So the letter closes with a word-puzzle, of which the interpretation is to be found in Jerome's Index of Hebrew names. It is evident that Osbert is comfortably placed and enjoying the free exercise of his spiritual gifts, a prophet acceptable away from home. This points to the early days at Ely. In after years his letters are full of complaints about his poverty and isolation.

We may take it that the three letters (Epp. xii., xix., xxvii.) may all be dated before 1123. We learn from them that Osbert had been for more than two years in the office of prior, having been appointed probably during the vacancy; that he had displayed extraordinary zeal and activity, and had won considerable popularity as a preacher and spiritual guide; so that he might well have cherished hopes of the abbot's place. Indeed he may have been, if not formally elected, yet informally chosen by his brethren and commended to the king. Be this as it may, Herbert, who was doubtless his senior by many years, was appointed on the king's return. Osbert with his zeal for reform proved too much for him. He was sent away to Ely, the king supporting those who demanded his removal."

We may follow Osbert to Ely, if only to recall the name of another monk of Westminster whom he may possibly have known. Ely had no abbot for the last seven years of the Red King's reign. Richard FitzGilbert was appointed at once by the new king Henry; but he had a troublous time until a visit to Rome had secured him in his seat. He finished the new church, so far as to be able to translate the body of St. Etheldreda in 1106. At the same time three other saints were translated, and one of

1 David: fortis manu sive desiderabilis (Jerome, de nom. hebr.). 2 The ambiguity of Osbert's language, in the passage of his letter to Abbot Herbert quoted above, leaves room for a somewhat different interpretation of events. If the word 'visitarem' be taken, as it perhaps should be, in a strict and formal sense, it would appear that Osbert was sent officially by the king ('ad quam missus sum') to visit' the church of Ely on his behalf. His violent ejection, of which he complains to the abbot, may in that case have come later, after he had returned from his mission and had begun to urge reforms at home. He may then have returned to Ely, where he had evidently made friends.

these, St. Withburga, was discovered to have remained untouched by time. A brother from Westminster was present, who doubtless had seen the uncovering of the incorrupt body of Edward a few years before, when none but the venerable Bishop Gundulf had ventured to remove the face-cloth. A certain senior of the apostolic fold of Westminster, Warner by name, one of the many who had come on this occasion, with a marvellous boldness of faith drew near and touched the virgin limbs, lifted the flexible joints of feet and hands and arms, and proclaiming the wonderful works of God drew many to the sight.'

This scene still lived in many memories when Osbert came to Ely; but much of a more serious nature had happened since. In 1108 the abbey had been made into a bishop's see, and when its properties were divided the prior and his monks bitterly complained that their portion was far too small for their full number of seventy-two. We must hope, however, that St. Etheldreda helped to rectify their lot, for her new shrine was the scene of many wonderful cures. Osbert was a hearty believer in her powers; and years afterwards he writes the monks of Ely a letter, in which after his manner he styles himself consenator capitolii eorum,' and tells them a story of St. Etheldreda's appearance in a humble wooden church which bore her name, at Hissington, a little village far away on the confines of Montgomeryshire and Shropshire.3

Osbert's gratitude for his kindly reception at Ely finds further expression in a letter on the Armour of Chastity (Ep. xl.), written to Adelidis, abbess of Barking. This lady (Adeliza, Adelicia, or Alice) was the daughter of Pain Fitz John, one of King Henry's' new men,' and she appears as abbess about 1136, the dates of her accession and her death being uncertain. Osbert sings the praises of St.

1 Osbert, in his Life of St. Edward, tells the story of the opening of his tomb in 1102.

* Boston of Bury speaks of Warner, a monk of Westminster (fl. 1092), as a writer, but he cannot name his works.

3 Ep. xxxiv. The story had been told him by Osbert, prior of Daventry (c. 1135).

Etheldreda,' who gave hospitality to me, a pilgrim and a stranger.' He is in hope of a return to his home; he has humbly asked of the saint 'a licence of departure'; by her merits he will escape the perils of the sea and find favour with the prince in a foreign land.

The king was so much of his time in Normandy that this last reference gives us but little help towards fixing the date of this letter. The subsequent history will make it probable that Osbert's crossing to Normandy was about the end of 1133

་

Indeed, it will be convenient to deal at once with the question of Osbert's return to Westminster. Ep. xvi. is addressed to Athalwold (or Adelulf), the first bishop of Carlisle. Osbert congratulates him on his new dignity, claims him as a relation, speaks of himself as ' proscriptus,' and urges him to take up his cause, which is the cause of many.' Now Adelulf was consecrated at York on August 6, 1133. The king left England just about this time, and seems to have been at Rouen, for the most part, until shortly before his death on December 1, 1135, Adelulf had been the king's confessor, and probably followed him to Rouen without much delay. We find him attesting a

Lincoln charter there.1

We shall find Osbert back again at Westminster as prior early in 1134. We may therefore assume that Adelulf championed his cause, and that Osbert was sent for, and ' found favour with the prince in a foreign land,' in accordance with his prayer to the holy queen of Ely.

We have now to speak of an incident in Osbert's career which lies midway between his ejection and his return. A letter to Abbot Anselm of Bury (Ep. viii.) is fixed by two references to the period between January 22, 1128, and the last days of 1129. Gilbert the Universal is bishop of London, and the earlier date is that of his consecration; and Hugh is still abbot of Reading, and his promotion to the archbishopric of Rouen occurred at the end of 1129. The subject of the letter is the Festival of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Mr. Edmund Bishop has pointed

1 English Historical Review, October 1908, p. 726.

out that this festival was observed in the English Church before the Conquest, and that the observance had become obsolete and the very fact of it forgotten, at any rate in prominent ecclesiastical circles, at the time of which we are speaking.1 Osbert regards Abbot Anselm as the introducer of what is to him a happy novelty, and naturally supposes that Anselm must have brought it from Rome; indeed, he is dismayed when its opponents condemn it on the ground that Rome knows nothing of it.

'When the festival of that day was being celebrated by us in the church of God, some followers of Satan denounced the thing as ridiculous and unheard of. In their envy and spite they got hold of two bishops who happened to be in the neighbourhood, Roger and Bernard, and roused their indignation at this new-fangled celebration. These bishops declared that it had been prohibited in a council and must be put an end to as an untenable tradition. We, however, persisted in the services of the day which we had begun, and completed the glorious festival with triumphant delight. Then my rivals and those who bite like dogs in envy at the good things of other people, who are always trying to get their own follies approved, and bring into disrepute the words and deeds of the religious, .. shooting at me the arrows of a pestilent tongue, declared that a festival could not be maintained whose origination lacked the authority of the Roman Church.'

Osbert goes on to record his own defence of the festival, and urges Anselm to take counsel with such sound and learned theologians as Gilbert and Hugh, the latter of whom actually observes the feast at Reading at the king's own request. He also specially appeals to Anselm himself to say from his intimate knowledge of Roman customs whether any favourable argument can be drawn from that quarter.

The thick darkness which has hitherto shrouded Osbert's personal history has concealed a curious difficulty which attaches to the incident above related. It was natural to assume that the celebration of the festival took place in the abbey church of Westminster, where Osbert was the

The Bosworth Psalter, pp. 43 ff.; and more at length in Origins o the Feast of the Conception, passim.

prior. Bishop Roger of Salisbury, one of the most powerful men in the state, and Bishop Bernard of St. Davids, a busy prelate who had been chaplain to Queen Maud, might easily happen to be together in London. But now that we know that Osbert was 'proscriptus' before 1123 and was' proscriptus' still in 1133, the matter is not so straightforward. We may observe that Osbert does not actually name Westminster, but says 'in ecclesia Dei.' It may be possible to find out where the two bishops happened to be on December 8, 1127 (or possibly 1128), and so fresh light may reach us.

With our present information we can but say that the whole tenor of the letter points to Westminster as the scene of this interesting liturgical innovation; and to account for Osbert's presence, we must suppose either a return (of which we have no hint elsewhere) followed by a fresh 'proscription'; or perhaps with more probability a visit paid to Westminster for the express purpose of assisting at this function.

The story of this revival of the Festival of the Conception at Westminster brings us into touch with larger problems, and affords us a glimpse of the ecclesiastical politics of the day. It is to be remembered that Lanfranc had purged the calendar of his cathedral church at Canterbury almost with the severity of a sixteenth-century reformer. Anselm in a famous instance had stayed his hand, and when he became archbishop several festivals came back. But this was not of the number, though a confusion with his nephew and namesake has long credited Anselm with its revival. Lanfranc and Anselm stand for two policies in English Church life. The struggle over the investitures was bound to come, but it is inconceivable for Lanfranc's time or Lanfranc's temperament. The saintly churchmanship of Anselm wrought for the independence of the Church in England; but it was an independence which involved a more immediate dependence on Rome. The Hildebrandine reform had its vigorous adherents in the years that followed; but the king knew what was at stake, and found ways of checking the more ardent churchmen. However strict the