
Nothelm, whose life was then renowned.
This father shone forth to the nation of the English as a bright lamp,
By which the nation gleamed more splendid.
This prelate presided over the metropolitan see for five
Years; but, bidden to go to the cloisters of heaven,
He is buried with the holy fathers aforesaid;
Who straightway prepares an antidote for the sick.
That we may be able to behold the pure light of heaven,
May he make us live and die without stain.
Where the invocation is to be noticed, expressed in the last two
verses, and above all the verse before the penultimate:
Who straightway prepares an antidote for the sick,
by which it is indicated that in the thirteenth century, and not so long after
the death of St. Nothelm, miracles were customarily done at his tomb.
And in the same place, in the Life of Blessed Cuthbert,
you have these also Goscelin, Life of St. Augustine, Act. SS., vol. VI of May, page 395.:
Meanwhile Saint Nothelm, to the courts of light
Borne up, this excellent man was chosen too.
[3] Now these things were written while the body of St. Nothelm
still lay buried (no otherwise than those of St. Augustine
and other Saints The Live of S. Augustine of Canterbury, part II, p. 245, London 1845.) in the northern
porch of the church of SS. Peter and Paul, afterwards of St. Augustine, in the year 1087 he is first translated.
or rather within the precincts of the church, since from
the times of Blessed Theodore there was no longer room in the porch itself
Cf. Act. SS., vol. cit., p. 443.. But he lay there only until
about the year 1087, in which, on the 8th day of September, Blessed Scotland passed
to a better life. For while he was governing,
the bones of St. Nothelm and of four other prelates, who had been buried within the precincts of the church,
were translated into the new crypt of St. Mary the Virgin.
Very copiously does Goscelin pursue this translation,
from whom we shall borrow what pertains more nearly to
St. Nothelm. When, then, he says [Goscelin, On the Translation of St. Augustine, book II, n. 21, vol. cit., p. 438.],
the basilica, rebuilt and made ready above the crypt, had received the brethren
in their choir for the divine praises;
the abbot Scotland mentioned above, preparing to pull down the remaining body
of the decrepit church, now about to fall, lest it should overwhelm anyone,
takes care first to dig out the bodies of the Saints,
with which it was wholly full. Of
the very many, the most choice are first carried out: five
archprelates of Canterbury, like five praetors of the Lord's
hall, namely the most renowned and
most holy Theodore, and his holy successors
Britwald, Tatwine, Nothelm, Jambert.
It is long to speak of each, Goscelin continues,
and therefore he sets out only a few praises of SS. Theodore and Jambert;
which he closes by narrating the translation
of the relics of Blessed Theodore into the new church
built above the crypt of St. Mary the Virgin,
and says Ibid., n. 22.: He is laid up, therefore, on the right
side of the altar, in a tomb made ready, in which he is set down by two
brethren only with a leaden case.
The other four also, his holy successors and fellow bishops named above,
while they are being translated,
reveal of what merit they were by the power of their odour:
the censers of their very sarcophagi, being moved, proclaimed that the Lord of sweetness
had made with them a perpetual mansion, and had burned
the incense of His love.
[4] and then in the year 1091 together with St. Augustine and others; Scotland, having been translated to a better life
(he too had some beginning of cult), could not complete the new church
and translate the relics of St. Augustine.
This fortune awaited his successor
Wido. He, therefore, in the year of the Lord 1091, as William Thorne,
monk of St. Augustine's and chronographer, is witness
In Papebroch, vol. cit., p. 374., on the 8th day before the Ides of September, translated
the body of Blessed Augustine from the place where it had lain for five hundred
years. On the same occasion the body of St. Nothelm was laid again in a new tomb,
on the 13th day of September
of the year 1091, as we gather from Goscelin, who narrates every
circumstance [On the Translation of St. Augustine, book I, ch. 1 and II, Act. SS., vol. VI of May, p. 414 and following.]. On the 6th day of September, on the Sabbath,
the body of St. Augustine had been dug up, but only on the following
third feria could the new shrine and covering be made;
on the fourth feria SS. Laurence,
Mellitus and Deonotus were dug up, who nevertheless could only be translated
on the fifth feria. The whole fourth feria was spent in digging out the mausoleum
of St. Deusdedit, and on the Sabbath the bodies of SS.
Justus and Honorius were dug up; for the sepulchres of all these
were still beneath the ruined porch. These three, therefore, says Goscelin,
were translated (as also on the preceding days
the remains of others) before the supreme Trinity
(i.e. the altar of the Holy Trinity), radiant candelabra,
on this octave day of Augustine: which
(as we believe) the benevolence from above deferred and delayed to this end,
that (as we said before) this same octave day
might be the more preserved and solemnized in so many hierarchs…
Nor do we separate from these the archprelate of blessed
memory and their consort Nothelm,
laid up among them within the altar of St. Gregory,
and now for the second time translated with them: whom
Bede the writer proclaims as the author and judge of the history
of the English. A most solemn procession and melodious praise
led these their leaders, as it had the former:
and they having been set down before the altar of the president Augustine,
until they should be enthroned in their own seats, a festive Mass
is celebrated. Over this whole solemnity (for the see of Canterbury,
namely, was vacant) presided Gundulf,
bishop of Rochester.
[5] [in the year 1270 his mausoleum is changed again, and in the year 1300 it is adorned with a new inscription.] In these things, however, it is to be noticed that a tomb
was not made ready for St. Nothelm in the chapel of the Holy Trinity,
as is plain from Goscelin himself Ibid., ch. III, vol. cit., p. 419; next, that what
Goscelin says, that St. Nothelm was once laid up with Justus
and Honorius within the altar of St. Gregory,
cannot stand. For that altar was
in the crypt beneath the northern porch Goscelin, Life of St. Augustine, ch. V, vol. cit., p. 395.; but the body
of St. Nothelm, on the witness of Goscelin himself Translation, etc., book II, ch. III, vol. cit., n. 438, was found
not in the porch, but in the old church itself Cf. above, n. 3.. But where
the body of St. Nothelm was buried in the year 1091,
I cannot certainly attain; near the altar of the Holy Trinity,
however, I judge altogether, both on account of the verses
to be recited a little later, and because in a manuscript note,
taken from the History of the monastery of Peterborough,
it is written by Hugh White, chronographer and monk
of St. Peter's of Burgh, who died before the year 1177
Act. Erudit. Lipsiens., supplem. 1, vol. I, p. 290., or by his continuator Robert Swapham,
who died in the year 1271 Ibid., loc. cit., that St. Nothelm is reckoned
among the holy bishops who rest at Canterbury
in the church of St. Peter. Certainly, when from the year 1240 to
1270 a new sanctuary had been prepared for the holy prelates of Canterbury,
St. Nothelm found a place there; and that it may be understood which one he obtained,
the eyes must be cast upon the old map or
table which is represented in both Monastica Anglicana and in
our work at the 26th day of May Act. SS., vol. VI of May, p. 631..
There at first sight the high altar is apparent, dedicated
under the patronage of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, of St. Augustine
and afterwards also of St. Ethelbert. On
each side there is a door; of which the one is called
the door on the north side to the bodies of the Saints,
the other on the south side. If you enter by the northern,
there occurs in the first place a tomb, on which is inscribed:
Sanctus Lambertus, then a second with the title: Sanctus
Nothelmus; opposite, or to the south, there comes first
Sanctus Tatwinus, then Sanctus Bretwinus. Immediately after
begins another structure in the form of a trefoil, open on the front
or southern side and having three
altars; of which the eastern, sacred to the Holy Trinity,
kept the body of St. Augustine, and on each side it had three
mausoleums, holding the bones of the holy prelates
of Canterbury sent from Rome; the
northern altar, or that of the Holy Innocents, kept the body
of St. Mildred, and the southern, or that of St. Stephen, the body
of St. Adrian the abbot. And all the tombs of the bishops
had the form of little shrines. Afterwards, namely in the year
1300, Thomas Fyndone, abbot of St. Augustine's, set upon all these inscriptions
composed in Leonine verses Monast. Anglic. nov., vol. I, p. 81.;
and that which adorned the monument of St. Nothelm
was this Ibid., p. 82.:
In this grave lies Nothelm, the kindly archbishop,
Whose life is not unworthy of a good patron.
He, good to all, a patron equal in goodness:
Here as a guardian he protects the just with watchful defence.
Now, however, only the memory of these things survives,
since the church of St. Peter or
St. Augustine has long since been destroyed and few ruins remain [Cf. the same Monastic., vol. I, p. 119. Cf. likewise Papebroch, vol. VI of May, p. 431.].
[6] [He was by nation an Angle or rather a Saxon; it is not established, however, that he was a Londoner;] Since, then, by the things which we have disputed so far,
I judge the ecclesiastical cult of St. Nothelm to have been demonstrated
enough and more than enough, it remains that we pass on to his
life. That he was by nation an Angle or rather a Saxon
is made plain by his name, signifying Defender Wiarda, Über deutsche Vornamen, etc., p. 50 and 53.,
and by these verses inscribed on the sepulchres of the bishops after the translation
Goscelin, Life of St. Augustine, ch. V, vol. cit., p. 395.:
Eight Fathers from Rome; the rest accompany them in honour,
Born of the English, made companions of their merits.
Hence flows the way of the Gospel in divine streams:
These are Brithwold, Tatwine, and you, Nothelm,
And now Berta, imitating the first Fathers as chief men;
So many together gird the front of the church with piety.
There are some who make him a Londoner by fatherland; certainly,
as we shall see later, he was a priest in the London church of St. Paul;
but by no means is it gathered from this
(and yet no other argument is at hand) that he therefore
had his origin in London. But since from
his literary correspondence some light is shed on his other deeds,
we shall now speak of it, passing over the chronological order
somewhat.
[7] he lends his labour to the Ven. Bede in writing his history; He was, then, a friend to the Venerable Bede and a helper
in seeking out the documents necessary for writing the Ecclesiastical
History of the English nation. Of
him Bede himself speaks thus in the preface of the first book: But,
he says Works of the Ven. Bede, vol. II, p. 24, ed. Giles, so that in these things which I have written I may take away
from you, magnanimous king (Ceowulf), or from the other hearers
or readers of this history, occasion of doubting,
I shall take care to make known briefly from what authors chiefly
I have learned these things. The author before
all and helper of this little work was Albinus, abbot,
a most reverend man, most learned in all things;
who, instructed in the church of the people of Kent by Theodore, archbishop
of blessed memory, and Hadrian the abbot,
venerable and most learned men,
had diligently come to know, either by the monuments of letters or by the tradition
of the elders, all the things which had been done in the province of Kent itself,
or also in the regions adjoining it, by the
disciples of blessed Pope Gregory; and those of them which seemed
worthy of memory he transmitted to me through Nothelm, a religious
priest of the church of London, either committed to
writing, or to be related by the living voice of Nothelm himself.
[8] to which end he goes to Rome, to collect the letters of the pontiffs; This Nothelm, namely, afterwards coming to Rome,
having searched the archive of the same holy Roman church,
by permission of him who now presides over that church,
Gregory the pontiff, found there some letters of blessed Pope Gregory and
of other pontiffs, and returning brought them to us to be inserted
in our history, with the counsel of the aforesaid most reverend
father Albinus. From the beginning, then, of this
volume up to the time when the nation of the English received the faith
of Christ, we have learned the things which we set forth
chiefly from the writings of earlier men collected from here and there.
But from then up to the present times, what
was done in the church of the people of Kent by the disciples of blessed Pope
Gregory, or their successors, or under what
kings, we have come to know by the industry of the aforesaid abbot Albinus,
Nothelm (as we have said) carrying it.
They also handed down to me in some part certain things concerning
the provinces of the East and also of the
West Saxons, and also of the East
Angles and of the Northumbrians, by what
prelates or in the time of what kings they received the grace
of the Gospel. Bede then proceeds to the other
helpers of his work. Mabillon preserved in the Analecta Vet. Anal., p. 398. Works of the Ven. Bede, vol. I, p. 106.
a letter of Bede to Albinus, pertaining to the same subject,
in which he thanks him for the things sent to him through
our venerable brother (so he speaks) Nothelm
the priest, and above all for the letters by which
he had taken care, now for the second time, frequently to help and instruct him in the ecclesiastical
history of his nation, to the writing of which he had long since urged him.
For which reason he himself also most rightly sent back the same
history to Albinus to be transcribed, as soon as he was able to finish it.
[9] the judgment of writers on his diligence; Since the Ven. Bede completed his history
in the year 731 [Mabillon, Annal. Bened., book XXI, at the year 731, n. 4, vol. II, p. 80 and following.], hence it becomes plain that this letter
pertains to about this time; and since, moreover, only in this
year did Gregory III ascend the chair of St. Peter
Novaës, Elementi della storia de' sommi pontefici, vol. II, p. 65., it is necessary that St. Nothelm undertook his Roman
journey while St. Gregory II occupied the Roman
see, namely between the year 715 and the beginning
of the year 731 Ibid., vol. cit., p. 59 and 63. Since Albinus, abbot of St. Peter's or St. Augustine's
of Canterbury, outlived both limits
Monastic. Anglic. nov., vol. I, p. 119., there is nothing from which we may more accurately indicate that
journey. What documents or what information
St. Nothelm chiefly collected, Stevenson, a learned man,
who in the year 1838 published the Ecclesiastical History of the Ven. Bede at London,
has tried to determine,
and after him J. A. Giles, who ten years later put a translation
of the same work to press [The Ven. Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England, pref., p. XXIII and following.]. Further, although
writers on literary and historical matters everywhere make much
of the labour spent by St. Nothelm in investigating
and gathering monuments, they nevertheless, no
otherwise than to Albinus, ascribe to him certain blemishes which
are observed in Bede's writings Ibid., loc. cit., and p. 36.. But these accusations
rest on mere conjectures; and to speak of only one,
and that the most celebrated, slip, namely the confusing
of Ætherius of Lyons with Virgilius of Arles,
I judge most probable the explanation of our Stilting,
by which the error (altogether venial) is thrown back upon Bede himself
Cf. Act. SS., vol. VI of August, p. 92 and following.. For the rest, these things are too small for
the praises of Nothelm to be diminished on their account, even if
those accusations were right.
[10] St. Boniface writes to him, asking prayers, a document and counsel; But how much the diligence of our Saint was approved
by his contemporaries, and how widely the fame of his labours
had spread, is made manifest by the letter
which St. Boniface, archbishop of Mainz
and apostle of many nations of Germany, wrote to him.
Since, then, Nothelm at that time was already
archbishop of Canterbury, the letter has this title
S. Bonifacii opera quæ exstant omnia, vol. I, epist. L, p. 90, ed. J. A. Giles.: To Nothelm the archbishop, most beloved to us, endowed with the mitre
of the supreme pontificate,
Boniface, the little servant of the servants of God, desirable salvation
of eternal charity in Christ. In it
St. Boniface first commends himself to Nothelm's
prayers; next he asks for the most celebrated letter of St. Gregory,
containing his answers to the questions of St. Augustine,
and not found in the archives of the Holy Roman Church;
then he asks Nothelm's opinion on the impediment
of marriage from spiritual kinship, and finally concludes
with these words: Likewise I ask that you be zealous to
indicate to me in what year from the incarnation of Christ
the first preachers sent by Saint Gregory to
the nation of the English came. Farewell.
[11] he received an answer, but not (as it seems) the document itself; It is commonly asserted that St. Nothelm's answer is not
extant; nevertheless that is not altogether right. For the Magdeburg
Centuriators Centur. VIII, ch. X, vol. VIII, col. 818 and following., after they had, from
Bale (as will be seen below), falsely attributed some
works to St. Nothelm, then add a chapter on
his doctrine and errors: Destitute of his writings,
they say, we can report little of his doctrine.
From his letter to Boniface, which we have received
in manuscript, it can be gathered that he ascribed salvation to good
works. For he commends
Boniface's zeal, in that day and night he meditates,
for the redemption of his soul, to convert the hearts of the pagan
Saxons. In the celebration of Masses
he says he will be mindful of Boniface: and will ask for him
that in his office he may gain many for the Lord.
But he knew nothing, however, of the invocation of the dead
or of prayer for the dead: as if there had been occasion there
for discussing this matter. But whether the letter
of St. Gregory the Great, or the First, he sent to St. Boniface does not
appear, say the Maurist editors of the works of St. Gregory
Note to epistle LXIV, book XI, of St. Gregory, vol. II of the works, col. 1149.; and I would believe that this was not done
by St. Nothelm, since otherwise in the year 643 Pope Zachary
would not have spoken so doubtfully of this letter in the Roman
council [Hardouin, Concil., vol. III, col. 1190; cf. Binterim, Geschichte der deutschen Concilien, vol. I, p. 154 and following.]: for after so many goings and
returnings, after so frequent an epistolary commerce between Rome and Germany,
certainly either news of a copy having been seen, or the very copy of that most celebrated
letter, would have been sent by St. Boniface to the Roman pontiffs.
Finally, if it is asked in what year
St. Boniface gave his letter to St. Nothelm, there is nothing
from which it may be certainly established. In the year 743 Pope Zachary
affirmed Ibid., loc. cit. that at that time in the parts of Germany
the rumour about St. Gregory's letter to St. Augustine had been spread SO LONG.
Wherefore the year 736 is probable, which John
Allen Giles fixed to St. Boniface's writing S. Bonifacii opera, vol. I, p. 90, and cf. vol. II, p. 212..
[12] [St. Nothelm had long before written to the Ven. Bede about his Commentary on the books of Kings;] But let us return to St. Nothelm and his literary commerce
with the Ven. Bede. Further, the annalist of the English church
had experienced the diligence and keenness of mind of the holy man before
he employed him as helper of his work and as investigator
in collecting the necessary monuments. For long before he had
received from him very many observations on his commentary
on the books of Kings and indications of the difficulties
which remained to be explained. But all these things will more easily
be understood from the letter which he prefixed to the book of thirty questions
on the books of Kings. It has the title:
Letter to Nothelm the priest on the 30 questions;
and runs thus: To his most beloved brother Nothelm,
Bede, Greeting! The things concerning the book of Kings to be made clear,
most beloved brother, which you sent, I have at once, as far as
I could, with the Lord's help, taken care to explain, with this
distinction only, that I should comprise in this volume thirty propositions out of them,
which seemed weightier, marked off in short chapters,
so that they might more easily be found. But the other names or words
which you noted in a mixed way, which could be solved more easily and briefly,
collected separately in other leaflets,
I had sent at the same time to your fraternity;
although I myself knew that very many things in the same book were more
obscure than those which you judged should be inquired into by me.
But I was also not ignorant that it is often wont
to happen that he who had perhaps already well understood some more obscure things,
because, namely, he had found them sufficiently explained in the treatises
of great authors, still himself continues uncertain and doubtful
in sense about certain easier things; which those perhaps
who were treating deeper things did not consider worthy
of inquiry. It happens also that not all the things which were written
by the Fathers can be had by all, and questions of the Scriptures are unknown
to readers; not
because they have not been expounded by the doctors; but because
those very questions are either not had, or,
when had, are not understood by those who seek; as in
very many of those of which you both asked and received answers from me
it is established to have happened. In which
answers, namely, I who, following the footsteps of the Fathers, have striven to satisfy
your requests, pray that you,
rendering the due return to our devotion, remember to intercede
for the safety of both our heart and body, together with the brethren
who serve the Lord with you in those places. But also, if you shall find
anything of these things which I have written expounded perhaps more fittingly somewhere,
which may very easily happen, do not be reluctant to send
this to us also more quickly. Fare
well, ever most beloved brother in Christ.
[13] The Ven. Bede gave a double answer. The Ven. Bede thus sent a double writing to St. Nothelm:
the former on names
or words which could be solved more easily and briefly,
and which is either lost, or is represented by the Interpretation
of Hebrew and Greek names in the sacred
Bibles printed at the end of volume III of the Basel edition, and now commonly
attributed to Remigius of Auxerre [Cf. D. Ceillier, Auteurs ecclés., vol. III, p. 13; Oudin, Comment. de scriptor. et scriptis eccles., vol. I, col. 1693.];
the latter still exists
with the title: One book of thirty questions on the books of Kings.
The time of this writing, however, and consequently of St. Nothelm's
questions, cannot be accurately determined;
nevertheless, since the Ven. Bede's fourth book
on Kings was completed not long after the year 716
[Cf. D. Ceillier, work and vol. cit., p. 14; and J. A. Giles, Works of the Ven. Bede, vol. I, The Life of Ven. Beda, p. CXXXVI.], this epistolary commerce between the two
learned men seems to be referred to about the same time.
[14] Some works are falsely attributed to St. Nothelm. Nothelm himself is read to have written some works.
John Bale, namely, from an English Carmelite become
Protestant bishop of Ossory in Ireland, afterwards
a fugitive through Germany and finally, under Queen Elizabeth, a canon
of Canterbury [Cf. Cosmas de Villiers, Biblioth. Carmelit., vol. I, p. 750; Michael a S. Josepho, Bibliographia critica, vol. III, p. 7.], in the second century of the Writers
of Britain has these things Scriptt. illust. maj. Brytanniæ Catalogus, vol. I, p. 100.: Nothelm
therefore committed to the monuments of letters "Acts
through Augustine, book I; London Collections,
book I; also various Homilies, book I; to
Alcuin and Bede, several letters." Similarly
J. A. Giles Works of the Ven. Bede, vol. III, in the index, p. 425., following in the footsteps of Pits De illustrib. Angliæ scriptt., p. 141., ascribes to St. Nothelm
one book on the Life of St. Augustine, one on his Miracles,
one on his Translation; which labour he is to have undertaken at the prayers of Bede and Alcuin;
likewise one book of letters to Bede. But,
although Bale, after his listing, writes: His other
writings I have not seen, by which words he hints
that those listed had been seen by him, it is nevertheless sufficiently manifest
that the matter is not so. Acts through Augustine, book I,
and London Collections, book I, are nothing else
than the documents which he collected for Bede's ecclesiastical history;
the various Homilies were devised because
an archbishop of Canterbury must be supposed to have spoken in public discourse.
He is said to have given letters to Bede,
both because of the book on the 30 questions, and
because of the prologue of the Ecclesiastical History. But that
he is laid down to have written letters to Alcuin we owe
to the same prologue, but badly understood. For some believed
that the Albinus who appears in it was Flaccus
Albinus of York, most celebrated under the name of Alcuin;
but the Ven. Bede himself indicates more clearly than the sun
that it is Albinus, abbot of Canterbury. That
Pits, besides the book on the Life of St. Augustine, produces
two others on the Miracles and the Translation,
is a mere amplification of Bale's invention; the more absurd
because the body of St. Augustine was first honourably translated only
at the close of the 11th century See above, n. 3 and following.,
while St. Nothelm flourished in the 8th century.
[15] St. Nothelm was never bishop of London, As is plain from the inscription of the letter of St. Boniface,
St. Nothelm was at that time archbishop,
namely of Canterbury; concerning which matter several things must be inquired,
the first of which is whether before his promotion
to the chair of Canterbury he was bishop of London.
On which matter I read these things in Alford Annal. eccles. Anglo-Saxon., at the year 735, vol. II, p. 540.:
Wrongly … does Parker write in the Antiquities
of Britain: "Nothelm, born at London and
bishop there, was thence translated to the archbishopric
of Canterbury, in the fifth year of Gregory
the Third, and was consecrated by him at Rome: from
whom also he received the pallium in the following year."
Wrongly, I say, that he was bishop at London.
For Ingwald is still living, who is first written
to have died in the year 744, as Godwin expressed
in the catalogue of the bishops of London, where,
treating also of Nothelm, he says well that it is wrongly believed by some
that he was bishop of London. Nor
is it so difficult to understand whence arose the error of Parker,
of the Magdeburg Centuriators Centur. VIII, ch. X, vol. VIII, col. 818., of Bale Work, vol. and place cited above., and indeed
also of the Jervaulx Chronicle of the 14th century John Brompton, in Twysden, col. 742 and 774. and of others.
For in the verses which we recited at num. 2
it is read:
Soon is chosen for the see the prelate of London,
Nothelm, whose life was then renowned;
but it was not noticed by Parker and his
followers that this sense underlies them: Soon Nothelm
of London, or dwelling at London, is chosen
as prelate for the see of Canterbury. Add that Parker is contrary
to himself, since on the one hand he lays down
that St. Nothelm was translated from the London
chair to that of Canterbury, and at the same time that he was consecrated by St. Gregory
III: for never in the Catholic Church
has the consecration of a bishop been repeated.
[16] but a priest of London, Now, if it is asked what kind of life St. Nothelm
followed before obtaining the see of Canterbury,
we come into a most intricate subject. The Ven.
Bede, in the aforecited prologue of the History, calls him
a religious priest of the church of London;
Gervase, monk of Canterbury and writer of the close
of the 12th century Selden, pref. to the writers ed. Twysden, p. XLII., calls him a London
priest, and affirms that he was promoted to the archbishopric
of Canterbury because he was a monk
[Actus Pontific. Cantuariens., in Twysden, Histor. Angl. Scriptt. decem, col. 1640.]. Ralph de Diceto, archdeacon of London,
who flourished at the beginning of the 13th century [Selden, in Twysden, pref., p. XXVIII; and Fabricius, Biblioth. latin., vol. VI, p. 32, ed. Mansi.], calls him a London
priest De Archiepisc. Cantuar., in Wharton, vol. II, p. 680., or also a priest of the church
of London Abbreviat. Chronicor., in Twysden, col. 443.. Similarly
he is shown as a London priest Annal. Roffens. brev. at the year MCLX, in Wharton, vol. I, p. 85. by Henry
of Eastry, prior of Christ Church of Canterbury, who
ends his Catalogue of the prelates of Canterbury with
Walter Reynolds, who died in the year 1327 [Wharton, de success. archiep. Cantuar., Angl. Sacr., vol. I, p. 117; Monast. Anglic. nov., vol. I, p. 85.]. The anonymous
author of the Chronicle which is falsely circulated under the name of John
Brompton, abbot of Jervaulx
Selden, pref. to Twysden, p. XXXVIII and following and was composed after the year 1328 Ibid., p. XLI., speaks
so strangely that he seems, no otherwise than that anonymous
poet, to have shown the way to Parker, Bale and others. He has
for Chronic. Regni Cantiæ, in Twysden, col. 742.: To Tatwine, archbishop of Dorobernum,
succeeded Notelinus, first of London; and
elsewhere Ibid., Regn. Merciæ, col. 774.: In whose place Notelinus, first of London,
is consecrated. Finally William Thorne, monk
of St. Augustine's of Canterbury, who died about the year
1380 Selden, in Twysden, pref., p. XLVI., asserts that Nothelm
was archpriest of the cathedral church of St. Paul at London
Chronic., in Twysden, col. 1772.. Finally, to come to the most recent
writer, John Allen Giles, he
writes in English almost in this fashion Works of the Ven. Bede, vol. III, index, p. 425.: Nothelm
was a Londoner by fatherland, and afterwards was made
a priest of this church. He communicated to Bede
the letters of the Roman pontiffs to be inserted in the Ecclesiastical History.
Afterwards he professed the monastic life at Canterbury,
and two years after Bede's death
ascended the episcopal chair. But what is to be established
about these things?
[17] [while he was at the same time a monk, as is shown from the usage of the church of Canterbury,] That St. Nothelm was a priest of London,
and indeed the same of whom the Ven. Bede speaks,
is sufficiently manifest from the comparison of these testimonies and from
the letter of St. Boniface questioning him about Anglo-Saxon matters.
But whether it is likewise
to be admitted that he was a monk, as Gervase expressly
asserts, may be asked. And I think one must answer
in the affirmative, not only because of
the authority of Gervase, but also because of the usage
and law of the church of Canterbury, which admitted only monks
as archbishops: which law and perpetual
usage can be illustrated chiefly from the controversies that arose thence.
Namely, already in the time of St. Laurence,
bishop of Canterbury, clerics had tried to remove the monks
from the see of Canterbury and its cathedral church of the Holy Saviour;
wherefore St. Mellitus,
having set out for Rome, had it in his instructions to propose this controversy
to Pope Boniface IV for settlement.
The monks won, as is plain from the decree of Boniface,
whose genuineness we have elsewhere Examen hist. et canon., p. 403 and following. amply vindicated,
and from his letter to King Athelbert and
St. Laurence the archbishop, preserved for us partly in
the letter of Blessed Alexander II to Blessed Lanfranc In Eadmer, Hist. Nov., book I, after the works of St. Anselm, p. 32.,
entire in the History of Peterborough Cf. Cressy, The Church History of Brittany, p. 318 and following.. Hence
of St. Odo, appointed archbishop of Canterbury about the year
942 Cf. Act. SS., vol. II of July, p. 64 and following., both in his Life Ibid., p. 69 and following. and
in the Chronographers Ralph de Diceto, Abbreviat. Chron., in Twysden, col. 454. we read: Odo, bishop
of Malmesbury, is elected archbishop of Dorobernum.
But he, because he had not yet put on the monk,
began very steadfastly to resist, lest he should seem by his ambition to disturb
the custom of his forebears. For they had seen no
archbishop up to that time who had not been clothed in the monastic
habit. But when the assent of all the bishops was added to the royal
will, at length, the rigour of his resolve being overcome, he crossed
the sea and received the monastic habit at Fleury, and returning
to England, in the archbishopric of Canterbury he obtained great
favour with King Adelstan.
[18] which admitted only monks as archbishops, In the 11th century William the Conqueror, or the Bastard,
after acquiring England, had commonly appointed bishops from the clerical order.
These busied themselves to expel the monks from every
quarter; Lanfranc withstood them. Wherefore they
began to strive that they might at least root out the monks from the primacy
of Canterbury, intending by this deed
very easily to exclude the others from elsewhere. Lanfranc therefore,
lest after his death there should be done what he knew could by no means
be accomplished while he survived, by the help of God,
took care that the old custom should be confirmed
through Blessed Pope Alexander II Eadmer, Hist. Nov., book I, p. 31 and following.. The same suit was renewed
after the death of St. Anselm by certain bishops: But,
says Eadmer Ibid., book V, p. 86., when it was objected to them that from blessed
Augustine no one except of the monastic order had ever
presided over the pontificate of Canterbury, one
only excepted (Stigand, from the year 1052 to 1070 Wharton, vol. I, p. 107 and following.),
who both for this presumption and for certain other things
perversely committed by him was deposed by the Roman pontiff,
and that therefore so ancient and
authentic a custom ought not, when no reason or
necessity demanded it, to be overturned, they were compelled
to desist from what they had begun, which they were labouring with very great effort to accomplish.
Gervase of Dorobernum has similar things on the same matter
Actus Pontific. Cantuar., in Twysden, col. 1662, being silent about Stigand as an
intruder. In the year 1123, after the death of Ralph,
the dispute again blazed up between monks and clerics.
From the time, say the people of Canterbury [Simeon of Durham, Hist. de gestis reg. Anglor., in Twysden, col. 247 and following.], of St. Augustine,
who certainly was the first monk-prelate of this church,
monks were always elected pontiffs for its government
up to the present. Henceforth
also, God assenting, the ancient custom will be preserved.
But the king favouring the bishops in that monks should not
be elected, the people of Canterbury were compelled to elect William
of Corbeil, a canon regular. To which
is added that the assertions of the monks were never denied by the clerics,
but, according to the old song, it was answered that
monks were dead men, that many functions of an archbishop did not become them,
that there were good men among the clerics too,
that monks should not preside over clerics,
and other things of that kind; but by no means that formerly clerics
had been promoted to the chair of Canterbury. Finally,
there comes to be considered also the opinion of St. Thomas Becket,
prelate of Canterbury; concerning which in his
Life [Life of St. Thomas of Canterbury, ch. XIII, in Christianus Lupus, vol. XII, p. 28.] we read these things: Having received, then, the blessing
(namely the episcopal), Blessed Thomas… having entered Pontigny,
judged that he had not worthily received the pastoral care
from the apostolic hand unless he also took the habit
of religion: namely, as one who had to protect in the episcopal
see his first-born sons, and who had learned that from the first foundation
of the church of Canterbury almost all the archbishops had been monks,
and that according to the histories of the ancients no rending
or transfer of the kingdom had happened, except when
someone of another profession had presided over the church of Canterbury.
Messengers being sent, therefore, accordingly, the lord pope sent back
to him the monastic habit. Wherefore
the annalist Alford [Annal. Eccles. Angl. at the year 934, n. IX and following, vol. III, p. 257 and following.] rightly convicts Parker, and
Mabillon Annal. Bened., book XLIV, n. 27 and following, vol. III, p. 424 and following. Godwin, in that these more recent men
could by no argument have known this more certainly than
the Englishmen and writers of those times,
approaching more nearly to the very origins of the matters. Wherefore
we wonder that the most learned Lingard himself Antiquités de l'Église Anglo-Saxonne, p. 77 and following, Paris 1828. contends
that the monks did not prevail at Canterbury before
the beginning of the 11th century. Whoever wishes more, let him go to the most learned
Clement Reyner Discept. Histor. ad antiquit. Benedict. in Anglia, p. 86 and following., who amply solves the difficulties
of the adversaries.
[19] and from the titles with which the Ven. Bede adorns St. Nothelm: To which is added that certain things are said of St. Nothelm by
the Ven. Bede by which it is hinted that he was in fact
a monk, while at the same time he was a priest
of London. The inscription of the aforecited letter, prefixed to the book of 30 questions,
is To his most beloved BROTHER Nothelm,
Bede; and below: Most beloved brother
occurs; and afterwards: I pray that you remember to intercede with the brethren who serve the Lord with you in those places;
in the letter to Albinus the abbot he calls him
OUR VENERABLE BROTHER Nothelm; and in
the very prologue of the History a RELIGIOUS priest of the church
of London. Now, although I would not wish to contend
that in the 8th century the names of brother,
servant of God, venerable, religious, were never
given at all to secular priests, they were nevertheless so proper
to monks that, if not from each one, at least from this accumulation,
it seems possible to conclude that Nothelm was a monk.
For open Du Cange's Glossary, the new
Treatise on diplomatics, the Diplomatic Dictionary
of the illustrious M. Quantin, Mabillon's Benedictine Annals,
and examine all these words; you will find them
attributed to monks, but by no means to secular priests.
Nor does it stand in the way that St. Nothelm is sometimes
called simply priest; for the custom of that time
was that those monks who were priests were honoured with this name
alone: which argument, since we have
elsewhere Examen histor. et canon., ch. IV, n. 7, p. 145 and following. treated most amply, we shall here restrain
our pen from elucidating it.
[20] more probably he was a monk of Canterbury, sent to London as a help. Now, if it is asked of which monastery he was a son,
Mabillon answers Annal. Bened., book XXI, n. 32, vol. II, p. 94.: of the cathedral church of St. Paul
of London; and indeed Alford [Annal. Eccles. Angl. Saxonic. at the year 604, n. 57 and following, vol. II, p. 171 and following.] strives more amply
to prove that this church was formerly monastic;
and Mabillon himself Annal. Bened., book X, n. 605, vol. II, p. 260. reports the chief argument
of this opinion, namely that in the charter
of King Ethelbert it is twice called a monastery. Nevertheless,
with his customary candour, the excellent man at once adds
that it is not revealed by ancient monuments that monks were instituted
at London at St. Paul's by St. Mellitus. Wherefore, on account
of the word monastery alone, which afterwards especially
clung to many cathedral churches, even secular ones,
I would not dare to call St. Nothelm a London
monk. It remains, therefore, that we call him a monk of St. Augustine's
of Canterbury; by which also it will be given
to understand how he appears so often under the obedience of Albinus the abbot,
sending him hither and thither. But if
he was a monk of Canterbury, how could he at the same time be a priest of the church
of London? It must perhaps be answered
that he was sent there by his abbot, because
the church of London, not long before most grievously
harassed, still needed outside help. Which thing
ought not to seem more wonderful than what we read in Baldric
Chronic. Camerac. et Atrebat., p. 87., namely that Ansbert, a monk of St. Vaast at Arras,
was archdeacon of the church of Cambrai.
Nor did that conflict with the ecclesiastical
or monastic laws of England, since in the council
of Hertford of St. Theodore we read Hist. eccles., book IV, ch. V, vol. III of the works, p. 32.: Fourth,
that monks themselves shall not migrate from place to
place, that is, from monastery to monastery,
EXCEPT BY THE DISMISSAL OF THEIR OWN ABBOT. For the rest,
let the reader choose from the opinions set forth; since it ought to be enough for us
in doubtful matters to have indicated the principal arguments.
[21] In the year 735 he was consecrated and in 736 presented with the pallium; There remains another question also, which pertains to the promotion
of St. Nothelm to the see of Canterbury,
namely at what time it took place. His predecessor
St. Tatwine, on the testimony of the Ven. Bede Ibid., book V, ch. XXIII, vol. III of the works, p. 292., was consecrated in the year 731, on the
10th day of June, a Sunday; which indications of time,
since they cohere well with one another, are by all means
to be kept. He sat 3 years, and died in the year 734,
on the faith of the Saxon Chronology, of the anonymous continuator
of Bede's epitome, of Hoveden and of Florence of Worcester,
about the Kalends of August Cf. Wharton, Anglia Sacra, vol. I, p. 94.. And in determining
this time all the writers agree,
since, although John of Tynemouth Not Osbern; cf. Wharton, vol. II, pref., p. X and XI., the biographer of St. Bretwin
In Wharton, vol. II, p. 75., and after him the canon of Lichfield Ibid., vol. I, p. 94.,
attribute four years to St. Tatwine, they understand four
years begun, as is plain from Eadmer Life of St. Bregwin, in Wharton, vol. II, p. 185.,
whom the man of Tynemouth copied, and who relates that Tatwine died,
namely in the fourth year from when he had undertaken the archbishopric
of all England to govern.
Further, St. Nothelm was consecrated in the year 735, on the testimony
of the continuator of Bede's epitome Works of Bede, vol. III, p. 323., and in the following year
he received the pallium from the Roman pontiff, as the Anglo-Saxon
Chronology has it [J. A. Giles, The Ven. Bede's Eccles. History, also the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 335.]. And Simeon of Durham Historia de gestis regum Anglorum, in Twysden, col. 99 and following, a most learned monk of the middle of the twelfth century
Cf. Selden, pref. in Twysden, p. I and following., arranged these things in the same
way. I leave aside the other chronographers,
because they are either more recent, or disagree wonderfully
among themselves.
[22] he was not consecrated at Rome, Ralph de Diceto, studying to embrace in a few words
the deeds of St. Nothelm [De Archiep. Cantuar., in Wharton, vol. II, p. 680; Abbrev. Chronic., in Twysden, col. 443.], ascribes these things to him: At Rome,
he says, he was consecrated by Pope Gregory the Second,
and from the same he received the pallium. He, Wilfrid having
returned home in peace, set Edrit as bishop over the South Saxons,
that is, of Chester (Chichester).
Nor would I undertake to refute these things, unless some historians
even after the revival of letters had inserted them in the history
of the prelates of Canterbury. Parker,
namely, as could be seen at num. 14, relates that Nothelm
was consecrated at Rome by Pope Gregory. In truth
indeed he said Gregory the Third, not the Second,
because he knew well that the latter had died in the month of February of the year 731:
but since no one else at all,
as far as I know, affirms that Nothelm was consecrated at Rome;
since, if he had been consecrated or ordained at Rome,
he would have to be thought to have received the pallium at the same time;
since, moreover, in Ralph's assertion a palpable
fault lies; everything seems to urge that the testimony of this
writer be wholly disregarded.
[23] nor did he give a bishop to the South Saxons, As for his having set Edrit as bishop over the South Saxons,
Godwin admitted these things, writing on the bishops
of Chichester in these words De præsulib. Angl. Comment., p. 548.:
But afterwards Edbrith, by some Eadbert, was appointed bishop
there by Nothelm the archbishop,
namely in the year 711. But that these things wholly
depart from the truth is manifest even from the note of time alone,
since St. Nothelm was made archbishop only twenty-four years
afterwards. If the origin of this error
is sought, it seems that it can be found in a certain confusion
of names. For in the charter of the monastery of Selsey,
in which the bishop of the South Saxons
sat before his chair was transferred to Chichester,
this inscription is read Monast. Angl. nov., vol. VI, p. 1163.: In the name of our Lord
Christ the Saviour, I, Nothelm, king
of the South Saxons. In the subscription there comes in the first place: I,
Numa, king of Sussex; for which should be read: Nunna,
most probably the son of the brother of King Ine Ibid., p. 1159. Cf. Chronolog. Anglo-Saxonica, in Giles, p. 333.: so that
Nunna and Nothelm would be the same king; and in
truth men with two names were not rare among the Anglo-Saxons.
This charter indeed was given in the year 692; but
below there is another of the same Numa, or rather Nunna,
pertaining to the year 714: so that that Nothelm
would have lived up to this year. I know well that these names,
no otherwise than the very charters from which they were drawn,
are liable to suspicion Ibid., loc. cit.; since, because of the fewness
of the notices which survive of the ancient kingdom of Sussex,
these very things which emerge can be less examined
and discussed. But however the matter stands, since
these charters and perhaps other documents existed in the time
of Ralph de Diceto, there is no reason why we should derive that error
from elsewhere than from the aforenoted confusion of names.
[24] Better things may be borrowed from Simeon of Durham and Roger
of Hoveden, an excellent chronographer:
He ordained, but at Hereford, Elmham and Sherborne. says Simeon speaking of Nothelm Hist. de gestis reg. Anglor., in Twysden, col. 99 and following.,
namely Cuthbert, Heordwald and Ethelfrid.
Cuthbert, called by some Saint, by others Venerable,
St. Nothelm consecrated for the see
of Hereford in the year 736, according to the reckoning of Godwin De Præsulibus Angl. Comment., p. 526. and
Dugdale Monastic. Anglic. nov., vol. VI, p. 1210.: and this same Cuthbert
succeeded St. Nothelm in the see of Canterbury. For from
the beginning translations of bishops were more easily made in England.
Ethelfrid Alford assigns to the chair of Elmham
in the province of East Anglia
Annal. eccl. Anglo-Saxon. at the year 736, n. III, vol. II, p. 545., nor does Godwin oppose it Op. cit., p. 479..
Heordwald, who they lay down was also called Cuthwin,
Alford would have to have been consecrated bishop of Dunwich by St. Nothelm
Work and place cited; which we can neither prove
nor disprove from Godwin, inasmuch as he in this
place is less in accord with the Ven. Bede, and among other
hardly probable things places five prelates in the chair of Dunwich
from the year 734 to 747. But
what presses Alford more, it is gathered by no argument
that Cuthwin (where he found him he does not indicate)
is the same as Heordwald, of whom Simeon of Durham
and after him Roger of Hoveden speak; and consequently,
if there was a place for Cuthwin among the East Saxons
at Dunwich, another must be sought for Heordwald. I would believe,
therefore, that rather Herewald of Sherborne
is here indicated, who (as Godwin himself indicates in the margin
Op. cit., p. 383.) succeeded Forthere of Sherborne,
in the year 738 Roger of Wendover, Flores Histor., vol. I, p. 225, London 1841, or rather 737, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronology
has it Ed. Giles, p. 335., who had accompanied Fritogitha, queen of the West
Saxons, to Rome. Other deeds of St. Nothelm
we do not know.
[25] He died on the 17th day of October, more probably of the year 739. In the last place, finally, it must be investigated how many
years St. Nothelm occupied the see of Canterbury,
or at what time at length he died. Hoveden
In Wharton, vol. I, p. 95. and William Thorne In Twysden, col. 1772. extend his episcopate to only three years,
the latter setting his death
in the year 738, the former in the year 739. The continuator of the chronological
epitome of Bede Works, vol. III, p. 324., Simeon of Durham In Twysden, col. 99 and following.,
Roger of Wendover Flores Historiar., vol. I, p. 226 and following. and Matthew of Westminster
In Wharton, vol. I, p. 95. refer his death to the year 739, and
consequently assign four years to his episcopate. All the
others, I mean Gervase of Dorobernum In Twysden, col. 1640.,
John of Tynemouth Life of St. Bretwin, in Wharton, vol. II, p. 75., Eadmer In Wharton, vol. II, p. 185.,
the Anonymous under the name of Brompton In Twysden, col. 742 and 774, the canon
of Lichfield In Wharton, vol. I, p. 89., Birchington Ibid., p. 3., Henry
of Eastry Ibid., p. 85., Ralph de Diceto Ibid., p. 87., and William
of Malmesbury Ibid., p. 95., all these others, I say,
assign five years to his episcopate,
although in indicating the year of his death they do not agree
entirely: but from the year 735 established beforehand as the beginning
of his episcopate, it must be either the year 739, if St. Nothelm sat
five hollow or incomplete years; or else
the year 740. And indeed it is not permitted to go beyond this one,
since St. Nothelm's successor, on the testimony
of Ralph de Diceto Ibid., p. 87., obtained the pallium from St. Gregory
Pope III, and consequently before his day of death,
the 27th of November of the year 741 Novaës, Elementi della storia de' sommi pontefici, vol. II, p. 69.: whence of all
the most probable is the assertion of the continuator of the epitome
of Bede, of Hoveden and of the Florilegus In Wharton, vol. I, p. 95., that Cuthbert was enthroned
in the year 740; and indeed Simeon
of Durham De Gestis reg. Angl., in Twysden, col. 104., himself one of the more ancient, openly citing a more ancient
writing, puts forward the same year for the enthronement of Cuthbert.
But if the Saxon Chronology
has the year 741, that seems to arise
from a confusion of the reception of the pallium with the reception of the episcopate
of Canterbury. For the rest, I prefer to refer
the death of St. Nothelm to the year 739, since
the chronological continuation of the Ven. Bede is a most ancient
document, and Simeon of Durham seems to have had in hand more and better
documents on the archbishops of Canterbury
of this age than all the others.
The day of his death is assigned by Gervase
of Dorobernum In Twysden, col. 1640., the Annals of Rochester In Wharton, vol. I, p. 85.,
Florence of Worcester Ibid., p. 95. and Stephen Birchington
Ibid., p. 3. as the 16th day before the Kalends of October, namely the same which
we find in the Calendars. Wherefore the list
of the death-days of the archbishops of Canterbury, taken from the Martyrology
and obituary of Christ Church, seems not to be heeded,
since it reaches to about the year
1530 and is consequently far more recent than the other
monuments.