Part III: The Final Identity
MODERNISING ST CUTHBERT:
I. THE CONTEXT OF REGINALD’S LIBELLUS
Authorship and dating
Reginald was a monk of Durham, at the latest from the 1150s.7 He resided at
Finchale with the hermit Godric for some time and may have spent the last years of
his life at Coldingham. Victoria Tudor has argued that he probably died before 1196
on the basis that if he were alive, it would be very surprising that he played no part in
the foundation of Finchale priory in that year.8 Both Finchale and Coldingham were
cells of Durham in the twelfth century and this association is reflected in the subjects
of Reginald’s writings.9 According to extant works, he seems to have been the most
prolific Durham writer of the twelfth century, producing, in addition to theLibellus, an even more lengthyVita of Godric of Finchale, a Vita of Oswald and possibly of Æbbe of Coldingham.10 The Life of Godric has been ranked by Tudor as Reginald’s
most important work, due to its length, to Reginald’s immediate connection with
Godric, and to the fact that Godric’s life exists in many more extant manuscripts than
does the Cuthbert Libellus.11 However, the number of manuscripts, the intricacy of Reginald’s Cuthbertine miracle collection, and its depiction of Cuthbert outranking
Godric’s thaumaturgical power, implies that Durham and Cuthbert were at least as
significant to Reginald as Finchale and its saint.12
7 Reginald mentions his witnessing of several miracles dated to between 1150 and 1154:Libellusch.
29, pp. 65-6, concerns Bartholomew, a hermit on Farne from 1150 (RS75, i,, p. xli), and states that Stephen (1135-1154) was on the throne; inLibellusch. 50, p. 104, Reginald is eyewitness to an event of 1152-3. See also ch. 91, pp. 197-201. Victoria Tudor discusses the career and personality of Reginald of Durham in some detail in ‘Reginald of Durham and St Godric of Finchale: a study of a twelfth-century hagiographer and his major subject’ (Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Reading, 1979), pp. 58- 78. The earlier dating is tentative, based on the detailed obituary written by Reginald on the death of Roger, prior of Durham, in 1149.
8Tudor discusses the alternative thesis that Reginald could at that time have been resident at
Coldingham or in retirement at Durham, but that these alternatives would suggest that he lived to a great age, ‘Reginald and Godric’, p. 64.
9
According to York Minster MS xvi.I.12, f.16. Tudor, ‘Reginald and Godric’, p. 60.
10Reginald of Durham,Libellus de vita et miraculis S. Godrici, heremitae de Finchale, J. Stevenson,
ed.,SS20 (1845); Reginald of Durham,Vita sancti Oswaldi, (RSlxxv, i, 326-85). The Life of Æbbe written by Reginald is no longer extant but was probably used in the production of theVitain Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Fairfax 6, ff. 164r-73v, which attributes the work to Reginald in a hand of the sixteenth century. Tudor, ‘Reginald and Godric’, p. 97; Robert Bartlett ed. and tr.,The Miracles of Saint Æbbe of Coldingham and Saint Margaret of Scotland(Oxford, 2003), pp. xvii-xviii.
11Tudor, ‘Reginald and Godric’ p. 8. See also pp. 79 and 87. 12
Miracles reflecting Cuthbert’s superiority over Godric are recounted inLibellusch. 113, pp. 254-5; ch. 124, p. 270; ch. 126, pp. 271-2. Godric’sVitagives further evidence, as Reginald states that Godric
Reginald’sLibellus appears in three manuscripts, and in part in a fourth.13 In its entire form it consists of 141 chapters. The first twelve of these contain an epistle
to Aelred of Rievaulx, to whom the work was dedicated, the customary excusatio
with humble protestations of authorial inadequacy, a sermon on the tabernacles of the
saints and a prohemium stating Reginald’s reasons for writing the collection. Here, Reginald explains that he heard tales of Cuthbert’s miracles ‘nostris temporibus’, many from Aelred of Rievaulx, and conceived the idea of recording them in a
collection. This idea was compounded when Reginald noted the absence of these
miracles from other Durham works, and was given further impetus by Aelred’s
encouragement.14 These, Reginald’s own reasons, place emphasis on the prominent
personal roles of Aelred of Rievaulx and of Reginald himself in the production of the
Libellus. There is a cursory nod towards the dearth of miracle records beyond the first decade of the twelfth century, but Reginald offers no further context for his work.
Reginald’s own explanation thus gives a rather isolated, abstract backdrop to
the inception of his Libellus. Further contextualisation is required to ascertain why such a large and skilfully written miracle collection was compiled in the mid- to late-
twelfth century: such context can be gleaned from evidence within theLibellus, from a dating of the piece, and from a survey of the history of the church of Durham in that
period. Following the introductory 12 chapters, the remaining 129 chapters of the
held Cuthbert in great reverence:Libellus Godrici, ch. 58, pp. 135. The theme of competitive sainthood in theLibellusis discussed below, pp. 239-48. There is an interesting comparison here with Benedict’s hagiographers, many of whom also had contemporary subjects. See D. Rollason, ‘The Miracles of St Benedict’, pp. 81-84.
131.) Durham Cathedral Chapter MS. Hunter 101 (second half of 12thcentury). TheLibellusoccupies
the entire MS and is the basis of the Surtees Society edition. This manuscript is probably an autograph (Libellus, p. xiv): on the significance of this, see below, p. 203. 2.) Oxford, Bodleian MS Fairfax 6, ff.43v.-135r. (14thcentury). Probably copied from the Durham MS. It also contains an abbreviatedVita Godriciby Geoffrey of Durham, and Reginald’s Life of Oswald (and the Life of Æbbe, possibly by Reginald), 3.) London, British Library MS Harleian 4843, ff.68r.-155v. (early 16thcentury). Altered markedly, probably using the Oxford MS, possibly to amend local details (Tudor, ‘Reginald and Godric’, p. 351). 4.) York Minster MS xvi.I.12, ff.16-66 (14thcentury). Contains the prohemium and 42 chapters from Reginald’sLibellus, and parts ofDe miraculisand theLiber de Ortu sancti Cuthberti.
14
Libelluschs.1 and 2, pp. 1-7. The connections between Durham and Aelred and Rievaulx are discussed below, pp. 232 and 234.
Libellusrecount miracles performed by Cuthbert, the vast majority in the second half of the twelfth century but some dating from as early as 875. It is generally accepted
that these miracles were written in two main phases. The first phase, to chapter 107,
was probably begun in the 1160s as the first reference to the process of recording
occurs in a chapter dated to 1165. It was completed before 1167: when Reginald
dedicated the work to Aelred of Rievaulx he stated that his patron should read it on
completion – Aelred died in 1167. The second phase, chapters 108-141, was
conceived after, and possibly on account of, the death of Becket in 1170: there are
several references to him, and to Godric of Finchale, who died in the same year.
Internal references to William the Lion’s invasions against Henry II, which ended
with the Scottish king’s capture in July 1174, are in the past tense and therefore this
second phase was completed after this date.15
Explanations for the motivation behind the Libellus have focussed on this latter phase, and this creates two connected problems. First, the threat posed by
Becket’s cult has been over-emphasised. Second, this over-emphasis has led to a
neglect of the initial reason for theLibellus’ production. The result is that Cuthbert’s cult is seen as a cult in decline, outmoded and outranked. Victoria Tudor, in the only
comprehensive study of the Durham author to date, is content to use Reginald’s
explanation alone in expressing the original motivation behind the Libellus;16 she gives greater regard to historical context when attributing the second phase of miracle
chapters to the stimulus of Becket’s cult. She speculated that ‘the rise of the
15For a more detailed discussion of dating, see Tudor, ‘Reginald and Godric’, pp. 91-2. She notes that
this first phase could have been begun as early as the 1150s as ch. 29, pp. 65-6, may have been written between 1150 and 1154. The division of the phases is discussed further below, pp. 203-4. Tudor suggests the end of the first phase as ch. 108, pp. 242-5, or ch. 111, pp. 247-8, but both these suggestions fail to take into account the linguistic and thematic groupings in theLibellus: ‘Reginald and Godric’, p. 92, ‘Cult in the twelfth century’, p. 449.
Canterbury cult in particular spelt the end of the peak in Cuthbert’s popularity’.17This
notion of the dwindling cult is echoed by Donald Matthew who remarked that
‘Cuthbert was a saint of a bygone era’, and described the ‘brave and baffled efforts’
of the Durham monks to deal in vain with the ‘new age’ of the twelfth century.
Furthermore, Matthew extended this image of decline to encompass the Durham
Church as a whole, remarking that ‘Durham had been relegated to the periphery of
the powerful new kingdom shaped by the Angevins’.18
Such depictions of the impotence of cult and church at the end of the twelfth
century are unrepresentative and misleading. They reflect a southern bias among
English historians, illustrated in the context of the cult of the saints by David
Knowles. He listed the three chief pilgrimage sites in England immediately before
1066 as Bury for St Edmund, Evesham for Egwin and others, and Malmesbury for St
Aldhelm, with Ramsey also receiving a substantial number of visitors. Knowles then
wrote that, by the second half of the twelfth century, these sites had been largely
usurped by Edward the Confessor at Westminster, Wulfstan at Worcester and Thomas
at Canterbury.19 Whilst not denying the importance of these cults, it seems necessary
to redress the balance somewhat in Cuthbert and Durham’s favour. A reassessment is
required, first of the level of Becket’s cult’s influence on that of Cuthbert, and second
of the degree to which Durham was physically and politically marginalised by the
formation of the Angevin kingdom. Such a reappraisal leads to the notion that the
twelfth century was in fact, for Durham, a period of established power which was to
extend far beyond the time of Reginald’sLibellus.
17Tudor, ‘Cult in the Twelfth Century’, p. 467. 18
D. Matthew, ‘Durham and the Anglo-Norman World’,AND, pp. 1-22 at pp. 19-21.
The Autonomy of the North
Becket’s cult was undoubtedly a concern of Reginald’sLibellus - Cuthbert’s superiority to St Thomas is mentioned in six chapters - but there is no conclusive
evidence that the Canterbury cult debased Cuthbert’s popularity.20 It is difficult to
gauge the relative popularity of two cults so different in subject, location and age.
Popular patronage is impossible to enumerate, and while great crowds are said to
have assembled at St Thomas’ shrine, from the time of its opening at Easter 1171, the
absence of written evidence for similar gatherings at Cuthbert’s shrine should not be
interpreted as an absence of popularity for the Durham saint. Furthermore, Becket’s
cult was new and explicitly connected with changes and events at the centre of
ecclesiastical and dynastic power in England; numerous vitae and miracles were bound to emerge from such a cult. Indeed, that 700 miracles were recorded in
fourteen vitae within twenty years of Becket’s death implies some urgency to communicate his saintly power.21 By contrast, after Reginald’s great miracle
collection had brought Cuthbert’s cult into a stable era, there would have been no
need for the Durham community to further represent or, as in the case of Becket
justify, the veneration of its saint. Moreover, and in light of this stability after the
troubles which had previously been faced by the Cuthbertine church, a saint in
Canterbury was unlikely to daunt the custodians of a cult which had flourished since
the seventh century.
The fact that Cuthbert’s and Becket’s cults could coexist without noticeably
devaluing each other is most clearly explained by their geographical locations,
separated by 400 miles. Ronald Finucane mapped the provenance of those affected by
20Libellusch. 112, pp. 248-54; chs.114-16, pp. 255-62; chs.125-6, pp. 270-2.
21Ward,Miracles and the Medieval Mind, chapter 5, discusses the rapid growth of Becket’s cult.
Michael Staunton provides commentary and extracts from the extant of these Becketvitae. M. Staunton,The Lives of Thomas Becket(Manchester, 2001).
Becket miracles in England, concentrated around Canterbury and dispersed through
southern and central England. The dissemination of devotees was markedly thinning
into the north of England: only six sites were north of the Humber, and only two of
these beyond the Tees.22 The dissemination of Reginald’s Cuthbert miracles and
recipients makes a striking comparison. Almost mirroring the dissemination of
Becket’s cult, locations centred on Durham and were spread liberally between the
Humber and the Forth. Some miracles and devotees were located south of the
Humber, but with an ever-decreasing concentration. Cuthbert’s and Becket’s spheres
of saintly power encroached very little on one another: compelling evidence that they
did not threaten, but existed independently.23
Canterbury and Durham are situated at opposite ends of what is now England,
but still there remains a tendency to assume that they existed, and exist, wholly in the
same political and social sphere of ‘England’. Conversely, moves towards semi-
devolved government for North-Eastern England, although rejected in a referendum
of November 2004, reflect the current feeling that the northeast has an identity
distinct from the rest of England.24 This separate identity is rooted in the process of
‘unifying’ England in the mediaeval period: a process which was by no means
complete and all-encompassing. Indeed, the lands north of the Humber were by no
means within the firm jurisdiction of the English crown. It was not until the Treaty of
York in 1237 that Scotland conceded possession of Northumberland, along with
Westmorland and Cumberland, to England; even after then, political and military
machinations between England and Scotland from the end of the thirteenth century
22Finucane,Miracles and Pilgrims, p. 165. 23See appendix 1, p. 257.
24
See for example, Peter Hetherington, ‘Northern Exposure’,The Guardian, October 27, 2004; Hélène Mulholland, ‘North-East Voters Reject Regional Assembly’,The Guardian, November 5, 2004.
show that this border agreement did not place Northumberland beyond the remit of
Scottish influence.25
This leads to the second consideration, the degree to which Durham was
marginalised. In his article expounding the study of Northern history, Jean Le
Patourel wrote of northern England as ‘an autonomous political and cultural unit’: it
is with this separateness - rather than marginalisation - borne in mind that one should
approach the position of Cuthbert’s cult and church.26Jean Le Patourel’s observations
on northern English autonomy were part of a movement of the late twentieth century
to remove the mental constraints of current borders and accept a rather more fluid and
less centralised notion of identity within Britain. Recent scholarship has done much to
recognise the relevance of this to the medieval period. William Kapelle’s study ofThe Norman Conquest of the North was a pioneering example of the value of regional medieval history. Such work should not lead to a perception of homogeneity in
northern England. Rather the distinctness of the north should itself be seen as multi-
facetted and extending in many directions, north as well as south. Thus, as William
Aird showed in St Cuthbert and the Normans, during the Norman period Scotland was just as significant to Durham as was England.27 Whilst this Scottish influence
was sometimes militarily destructive, the Durham Church also fostered connections
with the Scots,28and just as Cuthbert’s cult spread southwards through England so its
power was also felt in Scotland: to give a quantitative notion of its impact, there are
36 dedications to Cuthbert south of the Forth dating from before the Reformation.29
25Bartlett,England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, p. 81. 26
J. Le Patourel, ‘Is Northern history a subject?’,Northern History12 (1976), 1-15 at 8.
27Aird,St Cuthbert and the Normans(Woodbridge, 1998).
28Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, R.J. Howlett, ed., 4 vols, RS 82 (1884-
90), III, p. 155, tells how King David pillaged Cuthbert’s lands in 1138. See P. Dalton, ‘Scottish Influence on Durham 1066-1214’,AND, pp. 339-42.
Cuthbert’s church gives just one example of the heterogeneous power network
north of the Humber; the diaspora of Cuthbert’s cult reflected that connections within
northern England and southern Scotland to the Forth formed a unit rather more
distinct from the jurisdiction of English kings than a border on a map may indicate.
As Bartlett puts it, ‘Durham and Dunbar had different lords but were part of the same
world’.30 Indeed, this was a political semi-independence which was to extend far
beyond the period in question: the thirteenth century saw the apogee of the official
separateness of this border region, the distinct customs forged in this period were in
evidence throughout the fourteenth century and, whilst nominally working for the
English crown, wardens of the marches exercised semi-independence into the
fifteenth century.31
Durham itself wielded power rooted firmly in a great church: Scammell wrote
that ‘The long fingers of Angevin power touched the north at Carlisle, Newcastle and
the well-maintained castles of Northumberland, but never pressed too heavily on
Durham sede plena’.32 Far from being on the periphery and at the mercy of two bordering nations, threatened by events at the English political centre, Durham was in
fact the heart of its own powerful political unit. This power was evident in all the
Cuthbertine texts, whether associated with land, rights, political connections or the
influence of the cult itself; the power was given further solidity by settlement at
Durham. The earlier twelfth-century Durham works on Cuthbert communicated the
need to re-present the saint for a new monastic era after 1083, but they were also
representative of a young foundation just establishing itself, particularly in the case of
30
Bartlett,England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, p. 78.
31The development and political role of this region from the thirteenth century is discussed most
recently by C. Neville,Violence, Custom and Law. The Anglo-Scottish Border Lands in the Later Middle Ages(Edinburgh, 1998). See also R. Storey, ‘The Wardens of the Marches of England towards Scotland, 1377-1489’,EHR285 (1957), 593-615.
Symeon’s Libellus. Indeed, the first half of the twelfth century was characterised in Durham by disputes between the increasingly powerful bishops and the convent
trying to maintain the degree of material independence given to it by William de St
Calais;33 outwith the church, northern England was still the scene of raids and