De Iniusta Vexacione Willelmi Episcopi Primi facts for kids

De Iniusta Vexacione Willelmi Episcopi Primi (which means "Of the Unjust Persecution of Bishop William I") is a very old historical book. It was written around the late 1000s. This book tells the story of a trial involving William de St-Calais. He was a powerful Norman bishop in Durham from 1081 to 1096.

This book is super important because it's the first detailed record we have of an English trial held in front of the king. Historians use it a lot to understand how things worked back then. The book has three parts: an introduction, the main story of the trial, and a conclusion. Most experts today believe it's a true record of what happened.

What Was Bishop William's Big Problem?

William de St-Calais pictured in an 11th-century illuminated manuscript. St-Calais is the central figure, and the manuscript's scribe is at his feet.

The trial that De Iniusta describes happened in November 1088 in a place called Salisbury. Bishop William was in trouble because of his actions during a rebellion earlier that year. This rebellion was against King William II.

This old book is one of the main sources of information about the early years of King William II's rule. It was probably put together from notes taken by the bishop's helpers. They likely wanted to make the bishop look good. The book was probably written in the 1090s. At that time, Bishop William was trying to get back into the king's good graces. He had been sent away from England after his trial.

This book is the oldest surviving detailed report of a "state trial" in England. A state trial is a big legal case involving important people and the government. Because of this, it helps us understand how the king's court, called the curia regis, handled legal cases a long time ago.

The Bishop's Big Trial

De Iniusta says that Bishop William was brought before the king and his court on November 2, 1088, in Salisbury. The king had already taken away the bishop's lands before the trial even started.

At the trial, Bishop William argued that as a bishop, he shouldn't be tried in a normal court. He refused to answer the accusations against him. Lanfranc, the Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke for the king. He said that the bishop's lands were held as "fiefs." A fief was land given by a lord in exchange for loyalty and service. So, Lanfranc argued, Bishop William could be tried as a "vassal" (someone who held a fief), not as a bishop.

Bishop William still disagreed and wouldn't answer the charges. After many talks, the court decided that he could be tried as a vassal in a "feudal" court. This was a court based on the system of fiefs and vassals. Bishop William then tried to appeal to Rome, but the king and the judges said no. The judges decided that because Bishop William never formally answered the charges and tried to appeal to Rome, he lost his fief, or the lands he held.

During the trial, Archbishop Lanfranc reportedly said that the court was judging Bishop William "not in your capacity as bishop, but in regard to your fief." He even mentioned a similar case where another bishop was tried this way. Unlike a later famous case involving Thomas Becket, Bishop William didn't get much support from other bishops. Most of them and the powerful barons who judged the case thought Bishop William was trying to avoid answering because he knew he was guilty. The final decision came only after the king got very angry. He shouted that Bishop William wouldn't go free until he gave up his castle.

Is This Story Real?

De Iniusta is actually made up of different parts. The main part, called the Libellus, tells the story of the trial itself. This is probably the original account. An introduction was added later, which talks about Bishop William's life before the trial. A conclusion was also added, describing his life after the trial. These added parts are sometimes called the Vita, or "Life."

In 1951, a historian named H. S. Offler thought the Libellus wasn't written at the time of the trial. He believed it was written much later, in the 1100s. But more recent historians, like W. M. Aird and Frank Barlow, think it is a true record from the time. Barlow believes it's real because it has so many details. Also, it doesn't mention anything that happened outside the court, which suggests it was written by someone who was there. He thinks any mistakes in later copies are just from scribes (people who copied books) making errors over time.

One reason people questioned the story's truth is that it says Bishop William knew a lot about "canon law." Canon law is the law of the church. Offler doubted that church law was well-known in England in 1088. However, historian Mark Philpott argues that Bishop William did know about canon law. This is because he owned a copy of an important book on church law called the False Decretals. The bishop's actual copy of this book still exists today!

Historians generally agree that the introduction and conclusion were added by a different writer than the one who wrote the Libellus. Who that writer was is still a mystery. Some historians thought it might be based on the work of a writer named Symeon of Durham. This would mean it was written between 1109 and 1129.

How We Know This Story

In old manuscripts (handwritten copies), De Iniusta usually appears next to another work by Symeon of Durham. There are at least six copies of De Iniusta that still exist. The oldest one is called Bodleian MS Fairfax 6, and it's from around 1375. Other copies are found in different libraries, like the Bodleian and the Cotton Library.

The first time De Iniusta was printed was in 1655. It was part of a larger book by William Dugdale. Later, it was also published as part of the collected works of Symeon of Durham. There have been several translations of the book into English over the years, making it easier for people to read and study today.