of Thomas Becket (Rolls series); the miracles are extant in their entirety, and are printed in the second volume of the same collection. Benedictus has been credited with the authorship of the Gesta Henrici on the ground that his name appears in the title of the oldest manuscript. We have, however, conclusive evidence that Benedictus merely caused this work to be transcribed for the Peterborough library. It is only through the force of custom that the work is still occasionally cited under the name of Benedictus. The question of authorship has been discussed by Sir T. D. Hardy, Bishop Stubbs and Professor Liebermann; but the results of the discussion are negative. Stubbs conjecturally identified the first part of the Gesta (1170–1177) with the Liber Tricolumnis, a register of contemporary events kept by Richard Fitz Neal (q.v.), the treasurer of Henry II. and author of the Dialogus de Scaccario; the latter part (1177–1192) was by the same authority ascribed to Roger of Hoveden, who makes large use of the Gesta in his own chronicle, copying them with few alterations beyond the addition of some documents. This theory, so far as concerns the Liber Tricolumnis, is rejected by Liebermann and the most recent editors of the Dialogus (A. Hughes, C. G. Crump and C. Johnson, Oxford, 1902). We can only say that the Gesta are the work of a well-informed contemporary who appears to have been closely connected with the court and is inclined on all occasions to take the side of Henry II. The author confines himself to the external history of events, and his tone is strictly impersonal. He incorporates some official documents, and in many places obviously derives his information from others which he does not quote. There is a break in his work at the year 1177, where the earliest manuscript ends; but the reasons which have been given to prove that the authorship changes at this point are inconclusive. The work begins at Christmas 1169, and concludes in 1192; it is thus in form a fragment, covering portions of the reign of Henry II. and Richard I.
See W. Stubbs’ Gesta regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti abbatis (2 vols., Rolls series, 1867), and particularly the preface to the first volume; F. Liebermann in Einleitung in den Dialogus de Scaccario (Göttingen, 1875); in Ostenglische Geschichtsquellen (Hanover, 1892); and in Pertz’s Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. xxvii. pp. 82, 83; also the introduction to the Dialogus de Scaccario in the Oxford edition of 1902. (H. W. C. D.)
BENEDIX, JULIUS RODERICH (1811–1873), German dramatist and librettist, was born at Leipzig on the 21st of January 1811, and was educated at the Thomasschule at Leipzig. He joined the stage in 1831, his first engagement being with the travelling company of H. E. Bethmann in Dessau, Cöthen, Bernburg and Meiningen. Subsequently he was tenor in several theatres in Westphalia and on the Rhine, and became manager of the theatre at Wesel, where he produced a comedy, Das bemooste Haupt (1841), which met with great success. After an engagement in Cologne, he managed the new theatre at Elberfeld (1844–1845) and in 1849 was appointed teacher on the staff of the Rhenish school of music in Cologne. In 1855 he was appointed intendant of the municipal theatre in Frankfort-on-Main, but retired in 1861, and died in Leipzig on the 26th of September 1873. Benedix’s comedies, the scenes of which are mostly laid in upper middle-class life, still enjoy some popularity; the best-known are: Dr Wespe; Die Hochzeitsreise; Der Vetter; Das Gefängnis; Das Lügen; Ein Lustspiel; Der Störenfried; Die Dienstboten; Aschenbrödel; Die zärtlichen Verwandten. The chief characteristics of his farces are a clear plot and bright, easy and natural dialogue. Among his more serious works are: Bilder aus dem Schauspielerleben (Leipzig, 1847); Der mündliche Vortrag (Leipzig, 1859–1860); Das Wesen des deutschen Rhythmus (Leipzig, 1862) and, posthumously, Die Shakespearomanie (1873), in which he attacks the extreme adoration of the British poet.
Benedix’s Gesammelte dramatische Werke appeared in 27 vols. (Leipzig, 1846–1875); a selection under the title Volkstheater in 20 vols. (Leipzig, 1882); and a collection of smaller comedies as Haustheater in 2 vols. (10th ed., Leipzig, 1891); see Benedix’s autobiography in the Gartenlaube for 1871.
BENEFICE (Lat. beneficium, benefit), a term first applied under the Roman empire to portions of land, the usufruct of which was granted by the emperors to their soldiers or others for life, as a reward or beneficium for past services, and as a retainer for future services. A list of all such beneficia was recorded in the Book of Benefices (Liber Beneficiorum), which was kept by the principal registrar of benefices (Primiscrinius Beneficiorum). In imitation of the practice observed under the Roman empire, the term came to be applied under the feudal system to portions of land granted by a lord to his vassal for the maintenance of the latter on condition of his rendering military service; and such grants were originally for life only, and the land reverted to the lord on the death of the vassal. In a similar manner grants of land, or of the profits of land, appear to have been made by the bishops to their clergy for life, on the ground of some extraordinary merit on the part of the grantee. The validity of such grants was first formally recognized by the council of Orleans, A.D. 511, which forbade, however, under any circumstances, the alienation from the bishoprics of any lands so granted. The next following council of Orleans, 533, broke in upon this principle, by declaring that a bishop could not reclaim from his clergy any grants made to them by his predecessor, excepting in cases of misconduct. This innovation on the ancient practice was confirmed by the subsequent council of Lyons, 566, and from this period these grants ceased to be regarded as personal, and their substance became annexed to the churches,—in other words, they were henceforth enjoyed jure tituli, and no longer jure personali. How and when the term beneficia came to be applied to these episcopal grants is uncertain, but they are designated by that term in a canon of the council of Mainz, 813.
The term benefice, according to the canon law, implies always an ecclesiastical office, propter quod beneficium datur, but it does not always imply a cure of souls. It has been defined to be the right which a clerk has to enjoy certain ecclesiastical revenues on condition of discharging certain services prescribed by the canons, or by usage, or by the conditions under which his office has been founded. These services might be those of a secular priest with cure of souls, or they might be those of a regular priest, a member of a religious order, without cure of souls; but in every case a benefice implied three things: (1) An obligation to discharge the duties of an office, which is altogether spiritual; (2) The right to enjoy the fruits attached to that office, which is the benefice itself; (3) The fruits themselves, which are the temporalities. By keeping these distinctions in view, the right of patronage in the case of secular benefices becomes intelligible, being in fact the right, which was originally vested in the donor of the temporalities, to present to the bishop a clerk to be admitted, if found fit by the bishop, to the office to which those temporalities are annexed. Nomination or presentation on the part of the patron of the benefice is thus the first requisite in order that a clerk should become legally entitled to a benefice. The next requisite is that he should be admitted by the bishop as a fit person for the spiritual office to which the benefice is annexed, and the bishop is the judge of the sufficiency of the clerk to be so admitted. By the early constitutions of the Church of England a bishop was allowed a space of two months to inquire and inform himself of the sufficiency of every presentee, but by the ninety-fifth of the canons of 1604 that interval has been abridged to twenty-eight days, within which the bishop must admit or reject the clerk. If the bishop rejects the clerk within that time he is liable to a duplex querela in the ecclesiastical courts, or to a quare impedit in the common law courts, and the bishop must then certify the reasons of his refusal. In cases where the patron is himself a clerk in orders, and wishes to be admitted to the benefice, he must proceed by way of petition instead of by deed of presentation, reciting that the benefice is in his own patronage, and petitioning the bishop to examine him and admit him. Upon the bishop having satisfied himself of the sufficiency of the clerk, he proceeds to institute him to the spiritual office to which the benefice is annexed, but, before such institution can take place, the clerk is required to make a declaration of assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and to the Book of Common Prayer according to a form prescribed in the Clerical Subscription Act 1865, to make a declaration against
