Thomas Becket. Father John S. Hogan

Чтение книги онлайн.

      Thomas was growing into a very tall, dark, and handsome young man — he would be well over six feet in his maturity. The nose that made him self-conscious at times and led his enemies to call him “Beaky” did not distract from his fine features; indeed, it lent him an air of sophistication and nobility. His stammer enhanced rather than diminished his charm and elegance. He had engaging, bright eyes and was pale in complexion. Though he was devil-may-care in his attitude and becoming more confident as he grew older, drawing people to him, there was always something distant about him. The historian Dom David Knowles¹ has noted that while Thomas was well respected and deeply admired by those who knew him — even his enemies knew there was something formidable about him — few spoke of loving him, the exceptions being Theobald of Bec, archbishop of Canterbury, and Henry II.² There seems to have been something in him that kept people somewhat at a distance. This distance lent him an enigmatic air and, over time, would lead people to misunderstand him and his motives.

      Despite his stature, Thomas’s health was mediocre. From an early age, he developed a problem with digestion, a common ailment given the health hazards of the time, particularly when it came to food and its preparation. Thomas would have to keep an eye on what he ate and drank, as he discovered in one incident that almost cost him his life — one bad drink could trigger a serious reaction. He learned to steer clear of cider and wine, rarely imbibing them and preferring beer, which was less risky.³ While his biographers note that Thomas was modest and pleasant in his speech, they also relate that he loved a good time. Despite his budding nobility, he had a weakness for frivolity and fine garb. He was gregarious, enjoying the company of others, and was always at the center of buffoonery and pranks. This joie de vivre brought him to the attention of another wild spirit, Richer II, Lord de L’Aigle, a Norman nobleman more commonly known as Richer de L’Aigle.

      Richer was an aristocrat to his fingertips and reveled in the life and influence of the minor nobility. He was also a restless and turbulent man involved in numerous disputes and political machinations. Born in L’Aigle, Normandy, sometime around 1095,⁴ he was the eldest son of Gilbert, Lord de L’Aigle, and his wife, Julianna of Perche. The family was wealthy and well connected: Not only was Richer the descendant of the noble Barons de L’Aigle, but also his mother was the daughter of Geoffrey II, the Count of Perche, a veteran of the Battle of Hastings, a prominent landowner in England, and the founder of a leper colony. As respected courtiers, the de L’Aigle family seem to have had their fingers in a number of pies and, not content to remain in the background serving greater lords, made forays into royalty themselves. Richer’s sister, Marguerite, would marry the king of Pamplona (later Navarre), García V, and become the mother of King Sancho VI. However, the de L’Aigle family influence waned in Navarre thanks to Marguerite’s extramarital affairs before her early death in 1141. While her widowed husband and his realm may not have mourned her deeply, her daughter Marguerite remembered her with great fondness. It seems adventure, unpredictability, and a refusal to conform were essential traits of the de L’Aigles.

      Richer’s family had a tradition of service to the Norman dukes. His paternal great-grandfather Engenulf had been in service to William the Conqueror during William’s invasion of England in 1066 and given his life for the duke’s cause at the Battle of Hastings. His father, Gilbert, had been in service to Henry I, for which he was given Pevensey Castle and its estates in Sussex to add to lands he already possessed in Normandy. When he inherited the English lands on his father’s death, Richer had clashed with Henry I, who had expressed his preference that Engenulf and Geoffrey, the two younger de L’Aigle brothers, take over their father’s English lands. In response, Richer defied the king and nurtured a relationship with King Louis VI of France, Henry’s rival, to gain a royal ally to his cause. Not afraid to play rough in the game of politics, Richer eventually led a rampage against King Henry, attacking his neighbors and laying waste to their land. Richer’s uncle had to intervene to resolve the dispute, but Richer emerged the victor. Another scrap with King Stephen — Stephen of Blois — during the Anarchy⁵ would see him lose his Sussex estates again; but his was a charmed life, and he eventually won them back. He would remain for many the proof that it was possible to face down a king, though a cool head, clever stratagem, and the nerve to risk it all on the venture were necessary in the fray.

      Richer also knew tragedy: His brothers Engenulf and Geoffrey had both perished in the sinking of the White Ship. As the horrors for the doomed passengers unfolded, Geoffrey was managing to hold out in the waters; but just before he could be rescued, he succumbed to hypothermia and slipped down to his death. Even in the midst of the tragedy that would cause such chaos in England, the de L’Aigle family had its part to play.

      Richer held lands near Thierville in Normandy, near the Abbey of Bec; it was perhaps through these possessions that he came to know Gilbert Becket, and it was through his father that Thomas became acquainted with the dashing Norman lord. Richer was a regular visitor to the Becket house in Cheapside, staying with the family whenever he was on his way to or from Normandy and his Sussex estates.⁶ During evening conversations, young Thomas, entranced by the exuberant aristocrat who seemed wild and honorable at the same time, drank in Richer’s stories of his exploits and family history. Richer may have recognized a kindred spirit in Thomas, for the two became fast friends even though L’Aigle was probably in his mid- to late thirties at this time and Thomas in his early teens.

      The nature of this relationship has been questioned: Why would a successful and wealthy lord take an interest in the young son of a former draper and landlord?⁷ By the time the two met around 1131, Richer was a married man with children. Though some have recently seen a less-than-savory interest here, there is no evidence of it. Without doubt, Richer saw a young man who reminded him of himself, one who was as ambitious but lacked the privilege of a noble family. He saw a possible protégé, which Thomas would indeed become. The Becket scholar Frank Barlow suggests that Thomas may have acted as a substitute for his two dead brothers — Richer may have desired a brother figure to share his interests and sports.⁸ It is also possible that Richer saw in Thomas a young man who could go far and thought it might be wise not only to guide him in his path but also to make a connection that could prove useful in the years ahead. Whatever the reasons, there seems to have been a genuine affection between the two. As for Thomas, he was completely dazzled by the baron and saw in him a model for his own ideals.

      As much as he found it necessary to engage in the sport of politics and king baiting, Richer loved country sports even more, and Thomas came to enjoy this entertainment as passionately as his new mentor. He may have loved the temptations of the city, but Thomas soon found these country pursuits vastly more exciting and engaging than any game at Smithfield. On his estates in Sussex, Richer introduced Thomas, on holidays from school, to hunting and hawking, games that would thrill and entertain him for the rest of his life. He became very fond of horses, and it was noted later in his life that he was a fine horseman; his skills were no doubted perfected during these forays into the landscape of the Sussex estates. Thomas not only embraced these country pursuits but also acquired a fondness for the life of ease — the lordly life and all its attendant pleasures. Richer was only too keen to form what he may have seen as a fellow pilgrim in this lifestyle, much to the discomfort, it seems, of Thomas’s parents.

      Matilda and Gilbert may well have had cause for concern. Under Richer’s influence, their little boy was changing. Matilda would have no ticed a less pious streak appear in her son, one that was undermining the humility she had tried to instill in him.⁹ As he grew in confidence, he may have become more aristocratic in his bearing. That might not be an advantage to the son of a London landlord who would have to make his way in the world; it could win him enemies. Time away from study may also have been a problem, and although the trips to the country occurred during holiday time, he may have been prone to distractions when in school, which would not have helped his inherent laziness. While Gilbert may have reveled in his son’s new connection, he would have noticed that this relationship was one centered on pleasure and not vocational advancement. If Becket СКАЧАТЬ