nd some
rabbies, and bade them fairly dispute the question of their religion in
his presence. He was perfectly indifferent between them; had his ears
open to reason and conviction; and would embrace that doctrine
which, upon comparison, should be found supported by the most solid
arguments.[**] If this story be true, it is probable that he meant only
to amuse himself by turning both into ridicule; but we must be cautious
of admitting every thing related by the monkish historians to the
disadvantage of this prince. He had the misfortune to be engaged in
quarrels with the ecclesiastics, particularly with Anselm, commonly
called St. Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury; and it is no wonder his
memory should be blackened by the historians of that order.

After the death of Lanfranc, the king for several years retained in
his own hands the revenues of Canterbury, as he did those of many other
vacant bishoprics: but falling into a dangerous sickness, he was seized
with remorse; and the clergy represented to him, that he was in danger
of eternal perdition, if before his death he did not make atonement
for those multiplied impieties and sacrileges of which he had been
guilty.[***] He resolved, therefore, to supply instantly the vacancy of
Canterbury; and for that purpose he sent for Anselm, a Piedmontese
by birth, abbot of Bee, in Normandy, who was much celebrated for his
learning and piety. The abbot earnestly refused the dignity, fell on
his knees, wept, and entreated the king to change his purpose,[****] and
when he found the prince obstinate in forcing the pastoral staff upon
him, he kept his fist so fast clinched, that it required the utmost
violence of the bystanders to open it, and force him to receive that
ensign of spiritual dignity.[*****]

[* Eadmer, p. 47.]

[** W. Malms, p. 123.]

[*** Eadmer, p. 16. Chron. Sax. p. 198,]

[**** Eadmer, p. 17. Diceto, p. 494.]

[***** Eadmer, p. 18.]

William soon after recovered; and his passions regaining their wonted
vigor, he returned to his former violence and rapine. He detained in
prison several persons whom he had ordered to be freed during the time
of his penitence; he still preyed upon the ecclesiastical benefices;
the sale of spiritual dignities continued as open as ever; and he kept
possession of a considerable part of the revenues belonging to the see
of Canterbury.[**] But he found in Anselm that persevering opposition
which he had reason