Archbishop of Canterbury, was born at Pavia about 1005, and educated for the law. About 1039 he founded a school at Avranches, in 1041 became a Benedictine at Bec, and in 1046 was chosen prior. He contended against Berengarius in the controversy as to the real presence. He at first condemned the marriage of William of Normandy with his cousin, but in 1059 went to Rome to procure the papal dispensation; and in 1062 William made him prior of St. Stephen’s Abbey at Caen, and in 1070 Archbishop of Canterbury. He died 24th May 1089. His chief writings are Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul, a Treatise against Berengar, and Sermons.

  A man of unbounded learning, master of the liberal arts, and of both sacred and secular literature, and of the greatest prudence in counsel and the administration of worldly affairs.

  To understand the admirable genius and erudition of Lanfranc, one ought to be an Herodian in grammar, an Aristotle in dialectics, a Tully in rhetoric, an Augustine and Jerome, and other expositors of the law and grace, in the sacred scriptures. Athens itself, in its most flourishing state, renowned for the excellency of its teaching, would have honoured Lanfranc in every branch of eloquence and discipline, and would have desired to receive instruction from his wise maxims.

  A man worthy to be compared to the ancients, in knowledge, and in religion: of whom it may be truly said, “Cato the third is descended from heaven;” so much had an heavenly savour tinctured his heart and tongue; so much was the whole Western world excited to the knowledge of the liberal arts, by his learning; and so earnestly did the monastic profession labour in the work of religion, either from his example, or authority.

  A.D. 1089. Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, died on the twenty-fourth of March, who had restored the large church in Canterbury, and all its offices. He procured many additional dignities for that church; he restored its manors, he established two receiving houses for strangers, by condemning heresies he confirmed the faith,… he restored the church at Rochester; he diligently corrected, by a comparison with the ancient copies, the books which the rude simplicity of the English had corrupted; in the confirmation of which the church delights to feel itself strengthened.

  His contemporaries, who extol the learning of Lanfranc in hyperbolical terms, do so in very indifferent Latin of their own; but it appears indeed more than doubtful, whether the earliest of them meant to praise him for this peculiar species of literature. The Benedictines of St. Maur cannot find much to say for him in this respect. They allege that he and Anselm wrote better than was then usual,—a very moderate compliment; yet they ascribe a great influence to their public lectures, and to the schools which were formed on the model of Bec: and perhaps we could not, without injustice, deprive Lanfranc of the credit he has obtained for the promotion of polite letters. There is at least sufficient evidence that they had begun to revive in France not long after his time.

  Though the name of Lanfranc has descended to us almost without reproach, we feel bound to say that his worldly wisdom seems to have been greatly in advance of his piety; and that the facts of his history, as a whole, force upon us the impression, that he could descend to artifice, not to say craft, to accomplish his purpose, and that his inordinate ambition is as little to be doubted as his knowledge and sagacity.

  An Archbishop of Canterbury was something more than merely the first of English bishops. Setting aside his loftier ecclesiastical claims as the second Pontiff of a second world, he held within the realm of England itself a position which was wholly his own…. Lanfranc stood by the side of William, as Dunstan had stood by the side of Eadgar. In every gathering of the Church and of the people, in every synod, in every gemot, the Archbishop of Canterbury held a place which had no equal or second, a place which was shared by no other bishop or earl or ætheling. If we reckon the King as the head of the assembly, the Archbishop is its first member. If we reckon the King as a power outside the assembly, the Archbishop is himself its head. He is the personal counsellor of the King, the personal leader of the nation, in a way in which no other man in the realm could be said to be.

  His writings show less of the rudeness of the age in which he wrote, and more order, precision, and ease, than the other productions of the eleventh century. He displays a great knowledge of Holy Scripture, of tradition, and of canon law.

  He is styled saint in the “Benedictine Martyrology,” and there were pictures of him in the abbey churches of Caen and Bec; as, however, he had no commemorative office, he should perhaps be styled “Beatus” rather than “Sanctus.” Although a large part of his life was spent in transacting ecclesiastical and civil affairs, he never lost the habits and tastes which he had acquired at Bec; he remained a devout man, constant in the discharge of his religious duties. Strenuous in all things, far-seeing and wise, resolute in purpose, stern towards those who persisted in opposing his policy, and not over-scrupulous as to the justice of the means which he employed in carrying it out, or the sufferings which it entailed on others, he was in many respects like his master and friend, William the Conqueror, and men looked on the king and the archbishop as well matched in strength of character (Brevis Relatio, p. 10). In Lanfranc there was, moreover, the subtlety of the Italian lawyer, and his power of drawing distinctions, the quickness of his perception, and the acuteness of his intellect must have rendered him vastly superior to the churchmen and nobles of the court. Combined with these traits were others more suited to his profession, for he was humble, munificent, and, when no question of policy was concerned, gentle and considerate towards all.