A History of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, 1257-1301: Simon of Luton and John of Northwold 9781783270262

Table of contents :
Frontcover
Contents
List of Plates
List of Figures
Preface
Editorial Note
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Maps and plans (figures 1–11)
Part I. Introduction
1 The Abbots, Simon of Luton and John of Northwold
Part II. Abbatial Governance
2 Abbot Simon of Luton’s Early Problems
3 Repercussions on the Abbey of the Barons’ War
4 Record-Keeping and the Codification of Customs
5 Relations between Abbot Simon and the Convent
6 John of Northwold’s Early Problems and Reforms
7 St Edmunds and the Crown – Introduction
8 St Edmunds’ Mint
9 Interaction and Co-operation with the Crown
10 The Abbey and Edward I
11 The Abbey’s Influential Friends
12 William of Hoo, Sacrist 1280–94
Part III. The Abbey’s Economy
13 Debt and its Causes
14 Retrenchment and Reform
15 Loss and Recovery
16 Taxes and other Financial Impositions
17 The Town and Trade
18 Estate Management
19 Abbatial Vacancies: Problems and Solutions
Part IV. Religious Life and Reform
20 Religious Life under Abbot Simon
21 Religious Life under Abbot John
Part V. Intellectual and Cultural Life
22 The Monks’ Intellectual and Cultural Life under Abbot Simon
23 The Monks as Chroniclers and Historians under Abbot John
24 Afterword – The Deaths of Abbots Simon and John
Appendices
I The identity of the abbot’s justices, Henry of Guildford and Henry of Shenholt (in 1287)
II The monks’ dietary regime: their food and drink
Select List of the Registers and Customaries cited
Select List of Further Manuscripts Cited
Select Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Dr Antonia Gransden is former Reader at the University of Nottingham.

A History of the ABBEY OF BURY ST EDMUNDS 1257–1301

Also available:

A History of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, 1182–1256: Samson of Tottington to Edmund of Walpole Antonia Gransden

Antonia Gransden

‘This is a volume rich in detail and interest, and monastic historians have cause to be grateful to Dr Gransden.’ ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW

A History of THE ABBEY OF BURY ST EDMUNDS 1257–1301 Simon of Luton and John of Northwold

‘Here at last is the modern study [the abbey] deserves, the fruit of half a century of Antonia Gransden's meticulous scholarship.’ JOURNAL OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

Studies in the History of Medieval Religion

Jacket illustration: ‘St Edmunds Abbey in Olden Times’ (1895), by Arthur Lankester, from the collections of St Edmundsbury Heritage Service.

an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF and 668 Mt Hope Ave, Rochester NY 14620–2731 (US)

www.boydellandbrewer.com

ANTONIA GRANSDEN

St Edmund’s Abbey was one of the most highly privileged and wealthiest religious houses in medieval England, one closely involved with the central government; its history is an integral part of English history. This book, the second of two volumes, offers a magisterial and comprehensive account of the Abbey during the latter part of the thirteenth century, based primarily on evidence in the abbey’s records (over 40 registers survive). It begins with an account of the two abbots of this period, Simon of Luton and John of Northwold, who showed outstanding ability in steering the abbey through difficult times, including conflict with the Friars Minor in the town, straitened financial circumstances (partly caused by oppressive taxation from king and pope), and domestic issues. This is followed by consideration of such matters as the abbey’s mint, its economy, religious, intellectual and cultural life, and the abbey’s architecture – especially the charnel chapel constructued by John, which survives to this day. The monks’ dietary regime (with examples of actual recipes from the time) is examined in a detailed appendix.

Studies in the History of Medieval Religion VOLUME XLII

A History of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds 1257–1301

Studies in the History of Medieval Religion ISSN 0955–2480 Founding Editor Christopher Harper-Bill Series Editor Frances Andrews

Previously published titles in the series are listed at the back of this volume

A History of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds 1257–1301 Simon of Luton and John of Northwold

ANTONIA GRANSDEN

THE BOYDELL PRESS

©  Antonia Gransden 2015 All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner The right of Antonia Gransden to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 First published 2015 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 978–1–78327–026–2 The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620–2731, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate This publication is printed on acid-free paper

To the memory of my sister Stephanie Morland of Glastonbury and our grandmother Florence Julia Street (née White)

Contents List of plates ix List of figures xi Preface xiii Editorial note xvii Acknowledgements xix Abbreviations xxi Maps and plans (figures 1–11) xxv Part I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Abbots, Simon of Luton and John of Northwold

3

Part II. ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE 2

Abbot Simon of Luton’s Early Problems

15

3

Repercussions on the Abbey of the Barons’ War

26

4

Record-Keeping and the Codification of Customs

34

5

Relations between Abbot Simon and the Convent

38

6

John of Northwold’s Early Problems and Reforms

47

7

St Edmunds and the Crown – Introduction

51

8

St Edmunds’ Mint

63

9

Interaction and Co-operation with the Crown

70

10 The Abbey and Edward I

79

11 The Abbey’s Influential Friends

88

12 William of Hoo, Sacrist 1280–94

102

Part III. The ABBEY’S ECONOMY 13 Debt and its Causes

119

14 Retrenchment and Reform

130

15 Loss and Recovery

141

16 Taxes and other Financial Impositions

147

17 The Town and Trade

176

18 Estate Management

185

19 Abbatial Vacancies: Problems and Solutions

198

Part IV. RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM 20 Religious Life under Abbot Simon

205

21 Religious Life under Abbot John

220

Part V. INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE 22 The Monks’ Intellectual and Cultural Life under Abbot Simon

241

23 The Monks as Chroniclers and Historians under Abbot John

253

24 Afterword – The Deaths of Abbots Simon and John

286

APPENDICES I The identity of the abbot’s justices, Henry of Guildford and Henry of Shenholt (in 1287) II The monks’ dietary regime: their food and drink

293 295

Select List of the Registers and Customaries Cited Select List of Further Manuscripts Cited Select Bibliography

321 322 323

Index

335

Plates The plates appear between pages 140 and 141 I

One of the volumes damaged by fire in the Cottonian Library in 1731 showing f. 43 verso line 16 to the end of the annal for 1265. © The British Library Board. British Library Cotton MS Julius A1. A detached pastedown and end flyleaf of a thirteenth-century Summa II de Vitiis by Guilelmus Peraldus (d. 1271). St John’s College, Cambridge, MS 138 (F. 1). By permission of the Master and Fellows of St John’s College, Cambridge. The Letter Book of William of Hoo, sacrist of St Edmunds (1280–94), III showing the entry on f. 30 verso, a copy of a letter from Abbot John to the sacrist [William of Hoo] dated 21 May 1288. © The British Library Board. BL MS Harley 230, ff. 8–53 verso. Two extracts from the Bury Chronicle: a. The annal for 1279; b. IV Recording the birth of a daughter, Mary, to Queen Eleanor. College of Arms Arundel MS 30, f. 166. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms. V The annal for 1282 showing a blank space left for the name of the daughter born to Queen Eleanor at Rhuddlan. Moyses Hall Museum MS, f. 103 verso lines 9–32. Reproduced by permission of St Edmundsbury Borough Council Heritage Service. A copy of the submissions of the competitors for the throne of Scotland VI to King Edward’s judgement (on 2 June 1291) followed by a copy of Edward’s letter. College of Arms Arundel MS 30, f. 179, top half. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms. VII The kitchener’s register recording the ingredients the kitchener had to provide so that the cooks could make ‘Jussel’, ‘Charlet’ and ‘Letlorre’. Bibliothèque municipal de Douai, MS 553, f. 10 verso. Quarto, c. 1425. VIII The passage in the Bury Chronicle recording that in 1300 the cellarer, John of Eversden, stayed for seven days on the manor of Warkton. College of Arms Arundel MS 30, f. 202, bottom two thirds. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms. IXa Historiated initial from a copy of Le Régime du corps by Aldobrandino of Siena showing the cellarer sampling the ale as he draws it from the barrel. © The British Library Board. BL MS Sloane 2436, f. 44v. IXb Illustration from the Luttrell Psalter, executed for Sir Geoffrey Luttrell of Irnham in the second quarter of the fourteenth century, depicting a scene from the kitchen. © The British Library Board. BL MS Additional 42130, f. 207, bottom half.

X

XI XII

XIII XIV

XV

XVI XVII

Two illustrations from the Luttrell Psalter, executed for Sir Geoffrey Luttrell of Irnham in the second quarter of the fourteenth century: a. A peasant slinging stone pellets to scare the crows away; b. A peasant sowing seeds. © The British Library Board. BL MS Additional 42130, in the bottom margins of ff. 170 verso, 171. Luttrell Psalter. Royal ladies travelling with attendants and pets in a splendid carriage. © The British Library Board. BL MS Additional 42130, f. 181 verso, bottom half. Reduced from folio size. A collection of theological tracts which contain a copy of the Lignum Vitae by St Bonaventura (1221–74), depicting Christ dying on the Tree of Life. © The British Library Board. BL MS Royal MS II B III, ff. 281–328. Photograph of the surviving remains of the Charnel chapel viewed from the south. Photographed by and reproduced with the permission of Robert Carr. Photograph of the ruins of the West Front showing the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century houses built into the ruined arches, with the bronze statue of St Edmund by Dame Elisabeth Frink in the centre of the photo. Photographed by and reproduced with the permission of Helen Statham. Photograph of the remains of St Saviour’s Hospital in Northgate Street, comprising part of the west wall with doorway arch, with window jambs above it intact. A memorial tablet installed in 1907 for Humphrey Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester (d. 1447), is affixed to infilling in the window, with inscription and his shield of arms. Photographed by and reproduced with the permission of Helen Statham. Engraving, dated 1829 of the Abbots Bridge, found by Katherine Constable in Michael Lewis Gallery and Bookshop, Bruton (Som.), and reproduced here with her permission. Recent photograph of the fourteenth-century Great Gate, the best preserved of the abbey’s buildings, formerly the site of the Abbot’s Palace, the King’s Hall and the Queen’s Chamber, but today the entrance to the public gardens which now occupy the area. Photograph by and reproduced with the permission of Robert Carr.

The author and publishers are grateful to all the institutions and individuals listed for permission to reproduce the materials in which they hold copyright. Every effort has been made to trace the copyright holders; apologies are offered for any omission, and the publishers will be pleased to add any necessary acknowledgement in subsequent editions.

Figures The figures follow page xxiv 1. Distribution map of St Edmunds’ Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds before 1066. 2. Distribution map of St Edmunds’ Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds, and its manors and other major holdings in 1086. 3. Distribution map of St Edmunds’ holdings outside the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds before 1066. 4. Distribution map of St Edmunds’ manors and other major holdings outside the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds in 1086. 5. The locations of the food farms: before 1066; by the late twelfth century and in the thirteenth century. 6.

Map of St Edmunds’ banleuca, with some medieval place-names marked.

7.

Plan of the town of Bury St Edmunds, with some street names and other places marked.

8.

Conjectural plan of the abbey.

9.

Plan of the abbey church.

10. Plan of the Charnel chapel. 11. Distribution map of the Charnel chapel.

Preface In writing the second volume of my History of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, I am faced with the same insoluble problem that faces all monastic historians: the subject does not always lend itself to periodization. It is, therefore, for convenience – to make the subject controllable – that I use as the backbone of this study the rule of two abbots, Simon of Luton (1257–79) and John of Northwold (1279–1301), who dominated the period and, as will be seen, imparted a distinctive flavour to their time in office. Beginning with basic biographical information about each abbot, my study proceeds to address this period thematically: abbatial governance, financial problems, religious life and reform, and intellectual and cultural life. The importance of continuity cannot be overemphasized since tradition was an essential element in the monastic psyche. Since the publication in 2007 of Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, much remains the same, but much also has changed. Thus, my general comments are equally appropriate to the second half of the thirteenth century as to that of the first half – that is, general works on monastic history tend to ignore St Edmunds or to treat it in a cursory manner. For instance, one respected and highly regarded monastic historian who reviewed the first volume for a standard English periodical located St Edmunds’ Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds in West Sussex and misdated the death of St Edmund as being 843 instead of 869. Again, although Bond1 in his very interesting and substantial book on monastic sites does cite examples based on printed sources, archaeological evidence and personal observation, he does not exhaust the printed and easily accessible material on Bury St Edmunds; he mainly cites Anglo-Saxon, twelfth-century, late medieval and even Post-Reformation sources. The most notable publication relating to monastic history is Joan Greatrex’s masterly work2 which is based on meticulous study of manuscript sources, but of course is not concerned with the great exempt Benedictine abbeys such as St Edmunds. Of specialist books on St Edmunds the most outstanding is Robin J. Eaglen’s The Abbey and Mint of Bury St Edmunds to 1279,3 a detailed study, fully illustrated with tables and photographs of the coinage of Bury Mint, set against the background of the abbey’s history. Moreover, some of his articles and those of another eminent numismatist, Martin Allen, concern St Edmunds’ mint. More recent than any of these publications is The Bohun of Fressingfield Cartulary, edited with the meticulous

1

James Bond, Monastic Landscapes (Stroud, 2004, repr. 2010). Joan Greatrex, The English Benedictine Cathedral Priories: Rule and Practice c. 1270–c. 1420 (Oxford, 2011). 3 Robin J. Eaglen, The Abbey and Mint of Bury St Edmunds to 1279 (British Numismatic Soc., Special publication 5, London, 2006). 2

xiv PREFACE care and comprehensiveness expected of the Suffolk Charters series, by Bridget Wells-Furby.4 While the period covered by my first volume Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256 mainly concerns the rule of Abbot Samson (1182–1212), the period covered by the present volume marks the gradual dismantling of the old lord– tenant relationships and the beginning of a new era. Thus, we see the transition to a money economy. As features of the old relationships survived in the later period and those of the later period were already emerging in the twelfth century, there were no clear-cut boundaries between one period and another. The outstanding characteristic of the second half of the thirteenth century was the impact of taxation, whether by the king or the Church. This had profound effects on religious houses as well as on secular lords and their estates. As well, there was Quo Warranto (by what warrant) campaign, when royal commissioners challenged landholders with the question, ‘By what right do you hold your estates and jurisdictions?’ We learn from an entry in one of the abbey’s massive registers that Abbot John of Northwold along with the abbot of Fécamp (William de Putot) ‘and various prelates and other magnates of the realm petitioned the king in Parliament after Easter in the eighteenth year of his reign’. The king, therefore, by special grace, conceded that all liberties and charters of the eighteenth year of his father, Henry (II), 1234, should henceforth be allowed. This act is incontrovertible because it was entered in the rolls of Parliament. It was, no doubt, the source of a fanciful story told in the huge collection of miracles, historical pieces and miscellanea compiled in the midfourteenth century. It relates that in about 1291, King Edward, moved by the need for money to pay for his wars, took private franchises, especially ecclesiastical ones, into his hands. But when the king had a nightmare in which St Edmund threatened to punish him in revenge for trying to tax and subvert the liberties of Beodericisworth (the Anglo-Saxon name for St Edmunds), Edward soon had it pronounced that those claiming lands and liberties should come to court at once with their charters.5 This story illustrates the importance of continuity in the medieval mind. Edward I was not only a notable warrior, but also, like Henry II, a distinguished legal reformer. To illustrate this fact, and to give a foretaste of the contents of the present history, a few examples will be given. Overall, they demonstrate that some of the problems and anxieties which vex us today likewise vexed people in the thirteenth century, though in a very different social and political environment. There was, for example, the 1287 case of determining the ownership of two of the abbey’s most lucrative estates, Semer and Groton, in which trial by jury was not considered appropriate by Abbot John, and he chose judicial combat instead. This is a late and rare example of trial by duel (which was not finally abolished until 1818). Unfortunately the abbey’s champion was slain, 4

The Bohun of Fressingfield Cartulary, ed. Bridget Wells-Furby (Suffolk Charters 19, Woodbridge, 2011). 5 Below, pp. 59–60.

PREFACE xv

although both manors were recovered in 1290.6 This case demonstrates the contemporaneity of the Chronicle of Bury St Edmunds, an invaluable source for late thirteenth-century history. Another graphic example concerns the capture of criminals and illustrates the crucial part played by family members in bringing criminals to justice. One of the abbey’s registers records that William, rector of Woodhill was murdered on 23 November 1283 near St Mary’s church in Bury St Edmunds. His sister, Eleanor de Gowiz, raised the ‘hue and cry’ (an effective way of catching malefactors by pursuing them with loud screams). When inquests were later held, she twice appealed to the king to help bring the culprits to justice, as two of them, Geoffrey of Redgrave and John de Perers, pleaded privilege of clergy. However, Abbot John, presumably aware of their guilt, did not claim them as clerics until 1293 when they were admitted to compurgation after nearly ten years in prison.7 In 1293, in the case of two accidental deaths – the drowning of a boy of twelve and a man killed by a lamp falling on him – the corpses were left above ground putrefying because the deputy steward (and his official, the coroner) was absent without the abbot’s leave. Eventually, Abbot John had to intervene at the parents’ request.8 This sad story is told in one of the most interesting of the abbey’s registers: a monk of St Edmunds who took his name from the village of Pinchbeck in Lincolnshire first assembled the register known as the Pinchbeck Register or the White Register of the Vestry. As stated above, one of the primary causes of anxiety in Edward I’s reign was the burden of taxation. So I shall conclude this preface by mentioning a few examples of the impact on St Edmunds of the need for money to meet the demands of the king and the Church. Already under Abbot Samson his tenants had disputed the abbot’s right to make them serve abroad – or to pay scutage in lieu of service. The dispute was considered in the previous volume of the present study.9 In the second half of the twelfth century there was stiff resistance to these demands for money. However, at the end of the thirteenth century, the clergy willingly handed over revenues for an expedition to repel the Scots who had attacked the north of England beyond the border, saying that the king was fighting for the safety of the kingdom and protection of property. This maxim and the pro-war propaganda, including the probable use by the Bury Chronicler of newsletters, are discussed in greater detail below.10 Other examples of St Edmunds’ need for money are as follows. Of primary importance was to obtain royal confirmation of the division of property between abbot and convent to prevent the royal custodian taking over the convent’s portion, to which the king was not entitled, as well as the lands and rights 6

For full details of this case, see below pp. 141–2. For full details of this case, see below pp. 73–5. 8 For full details, see below pp. 77–8. 9 This dispute was considered in Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, chapter 8. 10 Below pp. 79, 264–5. 7

xvi PREFACE assigned to the abbot. Abbot John obtained such a confirmation in 1281 – although he had to pay 1,000 marks, no mean sum.11 This prevented a recurrence of the disastrous vacancy which followed the death of Simon of Luton. This was a major achievement, but there is also plenty of evidence of economies practised by Abbot and convent. Some ‘statutes for the relief of St Edmunds’ church’ drawn up by the prior and some monks, datable to the late thirteenth century, sought to reduce extravagance by associating two monks appointed by the prior and ‘other monks’ to oversee expenditure by the cellarer and sacrist: they were answerable to the prior and to a treasurer (or to the two treasurers – if there were two); thus expenditure on all their manors was centralized, a momentous step towards an efficient administrative system.12 The statutes continue in similar vein, legislating for specific savings – the number of fresh herring a monk might have, the number of mackerel, the amount of wine and of ale, its quality etc. But the prior was to be consulted about the amount of cheese the servants were allowed – the abbot was also hard pressed financially. Abbot Simon obtained a royal licence to live abroad with a moderate household to relieve himself and the abbey of the expense of entertaining guests. The author of the Gesta sacristarum (The Acts of the Sacrists), an excellent source, praised William of Hoo for his ability and competence, but clearly regarded him as stingy, for cutting the amount of the monks’ pittances and especially for reducing the number of candles used to illuminate St Edmund’s shrine.13 Of course, governance and finance are not the whole story of St Edmunds, and the sections on Religious Life and Reform, and Intellectual and Cultural Life, as well as the supplementary appendix on the monks’ food and drink, provide greater insight into the activities of the community at Bury St Edmunds and their daily life. Antonia Gransden

11

See below, pp. 48–50. For full details, see below pp. 136–7. 13 See Appendix II passim. 12

Editorial Note I have rendered place-names in toponymics in their modern form (with accompanying medieval form where appropriate), unless I have failed to identify the place concerned, in which case the medieval form only is given. Similarly, I use ‘of’ not ‘de’ unless this usage might be confusing and misleading and contrary to established practice – thus, Richard earl of Gloucester remains as Richard de Clare and not Richard of Clare. In order to distinguish the abbey from the town I have always referred to the former as St Edmunds (the medieval nomenclature) and the town as Bury St Edmunds or Bury. However, for the sake of brevity I occasionally use ‘Bury’ as an adjective for the abbey’s literary products. For example, I refer to the Bury chronicle. Year-dates are given below according to modern usage, that is, according to the Gregorian calendar. The day of the week is also given according to modern usage, that is, as Monday, Tuesday and so on, but it must be remembered that in the Christian West in the middle ages a day-date was usually indicated by a saint’s day or other church festival or the day nearest to it.1 Biblical quotations are given in AV (Authorised Version) form. I do not claim that my references in the footnotes are exhaustive. On the contrary, many are intended as pointers, to guide those who wish to pursue the matter further. Nor do I claim that the copies of texts to which I refer are necessarily the only copies. Other copies may well survive in the Public Records or in the abbey’s registers, in whose rich resources much remains to be discovered.

1

The varieties and intricacies of medieval dating are best described in A Handbook of Dates, ed. C. R. Cheney, new rev. edn by Michael Jones (Cambridge, 2000).

This book is produced with the generous assistance of a grant from Isobel Thornley’s Bequest to the University of London

Acknowledgements In the course of writing this book during the last six or seven years, I have incurred debts of gratitude to many scholars. On monastic history Barbara Harvey, my mentor at Somerville College over fifty years ago, now in the twentyfirst century has given me every encouragement and supplied factual help. She understands the value of each of the wealthy highly privileged Benedictine houses to have their histories written in as much detail as possible. Her speciality is Westminster Abbey. Much work is also being done on Glastonbury (for example, by Philip Rahtz, and completed by James Carley). Bury St Edmunds has left over forty volumes, comprising cartularies, registers and library books. During the summer vacations in the 1950s my friend, Nina Coltart, also from Somerville College, used to lend me her flat in Hampstead so that I could travel by underground rail to Goodge Street and so walk to the British Museum. Thus I could work on the Bury manuscripts without undue expense and effort. I must also thank Joan Greatrex and Martin Brett, both of the University of Cambridge, for their help. Joan’s specialized knowledge is of Worcester and Norwich, as well as general coverage of all religious houses of the southern ­province. I must also record my debts of gratitude to a number of other scholars for help on specialist points, always most willingly given: on the general political background John Maddicott and John Blair; on finance Gerald Harriss; on palaeography Michelle Brown; on numismatics Robin Eaglen and Martin Allen; on art Julian Luxford who also answered queries on the patronage of particular works of art. With reference to the image of Christ dying on the Tree of Life in BL MS Royal II B iii (f. 289) I am indebted to Paul Binski. Ian Kershaw provided me with information about the Jews in England in general and about those in Bury St Edmunds in particular. The late Andrew Watson, fellow of All Souls, Oxford, answered my queries about Bury St Edmunds’ collection of manuscripts, while my questions concerning the bindings of the abbey’s manuscripts were dealt with by Jennifer Shepherd. On local history I have had gaps in my knowledge filled and misconceptions corrected by the local historian Margaret Statham. This pre-eminent authority on the history of the town has been an invaluable source of information, and her daughter, Helen, has supplied me with photographs of the west front of the abbey and of the remains of a doorway of St Saviour’s hospital at Babwell. Robert Carr has supplied me not only with information but also with photographs of the Charnel chapel and photos and plans of the monks’ cemetery. I have also received help on local matters from David Dymond, the late Norman Scarfe, and Martin Sheppard. I am grateful to David Johnson, fellow and librarian of St Peter’s College, Oxford, for looking up references for me. Moreover, Dr Laura Napran has performed the exacting work of editing and restructuring my typescript for

xx ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS publication, including regularizing footnotes and bibliography, proofreading, checking transcriptions, and compiling the index. A generous grant from the British Academy has enabled me to use the secretarial services of Denise Bilton who, with her husband Philip, has been a pleasure to work with. Lastly, I am extremely grateful to my two daughters, Katherine Constable and Debbie Shields and to Debbie’s husband Grahaeme; all three, despite their busy working lives, have made time to visit me, giving me every encouragement and help. Katherine also found in an art shop in Bruton (Som.) a beautiful and very interesting old engraving of the Abbot’s Bridge at Bury St Edmunds which, with her permission, is reproduced here (Plate XVI).

Abbreviations BAV Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana BIHR Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research BL British Library BM Bibliothèque Municipale BNJ British Numismatic Journ. Bodl. Lib. Bodleian Library, Oxford BRUO A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A. D. 1500 (Oxford, 1957–9, 3 vols) Bury Chron. The Chronicle of Bury St Edmunds 1212–1301, ed. and trans. A. Gransden (Nelson’s Medieval Texts, London, 1964) Bury Cust. The Customary of the Benedictine Abbey of Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk, ed. A. Gransden, Henry Bradshaw Soc., 99 (London, 1973) C and S Councils and Synods with other Documents relating to the English Church, i, 871–1204, ed. Dorothy Whitelock, Martin Brett and C. N. L. Brooke (Oxford, 1981, repr. 1986), pt 1, 871–1066, pt 2, 1066–1204, ii, ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney (Oxford, 1964), pt 1, 1205– 1265, pt 2, 1265–1313 C Ch. R Calendar of Charter Rolls C Lib. R Calendar of Liberate Rolls Cal. Chancery Calendar of Chancery Warrants 1244–1326   Warrants Cal. Inq. P. M. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem (London, HMSO, 1904–55, 19 vols) Cal. Papal Letters Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters (1198–1492), ed. W. H. Bliss and J. A. Twemlow (London, 1893–1960, 14 vols) CCR Calendar of Close Rolls CFR Calendar of Fine Rolls, i, 1272–1307 (London, 1911) Chron. Ramsey Chronicon Abbatiae Rameseiensis, ed. W. Dunn Macray (RS 83, London, 1886) CP TNA, Records of the Court of Common Pleas, Plea Rolls CPR Calendar of Patent Rolls Cron. Bur. Cronica Buriensis, in Memorials, iii. 1–73 CUL Cambridge University Library Curia Regis Rolls Curia regis rolls … preserved in the Public Record Office, 20 vols (London – Woodbridge, 1922–2006) DB (with shire/ Domesday Book, gen. ed. John Morris (Chichester,   county name) 1977–92, 38 vols including three final vols of indices)

xxii ABBREVIATIONS idem, xxxii, Essex, ed. Alex Rumble (1983) idem, xxxiii, Norfolk, ed. Philippa Brown (1984, 2 pts) idem, xxxiv, Suffolk, ed. Alex Rumble (1986, 2 pts) Hermanni Archidiaconi Liber de Miraculis Sancti Eadmundi, in Memorials, i. 29–92 DL Duchy of Lancaster Douai, MS 553 Douai, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 553, the kitchener’s customary Dunstable Annals of Dunstable Priory, in Ann. Mon., iii. 1–408 EEA English Episcopal Acta English Historical Review EHR Electio The Chronicle of the Election of Hugh Abbot of Bury St Edmunds and Later Bishop of Ely, ed. and trans. R. M. Thomson (Oxford, 1974) [composed between c. 1222 and 1229] Flores Historiarum (from the Creation to 1326), ed. H. R. Flores Luard (RS 95, 1890, 3 vols) Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae et Acta Publica, ed. Thomas Foedera Rymer, new edn by A. G. Clarke, Frederic Holbrooke and John Caley (London, Record Commission, 1816–68, 4 vols in 7 pts) Gesta sacristarum, in Memorials, ii, pp. 289–96 Gesta sacrist. Gransden, Antonia Gransden, A History of the Abbey of Bury St   Bury St Edmunds Edmunds, 1182–1256   Abbey [i],  1182–1256 Greatrex, BRECP Joan Greatrex, Biographical Register of the English Cathedral Priories of the Province of Canterbury c. 1066–1540 (Oxford, 1997) Heads, i David Knowles, C. N. L. Brooke and V. C. M. London, The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, i, 940–1216 (Cambridge, 1972, 2nd edn, 2001) Heads, ii D. M. Smith and V. C. M. London, The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, ii, 1216–1377 (Cambridge, 2001) Hist. Docs English Historical Documents, ii, 1042–1189, ed. D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenaway (2nd edn, London, 1981), iii, 1189–1327, ed. Harry Rothwell (London, 1975); v, 1485–1558, ed. C. H. Williams (London, 1967) The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brakelond, ed. and trans. H. JB E. Butler (London – Edinburgh etc., Nelson’s Medieval Classics, 1949, repr. 1951) JB, ed. Greenway Jocelin of Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury   and Sayers St Edmunds, in English trans. with introduction and notes by Diana [E.] Greenway and Jane Sayers (World’s Classics, Oxford, 1989) DB, Essex DB, Norfolk DB, Suffolk De Miraculis

ABBREVIATIONS xxiii

Journ. Journal JEH Journ. of Ecclesiastical History KB TNA, Records of the Court of King’s Bench, Curia Regis Rolls LE, ed. Blake Liber Eliensis (The Book of Ely), ed. E. O. Blake, Camden Soc., 3rd ser., 92 (London, 1962) Memorials Memorials of St. Edmund’s Abbey, ed. Thomas Arnold (RS 96, 1890–6, 3 vols) Mon. Angl. W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel (London, 1817–30, 6 vols in 8 pts) MS, MSS Manuscript, Manuscripts n. s. New Series Narratio Narratio quaedam de processu contra fratres minorum qualiter expulsi erant de villa Sancti Edmundi, in Memorials, ii. 263–70 ODCC The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross, 3rd edn (1997), rev. ed. E. A. Livingstone (Oxford, 2005) ODNB The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press), online OMT Oxford Medieval Texts o. s. original series Parl. Writs Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons, ed. Francis Palgrave (London, Record Commission, 1827–34, 2 vols in 4) PRO Public Record Office Processus Processus executorium in re expulsionis fratrum minorum, printed in Memorials, ii. 271–85 PSIA Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology PSIAH Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History PSIANH Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History Rot. Chart. Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati, 1199–1216, ed. T. D. Hardy (London, 1837) Rot. Litt. Pat. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londinensi Asservati, 1201–16, ed. T. D. Hardy (London, 1835) Rot. Parl. Rotuli Parliamentorum (London, 1783, 6 vols) RS Rolls Series SC TNA, Special Collections, Ancient Petitions Soc. Society SOED Shorter Oxford English Dictionary SRO/B Suffolk Record Office, Bury St Edmunds Branch TNA The National Archives TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Soc. VCH Hertford Victoria History of the Counties of England. Hertford (London, 1902–14, 4 vols)

xxiv ABBREVIATIONS VCH Norfolk VCH Suffolk WM, GP

Worc.

Victoria History of the Counties of England. Norfolk (London, 1901–6, 2 vols) Victoria History of the Counties of England. Suffolk (London, 1907, 1911, 2 vols) Willelmi Malmesbiriensis Monachi de Gestis pontificum Anglorum libri quinque, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton (RS 52, London, 1870), the edition used here. For a recent edition in two vols in the OMT series, see: William of Malmesbury, Gesta pontificum Anglorum, i, ed. and trans. Michael Winterbottom (Oxford, 2007); and ii, introduction and commentary by R. M. Thomson (Oxford, 2007) Annales Prioratus de Wigornia A.D. 1–1377, in Ann. Mon., iv. 355–562

See the Bibliography for further works abbreviated in the citations.

Fig. 1.  Distribution map of St Edmunds’ Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds before 1066: Babergh double hundred (Ba); Blackbourn double hundred (Bl); Cosford half hundred (Co); Lackford hundred (La); Risbridge hundred (R); Thedwestrey hundred (Td); Thingoe hundred (Tg).

Fig. 2.  Distribution map of St Edmunds’ Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds, and its manors and other major holdings in 1086.

Fig. 3.  Distribution map of St Edmunds’ holdings outside the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds before 1066.

Fig. 4.  Distribution map of St Edmunds’ manors and other major holdings outside the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds in 1086.

Fig. 5.  The locations of the food farms: before 1066; by the late twelfth century and in the thirteenth century.

Fig. 6.  Map of St Edmunds’ banleuca, with some medieval place-names marked. Its boundaries coincide with those of the modern borough except that the parishes of Westley and Fornham All Saints, which are now within the borough, were not in the medieval banleuca. Reproduced from Lobel, Bury St Edmunds (pull-out map at the end of the volume). See esp. Hart, Early Charters, pp. 55–8.

Fig. 7.  Plan of the town of Bury St Edmunds, with some street names and other places marked. Reproduced from Lobel, Bury St Edmunds (pull-out map at the end of the volume).

Fig. 8.  Conjectural plan of the abbey. Reproduced from A. B. Whittingham, Bury St Edmunds Abbey (English Heritage Guidebook, London 1992, repr. 2004), pp. 4–5. Reproduced by permission of English Heritage NMR.

Fig. 9.  Plan of the abbey church. Reproduced from A. B. Whittingham, Bury St Edmunds Abbey (English Heritage Guidebook, London 1992, repr. 2004), p. 12. Reproduced by permission of English Heritage NMR.

Fig. 10.  Plan of the Charnel chapel with descriptive captions and key to measurements. Drawn by and reproduced with the permission of Robert Carr.

Fig. 11.  Distribution map of the Charnel chapel showing (clockwise): boundary of the precincts; the River Lark; St Mary’s parish church; Baldwin’s tower; and the Great Gate. Drawn by and reproduced with the permission of Robert Carr.

Part I Introduction

1 The Abbots, Simon of Luton and John of Northwold Simon of Luton, Abbot 1257–79: family, early career and election as abbot Simon ruled the abbey with varying degrees of success through difficult times. He apparently belonged to the prosperous gentry class. His ‘kinsmen (parentes) and friends’ paid for the magnificent Lady Chapel (the last major addition to the abbey church), which he constructed late in his abbacy.1 He was possibly related to Sir Robert of Hoo (or ‘Hose’ or ‘Hou’),2 a knight of St Edmunds. Simon of Luton’s toponymic suggests a relationship to the Hoo family since one of Sir Robert’s holdings was Hyde, near Luton in Bedfordshire,3 and the sacrist under Simon’s successor, John of Northwold, was called William of Hoo, or, alternatively, William of Luton. The Hoo family was a large one with many branches. Its principal holdings were in Bedfordshire, the east Midlands and East Anglia4 and included the fees of Mickfield (Suffolk) and Topcroft (Norfolk) which the family had held from St Edmunds probably since the Norman Conquest.5 Sir Robert held the manor of Clopton within St Edmunds’ Liberty6 and witnessed

1

2

3 4 5

6

Douai, BM MS 553, f. 9. Below p. 286 and n. 2. For a summary of Simon of Luton’s life and career, see Antonia Gransden, ‘Luton, Simon of (d. 1279)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/57611, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. The toponym may be from Hoo, in Oakley, a vill in east Suffolk just south of Diss (Norfolk), where there was a Hoo Hall. In 1300 Oakley was held of St Edmunds by Sir John of Hoo. Pinch. Reg., i. 275. Cf. Thomson, Archives, p. 137. Alternatively, the family may have drawn its name from a locality within Luton named ‘The Hoo’ (where there is a stately home known as Luton Hoo), already so known in the thirteenth century. The place-name also occurs in Kent and East Sussex. It means ‘[place at] the spur of land’. OE hōh (dative hōe), Mills, Place-Names, p. 248; or ‘(The settlement) at the hill-spur’, Victor Watts, ed., The Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-Names (Cambridge, 2004), p. 313. Cal. Inq. P. M., iii. 206 no. 336 (dated 26 June 1296, at Bedford). Moor, Knights, ii. 237–8, 257–61. In the list of knights of the old enfeoffment, drawn up in 1166, William de Hou occurs holding of St Edmunds for the service of two knights. Hist. Docs, ii. 976. In the 1200 list of St Edmunds’ knights Roger de Hou holds Mickfield and Topcroft for the service of two knights. JB, p. 120, and Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, p. lxxxvii. Cf. Pinch. Reg., i. 273–4. CCR, 1288–96, p. 189; Moor, Knights, ii. 238.

4 INTRODUCTION a number of the abbey’s charters in Abbot Simon’s time.7 He also gave Barton Parva to St Edmunds some time before 1268: it was bound to pay the king annually an unmewed hawk worth 20s, besides paying 60s to a chaplain to celebrate for Sir Robert’s soul perpetually.8 Simon’s father was called Thomas and he was among those whose anniversary was commemorated by the monks.9 Just possibly he was the Thomas of Luton who appears in the witness lists of a few of the charters dateable to Abbot Simon’s time, for which Sir Robert of Hoo was the principal witness. Two of the grants are in free alms and to the almonry, an office which, as we shall see, Simon held before his succession to the abbacy. These grants were witnessed by both Sir Robert of Hoo and Thomas of Luton. In one, the long witness list starts with the names of Sir Robert and another knight; next comes Thomas of Luton, before William, bailiff of St Edmunds and the other witnesses.10 In the other charter the witness list again starts with Sir Robert, followed by three other knights and the rector of Woolpit; Thomas of Luton is next, before Osbert Bardolf and William, bailiff of St Edmunds.11 Similarly, a grant by Abbot Simon of a messuage and twelve acres in Wiggenhall to Richard of Wiggenhall and his two brothers was witnessed by both Sir Robert and Thomas of Luton; in the witness list Sir Robert’s name comes first, followed by the names of Simon’s two chaplains and then Thomas of Luton, preceding the other witnesses.12 Thus, Thomas of Luton occupies an honourable place in these sampled witness lists. Thomas, whether Simon’s father or not, was possibly the same man as Thomas of Luton, a Master of Divinity (‘Magr. Sacr.’) who witnessed a manumission in 1264; his name is third in this witness list, after the names of Abbot Simon’s chaplains. It may be that this Thomas was a relative of Simon, perhaps even his brother.13 However, Thomas was a common name. Simon became a monk of St Edmunds probably sometime in the 1230s, and in 1244 he succeeded Richard de Bosco as almoner.14 While almoner he bought up rents in the town in order to increase the almonry’s income, and ordained that they should be spent on providing the almonry clerks with wheat bread instead

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

For example, CUL MS Ff. ii. 29, f. 5, and CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 85; BL MS Harley 645, f. 253v. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 25v (cf. TNA, DL MS 42/5, f. 83–83v); Pinch. Reg., ii. 255; Lunt, Papal Revenues, ii. 192 and n. 262. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 36v. The pittancer owed the convent a pittance on Thomas’ anniversary. BL MS Harley, 27, f. 142. More than one bailiff had the forename William in Simon’s time. Lobel, ‘List of aldermen and bailiffs’, p. 19. BL MS Harley 27, f. 143v. BL MS Harley 645, f. 253v. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 36; CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 58v. Bury Chron., p. 12.

THE ABBOTS, SIMON OF LUTON AND JOHN OF NORTHWOLD

5

of their habitual barley bread.15 By the beginning of 1249 Simon was sacrist.16 He succeeded Nicholas of Warwick and the Gesta sacristarum describes Simon as ‘a most prudent and circumspect man’ (‘vir prudentissimus et circumspectus’) and records that, as prior (to which office he was soon ‘not undeservedly’ promoted), he had a bell made for the choir ‘which was called the “Luyton”’.17 He succeeded Richard de Bosco who had been prior from 1244 until his death on 23 October 1252,18 and was elected by way of scrutiny, that is, by the formal taking of individual votes, which was one of the three electoral procedures declared canonical by the Fourth Lateran Council (canon 24).19 The appointment of the prior had been one of the issues in dispute between Abbot Samson and the convent, and the Composition agreed between the abbot and convent in c. 1215 stipulated that the prior should be chosen with the convent’s consent.20 According to the Bury Chronicle, Simon was the first prior to be elected by way of scrutiny.21 (The chronicle similarly records that William of Rockland was elected prior by scrutiny in 1287.22) Abbot Edmund of Walpole died on 31 December 1256. There is a contemporary account of the election which followed; it is an official record comprising mainly copies of the relevant documents and designed to demonstrate to all concerned that the election was canonical.23 It records that a royal licence for the election was obtained and that the monks met in chapter on 13 January 1257 to elect an abbot. Canon 24 of the Fourth Lateran Council was read aloud and, of the three methods of election stipulated in the decree, the monks chose the way of compromise.24 They chose seven electors (compromissarii), who on the next day elected Simon of Luton as abbot. Richard the subprior and the convent composed a letter to Pope Alexander IV describing the procedure they had observed in the election, requesting his confirmation, and assuring him that the three monks bearing the letter could give him more details about the procedure and Simon’s suitability for office. The three monks were Robert [Russel] the chamberlain, Richard the guest-master, and William, Master of the Hospital (of St Saviour).25 Robert Russel, who was soon to be prior under Abbot Simon, played an important part in the business of the election. He was one of the seven electors and, besides being one of the bearers of the letter to Alexander IV, was 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Douai, BM MS 553, f. 9. For a grant to Simon as almoner see BL MS Harley 27, f. 138. BL MS Harley 645, f. 260v. Gesta sacrist., p. 294. Bury Chron., p. 18. Histoire des Conciles, v, pt 2, p. 1353. Bury Cust., p. 100 line 8 and n. 1. See Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 194; Gransden, ‘Democratic movement’, pp. 25–39 passim, esp. pp. 35–7. Bury Chron., p. 21. Bury Chron., p. 89. Printed in Memorials, ii. 253–9. Histoire des Conciles, viii. 1353 canon 24. See Harper-Bill, Hospitals, p. 22.

6 INTRODUCTION appointed by the monks on 2 February 1257 to be their proctor in the curia to negotiate for the confirmation. At some unknown date two more proctors of the convent, that is, ‘our dear servant Alexander de Brewrth, and our clerk Richard of Frostenden’, were appointed, who were to act interchangeably (‘sub alternatione’). Simon (of Luton), the prior (and abbot-elect) and the convent empowered Robert Russel and two other monks, Richard of Boyland and William of Mildenhall, acting interchangeably, to borrow up to 100 marks from Florentine or Siennese merchants for necessary expenses in Rome, and to bind the abbot-elect, the convent and monastery to repay the loan in the New Temple, London. Later, in another letter to Pope Alexander, Prior Simon and the convent informed him that the commission to Robert, the chamberlain, Richard of Boyland and William of Mildenhall, was to last until Michaelmas (29 September), and that whatever they did had equal validity, whether done together or separately. Clearly the matter was dragging on. During the vacancy the king was entitled to hold the barony of St Edmunds and that situation could only be expected to end after the pope had confirmed the election. However, on 21 January 1257 King Henry ordered that the late Abbot Edmund’s chattels, lands and other possessions be handed to the convent, and on 21 March granted the monks custody of the barony: this was for a fine of £100 and ‘on account of our reverence for St Edmund and the abbey’s known burden of debt’. The crown nevertheless retained profits from advowsons, wardships and escheats, besides the right to custody of the barony during future vacancies.26 Despite the proctors’ endeavours and expenditure at the curia, their mission failed, because, as the Bury Chronicle records, for papal confirmation ‘it was newly enacted that abbots elect of all exempt houses should go in person to the Roman curia’.27 Canon 26 of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 had required abbots of exempt houses to come to Rome for confirmation, but allowed wide room for dispensation, particularly for those outside Italy. However, in letters from Viterbo of 3 August 1257 Alexander IV announced that he had rescinded all such concessions.28 The Bury narrative show that this decision was already being enforced some months earlier, as Simon left for Rome on 30 July 1257, and was blessed and his election confirmed by Alexander at Viterbo on 22 October.29 How soon he returned to Bury St Edmunds is unknown but Henry granted him his temporalities on 12 January 1258.30 The Bury chronicler observes that Simon was the first abbot-elect of any exempt abbey in England to go to Rome

26 27 28 29 30

CCR, 1256–9, p. 118; CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 32–3. Bury Chron., p. 21 and n. 6. Histoire des Conciles, v, pt 2, pp. 1354–6; Potthast no. 16958, Registres d’Alexandre IV, ii, no. 2206. Bury Chron., p. 22. CPR, 1247–58, p. 612.

THE ABBOTS, SIMON OF LUTON AND JOHN OF NORTHWOLD

7

personally for confirmation and that the visit cost 2,000 marks sterling.31 As will be seen, this great expense was just one of the many incurred by St Edmunds shortly after Simon’s election, all adding to the abbey’s already heavy burden of debt. Simon was abbot until his death on 9 April 1279. The events of his abbacy are detailed in the thematic sections below.

John of Northwold, Abbot 1279–1301: family, the vacancy and election as abbot John of Northwold presumably came from the village of Northwold in Norfolk, which lies on the road from Thetford to King’s Lynn.32 He was probably related to the able and influential Hugh of Northwold, abbot of St Edmunds, 1215– 29, and bishop of Ely, 1229–54.33 One of Hugh’s nephews, Nicholas of Ely, was successively archdeacon of Ely, bishop of Worcester, 1266–68, and bishop of Winchester, 1268–80.34 Another of Hugh’s nephews, William of Northwold, was a monk of St Edmunds under Abbot Simon. He occurs in the abbey’s records 31

32

33

34

‘… curia in duobus milibus marcarum sterlingorum visitata’, Bury Chron., pp. 21–2 and n. a. (that is he had to pay 2,000 marks in silver pennies). This was the same sum that St Edmunds’ dispute with the Friars Minor cost the abbey, according to a contemporary note in Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj. (v. 688 n. 3); for this note see below p. 22 n. 36. For this example and other examples of the costs incurred by the heads of exempt houses because of their obligation to visit the pope personally for confirmation see Knowles, RO, i. 278; Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 461–79 passim (esp. p. 463); Lunt, Papal Revenues, ii. 233–315 passim (esp. p. 238). The section on St Edmunds’ debts, 1257–64, owed to Maynetus and his fellow Spini, merchants of Florence, and others, in BL MS Harley 645, f. 199–199v (below p. 129), includes Simon of Luton’s election expenses (f. 199), thus: in 1258, on the feast of St John the Baptist, ‘70 marcas quas dominus electus habuit sec[um] versus curiam Romanam. Preterea debentur eisdem mercatoribus [i.e. Maynetus and other Spini] in festo trinitatis eodem anno c. et viij. marcas quas monachi primo missi pro electione abbatis Simonis de Luyton’ ceperunt in curia Romana’. For postponing full repayment of this and two debts to the Spini entered above it in the accounts until the quindene of Michaelmas, the convent granted 25 marks. A note in the margin records 1,345 marks ‘et [?dimid’] per unam cartam [?per aliam cartam]’. The accounts also record among debts owed by the convent to these Florentine merchants on the feast of All Saints, 1260, 400 marks for Simon’s election, and for a year’s postponement the convent granted 70 marks, ‘et sic debentur dictis mercatoribus Florenc’ on All Saints’ Day, 1261, 470 marks; the accounts record that the debt of 470 marks was duly paid on All Saints’ Day, 1261. These entries illustrate how the convent postponed payment of large debts, but cleared them within a few years. For a summary of John of Northwold’s life and career, see under A. Gransden, ‘Luton, Simon of (d. 1279)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/57611, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. For Hugh of Northwold, successively abbot of St Edmunds and bishop of Ely, and his family connections see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 165–6; Dorothy M. Owen, ‘Northwold, Hugh of (d. 1254)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/20334, accessed 2 Sept 2014]. For Nicholas of Ely, see Helen M. Jewell, ‘Ely, Nicholas of (d. 1280)’, ODNB, 2004 [http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8779, accessed 22 Sept 2014].

8 INTRODUCTION as chaplain, c. 1259/60, subcellarer 1259, and cellarer jointly with William of Beccles 1267/8.35 A niece of Hugh’s, Lucy, lived in the town of Bury St Edmunds.36 Also during Simon’s abbacy a William of Northwold was one of the two town bailiffs.37 Later, a Robert of Northwold held a knights’ fee from St Edmunds in Brockley and served as attorney for Abbot John during the latter’s absence abroad in 1284.38 The probability is, therefore, that John of Northwold belonged to a successful, high-ranking family, and that his background and connections helped him in his career. During the vacancy which followed Abbot Simon’s death, John of Berwick was appointed keeper of the abbey.39 The circumstances of the vacancy caused outrage among the monks. This was not because they disputed the king’s right to custody of vacant ecclesiastical baronies – that was a regalian right exercised over all tenants-in-chief.40 The revenue acquired by the royal treasury during vacancies was a useful occasional addition to its funds. But when the king was exceptionally short of money, as was the case when he was at war, vacancies were a resource which was ruthlessly exploited, either by prolonging the vacancy or by asset stripping, or by both methods at once.41 The exploitation of vacancies on the king’s behalf dates back to the late eleventh century and in the thirteenth century it was fairly regular government practice and widely resented. The first complaint of the clergy at the council summoned by Boniface, archbishop of Canterbury, in London in August 1257 concerned the exploitation of cathedral 35 36 37 38 39

40 41

BL MSS Harley 638, f. 55, and 645, f. 262v; Pinch. Reg., i. 306. Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 165 and n. 3. Thomson in Electio, p. 193 n. 5. I have examined BL MS Royal 10 B XII, f. 25, but did not find the entry to which Thomson refers. Lobel, ‘List of aldermen and bailiffs’, p. 19; Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 41–3 nos 22–7. Pinch. Reg., i. 281; CPR, 1281–92, pp. 92, 111, 116. CFR, p. 110. It was no doubt as reward for this service that he was presented to the church of Rougham, a church belonging to the chamberlain’s portion of St Edmunds’ holding in Rougham, and in the king’s gift by reason of the vacancy. CPR, 1272–81, p. 329, dated 24 October 1279. For the king’s distribution of benefices during vacancies see Howell, Regalian Right, pp. 240–1. Previously, John of Berwick had probably been a court clerk (in the service of one of the justices) from 1273 to 1278 (one of the first commissions he received from the king). See Paul Brand, ‘Berewyk, John (b. in or before 1252, d. 1312)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/2200, accessed 2 Sept 2014]. Hist. Docs, ii. 769–70. For royal exploitation of ecclesiastical estates during vacancies see Kathleen Biddick, with C. C. J. H. Bijleveld, ‘Agrarian productivity on the estates of the bishopric of Winchester in the early thirteenth century: a managerial perspective’, in Land, Labour and Livestock: Historical Studies in European Agricultural Productivity, ed. B. M. S. Campbell and Mark Overton (Manchester – New York, 1991), pp. 98–104; Kathleen Biddick, The Other Economy. Pastoral Husbandry on a Medieval Estate (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London, 1989), pp. 50–3 (Peterborough); Harvey, Westminster Abbey, pp. 65–9 (Westminster). I am indebted to James Bolton for the references to Kathleen Biddick’s studies. See Howell, Regalian Right, pp. 5–19, 39–40, 234–50, on the exploitation of vacant bishoprics and abbeys under Rufus and in the twelfth century.

THE ABBOTS, SIMON OF LUTON AND JOHN OF NORTHWOLD

9

and conventual churches during vacancies.42 The clerical council which met at Westminster in June 1258 devoted an article to the problem and stipulated that in future during vacancies the king should make only ‘reasonable and customary demands’.43 This was among the articles issued as permanent legislation by the council at Lambeth in May 1261.44 The vacancy of St Edmunds after Abbot Simon’s death was not unduly long – Simon died on 9 April 1279 and King Edward restored the temporalities on 5 November.45 The monks’ complaint was that John of Berwick, as keeper of the abbey, acted in an unprecedented way. The chronicler writes: On the death of Simon, abbot of St Edmunds, the king took over the convent’s portion as well as the barony; such a thing was unheard of before. The convent’s portion could not be wrung from his grasp by prayer or price. The convent was allowed a sufficiency, but everything, both within the town of St Edmunds and outside, was disposed of by the hand of John of Berwick, the king’s attorney, and the tenants of the convent’s manors were tallaged, all for the king’s profit.46

The Close Rolls confirm that the burgesses of St Edmunds were tallaged during the vacancy.47 The case of St Edmunds’ vacancy in 1279 illustrates King Edward I’s rapacity when he himself was under severe financial pressure. No doubt John of Berwick intended to funnel as much money as he could into the royal treasury,48 but he went to extreme lengths, perhaps because he was a young man, inexperienced and over-zealous in the execution of his duties. He was keeper of St Edmunds early in his official career. In 1279 he may well have faced a problem at St Edmunds: although Abbot Robert’s formal division of property between abbot and convent had been confirmed by Henry I, it was in general terms.49 It neither named the manors and other holdings, nor specified the respective rights of the abbot and convent. The boundaries of the two portions were defined by custom. In so far as the division related to manors and other holdings, the allocation was not in doubt, but the respective rights of abbot and convent were not so clearly defined. All had gone well in the twelfth century until the vigorous rule of Abbot Samson, whom the monks accused of many encroachments on

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

C and S, II, i. 539–40 art. 1. C and S, II, i. p. 582 art. 17. C and S, II, i. p. 680 art. 18. CPR, 1272–81, p. 331. Bury Chron., p. 68. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 226–9, records the sums taken from the barony during the vacancy according to the convent’s assessment. CCR, 1279–88, pp. 17, 24. For the king’s right to tallage the royal demesne see Howell, Regalian Right, pp. 41–4. For large sums taken from vacant bishoprics going towards the cost of the king’s works in Wales, 1278–86, see Howell, Regalian Right, p. 241. Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, p. 69 no. 35.

10 INTRODUCTION their rights.50 The Composition drafted in about 1215, probably early in Hugh of Northwold’s abbacy (1215–29), between the abbot and convent, was an important step towards clarifying, amplifying and codifying the convent’s rights.51 The compilation of the Bury Customary under Abbot Henry of Rushbrooke was another step in the same direction.52 It will be seen that one of the first acts of John of Northwold after his succession to the abbacy was to complete the process of precise codification of the portions and to obtain royal confirmation of the division. It is not known when John became a monk of St Edmunds, but he was holding the office of interior guestmaster when he was elected abbot by way of compromise on 5 May 1279.53 The seven electors (compromissarii) were Stephen of Ixworth, the subprior, William of Hoo, the chamberlain (both of whom were to play important parts in John’s abbacy), William of Newnham, almoner,54 Wymer, pittancer, John, infirmarer, Henry, kitchener, and William, keeper of the vestry.55 After his election John at once set out for the papal curia to obtain confirmation of his election and the blessing of Pope Nicholas III. Three cardinals examined the election process and found that John was a suitable person and had been canonically elected, and the pope confirmed the election and blessed John at Viterbo on 18 September 1279. However, Abbot John delayed his return to St Edmunds and was not received in the abbey until 28 December.56 According to the Bury chronicler the cost of John’s visit to the papal curia amounted to 1,675 marks 10s 9d. This huge sum possibly included the cost of obtaining papal confirmations of St Edmunds’ privileges which were dated 20 September 1279.57 To cover his expenses John would have had to borrow. The convent had empowered him to pledge its credit to moneylenders of his own choice up to the sum of £500,58 and on 22 September 1279 Pope Nicholas granted him a licence to pledge the abbey’s possessions up to 900 marks.59 Debts incurred as a result of the visit obviously added to the financial problems already 50 51 52 53 54

55 56 57 58 59

Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 32–42. Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 35–41. Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 206–12. Bury Chron., p. 68; Reg. Nicholas III, ed. J. Gay, xiv, cols 231–2. For election by compromise, see above p. 5. For William of Newnham (‘de Newenham’) see Thomson, ‘Obedientiaries’, p. 99; Thomson, Archives, p. 64; also BL MS Harley 27, f. 147, which shows that he was still almoner in 1284/5. The last four obedientiaries in this list are not listed in Thomson’s ‘Obedientiaries’ or mentioned in his Archives. Bury Chron., pp. 68, 70 and nn. Possibly Abbot John delayed his return for economy, and/ or to raise money to pay his expenses. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 78; BL MS Additional 14847, f. 18v; Pinch. Reg., i. 39–41. Bury Chron., p. 68. Lambeth Palace Library, Papal Doc. 73, calendared J. E. Sayers, Original Papal Documents in the Lambeth Palace Library (London, 1967), p. 28, and in Sayers, Original Papal Documents in England and Wales from the Accession of Pope Innocent III to the Death of Benedict XI

THE ABBOTS, SIMON OF LUTON AND JOHN OF NORTHWOLD

11

augmented by John of Berwick’s exploitation of the abbey’s resources during the vacancy. John was abbot until his death on 29 October 1301. The thematic sections below discuss his abbacy in detail.

(1198–1304) (Oxford, 1999) no. 818 p. 370. Cf. Thomson, Archives, p. 49 (in error he refers to Nicholas IV instead of Nicholas III).

Part II Abbatial Governance

2 Abbot Simon of Luton’s Early Problems Dispute with the Friars Minor (Franciscan or Grey Friars) An immediate challenge facing Abbot Simon was the intrusion of the Friars Minor into St Edmunds’ spiritual immunity, the Liberty of the banleuca. The intrusion resulted in a prolonged dispute, the course of which can be traced in royal and papal records and in the narrative sources. The latter deserve particular attention because of what they reveal of the attitudes of the parties to the dispute and the use made of historiography by the monks to substantiate their claims and justify their acts. The principal narrative sources for this dispute are: the Bury Chronicle, which at the time of the dispute was being composed within a few years of events;1 the Narratio quaedam de processu contra fratres minores qualiter expulsi erant de villa Sancti Edmundi (‘A certain narrative about the proceedings against the Friars Minor [and] how they were expelled from the town of St Edmunds’);2 and the Processus executorum in re expulsionis fratrum minorum (‘The proceedings of those executing the expulsion of the Friars Minor’).3 The Processus includes copies of numerous documents relating to the activities of the judges-delegate whom Pope Urban IV commissioned in 1263 to settle the dispute between St Edmunds and the Friars Minor and ends with the defeat of the friars’ claims. The text survives in a fourteenth-century copy in the Warkton register, BL MS Harley 638, ff. 33–6. There are, moreover, fourteenthcentury copies of two documents related to the dispute, but not included in the Processus, in the Kempe register, BL MS Harley 645, ff. 209, 209v. They are: the bull of Pope Alexander IV, dated 17 February 1257, supporting the settlement of the Friars Minor in the town; and two sets of propositions, of eight and eleven clauses respectively, both contending that the friars had no right to settle within St Edmunds’ exempt Liberty of the banleuca. The first set argues the monks’ case on grounds of law concerning lords and tenants, and the second because the friars’ settlement violated the abbey’s papal privileges.4 The Processus is, in effect, in three parts: first, the proceedings of the judges delegate; secondly, two 1 2 3 4

Below pp. 260–1. Memorials., ii. 263–7. Memorials., ii. 271–85. Below pp. 18–19.

16

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

letters of King Henry III in support of the claim of the Friars Minor to settle in the town; and finally, the mandate of Pope Gregory to the judges delegate ordering the expulsion of the Friars Minor from Bury St Edmunds. The first part of the Processus ends with a notarial subscription by Henry Petri de Ayssele, called (dictus) Fikeys, a clerk of the diocese of Norwich and apostolic notary.5 This dates the text to c. 1330. Clement V had conferred the office of notary public on, among others, Henry Petri of Ayssele ‘called Fykys’ on 13 January 1310,6 and Petri had drawn up a notarial instrument for St Edmunds in 1331 in connection with a long-running dispute over its claim to a pension from the church of Woolpit.7 Therefore, the first part of the Processus reproduces a notarial instrument drawn up probably c. 1330 as a result of St Edmunds’ renewed conflict with the Friars Minor following the revolt of the townsmen against the abbey in 1327, when the monks were enraged with the Friars Minor for actively supporting the rebels. Moreover, a contemporary account of the revolt states that when the insurgents had imprisoned the prior and his companions in the Guildhall, ‘six Friars Minor came … and sought leave from the townsmen to live in the town, in the place which they had formerly occupied’. But the townsmen refused the request because of objections by local chaplains who feared that the friars’ pastoral activities would deprive them of income.8 Even if the friars did not renew their demand, the monks could well have been prompted to have the Processus compiled and the decision of the judges-delegate, authenticated by the notarial attestation, which is recited in it, in order to re-affirm the judgement of Urban IV forbidding the Friars Minor to settle within St Edmunds’ banleuca. The omission of Alexander IV’s bull of 17 February 1257 and of the set of eleven propositions is easily explained: Alexander’s bull was contrary to the monks’ interests and, in any case, Alexander later supported their spiritual monopoly in the town;9 and, since Urban IV settled the dispute in St Edmunds’ favour, there was no more need for the eleven propositions. The Narratio is a different kind of work. It gives an account of the longrunning dispute from 1257 until 1263 in literary prose with biblical citations and allusions, and without copies of documents. Its information is apparently not totally accurate and, as will be seen, the ending does not have the ring of truth. There is the possibility that it, like the Processus, was composed shortly 5

6 7 8 9

Memorials, ii. 279. The subscription marks the end of the original work, to which were added copies of two letters of Henry III and a copy of the mandate of Urban IV, dated 1 June 1263, to the judges delegate – the bishop of Carlisle and the abbot of St Augustine’s (see below p. 20) ordering the Franciscans’ expulsion from St Edmunds. See BL MS Harley 638, ff. 35v–36, 28. Henry Petri de Ayssele was probably an Englishman and took his toponymic from one of the various Ashleys in England. For the use of notaries public see C. R. Cheney, Notaries Public in England in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Oxford, 1972), passim. Cal. Papal Letters, ii. 65. Memorials, iii. 99. Memorials, ii. 335–6. Below p. 17.



ABBOT SIMON OF LUTON’S EARLY PROBLEMS

17

after the 1327 revolt in the town of Bury St Edmunds. Thus, the Bury Chronicle is the only extant known literary source for the dispute which has the merit of contemporaneity. The friars had at the outset been attracted by the populous and thriving town of Bury St Edmunds, but no one was allowed to erect a chapel or to celebrate mass in it without the abbot’s licence or a papal dispensation. The Friars Minor had already in Simon’s time tried twice to establish themselves within the banleuca, first in 1233 and again in 123810 – on the latter occasion they acted together with the Friars Preacher. The monks enlisted papal support to prevent this violation of their privileges and obtained a bull from Gregory IX forbidding the erection of a chapel within a mile of the abbey.11 However, the Friars Minor took advantage of the year-long vacancy of the abbacy in 1256/7, and on 17 February obtained a licence from Alexander IV to establish an oratory and cemetery within St Edmunds’ banleuca, notwithstanding the monks’ spiritual immunity.12 The Bury chronicler relates that the friars entered the town surreptitiously by the north gate on 22 June 1257 with the connivance of a townsman, Sir Roger of Harbridge. They celebrated mass in his house, which was on the east side of the north gate, in an unconsecrated room, on a portable altar placed on ‘a detestable chest’. They celebrated mass ‘in an audible voice’, publicly but unknown to the monks. The news, however, soon reached the monks and when Sir Roger and the friars had just sat down to dinner, the monks’ officials destroyed the friars’ makeshift chapel and the adjacent buildings. Having remonstrated in vain with the friars, they expelled them ‘without violence but not without ignominy’.13 The friars appealed to Pope Alexander who reprimanded the monks, calling them ‘the sons of disobedience, heretics and apostates’, and excommunicated at least some of the offenders.14 He appointed Archbishop Boniface and the dean of Lincoln (Master Richard of Gravesend) as judges-delegate to try the case. Boniface appointed the treasurer of Hereford cathedral as his commissary but the dean of Lincoln acted in person. They sat in St Mary’s church at Bury St Edmunds and decided in favour of the friars. As instructed by Pope Alexander they then installed the friars on a site in the western part of the town: ‘they plucked a twig from the ground and formally put the friars in seisin’. The monks at once appealed against the formal establishing of the friars within the banleuca

10

11 12 13 14

Bury Chron., p. 10. See also Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 183–4, and n. 112, 218; GASA, i. 386. A brief notice of dispute between the Friars Minor and St Edmunds in the context of other Franciscan settlements is in Edward Hutton, The Franciscans in England 1224–1538 (London, 1926), p. 72. Cal. Papal Letters, i. 137, 172; Pinch. Reg., i. 50–1. BL MS Harley, 645, f. 209. Bury Chron., p. 22; Memorials, ii. 264–5. Cf. A. G. Little, Studies in English Franciscan History (Manchester, 1917), pp. 96–8. Memorials, ii. 265–6.

18

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

and again forcefully defended St Edmunds’ ancient privileges, and expelled both judges-delegate and friars.15 At some stage, no doubt shortly after the monks’ invasion of, and violence against, Sir Roger’s property, and the all but forcible expulsion of the friars, his guests, but before the trial in St Mary’s, the monks’ party compiled the set of eight propositions contending that Sir Roger had acted against the law of the land – besides abetting the friars’ intrusion into St Edmunds’ banleuca, he had proposed to give them a site there. The first of the eight propositions has an implied allusion to the 1217 reissue of Magna Carta (clause 39, clause 32 of the 1225 reissue) which forbade any free man to alienate more of his land than would leave sufficient to provide the service due to the lord of the fief.16 The propositions specify the loss of temporal revenue which the monks would suffer if Sir Roger made such a grant, since the friars (who could own no property) could not fulfil the obligations of a tenant. And the second clause of the set of eight propositions refers directly to the Charter of the Forest (issued 1217, subsequently reissued 1225),17 the last clause of which declares that the customs and liberties of ecclesiastics and laymen should be observed. Hugh of Northwold, then abbot of St Edmunds, had been among the many witnesses of the 1225 reissues of Magna Carta and of the Charter of the Forest.18 The propositions also specify the loss of spiritualities (great and lesser tithes and oblations) which the monks would suffer if the friars occupied the site. Finally, although Sir Roger had broken his oath of homage and attempted to deprive the monks of their legitimate rights, they had done no injury either to him or his accomplices in this matter. It could well have been on account of these objections that, after the demolition of the buildings on the site at the north gate, another site was found before the arrival of the papal judges-delegate. The new site was in the western part of the town and was owned by the king himself: Henry had acquired it from a townsman Lodowycus de Gerard and his wife Petronella.19 This sidestepped the problem of one of St Edmunds’ vassals transferring property to a religious order. The monks, however, could use other weapons to defend themselves. Indeed, their best weapons were St Edmunds’ ancient spiritual privileges granted and confirmed by kings and popes. Sometime in the summer or autumn of 1257, before Abbot Simon’s return from Rome with the papal confirmation of his election, and probably in preparation for a session of the judges-delegate in St Mary’s church, the monks drew up the set of eleven propositions in defence of St Edmunds’ spiritual privileges.20 They relied especially on the letter of Gregory IX 15 16 17 18 19 20

Memorials, ii. 266–7. Magna Carta, 1217 Clause 39; 1225 clause 32. Holt, Magna Carta, p. 508. Charter of the Forest, 1217 clause 17; 1225 ditto. Holt, Magna Carta, p. 516. See Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 172; Holt, Magna Carta, pp. 510, 517 n. 8. Memorials, ii. 280. BL MS Harley 645, f. 209–209v.



ABBOT SIMON OF LUTON’S EARLY PROBLEMS

19

issued in 1233 and again on that of 1238 which made more specific the privileges within the four crosses (that is, the banleuca) which had been granted in general terms by Alexander II and confirmed by subsequent popes. Gregory forbade anyone except the pope in person or his legate to celebrate mass publicly or to erect a convent, oratory or chapel within the four crosses without the abbot’s consent. The monks pointed out that the justice of Gregory’s ruling was proved by the fact that in 1233 the bishop of Worcester and in 1238 the legate Otto had decided in favour of the monks in their case against the friars. The monks sought to invalidate Alexander IV’s letter in support of the friars, arguing that the friars had deceived Alexander by not mentioning St Edmunds’ privileges, and that the cardinals had not subscribed to the letter. Moreover, nothing should have been done against St Edmunds’ privilege while it lacked its legitimate head and defender – the abbot. The friars had acted surreptitiously before Alexander had confirmed Simon’s election. The monks objected to their own excommunication because when they acted against the friars they had had no knowledge of Alexander’s letter and because no one except the pope or a legate a latere (that is, a legate whom the pope had entrusted with plenipotentiary power) could excommunicate anyone within the four crosses. Therefore, the monks were justified in using force to expel the friars, since it was lawful to repay force with force and injury with injury. They also countered the friars’ contention that they should be allowed to settle in the town in order to save the townspeople’s souls because they had no one to instruct them in the faith: the monks asserted that this was false since they themselves instructed them in a chapel ‘by word and example’. The friars, they declared, who ought to bring peace, had raised discord. After the expulsion of the friars and judges-delegate by the monks, the friars again appealed to Rome. This time they were unsuccessful, no doubt because of the monks’ counter appeals: the Narratio laments that the monks ‘were worn down by hard labour and burdened with lavish expenditure before a variety of judges in remote places’.21 This comment apparently refers to the period in 1257 before Simon returned from Rome for, when he did return, he brought with him Alexander IV’s letter confirming Gregory IX’s confirmations of St Edmunds’ spiritual immunity within the four crosses of the town, dated at Viterbo on 1 November 1257, that is, shortly after Simon had received the papal benediction there on 22 October.22 However, the friars disregarded Alexander’s letter and appealed to the secular arm, and on 22 April 1258 King Henry III appointed Gilbert of Preston as his attorney to receive seisin of the site in Bury St Edmunds and to assign it to the friars.23 According to the Narratio, Henry, although ‘a 21 22 23

Memorials, ii. 267. Cal. Papal Letters, i. 352; Pinch. Reg., i. 45–7. CPR, 1247–58, p. 623. Gilbert of Preston had been senior justice of an eyre circuit until January 1258, and became a justice of the Common Bench in Michaelmas term 1258. He appears in a single King’s Bench final concord of June 1258 (during the parliament of Oxford) sitting in King’s Bench with other non-regular King’s Bench justices, but Meekings and Crook do not regard him as a member of that court. See C. A. F. Meekings

20

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

man of piety’, succumbed to pressure from Queen Eleanor, the Lord Edward and others at court. Preston entered the town on 25 April with an armed escort and ‘violently’ established the friars on the site – the second of the sites – which they had previously tried to occupy.24 There the friars remained for nearly six years, but not without harassment. On 23 February 1259 Henry wrote to Abbot Simon reminding him that Gilbert of Preston had established the friars on the site in Bury by royal authority, and that he, Abbot Simon, had received a papal mandate in the friars’ favour.25 Henry wrote a similar letter to the prior, Robert Russel, and also enjoined the alderman, bailiffs and burgesses of Bury to protect and defend the friars if anyone molested them.26 On 20 July Henry wrote again to the town authorities ordering them to allow the friars to build their church despite the denunciations of the sacrist, the abbot’s proctor and the convent.27 The succession of Urban IV in 1261, following the death of Alexander IV on 25 May, marked a turning point in the monks’ fortunes in the dispute with the friars, as Urban was less favourably disposed towards the friars than Alexander had been. He was consecrated on 4 September and within eighteen months, on 28 May 1263, he issued a mandate to the provincial minister of the Friars Minor in England ordering them to vacate the site in Bury St Edmunds: construction of their church and other buildings was to stop and what was already built demolished; and in future no chapel or oratory was to be erected within St Edmunds’ spiritual immunity without the consent of the abbot and convent.28 Then, on 1 June, Urban instructed the bishop of Carlisle (Robert de Chaury) and the abbot of St Augustine’s (Roger of Chichester) to implement his mandate.29 The Bury Chronicle records that the friars left the town ‘on the vigil of the feast of St Edmund’ (19 November), submitting absolutely to the authority of the abbot and convent. In response to Urban’s mandate, they left voluntarily in order to avoid being expelled by force, and had it publicly declared that they had occupied the site unlawfully.30 The Narratio’s account is substantially the same but more detailed and fulsome, and less trustworthy. It paints a picture of a happy and harmonious end to the dispute. As mentioned above, the Narratio was probably composed in

24

25 26 27 28 29 30

and David Crook, King’s Bench and Common Bench in the Reign of Henry III (Seldon Society Supplementary Series 17, London, 2010), pp. 44–5, 142. I am grateful to Paul Brand for this information. See also Paul Brand, ‘Preston, Sir Gilbert of (b. in or before 1209, d. 1274)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/22724, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Bury Chron., p. 23; Matthew Paris states that Gilbert of Preston entered the town accompanied by the earl of Gloucester (Richard de Clare); Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 688. CPR, 1258–66, p. 50. CPR, 1258–66, p. 50. CPR, 1258–66, p. 33. Cal. Papal Letters, i. 391. Memorials, ii. 271–2, 281–5. Bury Chron., pp. 27–8.



ABBOT SIMON OF LUTON’S EARLY PROBLEMS

21

1327, or shortly thereafter, to strengthen the monks’ case against the friars who had joined and even incited the insurgent townsmen: the author demonstrated that the friars had no cause for dissatisfaction with the monks after the 1263 settlement. In the present context it asserts that the friars ‘humbly’ acquiesced to Urban’s decision and sent a few of their number to the abbot and convent in chapter, where they renounced all claims to the site. The monks admitted them to the kiss of peace and, instead of exacting compensation for expenses incurred during the dispute, asked for their prayers. Like the Bury Chronicle, the Narratio records the friars’ public declaration that they had occupied the site unlawfully and that they left on the vigil of the feast of St Edmund. But it adds that they walked ‘in orderly procession’ and comments that having entered the town on the vigil of St Edmund’s Translation, they left on the vigil of his passion.31 But here the author wrote with more poetic licence than accuracy, since the vigil of the Translation of St Edmund was 28 April, but Gilbert of Preston had escorted the friars into Bury St Edmunds on 25 April. Moreover, the date, 19 November, given in both the Chronicle and Narratio for the friars’ departure raises problems. The bishop of Carlisle had deputed his powers to implement Urban’s mandate of 28 May to Roger, abbot of St Augustine’s, now acting on his own. Abbot Roger, therefore, on 5 October ordered the provincial minister of the Friars Minor in England and the Friars Minor who were in Bury to vacate the site and stop building within a month on pain of suspension. Abbot Roger then deputed his power to the precentor of Ely, Master Bartholomew Reynville, papal chaplain, and Adam de Phileby, canon of St Mary’s church in Stafford, all or severally, to be present at the execution of Urban’s mandate. But on 22 November the precentor of Ely and Master Bartholomew wrote to the dean of St Edmunds32 stating that the friars were recalcitrant and had not complied with Roger’s admonition: they ordered the dean, in order to save St Edmunds further loss of its right and papal authority further defiance, to admonish the friars three times to leave the site and stop building within eight days on pain of greater excommunication. The friars obediently left but they did not stop building. Therefore, on 26 November the precentor of Ely and Master Bartholomew ordered the alderman and bailiffs of Bury to go with sufficient force and demolish the buildings,33 although how soon this was done is not recorded. The friars’ great reluctance to destroy their church and buildings (which, according to Matthew Paris, were ‘sumptuous’ – sumptuosa)34 is understandable. Not only did they have the support of royalty, the aristocracy and many ecclesiastics, but they had strong sympathy in Bury St Edmunds itself. Apparently

31 32

33 34

Memorials, ii. 268–9. The dean of St Edmunds administered the deanery of St Edmunds on behalf of the archdeacon, i.e. the sacrist who exercised that office on behalf of the abbot. See Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 41; Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 16, 88 no. 168. Memorials, ii. 271–9. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 742.

22

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

‘murmuring among the common people’ was strong enough to alarm the monks. To quell the discontent and show their own justness, they gave the friars a site at Babwell outside the town’s east gate: it was within the cellarer’s manor but outside the boundary of St Edmunds’ spiritual immunity and was an exceptionally large site for a Franciscan friary.35 The Narratio indicates that the monks valued the friars’ prayers and pastoral care, provided their activities did not violate St Edmunds’ rights. It ends on a lyrical note: ‘Thus the place which formerly had served to pasture insensate beasts was now richly crowned with beautiful buildings and the abode of sacred things: where before brute animals grazed, now the faithful are refreshed with the alms of the divine word’. However, the monks’ victory had cost them dear: lavish expenditure in the papal curia to gain support had driven the abbey yet further into debt.36

Dispute with Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester Abbot Simon’s dispute with Richard de Clare was over the rich manor of Mildenhall and its outlier, Icklingham.37 I have elsewhere outlined the origins of the Clares’ claim to these two properties, and discussed Abbot Samson’s purchase of them from King Richard I, and the renewal of the claim by Earl Richard in 1251.38 As was seen, the litigation under Abbot Edmund of Walpole was protracted and still in progress when he died. During Edmund’s rule Simon of Luton, then sacrist, and Robert Russel, the later prior, had often been the

35

36

37

38

The Narratio reads: ‘Et licet fratrum instantiae veluti bonae fidei possessores pro sua republica resultarent monachi, tamen vulgaribus susurriis, uti Judaei recusantes, quo, uti Samaritanis, detestatione fratrum viciniae extiterunt pernotabiles; unde ut liquido omnibus claresceret, non religionis execratio, sed justitiae evictio fomitem contentionis ministrasse, dicti abbas et conventus ex dono gratuito locum ad inhabitandum in possessione monasterii extra septa suae jurisdictionis memoratis fratribus favorabiliter concesserunt’. Memorials, ii. 269 and n. a, 270. Cf. Little, Studies in English Franciscan History, pp. 97–8. The section on St Edmunds’ debts in BL MS Harley 645, f. 199 (see above p. 7 n. 31 and below p. 129) records among the various debts, that St Edmunds owed Maynetus and his fellow Spini, merchants of Florence, on the quindene of Michaelmas 1258, the sum of ten marks which Prior Robert had received from them in London, towards his expenses against the Friars Minor, on the quindene of the previous Easter, under his seal, BL MS Harley, 645, f. 199. According to a marginal note in the holograph manuscript of Matthew Paris’ Chronica Majora St Edmunds’ dispute with the Friars Minor cost 2,000 marks. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 688 n. 3. Dr Justin Clegg, curator, Department of Manuscripts, British Library, kindly examined the note for me and informed me in a letter that H. R. Luard’s transcription is essentially correct and concluded that the note was a contemporary addition, perhaps by Matthew Paris himself. The note is ‘towards the bottom of the margin separating the two columns of text’. For Richard de Clare, see Michael Altschul, ‘Clare, Richard de, sixth earl of Gloucester and fifth earl of Hertford (1222–1262)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/5448, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 189–90. For the story of Edward the Confessor’s gift of Mildenhall to St Edmunds see ibid., pp. 250–1 (Appendix II).



ABBOT SIMON OF LUTON’S EARLY PROBLEMS

23

abbot’s advocates in the case. Simon must, therefore, have been well versed in its complexities and it was he who brought it to a conclusion two years after his succession, but only by means of a hard bargain struck with the earl. In the course of the litigation Simon had been hampered by a shortage of money, partly because he was engaged at the same time in costly litigation with the Friars Minor: Matthew Paris asserts that Simon deliberately sought delays in the proceedings by pleading ill health, but that in fact he wanted the delays because of the debts incurred by the abbey during the dispute with the friars.39 The expense of litigation must have been one reason why Simon and Richard ended the dispute by an agreement on 8 November 1259.40 The Bury chronicler observes that the suit had lasted nine years and five days.41 In accordance with the terms of the final concord, Richard recognized the right of the abbot and St Edmunds’ church to the rich manor of Mildenhall, and to a messuage and carucate of land in Icklingham. In return Simon made a number of concessions. This could have been partly because the Clare’s case was well founded, but also because Simon hoped that by satisfying the earl’s claims he would prevent a recurrence of the dispute. However, St Edmunds’ actual losses were more apparent than real. Simon granted the cellarer’s manor of Southwold to Richard. This manor, situated on the coast of east Suffolk, had been held by St Edmunds since before the Conquest. It had been an important source of fish for the monks. Domesday Book records that before 1086 it had rendered St Edmunds 20,000 herring and after 1086 25,000 herring.42 But it was a distant holding, nearly forty miles from the abbey, and lay outside St Edmunds’ Liberty. Moreover, by the thirteenth century it was less important as a supplier of herring to the monks, as the cellarer was now buying vast quantities of herring at Beccles,43 and still received an annual render of one last of herring (about 1,000 fish) from the church of St Laurence in Norwich.44 Simon also granted Richard another holding which 39

40

41 42 43 44

Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 688 and n. 3: ‘Ne[c] sic angebat abbatem totus labor transalpinus, vel debita quibus involvebatur inaestimabilia; et ad cumulum angustiarum suarum artatus, placito comitis Gloverniae langoris elegit dilationes’. A marginal note gives the debt as 2,000 marks. See Bury Chron, p. 22 and above. For the agreement see A Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds in the Public Record Office (London, HMSO, 1890–1915, 6 vols), v. 509–10 no. 13425; Pinch. Reg., i. 432–4. For copies from St Edmunds see CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 18v–19; BL MSS Harley 645, f. 212v, and Additional 14847, f. 77–77v. No final corcord was made, and no fine was levied then or later. See Paul Brand, ‘Law-making in England in the reign of Henry III: the case of the legislation made at Hailes in November 1251’, in Von Nowgorod bis London: Studien zu Handel, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in mittelalterlich Europa; Festschrift für Stuart Jenks zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Marie-Luise Heckmann and Jens Röhrkasten (n.p., 2008), pp. 373–85 at pp. 384–5. Bury Chron., p. 24. Cf.: Gesta sacrist., p. 295; Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 297, and Hist. anglorum, iii. 119. DB, Suffolk, ii. 14. 163. Cf.: Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, p. 11; De Miraculis, p. 79. Pinch. Reg., i. 376. Pinch. Reg., i. 376, and JB, p. 64.

24

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

lay outside St Edmunds’ Liberty. It comprised a messuage and two carucates in ‘Manhal’ (now Emanuel Wood),45 Chesterford, ‘Brening’ (now Browsers), and (Little) Walden, a group of vills just north of Saffron Walden in Essex.46 This holding was probably mainly woodland. It lay about twenty-five miles from Bury St Edmunds, and within the honour of Clare. It seems that Richard wanted to acquire Southwold and Manhall because he proposed to build a castle at each place. He obtained licence from King Henry on 7 November 1259 to do so,47 but there is no apparent evidence that he proceeded with the plan. Richard, a magnate of immense wealth and formidable status,48 had been one of those leading the opposition to Henry III, insisting on the expulsion of the aliens from the royal court and on reform of the administration.49 Castles, especially those near ports and harbours, played an important part in securing baronial control, and in July 1258 Richard had obtained custody of three castles – Portland, Weymouth and Wyke – all coastal.50 However, by 1259 Richard was no longer exerting influence at court and seems to have abandoned the principles of the baronial opposition,51 possibly because of illness.52 Equally, illness could explain why the construction of castles at Southwold and Manhall did not, apparently, proceed. Richard died in mid-July 1262. Abbot Simon’s other concessions were of rights and holdings within St Edmunds’ Liberty. He granted Richard the advowson of the church of Brettenham and the advowson of half the church of Gislingham. In addition, Simon quitclaimed to the earl a carucate of the almoner’s land in Gazeley, Needham, 45 46

47 48 49 50

51 52

For St Edmunds’ holding at Manhall see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 171 and n. 33. For these holdings among Richard’s many others at the time of his death see Cal. Inq. P. M., i. 153. Cf. R. H. Reaney, Place-Names of Essex, English Place-Name Soc., xii (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 503, 520. CPR, 1258–66, p. 108. See Michael Altschul, A Baronial Family in Medieval England: the Clares, 1217–1314 (Baltimore, 1965), pp. 206–8; Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, p. 226. See Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, pp. 147, 153, 158–9, 160, 164. CPR, 1247–58, p. 640. Cf. CPR, 1266–72, pp. 726–7; Treharne, Baronial Plan, p. 285 and n. 4; Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward, ii. 579 n. 3. The manors of Portland and Wyke had belonged to St Swithin’s prior in Winchester, and had passed in 1256 to the bishopric of Winchester. In 1258 they were entrusted to the custody of Richard de Clare when Aymer de Valence, bishop-elect, was exiled. In 1269 they were claimed against Richard’s son Gilbert through litigation in King’s Bench, brought in the name of Henry III and the Common Bench. In the late 1270s the King’s Bench brought in the name of Edward I in litigation, so the manors could be restored to the bishop. See KB 26/191, m. 1 and /193, m. 9; CP 40/29, m. 63; Sayles, Select Cases in the Court of King’s Bench, i. 52–61. I am grateful to Paul Brand for this information. Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, pp. 167, 178, 180, 190–1, 362. Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, p. 216. Alternatively, it was because of private agreements Richard had made with the king. Ibid., pp. 216–17 and n. 102. Matthew Paris states that in the summer of 1258 Richard and many other noblemen were ill and alleges that they had been poisoned, Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 704–5; Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, p. 197.



ABBOT SIMON OF LUTON’S EARLY PROBLEMS

25

Cavenham and Higham, a group of vills to the west of Bury St Edmunds, which the abbot held in fee from the earl. For these acquisitions the earl was to render one bezant of gold or 2s of silver at the shrine of St Edmund in Easter week. One cause of conflict between St Edmunds and the Clares was jurisdictional. Much of the honour of Clare was in Risbridge hundred, in St Edmunds’ Liberty. The final concord of 1259 alleviated this problem by including jurisdictional concessions to the earl. Briefly, henceforth he was to have all pleas in the court of his demesne manors of Clare (the head of the honour), Cavenham, Desning, Gazeley, Kentford, Hundon, Stoke by Clare and Sudbury, concerning all holdings and tenants, whether with or without the king’s writ and those pleas concerning all holdings of his fee in Lakenheath, including view of frankpledge, but excepting all other pleas of the crown. Simon also granted that whenever the abbot received a royal writ, or an estreat from the Exchequer for a debt, by reason of St Edmunds’ Liberty but which concerned one of the earl’s manors, the earl’s bailiffs were to have the return of the writ but be answerable to the abbot for its execution. Richard did homage to Abbot Simon for the holdings in question. In effect, Simon retained the regalities of St Edmunds’ Liberty, while parting with lesser jurisdictional rights in the earl’s manors and other holdings of the earl within the Liberty. The agreement resulted in peace between Simon and Richard, nor was conflict renewed after Richard’s death by his successor Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester (1263–95).

3 Repercussions on the Abbey of the Barons’ War1 More serious than St Edmunds’ dispute with the Friars Minor and that with Richard, earl of Gloucester, were the repercussions of the Barons’ War on the abbey and the town. Before discussing the war’s impact in more detail something should be said about the monks’ general attitude to the barons and to the king. The Bury chronicler, John Taxster, gives a valuable and more or less contemporary account of events. His few hints which throw light on his attitude to politics suggest that he, like nearly all the other monastic chroniclers, favoured the baronial party:2 this was probably the general view of the rest of the convent. He is critical of the king and queen and emphasizes the king’s severity after the battle of Evesham.3 Taxster’s view of Henry is coloured by the xenophobia typical of England in this age. Commenting on Henry’s harsh treatment of the vanquished, he asserts that the king arbitrarily distributed their lands to aliens as well as to Englishmen, and he remarks that if the barons had not guarded the coasts in 1264 against the threatened invasion from France by Queen Eleanor’s forces, ‘England would have been conquered by foreigners’.4 Taxster, like many other chroniclers, regarded Simon de Montfort as a hero and even, because of the circumstances of his death, as a martyr. He goes so far as to state that ‘many people said’ that de Montfort’s corpse worked miracles.5 Nor was the posthu-

1 2

3 4 5

Some of the material contained in this chapter appears in more detail in Gransden, ‘The abbey of Bury St Edmunds and national politics’, pp. 73–86. For Matthew Paris’ views see Richard Vaughan, Matthew Paris (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 137–43; V. H. Galbraith, Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris (Glasgow, 1944), reprinted in Galbraith, Kings and Chroniclers, art. X, p. 20; Gransden, Historical Writing [i], pp. 368 et seqq. For the views of other thirteenth-century chroniclers see ibid., i. 407, 414, 421; Gransden, ‘The chronicles of medieval England and Scotland’, i. 140–1. For John Taxster, see Antonia Gransden, ‘Taxster, John of (fl. 1244–c.1270)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Oct 2005 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27010, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Bury Chron., pp. 31–2, and pl. I here. Bury Chron., p. 32. Bury Chron., p. 33. For the posthumous cult of Simon de Montfort see J. R. Maddicott, ‘Montfort, Simon de, eighth earl of Leicester (c.1208–1265)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/19049, accessed 22 Sept 2014]; Powicke, Thirteenth Century, p. 203; Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, pp. 33, 43, 64, 68, 131–5, 169–70; Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, pp. 87–9, 346–7 and n. 9, citing D. W. Burton, ‘Politics, propaganda and public opinion in the reigns of Henry III and Edward I’ (Oxford D. Phil. thesis, 1985).



REPERCUSSIONS ON THE ABBEY OF THE BARONS’ WAR

27

mous cult of de Montfort unknown at St Edmunds. Maybe the monks’ views were influenced by the Friars Minor at Babwell, since the friars were the cult’s main proponents. Indicative of the monks’ attitude is a rare fragment of a motet in honour of de Montfort surviving from the abbey.6 It is in a hand of c. 1270, but it was soon discarded and used as a pastedown and flyleaf of a thirteenthcentury copy of the Summa de vitiis of Guilelmus Peraldus.7 Henry’s restoration to power in 1266 and the strong measures taken to suppress de Montfort’s cult could explain the quick scrapping of the motet.8 Possibly it was at the same time that the notice of de Montfort’s corpse working miracles was erased from Taxster’s holograph copy of his chronicle.9 Although the monks were critical of Henry’s rule and of the curiales, they can hardly have been hostile to the king himself. As has been seen, during the period of his personal rule (1234–58) Henry had included St Edmunds in his Lenten pilgrimages to East Anglian shrines and showed his veneration for St Edmund, king and martyr, in other ways.10 He discontinued these pilgrimages while the barons were in power, but in 1272 he again made the pilgrimage and stayed at St Edmunds for eleven days, from 1 to 11 September. This proved to be his last visit. Although piety was no doubt one reason for Henry’s last visit, another was the business of government. He left St Edmunds for Norwich in order to ‘take vengeance’ on the Norwich populace which had risen in revolt against the cathedral priory. The mob had driven out the monks, killed ‘thirty or so’ of their servants, looted, and reduced to ashes most of the cathedral and priory buildings. Henry remained at Norwich for about seventeen days, dispensing justice, but in the opinion of the Bury chronicler (Taxster’s continuator) punishing too few of the miscreants.11

6 7

8 9 10

11

See P. M. Lefferts, ‘Two English motets on Simon de Montfort’, Early Music Soc., 1 (1981), p. 210. St John’s College, Cambridge, MS 138 (F. 1), detached pastedown and end flyleaf. See Lefferts, ‘Two English motets on Simon de Montfort’, pp. 203–23 passim; Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, pp. 268–9 and pl. LXXXIC. See pl. II. For Simon’s miracula and the political songs evoked by the Barons’ War see The Miracles of Simon de Montfort, printed as a supplement to Rishanger, Chron., ed. Halliwell, pp. 77–110; Political Songs of England from the Reign of John to that of Edward II, ed. and trans. Thomas Wright (Camden Soc., o.s., 1839), reprinted with a new introduction by Peter Coss (Cambridge, 1996); AngloNorman Political Songs, ed. I. S. T. Aspen (Anglo-Norman Text Soc., 11, 1953), esp. p. 30; Legge, Anglo-Norman Literature, p. 355) esp. pp. 72–121 (‘Song of Lewis’). For the rapidity with which this and similar motet collections became obsolete and were destroyed see Lefferts, ‘Two English motets on Simon de Montfort’, p. 221. Pl. I. For Henry III’s veneration for St Edmund, king and martyr, and his Lenten pilgrimages see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 243–8; Gransden, ‘The abbey of Bury St Edmunds and national politics’, pp. 83–6. Bury Chron., pp. 50–2, 59. A very similar account is in the Norwich chronicle; Cotton, Historia anglicana, pp. 146–9. See also Cron. maiorum et vicecomitum Londoniarum, pp. 145–8; Walter Rye, ‘The riot between the monks and citizens of Norwich in 1272’, Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany, ii (1883), pp. 17–89, cited in Norwich Cathedral: Church, City and

28

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

The episode at Norwich served to illustrate that in the last resort privilege and property depended on royal protection. The monks of St Edmunds and Abbot Simon can have had no doubt of the necessity for Henry’s favour. In 1264, sometime before the battle between Henry’s forces and the barons’ forces at Lewes on 4 May, some young townsmen of Bury took advantage of the widespread disorder occasioned by the Barons’ War. They organized themselves into a guild, the ‘Guild of Youth’, and rebelled against the town authorities.12 They refused to obey the officials appointed by the abbot and chose their own alderman and bailiffs. So serious was the revolt that a baronial partisan, William le Blund, came to Bury St Edmunds to mediate between the parties,13 but he failed and the townsmen remained intransigent even after the battle of Lewes. Abbot Simon, therefore, turned to the king for help. On 29 October 1264 Henry commissioned the royal justice, Gilbert of Preston, and William de Boville to hold an inquest into the injuries to, and transgressions against, the abbot and his church, which were to the detriment of his Liberty, done by certain men of the town.14 The townsmen, fearing for their own liberties, submitted and reached agreement with Simon.15 Royal support, therefore, was essential to both abbot and convent. The probaronial views of Taxster and his continuator, together with those of most other monastic chroniclers, reflect the monks’ political idealism but had no practical application. Simon himself, as abbot and tenant-in-chief of the crown, had particularly close ties with the king. He was, indeed, a man on whom Henry could rely. It is true that in January 1259 he was one of the deputation of four appointed by the baronial administration to meet Richard of Cornwall on his return from Germany, in order to discover the reason for his sudden appearance and to receive his oath to observe the Provisions of Oxford.16 But although this deputation was appointed when the barons were in power, two other members, Peter of Savoy (one of Henry’s foreign relatives) and John Mansel (the most influential of the king’s clerks), were leading royalists. Perhaps the barons intended by selecting royalists to reassure Richard and make him more amenable. Again, Abbot Simon was summoned to Simon de Montfort’s parliament in January 1265, but so were the heads of nearly all religious houses of any consequence.17 De Montfort was seeking as broad a base as possible to support his precarious

12 13 14 15 16 17

Diocese, 1096–1996, ed. Ian Atherton, Eric Fernie, Christopher Harper-Bill and Hassell Smith (London, 1996), p. 74 n. 11. See Davis, ‘Commune’, pp. 313–17. The monks produced a tract describing the riot from their point of view, for which see below pp. 36, 242. William was lord of the neighbouring manor of Ashfield, near Stowmarket, and was Simon de Montfort’s standard bearer. He was killed in the battle of Lewes. CPR, 1258–66, p. 375. A copy is in the sacrist’s register, CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 32. Pinch. Reg., i. 56–7; Davis, ‘Commune’, p. 317; Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 128. C. Lib. R, 1251–60, p. 504. See Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 732; Noël DenholmYoung, Richard of Cornwall (Oxford, 1947), p. 98. CCR, 1264–8, p. 85. Cf.: Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 403; Treharne, Documents, pp. 302–3 and n. 5; Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, p. 277; Holt, ‘The prehistory of parliament’, p. 11.



REPERCUSSIONS ON THE ABBEY OF THE BARONS’ WAR

29

power. There is positive evidence that Henry trusted Abbot Simon. In May 1259, when, despite the fact that the barons were in control of the administration, Henry seems to have kept responsibility for procuring the ratification of the Treaty of Paris, Abbot Simon was sent with three others on an embassy to France to negotiate. Two of his companions, Giles of Bridport, bishop of Salisbury (1257–62),18 and Walter of Branscombe, bishop of Exeter (1258–80),19 were active supporters of Henry. Similarly, on 27 March 1260, when Henry had good reason to fear the outbreak of civil war and was himself about to return from France with mercenaries, he wrote to Hugh Bigod, the justiciar, instructing him to summon various ecclesiastical and lay magnates. They were to meet him in London with their service owed as tenants on 25 April. The baronial leaders were excluded. Only two abbots were among those summoned, the abbot of Glastonbury (Roger Forde) and Simon of Luton.20 Again, in October 1261 at another time of political tension, Abbot Simon was among those summoned with his service. Although on this occasion the summons was much more allinclusive than in March 1260, the leaders of the opposition were omitted.21 Finally, in May 1267, when Henry was investing London against Gilbert, earl of Gloucester, Abbot Simon and his knights were with the royal army at Stratford Langthorn in Essex.22 E. F. Jacob, in the belief that Abbot Simon was pro-baronial, examined the plea rolls for 1265 to discover whether Simon used his influence to induce men within St Edmunds’ Liberty to actively support the baronial cause. In view of the evidence cited above, it is not surprising that he could find nothing to support a conclusion ‘that direct pressure was brought to bear by the abbot on his tenants’.23 On the other hand, there were important baronial supporters within the Liberty. The steward of the Liberty, Henry of Hastings, was one of the most faithful of Simon de Montfort’s adherents and one of the most obdurate of the disinherited.24 He finally submitted to the Lord Edward on 13 July 1267;25 he was pardoned on 27 July, on condition that he observed the terms of the dictum of

18

19 20 21 22

23 24 25

CCR, 1256–9, pp. 477–8. For Giles of Bridport, see Philippa Hoskin, ‘Bridport, Giles of (d. 1262)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/3403, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Treharne, Documents, p. 182 n. 3. CCR, 1259–61, pp. 157–8; Cf. Treharne, Documents, p. 182 and n. 2; Treharne, Baronial Plan, pp. 226–7. CCR, 1259–61, p. 498. Cf. Treharne, Baronial Plan, pp. 268–9. CUL MS Ff. ii. 29, f. 87. Cf.: Bury Chron., p. 38; Dunstable, p. 246; Flores, iii. 16; Wykes, Chron., p. 202; Cron. maiorum et vicecomitum Londoniarum, p. 90; Annales Londonienses [1194–1330 with a gap 1293–1301] in Chrons Edward I and II, i. 77; and Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward, ii. 543. Jacob, Studies, pp. 303–7. See Treharne, Documents, pp. 284/5 and n. 24, 328/9 and n. 29; Treharne, Baronial Plan, pp. 273, 302, 323, 335; Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, pp. 249, 325. CPR, 1266–72, p. 152; CCR, 1264–8, p. 379.

30

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

Kenilworth,26 and on 27 August Abbot Simon was ordered to give him seisin of the stewardship.27 Clearly Abbot Simon had no control over Hastings’s political activities, any more than he had over those of Richard and Gilbert de Clare, successively earls of Gloucester, both of whom had extensive holdings within St Edmunds’ Liberty.28 Nevertheless, the king treated Abbot Simon firmly, even severely, during the period from the autumn of 1265 until the spring of 1267. On 8 September 1265 he imposed fines on a number of prelates. Simon suffered particularly; he had to pay 800 marks to have the king’s goodwill.29 Meanwhile, his barony was taken into the king’s hands. However, it was restored little more than a fortnight later, on 24 September; the abbot was to hold it ‘until our next parliament on the feast of St Edward’ (5 January).30 On 2 January 1266, Simon paid £266 13s. 4d. (that is 400 marks, half the fine).31 The Bury chronicler complains that the convent was made to pay the other half, ‘although only the abbot had been accused in the king’s court’. This was because ‘the convent’s men as well as the abbot’s had helped guard the coast against the queen’.32 Henry again took strong action against Abbot Simon in the spring of 1266, sending John de Warenne and William de Valence to Bury St Edmunds. They arrived on 27 May ‘unexpectedly with a great band of retainers to seek out the king’s enemies’.33 The ‘enemies’ were disinherited barons from the Isle of Ely who were hidden in the town and freely sold their booty there.34 Warenne and Valence summoned the abbot and burgesses and accused them of favouring the rebels. However, at the inquest Abbot Simon cleared himself and the convent of any complicity and incriminated the townsmen, and the charge against him was dropped. The townsmen had to pay a fine of 200 marks, besides promising the abbot and convent £100 for negotiating the settlement.35 At the same time Henry instructed Abbot Simon to appoint a new alderman for the town and also janitors for its gates ‘in order to provide for its and the neighbourhood’s tranquillity’. He was also to discover

26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35

CPR, 1266–72, p. 149. See the Kempe register, BL MS Harley 645, f. 78. See BL MS Harley 645, f. 212v, for a list of the manors of Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester, in St Edmunds’ Liberty. For his dispute with the abbot over Mildenhall and Icklingham see above pp. 22–5. For baronial supporters who held land in the Liberty see Jacob, Studies, pp. 298–9. Bury Chron., p. 31. CCR, 1264–8, p. 134. CPR, 1258–66, p. 525. Bury Chron., p. 32. Bury Chron., pp. 34–5. Jacob, Studies, p. 238, cites the case of an Ipswich merchant who, having helped the king besiege the Isle of Ely, was imprisoned by the disinherited in Bury St Edmunds. CPR, 1258–66, p. 604; Bury Chron., p. 35.



REPERCUSSIONS ON THE ABBEY OF THE BARONS’ WAR

31

who had harboured the king’s enemies and their booty and under what circumstances.36 The visit of Warenne and Valence did not end Abbot Simon’s troubles during the resettlement of the kingdom after the Barons’ War. The dictum of Kenilworth (31 October 1266) did not bring immediate peace. Some areas, including the Fenland, remained in a turbulent state for nearly a year longer. During this period Henry had to struggle to reassert his authority and to impose law and order. He stayed at Bury St Edmunds from 6 to 22 February 1267.37 While there he made a further effort to discredit the de Montforts by submitting his case against them to the arbitration of Louis IX of France.38 But his main preoccupation was with the pacification of the kingdom. He issued numerous writs of protection, granted lands of rebels to loyal subjects and pardoned rebels who had submitted.39 He also summoned the army owing him service to assemble at Bury St Edmunds for the siege of the Isle of Ely which was still being held by obdurate rebels, ‘the disinherited’.40 Unfortunately, disaffection and unrest were still rife in the town of Bury itself. On the night of 22 February the legate Ottobuono, just after he had held a council there to excommunicate the disinherited, was so frightened by ‘certain rumours’ that he returned to London on the next day. The king left on the same day and pitched camp outside Cambridge for the siege of the Isle.41 At some stage Henry had taken St Edmunds’ banleuca and the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds into his hands. He did so ‘because of certain transgressions done to us and our men by certain people in the Liberty during the disturbance in the realm’.42 On 21 February he commissioned two royal justices, Stephen of Edworth and John le Breton, to hold an inquest in the abbot’s presence about those charged with robberies and other trespasses ‘within the town 36 37 38 39

40 41

42

CCR, 1264–8, p. 197. Copies are in a number of St Edmunds’ registers: CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 190v; BL MSS Harley 638, f. 36, and 645, f. 151–151v. Cf. Bury Chron., pp. 34–5. Bury Chron., p. 37. CPR, 1266–72, p. 130. CPR, 1266–72, pp. 32–9 passim, 129–31 passim. Included was a writ for the protection of the almoner of St Edmunds (ibid., p. 33), and one for the Master and brethren of the hospital of St Nicholas in the town (CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 138). CPR, 1266–72, p. 33; CCR, 1264–8, pp. 294, 302, 360. Cf.: Bury Chron., pp. 36–7; Rishanger, Chron., ed. Halliwell, p. 50. Bury Chron., p. 37 (cited in C and S, II, i. 735); CCR, 1264–8, pp. 290–4, 363–6. The chronicles disagree on the dates of the king’s and legate’s arrivals at St Edmunds and of the convocation, but W. E. Lunt decides in favour of the dates in the Bury chronicle: Lunt, ‘Consent to taxation’, pp. 156–7 and n. 206. Cf. Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 293. For the council and for the legate’s negotiations with the disinherited see Rishanger, Chron, ed. Halliwell, pp. 50–6; Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward, ii. 539. CPR, 1266–73 p. 131. See Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 130. The evidence that Henry took the banleuca into his hands is the fine for its restoration in the writ of 10 March. It states that the fine was ‘pro villa sua de Sancto Edmundo rehabenda que capta fuit in manum nostram pro quibusdam transgressionibus factis in eadem’. See Fine Roll, 51 Henry III, TNA, C 60/64, m. 6.

32

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

and without’, and to take their movables and sequester their lands.43 However, during his stay he apparently reached an agreement with Abbot Simon. In return for having the king’s goodwill and for the restoration of the banleuca, Simon promised to pay a fine of 200 marks (in the event, his payments on 27 February,44 10 March45 and 16 March46 1267, amounted to £200). Having restored the banleuca, Henry, at Simon’s request, on 9 March commissioned the royal justice, John le Breton, and ‘whomever else the abbot shall depute’ to inquire about trespasses in the Liberty and to do justice.47 However, these three occasions, in 1265, 1266 and 1267, when Henry treated Abbot Simon with a heavy hand, do not prove that Simon was ever disloyal to him. According to the Bury chronicler, in 1265 he was fined and temporarily forfeited his barony because his and the convent’s men had helped guard the coasts against the queen.48 But, since the legitimate, though baronially controlled, government issued the mandate (9 July 1264)49 for the defence of the coasts Simon would have had no choice but to obey. The other two cases, in 1266 and 1267, were different. In 1266 Henry interfered with the abbot’s administration of the banleuca, but his actions should be seen as corrective, even supportive, rather than punitive. This is so despite the fact that in 1267 he again fined Abbot Simon. His main purpose in 1266 and 1267 was to ensure that St Edmunds’ Liberty was an orderly, loyal franchise within the kingdom; it should neither be the scene of disorder nor harbour rebels. Henry wanted the abbot to achieve this objective; if he could not, royal power would intervene to help. There is no question that Abbot Simon would, if possible, have ruled the Liberty as Henry wished; the problem was that sometimes he was powerless to do so. As has been seen, in 1266 Abbot Simon was accused, along with the burgesses, of favouring the king’s enemies because the disinherited were freely hiding and selling their loot in Bury. However, Simon certainly had no sympathy with them. Possibly the disinherited came for safety. If so, Simon might have hesitated to expel them because of St Edmunds’ privilege of sanctuary.50 It is much 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

CPR, 1266–72, p. 131. Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 130. C Lib. R, 1260–7, p. 263. CCR, 1264–8, p. 298. Fine Roll, 51 Henry III, TNA, C 60/64, m. 6. CPR, 1266–72, p. 45. See below p. 119, and Bury Chron., p. 32. CPR, 1258–66, pp. 360–1. The right of sanctuary in churches is stated in canon law: Decretum, D. 87, c. 6; C. 17, q. 4, c. 6. It was among the proposals for the protection of the liberties of the church in the Council of the province of Canterbury held in London in August 1257: C and S, II, i. 530 § v and n. 2. The Bury Chronicle refers to St Edmunds’ right of sanctuary three times and Matthew Paris compares it in the annal for 1173 with that of St Albans: Bury Chron., pp. 8 and n. 1, 27, 122; Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., ii. 289. St Edmunds’ right of sanctuary like that of St Albans and Westminster, covered the area over which it had ecclesiastical immunity, that is, the banleuca. See also Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 188–9 and nn. 142–3.



REPERCUSSIONS ON THE ABBEY OF THE BARONS’ WAR

33

more likely that he could not in any case have expelled them because the abbey’s control over the town was tenuous at that time. It should also be remembered that although the fines imposed by Henry in the years 1265–7 were partly punitive they were also a means of raising revenue for the king at a critical period.

4 Record-Keeping and the Codification of Customs Royal inquiries into private franchises, and the refusal of the barons of the Exchequer to allow franchise holders amercements and the chattels of felons unless their right were specified in their charters, threatened the abbot of St Edmunds, like other franchise holders, with the loss of an important source of revenue.1 Before he could obtain formal recognition of his right, the abbot had simply taken (‘occupied’) these profits of justice. But this left the way open for dispute at the Exchequer; it was undoubtedly partly to make it easier to obtain formal recognition of St Edmunds’ rights that steps were taken to make the abbey’s archives more accessible. Sometime between 1254 and 1261 a list was made of the abbey’s archives – its papal bulls, royal and other charters, in all amounting to nearly 2,000 documents.2 The arrangement of the list suggests that it was intended as a finding-aid for use in the vestry where the archives were stored. A number of interlineal and marginal annotations in various hands datable from the second half of the thirteenth century until the early fifteenth testify to the list’s continued usefulness. Included among the charters in the list are some Anglo-Saxon ones. In fact, the list is the earliest known witness to the abbey’s possession of an impressive collection of the originals and/or copies of its Anglo-Saxon charters. The earliest copy of the list is in BL MS Harley 1005 (ff. 223–272v):3 copies of the charters themselves are in two of the abbey’s late thirteenth-century registers (CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 45–50, and BL MS Additional 14847, ff. 15–19v).4 The monk ‘A’ who copied the large collection of customs into BL MS Harley 1005, was the earliest annotator of the list of charters. He wrote Anglice against each Anglo-Saxon charter included, and added a few explanatory notes. Moreover, BL MS Harley 1005 contains a list in ‘A’’s hand of Anglo-Saxon legal terms 1

2 3

4

BL MS Harley 743, f. 121–121v. For St Edmunds’ defence of its jurisdictional liberties against encroachments by the Crown see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182– 1256, pp. 236–8. For John of Northwold’s stand against the Quo Warranto proceedings under Edward I see below pp. 54–7. Thomson, Archives, pp. 17–19. Ibid., p. 144 § 49 and pl. I. For similar lists of about the same date from Ely, Glastonbury and Peterborough respectively see Davis, Cartularies, pp. 42 no. 357, 50 no. 438, 98 no. 738. Davis, Cartularies, pp. 148 no. 1296, and 121 no. 1278; Davis, Medieval Cartularies, rev. edn, nos 117 and 96; Lowe, ‘Two thirteenth-century cartularies’, pp. 293–4.



RECORD-KEEPING AND THE CODIFICATION OF CUSTOMS

35

with their Latin equivalents (f. 96). Such lists are not uncommon. They were necessary aids to anyone needing to understand the meaning of pre-Conquest grants, whether justices, claimants or defendants in cases involving holdings originating before 1066. Apparently these lists had no official status, but they were a likely part of the legal equipment of any justice and anyone who, like the abbot of St Edmunds, held lands and rights of jurisdiction by pre-Conquest tenure.5 Also in ‘A’’s hand in BL MS Harley 1005 are the earliest known copies of a number of important works concerning the abbey’s domestic and liturgical customs. Thus, ‘A’ copied: the Traditiones patrum, composed in, or shortly after, 1234; Alexander IV’s confirmation of some of the abbey’s customs;6 a set of regulations for the admission, profession, blood-letting and so on, of novices, issued under Abbot Simon, in or shortly after 1268;7 another set of regulations, probably likewise issued under Simon, concerning the punishment of wrongdoers and various liturgical matters.8 In addition, unique texts of three valuable monographs on the history of St Edmunds survive in BL MS Harley 1005, all in ‘A’’s hand: the Gesta sacristarum (the acts of St Edmunds up to the succession as sacrist of Simon of Kingston c. 1263);9 the tract on the (supposed) origins of the douzegild at Bury St Edmunds;10 and the tract on the dedication of the various altars, chapels and the like, at St Edmund, originally composed early in Henry II’s reign, continued under Abbot Samson, and concluded under Abbot Simon – with a notice of dedication of the chapel of St Edmund and St Stephen, following the destruction of St Edmunds’ rotunda in 1275.11 BL MS Harley 1005 contains copies of a number of the abbey’s other records in ‘A’’s hand. Indeed, ‘A’ would appear to have compiled the book for his own use, mainly to serve him in some official capacity. The book combines features of a collectaneum, with those of a florilegium. Having been in ‘A’’s personal possession, it would have joined the monks’ book collection on his death. The identification of ‘A’ is problematical. Perhaps the strongest case can be made for identifying him as the prior, Robert Russel, whose career shows him to have been an able and highly educated man.12 His period as prior coincides

5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12

BL MS Harley 1005, ff. 102–19; Bury Cust., pp. xxxvi–xxxvii, 1–62. BL MS Harley 1005, ff. 119–20; Bury Cust., pp. xxxvii–xxxviii, 63–7. BL MS Harley 1005, ff. 200–202v; Bury Cust., pp, xxxviii, 68–81. BL MS Harley 1005, ff. 212–15v; Bury Cust., pp. xxxviii, 82–99. BL MS Harley 1005, ff. 120–22; Memorials, ii. 289–95. CUL MS Ff. ii. f. 219v; Bury Cust., pp. xli, 123–4, where the text is discussed and printed from a copy in BL MS Harley 3977, f. 25. For the douzegild see Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 73 and n. 1. CUL MS Ff. ii. ff. 217v–218v; Bury Cust., pp. xl–xli, 114–21. Thomson identifies Russel as scribe and owner of the BL MS Harley 1005. Archives, p. 17. However, in his edition of the Electio, Thomson states that Harley 1005 ‘was doubtless made for the use of some obedientiary, probably either a sacrist or cellarer’. Electio, p. xlvii n. 2.

36

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

with ‘A’’s known period of scribal activity: he was elected in 1258 and resigned voluntarily on 25 January 1280.13 BL MS Harley 1005 would have helped him in his overall responsibility for the convent, both in its business affairs and in monastic observance. The fact that the book has annotations in the hand of two fourteenth-century priors could mean that it was kept in the prior’s office. Thus, it was annotated by, it seems, John Gosford, prior 1382–1405.14 But far more numerous are the annotations by Henry of Kirkstead, the celebrated bibliographer and antiquary, who was subprior and then prior sometime between 1360 and c. 1380.15 Besides annotating ‘A’’s book, he made substantial additions on blank pages, and very likely also incorporated the complete text of Jocelin of Brackland’s chronicle and that of the Electio Hugonis into the volume, which he gave the press-mark C.68. However, there is no conclusive evidence that the book was in Gosford’s or Kirkstead’s possession during their priorates. Before becoming successively subprior and prior, Kirkstead was successively novice master and armarius (keeper of the books): he would have found ‘A’’s book extremely useful and interesting in either office. It would, therefore, be rash to identify ‘A’ as Robert Russel with certainty. Moreover, it is noticeable that BL MS Harley 1005 has much material concerning the sacrist besides the Gesta sacristarum itself. For instance, the tract on dedications at St Edmunds reflects the sacrist’s responsibility for the church, while his responsibility for the town could help account for the inclusion of the tracts on the Guild of Youth and the duodene. The sacrist from c. 1263 until 1280 was Simon of Kingston. Little is known about him. The text of the Gesta sacristarum in BL MS Harley 1005 is in ‘A’’s hand up to Kingston’s succession; ‘A’ notes that Simon was born in the county of Cambridge, and was subcellarer and chamberlain before becoming sacrist. ‘A’ preserves part of one of Kingston’s accounts as subcellarer (BL MS Harley 1005 f. 41v). The case for identifying Simon with ‘A’, is not strong, but his dates coincide with ‘A’’s period of activity, and the fact that in the late thirteenth century, if not before, he was regarded by at least one monk as a failure as sacrist, does not preclude the possibility that he was a scholarly, interesting man, a tireless researcher in the abbey’s archives and an excellent scribe. But in conclusion it must be admitted that the identity of the original compiler of BL MS Harley 1005 remains uncertain. This is not the case with the earliest known register devoted exclusively to one office and designed purely for business purposes. This is the cellarer’s register, now TNA, DL MS 42/5.16 It was started in 1265–6 by Henry of the Hospital and William of Beccles who held the office of cellarer jointly under Abbot Simon. It is a handsome volume. Its core (ff. 19–80) is written in various 13 14 15 16

Bury Chron., pp. 23, 71. Thomson argues that Gosford was responsible for many annotations in BL MS Harley 1005. Electio, pp. 33–4. See Rouse, ‘Bostonus Buriensis’, pp. 481–2, 489; Rouse and Rouse (eds), Catalogus, pp. xxxix, xlvii, lxxii–lxxiv. Thomson, Archives, pp. 19, 149–50 no. 1298; Kalendar, ed. Davis, p. xlix; Davis, Medieval Cartularies, rev. edn, no. 108.



RECORD-KEEPING AND THE CODIFICATION OF CUSTOMS

37

good book hands with rubricated initials. Its heading in rubric reads: ‘Copies of all the charters and cyrographs of the whole cellary written in the fiftieth year of King Henry, son of King John, in the time H. of the Hospital and W. of Beccles, cellarers’.17 The entries are arranged topographically. Many additions were made, often untidily, in the fourteenth century which, although they spoil the neat, well-organized nature of the original book, show that the volume remained very useful. In effect, the two cellarers, by arranging their documents in rational order, and copying and assembling them into one volume, made it much easier to discover exactly what holdings and rights belonged to their office. The amount of the cellary’s holdings far exceeded that of any other office. Therefore, its archives were proportionately more numerous, and its needs for a register the greater. But under Simon’s successor, Abbot John of Northwold, the second best endowed office, the sacristy, produced a register, and was possibly followed in doing so by the chamberlain’s office, the next most important property-holder.18 The abbot’s portion of the abbey’s property about equalled that of the convent in total. Abbot Baldwin, in the late eleventh century, and Abbot Samson, in the late twelfth, had both produced registers, but there is no known evidence that Abbot Simon produced one.

17

18

TNA, DL MS 42/5, f. 19. Heading in rubric: ‘Transcripta omnium cartarum et cyrographorum tocius celar[ie] scripta anno regni Regis Henrici fili Johannis regis L. tempore H. de Hospitali et W. de Beccles Celerariorum’. For dated references to the official activities of Henry of the Hospital and William of Beccles see e.g.: BL MS Harley 1005, f. 51; BL MS Harley 638, f. 55; Pinch. Reg., i. 306–7. Below, p. 105.

5 Relations between Abbot Simon and the Convent There is little contemporary evidence about Simon’s relations with the convent, but it would appear that they were not always good. Sometimes he was highhanded, for instance making grants without the convent’s consent and in charters not authenticated with its seal.1 Thus, he granted two acres in Harlow to Ralph of Harlow, clerk, ‘without consulting the convent’ (‘conuentu inconsulto’), and the charter was sealed only with his own seal. Similarly, he granted a licence to his knight, Thomas of Ikworth, to enclose his wood at Ickworth with a ditch in a charter ‘without the convent’s seal’ (‘sine sigillo capituli’).2 In Jocelin of Brackland’s day, it was the abbot who had to prevent obedientiaries from transacting business without consulting the convent and prevent their using the convent’s seal outside chapter.3 Now the danger seems to have been that the abbot would alienate the abbey’s property free from any effective control: this danger was especially acute at St Edmunds because of the abbey’s exemption from episcopal authority. Such alienations were forbidden by canon law,4 a prohibition which Pope Alexander III (1159–81) reiterated in a forceful reply to an inquiry from an Italian bishop. (The surviving text of this papal letter is undated and the addressee unnamed.)5 Nevertheless, in practice alienations of church and monastic property by prelates were common. Economic and social circumstances often provided them with at best sound reasons, or at worst with 1

2

3 4

5

Grants made by an abbot without the consent of the convent were, in secular law, only valid for the duration of his abbacy and could be revoked by his successor by a writ of entry sine assensu capituli. For the writ see Bracton, f. 323 (IV, 35) and for early examples of 1220 see Curia Regis Rolls, viii. 212, 265. Copies of both charters are in CUL MSS Mm. iv. 19, f. 36, and Ff. ii. 33, f. 78. Both are printed in John Gage [Rokewode], The History and Antiquities of Suffolk. Thingoe Hundred (London, 1838), p. 278. JB, pp. 30, 38. Mary [G.] Cheney, ‘The Litigation between John Marshal and Archbishop Thomas Becket in 1164: a pointer to the origin of novel disseisin?’, in Law and Social Change in British History. Papers Presented to the British Legal History Conference, 14–17 July 1981, ed. J. A. Guy and H. G. Beale (London, 1984), pp. 9–26; Cheney, ‘Inalienability in mid-twelfthcentury England: enforcement and consequences’, Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Canon Law, ed. S. Kuttner and K. Pennington, Monumenta iuris canonici, ser. C: Subsidia, 7 (Vatican City, 1985), pp. 467–78; K. L. Shirley, The Secular Jurisdiction of Monasteries in Anglo-Norman and Angevin England (Woodbridge, 2004), p. 24. Cheney, ‘Inalienability in mid-twelfth-century England’, p. 467 and n.



RELATIONS BETWEEN ABBOT SIMON AND THE CONVENT

39

plausible excuses, for alienations. Hence came the monks’ insistence that they should be consulted. Their cause was espoused by the first General Chapter of the English Benedictines of the Southern Province, held at Oxford in 1219. The second of its twenty-five clauses states that Prelates should not presume to alienate in perpetuity the lands or rents of a monastery to its manifest injury, or to grant or give customary lands in freehold to anyone or to make new customary rights (consuetudines) without the consent of chapter, or to grant to anyone a corrody in heredity, or rights in any form.6

The fact that this prohibition was reiterated by the General Chapter of the Southern Province of 14 October 1249 indicates,7 as other evidence corroborates, that heads of houses took little notice of it. The reforming statutes of the papal visitors to St Edmunds in 1234 give a similar impression. The statutes more or less begin by stating that the abbot should retain the monastery’s liberties and possessions as best he can, and endeavour to recover whatever has been alienated, and not presume in future to alienate anything without the convent’s consent.8

The abbey’s financial straits exacerbated Simon’s relations with the convent, as noted above when the convent paid half a fine incurred by the abbot in the Barons’ War.9 However, most of the evidence about Simon’s relations with the convent is not strictly speaking contemporary. It survives in the statute issued by the convent on 16 October 1280, after deliberation between Simon’s successor, Abbot John of Northwold, the prior (Stephen of Ixworth) and senior monks.10 This statute comprises about twenty-five clauses. The first three relate directly to the abbey’s troubles during the vacancy which followed Simon’s death, and a few others were reforms of monastic observance, introduced by Abbot John and Prior 6

7

8

9 10

‘Deinde placuit universis, ut prelati de terris vel redditibus monasterii ad manifestam lesionem, perpetuam alienationem facere non presumant, vel terras consuetudinarias in libertatem alicui concedere vel donare, vel novas consuetudines facere sine assensu capituli, nec alicui hereditare corredia vel libertates aliquo modo concedere.’ Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. p. 9 § 2. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. p. 36 § g. Cf. the statutes of the General Chapter of 30 March or 7 April 1253. Ibid., i. p. 50 § i. The importance of documents being sealed is stipulated by the papal legate, Otto, in the council he held at St Paul’s in November 1237. C and S, II, i. 257–8, clauses 27 and 28. ‘Volumus etiam ut libertates et possessiones sui monasterii pro posse suo teneat, et ut alienata sic studeat reuocare ne de cetero aliqua sine conuentus sui assensu presumat alienare …’ Graham (ed.), ‘Papal visitation’, p. 729 § 2. For the reforming statutes see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 203–5. See above p. 30. The text is in BL MS Harley 743, ff. 265–7 (modern foliation), and with variants in the cellarer’s register, Pt 1, now CUL MS Gg. iv. 4. The latter is a later copy; the cellarer’s register was compiled sometime after 1425 (Thomson, Archives, pp. 150–1, Davis, Medieval Cartularies, rev. edn, no. 109). It is collated and printed in Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, pp. 397–404.

40

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

Stephen. These will be considered below, in the section on John’s abbacy.11 Here those clauses will be considered which concern abuses perpetrated under Abbot Simon. But it should be remembered that those responsible for formulating the statute were reformers and probably tended to denigrate the preceding abbacy in order to highlight their own laudable intentions. Furthermore, some monks may have taken the opportunity of airing their own particular complaints. The preamble claims that the statute consists of customs which had not been observed under Abbot Simon. Its stated intention was to re-establish the observance of the abbey’s ancient customs; this reformation was necessary because ‘while [Abbot Simon] was alive, he and his servants and we and our servants had done many things differently from how they ought to have been done’.12 It attributes current abuses to ‘violence, theft and negligence’.13 Henceforth each and every custom was to be observed for ever and each and every monk bound himself by corporal oath to that end.14 The statute was sealed with the abbot’s seal and the chapter seal and placed in the treasury to be inviolably preserved.15 The fact that a text survived long enough to be copied into the cellarer’s register, which was compiled much later (after 1425), shows that it was being kept safely. Some clauses indicate that Simon had encroached on the convent’s portion of the abbey’s property and rights, in order to increase his own revenue and to save money. Other clauses show that the domestic lives of the monks were disorderly in some respects.16 The preamble claims that the collection established ‘absolutely nothing new’, and some clauses specify their sources, that is, the Traditiones patrum,17 Alexander IV’s confirmation of the abbey’s customs,18 and a

11 12

13

14

15 16

17 18

Below pp. 47–50. The version in CUL MS Gg iv. 4 (f. 126) has a preliminary heading not in the version in BL MS Harley. It reads, ‘Post mortem abbatis Symonis … considerato quod ipso vivente tam per se et suos quam per nos et nostros multa secus fiebant quam fieri debuerant et consueverant, ordinata sunt per conventum ea que inferius continentur …’. Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 397. The version in BL MS Harley 743 (f. 265) begins: ‘Ad reformacionem consuetudinum ecclesie nostre hactenus approbatarum plerisque tamen de causis tum violencia, tum aliquorum surrepcione pariter et necggligencia minus plene rite ve [sic] per aliqua retroacti temporis spacia observatarum convenientes, dominus Johannes Dei gratia abbas Sancti Edmundi et dominus Stephanus prior una cum senioribus atque sanioribus de conventu …’. See Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, pp. 397–8. ‘Ad que omnia et singula [ordinata] perpetuis temporibus observanda corporali prestito sacramento universi et singuli fideliter astrinxerunt in hac forma’, CUL MS Gg. iv. 4, f. 126. The text then follows as it does in the version in BL MS Harley 743. See Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 397. BL MS Harley 743, f. 265; Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 398. Domestic discipline might well have deteriorated towards the end of Simon’s abbacy, when he and Prior Robert were old men. The failings of the sacrist, Simon of Kingston, have been discussed above p. 36. Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 398 clauses 1, 2 and nn. 133, 135. Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 400 clause 10 and n. 143.



RELATIONS BETWEEN ABBOT SIMON AND THE CONVENT

41

(now lost) book of customs.19 Nevertheless, those clauses which can be checked against the Traditiones and confirmation tend to be more definitive and fuller than their source. Other clauses merely cite ‘ancient custom’ or do not mention any authority: possibly some of these codify hitherto unwritten customs, but, as will be seen, at least one of the clauses represents new legislation in chapter. Most clauses in the statute are devoted to asserting the convent’s rights in face of encroachments by the abbot. Thus, clause 23 states that by ancient custom, if the abbot is in the town on the feast of St Stephen (26 December), he should have the customary gift from the town bailiff, but, if he is away, in no circumstance should he have it but it should be given to the prior and convent for them to give to the master of the deacons, just as on the day of the Holy Innocents (28 December), it goes to the Master of the boys.20

Clause 10 reaffirms the customs detailing the abbot’s responsibility for certain categories of guests;21 Clause 12 stipulates that the abbot should take the customary allowance of a candle from the sacristy, neither more nor less on any pretext;22 and Clause 14 stipulates that he should take no more than 100s from the chamberlain’s office for clothing and the chamberlain should not be answerable for more.23 Of more importance, in view of the expensive litigation early in Simon’s abbacy, is Clause 9 which states that ‘by ancient custom’ the cost of all pleas concerning the convent’s portion, should be borne by the abbot24 –

19 20

21

22 23 24

Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 399. ‘Item abbas existens in villa Sancti Edmundi die Sancti Stephani (26 December) debet habere exennium de ballivis ville; extra vero secundum antiquam consuetudinem nullo modo debet habere, sed prior et conventus loco eius. Ita tamen quod exennium fiat magistro diaconorum sicuti fit die Innocencium (27 December) magistro puerorum.’ BL MS Harley 743, f. 266v–267; Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 403. The Customary states that on the feast of St Stephen ‘Vesperae … ad priorem, qui est sacerdos levitarum, pertinent simul cum suis Matutinis, Prima et Tercia praecedentibus’. Bury Cust., p. 10 lines 3–5 and n. 2. St Stephen the proto-martyr was a deacon. For the ceremonies observed by the priests at St Edmunds on his feast and on the feast of the Holy Innocents by the boys see the abbey’s fourteenth-century Rituale, BL MS Additional 2977, ff. 11–12. Similar customs were observed in Peterborough abbey. These are described in that abbey’s fourteenthcentury custumal. The relevant passage is discussed and printed in A. Gransden, ‘The Peterborough Customary and Gilbert de Stanford’, Revue Bénédictine, 70 (1960), p. 628 and n. 4; Karsten Friis-Jensen and J. M. Willoughby (eds), Peterborough Abbey, Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues, viii (London, 2001), pp. xxviii–xix, xliii–xlvi. Gransden, ‘Separations of Portions’, p. 400 and n. 143. These customs are substantially the same as those recorded by Jocelin of Brackland, and in the Composition of c. 1215, the Customary and in Alexander IV’s confirmation of St Edmunds’ customs. JB, p. 39 and Bury Cust., pp. 5 lines 16–23, 6 lines 16–68 passim, 66 lines 17–25, respectively. Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 400 and n. 145. Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 401. ‘Item si Abbas pro porcione conventus implacitet aut implacitetur, ipse secundum antiquam ecclesie consuetudinem omnes expensas circa placitum factas acquietare tenetur.’ Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 400 clause 9.

42

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

perhaps motivated by the occasion in 1267 when the monks were compelled to pay half the fine for St Edmunds’ part in the Barons’ War.25 A few clauses seem to be based on no known sources, nor do they cite ‘ancient custom’. Perhaps these were provoked by new inroads made by Simon and his servants into the convent’s portion. Thus, Clause 11 stipulates that the clerks, servants and others of the abbot’s household should live off their own resources so that the subcellarer and kitchener need supply them with nothing.26 Clause 13 stipulates that the abbot should not compel the convent to contribute a third, a half, nor indeed anything, to the support of any of his servants who might be accompanying the king or queen, unless both abbot and convent considered it expedient.27 But Clause 24 stipulates that the convent was to supply bread and ale from its kitchen if, at the instance of the king or queen, an allowance had to be made to a royal letter-bearer.28 Some clauses seem to hark back to disputes between Abbot Samson and the convent. Samson had angered the convent by raising the level of his fishpond at Babwell with the result that it flooded the cellarer’s meadow. Now Clause 22 forbids the abbot’s water-warden (custos aquarum) to mow anything at Babwell until the fields were open; nor was he to prevent the cellarer’s animals from paddling in the water in order to graze on the water plants or stop them from wandering where they liked. If he did so he would be punished by the loss of his allowance.29 Clause 20, which also has echoes of Samson’s time, forbids the abbot on any account to give support to any servant of an obedientiary (custos) if he flees to the abbot for protection, when he is at the obedientiary’s mercy for a fault, or is engaged in a lawsuit against the obedientiary and is contumacious.30 This prohibition could well have originated as a result of Samson’s dispute with the cellarer over the cellarer’s punishment of Ralph the Gatekeeper, one of his servants. Ralph appeared in suits in court against the convent, to the injury of the monks and abbey. In 1199, the prior, therefore, ordered that Ralph should be 25 26

27

28 29

30

Above pp. 30, 39. ‘Item clerici, servientes et reliqua familia abbatis subcelerariam sive coquinam gravare non debet set vivant de bonis suis, ita quod subcelerarius et coquinarius ad ipsos procurandos in nullo penitus teneantur.’ Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 400 clause 11 and n. 144. ‘Item si contingat quod aliquis finis fiat cum domino rege vel regina non debet compelli conventus ad contribuendum cum abbate sive in tercia sive in quarta sive in aliqua ipsius finis porcione nisi aliter utriquo parti videatur expedire.’ Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, pp. 400–1 clause 13. Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 403 clause 24. ‘Item custos aquarum abbatis nichil debet falcare apud Babewelle, quousque campi aperiantur nec eciam aliquo modo animalia celerarii debet impedire, quin tamen profunde herbagium in aqua depascant, quam ire possint ubi voluerint. Quod si fecerit per subtracionem liberacionis sue puniatur.’ Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 403 clause 22. See JB, p. 131. ‘Item si aliquis de hominibus alicuius custodis ceciderit in merciamento eius sive liber sive servus, aut litem aliquam habuit et adversus eum contumax existens ad abbatem confugerit, abbas illum contra jus prece vel precio non debet manutenere.’ Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 402 clause 20.



RELATIONS BETWEEN ABBOT SIMON AND THE CONVENT

43

deprived of various extra allowances which he enjoyed – but not of the corrody to which he was entitled by charter by virtue of his office. But Ralph complained to Samson in chapter that he had been unjustly and unreasonably deprived of his corrody. Samson thereupon ordered the cellarer to restore everything to him. The cellarer refused point-blank to do so and a bitter quarrel ensued.31 The last clause in the collection appears to be a new piece of legislation. Unlike the other clauses it begins: ‘It was established and provided, and, by the unanimous will and assent of the whole community, ordained that ...’ and it then lays down rules for the disposition of the possessions of a newly deceased monk. It reads: No one, neither the great nor unimportant persons, of whatever authority or rank, should touch the money of the deceased; after the funeral certain persons appointed by the convent should inspect the strong boxes, coffers and other locked receptacles, which no one else must dare approach or open, and carry to chapter whatever money they find, there to be turned to the convent’s profit, as the convent decides.32

This clause deserves special comment.33 It is particularly vivid and provides a welcome insight into one aspect of life in the cloister towards the end of the thirteenth century – it gives the impression that on occasion there had been an unseemly scramble for a deceased monk’s valuables. Perhaps the abbot’s servants were possible depredators. The Rule of St Benedict forbids property-owning by monks.34 Nevertheless, in the thirteenth century monks gained a control over goods and money in their possession which in effect amounted to proprietorship. The General Chapters legislated against this erosion of strict observance by insisting that on a monk’s death his goods should revert to the convent for redistribution or sale.35 But the repeated prohibitions show that the legislation failed to check this trend. Exactly how a monk’s goods and money were to be 31 32

33 34 35

JB, pp. 117–18. See Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 37–8. ‘Statutum est eciam et provisum atque de communi omnium et unanimi voluntate pariter et assensu est ordinatum quod quocumque congregacionis nostre monacho sive obedienciario sive claustrali in fata decedente, de pecunia post decessum alicuius talis vel talium sub earundem seruris vel alibi reperta, nullus maioris minorisve auctoritatis, cuiuscumque fuerit dignitatis aut tituli, in aliquo se intromittat, sed huiusmodi carne soluti corpore terre commendato, ad defuncti seu defunctorum carolas, cistas sive alias clausuras perscrutandas, certe cum priore designentur persone per capitulum. Ante quorum investigacionem sic faciendam, ad carolas, cistas sive alias ipsius defuncti seu defunctorum firminas nullus accedere vel eas audeat aperire. Pecunia vero ipsa si quam in huiusmodi firminis repperire contigerit, per dictos investigatores non obstante alicuius abusionis preterite prejudicio, in usus et profectus ipsius conventus convertenda in capitulum deferatur et de illa prout dicto visum fuerit conventui disponatur.’ Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, pp. 403–4 clause 25. See Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, pp. 393–4. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 33, pp. 230–1. See Knowles, MO, pp. 81, 484. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. pp. 9–10 § 6, p. 12 § 22, p. 38 § 8, p. 41 § 24. Ibid., iii. p. 403 index of subjects under Proprietas, proprietarii for further references. For the required distribution

44

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

distributed at St Edmunds is described in a memorandum by Henry of Kirkstead in one of the abbey’s registers, BL MS Harley 1005, f. 67v.36 The memorandum illustrates the precision with which the monks committed to writing the abbey’s long-established but unwritten customs, besides giving a general idea of what a cloister monk of St Edmunds might have in his possession at his death. The memorandum is partly in Latin and partly Middle English. Rendered in English it reads: Memorandum concerning the things left by a deceased monk, concerning what the Prior can claim by ancient custom and according to a chapter decree of the time of Dom W[illiam of Burnham], abbot [1335–61], and Dom E[dmund] of B[rundish], prior, [1346–61] that is, first one large ‘caneuaz’, one pair of large sheets, one silk pillow, one coverlet with canopy if they exist, otherwise not. Item, cape with hood and spurs, saddle and bridle but only such as cloister monks have. Item, silver seal with chain. Item, silk girdle with silver ornament. Item, ‘clothseck’ and ‘barides’ such as cloister monks have. Item, cupboards and strong boxes should be given to the cloister monks. Large chests and little chests, indeed, with all else, that is gold and silver with jewels, pertain to the treasurers, but do not show in their accounts. A blanket, girdle, knife, purse, ivory writing tablets with ‘bouwetta’ pillow belong to the infirmarer. The bearer of the mortuary roll [was entitled to] a saddle or half a mark.

A number of clauses relate to the convent’s servants, notably a group of four clauses near the beginning of the collection (clauses 5–8).37 Their sources have not been identified, but one clause refers to the ‘book of customs’ and two clauses refer to ‘ancient custom’ and perhaps represent the codification of unwritten customs. Their overall purpose was to promote discipline and economy in the running of the convent’s domestic affairs. Thus, clause five stipulates that: no servant, except for the convent’s two buyers, and the grooms, hostlers and

36

37

of a monk’s goods and money on his death see ibid., ii. p. 195 § 12 e. Cf. Greatrex, BRECP, p. 757. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 67v. The text of the memorandum reads: ‘Memorandum de relictis post fratr[is] defunctum de quibus prior ex consuetudine antiqua vendicare poterit et secundum decretum capituli temporibus dominorum W. abbatis et E de B prioris, videlicet primo j. caneuarum larg’, j. par stragularum larg’, j. p[u]luinar de serico, j. couerlit cum tester’ si sint, aliter non. Item j. capam cum capello et calcariis sellam et frenum (frūū sic MS) de claustralibus tantum. Item sigillum argenteum cum cathena. Item zonam de serico cum apparatu argenteo. Item clothseck’ et barides de claustralibus. Item armariola et caroles conferenda claustralibus. Ciste vero magne et cistule cum omnibus aliis scilicet argentum et aurum cum iocalibus pertinent ad thes[aurariis] nec patet in compotis eorum. Infirmario pertinent j. chalon, zona, cultellus, loculus, tabelle eburnee et alie cum bouwetta (puluinar in darker ink). Breuitori j. lectus vel dimidium marc’.’ It should be notd that the memorandum has a number of abbreviated words and I am not certain that I have expanded them correctly in all instances. The meanings of ‘clothseck’, ‘barides’ and ‘bouwetta’ are also obscure. A girdle (zona) here may be an ecclesiastical vestment. Lectus, the article to be given to the bearer of the mortuary roll, unless he is given half a mark instead, which I have translated as a saddle, can also mean ‘set of bedcloths’. Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, pp. 399–400.



RELATIONS BETWEEN ABBOT SIMON AND THE CONVENT

45

stablemen employed by the prior and cellarer, or other person in receipt of a daily allowance, was to enter the cellary; but he was to receive the allowance at the hatch (‘ad fenestram’); if the janitor or doorkeeper of the kitchen through neglect allow such a person to enter, he shall forfeit his allowance for that day without hope of its restitution;38 allowances should be collected at the times fixed by the kitchener, and under the eye of the kitchener, or of one of the buyers. Clause 6 states that because previously the five cooks had been negligent or dishonest, in future, according to ancient custom, they should serve in person, or substitute honest persons to serve, with the consent of the cellarer and kitchener; if they do otherwise or transgress in another way, they should be punished on account both of their own transgressions and those of their substitutes, according to the form of punishment described above’39 – that is, they were to lose their allowances. Clause 7 explicitly states that some servants had been claiming more food and drink than they were entitled to; therefore, in future they should have only the allowance specified in the book of customs. But, nevertheless, the five cooks and the buyers were allowed fish or meat, as appropriate to the day, on the feast of the Assumption, the feast of St Edmund and at Christmas.40 And clause 8 asserts that Abbot Simon had sometimes put the convent to unwarranted expense: he had ‘wrongly and against our wishes’ ordained that ‘servants of the court’, that is, servants of the guesthouse, the two stablemen, and the two buyers, should have lard (sagimen) and eggs from the kitchen and fine wheat flour (similam) from the subcellary, on the first Sunday of Lent; the clause stipulates that in future they were to have only what was due to them by ancient custom.41 Despite their apparent negligence over the abbey’s domestic administration, Abbot Simon and Prior Robert seem in some respects to have favoured stricter observance than the convent liked. This possibility is suggested by two consecutive clauses on the monks’ food and dietary regime.42 Thus clause 15 reaffirms the abbey’s ‘ancient custom’ that monks should have two meals on all days of twelve lessons unless there was a solemn fast. And clause 16 states that because ‘meals in the refectory are often meagre for shortage of fish’, the monks should have in addition froise as a dish and pittance, ‘so that diners would be better refreshed and revived’. Ffoyse (or froise or fraise) was a pancake or omelette containing meat.43 Both concessions involved the kind of relaxations in observance of the Rule of St Benedict which were typical of thirteenth-century monasticism. 38 39

40 41 42 43

‘… ipso die per liberacionis sue subtraccionem sine aliqua spe restitucionis puniatur.’ Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 399 clause 5. ‘Quod si aliter agant sive in aliquo alio deliquerint puniantur tam pro suis quam pro substitutorum suorum transgressionibus juxta formam punicionis supradictam.’ Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 399 clause 6. The back-reference is, of course, to clause 5. Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 399. Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, pp. 399–400. Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, pp. 401–2. SOED, and, for the practice at Westminster, Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 38, 55 n. 64, 220, 222 n. 20.

46

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

According to the Rule monks should only have one meal a day except in the period from Easter to Pentecost, when they had supper as well as dinner.44 Since froise contained meat, its establishment as a pittance meant that yet more meat was eaten in the refectory, contrary to the Rule which forbade monks to eat meat.45 This evidence is considered in more detail below, in Appendix II, alongside other sources relating to the monks’ food and dietary regime.

44 45

Rule, ed. Fry, c. 41.1–2, pp. 240/1. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 39.10, pp. 238/9.

6 John of Northwold’s Early Problems and Reforms At the outset of his abbacy in 1279, Abbot John was beset by abuses in the abbey’s domestic management and apparently by a strong movement in the convent in favour of reform.1 Just possibly he had bargained with the monks for their support in the abbatial election by promising to implement the reforms which they demanded. Less than a year after his election two key figures in the convent’s administration were replaced by new men. The prior, Robert Russel, who had held office throughout Simon’s abbacy, ‘after he had suffered from paralysis for some time, at length on the feast of St Paul (18 March) resigned his office, having consideration for his infirmity’.2 The sacrist, Simon of Kingston, about whose term of office the author of the Gesta sacristarum could find nothing memorable to report, also resigned.3 Like Russel, he may have been an old man since he was subcellarer already early in Abbot Simon’s time. The new prior was Stephen of Ixworth.4 Whether he was elected by the monks and approved by Abbot John, or appointed by the latter with the convent’s consent, is not known. The new sacrist was William of Hoo, a man of outstanding energy and ability who ruled the sacristy for fourteen years with notable success.5 These new appointments may have been among terms offered by John to the monks in exchange for his election. The concessions preserved in the statute issued on 16 October 1280 can be seen in the same light. The statute was formulated after full discussion between Abbot John, Prior Stephen and senior monks. In effect, Abbot John conceded that the usurpations of the monks’ rights and other abuses perpetrated under Abbot Simon would be corrected. If the statute did in fact originate as part of an attempt by John to win conventual support for his election to the abbacy, there would be a possible precedent. A draft survives, datable to c. 1215, of an agreement between an (unnamed) abbot of St Edmunds and the convent which was intended to rectify various abuses perpetrated by an (again unnamed) abbot, although the contents of the agreement make it plain 1 2 3 4

5

For the problems of indebtedness he also faced, see below chapters 13–15 on the abbey’s economy. Bury Chron., p. 71; Gesta sacrist., p. 295. Thomson, ‘Obedientiaries’, p. 97. On 12 April 1286, Stephen, priest, received a dispensation from Honorius IV to continue holding the priorate ‘non obstante natalium defectu quem patitur de soluto genitus et solute …’. Reg. Honorius IV, col. 330 no. 466. Below pp. 102–15.

48

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

that the culpable abbot was Samson. It seems likely that Hugh of Northwold was the abbot party to the agreement, and that it was the price he paid for his election after the prolonged and bitter contest with the rival candidate, the sacrist Robert of Graveley.6 The statute of 16 October 1280 has been considered for the light it throws on Abbot Simon’s rule.7 But it also provides valuable evidence about other matters. When Abbot John, Prior Stephen and the senior monks drew up the statute, they obviously had in mind the fate of the convent’s portion during the 1279 vacancy. One of their objectives was to strengthen the convent’s hand against any keeper of the abbot’s portion who might in future encroach on the convent’s portion. In a general sense, all the clauses which touched on the convent’s rights would have been useful since they defined those rights clearly in writing, and gave them statutory force within the abbey. This would have enabled the monks to defend them with more assurance in case of dispute. The first two clauses seem to relate directly to the 1279 vacancy: the first asserts the convent’s right to all income from its manors except from hidagium and foddercorn and from suit in the hundred courts. The tallaging of the borough by John of Berwick probably elicited the second clause: it stipulates that the borough should never be tallaged against the convent’s wishes because ‘it belongs specially to St Edmund’s altar’ (that is, in effect to the borough which belonged to the sacristy); and it states that even when the king tallaged his own boroughs, the abbot ought neither to take nor claim anything whatever from the borough of St Edmunds.8 The rest of the clauses of the statute concern domestic administration and religious observance in the convent, and were intended to protect the convent’s rights and those of specific obedientiaries against abbatial encroachments. Of more general application and with direct relevance to future vacancies were two documents of slightly later date than the statute of 16 October. The first was a mandate issued by the king on 16 December 1280, confirming that the town with all its temporal and spiritual liberties and revenues, as well as the mint, were for the benefit of the sacristy; and declared that the prior and convent should have and hold it during vacancies, saving to the king custody of the abbot’s barony.9 The tenor of this mandate is incorporated, with the additional provision that the burgesses should do homage to the abbot, in the second document, a statute drawn up by Abbot John and the convent and issued on 24 June 1281.10 The statute specifies exactly how the convent’s portion was divided among its obedientiaries. The overriding, but not quite exclusive, concern of this statute was with matters directly or indirectly relating to finance. It begins by listing the abbot’s regalities and tenant rights, and his rights over churches and over sergeanties ‘within the court of St Edmunds’. But it names neither 6 7 8 9 10

Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 32–43. Above, pp. 39–46. Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, 392, 398. Above p. 9. BL MS Harley 638, ff. 182v–183. Mon. Angl., iii. 156–8.



JOHN OF NORTHWOLD’S EARLY PROBLEMS AND REFORMS

49

his manors nor his churches. Then, starting with the cellarer as the greatest landholder among the obedientiaries, it lists the property and holdings of each obedientiary in turn, in order of their financial importance. This section of the statute ends with an entry on the precentor’s holdings, rights and responsibilities. It includes some precise details – for example, it states that two watermills in West Stow were assigned to the precentor ‘to pay for vellum and ink for the monks’, and that he had charge of the hospitals dependent on the abbey, that is St Nicholas’s, St Peter’s, St John’s and St Saviour’s (the location of each is given and details about the precentor’s responsibility for St Saviour’s). The next and last section of the statute concerns the financial obligations of the abbot and convent to each other. For example, the convent was to pay all the expenses of the abbot’s visit to Rome for confirmation and benediction, but the abbot was to bear the cost of litigation in secular and ecclesiastical courts concerning the convent’s property and rights. It forbids the abbot to interfere with the convent’s manors and other possessions except in matters concerning the crown. Finally, it specifies the respective obligations of abbot and convent for the provision of hospitality. Abbot John and the convent realized the prime importance of obtaining royal confirmation of the division of portions between abbot and convent. The statute of 24 June 1281 was drawn up with this objective in view and was submitted to the king with the request that he verify and confirm it. Sometime in 1281 before or after this petition of Abbot John and the prior and convent, Edward, at their request, issued a writ of certiorari11 to ‘his dear and faithful Roger of Leicester’.12 Roger was to hold a sworn inquest to discover the following: the annual value of the revenues of all the manors and other lands and holdings belonging to the prior and convent, saving the monks and their servants reasonable sustenance; how much revenue they could pay during a vacancy; whether there was ever any separation between the manors assigned to the prior and convent and those assigned to the abbot; if there was such a separation, how, when and by whom it had been made and whether subsequently the abbot and convent had held the 11

12

BL MS Harley 645, f. 265v. In my consideration of this writ I am deeply indebted to discussion with Paul Brand. For writs of certiorari and the consequent inquests see Sutherland, Quo Warranto, p. 199, and Plucknett, Legislation, p. 142. Roger of Leicester, whose landholdings were in Cambridgeshire, not in Leicester or Leicestershire, was a court clerk and from 1262 keeper of the writs and rolls. In 1276 he was appointed a justice of the Common Bench. The fact that his landholdings were in Cambridgeshire suggests that he was a relative of Master Robert of Leicester, who occurs as official of the bishop of Ely 1238–46, and he may possibly be identified as ‘Master R. of Leicester’ who occurs as an official of Ely in 1264. John le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066–1300, ii. Monastic Cathedrals, compiled by D. E. Greenway (London, 1971), p. 51. See also Brand, Earliest Law Reports, p. clxi. Roger of Leicester could be confused with Robert of Leicester, keeper of rolls and writs in eyre 1279–88, Crook, Records, p. 157. Presumably, the latter must not be identified with Master Robert of Leicester, ‘professor of law’, who sometime between 1280 and 1294 was retained by William of Hoo for a ‘certain sum’ to support his causes and advise him in the royal courts and business transaction, in person or by proxy. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 86–7 no. 166 and n. 1. See below p. 92.

50

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

manors assigned to them in accordance with the separation; and any other relevant information. Although the heading of the only copy of the writ known to me dates it 1281, 9 Edward 1 (that is, 20 November 1280–19 November 1281), it does not give the day-date. Nor do we know the outcome of the inquest. Therefore, whether the statute issued on 24 June 1281 was composed before or after the inquest is a matter for speculation. It may be that the inquest failed to prove the existence of a long-established and observed separation of portions at St Edmunds, which suggests that the boundaries between the respective properties of abbot and convent were ill-defined. In that case, the purpose of the statute of 24 June 1281 was to rectify that defect and must postdate the inquest, thus paving the way for royal confirmation of the separation. On 16 November 1281 Edward confirmed the separation of portions as set forth in the statute of 24 June.13 The confirmation reproduces the statute’s text and ends with the declaration that in future Edward and his successors would observe the division and only occupy the abbot’s barony and his other holdings and revenues during future vacancies. For this royal confirmation the abbey paid a very substantial fine of 1,000 marks, besides 100 marks to the queen14 (the ‘queen’s gold’, that is, the fixed tariff of a tenth of fines paid to the king, the share due to the queen).15 In addition, there were other expenses incurred in the transaction, which, the chronicler laments, ‘amounted to an immense sum’. Possibly the chronicler included among the additional expenses payments for the royal confirmations of St Edmunds’ charters of liberties which Abbot John and the convent obtained at the same time. Abbot John’s defence of those liberties will be considered in the next chapters.

13 14 15

Mon. Angl., iii. 156–8. See C Ch. R, 1257–1300, p. 259. Bury Chron., p. 73, TNA E 372/124 Pipe Rolls, 8 Edward I, M. 3d. For the ‘queen’s gold’ see Chew, Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief, pp. 81 and n. 6, 82 and n. 3.

7 St Edmunds and the Crown – Introduction The rule of John of Northwold is of particular importance in the abbey’s history because it coincided with the period of Edward I’s greatest reforming and legislative activity. Edward’s reforms and legislation posed a challenge to the privileges enjoyed by franchise holders. The responsibility for defending the liberties of St Edmunds, one of the most highly privileged franchises in the land, fell to Abbot John. His consequent struggle reached a crisis, as will be seen, in the parliament of 1290. Abbot John’s register is lost, but what information survives about its contents shows both that it was a very substantial volume, and that its main concern was the maintenance of the abbey’s privileges and titles to various estates.1 When John of Northwold went to Rome in 1279 for the confirmation of his election, he also obtained Pope Nicholas III’s confirmation, dated 20 September, of all the ‘liberties and immunities’ granted to the abbey by previous popes.2 On 22 September Nicholas also granted that any ‘privileges and indulgences’ which the abbot and convent had not used should nevertheless remain in force,3 and he issued two further bulls strengthening the authority of the abbot and convent to enforce their rights against those who usurped or opposed them.4 Like his predecessors, Abbot John also obtained royal confirmation of St Edmunds’ liberties early in his abbacy. Edward confirmed them on 16 November 1281.5 It should be noted that on the same day, at the instance of the prior and convent, Edward confirmed the division of conventual property from the abbot’s barony.6 Only thus armed with these papal and royal confirmations could Abbot John hope to resist royal encroachments on St Edmunds’ liberties successfully.7 Edward’s aggressive policy towards private franchises was, as is well known, a result of both the need for money and the desire for reform. It brought him into conflict with St Edmunds, as it did with many other liberty holders. Whether 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Thomson, Archives, p. 7. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 78; Pinch. Reg., i. 39–40. This confirmation is not in Reg. Nicholas III, ed. Gay. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 78v; Pinch. Reg., i. 40. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 78v–79v; Pinch. Reg., i. 40–1. C Ch. R, 1257–1300, p. 258. C Ch. R, 1257–1300, p. 258. See above p. 50. Cf. Gransden, ‘John de Northwold and his defence of [St Edmunds’] liberties’, pp. 91–102.

52

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

he was ignorant of the exact nature of St Edmunds’ privileges or merely highhanded (or both) is hard to say. Abbot John’s disputes with the crown began well before the 1290 crisis. During Edward’s recoinage of 1279/80, a dispute had stemmed from the abbot’s and sacrist’s insistence that the mint remained operative, with one of their motives undoubtedly being the desire to maintain Bury St Edmunds’ importance as a centre of trade. Coins minted at St Edmunds were an important part of the local currency (as well as having use further afield). Commerce was also a lucrative source of crown revenue. It was equally important for the maintenance of commerce and crown revenue that weights and measures should be standard throughout the realm.8 The regulation of weights and measures became another focus of conflict between royal and abbatial officials. Edward, on his visit to Bury in April 1275, had confirmed the convent’s rights to hold the view of weights and measures without the presence of his official.9 The abbot and convent, relying on their privilege that no royal minister could exercise power in the town (that is, the banleuca), interpreted Edward’s concession to mean that only their officials could hold the view there. However, within the verge – the area of special jurisdiction around the royal court – the standard for weights and measures was enforced by the king’s marshal, or by the marshal’s clerk of the market, in the marshalsea court. During a royal visit, the position of the two rival authorities was anomalous. Edward’s confirmation neglected the ancient right of the marshalsea court within the verge. Conflict between the rival jurisdictions of St Edmunds and the marshalsea was likely, and in 1285 such conflict broke out. Edward came to Bury St Edmunds on 24 February, and Ralph of Middlington,10 the king’s clerk of the market, held the view of weights and measures in the tollhouse. The abbot and convent protested to Ralph that his session was to the prejudice of their Liberty of the banleuca. Since Ralph did not agree, Abbot John, the sacrist, William of Hoo, and one of the abbey’s most senior councillors, Ralph of Alne (de Alneto),11 who acted as spokesman, complained to the king. Edward replied that Ralph of Middlington claimed to have held the view in the town in Henry III’s presence. This Ralph of Alne denied. Edward, therefore, appointed auditors. Ralph of Middlington offered to prove his case by the evidence of the rolls and of a jury. Abbot John, the sacrist, and their councillors produced an estreat12 showing that when Henry III came to Bury St Edmunds the bailiffs of the vill had exercised the office under the eyes of the king’s offi8 9 10

11 12

Powicke, Thirteenth Century, p. 620 and n. 1. Bury Chron., pp. 57–8. Middlington (Hants.) or Middleton (CCR, 1279–88, p. 335), which is a common placename. Bury Chron., p. 83. A full account of the dispute is in BL MS Harley 645, f. 49–49v; printed in Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 125–30 no. 7. See also Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 37–9, and below pp. 70–1. de Alneto is a common name, and is likely to be of Norman origin. An estreat was an extract, a true copy, of an original document, recording, for example: a conveyance of land or rights by final concord (a fictitious action); amercements for wrongdoing. The record of the sums owed to the crown was passed to the Exchequer and thence



ST EDMUNDS AND THE CROWN – INTRODUCTION

53

cial. They also produced Edward’s charter of liberties – which charter Ralph of Middlington said infringed the Liberty of the marshalsea. The auditors offered the abbot and convent an inquest, but they refused, fearing to compromise their privileges. To strengthen their case, two men, William of Walpole and Luke son of John, who had been bailiffs when Edward came to Bury St Edmunds in 1275,13 produced ‘standard’ measures, asserting that they had received them from Ralph of Middlington so that they could seal their own measures, as they were prepared to swear. Nevertheless, the auditors were unwilling to pronounce, and the abbot and convent put themselves on the king’s mercy. Edward took counsel and ordained that when he visited Bury St Edmunds, the officials of the marshalsea should exercise their office in the customary way; between royal visits the abbot and convent should view the measures in the same manner once or twice a year, and the profits be used for the shrine of St Edmund. Evidently Abbot John was still unsatisfied, for on 12 June 1285 Edward conceded, ‘out of reverence for St Edmund’, that all revenues from any view held at Bury by his own officials should likewise go to St Edmund’s shrine. When Edward stayed at Bury St Edmunds from 16 to 18 January 1296, he replaced this charter by another (dated 18 January) specifing exactly the sources of the revenue.14 The problem of the violation by the king’s clerk of the market of the abbey’s privilege that no royal official was to exercise power within the banleuca was also addressed. Edward’s charter of 12 June 1285 contains a clause specifying that sessions of the king’s clerk of the market were not to prejudice the Liberty of the banleuca. During his visit in January 1296, Edward made a more concrete concession. When his court of the marshalsea sat in the abbot’s hall of pleas, Abbot John once again showed his charters of liberties, objecting that the session was contrary to the privilege that no royal official could exercise power in the banleuca. Edward allowed the Liberty, had it proclaimed that all such pleas should be held outside the boundaries in the suburbs at Babwell, and granted a charter to this effect. The importance which the monks attached to this charter is indicated by the number of copies, dating from between the late thirteenth and early fifteenth century, which survive in the abbey’s registers. Henceforth, it could be cited as a precedent when there were disputes over the abbey’s liberties.15 So far we have considered individual cases in which Edward’s drive for money and governmental efficiency brought him into conflict with St Edmunds’ liberties, as, indeed, it often did with other private franchises. In such instances Edward presumably saw such liberties as potential hindrances to reform, and their holders as recipients of income which he would like to have had himself.

13 14 15

to the sheriff or other officer responsible for their collection. Records of the sums owed are preserved in the Fine Rolls in the TNA. Cf. Bury Chron., pp. 57–8. BL MS Harley 743, ff. 65v–66; CPR, 1281–92, p. 178, with the note that ‘vacated because otherwise on roll of 24 Edward I’. BL MS Additional 14847, f. 50–50v.

54

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

However, the fact remained that the liberties existed. He and his council could dispute claims based on prescriptive right – Abbot John failed to establish his right to a standard and assay for his mint probably because he did not produce written evidence in support of his claim. Nonetheless, Edward could not override an existing privilege based on a royal charter, although he might well question the charter’s purport. As mentioned above, Abbot John had appealed to St Edmunds’ charter of privilege in his disputes with the king in 1279 and 1285 (in the latter instance he also argued from prescriptive right). Sutherland writes: ‘In comparison with the doubtful worth of prescriptive right, a royal charter was a stronghold of defence for the liberty-holder.’16 He wrote this with reference to the Quo Warranto campaign, which must now be considered. In any dealings with a private franchise the king had of necessity to know exactly what its liberties comprised. He could only ascertain this by examining the warrant by which the liberty-holder made his claim. In this way he could discover whether a liberty-holder was exercising rights and taking income to which he was not entitled. Edward had succeeded to the throne on the death of his father in November 1272 whilst the new king had been away on crusade. Although he did not arrive back in England until August of 1274, he put in motion the first stages of his Quo Warranto campaign almost immediately after his return. The impact of Edward’s Quo Warranto campaign on St Edmunds is obvious from the public records. But even more telling is evidence in the abbey’s registers. Clearly, the proceedings gave rise to a flurry of research within the abbey into the origins of St Edmunds’ landholdings and liberties, and prompted more assiduous record-keeping. Perhaps the list of the abbey’s benefactors, versions of which occur in some of the registers, originated at this time as a response to Edward’s policy. The earliest known copy of the list is datable to c. 1270.17 The list is remarkable because it includes unique copies of the abbey’s Anglo-Saxon charters of donation. The originals of most of them are lost, and the transcripts in the registers are the only known texts. Perhaps the monks now focussed on them in order to help defend their holdings and rights against the king. The registers also have information directly concerning the Quo Warranto campaign, for example, about the inquiry into private franchises which Edward began in October 1274 (part of the wider set of inquiries generally known as the 16

17

Sutherland, Quo Warranto, p. 111. Although claims of liberty holders that they held by prescriptive right, because they had held them ‘from time out of mind’, were allowed early in Edward’s Quo Warranto campaign, such titles were challenged in the eyres from 1280 onwards. Therefore, claimants might prefer to base their claims on royal charters made before time out of mind. Ibid., pp. 83–5; Paul Brand, ‘“Quo Warranto” law in the reign of Edward I: a hitherto undiscovered opinion of Chief Justice Hengham’, The Irish Jurist, n.s. 14 (1979), pp. 158–9. The article is reprinted in Brand, The Making of the Common Law, pp. 393–443, esp. pp. 435–6. The copy in BL MS Harley 1005, ff. 81–81v, 83, is in the same hand as the only known complete text of the Bury Customary (ibid., ff. 102–19), that is, the scribe whom I call ‘A’ (above p. 36, and below pp. 138–40), writing in the 1260s and early 1270s. A later thirteenth-century copy is in CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 45–50v. An early fourteenth-century copy is printed in Pinch. Reg., ii. 282–94.



ST EDMUNDS AND THE CROWN – INTRODUCTION

55

Hundred Rolls enquiry of 1274–5),18 and about the similar undertaking in 1279– 80,19 and that in 1284–5 (‘Kirkby’s Quest’).20 They also have abundant material about the Quo Warranto proceedings themselves, in so far as they concerned St Edmunds’ estates, although for each individual case the information tends to be fragmentary. The Gloucester parliament of 1278 provided that henceforth Quo Warranto claims should be heard not in parliament but in sessions of the general eyre and coram rege in the counties (although the provision for Quo Warranto sessions coram rege remained a dead letter).21 David Crook points out that in consequence pleas concerning the Quo Warranto investigations became a ‘major part’ of the work of eyre justices.22 The St Edmunds registers and the eyre rolls record a number of Quo Warranto pleas touching the abbot which were heard by the royal justice Solomon of Rochester, mainly in the Suffolk eyre in the winter of 1286–7.23 At the start of proceedings, on 3 November at Ipswich, Abbot John sought his Liberty. He claimed that pleas about his holdings there or in which inhabitants of the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds were parties should be determined by the king’s justices at Cattishall; those concerning inhabitants of, and holdings in, the banleuca of Bury St Edmunds itself, should be determined by the abbot’s own justices and writs delivered to him. Jurors testified in the same vein that itinerant justices in the county were wont to deliver to the abbot all writs touching holdings within St Edmunds’ banleuca, to be pleaded there before justices chosen by the abbot.24 Solomon of Rochester, therefore, held a session at

18 19

20

21 22 23

24

BL MS Harley 645, f. 257. See CPR, 1272–81, p. 59; Sutherland, Quo Warranto, pp. 17–18. The commission of 1279–80 surveyed the country, hundred by hundred. Among the surviving rolls are those for West Suffolk. These include eight hundreds where St Edmunds had substantial holdings. Fourteen-century copies of them are in two of St Edmunds’ registers: BL MS Harley 743, ff. 149–257v; CUL MS Ee. iii. 60, ff. 234–329v, printed Pinch. Reg., ii. 30–282. See Raban, A Second Domesday?, pp. 7, 78, 108–10, 161 and n. 73, 162; Sutherland, Quo Warranto, pp. 167, 184, 186; H. M. Cam, The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls (London, 1930), pp. 28–9; E. A. Kosminsky, Studies in the Agrarian History of England in the Thirteenth Century, ed. R. H. Hilton, trans. from the Russian by Ruth Kisch (Oxford, 1956), pp. 8–9. For ‘Kirkby’s Quest’, which took its name from that of the treasurer in 1284, John of Kirkby (bishop of Ely 1286–90), see Raban, A Second Domesday?, pp. 13, 85, 173–4, 189 n. 1; Sutherland, Quo Warranto, pp. 167, 171, 172; Cam, The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls, pp. 28, 47, 120, 135, 173 n. 3, 218, 227–8, 243. See Sutherland, Quo Warranto, pp. 25–7, 34, 36, 73. For the best printed text see pp. 190–3. Crook, Records, p. 144. For Solomon of Rochester, see Paul Brand, ‘Rochester, Solomon of (c.1240–1293)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23919, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. For a copy of Abbot John’s plea before Solomon of Rochester at Ipswich on 2 November see BL MS Harley 645, f. 138.

56

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

Cattishall, from 14 January to 5 February 1287.25 On the first day jurors testified in the same way as they had at Ipswich and Abbot John again claimed jurisdiction within the banleuca; his claim was allowed. However, this was not the end of the matter. In a case heard in 1291, justices of the King’s Bench ruled that the abbot did not have this right in the banleuca.26 A few examples of Quo Warranto pleas heard by Solomon of Rochester illustrate the kinds of evidence Abbot John and his attorneys used to support their claims. For instance, to defend his right to the Liberty of the banleuca, Abbot John cited the precedent of the concession made during Martin of Pattishall’s eyre of 1228.27 Jurors presented that the abbot held the vill of Beccles by gift of King Stephen28 and claimed in it view of frankpledge, amercements from the assize of bread and ale, gallows, a weekly market and two fairs a year, but they did not know by what warrant. Abbot John said he and his predecessors had held the manor and its privileges from the time of King Eadwig.29 (Eadwig, 25 26

27 28 29

Crook, Records, p. 167. The session and some of its proceedings are noticed in Bury Chron., p. 88. See below p. 141. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 81v, 138. This judgement was given in the course of a case of false judgement brought by Hamo, rector of Attleborough, and is calendared in Placitorum in domo Capitulari Westmonasteri asservatorum abbreviatio (Record Commission, 1811), p. 224. Paul Brand contributed the following information from the enrolment on the King’s Bench plea roll for Mich. term 1290 (TNA, KB 27/125, m. 57), which I quote with his kind permission: ‘When the abbot and his two justices appear, the abbot claims that he properly assigned the two justices to hear the case, as when he was created abbot he found his church seised of the franchise of so doing. Hamo claims (on behalf of himself and the king) that the proper practice when the abbot claims pleas for hearing in the banleuca court is for such pleas to be heard in the tollhouse by the alderman and burgesses, and puts himself on the record of the Bench justices that, when this case was remitted to Bury, it was for hearing in this way and not before two justices. The case is then adjourned and not resumed till Michaelmas term 1291. Hamo now claims that the abbot is not in seisin of the franchise of appointing his own justices to hear pleas within the banleuca. The abbot had claimed this right in the last eyre but it had not been allowed and it had been the king who had appointed Henry of Guildford and Richard Weyland to determine pleas within the banleuca (and this was, he said, the practice also in previous eyres). The abbot apparently cannot deny that this was the case, and since he could not prove that the king had subsequently granted him the right to appoint his own justices, his attempt to do this was not characterized as being a recens occupacio against the Crown rather than possession of the auctoritas judicandi. The court suggests that even if the abbot is entitled to claim cases for the hearing of his court, the presumption must be that judgement in them should then be made by the suitors of his court rather than by justices he appoints. Hamo is advised that the whole proceedings are therefore null and void, and that he is entitled to bring an assize of novel disseisin to reverse the effect of the purported judgement (as being made before a court not competent to act because it was wrongly constituted).’ For the case of Hamo of Attleborough see below pp. 75–6. BL MS Harley 645, f. 81v. Stephen granted St Edmunds everything he had in the manor except pleas of the Crown. Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, p. 83 no. 63. BL MS Harley 230, f. 119. For claimants’ preference for a royal charter made before time out of memory to prescriptive right based on tenure from time out of mind see above n. 255.



ST EDMUNDS AND THE CROWN – INTRODUCTION

57

who ruled from 955 to 959, appears as the donor of Beccles in a version of the late thirteenth-/early fourteenth-century Benefactors List, with the note ‘sine carta’.30) To prove that they had held it under Edward the Confessor, he called Domesday Book to warrant.31 Jurors presented that the abbot claimed view of frankpledge and amercements from the assize of bread and ale from his tenants in Wortham, and these and other liberties, which they specified, in Redgrave, Brockford and Palgrave, but they did not know by what warrant. Abbot John by his attorney said that his predecessors had died seised of these liberties. He was summoned to answer the king by what warrant he held them. He said that St Edmunds had been seised of these manors and liberties from the time of Edward the Confessor, and that the present king had confirmed its right to them. He showed the charter of Cnut, which stated: that St Edmunds should have cognition of all causes in its vills;32 Edward the Confessor’s confirmation (in English) of this privilege;33 and Edward I’s own confirmation,34 which was ‘enrolled in the rolls of the Essex eyre’. Finally, he asserted that he and his predecessors had remained in seisin until the present day, and jurors testified to this. Because of the large size of St Edmunds’ Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds and extensive privileges of its Liberty in the banleuca, and the abbey’s many other holdings elsewhere, Abbot John must have been much harassed by seemingly endless Quo Warranto cases. But one particular aspect of the campaign especially concerned him – the right to amercements and various other profits of justice. This was a matter which had been a focus of attention for successive abbots. For example, from 1242/3 until at least 1275/6 successive abbots were in dispute at the Exchequer over their claim to amercements from inhabitants 30

31

32

33 34

For copies of the Benefactors List see above n. 17. The original scribe of the List in BL MS Harley 1005 names King Stephen as the donor of Beccles (f. 81), but Henry of Kirkstead notes (f. 81v): ‘957 Eddius [i.e. Eadwig] rex dedit Sancto Edmundo Becles sed sine carta’. It is unlikely that Eadwig was the donor since his known grants of land were almost exclusively in the south west, the west midlands and in the home counties. A possible exception was a grant to Ely. Sawyer, Charters, p. 219 no. 646. However, by the early fourteenth century Eadwig was considered to be the donor not only of Beccles but also ‘of nearly all other lands of which, in most people’s opinion, the donor is uncertain’ (‘fere omnes alias terras quarum plerisque incertus est collator’). Pinch. Reg., ii. 284. BL MS Harley 230, f. 119. Cf. DB, Suffolk, i. 14. 120. For the importance of Domesday Book as evidence in some Quo Warranto cases see E. M. Hallam, Domesday Book through Nine Centuries (London, 1986), pp. 49–50; Sutherland, Quo Warranto, p. 53; Homans, English Villagers, pp. 278–81. Abbot Samson had similarly referred to Domesday Book in support of his claim to Mildenhall. JB, p. 46. For references to Domesday Book in St Edmunds’ registers to support specific rights in the thirteenth century see TNA, DL MS 42/5, f. 7, and CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 142. For an extract from it see BL MS Harley 1005, f. 38. BL MS Harley 230, f. 119; Placita de Quo Warranto (Record Commission, 1818), p. 733. Cnut’s charter in its present form is of doubtful authenticity. Sawyer, Charters, pp. 293–4 no. 980. Edward the Confessor’s charter of confirmation is almost certainly spurious. Sawyer, Charters, pp. 311–12 no. 1045, and Harmer, Writs, p. 141 and n. 2. C Ch. R, 1257–1300, p. 258.

58

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

of the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds even if those inhabitants were not of St Edmunds’ fee. Time and time again the case was put in respect – postponed – for further consultation. The abbots appealed to their charters, but these were not precise enough to answer the question.35 The abbots apparently had some success in simply taking certain profits of justice, without obtaining formal recognition of their right. A mid-fourteenth-century historical narrative of the abbots’ battle for the profits of justice states that in 52 Henry III (1267/8) Simon of Luton ‘occupied’ the chattels of felons in the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds, and the convent did the same in its manors.36 Abbot John’s anxiety to obtain the profits of justice must have been the more acute because of the abbey’s financial plight in the later thirteenth century. He petitioned the king (in French) in the Easter (or just possibly in the Hilary) parliament of 1290, that his liberties should be allowed in the Exchequer.37 To support his case some of the abbey’s charters of privilege were read out in parliament, that is: Cnut’s charter; Edward the Confessor’s charter of privilege and also his grant of the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds;38 Henry I’s and Henry II’s confirmations; and Edward I’s own confirmation. The record of this occasion notes that ‘there was no need to show any other charters because these were the best’, and comments that the seal of Edward the Confessor’s grant of the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds was in an embroidered silk pouch. Particularly remarkable is an entry in the Parliament Rolls which shows that Abbot John was one of the leaders of the franchise-holders struggling to obtain the judicial profits of their liberties. It reads: The abbot of Fécamp [William de Putot], the abbot of St Edmunds, and various prelates and other magnates of the realm petitioned the king in the parliament after Easter in the eighteenth year of his reign. […] The king, therefore, by special grace conceded that all liberties and charters allowed in the eighteenth year of Henry, his father [that is in 1234], and all charters allowed before that, should henceforth be allowed.39 35

36

37

38

39

Relevant extracts from the Exchequer memoranda rolls are in BL MS Harley 743, ff. 92v–94v. For the case against Abbot Simon of Luton in 1275 see Sutherland, Quo Warranto, p. 21 and n. 1. For this narrative of the occupation by, and allowance to, the abbots from Edmund of Walpole to Richard of Draughton, of profits of justice accruing from St Edmunds’ liberties, see CUL MS Ff. ii. 29, ff. 1v–3. For a copy of the petition see BL MS Additional 14847, ff. 54v–55. It is headed: ‘Forma peticionis domini J[ohannis] abbatis Sancti Edmundi porrecte domino E[dwardo] Regi pro allocacione cartarum libertatis Sancti Edmundi in parliamento suo’, dated 18 Edward. For the importance of the Hilary and Easter parliaments of 1290 in the Quo Warranto campaign see Sutherland, Quo Warranto, pp. 91–8, 120–1. Above nn. 271, 272, and Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, pp. 62–3 no. 21, 93–4 no. 80. Probably Sawyer, Charters, p. 319 no. 1069, but possibly p. 323 no. 1084; Harmer, Writs, pp. 154–5 no. 9, 164–7 no. 24 respectively. The passage in the Parliament Rolls is cited in Sutherland, Quo Warranto, p. 205. It reads: ‘Cum Abbas de Fiscampo, Abbas de Sancto Edmundo, et alii diversi tam prelati quam ceteri magnates de regno ad parliamentum domini regis post Pascham anno regni



ST EDMUNDS AND THE CROWN – INTRODUCTION

59

The passage continues that Edward ordered charters of later date to be shown at the Exchequer40 and only what they specifically granted allowed.41 At least three of St Edmunds’ registers have a copy of the writ of 27 May 1290 to the barons of the Exchequer implementing this important decision.42 It was important because it restored a useful Exchequer practice which had been forbidden in 1234. By it the Exchequer would challenge a liberty-holder’s claim to amercements and the like; the liberty-holder would thereupon show his warrant; if satisfied, the barons of the Exchequer would ‘allow’ the Liberty, thus establishing a precedent. Abbot John’s part in the Easter parliament of 1290, when he acted not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of other franchise-holders, gave rise to a highly coloured story giving a moving account of Abbot John’s tireless endeavours on his church’s behalf, and the timely help rendered by the martyred St Edmund himself. The story is preserved in the version of the Nova legenda copied at St Edmunds in c. 1370.43 It also appears in one of the abbey’s fifteenth-century registers as the preliminary to an account of the Quo Warranto proceedings of 1290, in so far as they related to St Edmunds, and of the abbey’s subsequent defence of its liberties until Edward III’s confirmation of them in 1346.44 The story relates that in about 1291 (sic for 1290), Edward I, moved by the need for money to pay for his wars, took private franchises, especially ecclesiastical ones, into his hands. Every prelate laboured for the restoration of his church’s liberties. Among them John, abbot of St Edmunds, toiled at great expense and without intermission. But cupidity grew and the counsel of the wicked ruled, so that, regardless of God and the saints, fiscal considerations prevailed. Abbot John, observing this, and realizing that hitherto his efforts had been in vain, produced St Edmunds’ royal charters of privilege in parliament at Westminster, accusing the king of wilfully revoking what his predecessors had granted. He concluded, ‘I am broken by age and exhausted by my labours to recover these [privileges];

40 41

42 43 44

sui decimo octavo ipsi domino regi supplicarunt quod carte sue de amerciamentis sibi ad Scaccarium allocarentur, idem dominus rex de gracia sua speciali concessit quod omnes libertates et carte huiusmodi qui allocate fuerunt decimo octavo anno regni regis Henrici patris ipsius domini regis et eciam omnes carte de tempore precendenti allocentur de cetero’. BL MS Additional 14847, f. 55v, and BL MS Harley 645, ff. 68, 164; CUL MS Ff. ii. 29, ff. 18v–19. ‘Et idem dominus rex vult et precipit quod carte de parquisitis a tempore illo factis videantur et ostendantur ad Scaccarium sub forisfactura eorumdem perquisitorum: et si nichil speciale contineatur in cartis illis per concessionem domini regis nunc aut domini Henrici regis patris sui per quod predicti abbates, prelati, et ceteri magnates qui tales libertates clamant libertates illas habere debent, quod idem dominus rex de perquisitis illis amerciamenta habeat sicut habuit antequam perquisita illa facta fuerunt’. Rot. Parl., i. 35, cited Sutherland, Quo Warranto, p. 205. For the procedure established in 1234 see M. T. Clanchy (ed.), The Roll and Writ File of the Berkshire Eyre of 1248 (Selden Soc., 90, 1972–3), p. xvii and n. 6. The story is printed from Bodl. Lib., MS Bodley 240 in Memorials, ii. 365 and Horstmann, Nova legenda, ii. 667. CUL MS Ff. iv. 35, f. 3.

60

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

I can do no more, but commit the case between the martyred Edmund and his church, and you, my earthly Lord, to the Supreme Judge’.45 John then took his leave and sadly went home. That night when the king went to bed, he was suddenly struck with terror, leapt to his feet and called his household. He said that he had had a vision: St Edmund would punish him as a second King Swein, whom the saint had killed at Gainsborough. Immediately afterwards Edward had it pronounced that whoever claimed a liberty should come to court without delay; St Edmund, he said, had raised his banner for them all.46 Although the old procedure was restored in 1290, franchise-holders complained that the Exchequer did not implement the king’s mandate properly. The matter was raised again in the Epiphany parliament of 1292 and the instructions to the barons of the Exchequer were repeated.47 In response to the restoration of the old practice Abbot John had all memoranda and rolls of the Exchequer scrutinized,48 but no record of any allowance of profits of justice to St Edmunds was found, only that Abbot Simon had ‘occupied’ the chattels of felons. However, by virtue of this ‘occupation’ and of St Edmunds’ charters, Abbot John’s claim was accepted by the barons of the Exchequer in 1291.49 He was allowed amercements worth £655 7s 4d in Suffolk and £34 17s 11d in Norfolk, on the account of William de Reedham (‘Redham’), sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk (1290–4). The Pipe Roll for 19 Edward I (1290/1) has two entries of this allowance. The first was cancelled and a note added: ‘cancellatus quia melius in Resid’ Norff’ et Suff’ ’ (‘cancelled because better in Residuum Norfolk and Suffolk’) – a definitive version of the same entry duly appearing in ‘Residuum Norff’ et Suff’ ’.50 It was not until 1292 that the Bury Chronicle recorded Abbot John’s success at the Exchequer, stating: On the quindene of Easter, on the account of William of Reedham, sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, our charters of liberties were allowed at the Exchequer, and the liberties specified in them, hitherto undifferentiated, adjudged to our church for ever.51

The chronicler continues, giving examples of the categories of profits, such as

45

46 47 48 49 50

51

‘Et ego senio confectus et laboribus pro illis recuperandis debilitatus ultra prosequi non valeo. Sed coram summo judice causam inter martyrem Edmundum et ecclesiam ejus et te, dominum meum terrenum, terminandam committo’. Memorials, ii. 365. Sutherland, Quo Warranto, pp. 6, 121; Plucknett, Legislation, p. 37 n. 9. Rot. Parl., i. 79–80; Sutherland, Quo Warranto, pp. 120–1, 206–9. CUL MS Ff. ii. 29, f. 2, 2v. A copy of the writ to the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer (CCR 1288–96, pp. 256–7) is in BL MS Harley 645, f. 164. TNA, E 372/136, m. 40; ibid., m. 34d. For copies of the entry see BL MSS Additional 14847, f. 55, 55v, and Harley 645, ff. 68, 68v, 164, 164v. Residuum refers to the final portion of the Pipe Roll account for the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk (split over two or more separate rotulets of the roll). Bury Chron., p. 114.



ST EDMUNDS AND THE CROWN – INTRODUCTION

61

common amercements, murder fines, and a year and a day.52 A much fuller list, dated 20 Edward I, is in the ‘Lakenheath’ register.53 The chronicler concludes his account of St Edmunds’ triumph with the notice that £640 was immediately credited to the abbot. It may be that the Chronicler made this entry under 1292 instead of 1291 (unless he simply mistook the date) since the monks were dissatisfied with the original allowance because of its lack of precision. They needed to have specified the exact categories of profits of justice to which St Edmunds was entitled. Therefore, the entry in the Pipe Roll was cancelled and the other one substituted. The attention the chronicler gives to the Exchequer allowance and the number of copies of it in St Edmunds’ registers show the importance that the monks attached to the matter, but the struggle did not end in 1292, as some categories of profits had still not been allowed. Following the example of Abbot Simon, John tried to obtain the allowance of fines by first ‘occupying’ them in the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds, and the convent did the same on their manors; they were unsuccessful. It remained for their successors to add fines and some other categories of profits to the list won by Abbot John.54 Abbot John’s claim to exhaustion, quoted above in relation to his defence of the liberties in 1290, may mean that he was suffering the debility of old age (although he was to live another ten years). Indeed, on 18 October 1290, he obtained a royal licence, ‘upon petition, to make his testament touching his own goods and chattels, and for his executors, on giving security for debts to the king, to have free disposition thereof’.55 This does not prove that John did actually make his will in 1290, nor that he was in fact feeling his age or suffering illness, especially as already on 28 August 1286 Pope Honorius IV, at Abbot John’s petition, had issued a licence for him to bequeath his movables, except those attached to the altar.56 Although there is no evidence that he attended the General Chapters of the Benedictines of the Southern Province held in the 1290s (nor that held at Oxford in 1300),57 he was among the many prelates who attended the funeral of Eleanor of Provence at Old Sarum (near Salisbury) on 11

52 53

54

55 56 57

‘A year and a day’ here specifically means the king’s right on the conviction of a felon to hold his or her lands (and to waste them) for a year and a day. BL MS Harley 743, f. 114v. The list is headed ‘Anno xxmo Edwardi Regis filii Henrici Regis coram Baronibus de Scaccario allocata sunt omnia amerciamenta hec que sequitur coram quibuscumque justiciariis domino Johanni abbati de Sancto Edmundo super comp’ domini W. de Redham vicecomitis Norf’.’. CUL MS Ff. ii. 29, ff. 2v–3. It does not specify the kind or kinds of fines in question. The list in BL MS Harley 743, f. 114 (see previous note) ends by recording the profits of justice allowed from after 1291–2 to 1343–4. CPR, 1281–92, p. 389. Reg. Honorius IV, col. 433 no. 613. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. p. 143. The Council of the Province of Canterbury held at Oxford in 1222 included among its canons (no. 56) a ruling that no member of a religious order should make a will bequeathing his temporal property. C and S, II, i. 124. In 1266 the convent of Durham cathedral priory appealed to the General Chapter of the Province of York against the doings of the former prior, Bertram of Middleton. Among his misdeeds

62

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

September 1291.58 There is no sign in the record sources of any decline in Abbot John’s powers during his last ten years, although it is possible that his council and secretariat were efficiently carrying on routine work in his name more or less on their own. We will now turn to the relation of St Edmund’s mint with the crown.

58

was that he had obtained papal permission to make a will. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. pp. 246, 247. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. p. 130.

8 St Edmunds’ Mint Conflict between St Edmunds and the Crown began before Abbot John’s succession, in the time of Abbot Simon of Luton. One early cause of trouble was Edward I’s reform of the coinage.1 Reform was begun as a result of discussion in the parliament at Gloucester in July and August 1278. There had been no change in the currency for more than thirty years and the coinage had become debased. A preliminary to the issue of a new coinage was the recall of the old, and preliminary to that was an inquiry into the clipping of coin, followed by the arrest and trial of suspect goldsmiths and keepers of mints. There were mass arrests of Jews for this offence, followed by their conviction and execution.2 On 3 March 1278, Henry of Winchester, a Jewish convert and one of the king’s agents in entrapping coin-clippers, was arrested in the abbot’s hall in Bury by the abbey’s steward, William Muschet – though in subsequent litigation, it was revealed that he was under the king’s protection on ‘special business’.3 According to the Bury chronicler, five goldsmiths and three others were taken from Bury St Edmunds to London that winter.4 The chronicler also says that, although this was done by a town bailiff and not by a royal official, many regarded it as an infringement of the Liberty of the banleuca. When the king realized this, he sent the prisoners back for trial in Bury. However, this trial caused grave offence, for it was conducted by two royal justices, John of Cobham (Kent) and Walter of Helion (‘de Heliun’) (Gloucestershire).5 They held a court in the Guildhall and assigned the amercements to the royal treasury – the sacrist even had to pay a fine of 100 marks ad redempciones. Their holding of the

1

2

3 4 5

For the recoinage of 1279 and the crackdown on clippers and counterfeiters of coins see H. B. Earle Fox and Shirley Fox, ‘Numismatic history’, BNJ, 7 (1911), pp. 97–9, 130 (Appendices xi, xii); Mavis Mate, ‘Monetary policies in England, 1272–1307’, BNJ, 41 (1972), pp. 37–52; C. E. Challis, A New History of the Royal Mint (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 120–7. Paul Brand, ‘Jews and the law in England, 1275–90’, EHR, 115 (Nov 2000), pp. 1138–58 at 1148–53; Zefirah Rokeah, ‘Money and the hangman in late thirteenth-century England: Jews, Christians and coinage offences alleged and real, part 1’, Jewish Historical Studies, 31 (1988–90), pp. 83–109. Brand, ‘Jews and the law in England’, p. 1150 n. 2. Bury Chron, pp. 66 and n. 3, 67; CCR, 1272–9, p. 529; CPR, 1271–81, pp. 297, 312, 338. For John of Cobham, see Brand, Earliest Law Reports, i. p. cxxxvi and references; for Walter of Helion, see ibid., i. pp. cxlvii–cxlviii.

64

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

court was itself contrary to the privilege that no royal ‘minister’ could exercise office within the banleuca, and the abbot, not the king, should at least have had the amercements. Thus, writes the chronicler, ‘they flouted the liberties of St Edmund’s church in an unheard-of way, without regard for either papal or royal privileges’. Edward’s recoinage itself brought new trouble: Abbot John felt that he had to protect the rights of St Edmunds’ mint. Only two franchisal mints remained open throughout Edward’s reign, that of the bishop of Durham and St Edmunds’ mint.6 The archbishop of York’s mint was re-opened for the recoinage of 1279–80 and for the recoinage of 1300, but otherwise was not in operation. Moreover, although both the Durham and St Edmunds’ mints produced a great many coins, the total number minted in any year formed only a fraction of the total number of coins in circulation and, therefore, constituted an unnecessary element in the currency of England.7 Nor did these mints bring the king any financial benefit since those franchise-holders with a right to a mint and exchange drew the profits. Edward, therefore, had no particular reason to maintain their activity. The reason the Durham and St Edmunds’ mints remained operative was that the bishop of Durham and the abbot of St Edmunds insisted that they should do so. Abbot John’s insistence can be attributed to more than one motive. The best way to understand the grounds for his opposition to closure of the mint is to examine the accounts in St Edmunds’ Kempe register, BL MS Harley 645, f. 219.8 They record mint income and expenditure for two years 1256–8 and again for an unspecified year sometime between 1265 and 1278. For the two years 1256–8 the net profit was £47 9s (that is, an average of £23 10d a year),9 but a list of the sources of the sacrist’s income in 1268 preserved in other registers, values the mint at £3.10 It is very likely that this was an underestimate. Since 1268 was the year in which the abbey and the rest of the church was assessed for a tax of a tenth of their incomes, granted to Henry III by Clement IV to help him in his financial straits after the Barons’ War,11 it was in St Edmunds’ interests to minimize the value of the sacrist’s assets. Therefore, the mint in Abbot John’s day was probably still a profitable concern, though modestly so. Examination of the 1265x1278 accounts reveals other features of St Edmunds’ 6

7

8 9 10

11

Fox and Fox, ‘Numismatic history’, vi. 205–10; Allen, ‘Ecclesiastical mints’, pp. 118–19; Allen, The Durham Mint, British Numismatic Soc. Special Publication, 4 (London, 2003), pp. 5, 83–4, 172–3. Eaglen, ‘The mint at Bury St Edmunds’, p. 118 and nn. 41, 42; Allen, ‘Documentary evidence for the output, profits and expenditure of the Bury St Edmunds mint’, BNJ, 69 (1999), pp. 210–13 passim. Printed Allen, ‘Documentary evidence for the output’, p. 213. BL MS Harley 638, f. 240v. Allen, ‘Documentary evidence for the output’, pp. 212–13; Eaglen, ‘The mint at Bury St Edmunds’, p. 218. BL MS Harley 638, f. 240v (cited Eaglen, ‘The mint at Bury St Edmunds’, pp. 118, 121 n. 41); and BL MS Harley 3977, f. 57v (cited Allen, ‘Documentary evidence for the output’, p. 213 n. 17). Bury Chron., pp. 40–5.



ST EDMUNDS’ MINT

65

mint. These can be discovered by considering the list of those paying mintage, that is the payment of 6d per pound of silver made by those who brought silver to the mint for coining. The mint was a convenience to the monks themselves, for the prior, the treasurer and the moneyer were among those bringing silver to the mint for coining. Moreover, it promoted St Edmunds’ position at the centre of a network of local and foreign merchants. Thus, local men such as William of Swaffham (Norfolk) and Henry of Whittlesford (Cambridgeshire) brought substantial amounts of silver for coining. Exactly what the abbey’s relations were with Henry of Whittlesford is not clear, but they must have been close, for on the day of the Translation of St Benedict (11 July) he received 6d, and he and ‘four other merchants’ received 6s for expenses in Canterbury on the morrow of the feast of St Benedict (21 March). The best evidence of the usefulness and good reputation of St Edmunds’ mint is the fact that two foreign merchants, Henry of Cologne and Aylbrith of Brunswick, made a practice of bringing large amounts of bullion for coining. Therefore, one reason why Abbot John insisted on keeping the mint operative was to promote St Edmunds’ position as a commercial centre. Another reason for the mint’s continued operation may also be tentatively suggested. The text of an enquiry into the administration of the Bury mint, datable to 1262–5, in BL MS Harley 1005 shows that it was a well-established institution employing a skilled workforce.12 It gives a picture of the hierarchy of personnel in the mint. The moneyer, John de Burnedisse,13 was responsible to the sacrist and must at least have had a close relationship with the subsacrist, ‘W.’, for 5s 5d was paid for his expenses at Lynn; presumably he went there to buy imported bullion. The moneyer, the two die-keepers, John of Shouldham (Norfolk) and William of Scrub (Lincolnshire, near Boston), and four servants of the mint received 16d at Easter for oblations. The servants by custom received 12d on Hockday and twice in that year received 5d in ‘drink money’. Lowest in the hierarchy were the five ‘boys’ (garciones) – workmen. And 23¼d was spent on repairs to the walls and doorways of the workshop. Obviously, this small, tightly-knit and specialized community had a strong motive to want to remain in work. Abbot John was surely influenced by pressure from the sacrist and his subordinates in the mint to keep it in operation. And that leads to the final point. Among the payments owed by the mint was that of seigniorage (or ‘seignorage’), a fee of 6d in the pound owed to the exchange. In the case of a royal mint this was paid to the king, but, as St Edmunds’ mint was franchisal, it was paid to the abbot. Finally, the right to have a mint was one of St Edmunds’ ancient privileges, an integral part of the abbey’s prestige, a symbol of its farreaching power and of the sanctity of the St Edmund, king and martyr. It was the abbot’s duty to protect it at all costs.

12 13

Martin Allen, ‘A thirteenth-century enquiry into the administration of the Bury St Edmunds mint’, British Numismatic Journal, 80 (2010), pp. 189–93. John de Burnedisse’s name is most likely derived from Brundish in Suffolk.

66

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

The striking of the new coinage in the royal mints probably began early in July 1279,14 and Abbot John was given seisin of St Edmunds’ mint and its appurtenances on 8 November.15 Soon afterwards Robert of Hadleigh (‘de Hadleye’) and John of Rede were admitted at the Exchequer as, respectively, moneyer and assayer of the St Edmunds’ mint, at the presentation of the sacrist, Simon of Kingston.16 However, the mint did not begin striking the new coinage until 26 June 1280.17 The reason for this delay of nearly eight months from the grant of the die was a dispute between Abbot John and the king. The grant of seisin of the mint included a die, but Abbot John demanded in addition a ‘standard’ (the trial-plate used to test that the silver of the coins minted was of the same fineness as that of the king’s coinage) and an ‘assay’ (a piece of silver as pure as possible). Abbot John claimed that a standard and assay had always been delivered to his predecessors.18 Certainly, they had been sent to Abbot Henry of Rushbrooke in 1247 together with a die for Henry III’s recoinage. But, although a thorough search was made in the Exchequer memoranda rolls, no precedent could be found to support Abbot John’s claim. The matter was ‘diligently discussed by the king and his council’ and at length a compromise was reached. The abbot’s claim was denied and it was decided that no standard (nor apparently assay) should be sent to him, but that he should receive the necessary information by word of mouth. The council, therefore, instructed Gregory de Rokesle (merchant and mayor of London, warden of the king’s exchange) to go to Bury St Edmunds for this purpose. This was done, and the sacrist’s register duly records the information received.19 But trouble over St Edmunds’ mint continued. On 17 July 1283, Edward assigned John de Lovetot and Gregory de Rokesle to hold a sworn inquest to discover who had minted the king’s coins at Bury St Edmunds and had falsified the die sent there by the king, and to examine the coins and dies and to seize them if found to be unsatisfactory. The results of this commission have not so far come to light in the abbey’s records.20 A possible explanation for the king’s inter-

14 15 16 17 18

19 20

Fox and Fox, ‘Numismatic history’, vii. 98. CCR, 1272–9, p. 544. BL MS Harley 645, f. 117; Fox and Fox, ‘Numismatic history’, vii. 138 (appendix xvi). Bury Chron., p. 72. For the dispute see BL MS Harley 645, ff. 79v, 123v, 128v; G. L. V. Tatler, ‘The Bury coinage of Edward I with the name of Robert de Hadleie’, BNJ, 68 (1998), pp. 64–5; De Moneta of Nicholas Oresme, ed. Johnson, pp. xi–xii; Fox and Fox, ‘Numismatic history’, vii. 100, 116, 138–9 (appendix xvii); Larry W. Usilton, ‘Robert de Hadleie: enigmatic moneyer’, Seaby Coin and Medal Bulletin, 749 (Jan. 1981), pp. 1–4. BL MSS Harley 645, f. 123v, and Additional 14847, f. 68v. Printed and translated in De Moneta of Nicholas Oresme, ed. Johnson, pp. 86–8. CPR, 1281–92, p. 97; Fox and Fox, ‘Numismatic history’, vii. 116–17; Allen, ‘Ecclesiastical mints’, p. 120. For John de Lovetot, see Paul Brand, ‘Lovetot, Sir John de (b. in or before 1236, d. 1294)’, rev. ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/37606, accessed 22 Sept 2014].



ST EDMUNDS’ MINT

67

vention is suggested by an examination of the coins minted at Bury St Edmunds while Robert of Hadleigh was moneyer. They are unlike other coins minted in Edward’s reign.21 A normal Edwardian coin has on its obverse the name of the king and on its reverse the name of the mint. Before Robert of Hadleigh’s term of office as moneyer, coins struck at Bury St Edmunds had conformed to this normal practice: the legend on the reverse gave the name of the mint, ‘the vill of St Edmund’, rendered in various forms. But Robert of Hadleigh’s coins have his name, instead of that of the mint, on the reverse. Since all dies were made in and supplied by the royal mint in London, it is hard to see how such an anomaly occurred. Since under Hadleigh an estimated quarter of a million coins were struck and had a wide circulation,22 the survival of the idiosyncratic reverse legend surely cannot have been because no one noticed it. A further peculiarity applies to one particular group of the Hadleigh coins which were struck from an irregular die of poor workmanship. Again, no satisfactory explanation has been found for the use of such a die.23 There are two possibilities, either that it was of local manufacture, or that it was made by an inexpert die-cutter at the royal mint. The probable explanation for the king’s intervention in 1283 is that there were counterfeiters at work in Bury St Edmunds. Their presence is suggested by the commission to hear and determine (oyer et terminer) cases touching the moneyers who had counterfeited the king’s die in Bury St Edmunds. It is dated 17 July, and addressed to John de Lovetot and Gregory de Rokesle. At the same time, a similar commission instructed Lovetot and Rokesle to hear and determine cases touching those persons at Stowe in Cambridgeshire who had assaulted Stephen of Norwich and other merchants and stolen 140 pounds of silver of the king’s money from them. The commission probably refers to merchants bringing bullion in the form of silver coin to or from St Edmunds’ mint. This seems especially likely since the ‘Stow’ mentioned here must surely be identified as Stow cum Quy – a village four and a half miles north-east of Cambridge. It had a wharf on a tributary of the Cam and, therefore, provided access to the fen waterways and the trading hinterland of Lynn.24 The account of proceedings in the court of St Edmunds in 1283 throws further light on the question raised in the first commission cited above, of counterfeiters in Bury St Edmunds. It records the proceedings of the trial of fourteen townsmen accused of various felonies, but principally of the murder of William of Odell (‘Wahill’) in Bedfordshire.25 Among those accused were Stephen son of Stephen, a goldsmith, and his brother John. They were cleared of the murder but convicted of counterfeiting

21 22 23 24 25

Eaglen, ‘The mint at Bury St Edmunds’, pp. 118, 120 and pl. 10. For a detailed examination of the numismatic evidence see Tatler, ‘The Bury coinage of Edward I’, pp. 65–76. Tatler, ‘The Bury coinage of Edward I’, p. 73. Tatler, ‘The Bury coinage of Edward I’, pp. 69–71. See the sketch maps in Parker, The Making of King’s Lynn, pp. 2, 9. See below pp. 73–6 for the account of the murder and ensuing events.

68

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

coins and of a robbery perpetrated at Woolpit: they were, therefore, drawn and hanged. There is no evidence that Robert of Hadleigh was implicated in counterfeiting, though he was accused (but cleared) of harbouring felons, and one of those accused of the murder, John de Perers, was his servant. Nor is there any evidence that Hadleigh lost his office as a result of the commission. The latest coins struck with his name are datable to 1283 or early in 1284. It is unknown when Hadleigh retired or died. His successor, Richard of Lothbury, a goldsmith of London, was admitted at the Exchequer as moneyer of St Edmunds’ mint on 3 November 1287, and the chronicler notes that ‘a new die was cut’.26 On 18 November, Richard was admitted at the Exchequer, at the presentation of the sacrist, William of Hoo, to the office of die-keeper.27 Thus, it appears that he combined both offices, possibly in order to improve security at the mint, since it should have ensured that no one could tamper with the die. A new die would of course have been necessary since Hadleigh was no longer moneyer. But the change of die was made the occasion of making coins struck at Bury St Edmunds conform to the rest of the Edwardian coinage. Henceforth, the legend on the reverse gave the name of the mint, not of the moneyer. Any connection of Richard of Lothbury with the London mint has not been proved, but his name indicates that he was a native of Lothbury which was situated in the vicinity of the royal mint. If he had some connection with the royal mint, perhaps his appointment as moneyer and die-keeper of the mint at Bury St Edmunds was a deliberate attempt to prevent future trouble over its coinage. Whether Abbot John, William of Hoo the sacrist, the king or some royal official was responsible for choosing Richard for the post is unknown. The contact between the St Edmunds mint and the London mint in the 1290s is illustrated by the occurrence in two of the abbey’s registers of (apparently unique) copies of a revised version of the ‘Treatise on the New Money’ attributed to William de Turnemire who was appointed king’s master moneyer to take charge of the recoinage in 1279.28 The treatise was written in about 1280 and the revised version was composed sometime in the 1290s. The preface to the original treatise states that the author proposes to explain ‘the reason for and manner of making coined money and the trial of the assay’, which, he admits, is a difficult and abstruse subject. A detailed and technical account follows. The

26

27

28

Bury Chron., pp. vii, 90. For a request by William of Hoo to the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer to admit Richard of Lothbury, goldsmith of London, at the presentation of Simon of Kingston, infirmarer, as moneyer of St Edmunds see BL MS Harley 230, f. 10v, printed Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 32–3 no. 15. The King’s Remembrancer’s memoranda roll for 15–16 Edward I (TNA E159/ 61, m. 1d, headed ‘Communia de termino Sancti Michaelis Anno’), records that Hoo presented Richard to the barons of the Exchequer ‘ad custodiendum cuneum abbatis sancti Edmundi in villa predicta’ (cited Bury Chron., p. 90 n. 1). See also BL MS Harley 645, f. 16v; CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 1v, printed Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 158 no. 26. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 130–131v, 156–156v; Pinch. Reg., ii. 6–11. See De Moneta of Nicholas Oresme, ed. Johnson, pp. xiv–xvi, 64–97; N. J. Mayhew, in A New History of the Royal Mint, ed. C. E. Challis (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 120–6.



ST EDMUNDS’ MINT

69

revised version omits many details, but adds others, for example about the supply and safe keeping of dies. It would have been a useful guide for moneyers and diekeepers in the franchisal mints. One could speculate that it was composed for that purpose, possibly with the aberrant St Edmunds mint in mind.

9 Interaction and Co-operation with the Crown The cases so far considered are of confrontation between Edward’s government and Abbot John. If treated in isolation, these could give a false impression. As Helen Cam pointed out long ago, the object of Edward’s inquiries into private franchises and of the Quo Warranto proceedings was not to abolish or even curtail such liberties as long as they were justly held by royal authority and properly administered. Primarily his purpose was clarification and definition, to make local government more efficient.1 When the king granted a franchise he parted with responsibilities as well as rights. As Cam wrote: By virtue of this grant the lord of the liberty does certain things which elsewhere are done by the king or his officials, and keeps for himself profits of various kinds which elsewhere go to the king’s exchequer. But in so far as these rights and duties are governmental, not proprietary, public, not private, the franchise-holder is the viceroy or agent of the king – responsible to the king, and liable to forfeiture, like any other government official, for maladministration.2

Writing in particular about the franchises of the greater East Anglian abbots, Cam described them as mere ‘cogs in that magnificent machine built up by the practical genius of our Norman and Angevin kings’.3 There are plenty of examples of the close supervision which Edward exercised over the banleuca of St Edmunds’ Liberty whenever it affected the peace and well-being of his subjects, and in the last resort he might take the banleuca into his hands. This he did early in 1285 because of abuse of the assize of weights and measures.4 The king had sent his clerk of the market, Ralph of Middlington, on ahead of his own arrival on 20 February. Ralph held the assize and found that the measures were falsely sealed as if by him, and some had been sealed by the sacrist. The sacrist, who was responsible for the administration of the town on 1

2

3 4

H. M. Cam, ‘The Quo Warranto proceedings under Edward I’, History, 11 (1926), pp. 143–8, repr. in Cam, Liberties and Communities, pp. 180–1. Cf. Sutherland, Quo Warranto, pp. 16–17, 184–5. H. M. Cam, ‘The King’s government as administered by the greater abbots of East Anglia’, Cambridge Antiquarian Soc. Communications, 29 (1928), repr. Cam, Liberties and Communities, p. 184. Cam, ‘The King’s government as administered by the greater abbots of East Anglia’, p. 204. See above pp. 52–3.



INTERACTION AND CO-OPERATION WITH THE CROWN

71

the abbot’s behalf, was at this time William of Hoo.5 Ralph had all the false measures destroyed, and the banleuca was briefly taken into the king’s hands ‘as a caution’ because of the sacrist’s complicity.6 But this was an exceptional case. Usually royal power was exerted in a routine way, by means of written instructions to the abbot or his deputies and through personal supervision by royal officials and justices. For instance, Ralph of Middlington at the end of the 1285 dispute over the view of weights and measures took steps to improve its future administration. According to the Bury chronicle, much blame for past lapses was placed on the burgesses. They had, it alleges, argued that the view should only be held in the king’s presence and had prevented the sacrist from holding it. Now it was ordained, on pain of the king again taking over the Liberty, that the sacrist could compel them to act as jurors when he held the view. Anyone who refused was to be amerced and, if obdurate, imprisoned at the king’s pleasure.7 The burgesses were fined 50 marks for past breaches of the assize.8 Moreover, at the same time Ralph decreed that the sacrist’s bailiffs should hold the view once or twice a year, and he made penalties for breaches of the assize more severe. Jurors said that by custom brewsters who broke the assize were only amerced and never stood in the tumbrel; Ralph ordained that in future they were to stand in the tumbrel for a third offence. Similarly, bakers should be put in the pillory for a third offence. The jurors had also said that the assize for French bread and puff bread (a particular kind of leavened bread) was never held; it was ordained that henceforth the assize should be held, and the appropriate weights were fixed.9 Regraters of fish and meat and forestallers were not to buy or sell before the third hour; contraveners were to be punished according to the gravity of their offence, and two burgesses were to be appointed annually to report contraventions to the sacrists’ bailiffs.10 Ralph took these steps on Edward’s and the sacrist’s advice.11 Clearly one of the king’s motives was the welfare of his subjects. The severity of penalties was increased ‘for the common advantage of the people’ (‘pro communi utilitate populi’) and ‘for the common profit of the people’ (‘pro communi plebis profectu’).12 Ralph instructed the sacrist to seal the measures of the townsmen without demanding 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

William of Hoo’s multifarious activities during his period of office, 1280–94, will often be referred to below, particularly in chapter 12. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 129 no. 7. The letter-book and its value as evidence of the sacrist’s duties and activities are considered below pp. 102–15. Bury Chron., pp. 83–4. Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 37–8. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, no. 7 p. 129. See Letter-Book of William of Hoo, no. 7 p. 129, ‘Cum etiam dicentes xij. iurati quod certam assissam de pane francisco et de pane levi vocato payn demeine numquam habuerunt data fuit eis hec assisa, videlicet quod pane de obolo de pane francisco ponderabit tantum quantum wastelli de obolo, panis vero levys de obolo ponderabit tantum quantum siminelli de quarta.’ Letter-Book of William of Hoo, no. 7 p. 129. Bury Chron., p. 84. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 129.

72

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

or extorting anything, unless otherwise ordered.13 There are many examples of Edward responding to appeals from the abbey’s tenants for alleged oppression in its courts. For example, in 1287 the burgesses complained to the king about various abuses committed in the town by the abbot’s justices in eyre; in that year the justices in question were Henry of Guildford and Henry of Shenholt (Bucks, ‘de Schineholt).14 Edward ordered Abbot John to amend such wrongs.15 In 1287, the sacrist, William of Hoo, in obedience to a royal mandate, ordered anyone complaining of extortion in the ecclesiastical court to appear before the abbot and hand him any grievance in writing. The ‘community of St Edmunds’ had sent messengers to the royal court with its complaints.16 The ‘Kempe’ register has copies, some apparently unique, of documents produced in the course of the dispute between Edward and the clergy over the limits of the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. They comprise the king’s replies to the three sets of complaints (gravamina) presented to Edward in the Easter parliament of 1285.17 Perhaps Abbot John brought the documents back from the Easter parliament, which presumably he attended. But it is also possible that he acquired them from William of Middleton, bishop of Norwich, a leading figure in the dispute.18 The dispute had been simmering for many years, but finally broke out in 1285 when Edward issued an edict limiting the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts strictly to matrimonial and testamentary cases. This edict is not known to survive but its contents appear in a royal writ of 1 July 1285 addressed to the clergy of the diocese of Norwich,19 where the laity’s complaints against the ecclesiastical courts had been particularly loud. It insisted that ecclesiastical judges could force laymen to take oaths as jurors only in matrimonial and testamentary cases. Edward also appointed commissioners to hear pleas arising from breaches of the edict, both past and present. Bishop William, supported by the other bishops, protested, and further gravamina were drawn up, until in June or July 1286 Edward issued the famous writ Circumspecte agatis addressed to the 13 14

15 16 17

18

19

Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 139 no. 9. For the identity of the justices Henry of Guildford and Henry of Shenholt see Appendix I. The place name ‘Shenholt’ is probably a compound of OE ‘shen’, i.e. beautiful, and OE ‘holt’, i.e. a wood or farmstead near or in a wood. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 34–5 no. 19, and nn. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 33 no. 16, and n. 3. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 224v–225. This text is discussed and printed by H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, ‘The clergy in the Easter parliament, 1285’, EHR, 52 (1937), pp. 220–34; printed C and S, II, ii. 962–4. For another crucial document in the dispute copied into the ‘Kempe’ register see the next note. For the dispute see D. L. Douie, Archbishop Pecham (Oxford, 1952), ch. 8. No writ summoning Abbot John to the Easter parliament in 1285 is in Parl. Writs, i. For William of Middleton, see Christopher Harper-Bill, ‘Middleton, William (d. 1288)’, ODNB, May 2008; online edn, May 2011 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/95159, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. C and S, II, ii. 967–9. Discussed and copies noted, by E. B. Graves, ‘Circumspecte agatis’, EHR, 43 (1928), pp. 2 and n. 3, 3. For a copy not mentioned by Graves see BL MS Harley 645, f. 205.



INTERACTION AND CO-OPERATION WITH THE CROWN

73

itinerant justices in the diocese of Norwich.20 It ordered them to be circumspect in their treatment of the clergy, and listed the pleas which could legitimately be heard in an ecclesiastical court, including a number which were not matrimonial or testamentary cases at all. It seems likely, therefore, that Abbot John obtained copies of documents relating to this dispute from Bishop William. A royal writ of 20 May 1290, addressed to William of Hoo, as sacrist of St Edmunds, and William’s commissary, refers to Edward’s limitation of spiritual jurisdiction. It orders them to stop compelling laymen to appear before an ecclesiastical judge or to serve as jurors in cases other than testamentary and matrimonial ones ‘since we had formerly forbidden [this]’. It also forbids them to force townsmen to appear before them three times a week, and to extort oaths and money at pleasure.21 The vivid and detailed contemporary narrative of the trial in 1283 of the murderers of William, former rector of Woodhill (‘Wahill’, ‘Wadhille’, i.e. Odell, in Bedfordshire), and of ensuing events, is one of the best examples of royal supervision of proceedings in the court of St Edmunds.22 The account includes copies of royal writs, issued in the course of the affair.23 On 23 November 1283 William, a man of knightly class – his brother was Sir John of Odell24 – went to visit his sister, Eleanor de Gowiz, in Bury St Edmunds. In an alley by the church of St Mary he was set upon by a gang. One of them, Geoffrey of Redgrave, plunged a knife into William’s side. William dropped dead. Eleanor, who was in a house close by, raised the hue and cry. The town erupted in uproar. The alderman, Geoffrey Spot, being old and decrepit and negligent in his duty, did nothing and even refused to hold an inquest. An inquest was, therefore, held by the bailiffs, Nicholas Fuke and Robert of Melton. It implicated Geoffrey of Redgrave, John de Perers and eleven others, most of whom were captured and imprisoned. Eleanor, intent, we are told, on avenging her brother’s death, appealed them of murder in the court of the Liberty of St Edmunds. Eleanor then obtained a royal writ, dated 21 December 1283,25 suspending further proceedings until the king had taken counsel concerning how to deal with so grave a scandal to the church (presumably because the murdered man and the two main culprits were clerks) and so shameful a contempt of himself. The bailiffs meanwhile were to keep 20 21 22

23

24 25

Statutes of the Realm, i. 101; C and S, II, ii. 974–5. See Graves, ‘Circumspecte agatis’, pp. 1–20. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 137 no. 10 (BL MS Harley 645, f. 231v). William’s presentation to the church of Odell is recorded in Rotuli Ricardi Gravesend, diocesis Lincolniensis, 1258–79, ed. F. N. Davis, C. W. Foster and A. H. Thompson (Canterbury and York Soc., 11, 1925 and Lincoln Record Soc., 20, 1925), p. 211. I owe this reference to Paul Brand. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 43–45v; printed with commentary and an English synopsis, LetterBook of William of Hoo, pp. 18, 130–6 (appendix no. 8). See ibid., pp. 76 no. 127, 149–52 (appendices nos 16–19). Moor, Knights, v. 130. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 131–2. A commission of oyer and terminer was issued on 26 December 1283. CPR 1281–92, p. 139.

74

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

those attached in safe custody and attach others. Eleanor again appealed to the king who appointed Reginald Grey and the royal justice, Roger Loveday, to hold an inquest to discover, try, and punish the culprits. At this point Abbot John claimed his Liberty. It was allowed; but, at the request of the abbot and convent, Edward, in a writ of 6 February 1284, instructed the same justices, as well as another royal justice, John de Vaux, to oversee the trial at Bury St Edmunds.26 Abbot John appointed John de Lovetot, a justice of the Common Bench, and two others, Richard of Boyland and William of Pakenham, as his bailiffs, to try the case, and associated with them another royal justice, William of Saham. In view of the royal involvement in the trial, its outcome, which is of some interest, must be attributed at least in part to the influence of the king’s justices. A number of the accused were convicted and hanged. Geoffrey of Redgrave and John de Perers pleaded privilege of clergy, but were not claimed by their ordinary, the abbot. Instead they were put in prison, condemned to suffer the ‘penalty of the Statute’. This is a reference to the Statute of Westminster 1, clause 12, which provided that known felons and those who are manifestly of bad repute and will not put themselves upon inquests for felonies that men accuse them of at the king’s suit before justices, shall be remanded to a strong and hard prison (prison forte et dure) as men who refuse to submit to the law of the land.27

Thus, Redgrave and Perers remained in prison where they languished for nearly ten years, until they were finally admitted to compurgation on 24 July 1293.28 (Redgrave, indeed, almost lost his immunity because he had broken gaol during this long imprisonment; he only avoided that fate by pleading a bout of insanity, a tendency which, he said, he had inherited from his parents.29) In effect, these two criminous clerks suffered what would amount in modern times to a ‘life

26 27

28

29

CPR 1281–92, p. 112. A copy is in the cellarer’s register, TNA, DL MS 42/5, f. 114v. Statutes of the Realm, i. 26–39 (French text); Hist. Docs, iii. 400 no. 47 (English trans.) clause 12. See Henry Summerson, ‘The early development of the peine forte et dure’, in Law, Litigants and the Legal Profession: Papers Presented to the Fourth British Legal History Conference at the University of Birmingham, 10–13 July 1979, ed. E. W. Ives and A. H. Manchester (London, 1983), pp. 116–25. Abbot John wrote on 20 June 1293 to the sacrist, William of Hoo, ordering him to have announced on every Sunday and feast day in every parish church and chapel that anyone wishing to accuse Geoffrey of Redgrave and John de Perers should appear before the abbot or his agent in the conventual church on 23 July. BL MS Harley 645, f. 31v; Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 76–7 no. 127. On the same day Abbot John commissioned the prior (William of Rockland) and precentor to admit Geoffrey and John to compurgation. BL MS Harley 645, f. 32. On the day of the compurgation a bond of indemnity was issued to Sir John and Eleanor de Gowiz (who are named), in respect of any injury done them by Geoffrey; the names of six burgesses stood as sureties: Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 149–50 no. 17. A similar bond of indemnity was issued in respect of any injury done to the parties by John de Perers. Ibid., p. 150 no. 18. See the record of the trial on 24 July 1293. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 152.



INTERACTION AND CO-OPERATION WITH THE CROWN

75

sentence’. It does not seem improbable that the royal justices had insisted that they should be adequately punished.30 There is, of course, the question of how effective was royal supervision. In the Odell case it would seem to have ensured both a trial in strict accordance with the laws and customs of the realm and the proper punishment of those convicted. But there is evidence suggesting that in some cases any good results were only temporary. Ralph of Middlington’s ordinance of 1285 regulating the view of weights and measures was not carried out to the letter. When he again held the view at Bury in 1292, the jurors returned that brewsters were always amerced for breaches of the assize (in defiance of Ralph’s ruling that for the third offence they should stand in the tumbrel), and that bakers for the third offence stood in the tumbrel (not the pillory, as Ralph had stipulated).31 There is no evidence that in this instance any objection was raised to the disregarding of a royal ordinance. But sometimes there were protests. For example, a royal writ issued in 1287, ordering an enquiry into oppression in the abbot’s ecclesiastical court, accuses Abbot John of scorning ‘to emend the excesses’ as the king had commanded.32 Persistence was certainly needed to secure justice in the case between Agnes, widow of Walter of Boyton, and Hamo, rector of Attleborough.33 Agnes sued Hamo sometime before Michaelmas 1289 before Thomas of Weyland (chief justice of the Common Bench from Michaelmas 1278 until Trinity 1289) and his fellows at Westminster over a messuage in the suburbs of Bury. Abbot John successfully claimed his court since the messuage was within the banleuca. But Hamo asserted false judgement in St Edmunds’ court, and sought a writ of false judgement before Gilbert of Thornton and his fellow justices of the court of King’s Bench. Again Abbot John successfully claimed his court. A royal writ instructed the sheriff to attend the abbot’s court and record the proceedings. He was to take with him four ‘discreet and legal’ men of the county (the record wrongly calls them knights), and he and they were to authenticate the record with their seals. The sheriff was to have the record before the king three weeks after Easter 1290. He was also to summon Agnes to appear, along with the steward of St Edmunds’ Liberty, who was to answer for his failure to execute the mandate previously issued by the king and to make a record. Unfortunately the four men of the county refused to seal the record because they were not suitors of St Edmunds’ court where judgement was given. Abbot John asked for, and was sent, a copy of the writ of false judgement and of the sheriff’s record of the plea so that he could 30 31 32 33

For a record of proceedings in another case tried in the court of St Edmunds see below pp. 109–11. BL MS Harley 645, f. 249v. For a list of those amerced and their amercements see ibid., ff. 247–8. See Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 103. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 35. The following account of the case is based on the writ of 26 September 1292 (see below p. 76) and in the entry in the Coram Rege Roll, no. 124 (Trinity 1290), m. 18, printed in Select Cases in the Court of King’s Bench (1272–1422), ed. G. O. Sayles, Selden Soc. 55, 57, 58, 74, 76, 82, 88 (1936–71, 7 vols), ii. 3–5 no. 2.

76

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

amend any error. The sheriff was told to make the suitors of the abbot’s court appear on pain of distraint, but the burgesses and the abbot’s council pointed out that there were no suitors because the abbot appointed justices, who gave judgement. The sheriff was thereupon told to produce Abbot John and the two justices, Daniel of Beccles and John le Orfever, whom the abbot had appointed to try the case. They were to appear before the king’s justices at Michaelmas. And so the dispute dragged on. On 26 September 1292 Edward issued a writ accusing Abbot John of still not having done justice, to Hamo’s grave injury, and ordering him to summon the parties, inspect the record, amend any error, and do full and speedy justice ‘so that no more complaints reach us’.34 It was only occasionally that the central government had to be insistent and peremptory in the supervision of the public functions of the Liberty’s administration. Usually it was a matter of co-operation. Often the abbot sought royal help. The writ of false judgement and the record and process of Hamo’s plea were issued at John’s own request. Similarly, Abbot John and the convent asked the king to assign justices to monitor the trial of those accused of murdering William of Odell. No doubt in both cases Abbot John hoped, by co-operating with royal authority, to avoid a mistrial. In the case of William parson of Odell, he may also have hoped to reduce any blame which might fall on him for the commotion in the town caused by the murder. Either a mistrial or unruliness in the banleuca could have resulted in the loss, albeit temporary, of the Liberty. But more positively and above all, the abbot needed royal support, especially in his relations with the town of Bury St Edmunds. During the Barons’ War and thereafter, the town was sporadically a source of trouble to the abbey, and sometimes the abbot needed the king to restore order. Abbot John was dogged by trouble with the town, notably in the later 1280s and in both the early and late 1290s. The townsmen’s complaints to the king against the abbot’s administration in 1287–8 have already been mentioned. At least in the 1290s the ringleaders were burgesses of importance – thus, for example, Stephen, son of Benedict, served as bailiff 1284–5. In 1290 the townsmen organized an attack on the cellarer’s new dam in the Teyfan, a marsh just north-east of Bury St Edmunds. The violence caused Abbot John to appeal to Edward, who, on 2 February 1292, appointed justices John of Mettingham, William of Gisleham and Hugh of Cressingham to hold an inquest at Bury St Edmunds.35 They sat 34

35

For copies of the writ in a number of St Edmunds’ registers see CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 6v–7, CUL MS Ff. iv. 35, f. 7; BL MS Harley 645, ff. 107v–108 (wrongly dated 26 December). Printed Pinch. Reg., i. 443–4, from CUL MS Ee. iii. 60. CPR 1281–92, p. 472. Complete copies of the record of the inquest, citing the royal writs, in St Edmunds’ registers, are in BL MS Harley 645, ff. 28–31v and CUL MS Ee. iii. 60, printed Pinch. Reg., i. 58–66. Incomplete copies are in: CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 25–26v; BL MSS Additional 14847, ff. 59v–62, and Harley 638, ff. 217–18. A copy of the agreement is in CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 144v–145. Printed Pinch. Reg., i. 65–66. See Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 134. For John of Mettingham, see Paul Brand, ‘Mettingham, John of (d. 1301)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/37608, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. For William of Gisleham, see Paul Brand, ‘Gisleham, Sir William of (c.1230–1293)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/



INTERACTION AND CO-OPERATION WITH THE CROWN

77

on 19 September. The proceedings of the inquest were continued in 1293. On 27 February, Edward appointed John le Bretun and William of Reedham (‘de Redham’) to replace Mettingham, who was busy, and Gisleham, who had died, but on 4 March he reappointed Mettingham.36 Abbot John rehearsed his grievances against the townsmen, but how they would have replied is unknown because a compromise, which is cited in the record of the case, was reached. In the late 1290s the townsmen’s opposition was non-violent and carefully planned. In 1281 Edward had re-confirmed the confirmations of the abbey’s privileges by Henry I and King John.37 This included liberties enjoyed by the town, notably the freedom of the burgesses from toll throughout England. Sometime shortly before, or early in, 1297 two influential townsmen, Peter of Ellingham (alderman 1295–7) and Stephen, son of Benedict, one of the leaders of the opposition in the early 1290s, obtained duplicates of these charters and had them read publicly in the Tolhouse, all without the knowledge of the abbot and convent. Abbot John and the convent appealed to the king against this piece of presumption – the abbot contended that the town had no privileges except by his grace.38 On 8 December 1297 Edward issued a writ to the town bailiffs to have the two ringleaders before Prince Edward on 20 January 1298.39 The bailiffs did so and Peter and Stephen duly surrendered the charters. On 4 February the most important burgesses appeared before Abbot John, the prior and their councillors, bound themselves for the transgression and bought the abbot’s goodwill for 320 marks. However, John remitted 100 marks and put another 100 marks in respectu; that is, they undertook to pay it if in future they rose against, or unjustly sued, the abbot and convent. Usually the abbot administered the Liberty without royal interference or help. A graphic instance of his effectiveness occurred in 1293. Although the administration of the Liberty was carried out on the abbot’s behalf by the hereditary steward, the duties were customarily fulfilled through a deputy. At Sir John Hastings’ presentation Abbot John had appointed a certain Robert of Verdun as deputy steward. After about three years in office Robert went away, staying a long way off for a considerable time without the abbot’s permission. Then, in 1293, a boy of about twelve years old was drowned at Livermere, and a man was killed in the church of Melford – he was trying to light a lamp which was suspended by a cord and balanced by a weight; he pulled the cord but the weight fell on him, crushing him to death (‘totum corpus conquassavit’). The parents of the two dead sought the deputy steward and his official, the coroner,

36 37 38 39

article/46458, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. For Hugh of Cressingham, see Henry Summerson, ‘Cressingham, Hugh of (d. 1297)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/6671, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. CPR 1292–1301, p. 45. C Ch. R 1257–1300, p. 258. John’s confirmation is printed in Rot. Chart., p. 38. For copies of the abbot’s and convent’s petition see CUL MS Gg. iv. 4, f. 110, and Pinch. Reg., i. 1–2. Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 136 and nn. 4–7. BL MSS Harley 638, ff. 52, 163v–165 and Harley 645, f. 69v.

78

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

throughout the Liberty but they were nowhere to be found. In the meantime the bodies putrefied, because they could not be buried until after the coroner’s inquest. In desperation, the parents appealed to Abbot John. He, fearing that such a dereliction of duty by the deputy steward could gravely injure him and his church, took the stewardship into his own hands (saving the right of Sir John to serve as steward in person or choose a suitable deputy steward if he wished) and appointed ‘his dear and faithful’ Robert of Martlesham as a new deputy steward to replace Robert of Verdun. Although Sir John obtained a writ of novel disseisin against Abbot John for depriving him of his hereditary office, he did not pursue the case.40 These examples illustrate how the co-operation between St Edmunds and the crown worked in practice, giving some idea of its effectiveness in some cases and failures in others, of both its merits and its shortcomings.

40

A full narrative of the case is in St Edmunds’ registers: CUL MS Ff. ii. 29, ff. 8v–9; CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 7–7v; BL MS Additional 14847, ff. 57v–58; Pinch. Reg., i. 461–5. See Cam, Liberties and Communities, pp. 189–90.

10 The Abbey and Edward I The events and circumstances so far discussed concern acts of government, that is of the king’s power exerted through his ministers and officials. But the king as an individual remained central to all governmental acts and his personal relations with any tenant-in-chief were in turn profoundly influenced by how royal government treated the latter. In the 1290s an important factor was brought to bear on relations between Edward and St Edmunds. Edward’s wars against Scotland and in Gascony affected all his subjects, but some, including St Edmunds, more than others. The monks of St Edmunds shared with the clergy as a body pride in Edward’s victories and belief in his right to overlordship of Scotland and Gascony. In extreme circumstances, if the safety of England was threatened, the clergy even considered taxation to provide support for the king lawful. As the Bury chronicler said with regard to the clerical tenth of 1298, the tax enabled Edward to fight for the safety of the kingdom and the protection of everyone’s property: ‘to guard one’s own possessions is quite different from coveting other peoples’.1 This was the view of the clergy expressed in the council held in the New Temple, London, in June 1298: the clergy granted Edward the tenth so that he could drive the Scots and other enemies from England, in defence of the church and kingdom; and the abbot and monks of St Edmunds, along with other churchmen, must have responded to royal exhortations in parliament and in letters and writs to pray for victory.2 Indeed, loyalty to Edward seems to have been particularly ardent at St Edmunds. This could have been partly the result of the fact that, as we shall see, Edward often stayed at St Edmunds on his way to and from the north. The abbey was a convenient and comfortable stopping place and brought the 1

2

Bury Chron., p. 147: ‘Secus est enim aliena concupiscere et propria contueri’. See Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 96–8 and nn. The ‘clerical tenth’ was a tenth levied on clerical income, granted for exceptional purposes such as defence or crusades: see Gransden, ‘John of Northwold and his defence of [St Edmunds’] liberties’, p. 111; W. E. Lunt, ‘Collectors’ accounts for the clerical tenth levied in England by order of Nicholas IV’, EHR, 31 (1916), pp. 102–19 at p. 102. C and S, II, ii. 1191 (French), 1197 (Latin). For other references to the Scottish threat see ibid., ii. 1183 (arts 4 and 4), 1185. For Edward’s requests for prayers and other exhortations to arouse patriotic fervour see Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, pp. 240–2; D. W. Burton, ‘Requests for prayers and royal propaganda under Edward I’, in Thirteenth Century England, iii, Proceedings of the Newcastle upon Tyne Conference (Woodbridge, 1991), esp. pp. 25–35.

80

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

abbot and perhaps some senior monks into personal contact with the king and members of his entourage. This circumstance no doubt partially explains why the Bury chronicler possessed such detailed knowledge about Scottish affairs. In particular, he is exceptionally well informed about the Great Cause, that is, the trial held by Edward at Norham in Northumberland to adjudicate between the competitors for the throne of Scotland: the trial began in May 1291, and ended after various adjournments with Edward’s award in November 1292.3 The Bury chronicler, along with the chroniclers of some other great houses, in response to a royal mandate,4 transcribed a copy of the competitors’ submission to the king’s judgement.5 In this way the competitors recognized his overlordship. But the chronicler also has much additional information about the trial.6 This seems surprising since St Edmunds was not apparently one of the many monasteries from which Edward requested and obtained written evidence from their chronicles supporting his right to overlordship of Scotland. At least, no return has survived from the abbey.7 However, if Bury’s return has not simply been lost, and none was made, it is possible instead that a monk of St Edmunds gave evidence in person at the trial.8 Lending weight to this suggestion is a royal pardon issued on 7 May 1292 to a certain John of Shottisham, monk of St Edmunds. He was pardoned for taking venison in the king’s forest in Essex and in the park at Langham (in Essex), ‘in consideration of his service in Scotland’.9 Sometime before 1 December 1294 Shottisham became the abbey’s precentor.10 The office of precentor was normally held by a fairly learned man: such a man might well have been useful at Norham in helping to find historical and legal justification for the king’s claim to overlordship of Scotland. It is noteworthy that Edward issued the pardon within a few days of visiting the abbey: he stayed there for the night on 2 May 1292, on his way north to Norham to receive the adjudication of the Scottish succession case after an adjournment. 3

4 5 6 7

8 9 10

See Stones and Simpson, Edward I and the Throne of Scotland, i. 147–8, 207; ii. 127. For the trial see Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 362–71. Norham is seven miles south-west of Berwickupon-Tweed and provided some of the necessary accommodation for the numerous retainers of the competitors and for the many others attending the trial. Bury Chron., pp. 99–103. Foedera, i, pt ii, pp. 762–84; see Gransden, Historical Writing [i], 442 and n. 23. Foedera, i, pt ii, p. 755; Bury Chron., pp. 100–3. See pl. VI here. Bury Chron., pp. 98–100, 114–15, 130–3 passim, 141, 147, 149–50. Stones and Simpson, Edward I and the Throne of Scotland, i. 144. For Edward’s appeal to history to support his claim to overlordship of Scotland see E. L. G. Stones, ‘The appeal to history in Anglo-Scottish relations between 1291 and 1401’, Archives, 9 (1969), 11–21, 80–3; Gransden, Historical Writing [i], 441–3 and nn. The possibility that a monk of St Edmunds testified verbally at the trial is suggested by Lionel Stones in Stones and Simpson, Edward I and the Throne of Scotland, i. 147 and n. 5. CPR 1281–92, p. 488. John of Shottisham and this writ are not mentioned. On 1 December 1294 Abbot John instructed the prior, William of Rockland, and the precentor, John of Shottisham, to admit William le Eyre a clerk of St Edmunds, charged with various robberies, to compurgation. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 33v–34. Cf.: Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 105 no. 202 and n. 1; Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 42–3.

THE ABBEY AND EDWARD I

81

The number of royal visits to St Edmunds greatly increased as a result of Edward’s Scottish policy and the subsequent war. He stayed at St Edmunds and on the abbot’s manor of Culford – a manor four miles north of Bury St Edmunds – from 28 April to 8 May in 1292, on his way north to resume the trial at Norham of the competitors for the Scottish throne.11 Again, on his way north for the Scottish campaign in 1296 he stayed in the abbey from 16–20 January.12 On his return journey he lodged in the town of Bury St Edmunds with Henry of Lynn from 8–11 November: on this occasion he held parliament and Archbishop Winchelsey held a clerical council.13 Then, on his way to the campaign in 1300, Edward stayed in the abbey from 8–11 May.14 Overall, the number of Edward’s visits while king dramatically increased after 1291: from 1272–91 he visited four times; from 1292–1307 he visited eleven times (including his stays at Culford and those in the town of Bury St Edmunds). Most striking is the fact that in the period from 1292 to 1300 Edward visited St Edmunds nearly every year. It was probably during this period, when St Edmunds was exposed to the full force of pro-war sentiment and enthusiasm, that the form of a letter of procuration addressed to the Roman curia was composed for Abbot John. In it Abbot John excuses himself from personal attendance ‘on account of various and arduous negotiations, especially the Scottish war which compels us assiduously to help our king’; therefore he appoints ‘Master S. de N’, his proctor. Being only a form, the letter is undated.15 However, it may well be based on a genuine letter and, if so, one written late in 1297, when Edward’s hold on Scotland and the safety of the northern border were both in jeopardy. The Scottish War of Independence had broken out in 1296. The insurrection was led by William Wallace, but even after his defeat and capture at Falkirk in July 1298, fighting continued.16 Abbot John’s proctor would have had to explain in the Roman curia why St Edmunds, like the rest of the English church, had granted Edward a subsidy despite the prohibition in the papal bull Clericis laicos and the clergy’s grievances against the crown. In December 1297, Archbishop Winchelsey and his suffragans had sent envoys to the curia with their excuses.17 St Edmunds, because it was an exempt house, would have had to send its own representative. Although royal visits put St Edmunds to great expense, they usually had some beneficial results. As we have seen, John of Shottisham’s pardon was issued on 7 May 1292, just five days after Edward and his household had left the abbot’s manor of Culford. Similarly, we have seen that the royal visits in 1275, 1285 and 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Bury Chron., p. 113; Gough, Itinerary of Edward I, ii. 92–3. Bury Chron., p. 130. Bury Chron., pp. 134–5. Bury Chron., pp. 156–7. BL MS Harley 230, f. 73–73v. See Dickinson, Scotland from the Earliest Times, pp. 154–58. C and S, II, ii. 1178, 1180–5; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 476 et seqq.; Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, pp. 35–7, 53.

82

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

1295 resulted in royal grants which resulted in the better definition, the amplification and codification of the rights enjoyed by St Edmunds in the Liberty of the banleuca.18 During his visit in January 1297 Edward issued a licence to the abbot and convent to retain in mortmain the third part of the manors of Semer and Groton.19 Again, when he was at St Edmunds in May 1300, the king granted the convent amercements from those trading in the banleuca with debased French coins (kokedones) contrary to the royal edict.20 Of more immediate delight to the monks would have been the banquets to which Edward treated them, including one given before the king’s departure on 9 May 1300.21 The chronicler also mentions two other occasions. Each time the banquet was at the end of a rather special royal visit. The two other banquets mentioned followed the celebration of major liturgical feasts. Edward arrived in 1294 on 18 March, the feast of St Edward, king and martyr, and leaving on 19 March ‘he entertained the convent with great magnificence and generosity’.22 Again, on 20 November 1296, Edward while holding parliament in Bury, ‘solemnly kept the feast of St Edmund with the chief men of the realm and entertained the convent’.23 Edward’s pious intention may have been to refresh the monks after the extra exertions imposed on them by the liturgical solemnities. Whilst the monks would have been exposed to the full brunt of royal propaganda in support of Edward and his wars during visits by the king and his entourage, such propaganda also reached them in royal mandates ordering prayers to be said for divine assistance in the Scottish and Gascon campaigns. Since 1294, it had been Edward’s practice before the start of a campaign to issue such mandates throughout the country. These mandates included justifications for the wars and vilification of the enemy in question. Abbot John would have been responsible for the execution of the mandates in the abbey and in the churches and chapels under St Edmunds’ jurisdiction. He received one such mandate dated 12 June 1296, the year of Edward’s first Scottish campaign.24 The monks, therefore, were subject to a number of influences encouraging them to favour Edward and his wars. Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising that the Bury chronicler was an enthusiastic royalist, and it seems likely that most, if not all, monks shared his views.

18 19

20

21 22 23 24

Pp. 52–4, 70, 164. CPR 1292–1301, p. 230. (The income from Semer and Groton was assigned for the support of the chaplains of the Charnel chapel, ibid., p. 520.) Copies are in BL MS Harley 638, ff. 185v–186 and TNA, DL MS 42/5, f. 91. Bury Chron., p. 156. Edward’s writ to the sheriffs of England and to others, forbidding trade with ‘pollards and crockards’ (base coins), in accordance with an ordinance in council, is dated 23 August 1299. The import of ‘bad monies’ such as pollards and crockards was forbidden in a writ of 28 May 1299. Statutes of the Realm, i. 134–5. Bury Chron., p. 150. Bury Chron., p. 118. Bury Chron., p. 130. CCR 1288–96, pp. 506–7; Cal. Chancery Warrants, p. 127; Foedera, II, ii. 802, 872.

THE ABBEY AND EDWARD I

83

There was another important reason for the monks to look favourably on Edward: his veneration for the abbey’s patron saint, St Edmund. Edward, a conventionally pious man, venerated a number of saints, but St Edmund was one of those whom he held in especial esteem. He first visited St Edmunds as king in 1275, when he came as a pilgrim in accordance with a vow made while on crusade.25 In 1283, although he did not visit the abbey, Edward sent 12s 6d to be distributed to a hundred poor people in alms on 20 November, the feast of St Edmund.26 Edward visited the abbey again in 1285, accompanied by the queen and three of their daughters, to fulfil a vow made to God and St Edmund during the Welsh campaign.27 In 1292 Edward, accompanied by his son Edward of Carnarvon, and daughters, arrived at the abbot’s manor of Culford on 28 April, the day before the feast of the Translation of St Edmund.28 The king and his family attended the solemnities in the abbey church. It was obviously a splendid occasion, since Archbishop Pecham, Antony Bek, bishop of Durham, Florence, count of Holland and Guy, count of Flanders, besides several other bishops and seven earls, were also present. In 1296 Edward was at St Edmunds for the feast of St Edmund (20 November) which he ‘solemnly kept with the chief men of the realm’. According to the Bury chronicler, it was on that day, while the king was attending high mass in the abbey church, that the Welsh rebel Rhys son of Rhys submitted, ‘bowing his head in dutiful subjection to the king’. Edward apparently regarded Rhys’s submission on that particular day not as a coincidence, but as owing to St Edmund’s intervention. ‘The king gave due thanks to the martyr, and made offerings with humble devotion.’29 Edward regarded St Edmund as a warrior saint, and an appropriate patron of his campaigns. The idea of St Edmund as a warrior is enshrined in the De miraculis Sancti Eadmundi attributed to ‘Hermann’ the archdeacon,30 which contains the story that St Edmund appeared to, and slew, the Danish king, Swein.31 Both Henry II and Richard I had regarded St Edmund as a valuable patron and as a heroic warrior. Henry had won the battle of Fornham (near Bury St Edmunds) in

25 26

27 28 29 30

31

Bury Chron., p. 57. Arnold Taylor, ‘Royal alms and oblations in the later 13th century: An analysis of the alms roll of 12 Edward I (1283–4)’, in Tribute to an Antiquary: Essays presented to Marc Fitch by some of his friends, ed. Frederick Emmison and Roy Stephens (London, 1976), p. 99. Bury Chron., p. 83. Bury Chron., p. 113, and see above p. 81. Bury Chron., p. 135 and n. 5, 136. The De miraculis attributed to ‘Hermann’ is late eleventh-century and has the earliest known version of the legend. See Memorials, i. 35–8. For the late twelfth-century version see ibid., i. 114–19. See also Horstmann, Nova legenda, ii, 600–3. For the authorship of De miraculis, see Gransden, ‘Composition and authorship of the De miraculis’, pp. 1–52. For an alternative view, see T. Licence, ‘History and Hagiography in the Late Eleventh Century: The Life and Work of Herman the Archdeacon, Monk of Bury St Edmunds’, EHR, 124 (2009), pp. 516–44; Licence, ‘The origins of the monastic communities’, p. 61. Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis … 1169–1192, ed. William Stubbs (RS 49, London, 1867, 2 vols), ii. 116.

84

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

1173 under the banner of St Edmund, defeating the earl of Leicester ‘with God’s and St Edmund’s help’.32 King Richard’s crusading fleet in 1190 was thought to be under St Edmund’s protection, besides that of St Thomas Becket and St Nicholas,33 and in the next year Richard sent the imperial banner ‘all woven in gold’ of Isaac Comnenus, the defeated prince of Cyprus, ‘at once to the blessed Edmund, king and glorious martyr’.34 On his return in 1194, Richard delayed hardly a day at Westminster before leaving on pilgrimage for St Edmunds.35 Edward knew the Swein legend by 1290 at the latest. The sword with which St Edmund was believed to have killed Swein was one of the relics preserved in the abbey church:36 Edward made the same generous offerings to it as he did to St Edmund’s shrine and to the martyr’s reputed shirt. It is noteworthy that Edward had a similar veneration for St John of Beverley, because of a legend about him, which, like the Swein legend, was preserved in a hagiography – the eleventhcentury Life of St John by Folcard. It related that King Athelstan invoked St John’s intercession for help against a Scottish invasion and took a banner with him from Beverley in his campaign; St John appeared to him in a vision and promised him victory, which Athelstan soon gained; later, St John indicated in a miracle that Scotland would forever be subject to the English crown. This legend was cited from Folcard during the trial of the Scottish competitors at Norham, in support of Edward’s claim to overlordship of Scotland.37 From 1291 onwards, Edward visited St John’s shrine at Beverley even more often than he did that of St Edmund.38 He invoked the saint’s intercession for his Scottish campaigns and had the banner of St John borne with his army in battle.39 The Bury chronicler’s most detailed account of a royal visit to St Edmunds appears in his description of the visit of King Edward, Queen Margaret and Prince Edward in May 1300, on their way north for the Scottish campaign in that year. The chronicler states that the king issued the following mandate to one of his justices: I order you to take care not to harm the written privileges of St Edmund, for I have no doubt that he will be in Scotland to protect me and mine, and to conquer

32 33 34 35

36 37

38 39

Gesta regis Henrici secundi, i. 159. Gesta regis Henrici secundi, ii. 116. Gesta regis Henrici secundi, ii. 164. Radulphi de Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum (1066–1223), ed. Joseph Stevenson (RS 66, 1875), p. 63. King Richard’s veneration of St Edmund is also shown by his grant in 1189 in free alms of ten librates in Aylsham to provide four candles to burn forever around St Edmund’s shrine. BL MSS Harley 645, f. 206v and Harley, 1005, f. 81. Liber Quotidianus, pp. 35, 36. For the Swein legend see above p. 60. Stones and Simpson, Edward I and the Throne of Scotland, ii. 153, 308; Anglo-Scottish Relations 1174–1328, ed. and trans. E. L. G. Stones (Oxford, 1965), pp. 198/9; Guisborough, pp. 324, 339. Gough, Itinerary of Edward I, ii. 2, 283. Fraser, Antony Bek, p. 212.

THE ABBEY AND EDWARD I

85

the enemy; he will come brandishing his weapons, ready for battle – much readier than you.40

Besides demonstrating Edward’s belief in St Edmund as a warrior saint, this passage suggests that to ensure the saint’s help Edward’s officials must respect the abbey’s liberties. It will be recalled that reputedly St Edmund had appeared to Edward in a vision in 1290/1291 threatening him with the same fate as Swein if he violated St Edmund’s Liberty – indeed, according to the legend, St Edmund had killed Swein because he tried to tax the people of Beodericisworth.41 It is likely that Abbot John and the convent had agreed with the king that if he respected the abbey’s liberties, they in return would invoke St Edmund’s intercession on his behalf. A parallel for such a bargain would be one Edward made with the monks of Durham in 1298: Edward returned to the convent lands in Coldinghamshire which had been forfeited by its tenants for rebellion; in return the monks promised to invoke St Cuthbert’s intercession in support of Edward’s army in Scotland, and sent a Durham monk to join the royal household and to carry the banner of St Cuthbert before the king’s army.42 With regard to the royal visit to St Edmunds in May 1300, the Bury chronicler observes that never had Edward ‘appeared more gracious to the church and convent’.43 His and the queen’s offerings to St Edmund’s shrine and relics were very generous on that occasion: their money offerings amounted in all to 84s.44 On the same journey northwards the royal party also stayed at Ely and Peterborough: at Ely the money offerings totalled 35s and at Peterborough 28s.45 But much the most vivid impression of Edward’s veneration for St Edmund appears in the chronicler’s description of the visit of 1300. He writes in uncharacteristically moving terms, with warm regard for the king and Prince Edward: The king was at St Edmunds on Sunday, 8 May, in order to dedicate his life to the blessed martyr with deep devotion…. Before he left St Edmunds he particularly commended himself to the convent’s prayers. When he was mounted on his palfrey ready to go out of the gate of the courtyard, he looked behind him twice and bowed very devoutly to the blessed martyr and his saints, with his head bent low. After a few days he sent back his standard to the prior and convent, entreating in an urgent letter that the mass for St Edmund should be celebrated over this

40 41 42 43

44 45

Bury Chron., p. 156. Above pp. 59–60. Fraser, Antony Bek, pp. 128–9 and nn. 2, 3. Bury Chron., pp. 156–7. Whittingham, ‘Bury St Edmunds Abbey’, p. 184, suggests that accommodation for the king and queen within the abbey precincts had been extended in c. 1285, citing The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brakelond: a Picture of monastic life in the days of Abbot Samson, ed. and trans. Ernest Clarke, 3rd edn (London, 1907), p. 196. However, Clarke notes only that in 1285 ‘The King with the Queen and her three daughters made a pilgrimage to Bury.’ Liber Quotidianus, pp. 35–6. Liber Quotidianus, p. 35. On 29 May the king’s and queen’s oblations at the shrine and banner of St John of Beverley totalled 21s.

86

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

emblem, and then finally that it should be touched by all the relics at Bury. What glorious and laudable devotion of the king! He did not fix his hope of future victory on coats of mail nor troops of horse but laid the main foundation of his campaign on the supreme Author of Salvation.46 He wished the very insignia of war, which were exposed only to the wind and air, to have the advantage of such benefits. The king’s son, who had stayed for a longer time, sought a more secluded place in the monastery for his visit. He had been made in chapter one of our brethren, for the regal dignity of the abbey and the monks’ abundance of spiritual comforts pleased him. Every day he asked for a monk’s allowance, just as the brethren ate in the refectory, to be given to him. It is said certainly that he alleged that the grandeur of the place and the agreeable companionship of the monks always pleased him. On the twelfth day, however, he said goodbye to the brethren and hastened to join his father.47

Although this passage is based on actual facts, it is couched in such moving terms that it reads like a paean on St Edmunds; that is, as a place of outstanding sanctity, generous hospitality, and a fitting venue for pilgrims and all visitors, including royalty and the greatest magnates of the realm. Possibly, this passage derives from some propagandist broadsheet intended for distribution to pilgrims and others at St Edmund’s shrine and elsewhere, wherever practicable within the abbey’s catchment area. I suspect that this passage had a forerunner, that is, the description of Bury St Edmunds in Domesday Book, a passage seeming to beckon people to visit the place.48 The record, assuming that the abbey’s returns to the Domesday commissioners were accurate, testifies to the spectacular growth of the town, which was the result of the initiative, energy and ability of a remarkable Frenchman, Abbot Baldwin (1066–97). Were copies of this passage

46 47

48

For prayers invoking divine aid for Edward’s campaigns see above and n. 161. Bury Chron., pp. 156–7. The generosity of royal oblations at St Edmund’s shrine and elsewhere in the abbey may possibly have been in part a recompense for the length of Prince Edward’s stay. However, more substantial were the extra privileges granted to St Edmunds during the visit, mentioned above (p. 82). In [Bury St Edmunds] the town where St Edmund the glorious King and Martyr lies buried, Abbot B(aldwin) held 118 men before 1066 for the monks’ supplies. They could grant and sell their land. Under them, 52 smallholders from whom the Abbot could have a certain (amount of) aid. 54 free [men], somewhat poor; 43 almsmen; each of them has 1 smallholder. Now 2 mills; 2 ponds or fishponds. Value of this town then £10; now [£]20. It has 1½ leagues in length and as much in width. When the hundred pays £1 in tax, then 60d goes from here for the monks’ supplies; but this is from the town as (it was) before 1066 and yet it is the same now although it is enclosed in a larger circuit of land which then was ploughed and sown (but) where [now] there are 30 priests, deacons and clerics, and 28 nuns and poor persons, who pray daily for the King and all Christian people. (Also) 75 bakers, brewers, tailors, washers, shoemakers, robemakers, cooks, porters, bursars; all these daily serve St (Edmund’s), the Abbot and the brethren. Besides these, there are 13 reeves in charge of the land who have their houses in the same town; under them, 5 smallholders. (Also) now 34 men-at-arms, including French and English; under them, 22 smallholders. Now in all (there are) 342 houses in lordship on land (which was) St Edmund’s arable before 1066. For the English translation cited here see DB, Suffolk, i. 14. 167.

THE ABBEY AND EDWARD I

87

distributed to encourage not only pilgrims to visit St Edmund’s shrine but also merchants to come to trade there? Money raised by oblations and from commercial transactions may once have been used to help pay for the great Romanesque church under construction during Baldwin’s rule.

11 The Abbey’s Influential Friends The story cited in Chapter 7 above1 from the Nova legenda relates in highly colourful terms that St Edmund, appearing in a vision, raised his banner in defence of the privileges of his church and of all other franchise-holders against King Edward I’s encroachments. Abbot John would have owed his success against Edward’s encroachments on St Edmunds’ rights partly to his highly trained officials and councillors. In addition, St Edmunds, in the same way as other religious houses at that time, had established a network of connections with influential people – royal officials and justices, lay and ecclesiastical magnates, and the like – whose favour they could expect. They courted favour by various means. Royalty could count on lavish and genial hospitality in the abbey. Visiting magnates would be similarly entertained, and the abbot and convent might grant them or their dependents pensions, or might present them or their dependents to benefices (ecclesiastical livings). Besides, dependents might receive corrodies or sergeanties in the abbey. A list survives in a thirteenth-century register from St Edmunds of the names of thirteen men who received pensions from the abbey under Abbot John, specifying the annual sum paid to each.2 It reads as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1 2

Dom William Burnel 100s. Dom Thomas of Weyland (‘de Weylaund’), clerk, 100s. Dom Henry of Lynn (‘de Lenn’), 100s. Master Ralph of Fotheringhay (‘de Foderinggeye’), 100s. Master Henry of Bray, 100s. Master Hervey of Saham, 5 marks. Dom Henry of Guildford (‘de Gildeford’), 4 marks. Dom Philip of Willoughby (‘de Wyleby’), 5 marks. Master John of Cam[bridge], 40s Nicholas ‘de Castello’, clerk, 40s. Thomas son of Lord Walter of Stirchley (‘de Stirchel’), 5 marks. Master William of Dalton, 20s.

Above pp. 59–60. CUL MS Additional 6006 f. xviii verso. I am deeply indebted to Paul Brand for information he sent in personal communications on 8 July 1998 and 7 November 2006, which helped in the identification of some of the pensioners and especially of the justices mentioned in the list.

THE ABBEY’S INFLUENTIAL FRIENDS

89

13. Walter of ? Sancton Hall (‘de sc̄ōhaƚƚ’), clerk of Dom Robert of Tiptoft (‘de Tibetot’), 5 marks. Some of these pensioners can be identified. First, there are those who received pensions as a reward for services to the crown. Master Henry of Bray was one of the king’s clerks in 1273 with various official responsibilities.3 In 1286 he was a justice of the brief Ely session (associated with the eyre in Cambridgeshire) during a vacancy in the see of Ely4 and a justice of the Jews until 1287. His career in royal service came to an abrupt end in 1290; along with many other justices and administrators, he was disgraced for malpractice and arrested. He was released on payment of a fine but re-arrested in 1292 and imprisoned until 1294. He died sometime between 1311 and 1313. Possibly St Edmunds granted him the pension of 100s in 1284 when he was serving as escheator South of Trent. By 1284, he had taken holy orders incompatible with married status. However, he had a son named Henry who was perhaps the recipient of the pension of 100s from St Edmunds. If so, the pension would probably have been granted as a favour to his father. The Philip of Willoughby (probably Willoughby in Lincolnshire) who received the pension of five marks may well have been the powerful royal administrator of that name. He was originally a clerk of the king’s household. He became escheator North of Trent in 1274, and was Keeper of the Wardrobe 1272–4, a baron of the Exchequer 1276–81 and Chancellor of the Exchequer 1281–1305. Henry of Lynn, who received an annuity of 100s was a chancery clerk in the late thirteenth century.5 Nicholas de Castello, clerk, the recipient of a 40s annuity, was a remembrancer of the Exchequer. Some of those who received pensions because of the influence of the powerful can be identified, or at least tentatively. Thus, it is tempting to identify William Burnell as a relative, perhaps the son or nephew, of Robert Burnell, a man noted for his ambition and greed who was chancellor from 1274 until his death in 1292, and bishop of Bath and Wells from 1275. If so, the pension would have been granted at the chancellor’s behest. The kind of contact that St Edmunds might have had with the chancellor is illustrated by a letter from Prior William of Rockland and the convent addressed to the chancellor beseeching him to listen sympathetically to the request which the sacrist, William of Hoo, would ‘tearfully’ explain to him. The date of this letter can be approximately fixed because an almost identical letter was addressed to the king. It ends by undertaking that, in return, the monks would pray for King Edward’s soul, for the souls of his ancestors and for the soul of his consort ‘of illustrious memory’. Since 3

4 5

See Paul Brand, ‘Bray, Henry (b. before 1248, d. 1311x13)’, rev. ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/37530, accessed 2 Sept 2014]. For Edward I’s purge of the judiciary for misconduct, on his return to England from France in 1289, see Brand, ‘Edward I and the judges: the “State Trials” of 1289–93’, in Brand, The Making of the Common Law, pp. 103–12 (repr. from Thirteenth Century England, i, ed. P. R. Coss and S. D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, 1986), pp. 31–40). Crook, Records, p. 155. See Brand, Earliest Law Reports, i. 112–13.

90

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

Queen Eleanor died on 28 November 1290, and Burnell died on 25 October 1292, the letters were presumably prepared between these dates. This approximate date indicates that the letters were probably written in support of William of Hoo’s mission to the king to negotiate about, and compound for, a tax of a fifteenth owed by the abbey and burgesses. William had received his power of attorney a little earlier, dated 16 November 1290. It precedes the letters in the register which preserves the text of all three documents in unbroken sequence.6 The Henry of Guildford who appears in the list was Henry Gerard of Guildford, not Henry Marshal of Guildford, who was a clerk of Rochester and later justice of the Bench. This identification is secure because, as Paul Brand has informed me, in Hilary term 1294 Henry Gerard sued the abbot of St Edmunds for 20 marks in arrears of his annuity of four marks a year which the abbot had granted to him on 21 January 1284 at Culford.7 Henry was a clerk of John of Lovetoft and, therefore, the pension would have been granted as a favour to Lovetoft. The latter was a fellow justice of the Bench from 1275, with Thomas of Weyland, whose disgrace and fall in 1289 he shared.8 He had close contacts with St Edmunds. In 1283 he was one of the two royal justices to hold a commission of oyer and terminer to deal with those accused of counterfeiting the king’s die in Bury St Edmunds, and another concerning those accused of assaulting merchants in Stowe.9 At about this time he was also one of the justices who acted in the trial of those appealed of the murder in Bury St Edmunds of William, rector of Odell.10 In 1287–90 tension between the abbey and town was acute and the townsmen complained to the king about oppression in the abbot’s court. Therefore, a royal mandate, dated 24 November 1287, was issued commissioning Lovetoft and William of Pakenham to hear and determine the complaints from the townsmen, and the abbot was to make amends for any extortion in his court.11 It should be noted that the John ‘de Lovetot junior’ was no relation whatever to the justice. This was an alias, the name by which a certain Hervey ‘le Turner’ ‘had himself called’.12 This man was a robber and he,

6

7 8 9 10 11

12

BL MS Harley 645, ff. 232v–233. Hoo’s power of attorney is printed in Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 138 nos 12, 13. The Bury chronicler (Bury Chron., p. 95) mentions the grant to Edward by the commons of a fifteenth of the revenues of temporalities. See also C and S, II, ii. pp. 1091–2. For the identification of Henry Gerard of Guildford see Appendix I below. Brand, Making of the Common Law, pp. 130, 153. CPR 1281–92, p. 97. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 44–45v. Printed Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 130–6 no. 8. BL MSS Harley 230, f. 11, and 645, f. 58 (with more detail). Collated and printed LetterBook of William of Hoo, p. 34 no. 19 and nn. See also ibid., p. 33 no. 16; Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 132, 175–6. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 40–43v. Noticed and printed Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 18, 139–48 no. 14. Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 64–5, mentions this case but does not notice Hervey le Turner’s alias. Turner, like Carpenter, was a common occupational surname in medieval East Anglia. See McKinley, Norfolk and Suffolk Surnames, p. 52. The record of

THE ABBEY’S INFLUENTIAL FRIENDS

91

along with Nicholas de Genevyle, was a complainant in the court of St Edmunds on 10 March 1292, accusing the sacrist, the bailiffs of the town and ten others (whom the record names) of unjustly arresting and imprisoning them. They appealed to the king who ordered Abbot John to do justice. Thomas of Weyland, clerk, occurs second in our list. Just possibly he was the well known Thomas of Weyland, justice in eyre in the eastern counties from 1272, justice of the Common Bench in c. 1274, and chief justice of the Common Bench from 1278 until his disgrace and fall from power in 1289. He fled to St Edmunds, taking refuge with the Friars Minor at Babwell, where he was besieged at the king’s orders and, finally submitting to royal authority, was imprisoned and then banished.13 Thomas was an extensive landholder in East Anglia and among his holdings were the St Edmunds’ manors of Onehouse and Welnetham in Suffolk. On his banishment, these escheated to the crown. They were recovered by the abbot in the king’s court but further litigation ensued with Weyland’s heirs.14 Perhaps, therefore, sometime before Weyland’s fall St Edmunds granted him the pension of 100s. However, it is more likely that

13 14

the trial is very detailed and reveals many interesting facets of life in the locality. There was, in fact, a real John de Lovetot junior, who was an esquire in the household of Queen Eleanor, and later a knight in the king’s household. In 1302 he accused Walter de Langton of adultery with John’s stepmother and of keeping her as a concubine after his father’s death, as well as having had his father strangled. See Foedera, I, part II, pp. 956–7; The Great Register of Lichfield Cathedral known as Magnum registrum album (Kendal, 1926), pp. 148–50. Bury Chron., pp. 92–3. Thomas of Weyland abjured the realm in a gaol delivery session on 20 February 1290, and went to France. Thus, on 10 November 1289 Edward instructed William Berri and Robert of Stoneham, keepers of the goods and chattels formerly of Thomas of Weyland in Welnetham and Onehouse not to dissipate them as they were claimed by the abbot of St Edmunds by charters of his progenitors confirmed by him. On 12 February 1290, Abbot John sought, and was granted, writs assigning to him Weyland’s manors of Onehouse and Welnetham and his chattels: CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 3v–4. On 15 February 1290, Edward instructed the keepers to deliver the above manors and chattels to the abbot. See CCR, 1288–96, p. 207; CFR 1272–1307, pp. 271, 272, 277; BL MS Additional 14847, f. 56. The grant was reissued on 27 February 1290 with the proviso that the abbot was only receiving temporary custody until the Easter parliament met. See CFR, 1272–1307, p. 272. There was a further grant of the manors to the abbot on 3 June 1290, but only until a final decision on entitlement was made. See CFR, 1272–1307, p. 277. On 26 July 1290, Weyland’s son John claimed to have been jointly enfeoffed with his father in two-thirds of the manor of Little Welnetham in King’s Bench under a settlement of 1282 (KB 27/124, m. 52d). See BL MS Harley 645, f. 231 (for a writ of 28 July concerning the same matter see ibid., f. 232). For the case see also CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 3–4; BL MS Additional 14847, ff. 55v–57; Pinch. Reg., i. 453–8. Weyland’s wife Marjorie and her son Richard (John’s half-brother) claimed the manor of Onehouse under a different 1282 settlement on them and Thomas: KB 27/124, m. 52. The outcome of the litigation was that the abbot quitclaimed the manors to Richard and John (on the basis that Thomas had only forfeited his life interest in these lands, and could not have forfeited more than that), saving to himself and his successors homage, service, ward, reliefs and escheats. Abbot John, therefore, successfully protected St Edmunds’ rights and the integrity of its holdings. For an account of Thomas of Weyland’s background and career see Paul Brand, ‘Weyland,

92

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

the pensioner was Weyland’s son and namesake Thomas of Weyland ‘clerk’. Although the famous Thomas of Weyland was described as a clerk early in his career, during his period of power he was not so denominated. If it is Thomas Weyland, junior, in the list, the pension of 100s would have been granted as a favour to his father. Paul Brand has informed me that in 1283 Thomas junior received similar pensions from the prior of the Hospitallers and the abbot of Reading, besides a number of livings owing to his father’s influence. One pensioner, Thomas, son of Walter of Stirchley, was certainly granted the pension of five marks by St Edmunds as a favour to his father. Walter of Stirchley was undersheriff of Wiltshire 1272–4 and then successively sheriff of various counties until 1282–5; he was a junior justice in eyre in the southern circuit from 1286–7, that is in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk; and a justice of the 1287 Hertfordshire eyre. He had died before Michaelmas term 1288.15 A further example of a pension certainly granted to a dependent to oblige a powerful man is the five marks granted to Walter of ?Sancton Hall, a clerk of the renowned soldier, influential administrator and minister of the king, Robert of Tiptoft, who died in 1298. Finally, there are four pensioners in the list who were all Masters. Two of these can be identified with varying degrees of certainty. Hervey of Saham, who received an annuity of five marks, was perhaps the scholar who graduated as a Master of Arts at Oxford University in 1285, was chancellor of the university in 1286, and in that year attended the Court of Arches when Archbishop Pecham denounced certain views on the Body of Christ as heretical.16 Master William of Dalton, the recipient of a 20s annuity, may well have been the scholar deputed by Oxford University in 1296 to seek Archbishop Winchelsey’s advice concerning a petition to be submitted by the university to the pope.17 I have failed to identify the two remaining Masters on the list, that is Ralph of Fotheringhay and John of Cambridge.18 They, like Hervey of Saham and William of Dalton, were presumably canonists and common law lawyers retained by St Edmunds as its advocates in ecclesiastical and secular courts. In this way the sacrist, William of Hoo, retained Master Robert of Leicester, ‘professor of law’ in return for an annuity, to support and advise the sacrist against any person of whatever dignity, status (ordo) or condition.19

15

16 17 18

19

Sir Thomas (c.1230–1298)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/29154, accessed 2 Sept 2014]. For his career see Brand, Earliest Law Reports, iii. ci–cii. For the southern eyres of 1286–7, see Crook, Records, pp. 30, 165–8. Walter’s heir was his son John, who was still under age in 1294 – see CP 40/103, m. 115d. Thomas (if legitimate) must have been still younger. BRUO, ii. 1622. BRUO, i. 538. In 1302/3, Peterborough Abbey retained a master William of Fotheringhay, a clerk, apparently for his services as a canon lawyer (BL MS Cotton Vespasian 3. xxii, f. 75v), and he also appears in Emden. It may be that ‘Ralph’ is a copyist’s error for William. BL MS Harley 230, f. 37. Printed Letter-Book of William Hoo, pp. 86–7 no. 166. An alternative identification would be with Robert of Leicester, king’s clerk, keeper of rolls

THE ABBEY’S INFLUENTIAL FRIENDS

93

In fact, the list of pensioners by no means includes all those receiving annuities from St Edmunds. The sources provide evidence for other annuities owed by the abbey and also give details of their terms. For instance, the copy of the charter in the Kempe register reveals that in 1282 Abbot John, with the consent of the convent in full chapter, at the instance of Robert of Tibetoft, ‘the special friend of us and our church’, granted a pension of 40s to another of his clerks, Robert of Bricett, until he could be provided with a suitable sergeanty. His seal and the chapter seal, with unanimous consent, were affixed. The pension was to be paid by the sacrist, that is, 20s at Easter and 20s at Michaelmas. The charter is dated 26 March 1282. Then, on 4 April, it was sealed again with the additional provision that the convent’s treasurers should deliver the 40s to the sacrist, or alternatively, the sacrist might pay himself and subtract 40s from the sum which he was bound to pay to the treasurers annually.20 Outstanding among St Edmunds’ friends not on the list were two powerful men of especial importance in the abbey’s history, that is, Antony Bek, bishop of Durham (1283/4–1311), and Hervey of Stanton. They each deserve to be considered in some detail. Antony Bek was one of Edward I’s chief advisers and negotiators, especially on Scottish affairs.21 On 8 May 1292, Abbot John, ‘at the instance and request of Antony, bishop of Durham, with unanimous, voluntary and common consent’, granted a corrody to one of the bishop’s clerks, Bartholomew of Thetford. The corrody was a generous one. Bartholomew was to have the same daily allowance of food and drink as a monk, that is: a gallon of good ‘conventual’ ale, a loaf of white bread, three regular dishes (like those served in the refectory), and pottage and cheese. He was to have supper on days when the convent ate twice, and once a year the abbot was to give him a robe like the robes worn by his own clerks. The corrody also provided for one servant: the servant was to have daily a loaf of coarse bread such as that given to servants (‘unum panem servientis grossum’), a gallon of second-best ale (‘secunda seruisia’) and one dish such as was served to a servant in the guest house. This corrody was for Bartholomew’s life ‘whether he were present or absent’; presumably it could be commuted for a money payment. Abbot John granted this corrody on 8 May 1292.22 This was only shortly after King Edward, his family and entourage, had spent ten days dividing their time

20 21

22

and writs and assize justice 1285–90. However, since that Robert of Leicester is never entitled magister in the records or royal administration, Paul Brand considers it unlikely that he was the pensioner in question, who was rather was a practising canon lawyer. Therefore, the Robert of Leicester active at Bury was probably a practising canon lawyer, here promising his services as an advocate in ecclesiastical cases. BL MS Harley 645, f. 255v printed Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 123–4 no. 4. For Bek’s career see Fraser, Antony Bek; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 21, 43–4, 104, 110, 137, 150–1, 161, 235–7; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 92, 138, 361–3 passim, 368, 370, 440, 473, 480–1; Stones and Simpson, Edward I and the Throne of Scotland, i. 101, 192, 236; ibid., ii. 3 and n., 4 and n., 14, 15n., 154, 161, 218, 219n., 230–1, 259, 263; C. M. Fraser, ‘Bek, Antony (I) (c.1245–1311)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/1970, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. The Bury Chronicle has a number of references to him (see below, pp. 263–9). CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 50v.

94

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

between the abbey and the abbot’s manor of Culford.23 Antony Bek was one of those with him. He was with the king at Bury St Edmunds again in November 1296, attending parliament there. It will be observed later that the Bury chronicler was very well informed about events in which Bek was involved, and usually writes of him in favourable terms.24 It seems, indeed, that Bek was one of St Edmunds’ powerful friends. There is more concrete evidence about Hervey of Stanton’s relations with St Edmunds. He is a good example of a man who, though not of baronial or even knightly class, rose to a high position in royal service. Like a number of other such men, he came from Suffolk,25 in his case from Stanton, a manor of the chamberlain of St Edmunds, lying about ten miles north-east of Bury on the road to Yarmouth. Sometime before 12 March 1294, he held a messuage and lands in Stanton by customary tenure: on that day Abbot John and the convent granted him manumission in respect of those holdings. Hervey was henceforth to hold them freely for 3s 4d a year and for three weekly suits at the manor court, in exchange for all services except hidage, foddercorn, sheriff’s aid and reasonable aid.26 It was probably in connection with this manumission that Hervey bound himself to be faithful to the abbot and convent. He promised not to reveal their secrets, to give no counsel against their interests and to promote those interests with all his strength. This undertaking referred principally to the chamberlain’s manor in the vill of Stanton, ‘where the lord abbot with the consent of all the convent … had remitted certain customs [pertaining to] two and a half holdings, in exchange for certain services and rents’.27 Hervey began his career as a clerk trained in the common law and offering his services to more than one patron. He was probably ‘Hervey the clerk’ whom the abbot of Colchester appointed as his attorney in Michaelmas 1291.28 But clearly his principal patrons were the abbot and convent of St Edmunds. Abbot John appointed Hervey as his attorney in 1290, when the abbot himself was going overseas.29 And sometime during his period of office as sacrist, William of Hoo appointed him his attorney to inquire about rents owed to the sacrist and to St Edmunds’ church.30 Abbot John rewarded Hervey for service, presenting him in 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30

Above p. 81. See below pp. 263–9. See Brand, Making of the Common Law, pp. 116 and n. 8, 188 and n. 13. For Hervey’s public career see ibid., pp. 162 and n. 116, 177–8 and n. 46, and Brand, ‘Stanton , Hervey (c.1260–1327)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/26326, accessed 2 Sept 2014]. For a more detailed account, including Hervey’s property transactions, see Hervey, Green Books, xix, pp. 114–70. BL MS Additional 14847, f. 26. BL MS Additional 14847, f. 26, and CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 37. For other manumissions granted by Abbot John to villeins see below pp. 190–3. Brand, Making of the Common Law, p. 177 n. 45, citing TNA, CP 40/91, m. 341d. For Hervey’s career as a lawyer in royal service see ibid., pp. 162 and n. 116, 177–8 and n. 46. CPR 1281–92, p. 342. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 56 no. 66.

THE ABBEY’S INFLUENTIAL FRIENDS

95

1288 to the church of Great Saxham in Suffolk. He held this living from 1289 to 1293.31 Hervey’s career was thus well established when he entered royal service. By 1293, he appears in public records as a senior clerk in the court of the Common Bench. Like other able royal clerks, he played an active part in adjudication and on occasion acted in a semi-judicial capacity. Paul Brand remarks that he was clearly ‘well-informed on current law and practice’.32 His reputation grew and his career prospered: in 1301 he began serving on commissions of oyer and terminer; in 1302 he was first appointed as a justice in eyre, and served regularly on subsequent eyres;33 in 1304 he travelled overseas with Prince Edward (future Edward II); and from 1306 until 1313 he was a justice of the Common Bench. He next began a career in the Exchequer, first as a baron and then, 1316–26, as chancellor of the Exchequer. He was briefly chief justice of King’s Bench, 1323–4 and chief justice of the Common Bench in 1326. He died on either 2 or 5 November 1327. Hervey’s close connections with St Edmunds did not end when he entered royal service. In the course of his career he acquired property in many parts of England, but there was a concentration of his holdings in and around Bury St Edmunds, and some of his property transactions were with the abbot himself. He had a house (hospitium) in Barnwell Street in Bury St Edmunds,34 and in 1299 acquired from Adam, son of Thomas of Bocking of St Edmunds, ‘a demesne and service’ in the town and its suburbs, and the reversion of tenements which had formerly belonged to Adam’s mother.35 Abbot John, with the convent’s consent, granted Hervey a lease for life of his manor of Stapleford Abbots in Essex,36 and in 130737 John’s successor, Thomas of Tottington, again with the convent’s consent, granted him a lease for life of the chamberlain’s manor of Stanton. The latter grant was made in exchange for the reversion to the abbot and convent, on Hervey’s death, of a messuage, lands and rents which he held in fee in the St Edmunds’ manors of Pakenham, Norton, Barton, Stow Langtoft, Thurston and Ixworth for the uses of the cellary. These holdings comprised 180 acres of arable land, 30 acres of meadow, two acres of pasture, one acre of woodland and 38s in rent, altogether worth £10 annually.38 It was presumably in reward for favours or services that in 1295 Abbot John presented Hervey to another living in his gift,

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Reg. Peckham, iii. 1010, 1049. Brand, Making of the Common Law, p. 162 no. 116. Brand, Making of the Common Law, p. 162 no. 116, and Crook, Records, pp. 179–82. Hervey, Green Books, xix, pp. 124, 166. Many of the references concerning Hervey of Stanton’s property transactions cited below appear in this same volume. CPR 1324–7, p. 183. CPR 1317–21, p. 160. CPR 1301–7, p. 531. CPR 1301–7, p. 506; BL MS Harley 638, ff. 179, 187v.

96

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

the church of Warkton: Hervey held it until about 1303 when he was succeeded by Hervey of Stanton junior.39 Occasionally Hervey’s official duties in the king’s service concerned St Edmunds. In 1302 he sat at Cattishall with another royal justice, Elias Puger, to hear and determine trespasses committed in Beccles by various men and tenants of the prior and convent of St Edmunds during the vacancy of the abbacy: King Edward, ‘out of devotion to St Edmund’, allowed the prior and convent the £20 fine imposed by the justices.40 Then, in 1312, Abbot Thomas heard a case at Redgrave in the presence of Hervey, ‘the king’s justice’. The suit was against the men of Hopton who had cut down and taken alder trees from the common without the abbot’s licence. They paid a fine of £10 and bound themselves to each other never to do it again.41 There is further evidence of Hervey’s continued involvement with St Edmunds. An example occurred during the rebellion of Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer against Edward II. The queen had sailed from Holland with her forces in September 1326. She landed at Orwell in Suffolk, and moved from there to Walton-on-the-Naze, then to Bury St Edmunds, and then on to Cambridge and beyond.42 Hervey obviously feared for the safety of his treasure and stored a large sum, variously stated to have been 800 marks43 or £800,44 in St Edmunds. However, Isabella borrowed (mutuavit) the money in Hervey’s absence. It was not recovered in his lifetime but was repaid to his executors on 2 December 1328.45 On Hervey’s death in 1327 the manors of Stapleford Abbots and Stanton reverted to St Edmunds. Hervey had made his will that summer, and two of his bequests were obviously intended to prevent the reversion from disrupting the agricultural process.46 He bequeathed to the abbot his plough-beasts at Stapleford Abbots, besides 40 quarters of wheat for seed and for servants’ allowances, and 40 quarters of oats for seed and provender (‘ad praebendam’), and half the straw from threshing and half the hay from the manor. He further bequeathed to the prior and convent his two ploughs at Stanton, with their plough-beasts, and seed corn, that is 12 quarters of wheat, six quarters of rye, 20 quarters of barley, 39

40 41 42

43

44 45 46

Hervey, Green Books, xix, pp. 118–19 with references. Institutions within the archdeaconry of Northampton are printed in The Rolls and Register of Bishop Oliver Sutton, 1280–99, ed. R. M. T. Hill, vol. ii (Lincoln Record Soc. 43, Hereford, 1950). CCR 1296–1302, p. 542. BL MS Harley 230, f. 80. Seymour Philips, Edward II (New Haven, 2010), pp. 503–4; McKisack, Fourteenth Century, p. 83; further background is given in Roy Martin Haines, King Edward II: Edward of Caernarfon his life, his reign, and its aftermath, 1284–1330 (Montreal, 2003), pp. 175–6. The Annales Paulini in Chrons Edward I and II, i. 314; Philips follows the Annales in stating that the sum was 800 marks, see Philips, Edward II, p. 504. Hervey, Green Books, xix, p. 159. CCR 1327–30, p. 189. CCR 1327–30, p. 189. An English abstract of the will, dated 26 August 1327, is in Hervey, Green Books, xix, pp. 163–9.

THE ABBEY’S INFLUENTIAL FRIENDS

97

four quarters of peas and beans and 12 quarters of oats, ten quarters of rye, barley and peas for the servants, half of the hay. This bequest was made on condition that the prior and convent did nothing to obstruct Hervey’s executors – if they did so, they were to have nothing. It appears that the relationship between Abbot John of Northwold and Hervey was particularly close. Abbot John appointed Hervey the first of the five executors of his will,47 and Hervey for his part established in his will chantries to pray for John’s soul among others. He bequeathed £20 each to ten houses of friars in East Anglia, to celebrate six anniversary masses, and 20 marks each to two other friaries to celebrate four such masses, and five marks to the nuns of Thetford for one anniversary mass. The masses were for the souls of Hervey himself, his father and mother, and for the souls of eight others who are named, and for all of Hervey’s benefactors and of all the faithful departed: John, ‘formerly abbot of St Edmunds’, is third among the named beneficiaries of these endowments. Earlier, in 1324, Hervey had established a chantry in the hospital of St Nicholas, one of the five hospitals in Bury St Edmunds in the care of the sacrist. He granted the abbot and convent various parcels of land and rents which he had acquired in 1299 from Adam, son of Thomas of Bocking. These lands totalled nearly 18½ acres, all leased and worth 46s 8d a year, along with rents totalling 73s 6d a year. This generous donation was to pay for the maintenance of a chaplain who was to live in the hospital with the other chaplains and to celebrate daily for Hervey’s soul and for the souls of his kindred and benefactors both alive and dead, and of all faithful, ‘especially of the king and Abbot Richard, and especially of the abbot Dom John of Northwold, of famous memory (‘celebris memorie’), and of the sacrist, William of Hoo’. The chaplain was to be called ‘the chaplain of the prior of St Edmunds and of Hervey of Stanton’.48 Thus, the evidence preserved in St Edmunds’ archives and chronicle, and in the public records, give us a rare glimpse into the career of one of the abbey’s most faithful and highly valued friends.

A case of bribery: the disafforestation of Warkton, 1299 The favour of powerful people such as Antony Bek and Hervey of Stanton undoubtedly helped Abbot John and the convent defend St Edmunds’ rights and further its interests. John and his monks could expect to secure long-term

47 48

CCR 1296–1302, xix, p. 585. Hervey, Green Books, xix, p. 125. See below p. 289. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 10–10v, 12v–13, bis. These are the only two known copies, and both name the donor ‘Henry of Stanton, clerk’. Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 86–7 no. 113, therefore, doubts that Hervey of Stanton was the donor, but rather he was that ‘Henry of Stanton, clerk’, who occurs in other contexts. However, as the donation includes rents in Bury St Edmunds, which Hervey had purchased from Adam, son of Thomas of Bocking, I think that we may safely conclude that Henry is a copyist’s error, a mistake for Hervey (see Hervey, Green Books, xix, p. 124). Hervey’s purchase of the rents in question is recorded elsewhere.

98

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

support through the grant of pensions and by other similar means. But to succeed in particular cases they might resort to bribery. An attempt by the convent in 1268 to reduce the burden of the triennial tenth by bribing one of the assessors will be described later. In that instance the attempt failed because the royal assessors discovered the ruse. However, in another known instance bribery was used successfully: it was used in 1299 to persuade the royal justices of the Forest to disafforest the cellarer’s manor of Warkton in Northamptonshire. The Bury chronicler’s graphic account of the affair deserves special mention because it illustrates the methods which a landholder might employ in order to win a case in a royal court. The manor of Warkton belonged to the cellarer of St Edmunds and lay within the boundaries of the royal forest of Rockingham.49 The king had extensive judicial and administrative rights over royal forests and derived a substantial income from them. Henry II and Richard I, and to a lesser degree King John, had afforested more and more land until about a third of England was subject to forest law. The latter was a perennial source of grievance, both to its inhabitants because of the oppressive forest law, and to landholders because of their loss of control and economic benefit from any of their estates lying within a royal forest.50 Demands for disafforestation reached a peak at the end of the thirteenth century. Clauses 1–3 of the Charter of the Forest of 1217, which was confirmed in 1225, 51 had promised the disafforestation of all land newly afforested by Henry II through a juridical process, unless it were part of the king’s demesne (dominicus).52 Similarly, there was a promise summarily to disafforest all lands afforested by Richard and John. Although periodically throughout the thirteenth century commissions were appointed to mark out (perambulate) the boundaries of the Forest, the king ignored their findings. However, by the end of the century opposition on this issue had reached a climax. In 1297, the earls refused to grant a fifteenth unless Edward confirmed the charters: therefore, he confirmed Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest in that year. He did so again in 1300, and felt obliged to implement the findings of the perambulations which took place late in 1300: the result was that about half the royal forest was disafforested.53 49

50

51 52

53

See esp. M. L. Bazeley, ‘The extent of the English Forest in the thirteenth century’, TRHS 4th ser., 4 (1921), pp. 160–1 with sketch map between showing the extent of the royal forests in Northamptonshire. For forest law see Holt, Magna Carta, pp. 85, 291–2, 301–2; W. L. Warren, The Governance of Norman and Angevin England 1086–1272 (London, 1987), pp. 162–3; C. R. Young, The Royal Forests of Medieval England (Leicester, 1979), pp. 74–113 passim. Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 345 (for the 1217 charter); Holt, Magna Carta, pp. 512–13 (for 1225 confirmation); Bazeley, ‘The extent of the English Forest’, p. 148. The problem of the exact meaning of the word dominicus or dominica is discussed by B. P. Wolffe in The Royal Demesne in English History: the Crown estate in the governance of the realm from the conquest to 1509 (London, 1971), pp. 17–24. He does not agree with the views expressed in R. S. Hoyt, The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History 1066– 1272 (Ithaca, NY, 1950), pp. 2–3, 6. Hist. Docs, iii. 488 no. 77, 496 nos 84, 85; Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, pp. 260, 264, 266–7; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 427, 523–4.

THE ABBEY’S INFLUENTIAL FRIENDS

99

The Bury chronicler describes with obvious satisfaction the disafforestation of Warkton.54 It was achieved by the cellarer, John of Eversden, who was staying on the manor at the time of the perambulation of the district in November 1300, by Roger Brabazon, John of Berwick, Ralph of Higham and John of Croxley. Brabazon, chief justice 1295–1316, headed a commission of enquiry concerning various royal forests from 1300 to 1316.55 We know that Eversden was at Warkton on 14 September 1300, because that was when the abbot secured his title in Boughton (Boughton Hall and park lie within a mile of Warkton), apparently by means of a fictitious action brought against him by the men of Boughton.56 An account of the case is preserved in one of the abbey’s registers.57 According to a well-established tradition Warkton was part of the royal forest because it had been given to St Edmunds by William I’s wife, Queen Matilda. John Taxster, in his annal for 1068, states that Queen Matilda gave it to St Edmunds,58 and the Pinchbeck Register (compiled shortly after 1327) also states that she gave it ‘with all appurtenances, with the consent and at the wish (“cum consensu et voluntate”) of her husband, King William I, but without a charter’.59 If Queen Matilda was the donor, this meant that Warkton was part of the royal demesne and, by implication in this instance, part of the royal forest of Rockingham long before Henry II’s coronation and, therefore, was not eligible for disafforestation. The abbot and convent must have known this perfectly well. Nevertheless, any right, whether the king’s or one of his subject’s, founded on oral tradition was not incontrovertible: oral evidence was inevitably hazy, since the period before Henry II’s coronation was well beyond living memory. There are a number of examples of lands disafforested during the 1299 and 1300 perambulations on the basis of very insubstantial evidence.60 The Bury chronicler’s account of the arguments used for the disafforestation of Warkton suggests they are probably a fairly typical example of the kind of ‘evidence’ submitted during these perambulations. The chronicler gives two reasons why Warkton should be disafforested. It would seem that the abbey’s legal advisers produced these arguments in order 54 55

56 57

58 59 60

Bury Chron., pp. 158–9 and nn. For Roger Brabazon, see Paul Brand, ‘Brabazon, Sir Roger (b. in or before 1247?, d. 1317)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/3153, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. TNA, Pat. Roll, C 67/6A, m. 11, which, however, makes no reference to the dispute with St Edmunds over Warkton. BL MS Additional 14847, f. 62–62v. For this register, compiled in the late thirteenth century, apparently under the aegis of the sacrist, William of Hoo, see Thomson, Archives, pp. 19, 121–3 no. 1278; Davis, Medieval Cartularies, rev. edn, no. 96; and below p. 105. Critical Edition of Bury St Edmunds Chronicle in Arundel 30, ed. Gransden, p. 205. Pinch. Reg., ii. 292. Bazeley, ‘The extent of the English Forest’, p. 159; Prestwich, Edward I, p. 527; Young, The Royal Forests of Medieval England, p. 140. For an inquisition before the royal justice of the forest in 1248 concerning Warkton and other townships see G. J. Turner, Select Pleas of the Forest (Selden Soc., 23, 1901), p. 89.

100

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

to demolish the contention that Queen Matilda was the manor’s donor. The chronicler asserts in the first place that the manor was given to St Edmunds by a pious and virtuous couple (whom he does not name). He then recounts a hagiographical tale to substantiate this assertion. Possibly the story was composed especially for this purpose, or perhaps it was borrowed from some hagiography unrelated to St Edmunds’ acquisition of Warkton, which was then suitably adapted. The pious couple, so the story relates, wished to win the crown of martyrdom, but were misled by ‘the Enemy of mankind’ into believing that, therefore, they must kill themselves. However, on the day they chose for the act, when all their household was absent, God intervened because He did not want His saints to be made a mockery of in such a way. A miraculous ray of light shone and reminded the couple of the customary practice of drinking the brimming cup, the plenum of St Edmund, after grace before lunch.61 The toast was ‘in honour of the glorious king and martyr’ and ‘when the plenum is brought, the devil is put to flight’. The couple repented their wicked intention and, in gratitude to St Edmund for his intervention, hurried to his shrine and gave the manor of Warkton to his church.62 They spent the rest of their lives ‘in the old hall called Bradfield’.63 The assumption must be that the couple lived before the Norman Conquest. Otherwise the second argument adduced by the chronicler to support St Edmunds’ case for the disafforestation of Warkton would be inconsistent with the first. It attacks the tradition that Queen Matilda gave Warkton to St Edmunds on other grounds. The argument begins: ‘There remains the objection that it is often asserted by notorious ill-wishers that King William I or Queen Matilda, his wife, gave this manor to St Edmunds’. There follows a passage condemning William’s seizure of England and distribution of lands as illegal.64 The answer to this argument is that the said King William acquired England by force of arms; he reduced the earls to obedience; he divided the land into counties; he 61

62

63 64

Possibly the author of this story connected the custom of a pre-prandial drink with St Edmund because of the cup of St Edmund which was saved from the ashes of the 1198 fire in the shrine, and was preserved as a miracle-working relic. JB, p. 108. Osbert of Clare’s collection of the miracles of St Edmund includes the cure of the sick who drank from the cup. See De Miraculis, in Memorials, i. 87–91; Horstmann, Nova legenda, ii. 641–2, 645; J. B. Mackinlay, Saint Edmund King and Martyr (London – Leamington, 1893), pp. 263–4. Suicide, the intentional taking of one’s own life, is condemned in the Bible and this condemnation became part of canon law. Moreover, canonical penalties were reinforced by secular punishments in most countries in the Middle Ages. For a broad discussion of the medieval legal background, see Alexander Murray, Suicide in the Middle Ages: vol. 2: the curse on self-murder (Oxford, 2000) pp. 152–286, passim. Suicide remained illegal in England until 1961; see ODCC, 1566–7. ‘The old hall called Bradfield’ was within the abbey precincts. Gesta sacrist., pp. 295, 338 and below p. 223. Bury Chron., pp. 160–1. For English resentment at the seizure of the estates of English landowners following the Norman conquest see e.g.: Ann Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest (Woodbridge, 1995), pp. 142–3, 172–6; Gransden, Historical Writing [i], 278–9. Almost without exception churchmen were loyal to the old order and regarded landholders of the new regime as illegal dispossessors.

THE ABBEY’S INFLUENTIAL FRIENDS

101

disinherited the native inhabitants; he enfeoffed foreigners and, to be brief, he who acquired the whole country allotted its parts where, how and to whom he wished. It seemed that under this new king another era had begun in England, to such an extent that many English magnates importuned the king, at great expense to themselves, to be allowed to hold the lands (dominia)65 which they had possessed from the earliest times, as if they had been newly enfeoffed by the new king. Therefore, when in those days the king or queen gave, granted or confirmed anything to the magnates, it looked as though the magnates had received the holdings from a new donor. Thus, the manor of Warkton is called the gift of the king or queen, not because it had not been given, but because now it was confirmed afresh with the appearance of a gift. In proof of this fact it should be noted that the same king robbed the monastery of Ramsey of 1,700 librates of land which he divided among the knights who had come with him to England.66 If, as seems likely, these two arguments were those used to support St Edmunds’ claim that Warkton was not part of the royal forest, John of Eversden was probably wise not to rely on them: the story of the pious couple is unconvincing, and the argument that William I’s seizure of England was illegal was unlikely to weigh with the royal justices. Eversden, therefore, had a strong motive for resorting to bribery. This he did, ‘urging his case with precious gifts and sumptuous banquets’.67 And thus he obtained the manor’s disafforestation.

65 66

67

Altered by erasure apparently to omnia. College of Arms MS Arundel 30 (the unique text), pp. 202v–203. Bury Chron., p. 161 n. a. For the Ramsey chronicler’s comments on William the Conqueror’s seizure of its rights and lands see Chron. Ramsey, pp. 152–3. For its losses see esp. Raftis, Estates of Ramsey Abbey, pp. 24–31. I have not found the source of the precise figure, 1,700 librates of land, given by the Bury chronicler. ‘Ad hoc specialiter agens donis et epulis preciosis ut dictum manerium cum boscis et pertinenciis suis deforestaretur’. Raftis, Estates of Ramsey Abbey, pp. 158–9.

12 William of Hoo, Sacrist 1280–94 The toponyms of William of Hoo and as William of Luton suggest that he was a relative or other connection of Abbot Simon of Luton.1 He had held the office of chamberlain under Abbot Simon and shortly after John of Northwold’s succession was appointed sacrist. His appointment followed the resignation in the spring of 1280 of the apparently ineffectual Simon of Kingston.2 At about the same time the aged and debilitated prior, Robert Russel, resigned and Stephen of Ixworth was appointed in his place.3 Hoo was, therefore, one of two new men appointed to promote reform in the abbey and its administration. It may well have been at his instance that Abbot John and the convent obtained the important writ of 16 December 1280, confirming to the convent the town of Bury St Edmunds and the mint, and all their profits. The writ states that during vacancies the town and mint would not be taken over by the royal keeper of the abbot’s barony.4 The town was assigned to the sacristy and was its most lucrative asset. Profits from it were especially necessary because on top of the high cost of administration were the debts which Hoo inherited from his predecessor.

The sacrist’s office As explained above, the substance of the writ of 16 December 1280 was incorporated in the Composition (conventio) agreed between Abbot John and the convent and issued on 24 June 1281 which was confirmed by the king on 16 November.5 The latter sets out in detail the division of portions between abbot and convent, and specifies the exact allocation of the property and rights assigned to each obedientiary. It is apparent that although the cellarer was the most important landholder amongst the obedientaries, the sacrist’s income from other sources was as great as the cellarer’s, and that more power was assigned to him than to any of his colleagues.6 The royal confirmation states that the 1 2 3 4 5 6

For Abbot Simon’s connections with the Hoo family see above pp. 3–4. Bury Chron., p. 71. For Simon of Kingston see above p. 36. Bury Chron., p. 71. BL MS Harley 638, ff. 182–3. See above p. 48. Above pp. 48–50. Mon. Angl., iii. 156–7. Above pp. 36–7.



WILLIAM OF HOO, SACRIST 1280–94

103

sacrist held the town, its lands, meadows, fairs, markets, courts and rents; he had the right to treasure trove, reliefs, escheats and all other temporal and spiritual rights. He also controlled the mint and drew its profits. It would appear from the confirmation that the only limit to his power in the town was that the burgesses had to do homage to the abbot – but of course the abbot, and above him the king, were the ultimate authorities. Moreover, the confirmation lists the sacrist’s revenues from a number of vills on the abbey’s estates. The most valuable were his half share of the manor of Icklingham7 and the ten librates which he held in Aylsham: the latter holding had been given to the sacristy to pay for four candles to burn night and day at St Edmund’s shrine.8 Despite this, in the 1291 assessment the sacrist’s revenue from the town was nearly two thirds greater than his total revenue from all these other sources.9 In addition, the confirmation lists the sacrist’s obligations to the convent. He had to provide the lighting, and the wine and obleys for mass in the abbey church and in the other churches in the Liberty, and to deliver the customary weekly allowances of wax to the abbot ‘and others’. He was responsible for the upkeep of the abbey church and for the repair of its ornaments, as well as for allowances to its servants and pittances and presents ‘and all other burdens according to ancient custom’. Clearly, the sacrist’s obligation to provide the abbot with wax concerned the abbot as much as the convent. So did his duty of keeping the abbot’s buildings in the great court – except the larder ‘and houses towards the garden’. Parts of the confirmation of the sacrist’s assets and obligations read as if it is based on some now lost written agreement made between the sacrist and the other monks. If so, it would have supplemented the Composition made between Abbot John and the convent on 16 October 1280, since that does not mention the sacrist’s office. Besides his obligations to the convent, the sacrist had one duty which devolved on him directly from the abbot, that is the execution on the abbot’s behalf of archidiaconal authority in the town (in the banleuca the abbot enjoyed spiritual jurisdiction exempt from any authority except that of the pope or a papal legate a latere). This meant that the sacrist was responsible for testamentary matters, the enforcement of morality in the town, the publication of excommunications, and for charity and the like.10

7 8

9 10

For the sacrist’s holdings in Icklingham see below p. 186. BL MS Harley 645, f. 206v. For King John’s confirmation see CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 30v–31. For a grant by Abbot Samson of villeins and lands in Aylsham, which mentions ‘our hall in Aylsham’ see Kalendar, ed. Davis, pp. 151–2 no. 131. For five charters relating to St Edmunds’ tenants and sub-tenants in Aylsham, sealed by Richard of Colchester (alias of Witham), sacrist (c. 1257–9), and including the sacrist’s bailiff in Aylsham manor, William of Stanton, see CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 83v–84. A charter of ?1285–6 records an agreement between Abbot John, the convent and William of Hoo, sacrist, with the widow Agnes, see below, pp. 107–8. These examples show that St Edmunds’ property in Aylsham was substantial. Bury Chron., p. 109. Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 41–4; Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 16, 19–21 passim. See below pp. 109–14, 237–8.

104

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

William of Hoo was a man whose ability was recognized in his own day. In 1290 Abbot John and the convent appointed him their attorney to negotiate with the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer concerning the abbey’s payment of the fifteenth on movables, and to compound for it.11 He was also an agent of Master Geoffrey of Vezzano, papal nuncio, and general collector of papal taxes (1276–99) and (from 1282) collector of debts from crusading vows, redemption of those vows, testaments and some other sources.12 Hoo had numerous people to help him in the performance of his many duties and retained highly trained legal advisers: thus, he granted an annuity to a certain Master Robert of Leicester, ‘professor of law’, probably a canonist; in return Robert was, with due notice, to give Hoo ‘prompt and ready support’ in all causes and to compensate him for any loss arising from his default.13 In the town Hoo’s immediate agents were the two bailiffs and their underlings. As archdeacon his main deputy was the official. But always over Hoo himself was the authority of the abbot; and Abbot John was vigilant to ensure that Hoo exercised his power efficiently and justly: if he failed to do so John intervened.14

The sources Few obedientiaries have left such a rich archive documenting their activities as William of Hoo. The last substantial entry in the Gesta sacristarum is devoted to Hoo’s term of office; part of it is cited below.15 It will be seen in a later chapter that another narrative source, the first continuation (1265–96) of John Taxster’s chronicle, includes a number of entries concerning Hoo and his duties.16 But particularly remarkable are the relevant record sources. In the first place, there is Hoo’s letter-book, or formulary. This is an octavo-sized booklet, now BL MS Harley 230, ff. 8–53v, and bound with other booklets from St Edmunds.17 The letter-book originated as a formulary of fifty-six forms, that is, of models for official letters. Many of these forms are based on actual letters, most of them by Hoo. More forms and copies of letters were later fitted into blank spaces, bringing the total to 205 (discounting duplicate and triplicate entries). The book is important not only for the detailed picture it gives of the activities of a sacrist of St Edmunds in the late thirteenth century, but also because of its wider significance: it appears from the late W. A. Pantin’s list of English monastic letter-books (a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 138 no. 13. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 47 no. 37 and n. 1, 48–9 no. 41, 57 no. 71. Cited Lunt, Papal Revenues, ii. 517. See also Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 450–1. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 86–7 no. 166. For Master Robert of Leicester, see above p. 92 n. 19. See e.g. below pp. 111–13. Below p. 143. Below p. 261. Described in Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 12–14.



WILLIAM OF HOO, SACRIST 1280–94

105

number of which, like Hoo’s, doubled as formularies) that, while those of thirteenth-century abbots and priors are fairly numerous, those of obedientiaries are very rare – indeed, Hoo’s is the sole example in Pantin’s list.18 Since Hoo’s correspondence was much concerned with his archidiaconal duties it resembled, for example, that of William Wickwane when chancellor of York (1266–8),19 as well as some of the correspondence of the archdeacon of Ely’s official.20 Hoo’s letter-book must have been a useful guide for Hoo’s clerks, but was not intended as an official record. That was the purpose of three other volumes associated with Hoo. One is a quarto-sized cartulary, now CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, part 1 (ff. 1–90), nearly entirely written in a beautiful late thirteenth-century cursive hand.21 It contains copies of charters concerning the sacristy and was probably compiled at Hoo’s order.22 The evidence for this supposition is in another archival book, the so-called White register, now BL MS Additional 14847, which contains a list of charters (ff. 21v–25) headed ‘these are the letters and charters which are contained in the register which William the sacrist caused to be written’ (‘Hec sunt littere et carte que continentur in registro quem Willelmus sacrista fecit scribere’). Thomson suggests the possibility that this register was compiled by Hoo ‘as many of the deeds relate to his term of office’.23 It certainly seems quite likely that it was compiled in the sacrist’s office at Hoo’s behest. The third manuscript, which includes many invaluable documents relating to the sacrist’s office in Hoo’s time, is the massive quarto-sized volume known as the Kempe register, BL MS Harley 645.24 It contains a huge accumulation of items, mainly of the late thirteenth, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is obviously a compilation but its earliest component could well have originated in Hoo’s time and in his office. Considered together, these three volumes testify to Herculean efforts made by Hoo and his staff to produce an archive to serve their administrative needs. From this wealth of material a few examples will be given to show how William of Hoo performed his duties. Some subjects concerning the sacrist’s office are dealt with elsewhere, that is: the arrest in the banleuca of the two

18

19 20 21 22 23 24

W. A. Pantin, ‘English monastic letter-books’, in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait, ed. J. G. Edwards, V. H. Galbraith and E. F. Jacob (Oxford, 1933), pp. 201–22 passim, and Rosalind M. T. Hill, Ecclesiastical Letter-books of the thirteenth century (privately printed, n.d.). Printed by C. R. Cheney, ‘Letters of William Wickwane, chancellor of York, 1266–1268’, EHR 47 (1932), pp. 636–42. See Vetus liber archidiaconi Eliensis, ed. C. L. Feltoe and E. H. Minns, Cambridge Antiquarian Soc., octavo ser., 48 (1917), pp. 171–9. Thomson, Archives, pp. 19, 148–9 no. 1296; Davis, Medieval Cartularies, rev. edn, no. 117; Lowe, ‘Two thirteenth-century cartularies’, p. 293. Thomson, Archives, pp. 19, 121–3. Thomson, Archives, p. 123. For the relationship between CUL MS Ff. ii. 33 and BL MS Additional 14847, see Lowe, ‘Two thirteenth-century cartularies’, pp. 293–300. Thomson, Archives, p. 123; Davis, Medieval Cartularies, rev. edn, no. 124.

106

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

clerks accused of the murder of William of Woodhill in 1283, and their trial;25 the history of St Edmunds’ mint in John of Northwold’s abbacy;26 the dispute in 1285 over the view of weights and measures;27 Hoo’s exploitation of revenues from the secular and spiritual courts in the banleuca;28 and the profits he derived from trade both within the town and elsewhere.29 Now some other examples will be given to illustrate the various aspects of his activities.

Property and related transactions Hoo sought to increase the sacristy’s revenues by acquiring quit-rents (usually small payments in lieu of services) and actual properties in the town – which were his richest asset. For example, some time in 1283/4, he acquired 6d quitrent from a shop in the town held by John, called the shearman (‘le schereman’, that is, cloth cutter), of St Edmunds, son of William Scissor (‘le Scercer’) of Cavendish (a vill in west Suffolk about twelve miles south of Bury St Edmunds). The quit-rent was payable from his house (tufta) in the tailors’ street in Bury St Edmunds; in return Hoo remitted to John the obligation to pay the sacristy one pound of frankincense yearly in respect of his holding in Cavendish. The charter was sealed by John and witnessed by the alderman and bailiffs of the town amongst others.30 The parties, Hoo and John the shearman, were further bound to observe this agreement by a chirograph, dated 12 Edward I (hence our date for the transaction).31 Again, sometime in 1284/5, Hoo obtained a quitclaim from Richard, son of Thomas of ‘Schadeford’ (?Shotford, near Bungay in south Norfolk), of ‘Redfen’, to Abbot John, the convent and Hoo, for the use of the sacristy, the messuage and buildings in St Edmunds in the Schoolhall (Scolehalle) ?Street32 formerly belonging to Warin the parchment seller (‘le Parcheminer’), which he and his wife, a widow (relicta),33 held for life for 4s annually, with the duty of keeping the holding in as good an order as when he received it from the sacrist. The quit-claim was witnessed by the alderman, Geoffrey, son 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33

Above pp. 73–4. Above pp. 63–9. Above pp. 70–1. Above p. 103. Below pp. 180–1. BL MS Harley 645, f. 111; CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 75; Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 157 no. 24. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 157–8 no. 25. Schoolhall Street ran along the south side of St Mary’s church and the cemetery. For the location of the school hall and of Schoolhall Street (now Honey Hill and part of Raingate Street) see Statham, Book of Bury St Edmunds, p. 117; Warren’s map is excellently reproduced as the front pastedown in ibid.; Statham, ‘Medieval town’, pp. 104, 108 and fig. 1; above fig. 7. A ‘relict’ was usually a widow, but could be a divorced wife. See SOED, ii. 1696 cols 2–3; Latham, Word-List, p. 400 col. 2; Dictionary of Medieval Latin, p. 2739.



WILLIAM OF HOO, SACRIST 1280–94

107

of Robert [Spot], and the two bailiffs, John son of Henry,34 and Stephen, son of Benedict.35 Another example concerns Agnes, widow of William, son of Bartholomew. It will be seen that a number of other documents concern this same widow. They offer a good illustration of the good legal status of widows at this time. A widow was entitled to a third or more – sometimes even all – of her deceased husband’s property for the duration of her life, and could conduct property transactions on an equal footing with a man.36 In the present case Abbot John, the convent and William of Hoo granted to Agnes an annuity of six and a half marks for life; in exchange, she granted them ‘all the buildings, fences, ditches, arable land, meadows and pastures’ from her tenement in Aylsham (in Norfolk) during her lifetime.37 The annuity was payable from specified rents from various shops and taverns in Bury St Edmunds, including rents from a shop (selda) in Smiths’ Street (‘in vico fabrorum’), and from the tavern at the gateway to the great court of St Edmunds, held by Hugh le Taverner. The document was witnessed by the alderman, Geoffrey le Spot, and bailiffs, William le Large and Nicholas [son of] Fulc.38 As we shall see, a number of other charters concern the business affairs of the widow Agnes, who was obviously wealthy, and since most of the documents are dated, or datable to, at least two years before she acquired this generous annuity, she was probably a good age in 1285/6 and Hoo may have calculated that she had not long to live. Supposing that she had died fairly soon afterwards, St Edmunds would soon be free from the obligation to pay the annuity, while Hoo would have acquired a sizeable addition to St Edmunds’ already substantial holding in Aylsham.39 34 35 36

37

38 39

According to Lobel, ‘List of aldermen and bailiffs’, p. 20, John, son of Henry, only served as bailiff once, in 1284/5 – hence our date for the transaction. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 85v. For the favourable position of widows in medieval society see Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, ii. 348, 418–28, esp. 427; Miller and Hatcher, Rural Society (with comparable examples of widows on the Ely and Ramsey estates), pp. 135–6; Milsom, Studies, pp. 231–60 passim; Janet Senderowitz Loengard, ‘“Of the Gift of her Husband”: English dower and its consequences in the year 1200’, in Women of the Medieval World, ed. Julius Kirshner and S. F. Wemble (Oxford, 1985), pp. 215–55; Loengard, ‘Rationabilis Dos: Magna Carta and the widow’s “Fair Share” in the earlier thirteenth century’, in Wife and Widow in Medieval England, ed. S. Sheridan Walker (Ann Arbor, 1993), pp. 33–80; S. Sheridan Walker, ‘Litigation as Personal Quest: suing for dower in the Royal Courts, c. 1272–1350’, in Wife and Widow, ed. Walker, pp. 81–108; Emma Cavell, ‘Aristocratic widows and the medieval Welsh frontier: the Shropshire evidence’, TRHS, 17 (2007), pp. 57–82, esp. pp. 59–60 and nn. 6–7 for further references. The tenement had formerly been held by Richard ‘le feuere’ (i.e. the smith). The name ‘le feuere’ is a derivative of faber. See Latham, Word-List, p. 183 under faber; Dictionary of Medieval Latin, p. 883. For its occurrence in East Anglian records see McKinley, Norfolk and Suffolk Surnames, p. 46. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 67. For Richard I’s grant of ten librates of land in Aylsham in 1189 to Abbot Samson and the convent, see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 63 and n. 27, 95–6, 255, 258, 274, 305.

108

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

On 22 May 1283, Agnes ‘in pure and legitimate widowhood’ had sold to the abbot, convent and ‘Brother William of Hoo’, sacrist, for the benefit of the sacristy 4s annual quit-rent which Richard of Rushbrooke (‘de Rissebrok’) paid for two shops in the harness-makers street (‘in vico Lorumerie’).40 Hoo paid her two marks sterling. Agnes sealed the charter and it was witnessed by the alderman Geoffrey Spot, and the two bailiffs, Nicholas [son of] Fulc and Gilbert de Brunne.41 Three earlier charters also concern this shop and in addition illustrate that a woman, whether married or unmarried, having been given property by her father, might take an active part in property transactions.42 Thus, in 1280, Emma, daughter of Reginald, leased a shop in Goldsmiths Street to Philip of Hawstead for twenty years; the shop lay between the shop of her brother, Stephen, and that of her sister Alice. As with the previous transactions, it was witnessed by the alderman, Geoffrey Spot and the bailiff, Nicholas [son of Fulc], as well as the bailiff William of Walpole.43 Some time before this Emma had sold to Philip of Hawstead ‘for his fealty and service’ and 20s in silver the shop in Goldsmiths Street lying between the shop of her brother Simon and that of her sister Juliana. These examples of Hoo’s property transactions, by which he increased the sacristy’s income from the town and its total urban holding, are only a very small proportion of similar dealings recorded in the sacrist’s registers. Most of the documents give the exact location of the holding in question and, therefore, are an invaluable source for reconstructing the town’s topography; they illustrate graphically how people belonging to their respective crafts tended to cluster together in one area and to intermarry. Particularly interesting is the evidence provided by some of the charters that both the unmarried daughters and the widows of wealthy men might have continued to be comfortably off and often to have lived in the same street, even next-door, to their siblings, or at least in the same neighbourhood. The selection also shows the prosperity and considerable number of goldsmiths in the town.44 Nor can we be sure that during Hoo’s term of office none 40 41 42 43 44

CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 68v. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 68. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, ii. 348, 418–28; and Milsom, Studies, pp. 234–5, 246–7; Homans, English Villagers, pp. 140–2, 161, 170, 174. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 68. It is noteworthy that (in 1283), William Pitte / Pytte, a chaplain of St Edmunds, granted Abbot John, the convent and William of Hoo, for the use of the sacristy, 1d quit-rent from the house of Robert of Lothbury (‘de Luteby’) in Raingate Street. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, 68v–69, 84–84v (bis). It may be that Robert of Lothbury, the householder in Raingate Street, was related to Richard of Lothbury of London, who became moneyer of St Edmunds in 1287 (unless Robert was an alias for Richard): TNA, memoranda rolls KR 15–16 Edward I, m. 1d.; Bury Chron., p. 90 and n. 1; Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 33 no. 15 and n. 1, 158 no. 26. In view of the charters concerning goldsmiths’ holdings in the town, to be discussed later, it should be noted that moneyers were classed as goldsmiths. It will be recalled (above p. 63) that in 1278 five goldsmiths and three others in Bury St Edmunds, together with the goldsmiths and officials of all other mints were arrested and



ABBOT SIMON OF LUTON’S EARLY PROBLEMS

109

of the wives or daughters was a goldsmith herself. In the previous generation a woman, Mabilia, had been a well-known and established goldsmith in Bury St Edmunds. In 1256, Henry III rewarded Mabilia for her long service to him and the queen ‘in making church ornaments’: he gifted her ‘six ells of cloth suitable for her and rabbit furs for a robe (roba). The king’s mandate to Roger Scissor (Cissor, i.e. Scissor) and Hugh of the Tower (‘de Turri’) to provide the said cloth and furs was issued at St Edmunds on 8 March. Henry stayed at St Edmunds from 5 to 10 March during his Lenten tour of the great shrines of eastern England in 1256.45 On the same day, Henry instructed the sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk (William of Swinford) to give £20 to the abbot and prior of St Edmunds for the completion of the picture in front of the high altar of St Edmund’s church, under the sheriff’s view.46

Judicial involvement The acquisition of property and rents in Bury St Edmunds had always been the convent’s, particularly the sacrist’s, policy. The main purpose was undoubtedly to increase revenue, but an ancillary purpose was probably to tighten the abbey’s control over the town. The maintenance of good order in the banleuca was one of the sacrist’s most urgent responsibilities. He was answerable to the abbot, who in turn was answerable to the king for his performance in this respect. The case of the arrest and trial of the two clerks accused of the murder of William of Odell (Woodhill) was so notorious that Abbot John temporarily overrode the convent’s rights in the town, in order to protect St Edmunds’ Liberty of the banleuca from royal intervention.47 Another case gives a better picture of Hoo and the bailiffs at work. The bailiffs at that time were Nicholas of Cressingham (alias Nicholas son of Fulc) and Adam Bacun.48 The case is of especial interest because the record preserved in the Kempe register, BL MS Harley 645, depicts the working of the abbot’s court, the proceedings of which, since it was an honorial (that is, a franchisal) court, would appear in the records of the king’s courts only under exceptional circumstances, such as in the trial. This was in contrast to the trial of the murderers of William of Odell which was recorded in the proceedings in the court of St Edmunds in 1283, because appeals were made to the curia regis. The case we are about to consider demonstrates the determination of Hoo and the town bailiffs to enforce the law and keep order in the town

45 46 47 48

taken to London accused of clipping coins. For a list (possibly not complete) of the sacrist’s holdings in Raingate Street in 1295 see Redstone, ‘Town Rental’, pp. 212–13. Craib, T., et al., Itinerary of Henry III: 1215–1272 (n.p. [Public Record Office], 1923), p. 251. C Lib. R, 1251–60, p. 275; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 247. Above pp. 73–6. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 40–43v. Printed Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 139–88 no. 14. Cf. Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 64 and n. 3, 65.

110

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

– even on occasion resorting to strong-arm methods. It also shows their anxiety to protect St Edmunds’ commercial interests. In 1291 merchants travelling on the royal road from Bury St Edmunds after St Edmunds’ fair (on 19 November) were attacked by unknown highwaymen, some on horseback and some on foot, and robbed, they alleged, of £60 worth of goods. The robbers seized goods from all others travelling along that road from that hour until nightfall, and, it was said, returned with their booty to Bury St Edmunds. One of the town bailiffs, Nicholas of Cressingham, heard that the merchants wished to prosecute the robbers. Moreover, some of the townsmen believed that they could identify the culprits: one, they said, was a certain Nicholas de Geneville and the other a certain Hervicius Turner (‘le Turnur’) who called himself ‘Sir John de Lovetot’ (and is also referred to in the record of the process as ‘John de Lovetot, junior’). There is no known evidence to support any contention that this robber was a relative of John de Lovetot, justice of the King’s Bench (1275–89),49 whom Abbot John sometimes retained as a senior justice in his own franchisal court. It seems most likely that Hervicius Turner adopted the pseudonym of ‘Sir John de Lovetot’ and ‘John de Lovetot junior’ as a malicious quip aimed at the royal justice who was perhaps noted for his severity. The bailiff, Nicholas of Cressingham, having heard that both Hervicius and his companions were lodged in Hervicius’ house in town, summoned a jury of his neighbours. It testified that Hervicius and the others never appeared by day but sallied forth in the evening, on horseback or on foot; they returned to the house one by one at night, eating and lying in bed until the following afternoon. Acting on this information, Cressingham arrested and imprisoned the suspects; their trial in the abbot’s court followed. In the first instance Geneville and Hervicius (alias ‘Sir John de Lovetot’ or ‘John de Lovetot junior’) appealed to the king on account of the ‘many and immense transgressions committed against them and their households’ by the sacrist and his bailiffs. 50 Out of respect for St Edmunds’ Liberty, Edward did not have the case removed to a royal court, but ordered the abbot to do full and speedy justice to the plaintiffs and instructed Godfrey de Beaumont to see that this was done. Godfrey de Beaumont, who died in 1293,51 was one of the most substantial and powerful men then resident in the town. In 1287 he was one of the three claimants to St Edmunds’ manors of Semer and Groton and, on the death of St Edmunds’ champion in a judicial duel, was awarded a third part of the manors.52 In 1296/7 his brother and heir, 49

50 51 52

For John de Lovetot, the royal justice, see Brand, Making of the Common Law, esp. pp. 111, 116 n. 6, 130, 153 and nn. 75–6; Brand, ‘Lovetot, Sir John de (b. in or before 1236, d. 1294)’, rev. ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/37606, accessed 2 Sept 2014]; Bury Chron., p. 93; above pp. 66–7, 90. In 1287 the townsmen had complained to the king of oppression in the abbot’s court. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 34 n. 1, 35 n. 8, 133–5 no. 21. Above p. 72. Moor, Knights, v. 77. See Bury Chron., p. 88; BL MS Harley 638, ff. 185v–186; TNA, DL MS 42/5, f. 91–91v; CPR, 1292–1301, p. 230; Galbraith, ‘Death of a champion’, pp. 292–5. See below pp. 141–2.



WILLIAM OF HOO, SACRIST 1280–94

111

Sir John de Beaumont and the two other claimants recovered from St Edmunds’ their respective thirds of the manors. Sir John’s identification with the town’s ruling oligarchy is illustrated by his stance during the revolt of some townsmen against St Edmunds’ control of the town in 1297: in response to a royal writ of certiorari, Sir John, Sir William of Pakenham, Nicholas of Cressingham (alias Nicholas, son of Fulc, at that time alderman) and others appeared before the prior and sacrist on 4 February 1298, and bound themselves in 320 marks for the future good behaviour of the dissident townsmen.53 Abbot John sat on 10 March 1292. The plaintiffs alleged that on 13 December 1291, William of Hoo and the two bailiffs, Cressingham and Adam Bacun, and their men had forcibly seized and incarcerated them in the town gaol with common thieves. They accused the sacrist of having new fetters made for the purpose, and asserted that they were not bailed until 18 December, nor admitted to trial for another five weeks – because Hoo wished to keep the plaintiffs’ goods for as long as possible, if not forever. They accused Hoo and Bacun and a clerk of, among other things, unjustly detaining silver and silk girdles,54 brooches (firmacula), rings and other jewellery and goods, worth £80. The plaintiffs estimated the damages at £3,000 (sic for £300?). In addition, four other plaintiffs, all Lovetot’s and Geneville’s followers (familiares), accused the sacrist and bailiffs of detaining two swords, a silk girdle and two pearl studs, together worth 10s, and of committing other enormities: one of them alleged that the sacrist and bailiffs had dragged him from his master’s horse, which he was riding, thrown him to the ground and beaten him. They estimated the damage at £20. During the trial the plaintiffs protested their innocence and accused the sacrist and bailiffs of acting illegally. For their part, Hoo and the bailiffs defended the legality of all their actions. Hoo also claimed that as a monk he was not answerable in pleas of the crown and had only attended the court to claim clerks in his capacity as archdeacon. But the bailiffs asserted that Hoo was responsible, because he was keeper (custos) of the town, and that they acted on his instructions. The trial lasted for over two months. Unfortunately the copy of the proceedings in BL MS Harley 645 stops short before the trial’s conclusion and Abbot John’s judgement is not recorded.

Archidiaconal and miscellaneous duties The record of the trial of the two clerks accused of the murder of William of Odell, and the record of the case brought against Hoo and the bailiffs by those accused of robbing the merchants are in the Kempe register, BL MS Harley 645. The purpose of such a register was to preserve a record of court proceedings,

53 54

See BL MS Harley 645, ff. 52, 163v–165. Cf. Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 136. Above p. 77 for this revolt in the town. In medieval Latin the noun cinctorium means a girdle and the verb cingo means ‘to knight’. In classical Latin it means ‘sword-belt’; from which the medieval meaning derives.

112

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

property transactions and the like. Since the main purpose of Hoo’s letter-book was to provide models for clerks, its value as a record is more incidental. Most of the entries concern routine, administrative matters. For example, Hoo’s duty of providing wax ‘and other necessary things’ for the sacrist’s office is reflected in a power of attorney which he addressed to Reginald ‘de I’ to purchase them. Hoo issued this document in the form of a letter patent so that Reginald could produce it as evidence if he ‘were molested with demands for toll’, from which St Edmund’s church was exempt.55 Two entries illustrate Hoo’s responsibility for the maintenance of his houses in the town. At Easter 1286, Richard the tiler (le tuler) of St Edmunds acquitted Hoo of all debts which Hoo and the convent had contracted with him since Hoo took office. Richard also undertook for life to tile and repair all the sacrist’s houses in the town, and to serve the subsacrist in the same way for six weeks a year.56 Richard was to have four days’ notice when required, be paid 18d a week and, when working for the sacrist, to have lunch, and when working for the subsacrist, lunch or 2d per day. In addition, Hoo granted him the office of the belfry, with its profits, for life. Richard was to keep the belfry in good repair, on pain of forfeiting the office. Many entries in the letter-book concern Hoo’s archidiaconal jurisdiction in the town. For example they show him trying to enforce morality. Thus, Hoo heard ‘by rumour and general inquiry that Richard ‘de C’, rector of ‘E’, was accused of incontinence with ‘A de B’ ‘in our territory’, and so Hoo had summoned him.57 Richard, after making various excuses, appeared before him, denied the rumour but refused compurgation; therefore, Hoo convicted him, compelled him to abjure the woman on pain of visiting the shrine of St Edmund (of Abingdon)58 at Pontigny within four years, and ordered him to offer a candle weighing three pounds at the shrine of St Edmund (king and martyr) before Pentecost and, until he had done so, to feed five poor people every Friday. Another entry in the letter-book shows that Hoo’s enforcement of morality was not always thorough. It is a copy of a letter from Abbot John to Hoo. John informs Hoo that a rumour has reached him, which on the information of ‘certain magnates and trustworthy men’ he accepts as true, that Hoo, despite previous mandates, had allowed not only ‘the perpetrators of many enormities’, but even female prostitutes and – worse still – concubines to hide within St Edmunds’ (exempt)

55

56

57 58

Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 39–40 no. 25. I suggest, despite my note (ibid., p. 39 n. 1), that Reginald was ‘of Icklingham’ which had a wharf on the river Lark and a toll barrier. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 94–5 no. 179, 96 no. 183. In Abbot Samson’s time the thatched roofs of stables and workshops in the abbey precincts had been replaced by tiled ones, under the sacrist’s supervision, as a fire precaution. JB, p. 96. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 82 no. 152. Edmund of Abingdon, archbishop of Canterbury (1233–40), died in 1240 at Soissy in Burgundy on his way to the papal curia. He was buried in the nearby Cistercian abbey of Pontigny. He was canonized in 1246 and his shrine at Pontigny attracted a constant flow of pilgrims. See C. H. Lawrence, St Edmund of Abingdon: A Study in Hagiography and History (Oxford, 1960), pp. 4–5; Farmer, Saints, pp. 122–3.



WILLIAM OF HOO, SACRIST 1280–94

113

jurisdiction. The abbot, therefore, orders Hoo to make a thorough enquiry in chapter to discover the guilty, both men and women, and to punish them with suitable corporal punishment or to denounce them publicly as excommunicates until they had made amends in due form.59

Responsibility for the grammar school and song school The rights which the sacrist exercised in the town on the abbot’s behalf were amongst his most important duties. However, he had also to protect the rights of two people who fell outside the sacrist’s jurisdiction, the master of the grammar school and the master of the song school. Both enjoyed a privileged position. The master of the grammar school was appointed by the abbot and was under his direct authority.60 The master of the song school was appointed by the master of the douzegild.61 The douzegild (otherwise called the duodene) was a brotherhood of twelve priests under a master. They were also known as the priests of Glemsford (a vill in west Suffolk) because the brotherhood held property there and served the church of St James (the present cathedral) in Bury St Edmunds. In the later Middle Ages the brotherhood was known as the guild of St Nicholas. Its origins are obscure. The tract purporting to relate them may have been concocted early in Henry II’s reign to substantiate St Edmunds’ claim to exemption from the authority of the bishop of Norwich:62 it alleges that the duodene originated with the foundation of the monastery by King Cnut and traces its history up to the time of Abbot Anselm (1120–48), making no reference whatever to any East Anglian bishop. There is more certainty about the history of the grammar school. Jocelin of Brackland includes Abbot Samson’s endowment of the grammar school among his three especially good acts.63 Samson secured an income for the schoolmaster, by hand of the sacrist, of a yearly pension of three marks, that is 20s at Mich59

60

61 62

63

Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 41–2 no. 29. The fact that the inquiry was made in chapter possibly means that some of the monks were guilty of incontinence. However, it is also possible that the reference is to the chapter of the deanery or archdeaconry. Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 45–6. For the location of the grammar school and song school see ibid., the pull-out plan of Bury St Edmunds in the fifteenth century at the end of the volume; Statham, ‘Medieval town’, p. 105 fig. 1; above fig. 7. Schoolhall Street is now Honey Hill and Raingate Street; Statham, ‘Medieval town’, p. 108. See Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 46 and nn. 3, 6; A. F. Leach in VCH Suffolk, ii, 309–11 and nn. Printed Bury Cust., pp. 123–4. The text printed there is that in BL MS Harley 3977, f. 25. However, I later found a better text, that in BL MS Harley 1005, f. 219v, which is in a hand of the scribe writing in the 1260s who also copied the Bury Customary (see below). For the tract see also Bury Cust., pp. xli and n. 2, 119 n. 2. For details of this endowment and free education provided for scholars, see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 49; BL MS 1005, f. 126–126v (this manuscript – also containing the St Edmunds’ customary, composed c. 1234, on ff. 102–19, the tract on the douzegild, and much else – was written by a scribe in the 1260s).

114

ABBATIAL GOVERNANCE

aelmas and 20s at Easter.64 Thus, the master of the grammar school, besides being highly educated, was, owing to Abbot Samson’s generous endowment, a man of substance. Among the privileges which he and the Master of the song school enjoyed was that of having a monopoly of education in the town: no one might teach grammar or the psalter and canticles without their respective licences. This monopoly became increasingly difficult to enforce. Since Bury St Edmunds was an important town with a thriving and growing community, it is hardly surprising that the two schools were insufficient to meet the town’s educational needs. The grammar school in particular only provided for the education of forty boys, and some places would have been taken up by the monks’ relatives. Moreover, the number of those seeking education was increased by boys and clerks coming to the town from a distance. For example, in 1255 Henry III sent Raulin, son of Master Stephen of Portsmouth, to school at Bury St Edmunds, providing him with a robe of russet, lined with lambskin, a tabard, stockings and two pairs of linen garments (presumably breeches).65 The widespread attraction of the town as a centre of education had the result that unlicensed grammar and song schools sprang up. Three entries in Hoo’s letter-book illustrate the attempts Hoo and his officials made to deal with the problem. Hoo addressed a mandate to the parish chaplains and other chaplains in the town to excommunicate all those holding adulterine (unlicensed) schools and all those coming to the town with the purpose of doing so, to the prejudice of St Edmunds’ schools. Another formula in the letter-book is more specific.66 ‘An official’ (‘talis officiarius’) addressed a mandate (in flowery Latin) to ‘the dean of N’. He says that he has heard that John, son of Hervey, has ‘falsely’ presumed to hold adulterine schools in the town, and, as a seducer, rather than as a doctor, had dogmatized publicly to assembled ‘pupils as if they were disciples’,67 in violation of the privileges of St Edmunds’ abbey and its schools granted by the apostolic see. He orders the dean, on pain of major excommunication if he does not execute the mandate, to make John stop holding the adulterine schools within eight days, and to compensate the master of the grammar school. Otherwise the dean is to summon John to explain why he has not obeyed. Hoo himself addressed a similar mandate to the chaplains with regard to the song school: he has heard that some people are holding adulterine schools in parish churches, chapels and other places in the town, to teach boys the psalter and canticles, without licence of the master of the douzegild. Hoo orders the chaplains to prohibit them from doing so in future without the master’s licence, on pain of excommunication.68

64 65 66 67

68

JB, p. 95. Nicholas Orme, English Schools in the Middle Ages (London, 1973), p. 119, citing CCR 1254–6, p. 46. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 68–9 no. 113. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 68–9 no. 113, ‘glomerellos seu discipulos’. My translation is a loose one, assuming that here seu or ceu means ‘like’. See Latham, Word-List, pp. 82 under ceu, 437 under seu; Dictionary of Medieval Latin, p. 322 under ceu. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 68 no. 112.



WILLIAM OF HOO, SACRIST 1280–94

115

Two entries in the letter-book illustrate the sacrist’s duty to respect as well as to protect the rights of the master of the grammar school. One entry concerns an instance when Hoo unsuccessfully overrode one of the schoolmaster’s privileges, that of having jurisdiction over his scholars.69 A layman, ‘R. de E.’, defamed a scholar, ‘I. de C.’ The schoolmaster, ‘S. de C.’, tried the case but ‘R. de E.’ appealed to Hoo and Hoo claimed that cognition of cases between scholars and laymen belonged to the sacrist as archdeacon – except in cases of violent assault on a scholar by a layman and of a contract between a scholar and a layman. (The justification for Hoo’s contention was that scholars were in clerical orders and, therefore, under archidiaconal authority.) Hoo cited the schoolmaster to appear before him or his commissary in the chapel of John the Baptist in the abbey church. The schoolmaster thereupon appealed to Abbot John, and John prohibited Hoo from proceeding further with the case or to obstruct the schoolmaster’s jurisdiction: he emphasized that cognition of appeals belonged to the abbot and not to the sacrist.70 The illustrations drawn in this and previous chapters from the rich archive associated with Hoo thus give some impression of the wide-ranging responsibilities and activities of St Edmunds’ most powerful obedientiary, and of his agents and officials.

69 70

Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 38 no. 23. Noticed Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 45. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 38–9 no. 24.

Part III The Abbey’s Economy

13 Debt and its Causes Indebtedness was a problem which dogged both Abbots Simon and John, and their monks. In Abbot Simon’s time, they had been burdened with the cost of obtaining papal confirmation of Simon’s election, and of litigation with the Friars Minor and with the earl of Gloucester, besides the financial penalties incurred as a result of the Barons’ War. Added to these great expenses were the ever increasing financial demands of king and pope. John Taxster reflects the growing concern of the monks about royal and papal taxes and other impositions. Recording the scutage of 40s imposed in 1257 for the projected Welsh campaign,1 he notes that since Henry’s accession scutage had been raised eleven times and lists the occasions. Taxster’s concern foreshadows the obsession with taxation and other financial matters which is so characteristic of his continuator. Taxster and his continuator do not always object to taxes and other financial impositions. Clearly Taxster thought it right that the clergy should contribute men or money for the defence of the coasts against Queen Eleanor’s forces in 1264.2 The Bury chroniclers apparently did not object to paying provided that they considered the purpose of the tax or other imposition justifiable. The continuator does not disapprove of the fifteenth granted by the magnates to Edward I in 1275, to help him pay his debts: Edward had incurred many of them financing his crusade to relieve the Christian states in the Holy Land. The continuator records, with details, that the abbot and convent each paid a fine instead of the tax (as did many of their counterparts), and together fined for the town.3 The attitude of Taxster and his continuator to papal taxes and impositions was different from their attitude to royal and clerical taxes and other financial impositions. They shared with other chroniclers and with the clergy and religious at large the opinion that these papal demands were unjustifiable and excessive. They rightly connected them not with good causes but with the pope’s political needs. Moreover, Henry himself had become enmeshed in papal poli1

2 3

Bury Chron., p. 24; CCR, 1256–1259, pp. 347–9; S. K. Mitchell, Taxation in Medieval England, ed. Sidney Painter (New Haven, 1951), pp. 284–7; Jurkowski, Smith and Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales, pp. 9–12 passim. Bury Chron., p. 29; C and S, II, i. 694–700; Lunt, ‘Consent to taxation’, pp. 152–3. Above p. 26. Bury Chron., pp. 59, 62, 63 and n. 2, 65; Jurkowski, Smith and Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales, p. 20.

120 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

tics. In his annal for 1253 Taxster, having noted that Henry took an aid of 40s for each knight’s fee for the knighting of his eldest son, records: In the same year King Henry, wishing to promote the interests of his second son, Edmund, obtained from the pope a tenth for five years of all revenues of both monks and secular clergy, as if to help the Holy Land; this was done so that he could make his son Edmund king of Sicily and Apulia.4

Matthew Paris described this papal tenth as ‘hateful and detestable to all persons zealous for the good of the realm’.5 Originally Henry had asked Innocent IV for a grant to pay for a crusade. In response Innocent in 1252 granted him a tenth of ecclesiastical revenues for three years; the grant was to take effect when Henry set out. Although the tax was mandatory, it would have been hard to collect without the consent of the English clergy and it was only with much reluctance that the prelates eventually, in 1254, agreed and collection began.6 The assessment became known as the ‘valuation of Norwich’ from the name of one of the collectors, Walter Suffield, bishop of Norwich (1245–57).7 Meanwhile, however, the political situation in southern Italy was increasingly distracting papal interest from a crusade.8 Already in 1228 Gregory IX had raised a clerical tenth not for a crusade, but to defend the papal states from invasion by the emperor, Frederick II (of the Hohenstaufen dynasty). When in 1245 the council of Lyons deposed Frederick, the kingdom of Sicily, which comprised Apulia – that is all Italy south of the papal territories as well as Sicily – escheated to the pope as overlord. But Frederick fought to hold it, and after his death in 1250 his (illegitimate) son Manfred continued the struggle, at first for Frederick’s heir, Conrad, and then, after Conrad’s death in 1254, on his own behalf. Innocent IV found himself powerless to protect the papal territories and, therefore, decided to confer the Sicilian crown on some prince capable of ousting the Hohenstaufen. Richard earl of Cornwall, Henry’s brother, and Charles count of Anjou, wisely refused Innocent’s offer. But in 1254 Henry accepted the crown for his second son, Edmund, and Innocent commuted Henry’s crusading vow for a campaign against Manfred. After Innocent’s death (7 December 1254), the grant of the crown to Edmund was finalized by his successor, Alexander IV. To help Henry meet the heavy financial commitments imposed on him under the terms of the agreement, Alexander allowed him the proceeds of the tenth from the English clergy, which Innocent had previously extended from three to five years. The clergy recognized that, though Henry’s involvement in the Sicilian venture might benefit the pope, the resultant expense was quite contrary to the 4 5 6 7 8

Bury Chron., pp. 18–19. For the tax see Foedera, i. 303; Mitchell, Taxation in Medieval England, pp. 254–5; Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 255–62; Lunt, Valuation of Norwich, pp. 81–3. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 324. C and S, II, i. 501–9; Lunt, ‘Consent to taxation’, pp. 138–9. Lunt, Valuation of Norwich, p. 52. Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 247, 250–5; Treharne, Baronial Plan, pp. 50, 59–63; Powicke, Thirteenth Century, pp. 119–22.

DEBT AND ITS CAUSES

121

interests of the English church. Its strong opposition was voiced in a council in London on 13 October 1255. The council had been summoned by the legate a latere, Master Rostand Masson, a papal chaplain.9 Then, in 1256, Henry of Lexington, bishop of Lincoln, summoned a council of clergy to meet at the New Temple in London on 18 January. It proved to be the fullest and most representative clerical council yet held in England. In it the clergy detailed their grievances about the various papal exactions.10 The heads of a number of religious houses had an especial cause for anger. Henry’s negotiator at Rome in 1254 for the agreement with Innocent IV was Peter d’Aigueblanche, bishop of Hereford, a Savoyard, one of Henry’s unpopular curiales.11 In order to enable Henry to pay his pressing debts to the pope more quickly, Peter adopted a drastic measure. He mortgaged receipts of the tenth to Italian bankers and secretly pledged many English religious houses as security for repayment of the loans: the houses concerned were to recover the money from the proceeds of the tenth owed by them and their clergy.12 Taxster, along with other monastic chroniclers,13 records the anger of the religious over the tenth assigned to the Sicilian venture and in particular with Peter d’Aigueblanche. He points out that the bishop raised the money ‘falsely and traitorously’ by pledging ‘nearly all’ the religious houses of England to Florentine and Sienese merchants ‘just as if he were a true proctor’. Taxster remarks that ‘all this money was collected to drive Manfred, son of the Emperor Frederick, from the land of Apulia and Sicily, which the pope had given to the king of England’s son, Edmund, who never gained possession of it’.14 Taxster correctly records that Peter made the small religious houses liable for 100 or 200 marks, the larger ones for 300 or 400 marks and some for 500 marks, while St Edmunds was bound for 700 marks.15 Abbot Edmund of Walpole would have been among those summoned to Rostand’s council on 13 October 1255. Being an old man, he might well have sent a proctor or proctors: Simon of Luton, at that time prior, would probably have acted. It is less certain that St Edmunds would have been represented at the 9

10 11 12 13

14

15

See C and S, II, i. 501–3; R. L. Storey, ‘The First Convocation, 1257’, Thirteenth Century England iii: Proceedings of the Newcastle upon Tyne Conference 1989, ed. P. R. Coss and S. D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, 1991), pp. 155–9. C and S, II, i. 504–9. See Nicholas Vincent, ‘Aigueblanche, Peter d’ (d. 1268)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2010 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22015, accessed 2 Sept 2014]. Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. pp. 265–88. For this transaction and the disgust expressed by other chroniclers see e. g.: Matthew Paris, GASA, i. 379–81, and Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., vv. 510–13; Chronicle of Burton Abbey, in Ann. mon., i. 361; Dunstable, p. 199; Oseney, pp. 109–10. For further references see Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 266–86 passim. Bury Chron., p. 20. Taxster probably wrote this after 1263 since Alexander IV’s successor, Urban IV, refused to renew the grant of the crown of Apulia and Sicily to Edmund. Treharne, Baronial Plan, p. 278, citing Foedera, i. 428–9. CPR, 1247–58, p. 516; Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 266–7.

122 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

council at the New Temple: the bishop of Lincoln had no authority to summon the abbot of an exempt house. But certainly St Edmunds shared the grievances of nearly all the other religious houses against the papacy.16 In order to pay the quinquennial tenth the abbot and convent raised loans from the Florentine cameral bankers of the Spini family. At Michaelmas 1257 the convent borrowed 820 marks towards its contribution for the tenth.17 Because the abbey’s estates were divided between the abbot and convent into separate portions, there was a problem of their respective liabilities. Taxster records in the annal for 1260 that ‘at about Candlemas [2 February] the debts of the abbot and convent of St Edmunds, which amounted to 5,000 marks, were divided so that each paid 2,500 marks’.18 On 7 March 1260, Abbot Simon issued an indemnity to the prior and convent in respect of a loan of 2,300 marks which he had raised from the Spini.19 And on 1 November 1260, he bound St Edmunds’ barony for this sum,20 and also in November he indemnified the prior and convent for the total sum of 2,500 marks.21 The tenth agreed to by the clergy in 1254 was followed by more papal taxes. In 1266 Clement IV granted Henry a triennial tenth of all ecclesiastical revenues to help pay for the resettlement of the kingdom after the Barons’ War.22 Assessment was to be according to the ‘true value’ which promised to be more severe than the ‘Norwich’ valuation. The clergy used the occasion of the council held by the papal legate, Ottobuono, in February 1267 at Bury St Edmunds to demand that the ‘ancient valuation’ should be used, and also to object to payment from their baronies and lay fees and the employment of laymen as assessors. Their remonstrances had no immediate effect.23 Taxster’s continuator does not mention the debate about the assessment of the triennial tenth in the annal for 1267, but he gives much detail under 1268 of the abbey’s strategies to ameliorate the assessment’s impact.24 Simon and the convent paid the tenth, presumably according to assessment of the ‘true value’, for the first year. For the last two years the then bishop of Norwich, Roger Skerning (1266–78), like other bishops, paid the king a lump sum instead of the tax, and allowed St Edmunds to be included in his composition.25 Simon and the convent had hesi16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

E. g. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 510–13; Dunstable, p. 199; Oseney, p. 109; Chronicle of Burton Abbey, in Ann. mon., i. 361. BL MS Harley 645, f. 199. Bury Chron., p. 25. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 34. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 33v. BL MS Harley 645, f. 253. Bury Chron., p. 36; C and S, II, ii. 732–5; Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. pp. 292–5, 446–8; Lunt, ‘Consent to taxation’, pp. 154–7. Bury Chron., p. 37. Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward, ii. 538–41. Bury Chron., pp. 40–4. CPR, 1266–7, pp. 354, 410. The chronicler’s account is cited by Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 300, and cf. ibid., pp. 294–5. For Roger Skerning, see Barbara Dodwell, ‘Scarning, Roger

DEBT AND ITS CAUSES

123

tated to agree to this arrangement for fear that it would endanger their privilege of exemption from diocesan authority. However, they decided that they could argue more effectively with the bishop’s assessors than with the king’s. Although they had already paid the tenth for the first year, they agreed to compound with the bishop for three years on condition that the assessment should be according to the ‘Norwich’ valuation. Nevertheless, those sources of revenue which had escaped the ‘Norwich’ valuation were assessed at their ‘true value’ by the king’s clerks. The chronicler gives examples of the assessments of the obedientiaries’s assets according to the two valuations. He also records that the monks bribed the bishop’s assessors with 20 marks not to assess their possessions in the town, but the royal clerks found out and assessed the town at £100.26 In the 1270s the burden of papal taxation became even heavier. Gregory X (1272–6) was an enthusiastic supporter of a crusade to assist the Christian territories in the Holy Land.27 At his request the prelates of the province of Canterbury in 1273 granted a tenth of clerical incomes for two years.28 The money raised was to help defray expenses incurred by the Lord Edward and his brother Edmund on the crusade.29 In effect, the pope’s request was mandatory. The assessment was to be on the ‘Norwich’ valuation but many prelates and religious houses including St Edmunds compounded for the tax. The chronicler explains: The convent of St Edmunds, instead of the tenth of all their revenues for one year, paid a fine in common with the abbot of £100 for one year, and similarly for the second year: The abbot contributed 50 marks and the convent 100 marks from its own money, and to these sums was added a tenth of the spiritualities belonging to the convent for the first year but not for the second.30

This papal tax was shortly followed by another, the sexennial tenth imposed in 1274 on the English clergy by the Second Council of Lyons. The tax, which in form differed little from the previous tenth, was strongly opposed by the English representatives at the council. Whether or not Simon of Luton was among the many prelates who attended is unknown, but bearing in mind his age and the lack of any reference in the Bury chronicle, it seems most unlikely that he did so. Roger of Meopham, dean of Lincoln, argued against the tax, pointing out that England had been devastated by civil war and impoverished by recent

26 27 28 29

30

of (d. 1278)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/25672, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Bury Chron., p. 45. For background see Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 599–65; Walter Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London, 1972, repr. with additions 1974), pp. 262–3. C and S, II, ii. 809–16; Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 311. For the crusade see Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward, ii. 599–603; Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, p. 412; S. D. Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade 1216–1307 (Oxford, 1988), pp. 114–15. Bury Chron., p. 55.

124 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

taxation.31 But his pleas were to no avail and collection proceeded. The Bury chronicler describes the tax as heavy and burdensome because the collectors of the tenth, Raymond of Nogaret and John of Darlington, were not satisfied with any previous assessment, but made nearly everyone swear personally by corporal oath to the ‘true value’ of all their revenues. At St Edmunds, the cellarer, sacrist, chamberlain, and two other monks swore to the true value of the abbey’s temporalities and spiritualities before the collectors. The abbot was allowed to assess his portion ‘by way of conscience’. The chronicler gives the assessment of the individual obedientiaries, the shrines, relics, altars and the like.32 Recording the death on 10 January (1276) of Gregory X who had imposed the burdensome sexennial tenth, the chronicler comments with ironic humour that thus the pope met his own day of reckoning on an appropriate date.33 The accession to the throne of Edward I marked an increase in the frequency of taxation on both laity and clergy. In October 1275, parliament granted him, for relief of the debts he had incurred during his crusade, a fifteenth on movable goods of the laity to be levied for three years. The prelates also granted a fifteenth.34 With regard to St Edmunds’ contribution, the chronicler writes: The abbot and convent paid a fine of £90 instead of a fifteenth on their movables; the abbot paid £30 of the fine and the convent £60. The abbot and convent also paid £100 on behalf of the town of St Edmunds, which was to be raised from the town and, in order to preserve the Liberty of the town, handed by the convent to the Lord King.35

This triennial tax on movables was the first tax of the kind imposed by King Edward and was later followed by eight others in quick succession to help finance Edward’s wars in France and Flanders, and against the Welsh and Scots.36 However, since the first of the eight was in 1283, their impact on St Edmunds’ finances relates to John of Northwold’s abbacy and so will be considered later.37 The payment of papal taxes and royal and clerical taxes was by no means the only financial burden born by St Edmunds along with other religious houses. As a tenant-in-chief of the king, the abbot of St Edmunds owed military service. In 31 32

33 34 35

36 37

C and S, II, ii. 814–15; Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 312. Bury Chron., pp. 60–1. The names of the collectors, Raymond of Nogaret and John of Darlington, are supplied from the assessment of the sexennial tenth written in a contemporary hand on a fly leaf in the miscellaneous, mainly historical, collection from St Edmunds, now College of Arms MS Arundel 30, ff. 213, 213v. See Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 319 and n. 7, 618, 619. Bury Chron., p. 61. Bury Chron., p. 62; Jurkowski, Smith and Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales, p. 20; Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 39–40. Bury Chron., p. 63. For the royal licence allowing St Edmunds to tax itself and the burgesses of St Edmunds see CPR, 1272–81, pp. 132, 138. For the quittance to the abbey from the fifteenth on account of the composition of a £100 fine see CPR, 1281–92, p. 165. See the list of Edward’s taxes on movables in Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, p. 179. Below pp. 151–4, 162–3, 169–70, 172–5.

DEBT AND ITS CAUSES

125

1277 Edward called on his military tenants to serve on his campaign against the recalcitrant Llywelyn, prince of Wales. He summoned them to muster with their hosts at Worcester on 1 July.38 In the event, Simon responded as his predecessors had done since 1228, by compounding for the service. Instead of sending his military tenants to serve personally, he paid a fine of 200 marks (£133 6s 8d) for the service of six knights.39 In theory, he should have been able to recover the full amount from his military tenants, but, according to an entry in the Pinchbeck Register, he collected just £74 11s 8d from only fifteen of them.40 This situation is easily explained because the tenant fees in St Edmunds’ barony, like those in many other baronies, had become very fragmented. Therefore, it was extremely difficult for him to keep control over, or even to track down, all his over-numerous military tenants.41 The abbey’s financial problems were made worse because St Edmunds, in common with many other religious houses, adopted some expedients which were of uncertain long-term benefit. It is, and must always have been, hard to estimate whether the gain derived in any instance from the adoption of such expedients outweighed their cost. For example, there was the practice of granting pensions in exchange for services. This arrangement might be used to hire legal help. Thus, on 7 April 1263, the prior, Robert Russel, and convent granted Master Alan of Freston, clerk, an annual pension of 100s to be paid ‘from our own portion and from obventions’: in return, Master Alan was to appear personally in court in defence of the convent’s interests in important cases whenever needful; he was also to give the monks his counsel and informed advice in minor cases.42 Later in the same year, on 12 August, Abbot Simon, with the convent’s unanimous consent, granted the same Master Alan an annual pension of 100s sterling ‘from his chamber’ (‘de camera nostra’) until he provided him with an ecclesiastical benefice.43 Master Alan became rector of Chevington, one of the abbot’s churches near St Edmunds, which he served with a clerk.44 (He was archdeacon of Norfolk 1276–c. 1281.45) Two other examples of grants of pensions from Abbot Simon were both to Roman clerks and cameral bankers, and include the provision that in due course each would receive an ecclesiastical benefice 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

45

Parl. Writs, i. 193–7. CFR, p. 86. Pinch. Reg., i. 285–6. See Chew, ‘Scutage’, pp. 326–8; Chew, Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief, pp. 59 and n. 6, 60, esp. p. 155; Miller and Hatcher, Rural Society, pp. 173–7, esp. p. 175. BL MS Harley 645, f. 254v. Master Alan must have been a native of Freston in East Suffolk. BL MS Harley 645, f. 254v. A copy of the bond between St Edmunds and Master Alan is in the letter-book of the sacrist, William of Hoo, printed from BL MS Harley 230, ff. 27v–28 in Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 70–1 no. 119. See Reg. Peckham, i. 150, 170, 217. John Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066–1300: vol. ii. Monastic cathedrals (northern and southern provinces), ed. D. E. Greenway (London, 1971), p. 67.

126 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

in place of the pension. Thus, in November 1259 Simon with the convent’s consent granted Master Andrew of Florence, a papal sub-deacon and chaplain, an annual pension of eight marks until he could provide him with a benefice worth at least about 25 or 27 marks a year.46 This was for services ‘past and future’. Apparently at the same time Simon, with the convent’s consent, granted to Rayner de Scala, another papal chaplain, an annual pension of 15 marks until he could be provided with a benefice worth at least 30 marks a year.47 Presumably this grant, like that to Master Andrew, was a reward for past and future services in the papal curia. The need for support in the curia was especially urgent in 1259 because of the abbey’s case in progress there against the Friars Minor. Pensions might also be granted in exchange for property. Simon, probably c. 1260, with the convent’s consent, granted to Robert of Rependen, a chaplain of St Edmunds, an annuity of two marks, while Robert granted Simon all his holdings and rents in the town of Bury St Edmunds in free alms, for his and his ancestors’ souls.48 Again, on 25 July 1271, Prior Robert Russel and the convent granted William Spile, a clerk of Mildenhall, an annuity of 40s to be paid by the keeper of the abbey’s manor of Mildenhall: in return, William quitclaimed any right to all the lands, buildings and houses (tenementa) of his uncle, John of Bradmere (‘de Brademer’), in Mildenhall.49 The disadvantage of such annuities was that the recipient might live so long that the total cost exceeded the value of the property acquired or secured from legal challenge. Potentially even more burdensome were the substantial corrodies in kind granted to reward servants and to acquire property.50 For example, in 1268 Simon with the convent’s consent granted a corrody for life to James de Galighowe, son of Henry de Galighowe, ‘for service and usefulness to our church’: the cellarer was to supply him with ‘reasonable’ sustenance in food and drink, and at Michaelmas he was to receive ‘a servant’s robe with fur’, and at Easter ‘a summer tunic like those given to the cellarer’s boys’, besides ‘10s for linen cloth, shoes and other necessaries’.51 A similar grant was made to Ralph de Laverdyn by the convent, possibly at much the same time.52 In James’ case (and probably in Ralph’s) the abbey gained property under the transaction, for James granted to God, St Edmund and the monks in free alms his messuage and all his other holdings in Great Barton

46 47 48 49 50

51 52

BL MS Harley 645, f. 253v. For the trade in advowsons see Snape, Monastic Finances, pp. 77–8. Ibid. The Scala were merchants of Florence; Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 654–5. BL MS Harley 645, f. 254. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 31. For a definitive account of corrodies see Harvey, Living and Dying, Chapter VI. See also J. R. H. Moorman, Church Life in England in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1955), pp. 267–71; Snape, Monastic Finances, pp. 139–47. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 81. In CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, on f. 81 is a rubric ‘Consimilem cartam habet Rad’s de Laverdyn de conventu’.

DEBT AND ITS CAUSES

127

and all his holdings in Pakenham.53 In effect, James (and probably Ralph) had provided for their old age. Sometimes the abbey was granted a property but its title to it was later disputed by the grantor’s heir. In such a case the abbot might use the grant of a corrody as a bribe, so to speak, to induce a possible claimant to abandon any potential claim. An example is the corrody which Simon granted to protect his right to property he had acquired in Harlow in Essex. He granted Druda, sister of Bartholomew de Yadingeden, each year for life six loads of wheat, 20s and suitable accommodation (hospicium), besides maintenance for her two sons, Ralph and John, ‘until we can provide for them suitably so that they can support themselves’. Simon binds himself to fulfil this obligation but stipulates that the convent is not bound. In return, Druda quitclaims to the abbey any right she might have by reason of dower or any other claim to the property acquired by Abbot Simon in Harlow and which formerly belonged to Ralf, son of Edward of the mill (‘de molendino’).54 It seems that Simon used similar means to secure his title to certain lands in Whepstead. In 1260, ‘moved by charity’, he granted with the convent’s consent to Robert, son of William of Garboldisham (in Norfolk), and his sister Alice sustenance from the abbey until they are of age to enter religion, or, if they do not wish to do that, until they can support themselves. The abbot is only absolved from this obligation if they neglect his counsel and follow anyone else’s.55 It must have been in return for these corrodies that William of Garboldisham granted Abbot Simon land in Whepstead. The Pinchbeck Register records that income from this land provided each monk with a pittance of one mark on the anniversary of Abbot Edmund.56 More details about the grant appear in a final concord made in the Common Bench at Westminster in the quindene of Michaelmas 1260: it records that William of Garboldisham and Alice his wife, quitclaimed to the abbot and to St Edmunds’ church a messuage and a carucate of land in Whepstead; for this recognition Abbot Simon gave William and Alice an unmewed falcon.57 Possibly also connected to William’s deal with Abbot Simon was his grant in free alms to St Peter’s hospital in Bury St Edmunds of an annual rent of 14½d, with incidents, from a meadow in Whepstead.58 (St Peter’s was one of the hospitals for which the abbey was responsible.59) Corrodies involving such open-ended commitments to expenditure were obviously financially risky, but they were a method by which the abbey could ameliorate its shortage of 53 54 55 56 57 58

59

CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 80v, 81. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 32. BL MS Harley 645, f. 253v. Pinch. Reg., i. 375. TNA, CP 25/1/214/26, no. 23; Rye, Suffolk Fines, p. 62 no. 88. Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 118–19 no. 164A. William’s father, Thomas of Garbisham, and his mother, Maria, had been parties to two other cases in the Common Bench concerning holdings in Whepstead, in 1244 and 1248. Rye, Suffolk Fines, pp. 47 no. 13, 49 no. 57. Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 7–9.

128 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

ready cash and enable it to acquire property, and thus were to its immediate advantage. However, another type of corrody was a drain on resources and had no immediate advantage to the abbey. This was the unavoidable commitment, which St Edmunds shared with other wealthy monasteries, to provide sustenance and lodging for royal nominees. For example, in 1245 Abbot Henry of Rushbrooke with the convent’s consent granted, at King Henry’s request, to John of Southwold a corrody equivalent to one monk’s allowance, to be given to him by the cellarer whenever John was in Bury St Edmunds.60 It was to last for life or until John became a monk. More of a burden than John’s corrody were those granted to superannuated royal servants, since such a royal corrodian was permanently resident at St Edmunds and when he died another usually took his place. The benefits enjoyed by one royal corrodian in the abbey are described in the grant which Abbot Simon made in 1269, at the king’s request, to Richard of Axmouth (‘de Aexemut’). Richard was to have daily two loaves of bread like those given to the monks (‘panes moniales’), two gallons of good ale, three dishes such as those served to the convent, pottage, cheese when the convent has cheese, and supper such as a monk has when the convent has supper. His servant was to have two ‘servants’’ loaves, a gallon of ‘second’ ale, two dishes like those served in the guest-hall, while Richard’s horse was to have half a bushel of oats and as much hay as Richard chose. In addition, once a year Richard was to be given a robe (roba) ‘from our chamber’ like those given to ‘our’ servants – that is, the abbot was responsible for supplying the robe; the charter ends by stating that the convent had no obligation to supply it. Maybe this means that Richard was to wear the abbot’s livery. It is noteworthy that the charter does not state that the convent gave its consent to the grant nor that it appended its seal.61 Although St Edmunds was an abbey of vast wealth, much of its income was from animal husbandry and agriculture. Therefore, its income was subject to natural disasters such as disease among its sheep and cattle, and crop failure. In any event, there were seasonal variations. There was one natural disaster in Abbot Simon’s time which Taxster describes in graphic terms, but says nothing about the effects it must have had on services and food renders owed to the abbey from its estates. The chronicles for 1258 read: There was a great shortage of everything because of the floods of the previous year, and corn, which was very scarce, cost from 15s to as much as 20s a quarter. Famine resulted so that the poor had to eat horsemeat, the bark of trees and even worse things. Innumerable folk died of hunger. In the same year all kinds of grain grew abundantly in the fields but were more or less ruined by the autumn rains. In many places the corn remained in the fields after the feast of All Saints [1 November].

60 61

TNA, DL MS 42/5, f. 21v. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 167v. The scribe has marked the charter vacat in the margin. This may mean that at the time of copying Richard of Axmouth was dead, but it could indicate that the grant was invalid because it appears from the charter that the convent had not consented to the grant nor was its seal affixed.

DEBT AND ITS CAUSES

129

Many people brought their corn into the barns whenever the weather was fine, even on Sundays and feast days.

To meet pressing and immediate demands for cash, abbot and convent resorted to the expedient usual in those days: they borrowed. The value as evidence for St Edmunds’ finances of the list of debts in the accounts in BL MS Harley 645 has been referred to above.62 Whether any of the debts it records relate to the famine in that year is unclear, but possibly two do so: first, the convent borrowed 150 marks from the Spini, merchants of Florence, for ‘the maintenance of the cellary’ (‘ad sustentacionem celerarie’); and, secondly, the convent bought on credit from Raymond, rector of Kirtling in Norfolk, seven and a half loads of wheat, costing £9 10d, and 13 loads of oats, costing 47s 8d.63 Italian moneylenders were especially significant in supplying money to the abbey throughout this period. Some loans were raised to pay the monks’ expenses in Rome at the time of Simon’s election, others for litigation against the friars, and others for various minor purchases. The main creditors were Florentine and Sienese merchants, and the largest loans were to pay for the instalments owed by the abbey for the quinquennial tenth. Copies of two indemnities survive relating to loans raised to pay the tenth: on 7 March 1259 Simon granted an indemnity to the prior and convent in respect of 2,500 marks which he had borrowed from three merchants acting as agents on the pope’s behalf in England, Maynetus Spini, Rusticellus Cambii and Reyner Abbatis, of the Florentine banking house of Spini. He granted a similar indemnity to the prior and convent in November 1260, and on 4 December 1260, he bound himself to Maynetus, Rusticellus and Reyner to repay 500 marks borrowed because of ‘the grave and arduous business and great needs of himself and his church’: repayment was to be in 1265 at the New Temple in London.

62 63

Above pp. 7 n. 31, 122. BL MS Harley 645, f. 199.

14 Retrenchment and Reform Loans were a short term expedient. To repay them it was necessary to increase the amount of cash available from the abbey’s own resources. It is noteworthy that the earliest account rolls and court rolls which survive from some of the abbey’s manors date from Simon’s abbacy. This suggests that vigorous reform of estate management, in the interests of efficiency and so of profitability, was put in hand. The earliest of all known court rolls to survive is the court roll of the chamberlain’s manor of Hinderclay for 1257–9; Hinderclay’s earliest account roll is for 1262, from which date an unbroken series continues until the early fifteenth century.1 The earliest court roll for the cellarer’s three manors of Fornham (Fornham All Saints, Fornham St Genevieve and Fornham St Martin) is for 1261–2 (with a separate reeve’s account for livestock, 1271), and the last is for 1440–1.2 The earliest court roll for the cellarer’s manor of Great Barton is for 1277–1301, and the last for 1513–14, and a tithe barn account for Great Barton survives for 1279–80, ending 1305–6;3 an account roll for the cellarer’s manor of Risby is for 1279–80 and the last for 1414–15.4 The earliest account roll for the abbot’s manor of Chevington is for 1277–8, and the last is for 1453–4.5 A few rolls overlap into John of Northwold’s abbacy and under him the number of court rolls and account rolls increases at an accelerating rate. Abbot Simon himself took active steps to improve the abbey’s economic administration. There is strong evidence suggesting that within a few years of his succession he demanded statements of the recent expenses and receipts of each obedientiary. Simon’s predecessor, Edmund of Walpole, had probably demanded this kind of information from the obedientiaries when he became abbot, and Samson and Hugh of Northwold are known to have had surveys made of the abbey’s estates and assets on their successions.6 By such means the abbot gained 1

2 3 4 5 6

Thomson, Archives, pp. 86–9. See also Phillipp R. Schofield, ‘The social economy of the medieval village in the early fourteenth century’, Economic History Review, 61 (Aug. 2008), pp. 38–63, at p. 41. Thomson, Archives, pp. 77–9. Thomson, Archives, pp. 71–2. Thomson, Archives, p. 111. Thomson, Archives, pp. 74–5. JB, p. 29; Harvey, ‘Some mid-13th-century accounts’, pp. 129–30; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 186–7 and nn. 135–7, and pp. 252–87 (Appendix III) passim.



RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM

131

a general view of the abbey’s finances. It enabled him to discover which sources of revenue could be made more profitable and what economies were possible. Both Abbot Simon and the convent adopted measures to reduce household expenditure. On 19 June 1268, Simon obtained a royal licence to live abroad until Christmas ‘with a moderate household, for the relief of himself and his church’.7 This saved him the cost of living in fitting style in the abbey and of entertaining guests. The heavy cost of entertaining guests was a matter of longstanding concern at St Edmunds, as it was in many other great religious houses. If resident in the abbey Simon by custom would have been obliged to receive all guests, except the religious and secular priests, for whom the convent was responsible. If he were absent, the convent would have been obliged to receive all guests provided that they did not bring more than thirteen horses: if they did so the abbot’s servants would have to receive them at his expense. However, it seems to have been open to dispute who was responsible for entertaining bishops.8 Probably it was partly to save expense and raise ready cash that Abbot Simon granted a life-lease of the abbot’s inn (hospitium) in London to Sir Philip Basset.9 The lease relieved Simon of the cost of staying in the inn himself (when he would be accompanied by his entourage), of maintaining the buildings, and presumably of a supporting skeleton staff when he was absent. However, another motive may well have been to oblige Sir Philip, an important public figure:10 he was a staunch supporter of King Henry and served him as justiciar from 1261–3. Moreover, although the charter does not mention it, Sir Philip no doubt paid an entry-fine and rent. The date of the grant is unknown but it was obviously before sometime in 1271, the year of Sir Philip’s death. The inn was commodious and splendid. The charter granting the lease locates it ‘inside Aldgate next to the priory of Holy Trinity’, and states that it comprised ‘a hall with two solars, a chapel, a chamber for the knights, a kitchen and stable and other buildings’. The charter also states that Sir Philip conceded, ‘out of devotion to the glorious king and martyr St Edmund’, that whatever he built or repaired on the site would revert to the abbot and convent after his death. The inn was still impressive when John Stow wrote his Survey of London (first published in 1598). He describes it as ‘one great house, large of rooms, fair courts, and garden-plots’. He continues that it was ‘sometimes pertaining to the Bassets, since that to the abbots of Bury in Suffolk, and therefore called Buries markes, corruptly Bevis markes’.11 Here ‘markes’ is best rendered as ‘plot’ from its literal meaning of

7 8 9 10 11

CPR, 1266–77, p. 238. JB, p. 9, 26, 28, 39, 42, 88; Bury Cust., pp. 5 lines 16–34, 6 lines 2–8, 14–19, 104 lines 17–26. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 145v–146, 169. For Philip Basset, see R. Malcolm Hogg, ‘Basset, Philip (d. 1271)’, ODNB v, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1643, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. John Stow, A Survey of London. Reprinted from the text of 1603, ed. C. L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1908, 2 vols), i. 146.

132 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

‘boundary’. There is no known evidence despite Stow’s assertion that the site belonged to a Basset before Abbot Simon’s lease to Sir Philip, though Bassets held property in the area.12 The site in Aldgate had been granted to a ‘David the Dane’ (Dacus) at some unknown date before the mid-twelfth century.13 The actual inn is mentioned as such and its location (‘at Aldgate next to the priory of Holy Trinity’) is given in two charters from St Edmunds datable to c. 1150.14 Although Jocelin of Brackland mentions Abbot Samson’s visits to London, he does not refer to the inn.15 In 1278, Abbot Simon leased his manor of Stapleford Abbots in Essex, which lay on the road to London from St Edmunds, to one of his clerks, Laurence of Offington, for life for £10 a year and presumably for an entry-fine.16 Like the inn at Aldgate, the manor house must at least in the past have been a grand residence, for in 1207 King John had used the abbot’s chamber there for his meeting with Otto, king of the Germans.17 Therefore, besides being at a distance from the abbey, the manor may have been expensive to maintain. But another motive for the grant was no doubt to reward and retain the services of a useful and able clerk.18 In 1283–4 Laurence of Offington, then Abbot John’s clerk and rector of the churches of Harlow and Stow [Langtoft], acted in the king’s court on behalf of those accused of the murder of William rector of Woodhill, claiming them in the abbot’s name for ecclesiastical jurisdiction.19 Simon leased other properties lying at a distance from St Edmunds, presumably to cut running costs, save administrative trouble, and to increase his source of steady income and gain

12

13

14 15 16

17

18 19

Cf.: J. H. Doughty, ‘Bevis Marks’, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Soc., n.s. 3 (1914–17), pt 1, pp. 49–51; I owe this reference to Professor Caroline Barron. Doughty’s conclusions are accepted in H. A. Harben, A Dictionary of London (London, 1918), pp. 70–1. The British Atlas of Historic Towns, iii, The City of London from Prehistoric Times to c. 1520, ed. M. D. Lobel (Oxford, 1989), pp. 66, 69–70, adds little. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 54, 152–152v. Cf.: Doughty, ‘Bevis Marks’, pp. 51–2. Doughty does not refer to the lease to Sir Philip under discussion, nor is it mentioned in the account of Bevis Markes in the London Topographical Record, 10 (1916), pp. 69–70. Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, pp. 157–8 nos 176, 177. JB, pp. 111, 117, 133. CFR, p. 110. According to Domesday Book St Edmunds had ‘always’ held Stapleford. DB, Essex, f. 20a. Aubrey de Vere, earl of Oxford, had quitclaimed Stapleford to the abbot and convent in the mid-twelfth century. Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, pp. 162–3 no. 187. The abbot held both the manor and the advowson. JB, pp. 32, 63. St Edmunds held the manor at farm at the Dissolution; Mon. Angl., iii. 176. Annales Sancti Edmundi, in Ungedruckte Anglo-Normanische Geschichtsquellen, ed. F. Liebermann (Strassburg, 1879), pp. 97–155. The Annales are also printed in Memorials, ii. 3–25, the edition used here; see pp. 15–16. The abbot held the extensive woodlands and warrens of Stapleford, but the king reserved the hunting rights. See e.g. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 31. Perhaps he used the abbot’s residence as a hunting lodge, by agreement. Laurence of Offington, ‘clerk’, witnessed some of Abbot Simon’s charters. See e.g. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 253v–254. See Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 130–6 no. 8 (esp. pp. 130, 133, 134); above pp. 73–6.

DEBT AND ITS CAUSES

133

lump sums. In 1277 he and the convent leased the manor of Tedenho (now Tednambury) near Sawbridgeworth in Hertfordshire to Ralph of Coggeshall and Elizabeth his wife, for the lifetime of whichever lived longest, for 100s a year and an entry-fine of 80 marks.20 Earlier, on 29 June 1259, the prior (Robert Russel) and convent had leased one of their manors. In the surviving copy of the lease21 the manor is identified only by the initial ‘W’ which, I suggest, refers to Whepstead. The account of the manor in the lease is compatible with what we know about Whepstead and the only surety whose surname is spelt out is ‘W. Freyfel’: a Walter Freyfel occurs as a witness in a few mid-thirteenth-century charters concerning holdings in that area.22 The grant is to ‘J. son of A. de W’ – possibly the Adam (son of) Wodard who, like Walter Freyfel, occurs in witness lists at this time, all relating to holdings in the region.23 Whepstead belonged to the cellarer and was not a distant holding, lying only four miles south-west of Bury St Edmunds, and was one of the abbey’s ancient food-farms. The lease was of a different kind from those to Sir Philip Basset and Laurence of Offington: it was for a limited period, that is, for seven years, for an annual rent of £8. Therefore, the lease sets out in detail the terms of the agreement designed to ensure that at the end of the period the manor was not returned to St Edmunds in a dilapidated condition. These details give a vivid picture of the manor’s buildings, stock and agriculture.24 The lease was of the buildings and lands belonging to the manor’s demesne, rent from the mill,25 rights of fold and pasture together with the manure of ‘Paddocpol’, but not the right to escheats and wardships. We also demised to him our two carucates with four cows worth 30s, six stots26 worth 36s, a cart-horse worth 10s and cart worth 5s and thirty-four old hurdles from our fold, besides two millstones for the mill worth one mark.

20

21 22 23 24

25 26

CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 43v–45; CFR, p. 114. Tednambury lies 1¼ miles north of Sawbridgeworth; J. E. B. Gover, Allen Mawer and F. M. Stenton, The Place-Names of Hertfordshire (English Place-Name Soc. 15, Cambridge, 1938), pp. 195, 243. Warin Fitzgerald, Henry II’s chamberlain, had granted St Edmunds six librates in Sawbridgeworth c. 1163. Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, pp. 98 no. 88 and n. 1, 164–5 nos 189 and 190. In 1281 the cellarer held a carucate in the vill of Sawbridgeworth in the hamlet of ‘Tedenhoo’. Mon. Angl., iii. 155. In 1293 the cellarer’s manor of Sawbridgeworth was assessed at 100s – the sum paid in rent by Ralph of Coggeshall and his wife Elizabeth. Bury Chron., p. 108. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 222v–223. Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 46 nos 34–5, 115–17 nos 157–8, 162. Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 34 nos 3, 5, 13 no. 9, 39 no. 17, 40–1 nos 20–1. Such details are not unusual in leases. The nearest parallel I have found in St Edmunds’ archive is the life-lease granted by Abbot Samson and the convent to Solomon of Whepstead of the manors of Ingham and Elveden, c. 1190–121. Kalendar, ed. Davis, pp. 119–21, no. 77. Cf. ibid., pp. 127–8 no. 90. A windmill, not a watermill. Pinch Reg., ii. 195. ‘Stot’ here probably means ‘heifer’. Alternatively it can mean ‘steer’, ‘ox’ or ‘horse’.

134

THE ABBEY’S ECONOMY

All this or the equivalent value, was to be returned to the prior and convent at the end of seven years. The lease continues: We also demise to him eleven acres sown with wheat, of which two have been manured, with a cart, and four acres with a fold; also eighty-five acres of barley, of which eleven have been manured, with a cart, [and] eight acres, with a fold; also fifty-two acres with rye, of which five have been manured, with a fold; also thirty acres with oats; also nine acres with peas. And he shall restore to us the same, similarly sown, similarly manured, at the end of his term. Moreover, J. received from us the court, out-houses (domos) [and] granges in the same vill and the mill in good condition; they are to be restored to us in similar condition. And we will supply J. with timber at his expense for the repair of the mill, granges and out-houses. We also grant J. the right to graze animals on our meadow called ‘Stamworth’(?)27 from the first collection of hay until the feast of the Purification [2 February] according to the extent of the bounds placed between us and him in the said meadow.28

The list of sureties follows, starting, as already mentioned, with W. Freifel; only the initials of the other four are given. The prior and convent had the power to distrain. The leasing of properties had another financial advantage to the abbey besides the advantages outlined above. It is noteworthy that two of the leases mentioned, that to Ralph of Coggeshall and Elizabeth his wife, and the one to Laurence of Offington, were granted within a year or two of Simon’s death. One incentive may have been apprehension at the approaching vacancy, when the abbot’s barony would be taken into the king’s hands. The exploitation of ecclesiastical and monastic resources during vacancies of bishoprics, both secular and monastic, and of religious houses in general aroused much protest among ecclesiastics. The first article of the complaints of the bishops formulated in the council of the province of Canterbury held in London on 22 August 1257 concerned the sufferings of cathedral and conventual churches during vacancies,29 and so did article 17 of the articles formulated by the council of English clergy held first at Merton, and then at Westminster, in 1258, on 6 and 8 June respectively.30 The articles of the 1258 council were given permanent legislative form by the council of the province of Canterbury held at Lambeth in May 1261.31 The archbishop, Boniface, of course, had no authority to summon the abbots of exempt houses to his councils. Nevertheless, a passage in Matthew Paris’ Chronica majora can be interpreted to mean that exempt abbots were asked whether they would support the articles of the 1258 council but that they demurred, though they and their convents were undoubtedly as equally affected by royal oppression as was the rest

27 28 29 30 31

Stamēpe or Stamwōpe (sic), BL MS Harley 645, f. 223. ‘Prout limites inter nos et ipsum in dicto prato positi se extendunt.’ BL MS Harley 645, f. 223. C and S, II, i. 539–40. C and S, II, i. p. 582. C and S, II, i. pp. 680–1.



RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM

135

of the church.32 Matthew Paris makes it abundantly clear that this was the case at St Albans – he is, indeed, the principal authority for the clerical complaints.33 As has been seen, when Henry had granted the convent of St Edmunds custody of the abbot’s holdings during the vacancy following Abbot Edmund’s death, he had retained the right to custody during future vacancies. The king’s well-known shortage of money must have forewarned the convent that he would take as much as he could in the next vacancy. In the event, the advantage of the convent leasing the abbot’s property during a vacancy was that the king would only be entitled to the annual rent; previously the king would have pocketed the entry-fine. Consideration of future vacancies was also a reason for an abbot to transfer property to his convent: during a vacancy such property could henceforth not be taken over by the king because it would no longer be part of the abbot’s barony. Such transfers were common in religious houses. In accordance with this practice, Abbot Simon, on 1 June 1275, granted the rich manor of Cockfield (one of the ancient food-farms near St Edmunds) to the monks.34 The grant was duly enrolled in the royal chancery.35 The manor became one of the cellarer’s most valuable holdings.36 Abbot Simon probably legislated to promote efficiency and economy in his household and estates, but none of his ordinances have yet to come to light. However, there is a set of ordinances issued by the prior, ‘assisted by other monks’, ‘for the relief of the church [of St Edmund]’ which quite possibly was issued during his abbacy.37 If so, the prior who issued the ordinances would almost certainly have been Robert Russel. He was elected prior soon after Simon became abbot and resigned soon after John of Northwold’s succession.38 He was a man of ability and a charter of 1259 shows him taking action in the interests of economy. The charter addresses the problem of the great expense to the convent of sergeanties held by its servants, and provides a remedy in the case of one such servant.39 It begins by stating that the abbey was ‘intolerably’ burdened by debt. It declares that the situation was so bad that the king had recommended various reforms. One recommendation was that the monks should commute allowances in kind to the convent’s servants for annual payments. Accordingly, the prior (Robert Russel) granted Nicholas of Gedding, who for many years had held the office of butler by the gift of the late Abbot Edmund, £4 a year in place of his previous allowances. This arrangement was to last for seven years unless within that time the abbey’s state sufficiently improved for his original allow32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 707. Cf. C and S, II, i. 570–2. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 707. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 37v. C Ch. R, ii. 190. See Mon. Angl., iii. 156. In 1292 it was assessed at £42 6s 5d. Bury Chron., p. 108. The earliest complete copy known to me is in a hand of c. 1300. BL MS Harley 3977, f. 52–52v. Printed in Bury Cust., pp. 108–11 (Appendix V). See ibid., pp. xxxii, xxxix. Bury Chron., pp. 23, 71. BL MS Harley 645, f. 253.

136 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

ances to be restored. As long as Nicholas was deprived of the allowances he was absolved from performing his office in person, unless the abbey’s honour and utility required him to do so, in which case he was to answer the summons of the prior and convent. Similar arrangements would have been made with regard to other persons holding sergeanties in the abbey. The subject of this charter, the problem of expensive sergeanties in the abbey, was one of the matters dealt with by the ordinances mentioned above. Moreover, the remedy decreed in the ordinances was much the same as that adopted by Prior Robert, and set forth in his charter to Nicholas of Gedding. The relevant clause in the ordinances provides that because servants holding land and allowances do little or nothing for their sergeanties, they are to be admonished and persuaded by the abbot and prior, on account of the present state of the church, to be content with the land until their allowances are [? formally] withdrawn, or at least until they receive money instead of the allowances.40

Another states that ‘a scrutiny should be made by the prior and others into the superfluity of servants in each office’.41 The ordinances tackle many other problems besides the expense of sergeanties. They obviously represent an attempt at wide-ranging reform of the convent’s economy. They begin by providing that: two prudent and faithful monks be appointed by the abbot and convent, to whom should be entrusted all the manors of the cellarer, sacrist and chamberlain, including Mildenhall, Ingham and Clopton and the granges: and these two keepers were answerable to the treasurers for all revenues from them, under the supervision of the prior.

The two keepers were allowed six horses, the prior four and the sacrist ‘only two’, and they were to provide their own stabling.42 The prior on his part was to remit to the convent the convent’s annual payment to him of £10 ‘until the church [of St Edmund] is in a better state’.43 The ordinances were probably issued sometime after 1263. This is indicated by the severe measures taken to prevent extravagance by the sacrist. Thus, ‘a prudent and modest, not an extravagant person’44 should be associated with the sacrist who was to receive a proper sufficiency of wine, wax and incense. Since the sacrist had spent great sums looking after the vineyard, in future the infirmarer should have charge of it (though the sacrist, subsacrist and the rest of the convent might still go there for recreation).45 Other clauses in effect removed financial control from the sacrist and gave it to the

40 41 42 43 44 45

Bury Cust., p. 108 lines 13–18. Bury Cust., p. 110 lines 12–13. Bury Cust., p. 108 lines 3–12. Bury Cust., p. 108 lines 12–14. Bury Cust., p. 108 lines 24–6. Bury Cust., p. 109 lines 11–14.



RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM

137

treasurers.46 For example, one clause states that the annual payment of 100s which the town owed to the abbey, which previously had been given through the sacrist, should in future be handed to the treasurers by the town bailiffs.47 It is likely this provision was set in place before Edward I confirmed the division of property between abbot and convent in November 1281, since the confirmation does not mention this annual payment by the town.48 The general purport of the clauses about the sacristy gives the impression that at the time when the ordinances were issued the sacrist was inefficient and extravagant. According to the account in the Gesta sacristarum, Richard of Colchester, sacrist from 1257 or 1258 to 1263, did not answer to this description. Presumably he was efficient since the convent entrusted him with the farm of all the cellarer’s manors. Moreover, it seems that he kept within the limit of £12 a year which the convent imposed on him for expenditure on repairing dilapidations in the abbey church. In addition, Richard built a new hall, Bradfield Spanne, ‘for the recreation of the monks’.49 This building is mentioned in the ordinances which, therefore, cannot have been written until late in Richard’s short period of office.50 It is much more likely that the ordinances were issued during the sacristy of Richard’s successor, Simon of Kingston. The Gesta sacristarum has very little, and nothing good, to say about him, remarking that he resigned ‘either voluntarily or against his will, having done nothing worth remembering’.51 His resignation was in 1280, at about the same time as Prior Robert’s. His successor as sacrist, William of Hoo (otherwise called ‘of Luton’), held office until 1294, and was both efficient and very economical.52 Therefore, the ordinances would hardly have been issued in his day. Altogether, the evidence points to a date in Simon of Kingston’s term of office, fairly certainly under Abbot Simon, though just conceivably very soon after John of Northwold’s succession. Many clauses of the ordinances were designed to impose economy on the cellarer, subcellarer and kitchener, in the allowances which each owed to the convent and to servants. For example, the subcellarer was to receive enough wheat and malt to provide the monks with good bread and ale, and, if possible, he was to account every Saturday to the keepers. The kitchener should know the subcellarer’s receipts and expenses, and vice versa.53 The keepers were to provide

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Bury Cust., p. 109 passim. Bury Cust., p. 108 lines 21–3. Cf. Bury Cust., p. 102 lines 204 and n. 2. See Mon. Angl., iii. 158. Gesta sacrist., p. 295. Bury Cust., p. 109 line 23. ‘Qui, sponte cedens vel invitus, nichil dignum memoria egit ibidem.’ Gesta sacrist., p. 295. Gesta sacrist., p. 296. See above pp. 102–15. Bury Cust., p. 110 lines 3–7. One of the ordinances in the statutes issued by the visitors to St Edmunds prescribed the keeping and rendering of accounts by the sacrist and cellarer. Graham (ed.), ‘Papal visitation’, pp. 733 line 1 up – 734 line 2, lines 21–17 up. For account-keeping at St Edmunds, with further references, see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 200–1, 252–87 passim.

138 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

that when the monks had two dishes at dinner, two monks should share one dish; if it were of herring, there should be six herring in a dish, if mackerel one, and if eggs six at dinner and six at supper.54 But if there were a pittance on that day, each pair of monks should have a third dish. The keepers were to consult the abbot ‘about the giving of cheese to servants’.55 The purpose of these and many other clauses in the ordinances, to promote efficiency and economy in expenditure by the cellarer, subcellarer and kitchener, corresponds with the purpose of the large collection of customs preserved in BL MS Harley 1005. The customs, many of which are described as ‘ancient’, specify what allowances were owed by various obedientiaries, mainly by the cellarer and subcellarer, to the convent, servants and some others.56 The customs are grouped in sections, each apparently preserving a set of regulations issued in order to control expenditure. They are written in a small, neat cursive hand, in sepia-coloured ink. This distinctive hand appears in many other places in BL MS Harley 1005 and in other manuscripts from St Edmunds. It is datable on internal evidence to between the 1250s and 1270s and is the hand of an interesting and learned monk who will be discussed in more detail below.57 Since he is anonymous he will henceforth be referred to as ‘A’. It is hard to say when the customs detailed in most sections in the collection were first written down, though obviously codification must have taken place before ‘A’ stopped writing, which was apparently in the late 1270s. However, the contents of a few sections indicate that these in particular were composed in the second half of the 1260s. Part of the evidence is in a section which specifies the sums of money, the ale and various kinds of food owed, mainly as pittances, by the cellarer to the convent on certain feast days and at certain times of the year. This section contains the only year-date to appear in the collection. The relevant clause begins by stating that in preparation for Lent the cellarer should buy ‘lesser nuts’, that is hazelnuts or filberts, in the fairs of St Etheldreda (at Ely) and elsewhere as he thought best; during Lent the kitchener would allocate these nuts to the convent. The clause then asserts that three loads (summae) of nuts were quite enough, since that amount was sufficient in 1265, and adds that according to ancient custom two and a half loads and one bushel fully sufficed for the servants.58 (A summa was two or three hundredweights, and a bushel six or eight gallons.) Details follow of the allowances of [?]gruel or flour (gruellum), honey, beans and herring which had been sufficient in 1265. Much the same date is indicated by a section which specifies the allowances of wine to be provided for the keeper of the vestry, the chaplains of the town, the chantry priests (cantores), and for the monks in the refectory at Easter, and on the other important days mentioned. One clause states that ‘recently, by ordinance 54 55 56 57 58

Bury Cust., p. 110 lines 26–7. Bury Cust., p. 110 line 25. BL MS Harley 1005, ff. 48–65, 216v–217; also in Pinch. Reg., i. 360–77. Above pp. 34–6. Pinch. Reg., i. 375.



RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM

139

of Richard of Colchester, the cellarer’, the prior was to have one and a half sesters of wine on Rogation Days.59 As mentioned above, Richard was cellarer from 1257 or 1258 to 1263. There is a section which gives the name of the monastic refectorer in office at that time, Clement,60 and this section too could well have been composed in the second half of the 1260s. It specifies in great detail the wages and allowances in kind (mostly of ale and various kinds of food) which the subcellarer had to give to the abbey’s numerous servants and to a few others at different times of the year. It notes that the refectorer received daily two of the cheeses allocated to the monks, instead of receiving his own cheese allowance, and records that ‘Dom Clement, the refectorer, remitted in full chapter the two of the monks’ cheeses which he and his predecessors had previously received.’ Clement is known to have been almoner 1250/161 and subcellarer 1258–60.62 Therefore, he might well have been refectorer a little later. It is also noteworthy that there appears to be nothing in the whole collection indicating that the customs in their present form were codified before Abbot Simon’s time. Simon is once referred to by name. In the section mentioned above on the allowances owed by the cellarer to the convent is a clause recording the one mark due to each monk on the anniversary of the death of Abbot Edmund of Walpole: it records that this pittance was ‘procured’ by Abbot Simon from the land acquired from William of Garboldisham in Whepstead.63 It seems very likely that at least the sections of the collection so far considered comprised customs codified in the second half of the 1260s as part of an economy drive to help meet the financial problem posed, for instance, by the cost of the settlement with the Friars Minor, the fine after the Barons’ War and the triennial tenth granted to Henry III by Clement IV. However, the collection contains many other sections which are not readily datable and they were possibly first written down in their present form in the 1270s. In that decade the abbey’s financial position was as bad as or worse than in the 1260s, mainly because of the papal quinquennial tenth. In this case ‘A’ must have copied the collection in BL MS Harley 1005 shortly after the material was assembled: indeed, possibly he himself originally assembled the material. There is a mistake in the section on the allowances owed by the cellarer to the convent which would be easily explicable if he wrote in 1277 or soon after. The mistake is in the clause about the allowances of herring owed by the cellarer.64 In brief, the clause states that ‘in the above mentioned year’, that is in 1265, seven loads (lasta) of herring in addition to the render of one load from Norwich sufficed for the period from 11 November until Easter. ‘A’ added a comment in the margin to the effect that: 59 60 61 62 63 64

Pinch. Reg., i. 399. A sester is a measure between 24 and 32 ounces. Pinch. Reg., i. 368. Clement is not listed in Thomson, ‘Obedientiaries’. He occurs as almoner in a charter dated 35 Henry III, i.e. 1250/1. BL MS Harley 27, f. 112. BL MS Harley 645, f. 262. Pinch. Reg., i. 376. See above p. 127. Pinch. Reg., i. 376; BL MS Harley 1005, f. 61.

140 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

the amount spent on herring depended on the length of time from 11 November until Easter; since in 1265 Easter was on 5 Kal. April, that is on 28 March, less needed to be spent on herring than if Easter were late; if Easter fell nearer the feast of St Alphege (19 April) at least eleven loads of herring would be needed, besides the load from Norwich. In fact, in 1265 Easter was on 5 April. ‘A’ would hardly have made this mistake if he had written soon after that date. Easter was on 28 March in 1277, so perhaps he wrote in that year or shortly afterwards. If this is the date for the collection as a whole and for the codification of some of the hitherto undatable customs, it shows a vigorous attempt at economy was made to alleviate the abbey’s financial problems in the 1270s.

Plate I.  One of the volumes damaged by fire in the Cottonian Library in the mid-nineteenth century. Shown here is f. 43 verso line 16 to the end of the annal for 1265 which concludes the Chronicle of John Taxster. The passage records that King Edward ‘at will’ (‘Rex pro libito suo …’) distributed the land and property of rebels who had fought against him at Lewes and Evesham. It then records the arrival of Queen Eleanor and Prince Edmund, and that Ottobuono, the papal legate, arrived, held a council and pronounced the excommunication of Simon de Montfort and his supporters. Here follows an erasure of over 1½ inches of text. The missing words occur in the chronicle of Taxster’s first continuator. They read: ‘However, the said Simon earl of Leyceser worked many wonderful miracles’ (‘Dictus tamen Simon comes Leycestrie multis divinis coruscauit miraculis’). The ‘.a.’, ‘.b.’, ‘.c.’, on the three blank lines beneath are the Dominical Letters for 1266, 1267 and 1268, possibly indicating that Taxster intended to add annals for those years. See pp. 26–7, 31, 122, 262. British Library Cotton MS Julius A1.

Plate II.  A detached pastedown and end flyleaf of a thirteenth-century Summa de Vitiis by Guilelmus Peraldus (d. 1271). Motets in music written in two columns in an excellent bookhand, quite possibly in the third quarter of the thirteenth century at St Edmunds; shown here is the bottom half, that is, the end of a motet in honour of St Bartholomew. This is followed by the beginning of one extolling the heroism of Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, ‘a soldier of Christ’. The first voice (col. 1) and the second voice (col. 2) are given the tenor voice. See p. 27. St John’s College, Cambridge, MS 138 (F. 1). Reduced one third from quarto size.

Plate III.  The Letter Book of William of Hoo, sacrist of St Edmunds (1283–94). Shown here is the entry on f. 30 verso, a copy of a letter from Abbot John to the sacrist [William of Hoo] to announce that th?? wishing to accuse John of Pirnhow (‘Pyrenho’), a clerk charged with cattle theft, should appear before the abbot or his commissary; otherwise Abbot John will admit him to compurgation as requested by his relatives and friends. Dated 21 May 1288. See pp. 104–5. BL MS Harley 230, ff. 8–53 verso.

a

b Plate IV.  Extracts from the Bury Chronicle. a. The annal for 1279, recording that royal justices, in violation of St Edmunds’ Liberty, sat in the Guildhall to try those indicted for, or suspected of, counterfeiting coins, and that the sacrist was fined 100 marks. The passage is marked faintly in plummet in the right hand margin ‘vacat’, thus instructing the copyist to omit it. b. Lines 9–10, records that Queen Eleanor gave birth to a daughter at Windsor whom she named Mary. See p. 63. College of Arms Arundel MS 30, f. 166.

Plate V.  This shows a blank space left in the annal for 1282 for the name of the daughter born to Queen Eleanor at Rhuddlan. In College of Arms 30 the baby is named ‘Elizabeth’ (see above pl. IVb) while Bartholomew Cotton, writing at Norwich, states that she was named ‘Walkiniana’. The annal ends by recording that the king celebrated Christmas at Rhuddlan. Four blank lines follow for additions. See p. 258. Moyses Hall Museum MS, f. 103 verso lines 9–32.

Plate VI.  The first seven lines show a copy of the submissions of the competitors for the throne of Scotland to King Edward’s judgement (on 2 June 1291). The last eight lines of their submissions are in a triangle in the margin, showing that Edward’s letter which follows was written before the preceding text. A copy of the letter follows, duly inserted in the chronicle as Edward intended. It is addressed to the abbot and convent of St Edmunds. In the margin is written very faintly in plummet, ‘S[an]cti Petri de Burg’, that is, it instructs a copyist to substitute the address to ‘the abbot and convent of Peterborough’ for that to ‘the abbot and convent of St Edmunds’. This substitution occurs in the Peterborough version of the Chronicle (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 92). See pp. 80–1, 158, 259. College of Arms Arundel MS 30, f. 179, top half.

Plate VII.  The kitchener’s register. The extract shown records the ingredients the kitchener had to provide so that the cooks could make ‘Jussel’, ‘Charlet’ and ‘Letlorre’, three of the pittances served to the monks on the days specified. See pp. 313–14. Douai, MS 553, f. 10 verso. Quarto, c. 1425.

Plate VIII.  The passage in the Bury Chronicle recording that in 1300 the cellarer, John of Eversden, stayed for seven days on the manor of Warkton, and persuaded the Justices of the Forest to disafforest the manor and its woodland. In the margin the scribe has written ‘nota’ and there is a sketch of a rustic’s head, probably representing one of the peasants of Boughton, a nearby village, who had brought a fictitious action against St Edmunds in order to secure St Edmunds’ title to a pasture in Boughton. Just below is a note by Lord William Howard of Naworth (1503–1640) ‘Johannes Everisden celerarius S[anc]ti Edmundi A[nn]o 28: Ed: primi’. Further down ‘Nota’ is written in a bold hand of c. 1400, marking the beginning of the tale of why the pious couple gifted Warkton to St Edmunds. See pp. 97–101, 260. College of Arms Arundel MS 30, f. 202, bottom two thirds.

Plate IXa.  Historiated initial in a copy of Le Régime du corps by Aldobrandino of Siena. It was executed in a Benedictine house in north France, perhaps at Lille, third quarter of the thirteenth century. The text is in Walloon dialect. The picture shows the cellarer sampling the ale as he draws it from the barrel. BL MS Sloane 2436, f. 44v.

Plate IXb.  Illustration from the Luttrell Psalter, executed for Sir Geoffrey Luttrell of Irnham in south-west Lincolnshire, in the second quarter of the fourteenth century. Depicted is a scene from the kitchen; a cook cooks pottage while two servants help; one pounds ingredients in a mortar and another chops green leaves. See pp. 309–12, 315–18. BL MS Additional 42130, f. 207, bottom half. Reduced from folio size.

Plate X.  Illustrations from the Luttrell Psalter, executed for Sir Geoffrey Luttrell of Irnham in south-west Lincolnshire, in the second quarter of the fourteenth century. a. Harrowing; a peasant slinging stone pellets to scare the crows away. b. A peasant sowing seeds; a dog scares away a crow but another crow is stealing grain from the seed bag. BL MS Additional 42130, in the bottom margins of ff. 170 verso, 171. Reduced from folio size.

Plate XI.  Illustration from the Luttrell Psalter, executed for Sir Geoffrey Luttrell of Irnham in south-west Lincolnshire, in the second quarter of the fourteenth century. Royal ladies travelling with attendants and pets in a splendid carriage. The rider on the dapple grey shaft horse carries a long whip to urge on the four (alternately brown and dapple grey) horses pulling the carriage in tandem as depicted on f. 182. Edward I would have been thus attended when he and Queen Eleanor stayed in St Edmunds in 1276, 1285 and 1289, and then with his second wife, Queen Margaret, notably in 1300. See pp. 79–85, 93–4, 262–3. BL MS Additional 42130, f. 181 verso, bottom half. Reduced from folio size.

Plate XII.  Third quarter of the thirteenth century, from St Edmunds, a collection of theological tracts contain a copy of the Lignum Vitae by St Bonaventura (1221–74). Shown here is the image of the Crucifixion on f. 289, depicting Christ dying on the Tree of Life. See, pp. 284–5. BL MS Royal MS II B III, ff. 281–328.

Plate XIII.  Photograph of the surviving remains of the Charnel chapel, viewed from the south showing (clockwise) Baldwin’s tower and, behind the trees, the tower of St James’ church, which in 1914 became the cathedral church of the diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. The ruins preserve some of the original ashlar facing (cf. the plan, fig. 10) and the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century memorial tablets. See pp. 220–30.

Plate XIV.  Photograph of the West Front showing the eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury houses built into the arches of the ruins which had been long stripped of its ashlar. In the foreground, in the centre of the photograph, is the tall bronze statue of St Edmund, king and martyr, by Dame Elisabeth Frink. This is an artistic representation of Edmund as a warrior king; his sanctity being symbolized by the large cross which he holds in his right hand against his chest. The statue was commissioned by Suffolk County Council to mark the end of the Liberty of St Edmund as an administrative unit in 1974. See Statham, Book of Bury St Edmunds, p. 30.

Plate XV.  Photograph of the remains of St Saviour’s Hospital in Northgate Street (just before the railway station), comprising part of the west wall. The stone archway of the doorway and the window jambs remain intact. The window is infilled with rubble against which a memorial tablet is affixed. The inscription reads: ‘Humphrey Plantagenet Duke of Gloucester Son of Henry IV Brother of Henry V Uncle and Guardian to Henry VI Lord Protector of the Realm Died within the Hospital of St Saviours 23 February 1447’. The duke’s shield of arms are above. The doorway was unblocked and the tablet installed in 1907. It is now open to the public with explanatory notices for the guidance of visitors.

Plate XVI.  Hand coloured steel engraving, 1829, of Abbots Bridge constructed in the early thirteenth and fourteenth century, viewed from the north-east. The bridge’s history illustrates variations in the uses which the bridge served. Originally, the walkway above the arches on the inside, the south-west side, was apparently a processional way. But in the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries when the abbey became a target for rebels, townsmen and others, a lower walkway was built and portcullises inserted between the arches. The engraving of 1829 shows what seems to be a guard-room in the angle between the last buttress and wall. This was entered by a doorway through the wall. In more peaceful times the bridge was used by townspeople when the ford was flooded, the stone pathway on the south-west side and a wooden footbridge on the north-east side. Nowadays Abbots Bridge is a tourist attraction.

Plate XVII.  Recent photograph of the Great Gate, the best preserved of the abbey’s buildings, built some time between 1327 and 1346 but its upper storey was built later in the fourteenth century. The gate was the entrance to the Great Court, on the east side of which was the Abbot’s Palace, the King’s Hall and the Queen’s Chamber; on the south range were the cellarer’s offices and other important buildings, including the Hall of Pleas. See Whittingham’s conjectural plan, reproduced above fig. 8. The niches on the façade once housed the statues of saints, with St Edmund in the centre. These are long since gone but their removal reveals arrow slits behind. These, and the portcullis worked from a guard room on the first floor, were crucial parts of the abbeys’ defences against attackers, roles fulfilled so successfully that the town did not gain the right to self-government until after the abbey’s dissolution in 1535. Thus, the magnificent building would impress those who saw it, with the abbey’s wealth and with its spiritual and temporal power. Today the Great Gate is the entrance for residents and visitors who come to enjoy the beautiful gardens which now occupy the ancient Great Court. See Statham, Book of Bury St Edmunds; Whittingham, Bury St Edmunds Abbey, p. 24; and, for the abbey’s troubled relations with the town, see pp. 16–17, 28, 76–7, 177, 242, 269.

15 Loss and Recovery When Abbot John assumed office in 1279, he inherited the problems of the abbey’s indebtedness, as well as the effects of taxation and of the other fiscal burdens imposed on the abbey. How he and the convent responded, must be discussed. First, however, another blow to the abbey’s economy, the loss of two of the cellarer’s manors, should be mentioned. On 15 January 1287, Solomon of Rochester and his colleagues, king’s justices in eyre, sat at Cattishall to determine pleas arising in the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds.1 John of Creak (‘de Creyk’), Ralph de Berners and Godfrey de Beaumont (‘de Beaumund’) laid claim to the manors of Semer and Groton from the abbot of St Edmunds.2 The case is of especial interest because Abbot John and the convent chose trial by the antiquated procedure of judicial combat rather than by the then normal procedure of trial by assize, that is, by jury. The outcome of a duel was extremely chancy, and the hiring of a good champion extremely expensive; there was, in addition, the cost of the champion’s and his trainer’s keep during the period of training preceding the duel. Abbot John hired a champion called Roger Clerk, from the Lincoln area, and paid him 20 marks ‘from his own money’, promising him 30 marks more after the duel. The chronicler explains why the abbot and convent chose to defend their right by duel rather than by assize. The jury would have been recruited from local men ‘and we suspected that the surrounding district supported and were in league with our opponents (‘patriam habentes suspectam utpote aduersariis nostris familiarem et affinem’). Besides doubts about the impartiality of a jury, there may have been another reason for preferring the hazards of a duel. The abbey’s title to the manors was insecure. The claimants traced their right back to Nesta (alias Margaret) of Cockfield by (indirect) descent. Abbot Samson had failed in the king’s court to prevent Nesta holding the manors from the abbot in hereditary fee.3 In the event, the choice of

1

2 3

Bury Chron., 88, 89. See Galbraith, ‘Death of a champion’, pp. 283 et seqq. St Edmunds’ claim to Semer and Groton had a long history. The abbey had been in possession of the manors since before the Conquest, but had no charters to prove it. See J. C. Holt, ‘Feudal society and the family in early medieval England, ii, Notions of patrimony’, TRHS, 5th ser., 33 (1983, repr. Holt, Colonial England, 1066–1215, pp. 197–221), p. 193; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 11, 54–5, 184–5. Brand, Earliest Law Reports, ii. 296–7. For Abbot Samson’s grant of a life-lease to Adam of Cockfield, see Kalendar, ed. Davis, pp. 127–9 (no. 90).

142 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

trial by combat was unfortunate. The duel was fought in London on 14 October. Roger Clerk was killed and the manors of Semer and Groton were lost. This loss added to the abbey’s financial troubles which, in any case, were already acute. The Composition which had been agreed between Abbot John and the convent in 1280 had clarified the apportionment of resources and obligations between abbot and convent, a division considered so important that it was thought worth paying heavily for a royal confirmation in 1281. Henceforth, each party could make what economies it thought fit. Possibly, at least one reason for Abbot John’s two visits abroad in 1284 and 1290, was to save the expense of maintaining a large household and entertaining guests at home. This was why Abbot Simon had gone abroad in 1268.4 On 6 February 1284, the king issued letters of protection for Abbot John going abroad and staying overseas until Michaelmas;5 and on 18 February 1290, he again issued letters of protection for the abbot going abroad and staying abroad for a year after Easter.6 It was noted above that during the three-week parliament held at Bury in November 1296, King Edward did not lodge in the abbey but in the house of Henry of Lynn, a chancery clerk and one of the abbey’s pensioners.7 The chronicler records that ‘he spent the nights outside the boundary (scepta) of the abbey, which form of hospitality was offensive to many, as shameful and not previously offered to kings’.8 It is possible that the king did not stay in the abbey because it had no suitable accommodation in good enough repair. According to the narrative of the revolt of the townspeople and others against the abbey in 1327, the king often stayed when he visited in Bradfield Spanne which the narrative describes as a ‘celebrated mansion’ (‘mansio solemnis’) with hall, chambers and kitchen.9 This residence was built by the sacrist Richard of Colchester (1257x1258) as a place of relaxation for the monks.10 (It was among the many buildings that the rioters sacked and set fire to in 1327.) In 1296 Edward could not have stayed in Bradfield Spanne if, as seems possible, its great hall was the venue of parliament. Whatever the reason, Edward stayed in the no doubt commodious residence of Henry of Lynn. His choice probably suited Abbot John well. His own palace 4 5 6

7 8

9 10

Above p. 131. CPR 1281–92, pp. 111, 116. CPR 1281–92, p. 342. The 1280s were years of much diplomatic activity on Edward’s part. See Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 312, 318. Possibly Abbot John was employed on the king’s business, which however, does not exclude economy as another motive. Above p. 81. Bury Chron., p. 34. For a grant to Henry of Lynn, clerk, by William Bygod, lord of Great Bradley, of a messuage formerly belonging to Sir Peter Bedingfield, in Maydenwater Street, dated 17 Edward I (1288/9), see W. A. Copinger, County of Suffolk: its history as disclosed by existing records … gleaned mainly from MSS … (London, 1904–5, 5 vols), i. 382. I owe this reference to Margaret Statham. Memorials, ii. 338. Gesta sacrist., p. 295. The narrative of the 1327 revolt records that the queen’s chamber was also destroyed, and indicates that it was in the vicinity of the abbot’s larder and granary ‘next to the pond’ (stagnum). Memorials, ii. 338.



LOSS AND RECOVERY

143

was very likely in a poor state of repair. (Much later, in 1433, Abbot William Curteys hastily and at great expense had the abbatial palace, which was in ruinous condition, restored in order to receive the young Henry VI there as his guest.11) Another reason why Edward stayed with Henry of Lynn was probably because it relieved the abbot of the enormous cost and nuisance of a prolonged royal visit. According to Matthew Paris, the prolonged visit of Henry III in 1252 had caused St Edmunds ‘great inconvenience’.12 Positive evidence survives about the economies imposed on the monks by the most important obedientiary, the sacrist. The Gesta sacristarum has a revealing contemporary account, at once favourable and critical, of William of Hoo’s period of office (1280–94).13 The author begins with a comment on the burden of taxation, with reference especially to the moiety levied in 1294: In [William of Hoo’s] time a half of all temporal and spiritual goods of the religious, prelates and [other] clergy was granted to the king in aid of his war against the king of France.14 [Hoo] was afflicted by this contribution and by a host of other chance disasters and misfortunes.15 He first economized on the cult of God in the church; he more than halved the candles and lights around the shrines of St Edmund, St Botulph and the other sanctuaries which, in my opinion, will not bring him prosperity. Although [Hoo] was a decent and moderate man in other respects, he was excessively rigid and austere with regard to his obligations to the convent, that is, about pittances, allowances of food and the like. Nor for many years before his death could anything of the kind be wrung from him except at his arbitrary will. Nevertheless, he repaired and suitably fitted out (‘decenter adornavit’) his manors and rented tenements in the town.16 Indeed, he increased the stores and livestock, especially of sheep, on the manors. When he died he left hardly any money, but owed large sums to various creditors, especially to servants of the church.

This passage shows that Hoo’s economies had been drastic enough to displease some of the monks. The size of the debt he left is not known, but quite possibly in this respect he had not improved on his predecessor’s performance; Simon of Kingston had left debts totalling over £70, many of them likewise owed to the abbey’s servants.17 Indebtedness, however, was an accepted feature of monastic finances, and

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Mon. Angl., iii. 113. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 304. Gesta sacrist., p. 296. William of Hoo (for whom see above pp. 102–15) is referred to in the Gesta sacrist. by his other toponym, William of Luton (above p. 102). Bury Chron., p. 121. See below pp. 161–2. The famine and the crop failure in 1294 are noticed by the Bury chronicler. Bury Chron., p. 123. See above pp. 128–9. For the sacrist’s holdings in the town see Redstone, ‘Town Rental’, pp. 21–18 passim, 222, and above p. 102. For a list of Simon of Kingston’s debts to the abbey’s servants, to shopkeepers and artisans in the town, to merchants and others, see BL MS Harley 645, f. 219. The list gives the sum total as £70 17s 11½d.

144 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

had not deterred Hoo from necessary or desirable expenditure. Nor did indebtedness prevent Abbot John from making further improvements to the abbey church. He built a new chapel of St Denis in the abbey church itself. But, his most ambitious building was the large and substantial Charnel chapel in the cemetery. Abbot John’s building enterprises and how he paid for them will be discussed later.18 Here, two other examples will be given to show that St Edmunds could still in exceptional circumstances raise large sums. First, there was the matter of the ransom of the king’s lieutenant in Gascony, John of St John. He was captured by the French on 30 January 1297, and Edward had the greatest difficulty in raising the ransom of £5,000, because his credit was so poor.19 Negotiations for a loan from Italian bankers took place early in 1298. The bankers refused to accept sureties from Edward but demanded instead that the archbishop of Canterbury, the archbishop of York, the abbot of St Albans, the prior of Canterbury, the abbot of Westminster and the abbot of St Edmunds should pledge themselves. In consequence, on 7 March 1298, the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer summoned the abbots of the richest Benedictine houses, including John of Northwold: the abbots of Westminster, Waltham, St Albans and Evesham were to come to Westminster on 12 March, and the abbots of St Edmunds and Peterborough were to come on 15 March.20 A number of abbots, including the abbot of St Albans, refused to pledge their houses, but Abbot John of St Edmunds, together with the abbots of Glastonbury, Westminster, Peterborough and Evesham, agreed. On 11 May, Edward informed the treasurer of the position and instructed him to proceed with the ransoming of John of St John: it is noteworthy that the mandate was issued from Culford, Abbot John’s manor close to St Edmunds, where Edward was staying.21 The second example of St Edmunds’ remaining ability to raise large sums is the buying back of the lost manors of Semer and Groton. The chronicler, writing more or less contemporaneously, had lamented in the annal for 1287 that ‘our manors of Semer and Groton were lost without any hope of recovery’.22 But he was wrong. Abbot John pursued his claim in the king’s court for two and a half years, until, on 2 April 1290, he acquired by final concord23 two thirds

18 19 20 21

22 23

Below pp. 220–30. See Prestwich, Documents, pp. 35–6, 186 no. 197. Prestwich, Documents, pp. 190–1 no. 202. Prestwich, Documents, p. 194 no. 205 and n. 3 where a ‘full list’ (sic) is printed of the monasteries which contributed and of the sum each pledged. St Edmunds is not in the list, though other evidence states that it was pledged by Abbot John (see above). I suggest that negotiations between the abbot and Edward’s officials about St Edmunds’ liability took place during the king’s stay at Culford. Bury Chron., p. 89. In legal terminology, ‘final concord’ may denote a formal agreement made in court between parties for the conveyance of property, or a genuine settlement of claims (and thus, could be used for quitclaims), on payment of a ‘fine’ (so-called because they put an end to litigation, rather than in reference to money paid – when a fine is paid in connection with



LOSS AND RECOVERY

145

of the manors from Ralph de Berners, for which he paid Ralph 400 marks.24 On 8 January 1291, the king issued a license for Abbot John and the convent to hold these portions in mortmain.25 Later, on 3 September 1296, John de Beaumont granted Abbot John and the convent the remaining third part of the manors, for the use of the cellary, for 300 marks.26 Edward issued the licence for them to hold the third part in mortmain on 24 January 1297 (when he was staying in the abbey).27 The manors were assigned to support chaplains for the new Charnel chapel.28 Henceforth, St Edmunds had an indisputable title to the manors, enrolled in the public records. But, the recovery had cost St Edmunds 700 marks paid to Ralph de Berners and John de Beaumont, and to the king for the licences, besides high legal fees. There were a number of reasons for St Edmunds’ continued solvency. Foremost was its immense resources.29 But there were other contributory factors. Abbot John and William of Hoo were men of exceptional ability, and well served by their advisers and officials. The detailed and thorough objections to the original assessment of their holdings for the sexennial tenth of 1292, which Abbot John made, on his own and the cellarer’s behalf, and which William of Hoo made on his own and the chamberlain’s behalves, show considerable administrative competence.30 Abbot John’s defence of the liberties of St Edmund and his recovery of Semer and Groton demonstrate his and the convent’s determination to allow no diminution of the abbey’s rights and estates. Similarly, in the first year of John’s abbacy the cellarer’s holding of Sailholme (in Wainfleet in Lindsey) was recovered.31 Other factors worked in favour of St Edmunds, and, indeed, of all landholders. From the 1270s onwards the cost of borrowing fell:

24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

a final concord, the money is paid for permission to make the agreement). I am grateful to Paul Brand for this information. CCR 1288–96, p. 126; CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 192 (copy). See Galbraith, ‘Death of a champion’, p. 292 and n. 1. Note that Abbot John had also made a complaint in 1289–90 against the justices of the Suffolk eyre for disallowing his challenges to the writ used by the claimants and for refusing to enrol the challenges he made – saying that it should not have been brought by a precipe in capite and that the two manors, each with a separate specification of what was excluded from the claim, ought not to have been in a single writ. See SC 8/177, no. 8816. There is no record of further action on this. I am grateful to Paul Brand for this information. BL MS Additional 14847, f. 49, and BL MS Harley 638, f. 186v. BL MS Additional 14847, f. 25v. Hervey of Stanton was one of the witnesses. CPR 1292–1301, p. 230; TNA, DL MS 42/5, f. 91 (copy). CPR 1292–1301, p. 520. For a general estimate of St Edmunds’ numerous holdings and various sources of income towards the end of the thirteenth century, see e.g. VCH Suffolk, ii. 68–9. Bury Chron., pp. 104–13. Below pp. 155–7. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 205v, 217 (bis). For St Edmunds’ holding in Sailholme see Arthur Owen, ‘St Edmund in Lincolnshire: the abbey’s lands at Wainfleet and Wrangle’, in Bury St Edmunds, ed. Gransden, pp. 124–5. The holding is included in the 1281 confirmation. Mon. Angl., iii. 157.

146 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

provided loans were repaid on time, they were interest free.32 Moreover, while royal revenue from taxes on movables reached a peak with the fifteenth imposed in 1290, thereafter yields fell sharply. This may partly have been the result of legitimate objections against assessment, such as those made by Abbot John and William of Hoo in 1292.33 But tax evasion and corruption were widespread and it is most unlikely that St Edmunds was any more honest than its neighbours in those respects. It has already been mentioned that the abbey paid pensions and did other favours to a number of key men in public affairs, in the royal administration and in the judiciary to secure their support.34 Moreover, an example was given above of the cellarer’s use of bribery to persuade the justices of the Forest to disafforest his manor of Warkton in Northamptonshire.35 Such methods of gaining goodwill undoubtedly assisted St Edmunds to obtain favourable judgements in the courts, and they would have been as useful in arguments over tax assessment. In fact, as mentioned above, the Bury chronicler records that in 1268 the monks resorted to bribery in an attempt to lighten the burden of the triennial tenth. However, in this instance they were unsuccessful: the king’s clerks detected the ruse.36

32

33 34 35 36

Mavis Mate examines the debts and their repayment, and identifies many of those who lent money to Canterbury cathedral priory in the thirteenth century. Her study shows close parallels with St Edmunds’ financial history in that period. Mate, ‘Indebtedness’, esp. pp. 190–4. See also, with reference to a locality nearer St Edmunds, Chris Briggs, ‘Creditors and debtors and their relationships at Oakington, Cottenham and Dry Drayton (Cambridgeshire), 1291–1350’, in Credit and Debt in Medieval England c. 1180 – c. 1350, ed. P. R. Schofield and N. J. Mayhew (Oxford, 2002), pp. 127–48. Below pp. 155–7. Above pp. 88–97. Above pp. 97–101. Bury Chron., p. 45. Above p. 123.

16 Taxes and other Financial Impositions As was shown above, John of Northwold’s abbacy began with severe financial difficulties. These were compounded by the burden of royal, papal and clerical taxation. His abbacy coincided with the steady and unrelenting increase in the financial demands made by the king on his subjects. Edward, besides being a great legislator and administrator, was a warrior, and his own resources were quite inadequate to meet the costs of his campaigns against the Welsh and Scots, and the French and their allies. Borrowing was his main resource, but to repay his debts he had to rely on his subjects.1 His demands for money fell especially heavily on the church, and St Edmunds, as an exceptionally wealthy institution, suffered accordingly. Moreover, the abbey, like many other important ecclesiastical bodies, was involved in public finance in other ways: occasionally it was used as a repository for the proceeds of taxation, and the prior and other monks sometimes served as deputy collectors. The second continuator of the Bury chronicle had a close interest in taxation and other financial impositions, and especially with their effect on the abbey. Scarcely a year passes without a notice of some tax or imposition, usually with exact details and often accompanied by an indignant comment.2 But it is clear that the chronicler’s indignation was by no means only because of financial burdens placed on the abbey. He was at least equally angry at those intrusions by royal officials into the exempt Liberty of the banleuca which the exactions prompted.3 The chronicler’s anxiety about the financial burden that the abbey was made to bear and his zealous regard for its Liberty would have been typical of his fellow monks and, indeed, of all great property and franchise holders. Unfortunately, St Edmunds’ financial history is obscure in this, as in other, periods. Its financial arrangements were extremely complicated. For example, we often know about only part of a fiscal transaction – its ramifications are hidden from view. While further research in the abbey’s registers and the public records may throw more light on the subject, a basic outline of the situation under Abbot John is given here, drawn from more easily accessible sources and

1 2 3

Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 60–80 passim. Bury Chron., pp. v–vi, 40–5, 60–1, 62–3, 104–13. John Taxster had shown a similar concern. Ibid., p. 24 (above p. 119). E.g. Bury Chron., pp. 67–8 (below pp. 159–69), 96–7, 125.

148 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

set in the context of the relevant historical background. Since 1294 marks a point of new departure, the subject will be considered in two parts.

Before 1294 Edward’s financial plight had become critical before Abbot John’s succession to the abbacy. The series of taxes on movable property levied by the king had already begun.4 In October 1275, he asked parliament for a subsidy because, as he explained, all his own and his father’s wealth had been expended on the crusade. Parliament granted him a fifteenth assessed on movables. The higher clergy contributed a fifteenth in respect of their temporalities. Many compounded for the tax rather than submit to assessment by royal officials. The Bury chronicler records that St Edmunds paid a fine of £90, the abbot contributing £30 and the convent £60.5 The convent also paid £100 on behalf of the town: ‘this sum was raised from the town and handed by the convent to the king, in order to preserve the town’s liberties’. The abbot and convent obtained a licence on 23 January 1276, to assess their goods and chattels themselves, and those of the burgesses of Bury and of the freemen and villeins living within the banleuca.6 But, ‘by the king’s command and at the instance of the abbot and convent’, the assessment was to be done in the presence of Robert of Tiptoft (‘de Tibetot’).7 The abbot’s and convent’s choice of Tiptoft to oversee assessment by the abbot and convent of the fifteenth is interesting. He was one of Edward’s curial knights and of rising importance.8 It would seem that he was amongst those men powerful at court whose favour the abbot and convent cultivated. In 1281/2 at the request of Tiptoft, ‘our special friend’, they granted Robert of Bricett (Bresete), a clerk, an annual pension of 40s until they could provide him with a sergeanty in the abbey worth that or more.9 However, even if the abbot and convent had a welldisposed royal official to oversee the assessment, it should not be assumed that

4 5

6 7 8

9

Powicke, Thirteenth Century, p. 478; Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, p. 179; Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 39–40. For the licence to St Edmunds to tax itself, see CPR, 1272–81, pp. 132, 138. For the acquittance to the abbey from the fifteenth on account of a composition of £100 see TNA, Pipe Rolls, 4 Edward I, m. 8d.; CPR, 1281–92, pp. 165, 198; Rotulorum originalium in curia scaccarii abbreviatio temporibus regum Hen. III. Edw. I. II. III., 2 vols, (London, 1805), i. 27; Bury Chron., pp. 62, 63. CPR, 1272–81, pp. 132, 138. CPR, 1272–81, pp. 132, 138. Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 47, 48, 180, 189, 190, 218–19, 350; W. E. Rhodes, ‘Tiptoft, Robert, Lord Tiptoft (1228?–1298)’, rev. R. R. Davies, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Oct 2005 [http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27472, accessed 2 Sept 2014]. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 230, 255v, Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 123–4 no. 4. The pension owed to Robert of Bricett (West Suffolk) is among those listed in CUL MS Additional 6006, f. xviii as owed by St Edmunds to a number of individuals; see above p. 93.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

149

the abbey necessarily gained financially by compounding for the tax. Cities and great institutions, including monasteries, would pay a fine primarily to prevent royal officials exercising authority within their liberties: they were more anxious to retain their autonomy than to make a profit. Indeed, in some cases they are known to have lost by the transaction.10 In the meantime, Edward’s relations in Wales were deteriorating. Llywelyn ap Gruffyd, prince of Wales (d. 1282), was consolidating his own power at Edward’s expense.11 At length Edward felt compelled to act because of Llywelyn’s persistent refusal to do him homage, thus in effect denying the king’s overlordship. On 12 November 1276, Edward in a council of prelates and magnates declared his intention to wage war against him.12 His aim was to force Llywelyn to fulfil his duty as a vassal – to do homage to the English king as his overlord. On 12 December 1276, he summoned the host owing him service to muster at Worcester on 1 July 1277. The Bury chronicler writes that Edward led an army into Wales ‘comprising nearly all the knights of England’.13 Edward subdued Llywelyn within a year but the war left Edward’s war-chest further depleted.14 In 1279, he asked the clergy for a subsidy, but by this time clerical opposition to the king’s demands was hardening. They refused to make a grant unless the king redressed their grievances against him and his officials.15 Agreement was not reached until 1280, probably late in the year. The clergy of the province of Canterbury granted a fifteenth for three years assessed on the ‘Norwich’ valuation. In March 1282 the Welsh rebelled again – the rising began as a revolt led by Llywelyn’s brother, Daffyd ap Gruffyd, but was soon joined by Llywelyn himself and spread throughout Wales.16 The rebellion was sudden and Edward had to act quickly. This time he embarked on a war of total conquest. His campaigns brought the war to a victorious conclusion by the spring of 1283. But again, as in 1277, the cost of the war, and in this case also of castle building, left a legacy of debt. Edward resorted to various financial expedients.17 He raised a subsidy in the form of loans from cities, boroughs and the higher clergy.18 The Bury chroni10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Willard, Parliamentary Taxes, pp. 30–1, 131–2. Powicke, Thirteenth Century, pp. 381–2, 407–9; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 170 et seqq.; Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 335–6; J. E. Morris, The Welsh Wars of Edward I (Oxford, 1901), esp. p. 138. For the mandate issued by the province of Canterbury on 10 February 1277 see C and S, II, ii. 820–2. For Llywelyn, see J. B. Smith, ‘Llywelyn ap Gruffudd (d. 1282)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16875, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Parl. Writs, i. 196. Bury Chron., p. 63. Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 181–2. C and S, II, ii. 858–9, 865–6; Deighton, ‘Clerical taxation’, pp. 9–17. J. B. Smith, ‘Dafydd ap Gruffudd (d. 1283)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/7324, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 182, 188–96. Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 238–9.

150 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

cler obviously disliked this method of raising money.19 The royal clerk in charge of the assessment was John Kirkby, archdeacon of Coventry, who soon was to become Lord Treasurer at the royal Exchequer, then bishop of Ely (1284–90).20 The chronicler records the large sums he raised from London, Yarmouth and Norwich. Kirkby then came to Bury St Edmunds and ‘extorted’ 100 marks from the abbey and 500 marks from the burgesses. But the prior, Stephen of Ixworth, assessed the servants of the convent’s household. The chronicler writes that it would have been ‘an unheard of thing’ if the burgesses had done so, presumably because it would have set a precedent damaging to the convent’s authority over its own servants. The prior also assessed the douzegild, the guild of twelve secular priests in the town: the guild was under the abbot’s control.21 Another of Edward’s financial expedients was to levy a scutage, although no scutage had been raised for over twenty years. Scutage was money paid in lieu of the military service owed (servitium debitum) by those holding military fees. It was assessed according to the number of fees held by a tenant-in-chief from the king. Originally, its purpose was to provide the king with money in place of military service from those who did not wish to serve in person, or send men to serve in the king’s fighting force. Assessing the liability for scutage of each tenant-inchief was problematic. There were two possible assessments, according to either the so-called ‘old enfeoffment’ or the ‘new enfeoffment’. The old assessment was of the service due from fees according to the quota fixed before 1135 – the death of Henry I – and the new assessment was of enfeoffments made after 1135. Some new enfeoffments were the result of the sub-­division of fees and the creation of mesne-tenancies. A mesne-tenant held of the lord of the fee and not directly from the king, but the tenant-in-chief remained responsible for his original quota.22 In 1166 Henry II had sent out a commission to resolve anomalies. They were to discover how many military fees each tenant-in-chief held and what new enfeoffments had been made. The names of tenants-in-chief and any mesne-tenants were required. Each tenant-in-chief made his return to the commissioners. The return from St Edmunds reports that there were thirty-eight knights (who are named) of the old enfeoffment and one of the new enfeoffment, that is, of Humphrey of Barningham who held a quarter of a knight’s fee.23 The next concrete evidence about the military service owed by St Edmunds is supplied by Jocelin of Brackland writing in Abbot Samson’s time. His chronicle includes an updated copy made in 1200 of the 1166 list with the names of the current military tenants.24 Jocelin also reveals that St Edmunds’ quota of service was forty knights, but that in addition twelve and three quarter extra knights’ 19 20 21 22 23 24

Bury Chron., pp. 74–5. Cf. Calendar of Various Chancery Rolls, pp. 241–2. Michael Prestwich, ‘Kirkby, John (d. 1290)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/15655, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 46, 73. For the douzegild see also above pp. 113–14. Chew, ‘Scutage’, pp. 321–36; Chew, Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief, chapters I, II and III. Hist. Docs, ii. 975–7. JB, pp. 120–3.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

151

fees had been created. Then, in 1235 in response to a royal inquiry, Abbot Henry of Rushbrooke returned that St Edmunds’ quota of service was, as previously, forty knights of the old enfeoffment and twelve of the new enfeoffment, but denied liability for the twelve additional fees, declaring that he had no idea whether they had been further sub-divided or, indeed, where they were. Obviously, therefore, disagreement between the abbot and king over the amount the former should pay as scutage was all but inevitable.25 In 1279 King Edward decided to raise a scutage of £2 on each knight’s fee to contribute to the cost of the 1277 Welsh campaign. Then, in 1285, to help pay for the 1282–3 war, he levied another scutage. The fact that on both occasions the scutage was levied well after the conclusion of the war concerned shows that by this time the king was treating scutage as an ordinary tax.26 As such, it needed the consent of the tenants-in-chief, and aroused much opposition. It appears that Abbot John argued with the king (or his officials) to good effect. The chronicler states that the king treated him ‘more leniently’ and took only £300 for his service. If John had paid 50 marks on the 40 knights’ fees of his old quota, he would have had to pay £1,333 3s 4d (2,000 marks). If he himself managed to collect the scutage from his military tenants, including those holding fees created in excess of the old quota, he must have made a substantial profit.27 However, Edward’s most lucrative sources of money were taxes on movable property. To obtain further grants for the Welsh war he summoned two twin assemblies to meet on 20 January 1283, each comprising an assembly of the laity and a separate assembly for the clergy, that for the north at York, and that for the south at Northampton.28 These assemblies were irregular because they did not conform to established practice. The archbishops summoned the clergy of their provinces. The fact that the summons was made in response to a royal mandate – Pecham summoned them to come ‘in forma mandati regii’ – explains why he could summon exempt abbots and priors along with the other clergy. Since exempt houses were included, either John of Northwold or his proctor/proctors would have attended.29 The lay assemblies of both north and south granted Edward a thirtieth assessed on movables. The Bury chronicler records (correctly) that horses, arms, treasure and clothes (garderobae) were excluded from the assessment and that the king 25

26 27 28

29

For Abbot Samson’s dispute with the knights of St Edmunds over their service see the graphic account in JB, pp. 65–8; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 56–9, with further references. Chew, ‘Scutage’, pp. 327–31; Chew, Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief, pp. 106–7. See Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, p. 82. Abbot Samson made a tidy profit when he levied a scutage from the knights of St Edmunds. JB, p. 67. See C and S, II, ii. 939–54; Deighton, ‘Clerical taxation’, pp. 163–4; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 238–9. Copies of writs relevant to the tax are in the Kempe register, BL MS Harley 645, ff. 211v–212. Bury Chron., pp. 77–8. See Jurkowski, Smith and Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales, pp. 20–1; S. K. Mitchell, Studies in Taxation under John and Henry III (New Haven, 1914), pp. 84–92; Willard, Parliamentary Taxes, pp. 77–8; C and S, II, ii. 890, 939.

152 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

allowed the loans levied as a subsidy in 1282 to be credited against contributions to the present tax. He does not mention the clergy’s response to Edward’s request for a tenth for three years. In fact, the clergy of both provinces were reluctant to make such a grant. Those of the southern province drew up a schedule of their objections.30 One was that they were still liable for another year’s payment of the triennial fifteenth granted by the clergy in 1280. The matter was postponed because of these clerical objections until a council held in London on 9 May, and again until a council at the New Temple on 20 October: then the clergy finally refused the king’s demand for a tenth for three years but agreed to a twentieth for two years, according to the ‘Norwich’ valuation.31 Early in 1283, on 28 March, Edward had seized the proceeds from the English clergy of the sexennial tenth granted by the Council of Lyons in 1274 for the relief of the beleaguered crusader states. The money was deposited in various churches and monasteries.32 In 1278, Pope Nicholas III, at Edward’s urgent request, had offered the king 25,000 marks from the proceeds of the sexennial tenth, provided that he promised to take the cross; otherwise he was to return the money. Edward refused to make such an undertaking because of his troubles at home, mainly with Wales, and tried unsuccessfully to have the grant transferred to his brother Edmund. The deposits of money remained a constant temptation, until, as the Bury chronicler indignantly exclaims, he ‘broke open the coffers and carried off the money’.33 But the chronicler’s statement that he ‘disposed of it as he thought fit’ is misleading: later that year, once the Welsh war was over and Edward’s immediate need for ready money ended, and after pressure from Archbishop Pecham and, of course, the pope, he returned nearly all the money untouched.34 The Bury chronicler does not say whether St Edmunds was at this time one of the depositories: if it was, it would presumably have been affected by the seizure. Edward’s long-term financial problems remained. During his three years in Gascony, from 1286 to 1289, he ran up enormous debts (mostly with Italian merchant bankers) because the resources of the duchy itself were much too small to support his visit.35 In addition, there was the cost of the settlement of Wales, and in 1287, of suppressing the revolt led by Rhys ap Maredudd;36 the Bury chronicler observes that ‘Rhys took flight after causing a great slaughter of Englishmen, both nobles and commoners, and much futile expense, damage and

30 31

32 33 34 35 36

C and S, II, ii. 949–51; Deighton, ‘Clerical taxation’, p. 166. C and S, II, ii. 945–6, 951–2; Bury Chron., p. 80. A copy of the assessment is in the Kempe register, BL MS Harley 645, f. 241v, ending ‘Sic continetur in rotul’ magistri hospit’ Sancti Egidii Norwic’ ’. Bury Chron., p. 78. See Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 336. Bury Chron., pp. 78–80; Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. pp. 334–7. Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 336–7, citing Reg. Peckham, ii. 548–9, 565, 635–9, etc. Powicke, Thirteenth Century, pp. 305–6; Prestwich, Edward I, p. 307. R. A. Griffiths, ‘Rhys ap Maredudd (d. 1292)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/48563, accessed 22 Sept 2014].

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

153

danger’; he never reappeared and the English army returned home, leaving the country ‘peaceful and quiet’.37 To obtain a subsidy to help pay these debts was one reason why Edward summoned the Easter parliament, which was discussed above in connection with the king’s Quo Warranto campaign.38 As noted above, this was probably the parliament in which Abbot John acted as one of the principal leaders of franchise holders in their opposition to Edward.39 The parliament was a long one, lasting from late April until after June. In a separate Michaelmas parliament of 1290 in Clipstone, Nottinghamshire, it seems that Edward at last obtained a grant of a fifteenth assessed on movables from the laity, and a fifteenth assessed on the clergy’s temporalities.40 The assessment for the fifteenth must have been especially severe, since the sum levied exceeded by well over a third that levied for the fifteenth of 1275, and was well over twice as much as the sum raised for the thirtieth of 1283.41 However, St Edmunds compounded for the tax. The sacrist, William of Hoo, acted as the abbot’s and convent’s attorney to negotiate with the king, the treasurer, William March (treasurer, 1290–5),42 and the barons of the Exchequer, in order to persuade them to allow the abbey to compound for the tax. The power of attorney from Abbot John and the convent is dated 16 November 1290.43 In a pleading letter to the king, and in a similar one to the chancellor, Robert Burnell (bishop of Bath and Wells, 1275–92),44 William of Hoo and the prior, William of Rockland, and ‘all the convent’ besought them ‘with tearful voices’ mercifully to assist their church; the sacrist will explain their need, and they pray to the Highest devoutly and for ever for the souls of the king’s ancestors and for the soul of his consort, of famous memory (‘celebris memorie consortis vestre’).45 The copies of the letters are undated but as Burnell died on 25 October 1292 and Queen Eleanor on 28 November 1290, it seems safe to assume that the letters refer to the fifteenth granted in 1290. The negotiations were successful. The abbot and convent paid a fine of 1,000 marks instead of the fifteenth assessed on their movables and those of their villeins and of the burgesses; the movables of their free tenants were excluded from the Composition and were taxed in the usual way. The chronicler asserts that the abbey paid this fine ‘lest the

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Bury Chron., p. 89; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 202–19. Above p. 59. Above pp. 58–60. See Jurkowski, Smith and Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales, p. 21; Willard, Parliamentary Taxes, pp. 77–8; Powicke, Thirteenth Century, p. 342 n. 2. See the table in Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, p. 179. Helen M. Jewell, ‘March, William (d. 1302)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/18032, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. See BL MS Harley 645 (the Kempe register), f. 233v; Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 138 no. 13. Alan Harding, ‘Burnell, Robert (d. 1292)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Oct 2007 [http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4055, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Copies of the two letters are in the Kempe register, BL MS Harley 645, f. 233.

154 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

royal officials should try to do anything to the prejudice of the Liberties of St Edmund’s church’.46 The business was concluded by early December, and on 8 January 1291, the abbot and convent obtained a royal licence to assess and levy the fifteenth on the movables covered by the Composition for their own use.47 At the same time as Edward was negotiating with parliament for the tax of a fifteenth of the value of movables, he was trying to persuade the clergy to grant him a tenth of the value of their spiritualities. In response to royal pressure, Archbishop Pecham summoned the prelates and clergy of his province to a council at Ely on 20 October.48 Although he could not, of course, summon exempt abbots, it is most unlikely that Abbot John or his proctors would not have attended in order to discuss the king’s request. The Bury chronicler records, correctly, that the clergy granted a tenth of the value of their spiritualities for one year, but that collection was not to take place until Michaelmas 1291.49 The occasion for the grant of the fifteenth of movables and for the clerical tenth of spiritualities was exceptional. The purpose of the taxes was not the usual one, to pay for Edward’s wars: its primary purpose was to meet debts incurred in the peaceful administration of Gascony, Wales and England. To obtain these grants Edward made concessions to both laity and clergy. A welcome sop especially for the clergy (and the only one mentioned by the Bury chronicler) was the expulsion of the Jews from England: Edward’s writ ordering the expulsion is dated 18 July,50 which was exactly a week before Pecham issued the summonses for the Ely council. The heavy burden of taxation which Edward imposed on his subjects, especially on the clergy, probably hardened the determination of franchise-holders to gain recognition at the Exchequer of their claims to the profits of justice from their franchises. In the case of a large and wealthy franchise, such as St Edmunds’, these profits were substantial. The success of the franchise-holders’ opposition meant that in 1291 Abbot John was allowed at the Exchequer amercements totalling over £680 from the abbey’s liberties in Suffolk and Norfolk.51 Unfortunately, in the year when Abbot John, as a franchise-holder, made this substantial financial gain, the clergy suffered from the imposition of yet another 46 47 48

49 50

51

Bury Chron., pp. 96–7. CPR, 1281–92, pp. 414–15. For copies of documents relating to the composition in the abbey’s registers see BL MSS Harley 638, f. 222v, and Harley 645, ff. 233v, 235. C and S, II, ii. 1091–2 and n. 3 which cites ‘Flor. Wig. ii. 243’, i.e. the first continuation of the Bury Chronicle, as the only authority confirming that the tax on spiritualities was for one year only. See Deighton, ‘Clerical taxation’, pp. 169–71; Willard, Parliamentary Taxes, p. 94. Bury Chron., p. 95. C and S, II, ii. 1092 and n. 2. The Dunstable annalist and Walter of Guisborough explicitly attribute the grant of the fifteenth of temporalities by laity and clergy to their delight at the expulsion of the Jews. Ann. mon., iii. 362; Guisborough, p. 227. See also Roth, Jews in England, pp. 85–90. Abbot Samson had expelled the Jews from Bury St Edmunds in 1190. See ibid., pp. 24–5; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 28–9. For details, see above pp. 59–60.



TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

155

heavy tax, the sexennial tenth granted by Nicholas IV to Edward on 18 March 1291.52 The grant was on condition that Edward used it for a crusade for the relief of the crusader states. In the event troubles at home prevented him from setting out.53 The tenth was to be levied on ecclesiastical rents and other revenues, from both temporalities and spiritualities, and collection was to begin on 24 June. The prior of St Edmunds, William of Rockland, and the convent were appointed deputy collectors in the archdeaconries of Suffolk and Sudbury.54 The assessment was not on the basis of the usual ‘Norwich’ valuation, but was made using a new assessment, according to the ‘true value’. The ‘true value’ was based on the estimation in each deanery of neighbouring rectors, vicars and chaplains, given on oath. The assessors of spiritualities in the diocese of Norwich were Richard, rector of Snailwell (Cambs), and Richard, rector of Sutton (?Norfolk). The assessors of temporalities in the diocese of Norwich were Master Richard of St Frideswide’s, archdeacon of Buckingham, and Master Robert Lutterel, canon of Salisbury; laymen were also included amongst the jurors summoned to give evidence. The assessors of spiritualities and of temporalities often did not accept the jurors’ evidence but fixed an invariably higher sum themselves. The Bury chronicler gives the assessment of the obedientiaries’ revenues in turn, and then that of the revenues from spiritualities and temporalities belonging to the hospital of St Saviour’s. He concludes by expostulating that the assessors exceeded all bounds.55 Indeed, the severity of the assessment aroused such widespread complaints that the principal collectors of the tenth, John de Pontoise, bishop of Winchester (1282–1304), and Oliver Sutton, bishop of Lincoln (1280–99), had to reassess the revenues in question.56 Their new assessment, the so-called Taxatio Nicholai IV, became the basis for the assessment of future papal taxation of England.57 The surviving evidence from St Edmunds provides a good illustration of the thoroughness of the new assessment.58 A memorandum in the Pinchbeck Register records that in 1292 Abbot John approached the principal collectors to complain about the original assessors’ assessment of the manors and goods of his barony.59 He pointed out numerous errors. Some of his manors and other holdings had been assessed twice; others had been assessed at more than their ‘true’ value; 52 53 54 55 56

57

58 59

See Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 346–9; Lunt, Papal Revenues, ii. 191–2; Bury Chron., pp. 104–7. See Powicke, Thirteenth Century, p. 498. Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 633. Bury Chron., p. 107. Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 620. For John of Pontoise, see J. H. Denton, ‘Pontoise, John de (c.1240–1304)’, rev. ODNB, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/37609, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. For Oliver Sutton, see Rosalind Hill, ‘Sutton, Oliver (c.1219–1299)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/26801, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 57–8. For the Taxatio Nicholai IV, see Jeffrey H. Denton, ‘Towards a new edition of the Taxatio Ecclesiastica Angliae et Walliae Auctoritate P. Nicholai IV circa A.D. 1291’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 79 (1997), pp. 67–79. For the new assessment see Bury Chron., pp. 107–13. Pinch. Reg., ii. 445–6. See Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 319 and n. 7.

156 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

and some properties were assessed as if they belonged to him, though they were not and never had been held by the abbot. In addition, Abbot John complained that although his predecessor, Abbot Simon, had assessed by word of mouth the abbot’s barony for the sexennial tenth granted by the Council of Lyons in 1274 at £1,000 (which he paid off in instalments of £100 annually, as Master Geoffrey de Vezzano had discovered), the present collectors had assessed the barony at the same amount. This was despite the fact that the abbot had alienated the manor of Cockfield and lost the manors of Semer and Groton. Abbot John, therefore, asked the collectors to remedy these mistakes. The memorandum lists each holding under its hundred, in Suffolk, Norfolk and Essex. The total tenth due was £76 13s 4d, payable annually for six years, in appropriate proportions to the respective deputy collectors in Suffolk (that is, to Prior William of Rockland and to the convent), Norfolk and Essex. Another memorandum follows; it states that to avoid the abbot ever being harassed to pay more than £76 13s 4d, it was agreed between the collectors and Abbot John that the earlier assessment would be erased from the rolls and the new assessment substituted. The collectors also promised that if any clerk, through ignorance, when writing estreats for the tenth from the rolls, failed to conform with the new assessment, one or both of the collectors, if forewarned by the abbot, would at once write and stop the demand. Thus, no precedent would be set by the original assessment. The trouble taken by Abbot John and his officials to protect the abbey’s financial interests did not end here. The cellarer’s register has details of complaints made by Abbot John on behalf of the cellarer, against Master Richard of St Frideswide’s and Master Robert Lutterel’s assessment of the temporalities belonging to the cellary.60 The complaints specify the over-assessment of the manors of Mildenhall, Barton Parva, Whepstead, the manor and grange of Horringer, Ingham, and Rougham. The entry for each manor begins with the jurors’ assessment and then gives the clerks’; the latter is always higher, in the case of Ingham almost twice as high. More complaints follow. Most arose because the assessors had included revenues from sources of income granted by the faithful in perpetuity specifically to pay for chantry masses or to provide the monks with pittances. Thus, the manor of Mildenhall was obliged to pay 20s annually to the chaplain celebrating for the soul of Master John of Histon in perpetuity, but this sum was not deducted from the assessment, nor was the 60s which the manor of Little Barton was obliged to pay annually to the chaplains celebrating for the soul of Sir Robert de Hose in perpetuity. Similarly, the manor of Ingham was obliged to pay 20s annually for the pittance on the anniversary of Hugh of Northwold, bishop of Ely (the former abbot of St Edmunds), but this sum was not deducted. Abbot John objected to the taxation on both pittances and on revenues granted for the support of chantry masses. Both these categories

60

TNA, DL MS 42/5, f. 83–83v, printed Lunt, Papal Revenues, ii. 191–3.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

157

of revenue were, indeed, exempt, in canon law, from papal taxes.61 Abbot John appealed to have these exemptions enforced. Similarly, the sacrist, William of Hoo, lodged complaints to the principal collectors, for errors in the assessment of his temporalities and those of the chamberlain.62 Northrepps (Norfolk) which had been assessed at 7s 3¼d, had been included twice, and Ixworth had been assessed at £9 17s 7d, although the sacrist received only 10s from the vill. With regard to the chamberlain, he had been assessed for holdings in Howe, Kirby All Saints (Kirby Cane), Geldeston and Forncett (all in Norfolk) although he had no holdings in any of those vills. The bishop of Winchester and the bishop of Lincoln re-assessed the convent’s temporalities accordingly. The Bury chronicler reproduces the new assessment of the obedientiaries’ revenue in Suffolk and Norfolk. He records that the total revenue in these counties was £1,098 8s 8d, the tenth being £109 16s 10d ‘and in addition 1d’. Comparison of the old with the new assessments shows that the new assessment was usually lower than the assessment of the clerks, Richard of St Frideswide’s and Robert Lutterel and usually, but not always, higher than the jurors’ assessment. The comparison also shows that the specific objections to the clerks’ assessment made by Abbot John and William of Hoo had been taken into account. A few examples can be given. Abbot John had complained that Mildenhall, Little Barton and Ingham had been over-assessed because the annual charges on them had been ignored. Thus, the jurors’ assessment of Mildenhall was £86 7s 8½d, the clerks’ assessment £110 8s 1½d, and the re-assessment £99 14s 10½d; the jurors’ assessment of Little Barton was £16 6s 4½d, the clerks’ assessment £19 14½d, and the re-assessment £14 8s 3½d; the jurors’ assessment of Ingham was £16 13s 2d, the clerks’ assessment £30 16s 8d, and the re-assessment £17 15s 8d. The re-assessment shows the same regard for William of Hoo’s complaints. Neither does Ixworth, nor the duplicate entry for Northrepps, now appear among the sacrists’ temporalities, nor are Howe, Kirby Cane, Geldeston and Forncett to be found among the chamberlain’s.

1294 and after During the six years when the English church was paying the papal tenth, Edward placed numerous heavy financial burdens on it to help pay for his wars. He needed huge sums to pay for the campaigns in Wales, Gascony and Scotland. Serious trouble erupted in 1294. In May 1293, there had been two fierce battles at sea between the Normans and the men of the Cinque Ports, and their allies. The English were victorious on both occasions, although, as the Bury chronicler observes, the second victory was ‘a bloody one and the English suffered

61 62

Lunt, Papal Revenues, ii. 162 and n. 204, 163–9, citing the bull of Gregory X, 23 October 1274, Registre de Grégoire X (1271–1276), ed. Guiraud, no. 571. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 87–9 no. 167.

158 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

great loss’.63 These battles caused the final breakdown of Edward’s relations with Philip IV of France: Edward was summoned to appear before a parlement in Paris, but he refused to go; therefore, on 19 May 1294 Philip declared him a contumacious vassal and his fief of Gascony forfeit.64 The Welsh took advantage of Edward’s concentration on preparations for war in Gascony and rebelled. This delayed his departure for Gascony because he needed his army in Wales. He was delayed again in 1296, this time for the invasion of Scotland. Edward had established his overlordship of Scotland in 1291–2, and as a result of the trial at Norham over the disputed succession to the Scottish throne, John Balliol had become king of Scotland, under the suzerainty of the English king. But enforcement of the rights of overlordship had not gone smoothly.65 The Scottish nobility, discontented with Balliol’s rule, stripped Balliol of real power and opened negotiations for an alliance with France, which was ratified in February 1296. Edward, threatened with the alliance, summoned a large army to muster at Newcastle on 1 March 1296. The invasion of Scotland followed. Edward defeated the rebels, deposed Balliol and took Scotland under his direct rule. By 1297 he was free to fight the French and in August he led a force to Flanders, from where he intended to launch an attack on France. However, that year the Scots, led by William Wallace and Andrew de Moray, rebelled and defeated the English forces, led by John de Warenne (earl of Surrey), at Stirling Bridge on 11 September. Edward made a truce with Philip IV and prepared for a Scottish campaign. By 1298 Scotland was subdued and Edward’s worst troubles were over for the time being.66 Obviously, the cost of these wars was immense, and Edward’s repeated demands for money provoked such determined opposition from both laity and clergy that England was brought to the brink of civil war. With regard to the clergy, J. H. Denton observes, ‘There can be no doubt that the church in particular was made to bear the burden of the new war-effort’.67 Probably the first measure taken by Edward to pay for his army which directly affected Abbot John was the summons issued on 14 June 1294 to muster at Portsmouth, fully equipped to fight in Gascony.68 Abbot John, like most other tenants-in-chief, 63 64 65

66

67 68

Bury Chron., p. 117; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 376–8. Bury Chron., pp. 119–20; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 378–81. Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 369–75; G. P. Stell, ‘John [John de Balliol] (c.1248x50–1314)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Oct 2005 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1209, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. For the campaign see Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 473–4; Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, pp. 34–5; Barrow, Robert Bruce, pp. 89–96 and n. 4; Andrew Fisher, ‘Wallace, Sir William (d. 1305)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28544, accessed 22 Sept 2014]; Andrew Fisher, ‘Murray, Andrew (d. 1297)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/50013, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. For a patriotic account of the capture of Edinburgh castle and Edward’s triumph in Scotland see Bury Chron., pp. 132–4 and below pp. 267–8. Denton, Winchelsey, p. 61. Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 62–3.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

159

fined instead of providing the service. The fines levied were unprecedentedly high, that is 100 marks on each knight’s fee. The Bury chronicler records that Abbot John was duly assessed at 600 marks for the service of the six knights whom he was obliged to provide.69 As in 1276, the abbot would have recovered at least this sum from the tenants of St Edmunds’ forty military fees. Edward paid the immediate expenses of his wars mainly with loans from Italian bankers, that is, advances secured on the profits from future income. But his financial needs in 1294 were so pressing that he took a measure which particularly angered the clergy: in July he raided those churches, monasteries and other repositories where the collectors of the sexennial tenth had stored the proceeds of that tax, and where other moneys might be kept.70 The Bury chronicler gives an indignant account of the affair:71 suddenly and unexpectedly he sent officials specially appointed for the purpose, on the same day and at the same hour, to search, examine and investigate with care and diligence every religious house, including their churches and domestic offices: they spared neither towers nor privies, regardless of dignity, eminence, privilege, exemption or riches.

The chronicler continues that nowhere where money might be found escaped the clerks’ attention: they opened unlocked repositories and broke open locked ones; they replaced the contents but made an inventory of whatever they found. The chronicler records that they took nothing from St Edmunds but sealed the repositories examined. Although it appears that the abbey suffered no financial loss, the chronicler was enraged, predictably, at the violation of St Edmunds’ privileges: To this evil business [the clerks] added an unheard of crime, most offensive to all good men: for by their investigations they violently desecrated, to the prejudice of ecclesiastical immunity, the monastery of St Edmund, king and martyr, and of the adjoining town, which had been privileged as a city of refuge from the earliest time, and which no previous king had presumed to attack.

The right of sanctuary of churches was enshrined in canon law,72 denoting either an area where no secular interference of any kind was allowed (usually specially consecrated ground), or an area where outsiders were entitled to temporary or permanent refuge. The right of sanctuary of St Edmund’s church (like that of St Albans and Westminster) extended over the area in which it enjoyed ecclesiastical immunity, that is, the Liberty of the banleuca. This was

69 70 71 72

Bury Chron., p. 121. See Denton, Winchelsey, p. 68; Prestwich, Edward I, p. 403; Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, p. 190; Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 362–3. Bury Chron., p. 121. The chronicler generalizes his account of events and tends, in consequence, to oversimplify them. Decretum, D. 87, c. 6, C. 17, q. 4, c. 6. See C and S, ii. i. 534 and n. 2. Some of what follows is covered in Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 188–9 and nn.

160 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

not the first time that the Bury chronicler had mentioned the right of sanctuary – under 1232, he records that Margaret, wife of Hubert de Burgh (earl of Kent 1227–43, chief justiciar 1215–34) took refuge at St Edmunds during her husband’s temporary disgrace.73 The chronicler again refers to St Edmunds’ right of sanctuary under 1263, recording that Simon of Walton, bishop of Norwich (1257–65/6), ‘would have found no safe asylum had he not hastily fled to the security of St Edmunds’ Liberty, for at this time the Liberty of St Edmund was exceedingly precious in the sight of the barons’. The bishop was being pursued by the barons because he was one of those who had advised King Henry to seek papal absolution from his oath to observe the Provisions of Oxford.74 Matthew Paris explicitly compares the right of sanctuary which St Albans afforded to fugitives with that of St Edmunds. He records the defeat of the rebels by royalist forces at Fornham (two miles from Bury St Edmunds). Then he comments that the knights of the town (‘nobiles civitatis’), who had fought the royalists in defence of the town subsequently sought refuge to escape ‘the king’s threats and vengeance’;75 some fled to the territory of St Alban, protomartyr of the English, and some to that of St Edmund, king and martyr, as safe havens.76 Matthew draws the same parallel between the rights of sanctuary afforded by St Albans and St Edmunds in his account of the tribulations of Master William Lupus, archdeacon of Lincoln, who had incurred the wrath of Archbishop Boniface (1245–70). On the death of Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln (1235–53), the archbishop had claimed the right to confer prebends and rents in the bishopric of Lincoln during the vacancy. Lupus opposed Boniface ‘to his face’, saying he had no such right and after a protracted dispute appealed to the pope. The archbishop thereupon imposed ‘whether justly or unjustly’ a sentence of forty days excommunication on him while the case proceeded. Lupus, fearing the outcome of Boniface’s case against him, took refuge at St Edmunds for St Edmunds and the land of St Albans were wont to be a refuge and place of safety for the afflicted; [Lupus] was pursued there by the archbishop, but found not a safe refuge but harsh imprisonment, for the abbot (Edmund of Walpole) was unable to protect or receive him; the poor, fugitive archdeacon went as an exile to Rome to seek consolation from the pope.77 73

74 75

76 77

Bury Chron., p. 8 and n. 1. Hubert de Burgh had taken sanctuary in a chapel at Devizes, but was dragged from it and imprisoned in Devizes castle. For Hubert de Burgh’s disgrace, see David Carpenter, ‘The Fall of Hubert de Burgh’, Journal of British Studies 19.2 (1980), pp. 1–17; F. J. West, ‘Burgh, Hubert de, earl of Kent (c.1170–1243)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/3991, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Bury Chron., p. 27. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., ii. 289: ‘Dispersi sunt nobiles civitatis; et quia regem nimis in defensione suae civitatis offenderant, locum tuti refugii quaerebant, ut minas et gravamen regis evaderent’. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., ii. 289. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 412–13. For Master William Lupus see John le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066–1300, iii, Lincoln, compiled by Diana E. Greenway (London, 1977), p. 26; BRUO, ii. 1178–9.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

161

Past history, therefore, explains the Bury chronicler’s outrage at the activities of the king’s clerks. They acted in response to Edward’s shortage of cash in 1294 – maybe they took nothing from St Edmunds because Abbot John had already handed Edward the 1,000 marks deposited in the abbey from the proceeds of the 1274 sexennial tenth. The history of this 1,000 marks deposit is a good illustration of the intricate interrelation of papal, royal and abbatial finances. Abbot John had taken the money from the general collector, Geoffrey de Vezzano, a cameral clerk and papal nuncio, on 15 April 1286, ‘for the advantage of us and our monastery’.78 He undertook to repay it within two months at the New Temple at Vezzano’s request. On 25 April, Edward borrowed the 1,000 marks, undertaking to repay it within two months at the abbey’s or at Vezzano’s request, but on 9 May 1286 the notice required before repayment was reduced to one month.79 Not until sometime between 3 December 1300 and 26 February 1301 did Abbot John have to repay the papacy the 1,000 marks: then Bartholomew de Ferentino, collector of arrears of the sexennial tenth, demanded repayment on pain of excommunication. Abbot John, therefore, wrote to the abbot of Walden (William de Polhey) asking him to repay the debts which he owed to abbot John, explaining his ‘urgent necessity’ occasioned by Bartholomew de Ferentino’s demand.80 Whether Abbot John called in other loans is not known. In the event, he was able to repay the 1,000 marks more or less at once: on 26 February 1301, Edward instructed the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer to allow the abbot and convent 1,000 marks on their account, because they had paid the papal collector the money which he had borrowed from them.81 The sums raised by Edward’s seizure of deposits and other unpopular measures were still insufficient to meet the costs of war. Edward next turned to ecclesiastical revenue. He summoned a widely representative clerical council to meet him at Westminster on 21 September 1294.82 Abbot John was among the abbots summoned. Edward demanded half the clergy’s income not only from temporalities but also from their spiritualities. Any heavy tax on the spiritualities of the English church at large made serious inroads into its income, since the income from its spiritualities was almost twice that from its temporalities.83 The clergy responded with certain demands of their own, but resistance was in vain. The Bury chronicler explains that Edward, ‘after beginning with prayers, entreaties and even threats, compelled and forced each and every prelate and their clergy, and all the religious who owned property’, to grant the moiety.84 His ultimate 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

CPR, 1281–92, p. 231. For an English translation of the text see Lunt, Papal Revenues, i. 270–1 no. 110. CPR, 1281–92, pp. 231, 244. See also Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 450, 451, 619. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 107 no. 205 and nn. 2, 3. The speculative date there given to the letter is wrong. CCR, 1292–1301, p. 430. See C and S, II, ii. 1125–7; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 69–77; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 403–4. Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 57–8. Bury Chron., pp. 123–4.

162 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

weapon was the threat to put all who refused to comply outside his and his courts’ protection. The exceptional severity of this tax was exacerbated because the assessment was to be the same as for the sexennial tenth of 1291, itself unprecedentedly heavy, and collection was to be unusually swift: it was to be completed, in three instalments, within eight months of the September council. The prior, William of Rockland, and convent of St Edmunds were among the deputy collectors.85 The Bury chronicler asserts that the sum total was said to have been £101,000. He records that St Edmunds contribution was £655 11¾d.86 In return for making the grant, bishops and abbots and other clergy received royal letters of protection: the letter of protection for John of Northwold is dated 28 September 1294.87 Moreover, 1294 was the first of five successive years during which Edward raised a tax assessed on movable property. He summoned parliament to meet at Westminster in October. This was an assembly of lay magnates and knights of the shire, but not of the clergy. The king asked for a grant in aid of his war ‘against the French for recovery of the land of Gascony which the king of France had occupied’. Parliament granted him a tenth assessed on the movables of the laity, a sixth of those of the inhabitants of the towns and the ancient demesne and a seventh of those of merchants resident elsewhere. The clergy were not represented in the parliament but had to pay on temporalities acquired since 1291, since these had not been taxed for the sexennial tenth.88 In general, this must have been a bad year financially for Edward’s subjects because there was a terrible shortage of food. The Bury chronicler records that a quarter of wheat, which was hardly obtainable, cost 24s, that is, about four times the normal price in the 1290s. ‘Worse still’, the chronicler continues, ‘during August and September there was such a continuous and drenching downpour of rain that very little or none of the new crop could be harvested before Michaelmas’.89 Nor was this the end of the natural disasters; in January 1295 there was a gale and another continuous downpour which ‘almost totally destroyed the winter seed in Holland region in Lincolnshire and in the marshland’.90 Nevertheless, despite oppressive taxation and the problems produced by crop failure, the Bury chronicler does not complain about the 1294 tax on movables itself. Rather, he was indignant at the way the assessment of the town of Bury St Edmunds was conducted because this violated St Edmunds’ liberties: The town … was assessed by the ordinary tax-assessors of the region. They sat in the toll-house, that is, in the town hall, and delivered their articles to the burgesses who were on oath. Never before, since our liberties were firstly granted to us, had 85 86 87 88 89 90

CCR, 1288–96, p. 396. Bury Chron., p. 124. CPR, 1292–1301, pp. 89–90. See Willard, Parliamentary Taxes, pp. 111–13; Jurkowski, Smith and Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales, p. 22. Bury Chron., p. 123. See Miller and Hatcher, Rural Society, pp. 57–61. Bury Chron., p. 126.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

163

any royal official dared exercise any authority in the town. Nor alas! were we able by prayer or price to save our servants from being classed with the townsmen.91

However, it was agreed, and confirmed by charter, that the affair should not set a precedent and that in future the abbey was to enjoy its liberties as it had done previously. The cost of Edward’s wars escalated. In 1295, when already engaged in wars with the Welsh and French, he began preparing for ‘the invasion of Scotland’. To obtain an aid he summoned parliament that winter.92 It included knights of the shires and representatives of the boroughs. The archbishops, in response to a royal mandate, summoned prelates and other clergy. John of Northwold was summoned along with the other abbots. As in 1294, Edward stated that he needed an aid for the recovery of Gascony. But he added a further important reason: he needed the money in order to avert a national disaster – the invasion of England from the French fleet which threatened the coasts. Parliament sat from 27 November until 9 December; the laity and clergy consulted separately. The laity granted an eleventh assessed on movables, and a seventh on the inhabitants of boroughs and of the ancient demesne. The laity made these grants without too much reluctance. But the case with the clergy was different. The Bury chronicler gives a short but accurate notice of the laity’s meeting and grant, and a fuller and more emotive account of the clergy’s response to the king’s demand.93 From 8 December 1292, when Archbishop John Pecham died, until 1 January 1295, when his successor, Robert Winchelsey, arrived back from Rome after his consecration, the English church had had no effective leader. Moreover, Winchelsey proved a much more skilled and determined defender of the church’s liberties than Pecham had been. Under his leadership, the clergy hesitated to make a grant though they recognized both the king’s necessity and their own obligations to the crown. They pleaded, however, that the king had exhausted their resources by his taxes and other impositions. Winchelsey also pointed out the church’s many other grievances.94 After much exhortation by Edward, the clergy offered a tenth. Edward rejected the offer, but finally accepted it, when promised another grant the next year if the emergency continued. In return, he promised to restore the church’s former liberties. The Bury chronicler observes

91 92

93 94

Bury Chron., p. 125. Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 478–82 and C and S, II, ii. 1147–8. See Jurkowski, Smith and Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales, p. 22; Holt, ‘The prehistory of parliament’, pp. 12–13; Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 49, 52; J. G. Edwards, ‘The plena potestas of English parliamentary representatives’, in Oxford essays in medieval history presented to Herbert Edward Salter (Oxford, 1934), pp. 141–52 (esp. p. 151). Bury Chron., pp. 129–30. C and S, II, ii. 1134–47; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 80–88; Deighton, ‘Clerical taxation’, pp. 176–8. For Robert Winchelsey, see J. H. Denton, ‘Winchelsey, Robert (c.1240–1313)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29713, accessed 22 Sept 2014].

164 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

that at the time of writing he had not done so.95 Edward also conceded that collection should be by ecclesiastical and not royal officials. As in 1294, the prior of St Edmunds, William of Rockland, was one of the two deputy collectors in the diocese of Norwich.96 Bury St Edmunds itself was the scene of the next parliament, which met on 3 November 1296.97 Edward presented his demand for a subsidy, and the laity granted him a twelfth quite willingly, and an eighth from cities, boroughs and the ancient demesne. But the conflict between Edward and the clergy, led by Winchelsey, over the king’s demand neared its climax. The parliament was the first occasion when the implications of the bull Clericis laicos are known to have been discussed.98 Pope Boniface VIII had issued this bull in February 1296 (it is dated 24–25 February), but exactly when it reached England is unknown. The Bury chronicler states that it was actually ‘publicized’ in the Bury parliament, and cites the opening words ‘Boniface etc. […] Past history teaches us that the laity is very hostile to the clergy’. The bull forbade the clergy to pay any half, tenth, twentieth or other portion of their revenues or goods, as an aid, subvention, subsidy or gift without the pope’s express licence: the penalty on all who broke this decree, either by exacting or paying such sums, was automatic excommunication.99 The bull provided the clergy with a weapon against ruthless exploitation, but it could face them with a dilemma: if their country was in danger from its enemies, they accepted that they had a patriotic duty to help defend it. In the Bury parliament, as in the Westminster parliament of November 1295, laity and clergy sat separately. The laity probably sat in the king’s Hall within the abbey precincts. The fullest account of the clergy’s meeting is by Bartholomew Cotton, writing at Norwich cathedral priory.100 He records that Edward demanded a generous grant, in view of the promise made in the 1295 parliament. The clergy divided into four groups to discuss the demand: the archbishop and bishops; the abbots, both exempt and non-exempt, priors and other religious; other ecclesiastical dignitaries (omnes in dignitatibus constituti); and the proctors of the lower clergy. Further, the demand was discussed under four heads: first, the question of the subsidy itself, which the king said they had promised; second, the prohibition of such a grant by the bull Clericis laicos; third, the peril of the kingdom of England from France; and, fourth, the diminution of the goods of the clergy already ‘exhausted by various earlier contributions’. The 95 96 97

98 99 100

Bury Chron., p. 130. Bury Chron., p. 130. See above p. 155. C and S, II, ii. 1148; Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 482–4; Bury Chron., p. 134; Jurkowski, Smith and Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales, p. 23; Denton, Winchelsey, p. 94; Willard, Parliamentary Taxes, pp. 77–8. C and S, II, ii. 1148–50 and nn.; Bury Chron., pp. 133–5; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 89–91; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 414–15. See Reg. Boniface VIII, i. no. 1567, and T. S. R. Boase, Boniface VIII (London, 1933), p. 138. Cotton, Historia anglicana, pp. 317–19; Deighton, ‘Clerical taxation’, pp. 179–81.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

165

discussion lasted for several days. The king’s demand was carefully considered, but the clergy could find ‘no certain way’ of granting a subsidy without incurring the penalty prescribed by the bull Clericis laicos. At length, Winchelsey, in the name of the whole clergy, asked Edward for a delay before giving an answer. The Bury chronicler records that on hearing this, the king decided that if he received no final answer before the octave of the feast of St Hilary (20 January 1297) ‘he would harass and molest the archbishop and other prelates and all the clergy of England’.101 In order to try to reach a decision before then, Winchelsey fixed the feast of St Hilary (13 January 1297) as the date for the next council of the clergy, which he summoned to meet at St Paul’s, London.102 During the meeting of parliament at Bury, Abbot John and the monks had taken every precaution lest St Edmunds’ exempt Liberty of the banleuca should be prejudiced by the presence within it of the archbishop and the king. Therefore, Winchelsey, when he arrived at the convent’s manor of Bradfield on 6 November, before entering Bury St Edmunds where he would bear his cross and give a solemn benediction, issued letters patent in the presence of his notary declaring that his entry and stay in Bury should not be to the prejudice of St Edmunds’ exemption.103 The document was witnessed by Abbot John, Richard de Brunne, sacrist, John of Eversden, cellarer, Henry (of Eastry), prior of Canterbury cathedral priory, and many others.104 The king himself stayed in Bury from 9 November until 29 November but, as noted above, not within the abbey precincts, but in the house of a burgess, Henry of Lynn. Edward had an altar erected by special dispensation, but, the chronicler records that before he left he had it dismantled and broken into small pieces, so that it should not set a precedent injurious to St Edmunds’ exemption.105 It is noteworthy that early in the following year, on 26 February 1297, Boniface VIII confirmed St Edmunds’ privilege of exemption. Abbot John and the convent may partly have sought this confirmation because of the threats to St Edmunds’ exemption posed by the circumstances of the Bury parliament. On the other hand, since Boniface confirmed Westminster Abbey’s exemption at the same time, another motive was probably to protect the abbeys’ exemption from any injury resulting from the attendance of the abbots, although voluntary, or of their proctors, at clerical councils summoned by the archbishop. 106

101 102 103

104 105 106

Bury Chron., p. 135. Bury Chron., p. 135, and Cotton, Historia anglicana, p. 315. Bury Chron., pp. 134–5. G and S, II ii. 1148–50 and nn. A copy of the archbishop’s letters patent, dated 6 November (1296) at Bradfield (the monks’ manor of Bradfield Combust in Thedwestrey hundred), is in BL MS Harley 638, f. 178–178v. BL MS Harley 638, f. 178–178v. Bury Chron., pp. 134, 136. See above pp. 81, 142–3. Reg. Boniface VIII, i. 635 no. 1681. On the same day, the pope also granted to the bishop of Winchester exemption for his diocese, subjects and possessions, and the possessions of his church, from the archbishop of Canterbury, see Reg. Boniface VIII, i. 635 no. 1680; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 48–50.

166 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

The council of clergy met at St Paul’s on 13 January 1297, the date fixed in the Bury Parliament. Winchelsey had summoned the bishops of the southern province and other ecclesiastical dignitaries, the non-exempt abbots, priors and various other religious, besides proctors of the lower clergy, who were to come with full powers to negotiate.107 The penalty for non-attendance was excommunication. Winchesley had, of course, no authority to summon representatives from an exempt abbey, but he instructed the bishops to inform the exempt abbots in their dioceses of the time and place of the council, assure them that their attendance would in no way damage their privileges, and that they should be present ‘since a common danger should be met by remedies agreed in common, and what concerns all should be approved by all’.108 Abbot John and probably also the prior, William of Rockland, or their proctors, would doubtless have attended. In his summons, Winchelsey outlined England’s danger which threatened the church equally with the rest of the kingdom: at this stage, a French invasion was the immediate fear. As explained above, the clergy on the one hand recognized their duty to grant a subsidy when ‘evident and urgent necessity’ demanded,109 but on the other hand they recognized their duty to obey the pope. They had to weigh up one obligation against the other. The clergy divided for the discussion into four groups as they had in the 1295 and 1296 parliaments. Little is known about the course of the debate, which, as before, lasted for about eight days. But the result is known. The clergy decided that the danger to the kingdom was insufficient to justify disobeying Clericis laicos: they invoked the bull and refused to grant a subsidy, threatening those who attacked ecclesiastical property with excommunication. The Bury chronicler applauds the council’s decision briefly but eloquently:110 As the assembly feared the Eternal King more than him who was king for the time being, and the peril of their souls more than the hazards of worldly affairs, it was ordained by the common assent of everyone that the holy decree of the chief shepherd of the universal Church ought to be maintained with passionate constancy inviolate and untouched.

The chronicler is equally eloquent on Edward’s reaction when he received this reply, with a reminder of the penalty which he and his officials would suffer if he defied the bull:111 At this the king was angry and determined to treat Holy Church with unheard-of rigour, to the extent of depriving the Lady and Queen of the world, abandoned without a shadow of rightful protection and exposed to the fangs of wicked men and robbers, of the help and protection of the law courts; indeed, he seemed rather to spur on her enemies. 107 108 109 110 111

C and S, II, ii. 1150–63; Bury Chron., p. 137; Denton, Winchelsey, p. 95. C and S, II, ii. 1154. See also ibid., p. 1163. See Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 59–60. Bury Chron., p. 137. Bury Chron., pp. 137–8.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

167

Edward withdrew protection from the clergy on 30 January. To him, their outlawry was a just punishment for their defiance which he saw as treason. It was soon followed, on 13 February, by a mandate ordering the seizure of the lay fees of those ecclesiastics and other clergy who had not regained the king’s protection.112 The price of the restoration of protection and property was a substantial fine, equivalent to a fifth of clerical incomes according to the 1291 assessment.113 Calling it a ‘fine’ was a subterfuge intended to disguise the fact that it was a subsidy granted to the king, and, therefore, a violation of the bull Clericis laicos. Meanwhile, Edward had set out on a tour of East Anglia. It seems likely that he pressed his demand for money on the clergy and religious wherever he stayed, and negotiated with them about payment of the fines. He travelled in stages from Ipswich to Bury St Edmunds where he remained for two days (23, 24 January) before proceeding into Norfolk.114 In February he visited Castle Acre and Walsingham before spending two days at Ely (11, 12 February). He then travelled in stages to St Albans where he stayed also for two days (17, 18 February). While at St Edmunds he had carried on business as usual and granted a licence to the abbot and convent to retain a third of the manors of Semer and Groton in mortmain.115 Abbot John and the convent must have maintained their stand against paying the subsidy disguised as a fine, since the Bury chronicler records that ‘all the goods and manors of the abbot and convent together with St Edmunds’ borough, were confiscated on Ash Wednesday’, that is, on 27 February:116 the property belonging to the prior and convent of Christ Church, Canterbury, was sequestrated on the same day. (Winchelsey’s property had been seized on 17 February.) As the Bury chronicler observes, property thus confiscated ‘suffered grave pillage’. Indeed, Edward’s policy of coercion was made a harsh reality. Besides sequestration of lands, it involved the seizure of food-stores, horses and other livestock. The unhappy situation in which they found themselves caused many of the clergy to give way. The clergy of the northern province had not associated themselves with the defiance of the southern province and fined for royal protection in February.117 Within three weeks of their outlawry, many clergy of the southern province, including six of the thirteen bishops and about fifty religious houses, submitted and fined for protection. But many did not, and resistance seems to have been especially strong in south-east England. Amongst the

112 113 114

115 116 117

CPR, 1292–1301, p. 239. CPR, 1292–1301, pp. 235–7. See Cotton, Historia anglicana, p. 320; Flores, iii. 99, 291; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 108–9; Deighton, ‘Clerical taxation’, pp. 108–9. Gough, Itinerary of Edward I, ii. 149–50; E. W. Safford, ed., Itinerary of Edward I, Part II: 1291–1307 (List and Index Society 132, London, 1976), pp. 100–1 (copy of document compiled by Safford in 1935). CPR, 1292–1301, p. 230; BL MS Harley 638, ff. 185v–186; TNA, DL MS 42/5, f. 91. Bury Chron., pp. 138, 139; C and S, II, ii. 1157–9; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 111–15. C and S, II, ii. 1151, 1162 but see n. 2; Cotton, Historia anglicana, pp. 320–1; Denton, Winchelsey, p. 115; Deighton, ‘Clerical taxation’, p. 182.

168 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

bishops, Oliver Sutton of Lincoln and Ralph Walpole of Norwich were among those who refused to submit. The date on which Abbot John and the convent of St Edmunds fined for protection is at present unknown. However, the tone of the Bury chronicler’s narrative for 1297 strongly suggests that St Edmunds continued its defiance at least up to and during the council of clergy which met at St Paul’s in London on 24 March and sat for several days,118 the clergy dividing for discussion into their usual four groups. He condemns the many clergy who had submitted in February:119 They forgot their own salvation and were but worldly-wise, acting with the weakness of women. They put the papal statute wholly on one side and granted the king a fifth of all their revenues, both temporal and spiritual.

Like the Westminster chronicler, he particularly blames the ready compliance of those clergy who were in royal service – the king’s clerks and courtiers (curiales).120 He describes the March council at St Paul’s in similar terms.121 This information could have come directly from Abbot John or his proctors, who would have attended. The chronicler writes that the council met to discuss in detail the innumerable exactions, injuries and unjust losses daily inflicted on Holy Church and on the clergy. When they had argued this way and that for eight days over the contribution requested, they still did not find any way of complying with the royal authority without peril. Finally they gave this answer to the king’s council. The king named a day after which all the chattels found on the manors of those of the clergy who had not accepted protection should be adjudged forfeited, and they should have no service from laymen. The king would distribute their property as he wished. If ever they were found without the protection of the council they were to be punished by imprisonment as public enemies.

Edward fixed Easter (14 April) as the date before which the clergy should submit to his demand, in order to avoid the threatened penalties. Most of the hitherto recalcitrant clergy paid the fine immediately after the council and so recovered their property. Bartholomew Cotton states that the bishops, the religious, and other clergy who submitted, considered themselves justified because of ‘necessity, for otherwise they would have perished from hunger and poverty, or have had to disperse’.122 Winchelsey himself continued his courageous opposition until his temporary reconciliation with the king in July. A few of the clergy, including some of the religious, were still supporting him in May and June. But already early in April the prior and convent of Christ Church Canterbury had begun

118 119 120 121 122

C and S, II, ii. 1162–8. Bury Chron., p. 138. Flores, iii. 291. Bury Chron., p. 139. Cotton, Historia anglicana, pp. 322–3.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

169

negotiations with the king for the recovery of their property.123 It seems not improbable that the abbot and convent of St Edmunds did likewise at about that time: certainly their relations with the king were back on more equable terms by 10 May, when Edward ordered three royal justices executing a commission of oyer and terminer to respect the Liberty of St Edmunds’ banleuca.124 Nevertheless, the Bury chronicler continued his hostile attitude to the king’s demands. This is apparent in his notice of the parliament which met at Westminster on 8–22 July 1297:125 In it a dispute arose between [the king] and some of the earls and barons of the realm because he had tried to lay an unbearable burden on both the clergy and the laity. For he had again asked the clergy for a fifth assessed on all their movables,126 the laity for a sixth penny and the boroughs for a third penny. The earls and barons replied that they would on no account submit to such a heavy and unbearable exaction without the consent of the archbishop of Canterbury and all the clergy, but rather they earnestly asked that the property of Holy Church and their own, which together had been unjustly seized by the royal officials, should be restored without delay, and that henceforth the clauses and terms contained in Magna Carta should be observed. The king did not agree to these just demands but artfully postponed the question.

Edward’s relations with the magnates had worsened, partly because of his proposed campaign in Flanders and the barons’ reluctance to serve abroad. In return for making a grant, they demanded remedy for their grievances and confirmation of Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest. Pressure of circumstances, especially the need for money, made Edward treat the clergy with increasing leniency. As the Bury chronicler records, ‘the king was at last moved by a kindlier spirit and freely restored to his peace and protection by his letters all those who from the bosom of the church had observed the papal statutes and not feared the king’s transient tyranny’.127 Edward and Winchelsey were temporarily reconciled: Winchelsey did not pay a fine for the fifth and on 11 July his lands and goods were restored intact. This reconciliation proved short-lived. If Edward hoped that the clergy would make him a grant in return for restoring them to his peace and protection, he was mistaken. He asserted that they had in fact granted him a subsidy in the July parliament, but this assertion was untrue. Winchelsey summoned a council of

123 124 125

126 127

Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 128–31; C and S, II, ii. 1168. BL MS Additional 14847, f. 49v (a copy of a writ in French under the privy seal). The Bury chronicler wrongly states that Edward asked the clergy for a half assessed on their movables (‘medietatem omnium bonorum’), Bury Chron., p. 140. This was the sum demanded in 1294. Bury Chron., p. 140; Denton, Winchelsey, p. 144; Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, pp. 186–9; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 420–5. Bury Chron., p. 141; Denton, Winchelsey, p. 132.

170 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

the southern province to meet at St Paul’s, London, on 10 August;128 as before, exempt abbots were invited to attend.129 The council’s purpose was to discuss the king’s demand for a fifth. The clergy refused to make a grant: they still did not think national necessity justified contravening the bull Clericis laicos. Winchelsey also stipulated the excommunication of all who infringed Clericis laicos or invaded ecclesiastical property. Nevertheless, the clergy indicated that they might consent to a grant if the king respected the church’s liberties. In effect, they were asserting a right to act without regard for Clericis laicos if they were convinced that by so doing they were serving the best interests of the English church.130 In taking this position, their consciences were probably eased because they knew that Boniface VIII had modified his claim to absolute control of grants by the clergy of subsidies to lay powers, in regard to France. The bulls Romana mater ecclesia (7 February 1297) and Coram illo fatemur (28 February 1297)131 left the French king and clergy some discretion in time of need. Then, on 31 July Boniface issued the bull Etsi de statu132 which finally conceded that the king of France had the right to decide what amounted to a national emergency. Meanwhile, the political situation in England was changing fast, due to the Scottish rebellion in July 1297 and the defeat at Stirling Bridge in September. The emergency was real – the safety of England threatened.133 Edward’s dispute with the magnates and clergy had to be set aside. Prince Edward, who was regent while the king was in Flanders, summoned the magnates and prelates to meet in London on 30 September, and knights of the shire were summoned to join the assembly on 6 October.134 By this time the interests of laity and clergy had coalesced: both demanded that the king’s arbitrary taxes and other arbitrary levies, besides his numerous other violations of his subjects’ liberties, should end; but at the same time both recognized the national emergency, the need to defend the kingdom, and the king’s consequent urgent financial necessities. The result was compromise by the two parties.135 On 10 October Prince Edward, on the king’s behalf, issued the confirmation of Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest (with additions). The king approved the confirmation on 5 November and gave it permanent force by sealing it with the Great Seal. The magnates were temporarily satisfied and in return granted an eighth assessed on movables.

128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

C and S, II, ii. 1168–77; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 144–7; Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, pp. 422–3. C and S, II, ii. 1169–70. Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 123 and nn., 124. Reg. Boniface VIII, ii. no. 1653. Reg. Boniface VIII, ii. no. 2312. Reg. Boniface VIII, ii. no. 2333. Parl. Writs, i. 55–6, 296–300; Holt, ‘The prehistory of parliament’, p. 13; Denton, Winchelsey, p. 163–73; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 426–7. Bury Chron., pp. 141–2 and nn.; Cotton, Historia anglicana, pp. 337–8; Worc. p. 535.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

171

On 15 October Winchelsey summoned a council of the clergy of the southern province to meet at the New Temple in London on 20 November.136 The exempt abbots were as usual urged to attend. In view of ‘the imminent threat of so great and evident danger to the kingdom’ because of the Scottish invasion, the clergy granted a tenth of revenues from the spiritualities of the archbishop, bishops, cathedral churches and monasteries, according to the assessment of Pope Nicholas IV. The parish clergy, however, were to pay according to the (less severe) Norwich assessment of 1256, and both assessment and collection were to be made by the ecclesiastical authorities. The clergy felt obliged to explain to Pope Boniface why they had contravened the bull Clericis laicos. Winchelsey and his suffragans sent two messengers to Rome late in December bearing their excuses. They emphasized that they had acted freely, after careful deliberation and without any coercion from the lay power. They pointed out that they had made the grant because of the terrible danger threatening the kingdom from the Scottish invasion. But they also took the opportunity of petitioning for the remedy of their grievances, mostly of financial oppression by the papacy and its agents. Abbot John or his proctors would have attended the November council. Moreover, it is not impossible that the abbot made his own representations to Boniface at about this time, independently of the archbishop and bishops. An undated copy of a letter from Abbot John to the pope survives in which he explains why he has appointed a proctor instead of coming personally to Rome:137 Because we have been hindered by various grave matters especially by the war in Scotland, which compels us to offer our king wholehearted and continual help, we cannot come to Rome in person. Therefore, we have appointed Master S. de N. our proctor, with powers to plead for us and ours in respect of all our petitions and to answer any opposers before any auditor or judge.

This letter would fit the circumstances in late 1297, after the battle of Stirling Bridge. As has been seen, Winchelsey and his suffragans petitioned Boniface about a number of matters, besides explaining why they had granted a subsidy to the king. Possibly Abbot John, as an exempt abbot, also offered his excuses while at the same time his proctor presented various petitions. It will be remembered that in this year the abbey had its own particular troubles owing to the attempt by the townsmen of Bury to assert some independence from the abbey’s control.138 As a result Abbot John and the convent had obtained the king’s confirmation of its liberties. They had also obtained Boniface’s confirmation of St Edmunds’ privilege of exemption in February 1297; perhaps now they sought additional 136

137 138

C and S, II, ii. 477–83; Hist. Docs, iii. 485–6; Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 490–3; Deighton, ‘Clerical taxation’, p. 189. For the tax of a ninth, see Jurkowski, Smith and Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales, pp. 23–4 and refs. BL MS Harley 230, f. 73–73v. The entry is a form but is probably based on a genuine letter. Above p. 77. See Pinch. Reg., i. 1–3; Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 136.

172 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

papal support. Abbot John might have included his excuses for consenting to the grant of subsidy to Edward in a covering letter taken by his proctor, in the same way as Winchelsey and his suffragans apparently conveyed their excuses in a letter accompanying their petitions.139 It is noteworthy that the Bury chronicler gives a well-reasoned justification for the grant which just possibly could derive from some such source.140 He writes: To stop the audacity of the Scots, who had invaded English territory, the king’s son assembled the earl marshal and the earl of Hereford with a strong force. The clergy handed over a tenth of their spiritual and temporal revenues for the expedition despite the penalty of the papal statute; a mandate had been addressed to them by the archbishop forbidding these resources to be used for pursuing the enemy beyond the border of England. This grant of the clergy gave rise to comment among certain people because this year they had contributed voluntarily what in another year they had refused even under compulsion. To this may be answered that on this occasion the war undertaken is lawful because it is fought for the safety of the kingdom and common weal, which is greatly damaged by enemy incursions, and it is even more lawful to resist by force of arms threats to overthrow the realm in which the property of everyone is obviously involved, for to covet other people’s possessions is quite different from guarding one’s own.

From the entry for Easter 1296 the Bury chronicle was the work of John Taxster’s second continuator.141 The latter never shared the first continuator’s close interest in, and knowledge of, financial affairs, especially of those which touched St Edmunds. Moreover, as the second continuator proceeds, his notices about constitutional issues become rarer and more perfunctory. Instead, he devotes some of his best narrative to Edward’s military campaigns and martial exploits, before ending with an entry of purely local concern – an account of how in 1301 the cellarer of St Edmunds, John of Eversden, obtained the disafforestation of the abbey’s manor of Warkton.142 Nevertheless, the king’s disputes with both magnates and clergy continued up to, and after, Abbot John’s death. The burden of taxation and Edward’s other demands, and his encroachments on the liberties of the church, continued to oppress the abbot and convent of St Edmunds, as they did other ecclesiastical institutions and the clergy in general. At the London parliament of March 1300, and again at the Lincoln parliament of January 1301, the clergy, in response to a request from Edward for a subsidy assessed on movables, presented him with a list of thirty-six articles detailing their complaints: they refused to make a grant without redress of these grievances.143 In the surviving copy of the document, each article is followed by the king’s rejoinder and then by the clergy’s comments on the latter. The articles express a wide range of longstanding complaints. Many 139 140 141 142 143

C and S, II, ii. 1178. Bury Chron., p. 147. Below p. 262. For the disafforestation of Warkton see above pp. 97–101. C and S, II, ii. 1205–18; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 184–96.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

173

concern royal interference with the working of ecclesiastical courts. A number have specific financial implications. For example, churches which had the right to amercements incurred by their tenants for wrongdoing lost the amercements because royal officials collected fines from the culprits instead. Nearly all the issues raised would have concerned St Edmunds in varying degrees. The thirty-six articles in effect reiterated, refined and expanded earlier complaints rather than addressing specific contemporary cases. However, the list starts with three articles which, although they concern a grievance first voiced in the early twelfth century, had especial contemporary relevance: they complain of the king’s exploitation of vacant bishoprics and monasteries.144 The first article objects to the levying by royal officials of tallages and other ‘unreasonable’ exactions on the tenants of such churches during vacancies, and to the intrusion into their liberties by outside bailiffs without sufficient warrant. The second article objects that during vacancies the royal custodians either failed to cultivate properly arable land belonging to those churches, or, if they did cultivate it properly, they demanded payment; the article also objects to the seizure of movable property not only that belonging to the dead prelate, abbot, or prior, but also seizure of movables intended for the sustenance of the respective chapter and convent. The third article complains that during vacancies the king presented to vacant churches appropriated to the vacant bishopric, abbey or prior. The compilers of these three clauses may have had particularly in mind the recent case of the vacancy of Ely.145 When the bishopric fell vacant in March 1298, the royal custodians took possession of the property of the prior and convent as well as that of the bishopric. In addition, the king presented secular clerks to two churches which had previously been appropriated to the monks and, it was claimed, were necessary for the maintenance of the priory. In the event, this dispute was resolved shortly after the vacancy ended in October 1299: in return for a fine of 1,000 marks the prior and convent obtained a royal charter granting that in future the priory would not be taken into royal custody; and for another fine, of 500 marks, they obtained a licence for the appropriation of the two churches in question.146 This case in nearby Ely must have reminded Abbot John, Prior William and others at St Edmunds of their abbey’s sufferings during the 1279 vacancy, when the royal custodian of the abbot’s barony took possession of the convent’s

144

145

146

C and S, II, ii. 1206–7. For royal exploitation during vacancies of bishoprics in particular, from the twelfth to the early fourteenth centuries, see esp. Howell, Regalian Right, pp. 2–25, 33–44 passim, 66–71, 183–6, 240–1. C and S, II, ii. 1207 n. 1; Rose Graham, ‘The Administration of the diocese of Ely during the vacancies of the see, 1298–9 and 1302–3’, TRHS, 4th ser., 12 (1929), pp. 51–60; Howell, Regalian Right, pp. 69–70; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 195–7. Denton, Winchelsey, p. 196; Graham, ‘The Administration of the diocese of Ely’, pp. 52–4, 60. According to Graham, p. 54, the appropriations of the two churches (Wisbech and Foxton) had been confirmed by Archbishops Kilwardby and Peckham, but crown sanction had not been obtained. Hence, the crown had treated these livings as vacant.

174 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

property as well. As has been seen,147 this resulted in the abbot and convent obtaining, for a fine of 1,000 marks, a royal charter confirming the division of property between abbot and convent, together with an undertaking by Edward that during future vacancies the king would not take possession of the convent’s portion. But, as Abbot John neared his last days, he and the prior and convent sought an additional safeguard to protect the abbey’s resources from royal exploitation during vacancies. On 20 July 1301, they obtained a charter from Edward stating that during a vacancy the prior and convent should have custody of the abbot’s temporalities (this would be in addition to their own); in return, they would pay the king 1,000 marks for each full year of the vacancy, and 500 marks for half a year.148 Such an arrangement was by no means unique.149 A few abbeys and cathedral chapters at various times in the thirteenth century obtained similar charters ensuring them administration of their portion of the property during a vacancy. The case of Ely was mentioned above, but the most striking example comes from St Albans; Edward’s grant to it was issued on the same day as the one to St Edmunds and commuted the king’s right to custody on almost the same terms.150 The king’s responses to the clergy’s articles of complaint had been unfavourable. He argued in defence of the royal right, which often conflicted with the clergy’s view of the rights of the English church. The outcome was that he made only a few concessions. For instance, the charters obtained by St Edmunds, Ely and St Albans illustrate the fact that in order to protect their property from royal exploitation during vacancies the monks had to negotiate separately with the king – and pay heavily in each case for a royal charter. The clergy’s corporate bargaining power had been fatally injured by a rapprochement between Edward and Boniface VIII. Early in 1301, Edward reached an agreement with Boniface whereby the pope imposed a triennial tenth on the English clergy, and, in recognition of the king’s ‘necessity’, granted Edward half the proceeds.151 Boniface also allowed Edward to keep the money which he had seized from the proceeds of earlier papal taxes. Thus, Edward could obtain money from the clergy by means of a mandatory papal tax. He could now disregard if he wished the complaints presented to him by the clergy in the London parliament in March 1300 and in the Lincoln parliament of January 1301, because he no longer needed their consent to a subsidy. Moreover, Edward began to require the clergy to contribute from their temporalities to the fifteenth assessed on the movable possessions of

147 148 149

150 151

Above p. 50. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 137v–138. See also ibid., f. 71v; CPR, 1301–7, p. 227. For further details, see below p. 199. C and S, II, ii. 1207 n. 2; Howell, Regalian Right, pp. 67–8; E. U. Crosby, Bishop and Chapter in Twelfth-Century England. A Study of the ‘Mensa Episcopalis’ (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 375–6. CPR, 1292–1301, p. 604; Rushbrook, St Albans, pp. 136–7. Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 366–81; Lunt, Papal Revenues, ii. 101–5; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 199–201; Deighton, ‘Clerical taxation’, pp. 191–2.

TAXES AND OTHER FINANCIAL IMPOSITIONS

175

the laity granted in the Lincoln parliament. Previously such taxes on movables applied only to the laity. The inclusion of the clergy meant that they were taxed twice, since papal taxes applied to clerical temporalities as well as to spiritualities.

17 The Town and Trade In 1295, the year when the clergy granted a tenth of their revenues to the king, the then sacrist, John of Snailwell, compiled a methodical survey of the town.1 It is topographically arranged in four sections, one for each of the four wards, with subsections for the streets. The properties held by the various obedientiaries in each street are meticulously listed. Practically none of the rents of the tenements are recorded, but the survey ends with the total sum that each obedientiary contributed to the tenth of 1295, in respect of his holdings in the town. The purpose of the survey was to ensure that each obedientiary bore his fair share of the tax, but no more: each individually would have had a rental for all his holdings. No earlier survey of Bury is known – Margaret Statham observes that it ‘provides our earliest view of the town in a form identifiable with what we know today’.2 The names of many of the streets which it records still survive. The survey provides a good example of how the pressure of taxation stimulated the development of more business-like methods of record-keeping. An important objective of the abbey’s financial policy towards the town was to increase its profitability. The town was a lucrative source of revenue, from rents, judicial profits,3 toll and various customary dues.4 It is obvious that Abbot John and William of Hoo were exploiting the town for financial gain as far as possible. The administrative aspects of the disputes with the town in the 1280s and 1290s have already been discussed:5 the result of the agreements between John of Northwold and the townsmen in 1293 and again in 1298 was to confirm the abbot’s control. The root of the townsmen’s discontent was economic. They

1

2 3

4

5

SRO/B A3/1/3. The list of properties in the town on which the abbey was taxed for tenths and fifteenths is discussed and substantial portions printed in English translation in Redstone, ‘Town rental’, pp. 207–24. See Statham, ‘Medieval town’, pp. 102–3, 111 n. 57, and below p. 186. Statham, ‘Medieval town’, p. 102. For amercements imposed by Ralph of Middlington, the king’s clerk of the market in Bury St Edmunds, 1290/1, for breaches of the assize of weights and measures see BL MS Harley 645, ff. 247–8. For a memorandum recording the sums raised in toll by William of Hoo, the sacrist, apparently annually from: cord and pots (oll’); peltry and wheels; bolts; ‘from fresh fish and toll at Babwell’; and from travellers; which together totalled nearly £5, see ibid., f. 259v. See pp. 76–7.

THE TOWN AND TRADE

177

resented any limitations on the town’s growing prosperity – limitations which resulted from the abbot’s restrictions and financial demands. Most of the complaints to the king by the ‘community’ of the town against its treatment by the abbot’s justices in the Lent eyre of 1287 had financial connotations. The townsmen accused the justices of appointing members of the abbot’s household and other unsuitable people to make presentments and asserted that those whom the justices appointed indicted people maliciously.6 If the accused chose to clear themselves by compurgation, they had to have their accusers as compurgators: their only alternative was to pay an ‘intolerable fine’ to the abbot. The justices had unjustly indicted people for purprestures (illegal encroachments or enclosures), levied arbitrary amercements regardless of the nature of the crime, extorted great sums from the townsmen, and violently distrained their tenements in the town and elsewhere. Moreover, the justices had exacted amercements from those who breached the assize of bread and ale although the king’s justices in eyre had already done so in the hundred courts and at view of frankpledge. Edward ordered the abbot to desist from such oppressions. Abbot John, therefore, appointed the royal justice, John of Lovetoft, and his own justice, William of Pakenham, to hear the complaints.7 The dispute was resolved by the burgesses and community of the town paying a fine of £60 for all amercements, except fines for gaol delivery and licences to resolve disputes by final concord (formal compromise).8 The fine was to be paid to the abbot and convent at terms of the year decided by the sacrist. Whether the abbot and sacrist lost financially by the Composition is not clear. In any case, they may have preferred the substantial sum of £60 in hand to the laborious task of collecting amercements from numerous disgruntled townsmen. The peace thus achieved between the abbey and the town did not last long. The violent destruction in 1290 by the townsmen of the cellarer’s new dam in Teyfan and, as mentioned above, their general resistance to the abbot’s and sacrist’s authority and demands,9 caused Abbot John to appeal for support to the king, who appointed justices to hear the case. The townsmen, in their attempt to obtain control of the town’s administration, had elected an alderman without the abbot’s consent. Abbot John’s other complaints directly concerned the town’s economy: the burgesses had levied tallage independently of the bailiffs (the abbot’s appointees); they likewise had levied hansing silver (the large entrance fee paid by townsmen for membership of the merchant gild, which was fast becoming the hub of communal burghal action); they had appropriated pleas between gildsmen, to the detriment of the abbot’s court; and they had distrained for debts contracted during the bailiffs’ absence. Some of the abbot’s complaints

6 7 8 9

Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 34–5 no. 19 and n. 8. See Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 132–4. For William of Hoo and his letter-book see above pp. 104–5. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 52 no. 47; BL MS Harley 645, f. 58; Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 175–6. Cf. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 36 no. 21. See above pp. 76–7.

178 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

show that the townsmen were controlling mercantile activity in the town at the abbot’s expense: they were preventing the bailiffs from levying tronage (a charge for the weighing of merchandise on the official scales), besides other customary dues; they were preventing justice being done to merchants who bought suspect merchandise outside the market, and to strangers maltreated by townsmen; and they were accused of distraining on merchants selling in the abbot’s market, and fining them heavily. As before, the case was settled by compromise.10 The abbot retained his control over the election of the alderman, but allowed the townsmen to levy tallage and tronage; in return for these concessions the townsmen paid a heavy fine. Abbot John again, with royal support, reasserted his authority over the town. The wealth of the town is demonstrated by the large sums it was able to pay in taxes and fines. The burgesses were of course the richest class, but the fact that there were so many craftsmen indicates a more general prosperity. Street-names recorded in late thirteenth-century documents, including the 1295 survey, show the presence of a wide variety of craftsmen.11 There was Goldsmiths’ Row, Smiths’ Row, Ironmongers’ Row, Taylors’ Row, Wooldrapers’ Great Row, Linendrapers’ Row,12 Glovers’ Row, Saddlers’ Row, Punch Lane,13 Skinners’ Row, Barbers’ Row and Whiting Street. The food vendors are represented by Cooks’ Row, Baxters’ (that is, Bakers’) Street and Poulterers’ Row. The Bury returns for the royal inquiry of 1284 (‘Kirby’s Quest’) record the stallage (the charge for having a stall or shop in the town) owed by various craftsmen and others.14 These returns list thirty-seven tanners, sixteen tawyers, thirty-five tailors, seven hatters, thirtyeight butchers and forty-two fishmongers. (There were also nine plots ‘where there never were stalls’, but nevertheless nine stall holders are named for them and the stallage they supposedly owed recorded.) Besides naming the stallholders (a few of whom were women) and recording their respective stallage dues, the returns indicate the location of many of the stalls and shops. The town was obviously a thriving centre of trade and manufacture. Some 10 11 12

13

14

CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 144v–145; Pinch. Reg., i. 65–6; Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 134. See e.g. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 67–9 passim, 84–5 passim; Statham, ‘Medieval town’, pp. 101–8; Redstone, ‘Town rental’, pp. 198–222. For the cultivation of hemp in north Suffolk and Norfolk, in the valleys of the Little Ouse and Waveney, and the manufacture of linen, between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, see Nesta Evans in Dymond and Martin, Atlas, pp. 142–3 and (with references), 212. The mid-thirteenth-century accounts in BL MS Harley 645 (see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 278) and the 1295 survey prove that the linen industry was already well established in the mid-thirteenth century, if not earlier. A punch or pounch was a tool for making or enlarging a pre-existing hole, or a tool or machine for impressing a design on some material, for example leather or metal. For these and other meanings see SOED, p. 1619. In the Bury 1295 town rental it appears as ‘Ponchis Lane’. It later became ‘Athenaeum Lane’. Statham, ‘Medieval town’, p. 108. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 213v–216 passim; Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, p. 48 n. 2; Raban, A Second Domesday?, pp. 13 and n. 2, 85; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 236–7. John of Kirkby, bishop of Ely 1286–90, was treasurer 1284–90, and began to tallage cities, boroughs and royal demesnes in 1289/90.

THE TOWN AND TRADE

179

of its products were of the highest quality. ‘For a long time’ a female goldsmith, Mabel, had supplied Henry III and his queen, Eleanor, with church ornaments: in 1256 she was rewarded with six ells of cloth ‘acceptable to her’ and rabbit fur for a robe.15 Bury was also important for the manufacture of woollen and linen cloth and clothing, as well as of leather goods. In addition, quantities of foodstuffs were sold there. Production far exceeded the abbey’s needs and the surplus was intended for sale in Bury’s Wednesday and Saturday markets and in its fairs.16 The Great Market included a cluster of specialized markets – a butter and fish market and a cheese market. There were also a beast market, a horse market and a sheep market.17 Bury had two fairs. The most important was the winter fair, which began on the vigil (19 November) of the feast of St Edmund and by the late thirteenth century lasted for nearly five weeks, until Christmas eve. It was held outside the east gate, the entrance for pilgrims coming for the feast by road from eastern England, or by waterway from the north and west, along the Great and Little Ouse and the river Lark. The other fair was on the vigil, feast and morrow of the Transfiguration (6 August) and was held appropriately by the hospital of St Saviour (which offered temporary lodging for poor pilgrims), outside the south gate, the entrance for those arriving by road from the south and south-east.18 Both the Bury fairs, therefore, but especially the winter one, were held at times when there was a great confluence of people in the town, who could combine the fulfilment of their religious duties with buying and selling at the fairs. Bury’s Great Market and the fairs were among the dozen or so most important in England. They served much more than local, regional or even national needs, but attracted merchants from abroad. There was, indeed, a Frenchmen’s Row where foreign merchants would have lodged and had their stalls and shops.19 The presence at Bury of merchants from the great Flemish cities of Bruges, Ypres and Douai is well attested. The copy of a mandate (issued in 1272) survives in the abbey’s Kempe register addressed to the bailiffs of Bury St Edmunds ordering them to attach various named merchants of Bruges, Ypres and Douai in respect of certain debts (which are specified) claimed by Philip the Spicer (‘le Espic’), burgess of Gloucester, merchant; Philip had appealed to the royal justices in eyre, Ralph de Hengham, and his fellows, sitting at Cirencester in Glouces15 16

17 18 19

CCR, 1254–6, p. 285. For fairs and markets in medieval England generally see R. H. Britnell, The Commercialisation of English Society (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 79–101; Miller and Hatcher, Rural Society, pp. 74–9. For the market in Bury St Edmunds see Redstone, ‘Town rental’, pp. 199, 212, 216, 217; Statham, ‘Medieval town’, pp. 103–8 passim. For its markets and fairs see also Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, esp. pp. 10–11, 48, 72–4, 121–3, 133–4. For the markets and fairs in Suffolk as a whole, see Norman Scarfe in Dymond and Martin, Atlas, pp. 76–9, 202. Redstone, ‘Town rental’, pp. 198–9. CCR, 1234–7, p. 61 (dated 19 March 1235). A copy is in CUL MS Ff.ii.33, ff. 32v–33. For foreign merchants trading in England in the thirteenth century see Miller and Hatcher, Towns, Commerce and Crafts, pp. 172–3, 175, 197–210. Most only visited, traded and then left the great trading centres but a few domiciled in them. Ibid., pp. 379–81.

180 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

tershire.20 Philip, however, lost his case against the Flemish merchants who denied that they were debtors on pretext of ‘a certain charter of Henry [III];21 Philip was ordered to restore the distrained goods. A similar case for payment of debt was brought by John de Brilaund, merchant, against Nicholas Cantyn, a merchant of Douai; the bailiffs of Bury St Edmunds were ordered to distrain his goods in the town.22 In view of the significance of the Flemish textile industry, these merchants probably came to buy wool and sell cloth. Already in the late twelfth century, the sacrist was letting houses and rooms in the town to visiting merchants. For instance: the sacrist, Hugh, made an agreement with Serlo, a tanner, for the lease of a toft with its houses in the market whereby the sacrist was to have the front ground floor of one of the houses to let to merchants during St Edmunds’ fair; by a similar agreement with Adam of Barton, a cordwainer, the sacrist leased a toft in the town on condition that he had the house nearest the street to let during St Edmunds’ fair; and he leased a toft with houses in Cordwainers’ Street to Richard of Bradfield, but reserved the right to let the house nearest the road and square during the fair.23 Such leases would have been a good source of income. The 1295 survey shows that the sacrist and cellarer respectively held far more property in the town than any of the other obedientiaries, and other documentary evidence shows that William of Hoo considerably increased the sacrist’s stock. He acquired a number of properties, either by purchase or by grants in free alms. Thus, he acquired: a toft and buildings in Frenchmens’ Street; a shop in Goldsmiths’ Row; a stall in Wooldrapers’ Great Row; a messuage and buildings in Schoolhall Street; and a toft and buildings in Mutstow. He may have let some of these properties to visiting scholars, but many were occupied by sitting tenants and provided the sacristy with a steady income from rents. Hoo was active in business and trade. It is well known that many Benedictine abbeys played an important part in the market economy, selling their surplus agricultural produce, and buying the foodstuffs which their manors did not supply as well as manufactured goods and raw materials.24 Hoo and the cellarer did not rely only on St Edmunds’ market and fairs. The port in the estuary of the Wash,

20

21 22 23 24

BL MS Harley 645, f. 213–213v, Ralph ‘de Hengham’ was almost certainly a native of Sible Hedingham in Essex and not of Hengham in Norfolk. He was senior justice in his own eyre in circuit in 1272, before the ending of the eyres in November 1272. This fact dates our documents. In 1272 Hengham was appointed a justice of the Common Bench. For his career see Brand, Earliest Law Reports, i. xxi–cxiii. For his circuit in 1272 see also Crook, Records, pp. 141–2. Neither he nor Brand mention the session at Cirencester. In 1265, Henry III had tried to revive commerce and for this reason granted concessions to foreign merchants. See Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward, pp. 515–16. BL MS Harley 645, f. 213–213v. See Kalendar, ed. Davis, pp. 77–9 nos 3–6. For a detailed study of the subject in relation to ecclesiastical institutions in the west midlands, see Dyer, ‘Trade, Towns and the Church’, pp. 55–75.

THE TOWN AND TRADE

181

and those at Lynn and Boston, were the principal ports for foreign trade.25 This gave St Edmunds’ markets and fairs exceptional national and international importance. Bury St Edmunds was nevertheless at a disadvantage because it was an inland town. Transport by water was cheaper than transport by land, and the river Lark, a tributary of the Great Ouse, was only navigable by barge. Boats large enough to carry heavy freight used the Great Ouse and Little Ouse; the highest point on the latter navigable for such boats was Brandon, about fifteen miles north of Bury St Edmunds. Heavy goods destined for St Edmunds from Lynn (and vice versa), therefore, could be unloaded or loaded at Brandon: the rest of the journey would be by road. Heavy goods bought or sold at Boston could use both the Great Ouse and the Little Ouse, since the two were connected by canal, and again unloaded or loaded at Brandon. Alternatively, heavy goods could be transported by road. St Edmunds traded in Lynn and Boston. The sacrist certainly had property in Lynn26 and no doubt also in Boston. William of Hoo’s business dealings at Boston fair are illustrated by two models for documents in his letter-book which are obviously based on authentic texts. In a bond a merchant, ‘A. de B.’, undertook to pay Hoo £20 at Boston fair on 30 July 1293, in part payment of the £40 which he owed for wool purchased from Hoo. (It will be recalled that the Gesta sacristarum states that Hoo increased the number of sheep on his manors.27) The other half of the debt was to be repaid on 6 December, during the next fair at Bury St Edmunds; the merchant was to repay this half in the form of cloth ‘of whatever kind William, through his council (‘per consilium suum’) stipulates’.28 The other document relevant to Hoo’s business activities shows that he bought luxury items at Boston fair: it records that he bought almonds, sugar and various spices – pepper, cubeb, mace, galingale, saffron, cumin, dill, liquorice, cinnamon and zedoary.29 (The monks of Durham and the monks of Worcester also bought spices at Boston fair.30) Moreover, the cellarer bought large quantities of supplies at many places apart from Bury St Edmunds, for example, grout at Lynn, herring at Beccles, and hazel nuts (‘nuces minores’) at St Etheldreda’s fair in Ely.31 Nevertheless, William of Hoo’s patronage of other markets should not be seen as an indication that the markets and fairs of Bury St Edmunds failed to retain their national and international importance. This was not only

25 26 27 28 29

30 31

For Lynn and the Fen waterways see Parker, The Making of King’s Lynn, pp. 1–18 with sketch maps. See also Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 282–3. Mon. Angl., iii. 157. Gesta sacrist., p. 296; above p. 143. Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 114 no. 211. For a list of the spices bought by the sacrist at the fair at Boston see BL MS Harley 645, f. 202v. Galingale is a variety of sedge. Zedoary is an Indian plant of the ginger family, related to turmeric. See Dyer, ‘Trade, Towns and the Church’, p. 61; Miller and Hatcher, Towns, Commerce and Crafts, p. 164. Pinch. Reg., i. 375–6.

182 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

because the town was a flourishing centre of manufacture with an abundant surplus of commodities produced by the abbey’s estates:32 it was also a result of the abbey’s privileged position. A map of the medieval markets and fairs of Suffolk reveals far more of them in the east than in the west of the county.33 It shows in addition that those established in or before the thirteenth century in west Suffolk are all at a distance from Bury St Edmunds and quite close to the boundaries of the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds. This distribution was probably a result of the abbots’ obstruction of the establishment of any market or fair within the Liberty if it were to the detriment of the abbey’s own markets and fairs. The lengths to which Abbot Samson went to prevent the monks of Ely from establishing a market at Lakenheath are described in vivid terms by Jocelin of Brackland.34 In effect, St Edmunds demanded as big a share as possible in the profits of trade within the Liberty. On the other hand the abbey itself obtained royal grants of local markets and fairs on a number of its estates, from which it derived the profits in the same way as it did from those markets and fairs in Bury St Edmunds itself. These were held mainly for the sale of agricultural produce, livestock, agricultural equipment and other rural necessities, to serve local and regional needs, although merchants certainly came from further afield, especially to the bigger ones. Thus, before Abbot John’s time St Edmunds had obtained royal grants to have, for example, a Thursday market and annual fair at Bottisdale (next to the abbey’s manor of Rickinghall Inferior, on the road from Bury to Lowestoft),35 a fair at the abbey’s manor of Redgrave, and a Thursday market and fair at its manor of Melford.36 Markets and fairs proliferated in England during the thirteenth century and by the end of the century had reached their medieval apogee. Abbot John followed the contemporary trend, obtaining royal grants for even more of them on the abbey’s estates or confirmation of St Edmunds’ right to existing markets and fairs. In 1282, Edward granted him and the convent a Wednesday market and annual fair at its manor of Brooke in Norfolk.37 (This grant was at the instance of William of Rockland, then chamberlain and later prior:38 Brooke was part of the chamberlain’s portion.39) In 1286, the abbot and convent defended its rights in Beccles before Solomon of Rochester, senior justice in eyre of the southern circuit.40 The jurors presented that the abbot claimed to have by grant of King 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

For the sale of surplus produce see BL MS Harley 645, f. 229. Scarfe in Dymond and Martin, Atlas, pp. 76–9 (with distribution maps). JB, pp. 132–4. See Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 52 and n. 5. See the distribution map in Scarfe in Dymond and Martin, Atlas, pp. 77, 202 (for references). CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 32v. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 32v. Bury Chron., p. 89. Bury Chron., pp. 105, 111 and Mon. Angl., iii. 157. BL MS Harley 230, f. 119. For Solomon of Rochester, senior justice in eyre in the 1280s, see Brand, Making of the Common Law, pp. 107, 154, 186, 195, and above pp. 55–6.

THE TOWN AND TRADE

183

Stephen various rights in Beccles, including weekly markets (on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays) and two fairs a year, one lasting nine days from the vigil of the feast of SS. Peter and Paul (29 June) and the other three days from the feast of St Matthew (21 September).41 The jurors, however, did not know by what warrant. Abbot John then came and stated that he and his predecessors had held the manor and the manor’s rights from the time of King ‘Edwyn’ (Eadwig, 955–9), and cited ‘the book which is called Domesday’: he stated correctly that Domesday Book records that St Edmunds held Beccles in the time of King Edward.42 John must have won the case since St Edmunds continued to hold Beccles and its rights.43 Beccles was an important trading centre. Its quays on the river Waveney gave access for heavy freight to and from the great port of Yarmouth. It is noticeable that the dates of fairs were fixed so that they did not coincide with those of nearby fairs and usually took place in the summer. But good weather was not the only inducement to potential traders. Whenever practicable fairs were held on the vigil, feast and morrow of the patron saint of the parish church, the time when the faithful congregated in the greatest numbers. The interests of trade and piety could be served simultaneously, as they were in the case of the two fairs at Bury St Edmunds itself.44 The fair at Bottisdale was held on the vigil, feast and morrow of St Botulph (16–17 June), the patron saint of the church at Redgrave,45 in which parish Bottisdale lay; the fair at Melford was on the vigil, feast and morrow of Holy Trinity, the patron saint of Melford church;46 and the fair at Brooke was on the vigil, feast and morrow of St Peter in Chains (31 July–2 August), the patron saint of the church at Brooke.47 The dates for the two fairs at Beccles were an exception, for its patronal saint was St Michael the Archangel, not St Matthew the Apostle. However, although the feast of St Michael on 29 September was a major church festival it was also nationwide an important business day, often a day for the payment of rents. Some mid-­thirteenth-century manorial accounts for Beccles, recording receipts and expenditure in the vill and on its estates,48 are dated 29 September, that being the end of one accounting term and the start of the next. Therefore, it seems that to avoid the collision of two such busy times, the three-day fair was held a week earlier on the vigil, feast and morrow of St

41 42 43

44 45 46 47 48

For the grant of the manor at Beccles to St Edmunds by King Stephen see Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, p. 83 no. 63. For the confirmation by Henry II see ibid., p. 96 no. 85. DB, Suffolk, i. 14. 120. See the returns covering St Edmunds’ property in Valor Ecclesiasticus temp. Henr. VIII auctoritate regia istitutus, ed. J. Caley and J. Hunter ([London], 1817), iii. p. 462 (the survey of ecclesiastical property commissioned by Henry VIII in 1535). Mon. Angl., iii. 173. For fairs, see above pp. 179–80. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 33. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 32v. BL MS Additional 14847, f. 49v; C Ch. R, ii. 262. BL MS Harley 645, f. 252v; Harvey, ‘Some mid-thirteenth-century accounts’, p. 157 nos 44–5.

184 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

Matthew (20–22 September).49 Beccles’ nine-day summer fair began on 28 June, the vigil of the feast of SS. Peter and Paul. It has been noted above that markets and fairs served partly for the sale of surplus agricultural produce and much of the surplus sold at these fairs came from St Edmunds’ estates. How the abbey managed its estates for profit will be considered in the next chapter.

49

C Ch. R, ii. 27.

18 Estate Management In 1281, King Edward ordered Roger of Leicester (justice of Common Bench)1 to have an extent made of all the manors, lands and tenements held by the prior and convent of St Edmunds.2 An extent recorded the annual leasable value of every manor held in demesne, that is of every building and piece of land and of all labour services and rents pertaining to it.3 The mandate was probably issued in connection with the king’s confirmation in November 1281 of the division of portions between the abbot and convent.4 Abbot John and the convent had obtained the confirmation in order to prevent the crown taking over the convent’s portion as well as the abbot’s barony during future vacancies, as it had done in 1279. The king needed to know what revenue he should have had during the 1279 vacancy, and how much he lost by his undertaking that in future vacancies the convent would be left in possession of its portion. This information would have helped decide the amount which the abbey should pay as a fine for the confirmation. In the same way, an extent of the rich demesne manor of Cockfield was probably made as a result of the grant of the manor by Abbot Simon to the prior and convent in 1275.5 Throughout the thirteenth century the number of extents of demesnes proliferated, especially towards the end of the century.6 The earliest surviving ones were made for the Crown of properties which came into its hands after the death of tenants-inchief. However, it was not long before private landlords began making extents of their demesne manors. Their purpose was to improve management and so to increase the profitability of their estates. The demesne manors were of course those which landlords exploited directly. Those estates which were leased out for fixed rents were not described in detail, since the landlord could not increase his profits from them.

1 2 3 4 5 6

For whom see Brand, Earliest Law Reports, i. cxli, cxliii. BL MS Harley 645, f. 265v. For a clear definition of a manorial extent see P. D. A. Harvey, Manorial Records (Archives and the User 5, London, 1984), pp. 20–1. Above pp. 49–50. See above, p. 135. Harvey, Manorial Records, pp. 20–2; Mark Bailey, The English Manor c. 1200 – c. 1500. Selected sources translated and annotated (Manchester – New York, 2002), pp. 18, 21–5 passim, 31, 67–75, 97, 101, 103.

186 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

A number of extents survive from St Edmunds dating from John of Northwold’s abbacy, and others no doubt existed but have been lost. However, which (if any) of the surviving ones was, or were, made in response to Edward’s mandate to Roger of Leicester is impossible to say. Some must have been produced as part of the abbey’s drive to increase its revenue, for which there is abundant evidence in the late thirteenth-century registers and custumals. One of the surviving extents, made in 1288/9, is of the cellarer’s demesne manor of Redgrave.7 Undated copies of others are in the late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century register, now BL MS Harley 3977, which may have once been in Abbot John’s possession;8 it has copies of extents respectively of Semer and Groton. Perhaps these extents were made because of the dispute over the ownership of the manor which resulted in the loss of both manors by St Edmunds.9 BL MS Harley 3977 also has a list of extents of the demesne manors of the abbot and those of the convent arranged in topographical order.10 The abbey’s late thirteenth-century ‘Kempe’ register, BL MS Harley 645, has a copy of an extent of the sacrist’s manor of Icklingham11 and also records the questions to be asked in the compilation of an extent.12 The need for written records in any economic strategy was also evident in the production of manorial account and court rolls. The earliest extant such records from St Edmunds date, as we have seen, from the beginning of Simon of Luton’s abbacy. The survival rate of such manorial records accelerates markedly under Abbot John.13 Indeed, the earliest known abbatial account roll is that of Abbot John for 1290–2, and the earliest known sacrist’s account roll is John of Snailwell’s, for 1299.14 One feature of St Edmunds’ system of estate management was unusual (though not unique) – the use of food-renders in lieu of payment of the rent due from a holding. The primary purpose of this system of food farms was to ensure that the monks were fed week by week. The system was of pre-Conquest origin and at that time not peculiar to St Edmunds.15 What was remarkable was the system’s 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Noticed in Thomson, Archives, p. 102 no. 968, citing Chicago University Library, MS Bacon 805. Thomson, Archives, pp. 145–6 no. 1294 at p. 146 item 26; Davis, Medieval Cartularies, rev. edn, no. 126. BL MS Harley 3977, ff. 52–55v. For the dispute see above pp. 141–2. BL MS Harley 3977, ff. 79–103v. BL MS Harley 645, f. 201v. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 205v–206. Above p. 130. Thomson, Archives, p. 69 no. 177, citing Chicago University Library, MS Bacon 697, and ibid., p. 69 no. 179, citing SRO/B A6/1/1, respectively. See the list of food farms in Abbot Leofstan’s and Abbot Baldwin’s time printed in Robertson, Charters, pp. 193–7 no. 104 passim. For the system on other estates see Edward Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely. A Social History of an Ecclesiastical Estate from the tenth century to the early fourteenth century (Cambridge, 1951), p. 40; Harvey, Westminster Abbey, p. 80. See also, with further references: Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, esp. pp. 281–7 and fig. 5.



ESTATE MANAGEMENT

187

long survival on some of St Edmunds’ estates and the ways in which it was modified during the twelfth century. In the eleventh century, the year had been divided into twelve divisions; that is, each specific manor (or group of manors) rendered its (or their) quota of food to the abbey for one month each year.16 In the late twelfth century, and in the thirteenth century, the system was modified. Exactly how it worked at this period is not clear, but the system in some form was evidently still in place. A list of the cellarer’s demesne manors, copied in a mid-thirteenth-century hand, is in BL MS Harley 1005 (f. 50), ending with the manor within the banleuca of St Edmunds itself. This list groups the manors into fifty-two numbered groups, one for each week of the year, and specifies what food renders the manor or manors in each division owed in each week. It also records the labour services, cash rents and other obligations of the manorial tenants. The fact that a copy of the list appears in the Pinchbeck Register, which was begun in 1333, suggests that the food farm system was still in use at this late period. The list reveals much about the system’s practical operation. Thus, we learn, for example, that the so-called ‘farm of St Edmund’ comprised fixed renders of oats, wheat and barley from the assigned manors, while the ‘Farm of St Edmund called the Little Farm of the Kitchen’ (‘Firma sancti Edmundi que vocatur parua firma de coquina’) comprised renders of beef, pork, goose and chicken from the assigned manors.17 In each instance the equivalent monetary value concludes the entry. This is the case in most thirteenth-century lists of food renders. Indeed, it is very likely that cash was often rendered instead of comestibles. Similarly, labour services could be, and sometimes were, commuted for money payments, or tenants might fulfil their obligation by paying someone else to undertake it. In this respect, the adjustments made to the management of St Edmunds’ estates accorded with practice on the estates of other great landlords as part of the general move towards a money-based economy. More study of the abbey’s registers, charters and account and court rolls would no doubt add to our information about the working of the food farm system and its demise. The method adopted by the abbot and convent to increase a particular holding’s profitability depended on whether that holding’s primary purpose was to provide provisions themselves or to produce revenue. The cellarer’s food farms were intended mainly to supply the convent, its servants and other dependents, with food: in all, according to a estimate made at some date during the reign of Edward I, there were 80 monks (who had to be maintained at a high standard of living), 111 servants, eleven chaplains, the nuns of Thetford, and guests, all of whom needed to be supported.18 But the food farms not only produced food for the monks and their dependents, they were also a source of cash revenue from the various money payments owed by the tenants and from the sale of surplus

16 17 18

Kalendar, ed. Davis, p. 1, printed from CUL MS Additional 6006, ff. 61v–62. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 50; BL MS Harley 645, f. 226–226v; Pinch. Reg., i. 389–90, 392–3. BL MS Harley 645, f. 24v, and see also BL MS Harley 1005, f. 219v. See Snape, Monastic Finances, pp. 14, 168–9; Knowles, Medieval Religious Houses, p. 61. For the presence of the nuns of Thetford see p. 215.

188 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

grain and stock. Nor could they supply all the monks’ provisions – some had to be purchased (for example, the items which William of Hoo bought at Boston fair).19 Moreover, the convent owed cash payments to many of its servants. The convent’s holdings which did not render food farms were either exploited directly for crops and stock destined for the market, or leased.20 The combination of food-renders and labour services with a cash economy on a few of the abbey’s, mainly the abbot’s, manors is illustrated by a small group of specialized documents, the grants of manumission (that is, enfranchisement), granted to villein tenants. The act of manumission lifted the burden of all, or most, of the incidents of villeinage from the beneficiary, and nearly always from his offspring also, in perpetuity.21 The beneficiary would then, as a freeman, do homage or fealty to his lord. As part of the transaction the lord would grant him the land which he had held by customary tenure for a rent and for chevage (a small annual payment to the lord). However, a lord might also commute some of a villein’s customary services for rent without enfranchising him as a freeman. Enfranchisement of a villein might be a reward for faithful service, in which case the beneficiary would pay little or nothing for the concession. But usually a villein paid a lump sum, although this is not mentioned in many of the surviving records. The enfranchisement of villeins was part of the move by landlords toward a money-based economy. Although it was not until the second half of the fourteenth century that villeins were enfranchised in any great numbers, in the course of the thirteenth century the practice among landlords of the Benedictine order had become sufficiently prevalent that it alarmed the legislators at the General Chapter of the province of Canterbury: in 1277, the Chapter forbade monastic prelates from enfranchising customary land unless to do so was to ‘the manifest utility of their church, and their chapters gave express consent’.22 Comparison of the sums recorded as paid in return for manumission shows that they varied greatly but could be well over £10. No doubt the amount was determined partly by the terms on which the enfranchised villein was to hold his previously customary land. Nevertheless, the fact that a villein often paid heavily for enfranchisement shows the value attached to free status, as well as that some villeins had accumulated considerable wealth and were men of standing.

19 20

21

22

Above p. 181. For a late thirteenth-century list of the abbot’s revenues from his manors, a list of his manors at farm, and one of the hundreds at farm see BL MS Harley 645, ff. 226–9. Probably these and other lists assembled in BL MS Harley 645 were compiled in preparation for the imminent vacancy which would follow when Abbot John died. See Harvey, Westminster Abbey, pp. 108–10; Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, i. 427–9; Homans, English Villagers, pp. 236, 282–8. For the large sums paid for manumission on the Ramsey estates in the late Middle Ages see Raftis, Estates of Ramsey Abbey, pp. 284–5. ‘Terras consuetudinarias in libertatem, novas infeodaciones vel hereditaria corredia alicui non concedant nisi pro utilitate ecclesie manifesta et de consensu conventus expresso’: Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. p. 66 § 7.



ESTATE MANAGEMENT

189

The value of individual villeins to their lords is illustrated by the case of Walter, son of Aylward of Risby. In the time of Abbot Henry of Rushbrooke, Walter, son of Aylward was granted to God and St Edmund by Walter, son of Norman of Risby along with his offspring (sequela) free of servage and all kinds of villeinage. In return, Nicholas, sacrist of St Edmunds (c. 1234–52), paid him 10s 6d ‘sterling in the coinage of St Edmund’ for the gift.23 This demonstrates that Walter son of Aylward was of value to Nicholas, possibly as a functionary of some kind on St Edmunds’ manor at Risby, one of the abbey’s food farms. The substantial standing of some villeins is further illustrated by a grant made in free alms to God, St Edmund and the convent ‘at the petition and instance’ of Abbot Samson and of the sacrist Walter of Banham (c. 1200–11), of Seward of Barrow, son of Aluric ‘le fader’ (sic for faber, smith), with his chattels and offspring. A smith was of course a necessity in any village. This grant was made ‘with the voluntary consent and counsel of the same Seward’ (‘voluntate consensu et consilio eiusdem Sewardi’).24 Barrow lies only six miles to the west of St Edmunds which nevertheless had no holding there; so it would appear that there was a particular reason why St Edmunds wanted him, even to the extent of making him a free man; perhaps he had a reputation as an outstandingly skilful smith and was employed to do wrought-iron work for the abbey. The valued status of some villeins is also illustrated by the grant made by one of St Edmunds’ military tenants, Walter fitz Robert, who fought with valour under the banner of St Edmund at the battle of Fornham in 1173, at which the royalist forces under the command of Humphrey de Bohun defeated the rebel forces led by Robert, earl of Leicester, in support of the young Prince Henry. At some unknown date, Walter had granted the watermill at Longbridge on his manor of Hempnall in Norfolk in free alms to the church and convent of St Edmund, together with the miller William (a villein) and William’s ‘heirs’ and offspring, tenement, and rights.25 However, it is impossible to estimate the immediate financial advantage to St Edmunds of commutation of labour services because charters which mention it rarely specify the sum paid by the beneficiary. Only two of the surviving evidences record the sum paid. In one instance, as we shall see Richard of Wiggenhall, and his brothers Godfrey and Peter, sons of Lefsone and his wife Alice, of Fitton (‘de Fynton’), gave Abbot Simon 24 marks for their enfranchisement.26 Similarly, Wydo Haymund paid Abbot John 20 marks.27 In another case to be discussed later, the villein, Nicholas, son of Adam, granted Abbot John quit-rent from two

23 24 25

26 27

CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 91v–92v. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 91. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 150v–151, 163v–164v (bis), and CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 56v–57. For Walter Fitz Robert’s career, including his heroism on the battlefield, see E. J. Kealey, Harvesting the Air: Windmill Pioneers in Twelfth-Century England (Berkeley, 1987), pp. 117–20 and nn; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 298–9. See below. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 49.

190 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

properties apparently instead of paying a lump sum for enfranchisement.28 Since Abbot Simon’s manumissions are the immediate forerunners of Abbot John’s, they will be considered together with his. As a group, the manumissions point to the general conclusion that both abbots were promoting a money economy on more distant manors, but retaining some labour services from enfranchised villeins on demesne manors nearer the abbey. It is also noticeable that four of Abbot John’s known eight manumissions were granted in 1280, that is in the year when he faced particularly heavy debts at the outset of his abbacy, as well as paying additional recurrent expenses. It is nevertheless most unlikely that either he or Abbot Simon enfranchised villeins for St Edmunds’ immediate financial gain regardless of long-term consequences. By expanding sheep farming on the abbey’s estates and reducing the amount of arable, they decreased the need for labour services. They, like other landlords, must have been influenced by, and responded to, the burgeoning demand for wool, not only by Flemish merchants, but more especially by the growing textile industries of Norfolk and south-west Suffolk. Abbot Simon’s three known manumissions and one of Abbot John’s were granted to villeins attached to the abbot’s holding in Wiggenhall in Norfolk. The four Wiggenhalls lie on either side of the Little Ouse, about thirty five miles north west of Bury St Edmunds and four or five miles south east of Lynn. They were in the fen marshland, a very fertile region, important for the growing of wheat but increasingly in the late thirteenth century used for sheep farming.29 Briefly, the relevant manumissions are as follows. Abbot Simon enfranchised Richard of Wiggenhall and his brothers Godfrey and Peter, sons of Lefsone of Fitton (which lies amidst the Wiggenhalls) and his wife Alice.30 He confirmed to the brothers the messuage and twelve acres in Wiggenhall which their parents had held, and one and a half acres abutting on Fitton Green which Richard had bought from Thomas the chaplain (capellanus), son of Augustine, in Wiggenhall. They were to hold the properties freely in perpetuity, for 4s 2d annually payable in four instalments (at the terms specified) and four suits of court at Tilney, and ‘saving to us general aid’.31 For this concession Godfrey and Peter paid the substantial fine of 24 marks (‘nomine gersume’). The date of this transaction is not recorded. However, Simon’s two other known manumissions were both granted in 1264. In that year he enfranchised Richard, son of Walter of 28 29

30 31

See below pp. 192–3. For the fen waterways see H. C. Darby, The Medieval Fenland (Cambridge, 1940), p. 97 (sketch map). Wiggenhall lay in an especially fertile region of the fens (ibid., pp. 67–8) some of which was under plough (ibid., pp. 54–5 and nn. 3, 4). However, the region suffered from terrible flooding and consequently the loss of crops (ibid., pp. 56–60). There was also sheep and dairy farming in the fens (ibid., p. 69 and nn. 2, 3). That kind of farming had the advantage that in case of floods in the meadows sheep and cattle could be moved to safety. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 79. Tilney and Islington, vills lying four miles west of Lynn, were attached to the abbot’s manor of Runcton. BL MS Additional 14847, f. 64v; CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 39v–40.



ESTATE MANAGEMENT

191

Wiggenhall, and, probably at the same time, Haymund, very likely Richard’s brother: he is described as ‘son of Walter, son of Richard’. Haymund was to pay 28d annually at the abbot’s hall at Runcton, in instalments at the four fiscal terms in lieu of all services, customs and demands, except for suit of court and general aids.32 The sons of Walter of Wiggenhall had obviously prospered: a manumission granted by Abbot John to Heymes, son of Walter of Wiggenhall and his offspring, shows that Heymes, besides having three and a half acres from his father, had acquired property in Wiggenhall from a number of other people, that is: two and a half acres from Cristiana Ghothe; six acres from Augustine Surmelus; one acre from Godefrid, son of Galfrid; one acre and one rood from Reginald Passemer; and a turbary and pasture from Herlewyn Fort and his parceners – joint tenants. Heymes was to hold freely in fee and perpetuity, paying 3s a year in instalments at the four fiscal terms at the court at Runcton, for all services and customs except general aid.33 Abbot John granted this manumission in 1280, the same year that he granted three other manumissions. One is to Robert de Pikelin (or ‘Pickelyn’) and his offspring. He belonged to the abbot’s manor of Runcton. Like Heymes son of Walter, Robert had been building up his holding. He had acquired eleven small pieces of land on the manor from various people: one acre and one rood from Reginald Soteshat; one rood from William Lekesteyn; two and a half roods from William Ordmer; three acres and one rood from Walter the clerk (clericus); two acres from William de le Dale; three acres from Alan the chaplain (capellanus); half an acre from John Brithmer; half an acre from Robert Faber; one and a half roods from Alexander son of Roger; and one rood from Henry son of Stephen. Once enfranchised, Pikelin was to hold all these pieces freely in return for 26d annually at the hall at Runcton, for all services, customs and demands except for suit of court and general aids.34 The two other manumissions known to have been granted in 1280 were: to Eadmund the baker (‘le Barkar’) of Bury St Edmunds and his offspring, which is recorded in a note without details;35 and to Gilbert, son of Gilbert of Elmswell, a villein belonging to the abbot’s demesne manor of Melford (this manumission will be considered later).36 One of Abbot John’s grants was to a Richard of Higham, ‘called Le Den’, and concerned another of the abbot’s holdings in Norfolk, that is, Southery.37 Abbot John released Richard from the customary services which he owed for a toft and four acres in Southery. Instead, he was to pay 3s annually in two instalments at the abbot’s hall in

32

33 34 35 36 37

CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 36. The abbot’s manor of Runcton comprised Holme Runcton and South Runcton which lie within three miles south east of Wiggenhall. DB, Norfolk, 14, 1 and 4; JB, pp. 32–3; Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, pp. 11, 12. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 40–40v. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 39v–40. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 39v–40. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 41. Below p. 193. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 48v–49. The manor itself belonged to the cellarer, but the abbot held the church and had a hall and other property in the vill.

192 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

Southery. But as the grant was specific to Richard’s manumission, the holding was afterwards to revert to customary tenure, ‘as is recorded in the cellarer’s register’. This concession was a reward for ‘commendable and long’ service. Another document strengthens the suggestion that the move at St Edmunds towards a money-based economy accelerated in 1280. On 17 April of that year, Abbot John quitclaimed to Edmund, earl of Leicester (Crouchback), the king’s brother, the annual render of one fat deer (‘unum ceruum de grassitudine’) and a boar which William de Ferrers formerly earl of Derby gave to St Edmunds (Edmund Crouchback had been granted the estates and rights of the earldom of Derby in 1266 when Robert de Ferrers lost them38); for this remission of rent, Edmund gave 15 marks ‘for the use of our church; we gave him William’s charter’. The quitclaim was sealed with the seals of both abbot and chapter.39 Obviously the movement towards a money-based economy was not to end in 1280; more villeins were enfranchised later and their services commuted for rent. Two examples survive dated to 1289. On 23 November, Abbot John enfranchised Alan Stanhard of Worlingworth and his offspring. He and his heirs were to hold in fee the messuage, six acres of arable and one of meadow in Worlingworth, which they had held by customary tenure, for homage and 3s payable annually at the abbot’s hall at Worlingworth, instead of all servile services, except for general aid.40 The abbot’s manor of Worlingworth was in east Suffolk, about 25 miles from Bury St Edmunds. The other manumission dated to 1289 was a reward for service. On 4 June, Abbot John enfranchised Simon, son of Robert Loop of Redgrave, and his offspring, for ‘faithful, laudable and long service’: in future nothing would be demanded of him, ‘wherever he chooses to be,’ by reason of villeinage.41 Abbot John also enfranchised two other villeins of Redgrave, which was in east Suffolk, about fifteen miles north-east of Bury St Edmunds. One of these manumissions was to Clement, son of William Armeiard, of Redgrave; it is undated.42 The copy of the other manumission of a villein of Redgrave is also undated: Abbot John enfranchised Nicholas, son of Adam of Bottisdale (‘Botesdale’), ‘and all his little ones of both sexes for ever,’ so that the abbot was not entitled to any chattels nor could he henceforth make any claims arising from villeinage. Nicholas, his heirs and assigns, were to hold the messuage and eleven acres of arable and two acres of marsh in Redgrave, which he had held by customary tenure, in fee and heredity for ever, free from all

38

39

40 41 42

Handbook of British Chronology, p. 424 n. 1; Simon Lloyd, ‘Edmund, first earl of Lancaster and first earl of Leicester (1245–1296)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/8504, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 41; CUL MS Gg. iv. 4, f. 246; BL MS Additional 14847, f. 70. William de Ferrers’ charter dated 1173–91, is printed by Douglas (Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, p. 180 no. 219) from TNA, DL MS 42/5, f. 12v. However, his caption is to another of William’s grants to St Edmunds, of the annual gift of a wax candle. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 49v–50; BL MS Additional 14847, f. 71. Ibid. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 48–48v.



ESTATE MANAGEMENT

193

servile burdens except for general aid. Nicholas was to do homage, and to pay 3s, 8¼d in instalments at the four fiscal terms at the hall at Redgrave and do suit of court. In return for enfranchisement, Nicholas granted the abbot the 40d quitrent which was owed to him from two messuages held respectively by Roger the Taverner and Robert the Woolmonger.43 It will be recalled that by the early fourteenth century the manor of Redgrave apparently specialized in sheep farming. The manumissions so far considered were all granted to villeins on fairly distant manors. It seems probable that some villeins on such manors had more responsibilities than those on manors which had more direct contact with the abbey. In none of the instances cited were any labour services retained. The case with the demesne manors nearer the abbey, which were cultivated primarily for food-supply and to produce a surplus which could be sold, was different. In this period, evidence of only one manumission survives amongst the enfranchisements of villeins belonging to a manor close to the abbey, and in this instance some labour services were retained. Abbot John enfranchised Gilbert, son of Gilbert of Elmswell, and his offspring, in 1280. Gilbert belonged to the abbot’s rich demesne manor of Melford which lay about ten miles south of Bury St Edmunds. Its hall was a favoured residence of the abbot. He stayed there particularly when travelling to London, since the manor was on the road from Bury St Edmunds to London, by way of Colchester. Gilbert’s manumission states that he was to hold his tenement for one mark annually, do suit of court at the hall at Melford, and pay general aid. He was to be free of all servile services except that he and his heirs were to do a day’s ploughing for the abbot, with his own plough, and to help carry hay for a day and wheat for a day.44 Whether a tenant’s rent consisted of labour services and customary renders in produce, or cash payment, or a combination of both, it was by no means always easy to enforce either the performance of the labour services, or the payment of renders in produce or of rent in cash. There is plenty of evidence that during Abbot John’s abbacy, and earlier, the withholding of rent by the abbey’s tenants was a problem. A number of letters and forms of letters copied into William of Hoo’s letter-book concern the collections of rent and distraint for non-payment. Moreover, Abbot John addressed a writ to all bailiffs in the Liberty of the eight and a half hundreds: he stated that he had heard that many rents were unjustly withheld in their bailiwicks, and orders them to give counsel and aid to the sacrist’s proctor or attorney when he comes to enquire about unpaid rents and to distrain for them.45 Nor was non-payment of rent confined to the peasantry: William of Hoo had to distrain on the earl of Gloucester’s holding in Fornham All Saints to enforce payment.46 The problem must have been serious under Abbot Simon, for already in 1279, when both John, as abbot-elect, and the convent’s proctors were in Rome for John’s consecration, they sought papal 43 44 45 46

CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 48–48v; BL MS Additional 14847, f. 71. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 41v; BL MS Additional 14847, f. 70. BL MS Harley 645, f. 201v. BL MS Harley 230, f. 139, printed Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 89–90 no. 170.

194 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

support against rent defaulters. On 22 September, immediately after the consecration, Pope Nicholas III wrote to the prior of Ixworth stating that the abbot and convent of St Edmunds had told him that some of their tenants – religious and secular clerks, earls, barons, knights and other laymen – in the cities and dioceses of Norwich, Ely and London, who held houses and other possessions from the abbot for an annual rent did not care to pay their rent. This was a great injury to the abbot and convent and their monastery. John and the convent had therefore requested the pope for a remedy, and so he in turn now ordered the prior of Ixworth to enquire into the matter. If things were found to be as the abbot and convent alleged, the prior was to compel defaulters to pay by ecclesiastical censure, with no right of appeal but without excommunication or interdict ‘except by our special mandate’.47 It appears from one of William of Hoo’s letters, preserved in a formulaic copy, that a bishop was in fact empowered to publish the excommunication of those withholding rents owed to St Edmunds: Hoo made a request to the bishop of ‘C’ to this effect in his diocese of ‘C’.48 The precise reasons for tenants’ recalcitrance are unknown, but they may have resulted from Abbot John and the convent both raising the sums owed as money rents whilst also increasing the burden of labour services and exacting renders of produce and other servile obligations in full. In fact, it is likely that the abbey did behave in this way since other landholders, such as the abbot of St Alban’s who was known to have been a very hard landlord, did so.49 The general trend in thirteenth-century England was for landlords to exploit all forms of rent in order to meet the economic difficulties created for them by inflation.50 The rise in the cost of hired labour and of agricultural produce increased the relative value of labour services and renders in produce, and also made a landlord’s need for ready money more acute. It is not, therefore, surprising that non-payment of rent was fairly widespread throughout the country. There is certainly evidence of evasion by villeins of labour services and customary renders, and even of downright refusal to fulfil their obligations.51 Exploitation by the abbey of its villeins as well as its free tenants is therefore likely to have worsened in the early fourteenth century. A case that arose under Abbot John’s successor, Thomas of Tottington, probably reflects the situation on one of the cellarer’s manors, the rich manor of

47 48 49 50 51

CUL MS Ee. iii. 60, f. 17–17v, printed Pinch. Reg., i. 41. BL MS Harley 230, f. 37, printed Letter-Book of William of Hoo, p. 86 no. 165. Levett, Manorial Studies, pp. 203–5. Miller and Hatcher, Rural Society, pp. 45–9, 201. See Levett, Manorial Studies, pp. 203–5; Paul Vinogradoff, Essays in English Medieval History (Oxford, 1892, repr. 1968), pp. 204–5 and n. 1; R. H. Hilton, ‘Freedom and villeinage in England’, Past and Present, 31 (1965), pp. 3–19, esp. pp. 13–14; Hilton, ‘A thirteenthcentury poem on disputed villein services’, EHR, 56 (1941), pp. 90–7; Hilton, ‘Peasant movements in England before 1381’, Economic History Review, ser. 2, 2 (1949), pp. 117–36, repr. in Essays in Economic History, ed. E. M. Carus-Wilson, ii (London, 1962), pp. 73–90.



ESTATE MANAGEMENT

195

Mildenhall, under his recent predecessors. It shows that the abbot was extorting as much as he could from the villeins, disregarding what seemed to be their legitimate rights. It also shows that one independent-minded villein had become wealthy enough to employ an advocate to challenge the abbot on his behalf in the king’s court (possibly he was acting for other villeins of Mildenhall as well as for himself).52 On 1 November 1320, the villein, Roger son of Henry, in the presence of witnesses, Thomas of Wordwell (‘de Wridewill’), Robert Tillot, Philip of Wangford (‘de Wangeford’) and Robert of Livermere, handed Abbot Thomas a royal prohibition against him demanding from Roger any customs or services beyond what he and previous tenants of the messuage and fifteen acres, which constituted Roger’s holding, had performed when the manor was in the hands of former kings. Roger had obtained the prohibition on the grounds that the manor of Mildenhall was ancient demesne of the crown. This was true because before the Norman Conquest the manor had been in royal hands – it had been owned by Edward the Confessor who had given it to St Edmunds53 – therefore, he was a tenant of a holding belonging to the ancient demesne. Such tenants enjoyed certain privileges. Since their holdings belonged to a royal franchise or immunity, they were not obliged to attend the courts of hundred and shire. They were also exempt from service on juries, nor were they subject to heavy labour services or to arbitrary fines.54 Roger’s case against Abbot Thomas of Tottington rested on the nature of his holding as ancient demesne, and on the terms of his tenancy. Thus, it was argued that under Edward the Confessor, the tenant of what was now Roger’s holdings owed for all services only fealty and the ploughing service of one man on all those days in the year when the lord’s ploughs customarily ploughed; and that on a Saturday during some other week in the year he was wont to have his lord’s plough to plough his own land, or to lend it to someone else to do the ploughing for him; he would also have had a sixth part of the crop of an acre of barley and half the crop of a rood of best wheat at harvest time, besides his lunch at noon in the lord’s hall, at the lord’s expense on Michaelmas day and All Saints’ day, at Christmas, on Lady day and at Easter and Pentecost, and to give an oblation of 1d at Christmas, on Lady day, at Easter and on the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Roger claimed that these were the fixed customs and services

52

53

54

The account of the trial is taken from the record of the case in the Common Bench plea roll for the Michaelmas term, 15 Edward II; TNA, CP 40/420 m. 271; two copies of the estreat of the relevant case are in the cellarer’s register, now TNA, DL MS 42/5, ff. 7, 130 (bis). I used the estreat, and am deeply indebted to Paul Brand who in 1998 sent me his transcript of the entry in CP 40/420. I have collated it with the estreat and find them almost identical. DB, Suffolk, i. 1. 115 (ff. 288b–289a). For Edward the Confessor’s gift of Mildenhall and the soke of the eight and a half hundreds to St Edmunds see Harmer, Writs, pp. 145–6, 154–5 no. 9. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, i. esp. 383–4, 393–4; Vinogradoff, Essays in English Medieval History, pp. 91–3; Miller and Hatcher, Rural Society, pp. 105 n. 82, 119.

196 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

which he and all previous tenants of his holding owed from time immemorial; but the present abbot demanded in addition an arbitrary fine on the creation of a new abbot, similar fines for the marriage of the tenant’s sons and daughters (merchet), and for entry into his inheritance after the death of his ancestor (antecessor). It must be emphasized that Roger was by no means the first villein to try to better his position by claiming the privileged status of a tenant of ancient demesne. Although we do not know the outcome of Roger’s case against the abbot and convent of St Edmunds, the proceedings in the king’s court are well documented. Abbot John, having scorned the royal prohibition, was attached to answer Roger in the court of Common Bench. The plea was heard before William of Barford, chief justice in the Common Bench, and his fellows on 12 November 1321.55 Both Abbot Thomas and Roger pursued their case by attorney. Roger’s attorney, Peter of Ellingham, proved by reference to Domesday that Mildenhall was ancient demesne56 and claimed that Roger could hardly cultivate his land and had suffered damage to the value of £100 on account of the ‘heavy and intolerable distraints’ to which the abbot resorted to make him perform the ‘excessively burdensome customs’. The abbot by his attorney, William of Bacton, replied that he should not respond to Roger for this or any writ, because Roger was his and the church of St Edmund’s villein, and that he and his ancestors had been his own predecessors’ and St Edmund’s villein since time immemorial; they had been tallaged ‘high and low’ at the abbot’s will, had had to serve as reeves and reep-reeves, and to perform the customs and services which the abbot had specified. Both parties to the dispute ‘put themselves on the county’. The sheriff, therefore, summoned a jury. Unfortunately the official record carries the case no further. However, it is unlikely that Roger’s plea was successful. Similar cases brought by villeins against powerful landlords show that villeins’ chances of success were very slender indeed. Moreover, although Roger

55

56

William of Barford, justice in eyre in the 1280s, and in the early 1290s; justice in Common Bench 1294, 1307; chief justice in Common Bench 1309, died 1326. See Brand, Earliest Law Reports, ii. viii–xxi; Crook, Records, pp. 28, 156–7, 174–8. On 20 November 1320, Edward II appointed Barford, chief justice, and his fellows to sit in London. They were summoned for 14 January 1321. Ibid., p. 179. The villein Roger’s case was one of those dealt with by a session of this court. Barford had previously sat in Bury St Edmunds. On 15 December 1304, he and his fellows, William Howard and William of Charlton (‘de Carlton’), justices in eyre, executed a commission of oyer and terminer hearing the abbot’s complaints against certain townsmen who had resisted the financial burdens placed on them by St Edmunds. For an account of the case see BL MS Harley 645, ff. 35v–39v (ends incomplete); Pinch. Reg., i. 72–93 (complete). For the townsmen’s opposition see Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 137–9, 194 § 26. Mildenhall, although given to St Edmunds by Edward the Confessor, was in the king’s hands from the late eleventh century until 1189 when Abbot Samson bought it back from Richard I. It had fallen into the king’s hands because under William the Conqueror the all-powerful Archbishop Stigand had leased it from St Edmunds. On his fall in 1070 the king seized it together with his other property. St Edmunds failed to recover it. For details see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 189–90, 250–1 (Appendix II).



ESTATE MANAGEMENT

197

claimed that Abbot Thomas’s exactions were new, it seems more probable that Thomas’s contention that they had been exacted since time immemorial was true. If so, the case strongly suggests that the abbot of St Edmunds was and had been at least for several decades an oppressive landlord.

19 Abbatial Vacancies: Problems and Solutions Of all the written records produced under Abbot John of Northwold, perhaps the most impressive is the survey of St Edmunds’ knights’ fees which he commissioned in 1300.1 In the course of its composition, its anonymous author undertook extensive and thorough research. He consulted Abbot Baldwin’s Feudal Book,2 Domesday Book, Abbot Samson’s survey,3 a now lost survey made by Abbot Simon of Luton and other documents in the abbey’s archives, as well as oral evidence. From the materials thus collected he composed a well-structured and extremely detailed work. He states his intentions and method in a businesslike preface: At the order of my Lord, John of Northwold, by the grace of God abbot of St Edmunds, I have collected and endeavoured to assemble in one place, as far as I could, the fees and services of the military tenants of the honour of St Edmund, from the Conquest of England or from the time of the first enfeoffment of those fees, which were found written down in various books and scattered places. These are quite evident from inspection of those books and from the relation of trustworthy people, and also from my office, in which I have long served, and from the itinerant bailiffs and those serving in the office of the fees (‘officium feod’’).4

The author next admits that he has only discovered the ‘extents or qualities (qualitates)’ of those fees which Abbot Simon or Abbot John had held in wardship, and of those described in Baldwin’s Feudal Book or in Domesday Book. He believes that his compilation will always be useful to anyone wishing to know the names of the present tenants and about their fees and services. He then describes the arrangement of his survey, which is as follows: the name of the military tenant; his fee, the number of subtenants and the location of their holdings; the service he owed; the fines raised in the king’s court for the fee; and the extent or ‘quality’ of the fee, specifically or generally as described in the Feudal Book or in Domesday. The preface ends with a list of the fines paid to Abbot Simon by fifteen of the tenants for their service for the first Welsh war (1276),

1 2 3 4

BL MS Additional 14847, ff. 91–95v; BL MS Harley 743, ff. 123–30v; Pinch. Reg., i. 271–85. Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, pp. 15–44. JB, pp. 120–2. See Pinch. Reg., ii. 271–2.



ABBATIAL VACANCIES: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

199

and with the note: ‘Item, in the time of Abbot John many fined with him for service on account of the second Welsh war’ (1282). The purpose of the survey was to make it easier to calculate what each tenant owed in dues: the extreme fragmentation of the fees would have made calculation particularly difficult, and the survey would have been invaluable for those responsible for collecting the dues. One question which the document raises is that of why Abbot John had not commissioned such a useful survey earlier during his previous twenty-two years as abbot. Two explanations suggest that the need for such a survey was exceptionally urgent in 1300. First, it was in that year that King Edward embarked on his Scottish campaign, for which at the end of December 1299, he had summoned the host owing him service to muster on 24 June 1300 at Carlisle.5 (The issuing of the summons caused dissension in the May parliament at York because some of the barons claimed they were not obliged to serve in Scotland.6) Obviously, Abbot John needed to know exactly what was due to him from each of his military tenants, in order to reimburse himself for the fine which he would have to pay the king in place of service. The second possible reason for the commissioning of the survey in 1300 was the likely imminence of Abbot John’s death (he died on 29 October 1301) and, therefore, of the vacancy which would follow. By giving details of the fees, the survey would help to protect St Edmunds’ barony against unwarranted exploitation by royal officials during the vacancy. Moreover, it is possible that the survey was intended to prepare the ground for the Composition with King Edward agreed by Abbot John and the convent about a year later. On 20 July 1301, Edward granted to the abbot and convent the right to custody of the abbot’s barony during future vacancies, except for the knights’ fees and for the right of advowson of those churches which fell vacant during the vacancy of the abbey.7 The prior and convent were to have all revenues and services from the fees, except for escheats. They were not bound to do service to the king for the fees, but when the king summoned his army he was to have the service of the knights. At the start of a vacancy, no sheriff, escheator or other royal official was to interfere with the abbey, its manors, goods or other possessions: the escheator or other royal official was to enter the gates, take seisin in the king’s name and depart within a day, taking nothing with him. In exchange, John and the convent agreed that the abbey would pay 1,000 marks (£666 13s 4d) per annum, or more or less, estimated pro rata, that is, in proportion to the length of the vacancy. In 1304 the sum was raised to 1,200 marks per annum pro rata.8

5 6

7 8

For the summons to Abbot John see Parl. Writs, i. 328(9). Bury Chron., p. 156. See Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, p. 88. For the importance of the parliament of 1300 in constitutional history see esp. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 98–100, 108, 119–20 with refs. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 137v–138. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 71v; CPR, 1301–7, p. 227. Apparently early in 1396 Abbot William Cratfield petitioned against the burden of the commutation and on 6 August 1396 Richard II acquitted the abbey of the payment of 1,200 marks pro rata during vacancies and granted

200 THE

ABBEY’S ECONOMY

Perhaps John and the convent were already negotiating for this concession when John commissioned the survey. It is noteworthy that Edward stayed at St Edmunds on 8 May in 1300, on his way to Scotland ‘in order to dedicate himself to the blessed martyr with deep devotion’.9 He, or one of his staff, may have advised Abbot John to have the survey made: the king needed to know the value to the crown of the abbot’s barony during a vacancy, in order to decide what sum the abbot and convent should pay in exchange for custody. After the prior and convent had obtained the right to custody of the barony during vacancies, they would also have found the survey useful, since it recorded the customary obligations of the military tenants to which they would be entitled at such times. Without casting doubt on the genuineness of Edward’s piety or on the anxiety of Abbot John and the monks to preserve the abbey from royal intrusion, it should be remembered that to obtain the lump sum of 1,000 marks, without the cost and labour of wringing specific sums from numerous reluctant tenants, conformed with Edward’s overall financial strategies. Meanwhile, a parallel example can be found at St Albans. There, the abbot, John of Berkhamstead, died on 19 October 1301, that is, three months before John of Northwold. Edward had made an identical grant to the abbot and convent of custody during vacancies, in exchange for 1,000 marks per annum, on the same day – 20 July – as the grant made to St Edmunds. Similarly, the king raised the sum payable to 1,200 marks on 20 May 1304. The initial grant was made in remission of a debt of 1,000 marks which the king owed to St Albans. The continuator of Matthew Paris’ Gesta abbatum regarded the fine for custody during vacancies as a triumph for Abbot John of Berkhamstead and the convent because it protected the abbey’s independence from royal interference during vacancies.10 Nevertheless, it had long-term disadvantages. Given the frequent succession of abbots (there were six abbatial vacancies at St Albans in the course of the fourteenth century), besides natural disasters – most notably the Black Death – and then the Peasant’s Revolt of 1381, it was no easy matter to raise the 1,200 marks owed annually pro rata to the king in lieu of custody during each vacancy, especially as much of monastic wealth depended on land holdings and their produce. At St Edmunds the commutation had similar adverse long-term effects. There too the monks had difficulty in raising the necessary sums. The abbey’s economy likewise suffered from crop failure and outbreaks of plague, the Black Death and then the vicious and destructive attacks on the abbey and its property during the Peasants’ Revolt. Between the death of John of Northwold and the appointment of John of Timworth in 1383, there were five vacancies inclusive. Of these, the

9 10

that it should pay £40 in two instalments in perpetuity. CUL MS Ff. ii. 29, ff. 44–46v; CPR, 1396–9, p. 21; Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, pp. 384–5 and nn. Bury Chron., pp. 156–7. For this visit see above pp. 85–6. Matthew Paris, GASA, ii. 28–35; Rushbrook, St Albans, p. 136; Gransden, Historical Writing [i], 357 n. 9, 377 n. 165; Vaughan, Matthew Paris, pp. 86–7, 184–5.



ABBATIAL VACANCIES: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

201

vacancy which preceded the consecration of John of Timworth lasted for more than five years. To conclude, John of Northwold, the prior and convent, by clarifying the separation of portions between abbot and convent and obtaining royal confirmation of this division made it possible to estimate the value of the abbot’s barony. Subsequently, in 1301, by obtaining the commutation of royal custody of the barony during vacancies for an annual charge of 1,000 marks pro rata according to the length of the vacancy, Abbot John and the convent set the abbey on a course towards a more money-based economy. During the fourteenth century details were worked out concerning the respective responsibility of a new abbot and the convent for expenses incurred during a vacancy. On his part, the king had to recognize that in estimating the amount to be paid contemporary contingencies should be taken into account.

Part IV Religious Life and Reform

20 Religious Life under Abbot Simon Pilgrimage, the new Lady Chapel and the cult of the Virgin Mary The worldly problems faced by Abbot Simon and the convent did not prevent them from attending to their spiritual needs and charitable obligations. They fostered the cult of saints, notably, of course, that of St Edmund, king and martyr. Also, as we shall see, there was a shrine and altar to Thomas, the apostle, together with Jurmin and Botulph. Thomas, Jurmin and Botulph had been venerated at St Edmunds since before the Conquest.1 The cults of Jurmin and Botulph are particularly interesting. According to legend the ‘invention’ – discovery – of Botulph was truly miraculous, an event which happened during the abbacy of Leofstan (1046–65): The body of the blessed Botulph formerly a bishop, was dug up at a vill called Grundisburg (in east Suffolk). His translation took place in the darkness of night; a ray of divine light was seen to dispel the darkness and shine down on his tomb.

According to the same legendary account the invention of Jurmin likewise had particular features: The body, indeed, of the blessed Jurmin was similarly found in a vill called Blythburg. His body was in a lead coffin on which was inscribed this epitaph: ‘I Jurmin, in the name of the Holy Trinity, warn anyone who dares plunder this place of burial until the day of resurrection, he should know that he thus casts himself from the company of saints’, in other words is damned.2 1

2

See below, pp. 207–8. For a fuller treatment with more references of the ancient cult at St Edmunds of SS. Jurmin and Botulph see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 111–13; Chron. of John of Worcester, iii. 316–17; Memorials, i. 352; James, Abbey, p. 157. For a useful account of these saints and their cults see Farmer, Saints, pp. 51–2, 228 respectively. ‘Translati sunt nicholominus cum rege beatissimo et reliquis multis sanctorum corpora duorum sanctorum, uidelicet Botulphi episcopi et Iurmini clitonis Christi, amboque ut percipimus illo delati sunt tempore Lefstani abbatis. Corpus namque beati Botulphi episcopi primitus aput quandam uillam Grundesburc nominatam humatum est, cuius translatio cum obscura nocte fieret, columna lucis super feretrum eius ad depellendas tenebras protendi celitas uisa est. Corpus uero beati Iurmini similiter aput uillam quandam Blihæburc primum iacuit in cuius plumbea theca, in qua delatus est tale ephithaphium inscriptum continebatur. Ego Iurminus commendo in nomine Trinitatis sancte ut nulla persona audeat depredare locum sepulture usque in diem resurrectionis; sin autem remotum

206

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

The question arises why the legends of Jurmin and Botulph attracted such hagio­ graphic details. Seen in the context of the times, it is not surprising. With regard to Jurmin’s legend, it must be remembered that in the Middle Ages the theft of relics (furta sacra) could be seen as a pious, not a criminous activity, that is, if it were done on behalf of a church – to increase the reputation of that church for sanctity. The collections of alleged relics of saints were assembled by middlemen and sold on to churches much like any other merchandise – or they might be exchanged for benefits or favours, bartered so to speak.3 This explains the inscription on Jurmin’s coffin cursing anyone stealing his relics. With regard to Botulph, the miraculous ‘invention’ of the saint’s burial-place illuminated by a ray of light, the need to authenticate his ‘translation’ (removal) to St Edmunds, was even more pressing. It is worth noting that translations often took place under cover of darkness, so that no one could dispute the event. Already in the eleventh century other monasteries claimed to have parts of Botulph’s body. Evidence, such as it is, is preserved in the so-called Liber Eliensis (‘The Book of Ely’), a work compiled piecemeal between 1131 and 1174 and including hagiographic legends. Among them is one relating that King Edgar (957–95) had ordered the distribution of the relics of ‘the blessed confessor’ Botulph.4 The head was to go to Ely but none of the principal bones; the king retained half of the bones and Thorney was given the other half. Thorney, indeed, claimed to have St Botulph’s relics, a claim corroborated by a list of relics compiled in Anglo-Saxon times. However, the confusing story of Botulph’s relics does not end here. ‘The Book of Ely’ itself records that a thief ‘irreverently’ and ‘violently’ broke into St Botulph’s tomb and took his head, besides gems and silver treasure, indeed all he could cram into his bag. He escaped safely with his booty and hastened to Guildford. There he was hospitably received in the church of St Mary where he stayed for a while feasting and drinking. But suddenly a fire broke out and burnt the [guest] house to the ground. The carousers fled, leaving nearly all their booty behind, and made their way to the cathedral at Winchester. Thus, St Etheldreda avenged those who dared steal her relics from the cathedral priory at Ely. Although the causation – the assertion that the fire was owing to a saint’s intervention – is hagiographic, not rational, and must be seen in its medieval context, many features of the story ring true. Guildford is situated on a track along the north downs, known in the Middle Ages as the ‘Pilgrim’s Way’ because pilgrims passed along it on their way to Canterbury. The route descends at Guildford to cross the river Wey, originally by a ford and later by a bridge.5 There, weary pilgrims might rest and visit the ancient church of the Virgin Mary and stay in its guest-house. It was (and is)

3 4 5

se sciat a sorte sanctorum.’ These passages occur only in the copy of John of Worcester’s Chronicle owned by St Edmunds, now Bodl. Lib. MS Bodley 297. See John of Worcester, ii. xlvi–liii; iii. 316–17. Geary, Furta Sacra, pp. 52–5; Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, Chapter 2. LE, ed. Blake, p. 222 and n. 1; Ridyard, Royal Saints, p. 203 and n. 120. Bond, Monastic Landscapes, pp. 294–5, 297.



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

207

a well-known ploy to give generous hospitality to those from whom one wants favours. There are a number of examples from St Edmunds which will be discussed in detail below. A particularly good one belongs to the late thirteenth century. The Bury Chronicle tells how the cellarer obtained from the Justices of the Forest the disafforestation of his manor of Warkton and its woodlands – he entertained them on the manor, gave them ‘precious gifts and feasted them with sumptuous banquets’.6 But now we must return to the subject of the story of Botulph’s relics at St Mary’s in Guildford. Once again we have possible evidence of the use of relics to attract donations from pilgrims, which were to be used towards the cost of a church’s maintenance and rebuilding. Nikolaus Pevsner in his examination of St Mary’s detected a most unusual rebuilding of c. 1180. It involved the construction of new nave arcades, west tower arch, apsidal north and south chapels (the chancel also originally had an apse which was removed in 1825 for road widening). Pevsner remarks that such major rebuilding was very unusual and unexpected in a parish church of that date.7 However, surely this rebuilding was to meet the needs of pilgrims flocking along the Pilgrim’s Way and glad for a break at St Mary’s. Fortunately, apart from hagiographic legends, there is other more concrete evidence, though William of Malmesbury, in his Gesta pontificum, can find very little to say about Jurmin and Botulph so he chooses to pass on to other matters. This is not because he does not believe that they once lived, but because he fears that their ‘horrid’ names would expose them to ridicule.8 They were certainly venerated at St Edmunds before the Conquest, probably from at least the mideleventh century; we know this because the translation of St Jurmin (‘Hiurmini’) is entered in gold in the Kalendar from St Edmund (now BAV, Cod. Reg. lat. 12) as a major feast on 24 January, and the translation of St Botulph ‘bishop of the east Angles’ (‘Entalium Anglorum Antisti’) is similarly entered under 15 February.9 Dedications of churches and place-names also preserve some evidence. They strongly suggest that the cult of Jurmin was confined to St Edmunds unless, as I suspect, the dedication of the Augustinian priory at Colchester was to Botulph and Jurmin jointly; as it survives today it is to SS. Botulph and Julian, but maybe ‘Julian’ (who had no cult at St Edmunds) is a misreading for the ‘horrid’ name of Jurmin. The evidence of place-names and church dedications for the cult of St Botulph is much more plentiful and shows that his cult was not only at St Edmunds but fairly widespread. Amongst churches dedicated to the saint is St Botulph’s in Colchester (Essex), where the abbot of St Edmunds had a residence. The name is

6 7 8 9

Above, pp. 97–101. Pevsner and Nairn, Sussex, p. 273. WM, GP, pp. 327–8. Wormald, Kalendars, pp. 240, 241, and see Thompson et al. (eds), New Palaeographical Soc. Facs, ii, plates with commentary 166–8.

208

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

that of the dedication of the parish church.10 St Botulph (Botolph) was also the dedication of at least four churches in the city of London just outside the gates or close to them: without Aldgate, without Aldersgate, within Bishopsgate, and by Billingsgate. But in most cases Botulph’s name occurs with another element prefixed or appended, such as Botulph Claydon in north Buckinghamshire. In many instances only the first syllable of Botulph’s name survives to which the other element is added. For example, the name Boston in Lincolnshire is a combination of ‘Bot[ulph’s] and ‘stone’ or ‘stane’, derived either from some standing stone where allegedly the saint preached, or a stone building, presumably a church, dedicated to him. Similarly, among other examples are two called ‘Bottisford’, one in north Lincolnshire and the other in Leicestershire.11 It is time now to turn to another secondary cult at St Edmunds, one much more important than the cults of Jurmin and Botulph, that of the Virgin Mary. Among the other saints venerated, the Virgin Mary was especially favoured and a magnificent new Lady Chapel was built in her honour. The monks promoted the cult of saints for the glory of God and for the better veneration of his saints. At the same time they were concerned to encourage the flow of pilgrims to the abbey, in order to maintain its spiritual prestige and worldly prosperity. Therefore, they took steps to make St Edmunds even more attractive to pilgrims: they offered them increased spiritual benefits and also the spectacle of the spacious and colourful new Lady Chapel. In 1261 Abbot Simon and the convent persuaded William de la Hay, bishop of Connor (a suffragan in the diocese of Lincoln),12 to grant an indulgence of forty days remission of penance to all contrite and confessed sinners who visited and venerated the so-called ‘black cross’ at the foot of St Edmund, either in person with devotion or through an intermediary with gifts and alms.13 (This was ‘the ancient cross which some believed was made at the order of Abbot Leofstan after his return from his visit to Rome’.)14 Also in 1261, the monks obtained

10

11

12 13

14

For details of Essex churches which were, or may have been, dedicated to the saint see J. Cooper, The Church Dedications and Saints’ Cults of Medieval Essex (Lancaster, 2011) pp. 67–8, passim. A convenient list of dedications to St Botulph is given in F. Arnold-Forster, Studies in Church Dedications, or, England’s Patron Saints, 3 vols (London, 1899) iii. 343, although as was long ago pointed out by Wilhelm Levison, this work ‘lacks a distinction of periods’: W. Levison, Medieval Church Dedications in England’, Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 10, pt. 1, pp. 72–3; Binns, Dedications, pp. 129–40. Ekwall, Place-Names, p. 54. However, here, as in other instances the place-name evidence is not conclusive as the name may mean that the ford took its name from bott – a house. See Mills, Place-Names, pp. 67–8. Handbook of British Chronology, p. 343. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 69v: ‘… omnibus … seu cum deuocione aut oblacionibus et elemosinis per se uel interpositam personam visitantibus et honorantibus, si de peccatis suis vere contriti fuerint et confessi, de penitentia sibi pro peccatis iniuncta, quadraginta dies relaxasse’. Dated 1261. M. R. James (Abbey, p. 139) places the ‘Lucca’ cross in the southern apsidal chapel. For



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

209

from William, archbishop of Edessa (a suffragan in the diocese of Norwich),15 ten days’ indulgence for those visiting the prior’s chapel of St Edmund in the cemetery and praying for the souls of the priors Robert (1173–1200), Richard of the Isle (de Insula, 1220–22) and Gregory (1234–43).16 The prior’s chapel housed the wooden bier, on which reputedly Egelwin had carried St Edmund’s body from Beadricesworth to London in 1014.17 More grants in favour of those visiting this chapel followed: in 1270 the bishop of Rochester (Martin of St Laurence, 1251–74) granted an indulgence of thirty days; in 1271 the bishop of Durham (Robert Stichill, 1261–74) granted an indulgence of twenty days; and in 1274 an indulgence of forty days was granted by the archbishop of Edessa.18 The prior’s chapel seems originally to have been the round wooden church built by Bishop Ailwin and dedicated to the Virgin Mary and St Edmund by Archbishop Æthelnoth in 1032.19 The wooden structure had long ago rotted away. The chapel lay in the cemetery against the north wall of the presbytery of the abbey church. Its location decided its fate. In 1275 it was pulled down to make way for an extension to the abbey church – the magnificent new Lady Chapel. Instead, the prior was given the chapel of St Stephen in the cemetery and the bier of St Edmund and the other relics from the old chapel were moved to it. This chapel was dedicated to St Stephen and St Edmund by William, archbishop of Edessa, on 28 December 1275.20 The Bury chronicler records that, when the earth was excavated to start construction of the Lady Chapel, ‘the walls of an ancient round church were found; this was much wider than the chapel of St Edmund and built so that the altar of the chapel was, as it were, in the centre’. He observes that ‘we believe that this was the chapel first built for the service of St Edmund’. What the monks found would seem to have been the stone foundations of the surrounding ambulatory of Ailwin’s rotunda.21 The new Lady Chapel was to replace the romanesque Lady Chapel which was probably the innermost apsidal chapel of the north transept. Prior Robert Russel

15 16 17 18 19

20 21

the Lucca cross see Bury Cust., p. 115 lines 10–19; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 114–15; Gransden, ‘“Passio”’, p. 77. William or Geoffrey (1266–86) of Rages in Media. See Bury Chron., p. 60 and n. 1; James, Abbey, p. 188; Handbook of British Chronology, p. 285. Cited in full from College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 8v, in James, Abbey, p. 188. De Miraculis, in Memorials, i. 36, 120. James, Abbey, p. 188. Whittingham, ‘Bury St Edmunds Abbey’, p. 174 and plan facing p. 192. For the symbolism of the rotunda in Anglo-Saxon times see Richard Gem, ‘Towards an iconography of Anglo-Saxon architecture’, Journ. of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 46 (1983), pp. 7–12 (with a reference to the example at St Edmunds at p. 9). Peter Jackson, ‘Freney, William (fl. 1263–1286)’, ODNB, Oct 2005; online edn, May 2014 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/92436, accessed 22 Sept 2014]. Bury Chron., pp. 59–60. James, Abbey, p. 188; Hills, ‘Antiquities’, p. 113. The dedication to St Stephen was kept, though now jointly with that of St Edmund, at the instance of Stephen of Ixworth, the subprior, who became prior in 1280 (d. 1287). Bury Chron., pp. 71, 89.

210

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

laid the foundation stone on 1 July 1275, in the presence of the convent which sang ‘Ave regina celorum’.22 The Chapel survives today only as scant archaeological remains, but must originally have been very splendid. Its entrance was in the east wall of the north transept and it adjoined the north wall of the presbytery. Its internal measurements were impressive: it was about 68 ft in length, with three bays, and about 37 ft wide.23 How long the chapel took to complete is unknown but it must have been finished before c. 1300: by that time it was ornamented with frescoes and stained glass windows, and contained the accustomed sacred objects. The frescoes and windows mostly depicted scenes of the Life and Miracles of the Virgin Mary, with appropriate verses. No details of the pictures have survived but the verses are among the many other similar verses copied in various hands on to the flyleaves of one of St Edmunds’ books, College of Arms MS Arundel 30.24 The copies seem to have been made at various times in the 1270s and perhaps later. The headings to the verses are not sufficiently precise to indicate exactly where the frescoes and windows were located, nor in all cases is it clear whether the verses were murals or inscriptions in the glass windows. Verses for five scenes were ‘In the windows of the image of the blessed Mary’ and a miracle story, with verses, was depicted on the wall (f. 10), while eight couplets for pictures disposed in eight medallions were either on a wall or in a window (f. 209v). There were also pictures on the frontal (tabula) in the chapel, ‘before the altar’, ‘around the image of the blessed Mary’, ‘around the [Christ in] Majesty’ and in two medallions ‘at the black cross on a board on the altar’ (f. 209v). The chapel must, indeed, have conveyed its edificatory messages in beautiful and colourful guise. It became the burial place of a number of monks of consequence in the abbey’s history.25 Simon of Luton himself was buried there, and so were two fourteenth-century abbots – William Burnham (1335–61) and John Brinkley (1361–79). The tomb of the distinguished prior, John Gosford (1381–?1405), was also located here.26 In the fifteenth century one of the abbey’s patrons, Thomas Beaufort, duke of Exeter (1416–26),27 was like22 23

24

25 26

27

Bury Chron., p. 58. William Worcestre, Itineraries, ed. and trans. J. H. Harvey (Oxford, 1969), pp. 160/1; James, Abbey, p. 164; R. Gilyard-Beer, ‘The eastern arm of the abbey church at Bury St Edmunds’, PSIA, 31, pt 3 (1969), pp. 258–9. See James, Abbey, pp. 142–3, 190, 192–3. Some of the verses in the abbey church and preserved in College of Arms MS Arundel 30 (ff. 209v–211v passim) are in the hand of the scribe of the Customary. See below pp. 248–52. James, Abbey, pp. 143–4. During the disputed election of John Timworth and Edmund Bramfield in 1378–9, Gosford, along with nearly all his fellow monks, sided with Timworth and he wrote an account of Timworth’s election, Memorials, iii. 113–37. Gosford was appointed prior in 1382; see BL MS Additional 14849, f. 100v. For a resumé of his activities as prior for the benefit of St Edmunds, the Benedictine order and wider community, see BRUO, ii. 794, and the shorter notice in Pantin (ed.), Chapters, iii. p. 320. Thomas Beaufort (d. 1426), earl of Dorset 1411, and duke of Exeter 1416, was the youngest of John of Gaunt’s three illegitimate sons by Katherine Swynford. He was chancellor of England 1410–12, became admiral of England for life in 1412, and negotiated the treaty of



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

211

wise buried in the Lady Chapel. His tomb must have been very splendid. It was made in London and cost £106. The duke had died on his manor in Greenwich and the cortege which carried his body to St Edmunds was expensive. It cost £500, which paid for the black cloth worn by the duke’s executors and household, and for the alms distributed at each resting place on the journey.28 The decision of Abbot Simon and the monks to build a new Lady Chapel reflected the growing popularity of the cult of St Mary in the thirteenth century. Moreover, her cult had always been important at St Edmunds, second only to that of St Edmund himself. There appears to have been a church at Beadricesworth dedicated to St Mary before the burial of St Edmund there in the early tenth century, and in 1032 Archbishop Æthelnoth dedicated the monks’ new church jointly to St Mary and St Edmund.29 The cult of St Mary in the abbey was enhanced by Abbot Anselm (1121–48). He ordained that a mass for the Virgin Mary should be said daily in the convent for the soul and prosperous rule of Henry I; after his death her anniversary was always to be celebrated. To compensate the monks for the extra observance Anselm gave them the manor of Chepenhall and pannage from its wood. He also established the commemoration of St Mary in Advent, granting the convent 20s annually from ‘Sureie’ in return. Most importantly, he established the observance of the feast of the Conception of St Mary; he granted the convent for this, and for the observance of the feast of St Saba which he also introduced, a mill in Bury and fishponds at Pakenham, Ingham and Stowe.30 The feast of the Conception had suffered a partial eclipse in the eleventh century and its revival in the twelfth century owed much to Abbot Anselm’s exertions.31 Finally, in 1129 the legatine council at London authorized its national observance.32 At St Edmunds the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary and the feast

28 29

30 31

32

Troyes in 1420. Much of his landed property lay in East Anglia and he particularly favoured St Edmunds. Abbot William Cratfield granted him confraternity on 14 November 1414, see the abbey’s vestry register, Part II, CUL MS Ff. ii. 35, f. 56v. For Beaufort’s career see G. L. Harriss, ‘Beaufort, Thomas, duke of Exeter (1377?–1426)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1864, accessed 2 Sept 2014], and Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort. A Study of Lancastrian Ascendancy and Decline (Oxford, 1988), passim. Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort, p. 163. For a detailed discussion, with references, see A. Gransden, ‘The cult of St Mary at Beodericisworth and then in Bury St Edmunds abbey to c. 1150’, JEH, 55, pt 4 (2004), esp. pp. 627–49. The dedication by Archbishop Æthelnoth is recorded in a marginal note in the Easter Tables in the psalter from St Edmunds now in the BAV, Reg. lat. MS 12, f. 17v; see Gransden, art. cit., p. 633 and n. 27; Thompson et al. (eds), New Palaeographical Soc. Facs, ii, commentary to pls 166–8; Wilmart, Codices, i. 30–5. See Gransden, ‘The cult of St Mary at Beodericisworth’, pp. 644–9; Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, pp. 112–13 no. 112. See Henry of Kirkstead’s account of Abbot Anselm’s career printed in Bury Cust., p. 122 lines 4–9; The Letters of Osbert of Clare, Prior of Westminster, ed. E. W. Williamson, with a biography by J. A. Robinson (Oxford, 1929), pp. 65–8. C and S, I, ii. 751–2 and n. 1.

212

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

of her Nativity had always been observed as major feasts. The cult gained further ground in the abbey as it grew in general popularity. One manifestation of the cult in England and on the continent was the production of collections of miracles of the Virgin Mary. Again, Abbot Anselm seems to have been an important figure: he apparently played a leading role in the evolution of the Marian miracle cycle in England.33 If he did in fact do so, as seems very likely, it was probably before he became abbot of St Edmunds, perhaps when he was with Lanfranc at Canterbury. By the mid-twelfth century three collections of miracles of St Mary existed in England – by William of Malmesbury, Dominic prior of Evesham, and an anonymous author. The latter has very plausibly been identified as Anselm, and it was the earliest and most influential of the three collections. These three collections were soon combined and a book containing all three was owned by Master Alberic, canon of St Paul’s c. 1148–c. 1162. His book was the source of the earliest known translation of the miracle collection into Anglo-Norman verse. The author was called William Adgar, and he wrote for a young man called Gregory, probably a layman. The poem was so popular that Adgar wrote a shorter version, dedicated to ladies who were devoted to the service of God, primarily to ‘Maud’: she has been identified as Maud, an illegitimate daughter of Henry II and abbess of Barking c. 1175–95. At this point the literary history of the Marian miracle collection returns to St Edmunds, which, as I have previously explained, was a centre for the writing of hagiographics in Anglo-Norman verse in Abbot Samson’s time.34 Now, in the second half of the thirteenth century, at least one Anglo-Norman poem in honour of St Mary was composed by a monk of St Edmunds.35 It is by Everard of Gateley (in Norfolk) who wrote a version in Anglo-Norman verse of Adgar’s poem. Unfortunately, all that is known to survive of Everard’s poem is the prologue and three of the miracles, but judging from their length, the poem must have been a long one. Everard declares his authorship in the prologue: the passage roughly translated reads as follows: Everard of Gateley is my name; I am a monk of St Edmund. I tell you this so that you shall know for whom you should pray; and also so that, if I say anything wrong in this work, what is wrong shall be attributed to me without misrepresentation, no one else will be blamed. For, if I have got anything wrong I would wish to correct it properly.36

Everard addresses the poem to ‘Lords’ (seignurs). He explains that what is written in a book and read in church is all for our improvement, but those who know no

33 34 35

36

R. W. Southern, ‘The English origins of the “Miracles of the Virgin”’, Medieval and Renaissance Studies,4 (1958), pp. 190–203 passim. See Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 130–6 passim. Legge, Anglo-Norman Literature, p. 267; Paul Meyer, ‘Notice du MS. Rawlinson Poetry 241 (Oxford)’, Romania, 29 (1900), pp. 27–47; Hilding Kjellman, La Deuxième Collection Anglo-Normande des Miracles de la Sainte Vierge (Paris – Uppsala, 1922), p. xiii. Ibid., p. 37 lines 41–50; cf. Legge, Anglo-Norman in the Cloisters, p. 13.



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

213

Latin cannot understand or be edified by it unless a cleric is at hand to enlighten them. Therefore, he will translate the Latin and render the Miracles of St Mary into French verse (romance) so that they can understand them. He will do this as well as he can but will not translate it word for word.37 Another extant Anglo-Norman poem in honour of St Mary, datable to the late thirteenth century, is believed to be by a monk of St Edmunds.38 Only one copy is known: it is in a late thirteenth-century hand in a mainly theological and hagiographic collection from St Edmunds, BL MS Royal MS 11 B III. The poem is on f. 361 and at the top of the page the scribe has written ‘Frater Martinus me scripsit cui Christus sit propicius. Amen’ (roughly meaning, ‘Brother Martin wrote me, may Christ keep him. Amen’). Because of this note and because the only known copy of the poem comes from St Edmunds, Brother Martin has been credited with the poem’s authorship. However, the attribution is not beyond dispute. The note could mean that Martin was the scribe, not the author. Alternatively, any scribe at St Edmunds might simply have copied the note from his exemplar which perhaps came from some other monastery: if so, Martin would have been an inmate of that house and not of St Edmunds. The poem in question is on the Fifteen Joys of St Mary, and is a rather charming description of fifteen blissful attributes of the Virgin. In Abbot Samson’s time St Edmunds was a leading centre for the composition of Anglo-Norman verse. Everard of Gateley’s poem shows that St Edmunds still had this distinction in the second half of the thirteenth century – the more so if in fact Brother Martin was one of the monks towards the end of the century. In any case, the subject of both poems demonstrates the growth of the cult of St Mary at St Edmunds, as elsewhere. And Everard’s prologue gives a clear exposition of the audience whose attention he, like most other authors of such verses, wished to attract. He wrote for the edification and entertainment of the gentry and nobility. Whether he had any particular occasion in mind, perhaps one connected with the building of the new Lady Chapel, is impossible to say.

The new hospital of St John and the new chantry chapel at Palgrave: poor relief and almsgiving The increased spiritual benefits offered to pilgrims at St Edmunds and the beauty of the new Lady Chapel probably attracted pilgrims to come in even greater numbers, and those who came had to be cared for, especially as many were poor. Simon’s abbacy was marked by improved arrangements for poor relief. It can be said that if Simon’s concern, when abbot, for the abbey church as a building reflected his responsibilities when sacrist, his contribution to poor relief reflected

37 38

Meyer, ‘Notice du MS. Rawlinson Poetry 241 (Oxford)’, pp. 36–7 lines 1–15. See Legge, Anglo-Norman in the Cloisters, p. 17; J. Priebsch, ‘Zwei altfranzösische Mariengebete’, Modern Language Review, 4 (1909), p. 70. Neither scholar questions the attribution to Brother Martin, monk of St Edmunds.

214

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

his duties when almoner. Most notable was the attention he gave to the hospital of St John (the evangelist), the Domus Dei, which Abbot Edmund had founded ‘to shelter and restore’ the begging poor of both sexes.39 Exactly when Abbot Simon decided to improve its accommodation and enlarge its scope is unknown. The original site of the Domus Dei was unsuitable: it was small, cramped and inconveniently located. Therefore, Simon, with the convent’s consent, ordained that a new, larger building should be constructed on a more convenient site on the king’s highway, just outside the south gate of the town walls. He also ordained that it was to have a liturgical function; a chapel and altar were to be established and a chaplaincy endowed for the celebration of mass and for ‘the praise of God’, and there was to be a cemetery for the burial ‘in the name of the Lord’ of those dying in the hospital. Responsibility for the hospital was removed from the almoner and given to Prior Robert Russell ‘and his successors’. In other respects the regulations remained the same.40 Simon’s and the convent’s care for the poor was not confined to the town of Bury St Edmunds. It was manifested in at least one other place in the Liberty – in the parish of Palgrave. Palgrave was one of St Edmunds’ richest manors. Domesday Book records that St Edmunds had, along with its other possessions in Palgrave, ‘two churches with 30 acres’.41 Before the Conquest it was a food farm along with Thorp [Abbot’s], but by the late twelfth century this was no longer true.42 The case of the church of St Peter’s, Palgrave, is a good illustration of the interrelation between piety, pilgrimage and poor relief. St Peter’s, one of the two churches in Palgrave under the abbot’s patronage, fell vacant in 1270, following the resignation of the rector, Otto de Grandison (a noted curialist servant of Henry III).43 St Peter’s had a dependent chapel dedicated to St John the Baptist, where, according to popular belief, miracles had occurred:44 as a 39 40 41 42

43

44

Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 27, 49–50, 193. Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 3–4. See the foundation charter and charters of donation etc., Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 31–3 nos 1–27. DB, Suffolk, 14. 45. For the respective wealth of St Edmunds’ manors see JB, p. 63. Robertson, Charters, pp. 194/5. Cf. DB, Suffolk, 14. 45. See the list of food farms in Abbot Samson’s time in Kalendar, ed. Davis, p. 1. The old monthly renders from food farms had been replaced by fifty-two weekly renders. For Otto de Grandison/Grandson/Granson’s career see J. R. Maddicott, ‘Grandson, Sir Otto de (c.1238–1328)’, rev. ODNB, 2004; online edn, Oct 2005 [http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/37827, accessed 2 Sept 2014]; Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward, ii. 695 n. 1; D. A. Carpenter, The Reign of Henry III (London, 1996), p. 151 and n.; and esp. C. L. Kingsford, ‘Sir Otho de Grandison (1238–1328)’, TRHS, 3rd ser., 3 (1909), pp. 125–95. He is mentioned in the Bury Chronicle as one of the arbiters negotiating a truce between Edward I and Philip IV, king of France, in 1298. Bury Chron., p. 145. The parish church at Palgrave, much of it dating from the medieval period, is dedicated to St Peter. The chapel of St John the Baptist lay about a mile to the south west. Pevsner and Radcliffe, Suffolk, p. 390, states: ‘St John’s, 1m SW. Early c19, grey brick. Five bays with a semicircular porch on Roman Doric columns. Tripartite window above it, with a segmental arch’. This entry in the second and revised edition of 2002 reproduces without



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

215

result the care of poor pilgrims may well have become a problem. Now, on 4 November 1271, Prior Robert and the convent ratified a deed of Abbot Simon, dated 25 October 1270, whereby, with the consent of the convent and of the bishop of Norwich (Roger Skerning, 1266–78), he established a community of five priests in the chapel.45 The deed specifies that the new foundation was to be neither canonical nor monastic, but be called ‘the chapel or house (mansio) of five priests serving God and the Blessed Virgin Mary’. It also served St John the Baptist, St John the Evangelist and All Saints. The priests were to celebrate mass daily for the Virgin Mary and three masses for the dead, besides matins and the other hours. They were to chant ‘as was proper and at a moderate speed’. In church they were to be suitably dressed in surplices and black copes with round hoods. At other times they were to wear russet-coloured or brown hooded cloaks. The abbot was to appoint one of them as Master, who would be presented for institution to the bishop of Norwich. The Master had charge of discipline (though the abbot could punish or expel the incorrigible), and, if one chaplain died, he could appoint another, subject to the abbot’s approval. The chaplains were to live communally with necessary, but not superfluous, servants, none of whom was to be a woman. If a chaplain became old or sick he was to be looked after for life and not replaced, unless the house could afford an extra chaplain. Alms were to be given to the poor daily, according as the house could afford. Thus, the chapel provided the poor with both spiritual and material benefits, besides ensuring lifetime care for the five chaplains. It should also be noted that the abbot had some charitable obligations imposed on him by custom. For instance, a memorandum written in Simon’s time states that ‘there are in the church of St Edmund twelve beadsmen, twelve nuns (moniales) and six old women (vetule)’.46 Of these, four beadsmen, four nuns and three old women dined, ‘according to the assessment’ (de assisa), in the abbot’s guest-house whenever the abbot was in the abbey with his household, and all thirty dined there on principal feast days and on Ash Wednesday, and each received a piece of meat. The nuns must have been from the priory of St Gregory’s in Thetford.47 Hugh I, abbot of St Edmunds (1157–80) established that priory as a Benedictine nunnery in about 1160, having moved the commu-

45

46

47

comment the entry for Palgrave in the first and only other edition (1961) of Pevsner and Radcliffe’s Suffolk. For the foundation charter see CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 36v, and for the inspeximus and ratification by the bishop of Norwich see CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 87, EEA 40, pp. 7–8, no. 9. Both documents mention that miracles had occurred in the chapel. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 219v: ‘sunt in ecclesia sancti Eadmundi xij. bedemanni et xij. moniales et sex vetule, et de hiis comedunt de assisa in hospicio abbatis quando abbas cum familia sua est apud Sanctum Eadmundum, iiij bedemanni et iiij moniales et iij vetule, et in v festiuitatibus omnes predicti comedunt in hospicio abbatis et in capite jejunii et singuli habent singulas pecias carnis’. The memorandum was copied by the scribe of the Bury Customary which dates the copy to the 1260s and 1270s (see below p. 245). See also Snape, Monastic Finances, pp. 168–9. For a copy of the charter of Abbot Hugh I founding the Benedictine nunnery of St George’s, Thetford, see BL MSS Harley 645, f. 24v and 743, ff. 271v–272v. Cf.: VCH

216

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

nity of canons which had previously occupied the site. The nuns were from an impoverished and failing nunnery at Ling in Suffolk (five miles north-west of Eye) – apparently there were only two nuns left there, both old and infirm. Hugh’s new foundation was joined by other women seeking a religious life, some of whom were probably anchorites living within the Liberty of St Edmund. The priory remained dependent on the abbey although it was quite generously endowed. Abbot Hugh assigned to it all the canons’ property, both movables and land-holdings, besides two parish churches in Thetford – St Benedict’s and All Saints. They also received weekly allowances (corrodies) from the abbey, that is thirty-five loaves of the quality provided for the servants, thirteen dishes of cooked food and twenty-five sextars of third-grade ale, besides 10d by hand of the cook (cocus). As recognition of the abbot’s overlordship they paid 4s annually to the infirmary.48 Moreover, thirteenth-century records state that on four of the principal feast days the nuns were to eat in the abbot’s guesthouse if he were present (otherwise the monks would be responsible for entertaining them).49 On these occasions they each received an extra food allowance, that is, on the feast of St Edmund two loaves, three herrings and three eels; at Christmas 2d; and on the third day before Ash Wednesday five dishes of meat.50 It is hard to account for the presence of the nuns at St Edmunds. Maybe they washed and mended clothes, and/or embroidered vestments and altar hangings, or perhaps they worked in the infirmary; the fact that the 4s rent was paid to the infirmary points in that direction.51 Or maybe it was simply easier to feed them in the abbey, especially on the specified feast days when they would in any case have enjoyed, and added, to the festivities. It was certainly hazardous to transport food, especially cooked food, on the twelve-mile cart journey along the bumpy road to Thetford, especially as it was exposed to attack by robbers. Because of that danger, the arrangement was eventually altered. On the feast of St Edmund (20 November) in 1367 the prioress and convent of Thetford and the abbot (John of Brinkley 1361–79) and convent of St Edmunds drew up an indenture concerning the existing corrodies.52 The document illustrates the monks’ charitable intention while also revealing the care they took to protect their own interests. It begins by explaining the problem:

48 49

50 51 52

Norfolk, ii. 355–6; Mon. Angl., iv. 475–6; Sally Thompson, Women Religious: The Founding of English Nunneries after the Norman Conquest (Oxford, 1991), p. 64 and nn. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 219v. Jocelin of Brackland records that one cause of conflict between Samson and the monks was on the question of how the responsibility of entertaining guests was apportioned between abbot and convent. The monks contended that he evaded his share of the duty. JB, p. 39. See also Bury Cust., p. 104 lines 15–26; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 38–9. Pinch. Reg., ii. 368–9. Cf. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 57v. See Thompson, Women Religious, p. 64. For the text see BL MS Harley 743, ff. 272v–273.



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

217

Certain corrodies granted a long time ago (antiquitus) are conveyed by cart to the nuns every Sunday. Sometimes the servants are robbed of horse, money and other goods, and sometimes killed. If the provisions arrive safely, they are not in a satisfactory condition. The abbot and convent after diligent discussion in chapter, weighing the convenience to the nuns and the inconvenience, and with the consent of all present, moved by piety, agreed with the nuns’ request that in future instead of ten quarters of corn and the 20 quarters of barley, the nuns were to receive £3 2s in silver for their kitchen.

The grain had been payable by instalments on the six principal feast days and the indenture specifies the respective manors which were to provide it on those days. The grain was to be that grown on those manors themselves and ‘sufficiently’ clean and ‘faithfully’ measured with the manors’ measure. Now the cellarer and almoner were to pay the £3 2s in instalments on the feast of the Purification (2 February) and on the feast of St John the Baptist (29 August) according to the portion of the abbey’s property assigned to them (‘pro portione officii’), that is 52s from the cellarer and 10s from the almoner. They were to pay their shares without delay. In return for these concessions, the nuns undertook never to plague the abbot and convent for corrodies, to hand over all documents concerning existing corrodies and be content with these arrangements. If the cellarer and almoner ever defaulted on their obligations, within seven days their quotas were to be doubled. At the special request of the nuns the bishop of Norwich (Thomas Percy, 1356–69) publicly and formally sealed the part of the indenture held by the abbot and convent.53 The other part of the indenture was held by the nuns and was sealed by the abbot on behalf of the prioress and nuns. The ratification by Bishop Thomas is dated 3 March 1368. Returning to the earlier period, it should be noted that the memorandum quoted above contains other details about St Edmunds’ charitable activities. It ends with the statement that, by gift of Abbot Hugh (I), the lepers of St Peter’s hospital in Bury St Edmunds should receive at Christmas ale, a loaf of bread and a carcass of mutton or a haunch of ham to share between them.54 The same compassionate attitude to those suffering from leprosy appears in a note by Henry of Kirkstead, although it only refers specifically to the treatment of a leprous monk.55 Kirkstead relates that when a monk, ‘R’, contracted leprosy, he was isolated and sent to the hospital of St Nicholas. There he received the same food and drink, pittances and so on as the other monks and when he died his 53 54

55

For the text see BL MS Harley 743, f. 273–273v. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 219v: ‘Leprosi sancti Petri ex dono H. abbatis habent in natali quibus unum panem et unum carcosium multonis vel unam pernam inter omnes et ceruisiam’. St Peter’s was founded by Abbot Anselm primarily for the care of sick and aged priests, but had an early association with the care of lepers. It was outside Risby Gate, on the main road entering the town from the west. St Petronilla’s was for the care of female lepers and although its history is obscure, it was founded sometime in the twelfth century. See Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 1–2, 5, 7 and n. 17, 94 et seqq.; R. M. Clay, The Mediaeval Hospitals of England (London, 1909, repr. 1966), pp. 119, 256 and pl. xxviii. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 101v. Printed Bury Cust., p. 113.

218

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

body was treated with due respect and six monks were sent by the prior to chant the Placebo and Dirige. The next day the body was carried to the great door of the church and after mass at the high altar, it was buried in the monks’ cemetery like any other monk. Kirkstead concludes with a general point: ‘this shows that lepers sometimes lived in the hospital of St Nicholas just as [they did] in the hospital of St Peter’. Inevitably, in the case of such a large and wealthy monastery as St Edmunds, the monks’ spiritual life and charitable work were inseparable from their temporal and financial affairs. Popular belief in the transcendent value of the monks’ Christian worship and in the effectiveness of their intercessory prayers for people’s souls attracted gifts from the laity. Offerings at the shrine of St Edmund were an important source of income. According to Jocelin of Brackland, the monks feared that the damage done to the shrine by the devastating fire in the sanctuary in 1198 would result in a reduction in the numbers of pilgrims. The sacrist, alluding obliquely to the value of pilgrims’ offerings, claimed that St Edmund could easily restore his own shrine, so there was no need for the monks to forego their pittances in order to contribute to the cost.56 In 1292 the assessors for the papal triennial tenth valued the offerings at St Edmund’s shrine at £40 a year: amongst St Edmund’s possessions, only the town of Bury St Edmunds and four of the abbey’s manors had higher assessments.57 However, it is doubtful whether this income exceeded the cost of maintaining the fabric of the abbey church and the expense of caring for pilgrims, many of whom were poor. In view of St Edmunds’ financial difficulties in the late 1260s and in the 1270s, the question must be asked how Simon and the convent paid for the new Lady Chapel and the new Domus Dei, and fulfilled their charitable obligations. The fifteenth-century Benefactors’ List states that Simon’s relatives and friends paid for the Lady Chapel.58 Furthermore, the cost of building would have been greatly reduced because the abbey did not have to buy building sites, since it already owned them, and moreover, could supply most of the necessary timber itself, besides probably all the rubble and lime needed for the care of walls. To some extent the abbey’s charitable enterprises may have been self-financing. Prior Richard de Bosco paid cash for the lands and rents he acquired in free alms for the hospital of St John. However, there is no known evidence that Abbot Simon did so for his acquisitions in free alms for it. This does not prove that Simon paid nothing; it could indicate that the hospital was now well enough established to attract purely charitable gifts.59 A grant in free alms improved the donor’s chances of salvation. To give to St John’s hospital won the donor spiritual credit as an act of charity. Usually grants in free alms specify that the donor made them for the salvation of his own soul and for the souls of others – commonly of his wife and ancestors. But often the spiritual benefits of a grant in 56 57 58 59

JB, p. 110. Bury Chron., p. 112. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 9. See below p. 286. For grants to St John’s see Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 8, 31–82.



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

219

free alms to a religious house were only an additional inducement to would-be donors; they might require temporal advantages as well. Thus, as has been seen, James Galighew’s grant in free alms of his messuage in Great Barton and of lands and rents in Pakenham was at least partly in exchange for a corrody in the abbey. Moreover, often money was paid for grants in free alms: for example, the sacrist, Richard of Colchester gave William, son of Henry Penke, six and a half marks for three acres in Aylsham, in free alms.60 In such instances the term ‘free alms’ implies that, while still under the jurisdiction of royal courts, it would have been free of specific secular services.61 Nevertheless, the abbey’s spiritual prestige as a place of prayer undoubtedly attracted benefactions. A powerful inducement to prospective benefactors was the offer of confraternity. A donor rewarded with confraternity not only benefited from all the monks’ prayers and masses, but had his or her name inscribed in a book which might be recited during mass. After his death he was commemorated in the same way as a monk. It was a privilege conceded in return for some quite substantial grant or concession to the monks. For example, on 15 September 1269 John le Bigot recognized by final concord in the king’s court at Cattishall that the common fishery at Beccles belonged to the abbot and church of St Edmund and to the men of Beccles, though John could fish there: in return Abbot Simon received him and his heirs into the spiritual benefits of St Edmunds.62 This instance demonstrates that Simon and the monks used their spiritual resources for worldly purposes, and is yet another illustration of the inextricable connection between the abbey’s spiritual and temporal affairs.

60 61

62

CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 83v. Cf. Gesta sacrist. in Memorials, ii. 295. See ‘Modus Cyrograffandi in curia regis de omnimodis placitis etc’ (CUL MS Ll iv 18, f. 184v), J. H. Baker and J. S. Ringrose, A Catalogue of English Legal Manuscripts in Cambridge University Library (Woodbridge, 1996), p. 464 cf 42: ‘Si vero abbas protulerit cartas suas vel antec[essorum] ipsius petentis, dicatur quod: “predictus A. rec[ognovit] predictam terram cum pertin[entiis] esse ius ipsius abbatis et ecclesie sue predicte, et illam remisit et quietam clamavit de se et heredibus suis ipsi abbati et successoribus suis et ecclesie predicte in puram et perpetuam elemosinam, liberam et quietam ab omni servicio seculari” etc.’ CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 192.

21 Religious Life under Abbot John

The choir murals Abbot John was not so preoccupied with St Edmunds’ temporal affairs that he neglected its spiritual and charitable concerns. He continued the policy of previous abbots, notably of Samson and Simon of Luton, by further beautifying the great and splendid abbey church, and he was responsible for the construction of the last freestanding chapel in the cemetery and for the reform of St Saviour’s hospital.1 The early fifteenth-century Benefactors’ List records that Abbot John restored the choir and had it painted by one of his monks, John of Woodcroft (‘Wodecroft’, Woodcroft, Northants.).2 Unfortunately, the text which follows is corrupt and does not make sense. After ‘Wodecroft’ it reads ‘of a certain painter of the Lord King’. (The whole passage reads: ‘Johannes primus chorum fecit fieri et depingi per manus cuiusdam monachi sui dompni Johannis Wodecroft cuiusdam pictoris domini regis’.) M. R. James suggested amending the second cuiusdam to quondam, to mean ‘by the hand of his monk, Dom John Wodecroft, a former painter of the Lord King’.3 However, no John of Woodcroft appears in official records among the painters employed by Edward I (or by Edward II).4 It seems more likely that the scribe of the Benefactors’ List inadvertently omitted an ampersand or ‘et’ after ‘Wodecroft’ – that is, Abbot John employed John of Woodcroft [and] a royal painter. Abbot John might well have employed a royal painter in addition to one of his own monks to paint the choir. Royal painters were sometimes employed by a number of patrons besides the king. It would not be surprising if Abbot John had previously employed Master Thomas at St Edmunds. Perhaps already before Thomas left St Edmunds he had in his possession a copy of the verses for the cycle of types and antitypes which he was to paint on the outside of the

1 2

3 4

Below pp. 221–33. The Kitchener’s register of c. 1425, Douai, BM MS 553, f. 9. Woodcroft is a hamlet five miles north-west of Peterborough, with the ruins of a castle datable to the late thirteenth century, with successive alterations and additions made until Tudor times. James, Abbey, pp. 130–1, 181. I owe this information to Professor Paul Binski.



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT JOHN

221

choir enclosure at Peterborough. This would explain the presence on a flyleaf of College of Arms MS Arundel 30 (ff. 6v–7) of a Bury manuscript, containing a late thirteenth-century copy of the Peterborough verses. However, the question of whether or not Abbot John employed a royal painter remains open. If he only employed John of Woodcroft, the latter must, presumably, once himself have been a royal painter. In either case the indications are that the painting done was of high quality. Probably what Woodcroft on his own did, or he and another painter did, was to restore the great Genesis cycle on the north and south walls of the choir enclosure. This had been painted at Abbot Samson’s command and accompanied verses of his own composition.5 It is not impossible that Woodcroft the muralist was also a manuscript illustrator. If so, the beautiful coloured picture of the crucifixion in BL MS Royal II B iii (f. 289) in St Edmunds’ book collection may be of his workmanship.6 The crucifix itself is depicted as the flowery cross of Revelation 22: 1–2 ‘And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.’ The tree grows out of water and has six leafy branches and many side-shoots and tendrils. Christ is tenderly drawn, as if sleeping, with his arms and hands nailed to the two top branches of the tree and his feet to the trunk of the tree. This picture appears as an illustration of the Lignum Vitae, a meditation on Christ’s humanity and divinity by the Franciscan theologian St Bonaventura (1221–74). This copy of the work in Royal MS II B iii is one of many items, principally on virtues and vices, mainly in the hand of one scribe. The manuscript is datable to the second half of the thirteenth century or early fourteenth. There is no proof that Woodcroft was the artist but, as no other Bury artist active at that time is known, the possibility should not be discounted.

The Charnel chapel The other chapel which Abbot John had built, the Charnel chapel, demonstrates there were sufficient funds available for construction. It was completed by 11 September 1300, the date of the foundation charter.7 The licence to the abbot and convent to endow the Charnel chapel ‘in the churchyard’, called ‘la charner’, with various properties (which it and the foundation charter specify),8 5 6 7 8

JB, p. 9. See James, Abbey, pp. 119, 131; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 14–15, 110 and nn.; and below p. 251. BL MS Royal 11 B III, f. 282. See Binski, Becket’s Crown, pp. 217, 311 n. 35, and fig. 273. Reproduced, pl. XII. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 85v–86v. For notice of the Charnel chapel see Hills, ‘Antiquities’, pp. 117–18. It receives only a passing reference in Whittingham. The preamble of the foundation charter runs in part: ‘Hinc est quod per cimiterium, sepulture plebis infra territorium sancti Edmundi decedentis nostro commisse regimini

222

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

despite the statute of mortmain, was issued on 13 June 1300.9 The foundation charter states in a moving preamble that Abbot John had been deeply grieved when he had passed through the townspeople’s cemetery, which lay within the abbey precincts, by its shocking condition. Because of the number of burials, many graves had been violated and the bones, left bare and uncovered, were scattered over the ground. Therefore, he had ordered the ‘most celebrated’ Charnel chapel to be built, as an act of piety and charity, in honour of God, the Blessed Mary, St Edmund (‘the glorious martyr and our patron’), and All Saints. It was built, it states, of shaped stone, and in future bones could be placed in it or buried under its vaults (‘sub cuius concauo’). The remains of the Charnel chapel still stand, but it is impossible to be certain of the chapel’s exact plan because it was much altered in the centuries after the dissolution of the abbey, serving successively as ale-house, smithy and private mausoleum.10 Its remains, now enclosed by a rail with a locked gate, contain mainly a rubble core with a very little of the original facing. The walls and buttress still in places stand about 9ft (3m) high but at the base are buried in about 3ft (1m) of earth and debris. But clearly the chapel was a spacious and substantial building of high-quality workmanship. Internally it was 59ft (17.95m) long and 22 ft (6.7m) wide. Its rubble core is of flint and broken stone, including a few fragments of coffin, its ashlar is of well-shaped Northamptonshire limestone and its interior walls were plastered (as apparently were all the abbey’s buildings). The ground plan of the chapel was most unusual.11 The east end is triangular,

9

10

11

[regimine ms] deputatum, nuper transeuntes, perpendimus quod ob multiplicatam ibidem corporum sepulturam quam plurima prefati cimiterii sepulcra fuere violata, et ossa sepultorum circumquaque dispersa nuda, ac discooperta indecenter [indicenter ms], extra sepulturam proiecta et relicta. Quod non sine cordis angustia et vehementis doloris angaria propensius aduertentes, et saluberimum in hac parte remedium, ad honorem dei omnipotentis et beatissime virginis Marie matris eius, et gloriosissimi martiris patroni nostri et omnium sanctorum, prouidere pio desiderantes affectu, quandam basilicam siue capellam in eodem cimiterio lapideo tabulatu competenter duximus construendam, sub cuius concauo huiusmodi ossa venerabiliter et decenter reponi siue sepeliri valeant in futurum.’ The charter prescribes that the masses were to be for the Lord Edward king of England while alive and for his soul when dead, and for his heirs and for the soul of Queen Eleanor, and for the abbot’s heirs and successors, and for the souls of the brethren and of benefactors and all the faithful. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, ff. 85v–86. CPR 1292–1301, p. 520. The Statute of Mortmain (of 1279) forbade the alienation of land held by a tenant of the king into the ‘dead hand’ of the church without a licence. The abbot of St Edmunds was of course a tenant-in-chief. The statute’s purpose was to prevent loss of the king’s rights over his tenants. See above p. 82. I owe my account of the fabric, present condition and the interpretation of the archaeological remains to Robert Carr, formerly of the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service’s Conservation Team and now retired. He gained access to the Charnel chapel and sent me his report in a letter of 21 August 1998, together with a plan. For the plan see fig. 10 which is printed here with his permission. This is the opinion not only of Robert Carr but also of Stuart A. Harrison (of Ryedale Archaeology Services), who in a letter to me states that he has ‘never come across a



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT JOHN

223

like the prow of a boat, and seems to have had three vaulted alcoves. The north and south walls of the chapel were pierced by three arched openings, 3ft 4ins (about 1.25m) wide: all are now blocked except the one in the centre of the south wall. Possibly these were originally windows, but it is more likely that they were passageways. Because of the poor state of the remains, it is impossible to be certain about the sectional plan of the chapel. However, it may have had a vault and/or an upper storey. Bones are known to have been buried in the existing floor of the building and stored in the alcoves and probably on other shelves. The passageways would have provided easy access for storage, and ventilation. The vault, if there was one, would also have housed bones. But if there was no upper storey it is hard to see where the chaplains celebrated masses for the dead. The chaplains were an integral part of Abbot John’s foundation – he had founded a ‘Charnel chapel’, not just a bone-house. The Charnel chapel was, in effect, a chantry, endowed to celebrate masses for the souls of the dead. It was to have two chaplains who were to celebrate continually in this ‘most celebrated place’ for the soul of King Edward while alive and when dead, and for the souls of his heirs, and of Queen Eleanor, Abbot John and his successors, St Edmunds’ benefactors, the monks of St Edmunds, ‘and of all faithful deceased’. The arrangements made by Abbot John for the maintenance of the chaplains show that he wanted to reduce the cost to himself and future abbots as much as possible. He assigned to them grain yield from the stafacres which until then had supported the abbot’s crozier bearer.12 He abolished the office of crozier bearer: in future one of the chaplains serving the Charnel chapel was to bear the crozier. The charter lists the manors each of which was to assign an acre to provide the necessary grain for the brethrens’ sustenance. As the manors in question were ancient food farms, presumably the renders they owed to the chaplain were delivered by rota, in the same way as the food renders were delivered to the cellarer. Presumably likewise these renders may have been commuted to money payments. The manors listed are: Harlow, Stapleford, Chevington, Fornham All Saints, Fornham St Martin, Barton, Risby, Pakenham, Bradfield, Rougham, Nowton, Whepstead, Melford, Semer, Groton, Brooke, Cockfield, Stanton, Elmswell, Rickinghall, Redgrave, Brockford, Herringswell and Runcton.13 Abbot John also assigned to the chaplains (for their accommodation) a messuage in Barnwell Street (Bernewellistrete), to be held of the prior and convent free of all service, but the principal chaplain was to do fealty to the sacrist. The chaplains were to hold their posts for life unless incurable illness or other obvious reasonable cause made their removal necessary. A chaplain thus removed was to be maintained in the hospital of St Saviour, like a brother of the hospital, unless he had a contagious illness; in that

12 13

purpose-built Charnel chapel before and the details of this one seem extremely strange’. See figs 10, 11. The name stafacres must have derived from the fact that their yield supported the bearer of the abbot’s episcopal crozier, i.e. his pastoral staff. The same list appears in the licence to alienate in mortmain.

224

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

case he was to be admitted to the hospital of St Peter or to the hospital of St Nicholas: the prior and convent were to provide him with adequate sustenance, having considered his merits. Alms and bequests given to the chapel were to be for the use of the chantry and chaplains, as the prior and convent decided, and in such a way that the number of chaplains could be increased accordingly as the flow of alms and bequests allowed. The foundation of the Charnel chapel was in fact a joint venture of Abbot John, Prior William of Rockland and the convent. Like St Edmunds’ other chapels, its administration and provisioning were the sacrist’s responsibility. Abbot John appointed the first two chaplains with the convent’s consent, but they owed canonical obedience to the sacrist. The sacrist was to appoint succeeding chaplains, but to do so in full chapter, and he could only remove them after consulting the prior and convent. The chaplains were to account to him for all oblations and he was to supply the chapel with all necessities. Abbot John’s principal motive for the foundation of the Charnel chapel must have been to remove the scandal of having a cemetery in a disgusting state within the abbey precincts. But he was clearly also moved by the desire to make extra provision for the celebration of intercessory masses at St Edmunds. The foundation charter of the Charnel chapel provides for the founding of another chantry in the abbey church itself, again with the co-operation of the prior and convent. They granted the abbot the allowance of one monk to support a chaplain who was to intercede daily in the abbey church for the souls of the faithful. He was to live with the chaplains of the Charnel chapel. There is also another factor which quite likely influenced Abbot John. Late in his abbacy he had responded to strong opposition by townspeople to the abbey’s control by adopting a more conciliatory policy towards the town.14 Possibly townspeople had complained about the condition of their cemetery. Abbot John and the convent perhaps also had in mind the expediency of providing employment and an income for some of the many clerics in the town who lacked such provision. Besides men native to Bury St Edmunds, there were many others who came to the town from elsewhere hoping for employment. Similarly, young men came for education, were ordained deacon or priest and likewise sought a living of some kind. The townspeople undoubtedly shared the contemporary belief in the efficacy of intercessory masses to ensure the salvation of souls. A noticeable feature of the chantry established in the charnel house was that the intercessory masses were for the ‘souls of all the faithful’ as well as for the souls of the people particularly specified, while the chantry in the abbey church was just for the souls of ‘all the dead’. Abbot John and the monks must have expected generous alms and bequests to the Charnel chapel since they foresaw that they would be able to increase the number of chaplains. The piety of the faithful had always been a fund on which the monks could draw. The wish to have masses celebrated for their own and their families’ souls had induced people to make grants in free alms 14

For disputes between St Edmunds and the townspeople and the former’s attempts at conciliation, but with no mention of the cemetery and Charnel chapel, see Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 132–42; Davis, ‘Commune’, esp. p. 315.



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT JOHN

225

to St Edmunds as to other religious institutions since the early twelfth century in return for such intercession. In the thirteenth century the practice began, and became increasingly popular, of endowing a priest especially for the purpose, and even of founding a chantry chapel attached to a church, for the celebration of masses for the souls of the founder and his family. But a private chantry was very expensive and a cheaper and satisfactory alternative was corporate endowment to pay for the inclusion of family members and others in the liturgy of an ecclesiastical or religious institution of intercessory masses for All Souls. The existence of a Charnel chapel at St Edmunds is not in itself remarkable, though there is more evidence for the presence of bone-houses in ecclesiastical foundations, both religious and secular, than for those with chapels attached. However, documentary and archaeological evidence survives of Charnel chapels probably at Glastonbury and certainly at Malmesbury and Worcester. The putative example of Glastonbury would seem to date from the tenth century, the time of St Dunstan.15 The chronicle of Evesham, in its account of the achievements of Abbot John Ombresley (1367–79), records that he built a Lady Chapel next to the (pre-existing) charnel house.16 The new chapel would doubtless have included in its liturgy masses for the dead. The Charnel chapel at Malmesbury is mentioned in that abbey’s register; one of the chaplains was to celebrate for the soul of a certain Walter Calun.17 But the Charnel chapel about which we know most and which presents the closest parallel to John of Northwold’s Charnel chapel at St Edmunds was the one at Worcester cathedral priory.18 It was built by William of Blois (1218–36) in about 1235 to compensate for the disturbance of the graveyard caused by the construction of a new north porch. The disinterred bones were placed in a crypt below a chapel and three chaplains appointed to say masses for the souls of the dead. The foundation was collegiate and a master had charge of them. It was endowed with rents worth £10, and in 1297 the number of priests was increased to six. Thus, it was not very unusual for a religious house to have a charnel chapel. The Charnel chapel at St Edmunds was remarkable in another respect apart from its boat-like plan. The predominance in the foundation charter of the masses for All Souls deserves comment. I have found no reference to any celebrations for All Souls in St Edmunds’ records until a notice dated 1261 in College of Arms MS Arundel 30 (f. 8v).19 The note is in the hand of Henry of Kirkstead. It lists those for whom the contrite and penitent should pray when they visited the chapel of St Edmund, where the bier in which ‘the precious 15 16

17 18 19

Philip A. Rahtz, Book of Glastonbury (London, 1993), pp. 83–5 and pls 58 and 60. Chronicon abbatiae de Evesham ad annum 1418, ed. W. D. Macray (RS 29, London, 1863), p. 300. I am indebted for this reference and for those in the two following notes to Dr Julian Luxford. Registrum Malmesburiense: the register of Malmesbury abbey, ed. J. S. Brewer and C. T. Martin (RS 72, London, 1879–80, 2 vols), ii. 370. Mon. Angl., i. 583, and V. Green, The History and Antiquities of the City and Suburbs of Worcester (London, 1796, 2 vols), i. 54–5. Printed James, Abbey, p. 188.

226

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

body of the glorious martyr’ was previously carried, was preserved. They were to pray for the souls of Gregory, Richard and Robert, priors of St Edmunds, whose bodies were buried in the cemetery, and for the souls of all the monks resting there, ‘and for the souls of all the faithful dead’ (… ‘et pro animabus omnium fidelium defunctorum’ …). The indulgence was granted by William, archbishop of Rages (that is, of Edessa), who, holding his see ‘in partibus infidelium’ (‘in infidel parts’), acted as a suffragan of the bishop of Norwich (1266–86), and earlier at St Edmunds, which he visited again in 1274. While there he increased the length of the indulgence to thirty days.20 The feast of All Souls was well known in some Benedictine houses at least from the early tenth century. It was observed on 2 November, the day after All Saints day (1 November), unless 2 November fell on a Sunday in which case there was a commemoration for All Souls on 3 November. Nevertheless, its observance in England was slow to gain currency.21 There seems to be no reference to it in the statutes of the General Chapters of the Benedictine order. Nor is any solemnity for All Souls mentioned in the Bury Customary or in the statutes of the visitors to St Edmunds of 1234, to cite just two of the silent witnesses from the abbey. Moreover, when at the end of the thirteenth century it does appear in those records of St Edmunds (cited below), there is no specific mention that the date of All Souls day was 2 November. It seems that the monks fitted it in wherever was most convenient in Advent. The fact that its observance did nevertheless eventually become more common among the Benedictines was partly because so many monks had died over the years that many were lost in the mists of time. This was especially so in the case of pre-Conquest foundations such as St Edmunds. Moreover, some Anglo-Saxon monks had unfamiliar names which would have been hard for a thirteenth-century monk to remember.22 Therefore, it was expedient to commemorate them all on one comprehensive feast day rather than individually. The anxiety of the monks of St Edmunds to ensure that All Souls day was observed at St Edmunds is demonstrated by some of the charters preserved in the pittancer’s register. This register, BL MS Harley 27, goes under the name

20 21 22

James, Abbey, p. 188; Bury Chron., p. 60; Handbook of British Chronology, p. 285. See New Catholic Encyclopedia (Washington, DC, 1966–7, 15 vols), i. 319; ODCC, p. 42; Tolhurst (ed.), Hyde Breviary, vi. 111–12. William of Malmesbury desisted from naming the Anglo-Saxon saints whose relics had been translated to Thorney because their names were so barbarous that he might expose them to ridicule. Moreover, even the monks of Thorney did not read their Lives, nor were the saints’ miracles known: ‘Quorum nomina scribere ultro refugio, quia barbarum quiddam stridunt. Non quod eos sanctos uel discredam uel diffitear; cuius enim auctoritatis ego sum, qui in disceptationem uocem quod sancta consecrauit antiquitas? Sed quia, ut dixi, uocabula eorum inconditum sonant, horridum olent, fatuis dumtaxat hominibus, quales multos nostra parit aetas, nolo sanctos exponere ludibrio: presertim cum eorum uitas nec habitatores legant, friuolumque uideatur si eorum predices merita quorum nulla inuenias miracula’. WM, GP, ed. Winterbottom, vol. i, 494/5, and ibid., ed. Hamilton, pp. 327–8.



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT JOHN

227

of Thomas Croftis, pittancer from 1467–74,23 but this is misleading. The register’s script and contents prove that it was compiled and written early in the fourteenth century. The charters in question show that a group of prosperous townspeople were prepared to take trouble and incur expense to ensure that the monks observed an anniversary for All Souls. Thus, early in 1301 some townspeople negotiated a deal with one of the monks, Alan of Walsingham. They bought ‘two noble books of decrees and decretals with full gloss’ for eighteen silver marks (equivalent to £12) from the executors of John of Bradenham, formerly chancellor of Cambridge University, after his death.24 In return for the gift of the law-books, Prior William of Rockland and the convent undertook to celebrate each year a mass at the high altar ‘with everything belonging to [a mass with] simple ringing [of bells] (‘cum omnibus ad simplicem sonitus pertinentibus’) ‘for the souls of all faithful dead’. The anniversary was to be celebrated if possible on a day in Advent, and not later than the feast of the Conception of the Virgin Mary (8 December).25 On 13 May 1303, Abbot John’s successor, Thomas of Tottington, upgraded the anniversary: in future the mass was to be celebrated ‘with the solemnity which belongs to [a mass with] double ringing [of bells]’ (‘que ad duplicem sonitum pertinet’). His charter also states that a fuller version of the charter (presumably that of 1301) in the register stipulates that the townsmen were to pay to ‘us and our successors’ 14s quit-rent from ‘lands, tenements and meadows’ in the suburbs of St Edmunds.26 23

24

25

26

See Thomson, Archives, p. 157 no. 1308; Davis, Cartularies, p. 16 no. 116; Davis, Medieval Cartularies, rev. edn, no. 116; and, for the fullest description, Mon. Angl., iii. 117–18 and n. c. BL MS Harley 27, f. 4–4v. Bradenham was a Master of canon law, commissary of the Chancellor at Cambridge University in 1293 and chancellor in 1295. He died in September 1304: see A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Cambridge to 1500 (Cambridge, 1963), p. 86; CPR, 1292–1301, p. 211. BL MS Harley 27, f. 4: ‘… firmiter promisimus omnibus et singulis annis in futurum, durante ecclesia nostra antedicta, unam missam cum omnibus ad simplicem sonitum pertinentibus, proxima feria qua fieri poterit post concepcionem beate Marie virginis sine ulteriori dilatione, pro animabus omnium fidelium defunctorum ad magnum altarium nostrum sine defectu solempniter celebrandum. Et dicti fideles huic devote concessioni nostre gratam vicissitudinem rependere volentes et acceptam duos libros nobiles, videlicet decreta et decretales cum apparatu plenario, Magistri Johannis de Bradenham quondam vniuersitatis Cantebrig’ Cancellarii, quos post eiusdem obitum pro octodecim marcis argenti comparauimus gratanter acquietarunt, et per procuratorem suum, mediante fratre Alano de Walsingham commonacho nostro, nobis devote transmiserunt ac ecclesie nostre et communitati affectuose dederunt.’ The feast of All Souls is on 2 November. See above p. 226. BL MS Harley 27, f. 4–4v: ‘… benefaciendi simul’ ab exemplo vestigiis ergo bonorum et exemplis eorundem, vehemencius inherentes que ad benefaciendum benefacientibus nobis viam aperiunt, et nos pro eisdem hortantur deprecandi huic est quod, cum ex quorundam fidelium et amicorum ecclesie nostre, animosa procuracione duo volumina ecclesie nostre perquam vtilia, videlicet decreta et decretales cum apparatu plenario, necnon et quatuor decim solidis annui et quieti redditus de terris, et tenementis et pratis, in suburbia Sancti Edmundi percipiendos, prout in quodam scripto inde confecto et in registro inserto plenius continetur, habeamus. In recompensacione illius beneficij, pro nobis et successoribus

228

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

An extra anniversary in the monks’ liturgical year increased their labours. The establishment of any new anniversary would normally be accompanied by the allowance of a pittance, in the form of a money payment or an extra dish at lunch, for each of the monks who took part. The 14s in rents which the townsmen gave the convent, as well as the two ‘noble books’, was probably to pay for a pittance. Assuming that there were eighty monks, they would have received 2d each and the prior 8d. When the anniversary was upgraded the pittance was fixed at 12d for each monk and 2s for the prior. Associated with the gift are ten grants embedded among copies of other charters in the pittancer’s register. They and the other deeds in this section of the register make a significant contribution to our knowledge of the manufacturing and artisan elements in the urban population and demonstrate the town’s importance as a commercial centre. Moreover, the documents are an invaluable source for the town’s topography. The whole section is arranged in alphabetical order of places and subjects; the part concerning the town is in alphabetical order of streets; the location of each holding is minutely described in relation to roads, alleys and adjacent holdings. The grants are dated variously between 1303 and 1309 inclusive. The rents granted range from 8d to 14s and they total 86s, a sum 4s in excess of the amount needed to provide eighty monks with 12d each and the prior with 2s. The donors were among the more prosperous townspeople and the occupations of most are recorded. In a few instances a donor was resident outside the town, usually nearby, but had a close connection with the urban community. Moreover, in the description of the location of the holding producing the rent, and in the witness lists, the occupation of the person in question is often mentioned whether miller, draper, mercer, tailor, glover, goldsmith, worker in gold fringe, tanner, pelterer, purser, laundryman, or gardener.27 Widows also figure. Four examples of these documents, one dated 1303 and three 1306, illustrate their nature. In 1303 John son of Henry the orfreyer (‘le Orfreuer’), that is, worker in gold fringe or aurifrixor, gave 14s worth of rent from his messuage and from various holdings in the suburbs of St Edmunds outside Southgate.28 The exact location of each holding is described. The 14s was to be paid to the pittancer ‘for the recreation of the monks when there is a double ringing of the bells’ – that is, on All Souls day. The witness list begins with the Alderman, Edmund son of Luke, and the two bailiffs, John of Lincoln and Thomas of Denham.29 Of the three charters of 1306, one is a grant dated 23 November in free alms from Walter of Cockfield (Cokefeld), draper of St Edmunds. His gift, of 3s from a messuage in Brackland Street and 8s rent from a piece of land in the

27 28 29

nostris, concedimus et tenorem presencium profitemur, singulis annis feria proxima qua fieri poterit post concepcionem beate virginis Marie, vnam missam ad magnum altarium nostrum adhibita, omni solempnitate que ad duplicem sonitum pertinet, pro animabus omnium fidelium defunctorum celebrare, tam instanter quam deuote ...’. BL MS Harley 27, ff. 5–6v, 8v–9v, 40, 48–49v, 55v–56. BL MS Harley 27, f. 48–48v. BL MS Harley 27, ff. 5v–6.



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT JOHN

229

open-field at Rushbrooke (‘in campo de Reyssebrok’), was made from devotion to the glorious martyr Edmund and for the salvation of his soul. If any monk fails to celebrate the masses on the feast of All Souls a portion of the rents shall go in alms, and if from negligence the masses are not celebrated at all on that day, all the rents shall go in alms.30 My third example is the grant dated 21 July 1306 by John, son of the late John of Necton (W. Norfolk, near Swaffham), from devotion to the glorious martyr St Edmund and for the salvation of his soul in free alms, of 8s a year to be taken by the pittancer from his messuage, buildings and their appurtenances in Raingate Street (Reyngatestrete).31 The holding lay between the messuage of the late Walter Taylor (Cissor) and that of the late Hamo the Perser (‘le Pursser’), and abutted on the sacrist’s garden on the one side and the royal road on the other. The rent was to be taken on the day in Advent when there is a double ringing of the bells and the masses for All Souls are celebrated. This latter grant is interesting not only because it provides a good example of the precise description of the holding’s location, but also because of the nature of the transaction, as it appears in the supporting charters. In the previous year on the day after Michaelmas (that is, on 30 September), the abbot and convent on the one part and John, son of John of Necton, on the other entered into a formal agreement (convencio) for the restoration (‘de restitucione’) of the 8s owed from John’s tenement in Raingate Street.32 On the same date, 30 September, within the next three years, John, his heir or attorney was to take ‘this document’ to the abbey church and pay 64s to William de Cleye, monk of St Edmunds, and the convent. The abbot, pittancer and convent undertook that the rents would then be restored, and Walter of Cockfield was appointed the trustee (‘magnus equali’) for the duration of this three-year term. John must not alienate the rent or tenement. If he should default in repaying the 64s, he conceded that the charter in Walter of Cockfield’s keeping should be handed to the abbot, pittancer and convent, and to remain in force forever. The alderman, Thomas de la Green,

30

31

32

BL MS Harley 27, ff. 48–49v. The register also includes two charters recording the sale of the two holdings to Walter of Cockfield in 1305. The first sale is made by Richard ‘le Bole’ of Fornham, laundryman (or washerman? ‘le laver’) of St Edmunds, and the second by Adam, son of Adam of Rushbrooke, miller. BL MS Harley 27, f. 7. For Raingate Street see Statham, ‘Medieval Town’, p. 108. According to Redstone, ‘Town rental’, p. 213, the pittancer held two tenements ‘formerly John Alabery’s’ in Yoxfore Lane, Raingate Street, in 1295. For Yoxfore Lane see Statham, ‘Medieval Town’, p. 103. BL MS Harley 27, ff. 33v–34. The scribe refers the reader to the earlier charter: ‘De donacione tocius prefati messuagij vide postea cartam predicti Johannis filii Johannis Neketon in verbo Bury Reyngatestrete’. Another hand adds ‘fol. 30’ (now f. 34). A grant by John, son of John of Necton, dated 25 November 1305, to the abbot and convent follows the grant of the rent in Raingate Street. It is of 5s rent from his messuage on ‘le Shepmarket’ on the west and the pittancer’s messuage on the east, between the messuage of Alexander Skerning on the north and the pittancer’s messuage on the south.

230

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

and bailiff Laurence of Rede (in west Suffolk) come first in the witness list33 and, after various leading townsmen, Walter of Cockfield last. The rubric of the register refers the reader to the charter I have cited above. The group of charters concerning John of Necton’s grant illustrates the value of such records for family history and also the persistence exercised by the pittancer to protect his sources of income, lest they be lost for ever. The last charter shows a widow taking her part in the conveyance of rents. On 24 June in 1306 Amicia relict of John Herst of Hessett (five miles south east of St Edmunds), in her ‘pure widowhood’34 granted in free alms to Abbot Thomas and the convent, from devotion to the glorious martyr and for the salvation of her soul, 2s 2d annually from the messuage formerly belonging to Robert Underwood (Vnderwode) in Guildhall Street (‘le Gyldehalle strete’) in St Edmunds. The exact location is then described. The rent is to be collected by the pittancer in equal parts at Michaelmas and Easter, for the use of the convent on the day when there is a double ringing of bells and masses for the souls of all faithful dead are celebrated. If any monk does not attend the masses his share of the 2s 2d is to go in alms, and if the feast is not celebrated at all, the pittancer is to give the 2s 2d in alms to the poor. The grant was made at St Edmunds. The scribe notes that these last two conditions are the same as those in a grant made by Hugh, the gardener of Wattlesfield on ‘f. 56’ (now f. 49) of the register. The similarities between these various grants are so close that they confirm the impression that the pittancer used a pro forma when he persuaded the aged to grant rents for the celebration of masses for their own souls and for All Souls. The conventional phrasing of such acts often conceals the nature of the transaction, representing purchases as gifts in free alms. Nevertheless, it is clear that the pittancer, was seeking to protect his existing rental income by whatever means, and to increase it, in order to fund the growing demands for pittances payable from his office.

Reform of the hospital of St Saviour’s Whether or not Abbot John had in mind, even as a subsidiary motive, the interests of unemployed clergy when he founded the Charnel chapel is unknown, but his care for St Edmunds’ clergy is undoubtedly illustrated by another of his notable acts, his reform of the hospital of St Saviour. This act also shows once again his desire to promote the celebration of intercessory masses. But his main motive for reform was to put an end to the hospital’s mismanagement which prevented it from fulfilling its original function – the sustenance of the poor.35 St Saviour’s had been founded by Abbot Samson and the convent in about 33

34 35

According to Lobel William de la Grene was alderman in November 1305, and Laurence Rede and Thomas of Denham were bailiffs. Lobel, ‘List of aldermen and bailiffs’, p. 21. The italics are mine. I believe that ‘Thomas’ in our charter is a mistake for ‘William’. For the position of widows see above p. 107 n. 36. BL MS Harley 638, f. 139; CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, bis, ff. 24–24v, 30–30v; HarperBill, Hospitals, pp. 114, 132–4. For a survey of St Saviour’s history see ibid., pp. 9–19.



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT JOHN

231

1185.36 A gateway and window and part of the west wall still survive in Out Northgate Street. The new hospital was generously endowed. Samson himself assigned ‘for the sustenance of the poor’ an annual payment of £12 of silver from his manor of Icklingham to be collected by the sacrist, and two parts of the income from the abbot’s church at Melford.37 He also granted two parts of the tithes of his churches in Worlingworth, Soham, Tilney, Elmswell, Elveden, Herringswell, Nowton and Cockfield; produce from eight acres of grain annually (that is, two of wheat, two of rye, two of barley and two of oats); three parts of the tithes from his demesne holdings in Pakenham, Runcton, Tivetshall, Culford, Horringer and Chalsworth; all tithes from new assarts in Redgrave and Rickinghall;38 a third of the tithes from the marsh in Tilney; and his houses in Thetford with all their appurtenances except their annual service of 2s owed to the monks, and the 12d owed to the canons.39 A steady stream of grants from a variety of donors continued until at least the mid-fifteenth century.40 Abbot John turned his attention to St Saviour’s early in his abbacy. The division of portions between abbot and convent which the king confirmed in 1281 includes in the section on the precentor’s portion his responsibility for the four hospitals in Bury St Edmunds. Its entry about St Saviour’s is the only detailed one on any of the hospitals. It states that St Saviour’s had been founded for the support of chaplains, ‘brethren’ and ‘sisters’ and other destitute people, and was in the keeping of a monk appointed by the abbot in full chapter. No one should be admitted without consultation with the abbot and never for money.41 36

37 38 39

40 41

For the foundation of St Saviour’s, see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 29, 49–50, 80, 134, 193. Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 125–6 no. 176. The text of the foundation charter is printed there from an original, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS 328, with references to other copies. Davis, Kalendar, pp. 89–90 no. 26, prints his text from CUL MS Ee. iii. 60, f. 221v (printed Pinch. Reg., ii. 21–2), and BL MS Additional 14847, f. 69v. See also CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, ff. 13–15v. The charter describes St Saviour’s location, function and management. It begins: ‘Nouerit uniuersitas uestra nos unanimi assensu et voluntate, pro salute domini Iohannis illustris regis Anglie et pro redemptione animarum omnium predecessorum suorum regum et nostrorum, concessisse et dedisse in puram et perpetuam elemosinam deo patri et sancto saluatori locum illum in quo hospitale quod dicitur sancti Salvatoris situm est extra villam sancti Eadmundi ex parte aquinonali cum suis pertinenciis ad susceptionem pauperum Christi et languidorum necessitatibus et indigentiis suis ad predictum locum concurrentium’. For the confirmation charter of John de Gray, bishop of Norwich, see EEA, vi, pp. 271–2, no. 339. For a photograph of what remains of St Saviour’s see fig. 13. See JB, p. 63; Bury Chron., pp. 44, 106, 112; Mon. Angl., iii. 157. Assart: a newly cultivated piece of land. That is, the canons of St Sepulchre, the priory of Augustinian canons founded by William de Warenne, earl of Surrey (1138–48) soon after 1139. See Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 128–9 no. 180; Mon. Angl., vi. 729; A. Binns, Dedications of Monastic Houses in England and Wales, 1066–1216 (London, 1989), p. 153; Heads, i. 185; VCH Norfolk, ii. 391–3; VCH Suffolk, ii. 109–11. Harper-Bill, Hospitals, p. 127 no. 178–p. 191 no. 251. ‘Hospitale sancti Salvatoris quod est situm infra iiij. cruces villae S. Edmundi extra portam aquilonarem cum omnibus suis bonis temporalibus et spiritualibus ad sustentationem

232

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

Some improvement in the management of St Saviour’s followed. Nevertheless, on 12 March 1294, Abbot John issued an ordinance reforming the hospital but also, as will be seen, altering its character.42 In the preamble he praises the achievements of earlier abbots who had ruled well, and declares that he intends to rectify subsequent negligences and restore the hospital so that it can fulfil its original purpose. Abbot Samson, he explains, had founded the hospital for the sustenance of the poor, but later wardens had ‘damnably’ admitted men and women who were not needy, for money. Abbot John forbids either the abbot or the warden to admit anyone for money, on pain of greater excommunication. Moreover, earlier wardens had damaged and wasted the hospital’s goods (mobilia) so that the inmates had lacked food and clothing, and the resources for relieving the poor gathered at the hospital were greatly reduced because of the misappropriation of its resources. Now, however, Abbot John continues, owing to the diligence and good sense of the present warden, Brother Maurice of Stewkley, the hospital’s goods have been kept safely and, with the continuance of good management, might be increased and needy brethren be helped with clothing and other necessities. As a result of this improvement, Abbot John ordained that on the feast of St Margaret the Virgin (20 July) the warden was to pay fixed sums to each inmate for winter clothes: one mark (13s 4d) to each priest, 6s 8d to each clerk and layman, and 5s to each sister. All future wardens were to be mature and sensible men and take only moderate and necessary expenses from the hospital’s resources. At the same time Abbot John altered the character of the hospital so that it was no longer a purely charitable institution for any destitute person. He introduced a liturgical function. The hospital was to support seven chaplains who were to celebrate daily in praise of God and one of them was to celebrate daily for Abbot John and succeeding abbots by name. He also legislated for a great increase in future in the number of needy clergy among the inmates. No more women were to be admitted ‘since according to the institute of the Holy Fathers the cohabitation of the sexes is suspect’: as the present sisters died, they were to be replaced by as many aged and sick priests as the hospital could support. To increase the hospital’s resources, Abbot John, with the convent’s consent, granted it ten acres of land and two acres of meadow outside Southgate, and 22d rent from a tenement in the town. Finally, Abbot John ordained that the

42

quorundam capellanorum fratrum et sororum et aliorum egenorum ibidem degentium et Deo famulantium dinoscitur esse deputatum. Huius hospitalis custodiam monachus per abbatem in pleno capitulo constitutus habere debet sicut hactenus fieri consueverit. Ita quod nec dictus monachus custos nec aliqua saecularis ecclesiasticave persona fratrem vel sororem in dicto hospitali inconsulto domino recipiat vel admittat, nulla tamen pecunia ratione receptionis cujuscumque personae interveniente. Item in refectorio ad ciphorum utensilium ibidem necessariorum reparationem xiij s. assignantur in villa sancti Edmundi et alibi capiendi et recipiendi.’ Mon. Angl., iii. 157. For an English rendering of the text see Harper-Bill, Hospitals, p. 14. BL MS Harley 638, f. 139; CUL MS iv. 19, ff. 24–24v, 30–30v (bis); Harper-Bill, Hospitals, pp. 132–4 no. 190 (an English rendering of the text in BL MS Harley 638, f. 139).



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT JOHN

233

poor who flocked daily to the hospital should receive alms according to the hospital’s resources: the amount he leaves ‘to the consciences of his own and the warden’s successors’. This rather tentative clause hardly alters the impression that the reform of St Saviour’s was contrary to the interests of needy lay people. Abbot John’s primary objective was clearly to care for St Edmunds’ clergy and to improve its provision for the celebration of the divine office, especially of intercessory masses.

Almsgiving To succour the poor and needy was a precept of Christian teaching and enshrined in the Bible.43 At the Last Judgement Christ admits to the Kingdom of Heaven those who had observed this precept, for they did it for Christ, the Son of Man. ‘I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was an stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me’.44 ‘Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.’45 The Rule of St Benedict reflects this teaching though the Rule adapts it to the practicalities of conventual life and prevailing social conditions. In the chapter on the reception of guests the Rule enjoins: ‘Great care and concern are to be shown in receiving the poor and pilgrims because in them more particularly Christ is received.’46 The clause adds a distinction with regard to the rich for ‘our fear of them exacts honour’. ‘All guests who present themselves are to be welcomed’47 and the Rule then cites Matthew 25: 35 – ‘I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.’48 And citing Gal. 6:10: ‘Proper honour is to be shown to all, especially those who share our faith.’49 With regard to clothing, the Rule prescribes that whenever a monk receives new clothes, ‘the old should be returned at once and stored in a wardrobe for the poor’.50 If a postulant has any possessions he

43

44 45 46 47 48 49 50

For almsgiving by monasteries in medieval England see Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 7–33 passim; Rubin, Charity and Community, pp. 246–7; Julie Kerr, Monastic Hospitality: The Benedictines in England, c. 1070 – c. 1250 (Woodbridge, 2007), pp. 8, 26–37 passim, 76–8, 85–92; and, with particular reference to St Edmunds, Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 12–13, 16, 67, 185, 198, 201, 204, 247, 258, 299, 303, 311. Matthew 25: 35–6. Matthew 25: 40. Cf. Matthew 10: 40. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 53.15, pp. 258/9. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 53.1, pp. 255/7. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 53.1, pp. 254/7. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 53.2, pp. 256/7. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 55.9, pp. 262/3.

234

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

should on his reception keep nothing but ‘either give them to the poor beforehand, or make a formal donation of them to the monastery’.51 Almsgiving also figured in the legislation of the General Chapters and in the statutes of papal legates a latere. The General Chapter for the Southern Province which met at Oxford in 1218/19 ordained that the poor were not to be defrauded and that the almoner should have all leftovers for them.52 But, at least in the later years of the thirteenth century, the poor were to have only the remains of the food.53 The General Chapters had to legislate repeatedly against defrauding the poor of alms. There was a growing tendency for obedientiaries to feed servants on leftovers, especially when a monastery was suffering from economic decline. By ancient tradition and established custom the great Benedictine monasteries distributed alms on certain occasions and at some fixed times of the year. Dole was given to the poor on the death of a monk. This dole was continued for at least thirty days after the funeral.54 The anniversary of the deceased was marked by a similar distribution of alms, and so in many cases were the anniversaries of substantial benefactors.55 Again, twelve poor men were served with bread and ale in the refectory after the feet-washing ritual on Maundy Thursday, and the poor also received bread and ale at the weekly maundy.56 In addition, doles were distributed on important feast-days and other holy days.57 In many great houses there may also have been almost daily largesse at a monastery’s gates.58 It seems most unlikely that to have a beggar perish of hunger and cold on the doorstep of a religious house would have been tolerated, bearing in mind that there was as yet very little other kind of regular poor relief. As Barbara Harvey points out, problems might arise when a monastery’s own resources were considered insufficient to meet the needs of the begging poor.59 The religious dealt with this difficulty in various ways. They might reduce the amount of dole – give smaller or fewer loaves for cutting up, and/or not give ale at all. It became increasingly necessary to discriminate in the distribution of alms between, for example, those destitute through no fault of their own – the

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Rule, ed. Fry, c. 58.24, pp. 268/9. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. p. 10 § 13. See Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. pp. 103–4, a clause from the statutes for the Southern Province of 1279. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 8, 13, 15 n. 28, 28–9; Rubin, Charity and Community, pp. 246–7. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 8, 23–33 passim. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 12, 16; Rubin, Charity and Community, pp. 246–7; Kerr, Monastic Hospitality, pp. 29, 30. Harvey, Living and Dying, p. 25 n. 68, 214 n. 2. Rubin, Charity and Community, p. 247, with reference to hospitals’ distribution of dole at hospital gates; Kerr, Monastic Hospitality, p. 8. For the growth of discrimination in almsgiving see esp. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 16–23.



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT JOHN

235

aged, infirm, cripples, the blind, and so forth – and the sturdy roving beggar, who could move on and beg somewhere else. To what extent practice at St Edmunds conformed with the high ideals of Christian teaching, the Rule of St Benedict, and the legislation of the Benedictine General Chapters is extremely hard to estimate because the evidence is so scattered and much of it is difficult to interpret.60 This difficulty with the source material means that, at St Edmunds as at the other great Benedictine monasteries, it can be difficult to distinguish what actually happened in practice from what should have happened in theory. Indeed, sometimes legislation enacted by the General Chapter of the order was maybe intended to serve only as a model worthy of imitation. Nevertheless, occasionally we get glimpses of reality at St Edmunds. Thus, Jocelin of Brackland records that just before Abbot Hugh I’s demise (on 14 November 1180), … everything was pillaged by his servants so that nothing was left in his house but three-legged stools and tables which they were unable to carry off. The abbot himself was only left with his coverlet and two old torn blankets which someone had placed over him after removing those that were whole. There was nothing left worth a penny that could be distributed to the poor for the benefit of his soul. The sacrist said that it was none of his business, asserting that he had paid all the expenses of the abbot and his household for a whole month, for the tenants of the townships refused to give anything before the appointed time and his creditors would lend him nothing when they saw that the abbot was sick even unto death. None the less the tenant of Palgrave found fifty shillings for distribution to the poor, because he had entered his tenancy on that day – but the fifty shillings were later returned to the king’s bailiffs who demanded the whole rent on the king’s behalf.61

Alms also figure in the burial of Abbot Richard of the Isle, after his death in Pontigny in 1233.62 From 12–14 February King Henry III was at St Edmunds, and on 20 February when he was at Thetford, he issued a mandate instructing Robert Passelewe, keeper of the abbey during the vacancy, to acquit payment of £11 19s from the barony to be given to the poor at Richard’s burial.63 King Henry made a similar concession on the death of Richard’s successor, Henry of Rushbrooke, on 19 June 1248. Less than two weeks later, on 2 July, the king instructed the keeper of the barony during the vacancy, again Robert Passelewe, to pay out of

60

61 62 63

Almsgiving had been one of Abbot Samson’s concerns, as he was anxious that he and the monks should fulfil their obligations. See Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182– 1256, pp. 34–5, 97, 202. JB, pp. 7–8 and nn. 1, 2. For Abbot Richard’s death, see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 179. CCR, 1231–4, pp. 378, 379. For Henry III’s Lenten pilgrimages to the East Anglian shrines during the period of his personal rule see Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward, i. 80–1, 135, 190, 313, ii. 588; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 245.

236

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

the issues of the barony the necessary expenses incurred in the celebration of the burial of Abbot Henry which would have included the distribution of alms.64 It is hard to doubt that King Henry’s motive for both these grants to pay for the two abbots’ funeral expenses, which included the distribution of alms to the poor, was piety, especially if we bear in mind that the grants were made during the period of his personal rule. However, at the same time, his government dealt harshly in other ways with St Edmunds during the vacancy. For example, Abbot Henry had bequeathed 100s to Roger de Camera and 40s to Richard of Harlow (‘de Herlawe’). In a mandate dated 18 September 1248, the king instructed Passelewe to pay these bequests by raising the necessary sum from the two alms dishes (‘sutellea ad elemosinam’) which Passelewe had sent to the king.65 Already, on 15 June, he had bound Richard (‘de Bosco’), prior of St Edmunds (1244–52), and the convent in 600 marks, payable at two terms, half at the quinzaine of Michaelmas and half at the quinzaine of Easter next. The bond was to ensure that the new abbot on his installation and confirmation should receive the barony intact, undiminished by sale (vendicio) or damage (vastum). Matthew Paris, in typically high-flown language and, no doubt, with some exaggeration, inveighs against King Henry’s exploitation of St Edmunds’ during the vacancy: The king, putting aside fear and reverence for God and the holy martyr, whom for many reasons he should have held in particular veneration, received so much money from the vacant house that he seemed wholly to have lacked the bowels of compassion, for he cruelly extorted 1,200 marks, not counting the pay of the royal bailiffs.66

The gist, if not the details, of Matthew Paris’ invective is true. King Henry went to some lengths to ensure that the issues of the vacant barony reached him intact. And the more he took, the less there was for almsgiving. There are other references to almsgiving under Abbot Henry of Rushbrooke and also under Abbot Edmund of Walpole. The former gave 12 marks out of his annual income from Mildenhall to the convent for a pittance on the feast of St John before the Latin Gate, apostle and evangelist (6 May), but 6d of it was paid to the servants of the church and 4d to the poor.67 When Abbot Edmund obtained the confirmation of St Edmunds’ customs on 4 August 1256,68 the confirmation included an implied reference to almsgiving. It states that: On solemn feasts, both on account of reverence for the solemnity on the days before and after, and of the great crowd of poor people, certain pittances should be allowed in the refectory as the abbot judges best and decides.69

64 65 66 67 68 69

C Lib. R, 1245–51, p. 191. C Lib. R, 1245–51, p. 200. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., v. 40. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 8v. Bury Cust., pp. xxxvii, 63–7. Bury Cust., p. 65 lines 8–11.



RELIGIOUS LIFE UNDER ABBOT JOHN

237

The link between almsgiving and pittances, which the poor did not customarily receive, was probably that, as the monks would have preferred to eat the tasty pittances rather than their ordinary fare, there would have been more leftovers from the ordinary food for the poor when the pittances were served. The confirmation next deals specifically with almsgiving: ‘Every single day leftovers in the refectory should be given to the poor.’ The evidence regarding almsgiving under Abbot Simon of Luton and Abbot John of Northwold is especially scarce. Nevertheless, there are a few scattered, though cryptic, references in the abbey’s registers indicating that almsgiving continued as a matter of course. Thus, the statutes for the relief of the church from its financial straits70 exempt the maundy ritual from measures to promote economy: ‘the maundy shall be performed in the accustomed manner’.71 The copies of these statutes are undated but the prior and monks probably issued them sometime in the second half of the thirteenth century. Also undated, but probably from c. 1280, are the sacrist’s accounts in the ‘Kempe’ register, which include alms for the poor along with pittances on the feast of Relics, the anniversary of King Richard, and of two abbots, and of St Edmund king and martyr, and of various others. The total for a year was £42 13s 4d.72 Another undated set of sacrist’s accounts in the ‘Kempe’ register includes 60s paid for bread for the poor on the four principal feasts.73 No doubt more references to almsgiving by the monks lurk in the abbey’s registers. A final aspect of almsgiving to be considered is letters written by an abbot or other ecclesiastical dignitary urging others to give alms to a poor but deserving beggar. In this way an abbot or other dignitary who had an obligation to give alms divested himself of at least part of the cost of almsgiving. A beggar would travel from place to place (especially to churches) carrying a letter from an ecclesiastic as a testimonial. The kind of men or women deserving such a letter of recommendation were those who had fallen into poverty through no fault of their own. An early example of such a letter was written by John, prior of Ely, to the sacrist of St Edmunds, the ex officio archdeacon within the town’s banleuca, William of Hoo, asking him to listen kindly to ‘our poor man, Peter of Swaffham, the bearer of the letter’.74 In another case, William of Hoo addressed a letter to all the parish chaplains under his jurisdiction requesting them to give alms to Alexander, a priest, who had lost everything in the recent devastating 70 71 72 73 74

Bury Cust., pp. xxxix, 108–11. Bury Cust., p. 110 lines 22–3. BL MS Harley 645, f. 199v. BL MS Harley 645, ff. 51, 51v, 258v. BL MS Harley 645, p. 55 no. 61. Three Johns in succession were priors of Ely 1273–99, John of Shepreth, John of Helmingstone and John Salmon. See Greatrex, BRECP, pp. 416, 436, 438. For a similar letter of recommendation from a later abbot of St Edmunds, John of Whethamstede, written in 1453/4 on behalf of a poor pilgrim, a certain William Hoby, see Gransden, ‘Letter of recommendation’, pp. 932–9. Swaffham is in south Cambridgeshire. For the sacrist’s archidiaconal powers see above p. 103 and Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 64–5 no. 100. Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 41–7.

238

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND REFORM

fire in the town; he now had nothing except a tunic, which covered his body ‘lest he appear indecent before human eyes’.75 In the preamble Hoo reminds the chaplains of Christ’s words: ‘Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.’ The letter ends with the promise that the Lord will reward the generous and compassionate almsgiver a hundredfold. Such letters of recommendation issued by various ecclesiastical authorities became increasingly common in the fourteenth century and proliferated in the fifteenth.76

75 76

Letter-Book of William of Hoo, pp. 64–5 no. 100, 82 no. 153 (another copy of no. 100). For a discussion of letters of recommendation/testimonials carried by some beggars see, with references, Gransden, ‘Letter of Recommendation’, pp. 932–4.

Part V Intellectual and Cultural Life

22 The Monks’ Intellectual and Cultural Life under Abbot Simon Historiography The line between records and chronicles is a fine one, since the principal purpose of a chronicle is to provide a permanent record of past events. A monastic chronicle includes passages of local interest, directly concerning the monastery in question.1 Some chronicles consist exclusively of copies of a series of documents often with short connecting narratives, recording affairs of purely local interest: two of these record-type chronicles were compiled during Simon’s abbacy. One is the Processus electionis Domini Symonis abbatis2 and the other the Processus executorum in re expulsionis fratrum minorum.3 The Processus electionis comprises copies of a series of official documents, without connecting narrative and imperfectly arranged, and records the process of Simon’s election. Besides copies of documents relevant to the process, it includes copies of the convent’s letters of procuration to those who negotiated on its behalf at the papal curia to obtain Pope Alexander IV’s confirmation of Simon’s election. Also included are letters empowering the convent’s proctors in Rome to borrow the necessary money from cameral merchants. A better example of a hybrid record-chronicle is the later account of the election of John of Northwold’s successor, Thomas of Tottington, in 1302, in which the documents are in proper order with relevant narrative.4 But neither of these election accounts bear comparison in detail or literary quality with the Cronica de electione Hugonis abbatis postea episcopi Eliensis composed in the 1220s, discussed in volume one of this work.5 Moreover, with

1

2 3

4 5

For a general discussion of the lack of a clear distinction between records and chronicles see my ‘The chronicles of medieval England and Scotland’, pt I, in Journ. of Medieval History, 16 (1990), 135–6, reprinted (together with pt II, idem, 17 (1991), 217–43) in Gransden, Legends, Traditions and History, pp. 198–238. See ibid., pp. 210–11 and nn. 63, 64. Printed Memorials, ii. 253–9. Printed Memorials, ii. 271–85. For election accounts written at St Albans see Richard Vaughan, ‘The election of abbots at St Albans in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 47 (1953), pp. 1–12. Memorials, ii. 299–323. Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 147, 151–63, 199, 240.

242

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

regard to the account of the election of Thomas of Tottington, it should be observed that the chronicle is known only from a copy made in the first half of the fourteenth century, with no evidence that it was compiled much earlier. It strongly resembles in form the Processus executorum, the chronicle recording the settlement in 1263 of the abbey’s dispute with the Friars Minor: as noted above,6 the only known text of the Processus executorum was copied c. 1330, probably composed in response to the townsmen’s revolt against the abbey in 1327. Because of the numerous documents copied into the Processus electionis and Processus executorum, they differ in kind from the Narratio, the other chronicle concerning the abbey’s dispute with the friars, which (as suggested above)7 may have been composed, like the Processus executorum, as a result of the 1327 revolt: this is a purely historical narrative, with references to, but without verbatim citations from, documents. However, although the Narratio itself was probably not composed under Abbot Simon, a number of other monographs on local history in narrative form certainly were. One of these appears to have been written shortly after the battle of Evesham (4 August 1265). It describes the insurrection of the ‘Guild of Youth’ at Bury which began early in 1264. Quite possibly the tract’s purpose was to help exonerate Abbot Simon when in May 1266 the royal justices, John de Warenne and William de Valence, visited Bury and accused Abbot Simon and the townsmen of helping the disinherited.8 The tract reads like a pièce justificative: it emphasizes the abbot’s helplessness in the face of the townsman who committed ‘innumerable enormities against the king’s peace’, and who launched an armed attack on the abbey, breaking open the gates, during Abbot Simon’s absence from St Edmunds. Simon returned in haste on hearing of the rising, but the townsmen shut the town gates against him and his officials. This happened, the tract claims, before the civil war, which it dates as lasting from the battle of Lewes (on 4 May 1264) to the battle of Evesham. During the civil war itself ‘all was peace and tranquillity’ in the town except for the ‘internal conflict’ caused by these ‘wicked young men’ – the Guild of Youth. If the tract was composed to help Abbot Simon’s defence before John de Warenne and William de Valence, it may have served its purpose well, for Simon succeeded in putting the blame on the townsmen. Local history is an important element in the chronicle composed by the monk, John Taxster, spanning the Creation of the World to 1265. Much of the substance of the Processus, Narratio and of the tract on the Guild of Youth, besides much other local information, appears in Taxster’s chronicle where it is interspersed with notices about general – mainly national – history. Taxster is the only scholar at work during Simon’s abbacy whose name is known for

6 7 8

Above pp. 15–16. Above pp. 16–17. Davis, ‘Commune’, pp. 315–16; Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 126–9; Gransden, ‘The abbey of Bury St Edmunds and national politics’, pp. 79–80; above pp. 30–1.



MONKS’ INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

243

certain.9 He took the habit at St Edmunds on 20 November 1244,10 but does not seem to have held any monastic office, and the date of his death is unknown. He wrote his chronicle probably in the second half of the 1260s. Up to the annal for 1212, it is a compilation from numerous well-known works.11 Its primary source to 1131 is the chronicle of John of Worcester. Taxster probably used the copy (now Oxford, Bodl. Lib., MS Bodley 297) which was owned by the monks of St Edmunds, and has substantial interpolations mainly concerning the abbey’s history.12 From 1131 to the end of the twelfth century the main sources are the chronicles of Ralph de Diceto,13 and then the Annales Sancti Edmundi until 1212, but as the final sections of the Annales are incomplete in the only known copy,14 it is impossible to say at what exact point Taxster stopped using them. Taxster also cites, either directly or through intermediate sources, from many other well-known authorities of the late Roman, early Christian and medieval periods:15 Apuleius,16 Aulus Gellius, Justin’s epitome of Trogus Pompeius, Eutropius, St Jerome’s translation of Eusebius’s chronicle, St Augustine’s Confessions and City of God, Orosius, Boethius, Gildas, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, the De miraculis Sancti Edmundi, John of Salisbury’s Polycraticus, William of Malmesbury’s Gesta regum and Gesta pontificum,17 the chronicles of Freculphus, Peter Comestor’s Historia scholastica,18 and the chronicles of Sigibert of Gembloux, 9

10 11 12 13

14 15

16 17

18

The surname ‘Taxster’ is possibly a corruption of the occupational surname ‘Textor’, a weaver. McKinley, Norfolk and Suffolk Surnames, pp. 41, 56. John Taxster’s surname is spelled Tayster in one recension of his chronicle. See Bury Chron., p. 13 n. 6 (pace ‘Taxter’ for ‘Taxster’). Bury Chron., pp. xvii, 13 n. b. Bury Chron., p. xviii. Described and the interpolations printed in Chron. of John of Worcester, ii. xlvi–liii, 616–53. One of Diceto’s sources for his Abbreviationes Chronicorum was either the chronicle of John of Worcester in the Bury version in Oxford, Bodl. Lib., MS Bodley 297, or a common source, that is, some lost Bury annals which contained the interpolations in Bodley 297. Cf. The Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, Dean of London, ed. William Stubbs (RS 68, London, 1876, 2 vols), i. 171, 173 (s.a. 1020, 1032 respectively) and Chron. of John of Worcester, ii. 643. Diceto also used a version of the De Miraculis Sancti Eadmundi, ibid., ii. 642 (s.a. 1014) and n. 2. For the Annales see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 145–6. Copies of most, if not all, of Taxster’s sources will have been in the monks’ book collection, a few of which still survive. For a fuller list see Critical Edition of Bury St Edmunds Chronicle in Arundel 30, ed. Gransden, pp. 114–16. A copy of Apuleius from St Edmunds is now in the Huntington Library, San Marino: MS HM 45717. Hamilton ascribed the provenance of the holograph manuscript of the Gesta Pontificum, Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 172, which he took as the base text for his edition for the Rolls Series (WM, GP, p. xi n. 3), to St Edmunds. However, this attribution is rejected by N. R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: a List of Surviving Books (2nd edn, London, 1964), p. 17. Two late twelfth- to early thirteenth-century copies from St Edmunds are now Cambridge, Pembroke College, MSS 26 and 27.

244

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

Simeon of Durham, Henry of Huntingdon and Roger of Howden, as well as Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae. Taxster’s compilation occupies nearly three quarters of the whole chronicle. He may have made some use of florilegia (that is, anthologies) but even so the compilation proves that he was a learned and industrious man, who made good use of the convent’s rich book collection and had a strong interest in the past. If, as is likely, one of his monastic superiors, perhaps Prior Robert, commissioned him to write the chronicle, this would indicate that he had a reputation for historiographic ability. Taxster’s holograph of the chronicle survives, now BL MS Cotton Julius A 1, ff. 3–43v.19 He wrote a good cursive book hand, in black ink with passages which he considered particularly important written in rubric. Although the manuscript is not an early draft of the chronicle but a fair copy, it shows Taxster at work: he added four quite substantial additions in the margins of the compilatory part, attaching them with tie-marks to the main text.20 He also added the names of ten popes, presumably using some list, in rubric, in the appropriate margins. All these additions were incorporated into the main text in later copies of the chronicle.21 From the last paragraph of the annal for 1212, Taxster’s chronicle is independent of all known literary authorities.22 But the annals are short and, although they become progressively longer as the years advance, the chronicle is of little value as a source for general contemporary history until nearly the end. Taxster was then writing fairly soon after the events recorded took place. The final annal, for 1265, is detailed, and, as indicated above,23 gives a good account of the Barons’ War. Taxster’s chronicle is in fact a typical monastic chronicle and, like many of its genre, was the starting point of a valuable continuation, but not until after John of Northwold succeeded to the abbacy.24 Taxster’s perception of the continuity of past history with his own time is illustrated by the carefully constructed royal genealogies from Charlemagne to the children of Henry III (of England), which served as a frontispiece, so to speak, of

19

20 21 22

23 24

For a brief description of Julius A1 see Bury Chron., pp. xxxv–xxxvii. It was slightly damaged in 1731 in the fire in Ashburnham House, where the Cottonian library was then kept. The pages are charred at the edges and the leaves appear to have shrunk. BL MS Julius A1, ff. 17v, 20v, 23v, 38v., pl. I. For a collation of Taxster’s text with the later recensions see Critical Edition of Bury St Edmunds Chronicle in Arundel 30, ed. Gransden, pp. 1–341 passim. The printed text in Bury Chron. begins at this point. The text from 1152–1294 was printed by Benjamin Thorpe in Florentii Wigorniensis Chronicon ex chronicis (English Historical Soc., 1848–9, 2 vols), vol. ii. Thorpe printed from a Peterborough copy of the second recension of the chronicle with the first continuation (in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 92). See Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, pp. 251–2 no. 4; Critical Edition of Bury St Edmunds Chronicle in Arundel 30, ed. Gransden, pp. 44–7; Chron. of John of Worcester, ii. iii–lix. Above p. 26. Below pp. 253–6.



MONKS’ INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

245

his chronicle.25 Also apparently in his hand, but written in small handwriting, is a copy of the Dragmaticon composed c. 1145 by the scholastic philosopher and cosmologist, William of Conches. Perhaps, as Taxster wrote an excellent clear hand, a monastic superior told him to copy it. However, Taxster’s historical interests might have provided a stimulus because, although the Dragmaticon is a philosophical treatise, it is in the form of a dialogue between an unnamed ‘Philosophus’ and Geoffrey, count of Anjou, the husband of the empress Matilda, King Stephen’s rival for the English throne.26 Originally, the present copy was a separate booklet but was later incorporated, probably by Henry of Kirkstead, as pp. 19–125 in the florilegium now Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 225/240, which was compiled, as we shall see, by the monk ‘A’.27 There were other learned monks at St Edmunds under Abbot Simon besides John Taxster. Some copies of scholastic texts in extant Bury manuscripts are heavily annotated in various thirteenth-century hands, but neither these annotations nor the surviving thirteenth-century collectanea of mainly theological and homiletic works can be dated with certainty to Simon’s abbacy. The collectanea will be discussed below, as they were probably compiled later in the century. However, monk ‘A’ certainly worked in the 1260s and 1270s.

The scholarly contributions of monk ‘A’ Monk A’s interests ranged far beyond the abbey’s domestic and liturgical customs, its church and business archives. He copied items of general interest into, for example, the collectaneum now BL MS Harley 1005. These include a list of the electors (three archbishops and four lay magnates) of the king of Germany and of the Romans, and specifies the offices each held under the king as his principal vassals (f. 197). The interest of ‘A’ in these matters was no doubt connected with the election on 13 January 1257, of Richard earl of Cornwall, Henry III’s brother, as king of Germany and of the Romans.28 The list was presumably compiled before the election since Richard was elected by only four of the voters, while in April the remaining three chose Alfonso X of

25 26

27

28

When BL MS Julius A1 was rebound the leaf with these genealogies was misplaced; they are now on f. 71. For William of Conches and the Dragmaticon see R. L. Poole, Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought and Learning (2nd rev. edn, London, 1920; repr. Cambridge, 1960), pp. 106–12, 298–310; Guillelmus de Conchis, Dragmaticon Philosophiae, ed. I. Ronca, Summa de philosophia in vulgari, eds L. Badia and J. Pujol, CCCM 152 (Turnhout, 1997). For ‘booklets’ see Robinson, ‘The “Booklet”’, pp. 46–69. Kirkstead’s responsibility is indicated by his inscription in the top margin of the first page. He also inscribed the title, the Bury ex libris and the classmark, v. 12 at the front of the volume (Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 225/240, flyleaf). Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward, i. 242–6; Nicholas Vincent, ‘Richard, first earl of Cornwall and king of Germany (1209–1272)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23501, accessed 22 Sept 2014].

246

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

Castile, resulting in a rift with long-term consequences in international politics. Another of the items copied by ‘A’ into BL MS Harley 1005 was a description of England with measurements, and notes on the episcopal sees and the shires (f. 95–95v); and the description of Britain extracted from Caesar’s Gallic Wars, Bk V (f. 96–96v). But the exceptional breadth of ‘A’’s intellectual interests is best illustrated by part of the volume now Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 225/240: pp. 5–18 and 126–284 which originally comprised a small book, an anthology (florilegium), belonging to ‘A’. It is in his hand and contains closely packed excerpts from a wide variety of famous works, a high proportion of them from ancient authors, notably Cicero, Virgil, Seneca and Ovid, as well as Plato. But most remarkable are the excerpts from eight plays by Plautus (pp. 5–13), copies of whose works were comparatively rare in the Middle Ages: ‘A’’s exemplar in this case may have been the copy of Plautus and Terence once owned by the monks of St Edmunds but now lost.29 More excerpts in ‘A’’s hand, in the collectaneum now Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 87 (ff. 109–20), are from late antique and early Christian authors, for example, from Justin’s epitome of Trogus Pompeius, Solinus, Apuleius, Orosius, Sidonius and Boethius, as well as from medieval authors such as John of Salisbury and William of Malmesbury (Gesta pontificum and Gesta regum). To what extent ‘A’ borrowed from existing florilegia is impossible to say, but he may well have made extensive use of the monks’ book collection and copied many of the excerpts himself. The late twelfth-century library catalogue lists works by many of the ancient late antique and early Christian authors to whom ‘A’ was indebted. Nor is the catalogue exhaustive: for instance, it does not include the twelfth-century copy from St Edmunds of Apuleius’s De deo Socratis which survives in Cambridge University Library, MS Ff. iii. 5.30 ‘A’ might also have used books acquired in the thirteenth century, for instance, the excellent thirteenth-century copy of William of Malmesbury’s Gesta pontificum now BL MS Harley 447. Moreover, Henry of Kirkstead includes a number of the classics in his Catalogus and identifies copies in St Edmunds’ book collection.31 A monk, therefore, intent on compiling a florilegium had a rich supply of books at hand. Traces of ‘A’’s scholarship are not confined to his florilegia. He also annotated books, and in one case his annotations suggest that he may have had some rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, and at least prove that he was interested in it: he wrote the incipits in Latin opposite each appropriate psalm in the late twelfth-

29 30 31

R. M. Thomson, ‘The library of Bury St Edmunds abbey in the eleventh and twelfth centuries’, Speculum, 47 (1972), pp. 632–3 and n. 95; Shorter Catalogues, p. 67 no. 94. Rouse and Rouse (eds), Catalogus, pp. 130–1 no. 47; Sharpe, ‘Reconstructing the medieval library’, p. 209 no. A. 130. See R. A. B. Mynors, ‘The Latin classics known to Boston of Bury’, in Fritz Saxl 1890–1948. A Volume of Memorial Essays from his Friends in England, ed. D. J. Gordon (London, 1957), pp. 199–217. Henry of Kirkstead was misidentified as ‘Boston of Bury’ until his identification by Richard Rouse in ‘Bostonus Buriensis’. See Rouse and Rouse (eds), Catalogus, esp. pp. clxxiv–v, clxxxi–clxxxvi. For St Edmunds’ copy of Quintilian see Rouse and Rouse (eds), Catalogus, p. 67 no. 90.



MONKS’ INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

247

or early thirteenth-century text Oxford, Bodl. Lib., Hebrew MS 117. The provenance of this manuscript is uncertain but France has been suggested. It is written in Ashkenazik square script and probably belonged to a Jew living in Bury St Edmunds until the Jews’ expulsion from the town in 1190. How and when it came into the monks’ possession is unknown but it certainly did so by A’s time – perhaps he acquired it.32 Although the book was never given a St Edmunds’ classmark it remained in the monks’ possession until the early sixteenth century: it was lent in 1502 to the Franciscan theologian, Richard Brinkley, D. D. of Cambridge; although it is not known if he returned it.33 Nor was this Hebrew psalter the only Hebrew book owned by the monks of St Edmunds. By the late twelfth or early thirteenth century they owned a Hebrew liturgy, which was, however, soon scrapped: all that survives are two leaves of the liturgy for the Day of Atonement which were used as pastedowns for the front and back covers of a twelfth- or thirteenth-century glossed copy of the Book of Isaiah (Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 59);34 the binding appears to be contemporary with the copy. Indeed, it is unlikely that ‘A’ had at best more than a smattering of Hebrew, but that in itself would have been a rare achievement as his fellow monks were probably, like nearly all thirteenth-century monks in England, ignorant of the language.35

32

33 34

35

Oxford, Bodl. Lib., Hebrew MS 117, formerly Laud or. 174. See Adolf Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and in the College Libraries of Oxford, 2 vols (1886–1906), ii. 18–19; Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1941, 2nd edn, Oxford, 1952), pp. 342, 349. For Richard Brinkley see BRUO, i. 267; A. G. Little, The Grey Friars in Oxford (Oxford, 1892), p. 283. James, Cat. Pemb., pp. 44–5; Cecil Roth, Magna Bibliotheca Anglo-Judaica: a Bibliographical Guide to Anglo-Jewish History (London, 1937), A. 11. 11, with a reference to Moses Abrahams, ‘A leaf from an English siddur of the twelfth century’, in Jews’ College Jubilee Volume (London, 1906), pp. 109–13. For knowledge of Hebrew in medieval England see, among others, Judith OlszowySchlanger, ‘The knowledge and practice of Hebrew grammar among Christian scholars in pre-expulsion England: the evidence of “bilingual” Hebrew-Latin manuscripts’, in Hebrew Scholarship in the Medieval World, ed. Nicholas de Lange (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 107–28; Olszowy-Schlanger, ‘Robert Wakefield and the medieval background of Hebrew scholarship in Renaissance England’, Hebrew to Latin, Latin to Hebrew: the mirroring of two cultures in the age of humanism (Berlin Studies in Judaism 1, Berlin, 2006), pp. 61–87; D. Wasserstein, ‘Grosseteste, the Jews and Medieval Christian Hebraists’, in Robert Grosseteste: New Perspectives on his Thought and Scholarship, ed. J. McEvoy (Instrumenta Patristica 27, Turnhout, 1995), pp. 357–76; Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, pp. 338–55 passim; Roth, Jews in England, pp. 129–30, 280 n. i. Two of the three Anglo-Hebraic manuscripts cited in ibid., p. 125 n. 1, are examples from St Edmunds (i.e. the Psalter and liturgical fragment). In the second half of the thirteenth century the prior of Ramsey, Gregory of Huntingdon, and Robert of Dodford, possibly a monk of Ramsey, owned a number of Hebrew books, which they gave to the monks. None of these books survives but they are listed in Ramsey’s medieval library catalogues. Chronicon Abbatiae Ramesiensis, ed. W. D. Macray (RS 83, London, 1886), pp. lxii, 365; Sharpe, Shorter Catalogues, pp. 330, 336–8, 403, 406–7; Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, pp. 234–5.

248

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

Verses accompanying frescoes etc. in the abbey church and elsewhere Another aspect of ‘A’’s wide-ranging interests concerns the verses which accompanied frescoes or were inscribed in glass windows and on boards or other objects in the abbey church, which a few of the monks were concerned to record. The copyists wrote in cursive scripts on palimpsests which serve as flyleaves in College of Arms MS Arundel 30, the collectaneum from St Edmunds (which includes among its historical and other miscellaneous items the best surviving text of the Bury Chronicle).36 The copies are especially valuable evidence because none of the originals survive. Since some of the copies are crowded and inserted in piecemeal fashion, it is not always easy to distinguish one script from another. However, monk ‘A’ seems to have been responsible for the core of the collection, as four pages are in his small, neat hand.37 He wrote in one column and heading his series: ‘subscripti versus continentur per loca in picturis et in vitreis in ecclesia sancti Eadmundi’ (‘the verses written are contained in pictures and glass windows in various places in the church of St Edmund’). He starts with verses in Abbot Simon’s Lady Chapel, and then copies verses from various places, for example in the windows ‘at the altar of St Nicholas’ and in the windows in the south wall of the nave, and on a hanging in front of the crucifix in the choir, on the rood-beam above the ‘little altar’, ‘on the abbot’s seat’, on a board before the great candelabrum, and on the candelabrum itself. The first eleven lines of the verses ‘in and around the choir’ seem to be in ‘A’’s hand, although another monk completed the cycle. Three or four other monks seem to have been responsible for the additions to ‘A’’s collection. Some of the extra verses may well have been copied in the time of Abbot Simon’s successor, John of Northwold. However, many of the additions were apparently made in the late 1270s: one of the copyists transcribed other items onto the flyleaves of College of Arms MS Arundel 30 and two of them are datable to 1275, that is: documents concerning the demolition of St Edmunds’ rotunda to make room for the new Lady Chapel,38 and the assessment of obedientiaries for the papal tenth.39 Apparently these transcriptions were made by the same monk who had copied those verses in the Lady Chapel which ‘A’ had omitted. This same monk copied the verses in the windows around the chapel of St John the Evangelist ‘at the door of the crypt’, and those (presumably also in windows) ‘in the chapel of the black hostilary’.40 He also copied verses on

36 37 38 39 40

[Black], Catalogue of the Arundel Manuscripts, pp. 44–8; Bury Chron., pp. xxxviii– xlii. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, ff. 209v–211; James, Abbey, pp. 142–3, 192–8. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 8v; James, Abbey, p. 88; Bury Chron., p. 58; Hills, ‘Antiquities’, pp. 112–13. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 213–213v; noticed in Lunt, Fin. Relations, i. 319 n. 7. See above p. 152. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 209; James, Abbey, pp. 191–2.



MONKS’ INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

249

a hanging on the abbot’s side of the choir,41 on a hanging ‘beyond the door of relics’ and on another ‘nearby’, besides a couplet on a hanging ‘of Ezechiel’.42 Another monk copied a couplet from the bell ‘called of Hugo’ and two couplets from the great bell ‘called Gaufridus’.43 Moreover, the same monk copied the verses in the windows of the wash-place (‘ad lavatorium’), and completed the copy of the verses accompanying the cycle of frescoes in the choir.44 The fact that monks transcribed these verses suggests an active concern under Abbot Simon to preserve the colourful and instructive decoration of the abbey church. Whether the monks in question copied the verses in situ or at least in part from some official record is impossible to say. Perhaps the copies on the flyleaves of College of Arms MS Arundel 30 were intended to serve as a record, but it seems not improbable that some more formal collection once existed. A record of the verses would have served two purposes: it would have enabled damaged inscriptions to be restored, and made it possible to read inscriptions (such as those in high windows) which could not be read from the ground. Handy copies could easily be made from an official record of the inscriptions which would have been useful to those acting as guides for pilgrims and other visitors to the abbey church, and for the general information of the novices and monks.45 Some of the copies made on parchment were affixed to boards, tabulae. One set of verses on the Virgin Mary is headed: ‘On tablets around the image of the blessed Mary at St Edmunds’.46 And four distiches on the four evangelists on a tabula before the altar, together with four verses around the Christ in Majesty, shared another tabula.47 These examples were in Abbot Simon’s new Lady Chapel. Other verses apparently in a window, but lost as the page is torn, were on a tabula at the great cross on the [?high] altar.48 There is plenty of evidence from the late Middle Ages of tabulae placed in great churches expounding their history, expatiating on their relics and recounting the long history of the religious order to which they belonged.49 Probably the tabula which existed in St Edmunds’ church of the 41 42 43

44 45

46 47 48 49

College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 9; James, Abbey, p. 189. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 212v; James, Abbey, pp. 202–3. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 211v; James, Abbey, pp. 199–200; Gesta sacrist., p. 294. The bell called ‘Gaufridus’ referred to as ‘the sacrists’ bell’ was that which Godfrey, the sacrist under Abbot Baldwin, had cast. Gesta sacrist., p. 289. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, ff. 211v–212v. See M. R. James, The Verses formerly Inscribed on Twelve Windows in the Choir of Canterbury Cathedral (Cambridge Antiquarian Society Octavo Publications 28, Cambridge, 1901), pp. 13–26. ‘In tabulis circa ymaginem beate Marie apud sanctum Eadmundum.’ College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 208; James, Abbey, p. 190. ‘In tabula ante altarem’ and ‘In eadem tabula circa magestatem.’ College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 209v; James, Abbey, p. 193. ‘Ad magnam crucem in tabulam super altare.’ College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 209v; James, Abbey, p. 194. For the most recent survey of them see Jeanne Krochalis, ‘Magna Tabula: the Glastonbury Tablets (Parts 1 and 2)’, in Glastonbury Abbey and the Arthurian Tradition, ed. J. P. Carley

250

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

time of St Edmund’s translation in 1094 was of that type, telling the story of his martyrdom, burial and so on.50 Especially remarkable is the presence on the flyleaves of College of Arms MS Arundel 30 of copies of verses in places other than St Edmunds, some from far afield.51 Like the verses just considered, none of these verses are known to survive in the original and College of Arms MS Arundel 30 is the only evidence of their previous existence. Monk ‘A’ copied three couplets on tombs in two East Anglian churches: one, for ‘Katerina’ in the church at Flixton (east Suffolk);52 and the other two for the heart burials of Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk and his wife Isabella in the church at Framingham Earl in Norfolk (just south of Norwich).53 It may have been ‘A’ who copied the verses in praise of the Virgin Mary at Spalding in Lincolnshire,54 but the epitaph for ‘John’ in the church at Mendham in east Suffolk, and the one for an abbot in the New Temple, London, are not in

50

51 52

53

54

(Cambridge, 2001), pp. 435–41 and n. 25, 442. The text of the Glastonbury Magna Tabula is edited by Krochalis in idem, pp. 444–62 (reprinted from Arthurian Literature, 15 (1997), pp. 93–183), and pl., and ibid., 16 (1998), pp. 41–82. See also J. M. Luxford, The Art and Architecture of English Benedictine Monasteries, 1300–1540. A Patronage History (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 11, 34, 101 n. 129, 120 n. 14, 133–4, 137, 145 and n. 219, 148; W. A. Pantin, ‘Some medieval English treatises on the origins of monasticism’, in Medieval Studies presented to Rose Graham, ed. Veronica Ruffer and A. J. Taylor (Oxford, 1950), pp. 200–1, 207–8, 211; Gransden, Historical Writing, ii. 495; Gransden, Legends, Traditions and History, pp. 330–2. ‘Exsequentes ergo diem translationis nostri patrocinatoris apud Deum, hujus facti continuemus primordium, coram ponentes causam effectus, quae planissime rebus patet in omnibus. Ut in exarato continetur sanctae passionis [Eadmundi] Deo dilecti martyris magno tabulatus opere, multitudo fidelis in Beodrici villa sibi basilicam condidit imprimis; …’, De Miraculis, p. 84 and n. a. This is exceptionally early evidence for the existence of a tabula in a church. Apparently, the only other early witness to one was on the walls of the church dedicated to St Lewinna, martyred by Saxon invaders c. 685, at ‘Seevorhd’, probably Seaford in Sussex. James, Abbey, does not print these verses though he gives a passing reference to some. He prints the verses from Peterborough elsewhere (see below p. 251 n. 59). College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 211. There are two places called Flixton in Suffolk, one three miles south-west of Bungay, and the other three miles north-west of Lowestoft. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 211. Roger Bigod, fourth earl of Norfolk 1225–70, married Isabella, daughter of William the Lion, king of the Scots (1165–1214), repudiated her in 1245 on grounds of consanguinity, but was forced to take her back in 1253 by ecclesiastical censure. See Robert C. Stacey, ‘Bigod, Roger (III), fourth earl of Norfolk (c.1212–1270)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/2380, accessed 23 Sept 2014]. For an extent of his manor of Framingham Earl, dated 6 July 1270, see Cal. Inq. P. M., i. 240 (no. 744). I found no trace of either heart burial when I visited the church. For the practice of heart burial in the Middle Ages, see C. A. Bradford, Heart Burial (London, 1933), pp. 5–6, 39–41. Roger’s cadaver was buried at Thetford, while hers was buried in Black Friars, London. G. E. C[ockayne], The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland and Great Britain and the United Kingdom, new edn by Vicary Gibbs et al. (London, 1910–59, 13 vols), xi. 590–3. The date of Isabel’s death is unknown but she was still alive in 1263 (CPR, 1258–66, p. 292). College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 4.



MONKS’ INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE UNDER ABBOT SIMON

251

his hand.55 There are also verses from Lincoln, in the wash-place (lavatorium) at the entrance to the archdeacon’s guest-hall, advising guests to wash their hands, and instructing the butler, the steward and the boy serving the bread on how to comport themselves;56 and verses ‘in the fireplace at Westminster’, in which the fireplace extols its own virtues, claiming to be second in importance only to the altar.57 The verses which originated from farthest afield are those from the Holy of Holies in Rome recounting the relics which it contained.58 None of the non-St Edmunds’ verses so far mentioned are very long and some comprise only a couplet or two. Nor is it likely that any of them, except those at Spalding, accompanied a work of art. However, the case with two other verses copied on the flyleaves of College of Arms MS Arundel 30 is different; they are of much greater length and seriousness and certainly accompanied pictures. There is the cycle of types and antitypes, occupying two pages, which accompanied frescoes around the choir enclosure of Peterborough abbey,59 and there are verses, occupying one page, from ‘the windows of the new church of the Blessed Mary at York’.60 Both these cycles must have been copied during John of Northwold’s abbacy or early in the fourteenth century. This is indicated by the calligraphic style and by the fact that the Gothic church of St Mary’s was not completed until 1294 (the foundation stone was laid in 1270). It is most likely that the verses from St Edmunds itself were composed by monks in the abbey. At least some of the verses from places elsewhere may also have been composed by a monk or monks of St Edmunds, writing on commission for patrons other than the abbot. Copies of such commissioned verses would surely have survived at St Edmunds. Another possible source might be a notebook of a professional artist who travelled around restoring inscriptions. As has been seen, it is probable that John of Northwold employed a peripatetic artist to restore the Genesis cycle in the choir,61 and it seems likely that Abbot Simon employed one to paint the frescoes and glass in the Lady Chapel. Such an artist might well have kept a notebook recording the inscriptions which he had restored. Nor is it impossible that monks of St Edmunds were themselves responsible for copying verses in situ, as East Anglian churches were within comparatively easy reach, and some monks travelled further afield. One or more monks

55 56 57 58 59

60 61

College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 211v. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 5v. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 10. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 208. Discussed and printed by M. R. James, ‘On the paintings formerly in the choir at Peterborough’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 9 (Cambridge, 1897), pp. 178–94. Described and printed by G. Benson, Yorks. Philosophical Soc., Annual Report, for 1914 (1915), pp. 182–4. I owe this reference to Professor Nigel Morgan. Above p. 221.

252

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

would have accompanied the abbot when he attended parliament, ecclesiastical councils, and so on. But why were the verses copied on to the flyleaves of College of Arms MS Arundel 30 although they did not concern St Edmunds? Perhaps it was because they could serve, like those from St Edmunds itself, as literary models. However, it is hard to avoid the impression that occasionally whoever copied the verses did so because they amused him and perhaps thought that they would amuse others. Notable examples of obviously entertaining verses are cited above – those at the wash-place at Lincoln and at the fireplace at Westminster. Some verses raise the suspicion that the copyist was indulging an antiquarian interest. This could explain why the monk who copied the verses from the Holy of Holies in Rome also copied, for example, a sort of minimalist gazeeteer of ‘the names of certain rivers flowing through certain famous towns in northern parts’ [of England]; he starts with the Tweed ‘which flows from Norham to Berwick between England and Scotland’, and includes over twenty-four towns and their rivers.62 He also gives the length and breadth in feet of Westminster Hall, the hall of the archbishop of York’s palace at York, the hall of the castle at Newcastle, and of the guest-hall at Durham, as well as noting the measurements of the cloisters at Durham.63

62 63

College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 214v. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 214v.

23 The Monks as Chroniclers and Historians under Abbot John Under Abbot John, so far as is known, St Edmunds produced no scholar of outstanding excellence. Nevertheless, intellectual life flourished in the convent of that time, though how many of the total of eighty or so monks were scholars is impossible to estimate. Evidence for the monks’ studies is provided by the continuations of John Taxster’s chronicle,1 annotations in the convent’s books, the work-books of individual monks, and by book-acquisitions and production. The Bury Chronicle is a typical monastic chronicle. Gervase of Canterbury, writing in the late twelfth century, explains the difference between a chronicle and a history: It is characteristic of a history to tell the truth, to persuade those who read or hear it with gentle words and elegant phrases, and to inform them about the deeds, ways and lives of whoever it truthfully describes; it is essentially a rational study. A chronicle, on the other hand, reckons the years, months and calends from the Incarnation of our Lord; it tells briefly of the deeds of kings and princes which happened at those times, besides recording any portents, miracles and other events.2 1

2

For Taxster’s chronicle see Bury Chron., pp. xvi–xvii. Two manuscripts are known to survive: BL MS Cotton Julius A 1, ff. 3–43v, possibly Taxster’s holograph, which was slightly damaged in the Cottonian Library fire in 1731; and College of Arms MS Arundel 6, ff. 109–124v, a late copy, temp. Richard II, which descends directly from Julius A 1. See Bury Chron., pp. xxxv–xxxviii. See also Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 117–18, 149, 218–19; and n. 3 below. The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. William Stubbs (RS 73, London, 1879–80), i. 87–8, part of the prologue: ‘Historici autem et cronici secundum aliquid una est intentio et materia, sed diversus tractandi modus est et forma varia. Utriusque una est intentio, quia uterque veritati intendit. Forma tractandi varia, quia historicus diffuse et eleganter incedit, cronicus vero simpliciter graditur et breviter. “Proicit” historicus “ampullas et sesquipedalia verba;” cronicus vero “silvestrem musam tenui meditatur avena.” Sedet historicus “inter magniloquos et grandia verba serentes,” at cronicus sub pauperis Amiclæ pausat tugurio ne sit pugna pro paupere tecto. Proprium est historici veritati intendere, audientes vel legentes dulci sermone et eleganti demulcere, actus, mores vitamque ipsius quam describit veraciter edocere, nichilque aliud comprehendere nisi quod historiæ de ratione videtur competere. Cronicus autem annos Incarnationis Domini annorumque menses computat et kalendas, actus etiam regum et principum quæ in ipsis eveniunt breviter edocet, eventus etiam, portenta vel miracula commemorat. Sunt autem plurimi qui, cronicas vel annales scribentes, limites suos excedunt, nam philacteria

254

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

In practice, the distinction between histories and chronicles became blurred. Chronicles might start as compilations and then, when the author reached his own time, become annals which expanded into narrative. The chronicler might even have literary pretensions and indulge in rhetorical flourishes – a tendency which Gervase deplores: citing Matthew 23: 5, such writers, he says, ‘make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments’. The two continuations of Taxster’s chronicle cover the years from almost the end of the annal for 1265 to the beginning of 1296, and from 1296 to 1300. A few desultory and very short annals were added for the years 1301, 1313, 1326, 1329, 1334 and 1335, but in effect the chronicle ends in 1300 (about a year before Abbot John’s death). The first continuation is preceded by a revised version of Taxster’s chronicle.3 This revised version omits Taxster’s notice that ‘I was tonsured at this time’ in the annal for 1255, and has two extra passages in the annal for 1265: a notice of the birth of John Hastings (later the hereditary steward of St Edmunds) in 1262 and a paragraph about the fine of 800 marks imposed on the abbey at the parliament held at Winchester in 1265:4 this addition indicates that the first continuator was also the reviser, since, as will be seen, the first continuation shows a preoccupation, which amounted to an obsession, with St Edmunds’ problems over taxation and the other financial impositions of that time.5 A distinctive feature of this second recension of the chronicle is the twenty-two additional passages in the early part of the chronicle. They concern classical history; three of these additions are long, occupying a page or more, but most are short, comprising only a sentence or two. An annotator of the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century has entered the source of the additions in the margin that is: Apuleius; Boethius; Florence of Worcester; Freculphus; Eutropius; Marianus Scotus; and Orosius.6 The continuations, like Taxster’s chronicle and many other monastic chronicles, were official in the sense that they represented the convent’s point of view.7 (They have very few references to Abbot John.) It is most probable that both

3

4 5 6

7

sua dilatare et fimbrias magnificare delectant.’ Cf. V. H. Galbraith, Historical Research in Medieval England (London, 1951) repr. V. H. Galbraith, Kings and Chroniclers, pp. 2–3. The earliest and only complete text of the revised version of Taxster’s chronicle and of the continuations is in College of Arms MS Arundel 30, ff. 97–205. For it and for other copies of the text see Bury Chron., pp. xxxviii–xliv and below pp. 258–60. For a description of it and the rest of Arundel 30 see [Black], Catalogue of the Arundel Manuscripts, pp. 44–57. Black rightly and accurately describes the volume as ‘A valuable and most curious MS, beautifully written upon vellum in a large octavo size, written towards the end of the XIIIth and beginning of the XIV century’. See ibid., pp. 52–4 for the chronicle. Bury Chron., pp. 20 and n. c, 26a, 31 and n. a respectively. See above pp. 119–24, 147–58. For these marginalia see College of Arms MS Arundel 30, ff. 98–100v passim; Critical Edition of Bury St Edmunds Chronicle in Arundel 30, ed. Gransden, pp. 4–39, and nn., passim. This edition contains a full collation of eight manuscripts comprising: Taxster’s chronicle; the second recension; its two continuations; the latter’s derivatives – see p. 109. Arundel 30 itself covers the period from the Creation of the World to 1335. See Gransden, ‘The chronicles of medieval England and Scotland’, i. 135–6.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

255

continuations were composed by a monk, or possibly by more than one monk writing in succession, at the order of the prior or of an important obedientiary. How widespread this system was is impossible to say, but it was certainly practised at Winchester and probably also at Worcester.8 The Winchester chronicler writes: ‘At the end of each year let he who is ordered, not just anyone who likes, record for posterity what he thinks best, entering it briefly [on a sheaf of loose leaves] attached to the end of the book.’ The old sheaf of leaves is then removed and a new one attached.9 As will be seen with regard to the Bury chronicle, the sacrist may have commissioned the first continuation and the cellarer the second. Their purposes were typical of the genre: to satisfy natural curiosity about past and more recent local, national and to some extent foreign events and personalities; and to provide a useful domestic history set in a local and national context.10 Both continuations contain much information which does not appear in other chronicles but when it can be checked from record sources it is usually found to be accurate. Although each continuation contains some passages of fluent and vivid narrative, the annals tend to be inconsequential and factual. It will be demonstrated below that the contemporaneity of the first continuation of the Bury chronicle is reflected in the annals for 1285 to 1296 in the key manuscript, College of Arms MS Arundel 30. Otherwise it is apparent from the content of some of the entries; for example, the chronicler records the loss (1287) and recovery (1290) of the manors Semer and Groton.11 Similarly, the second continuator rejoices in the capture of Edinburgh castle in 1296, apparently ignorant of Edward’s serious reverses in Scotland which were to follow.12 The text of the two continuations in Arundel 30 is written in more than one formal cursive hand and again there are signs that the scribes were working fairly close to the events which they recorded. From the annal for 1270 until the end of the first continuation in 1296 the text in Arundel 30 was clearly an early draft. There are many signs of revision: mistakes are erased and letters rewritten – the correct reading appears in plummet (i.e., lead pencil) in the margin by the error. Moreover, from 1285 to 1296 there are many changes of handwriting and shades of ink, and spaces are left at the end of some annals for additions; occasionally late news is noted in the margin.13 In these ways, the manuscript reflects the contemporaneous nature of the chronicle’s composition. 8

9 10 11 12

13

Ann. mon., iv. 335. Galbraith, ‘St Edmundsbury Chronicle’, p. 53, attributes this passage to the Worcester chronicler, but Denholm-Young demonstrates that it derives from the Winchester chronicle. N[oël] Denholm-Young, ‘The Winchester-Hyde Chronicle’, EHR, 49 (1934), pp. 85–93. Below p. 258. Bury Chron., pp. 131–2. See above, pp. 144–5. The first (unsuccessful) War of Independence followed in 1297, and the second (successful) War of Independence in 1308. See the survey of Scottish history in Dickinson, Scotland from the Earliest Times, chapters 14 and 15. See also Barrow, Robert Bruce, chapters 8 and 9; above pp. 81, 158, 170. See below pp. 258–9 and pls IV, VI, VIII.

256

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

Another copy of the revised version of Taxster’s chronicle and of the first continuation, but only to the end of the annal for 1283, survives in a manuscript preserved in the Moyses Hall Museum at Bury St Edmunds (formerly MS A 8/1 in the Suffolk Record Office, Bury St Edmunds branch). This is a fair copy in a single hand which descends from a text resembling that in Arundel 30. It records a few events not mentioned by Arundel 30, and from 1265–82 the spaces between the annals are larger than those in Arundel 30.14 In fact, it appears that both texts to 1283 descend from the same draft of the chronicle which was constantly being revised and added to.

St Edmunds as a centre of chronicle writing The importance of the Bury chronicle is enhanced because the tradition of monastic chronicle writing, which had its heyday earlier in the thirteenth century, was running dry. The chronicles of a number of houses were becoming so brief as to be almost valueless. The Bury chronicle’s only rivals in this period were the chronicle of Thomas Wykes, canon of Oseney15 (to 1289), the Norwich chronicle (to 1290), the chronicle of Bartholomew Cotton, monk of Norwich (to 1298), and three others – the chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, the Westminster chronicle and the chronicle of Canterbury priory, all three of which continue into Edward II’s reign.16 In the second half of the thirteenth century, especially during the 1280s and 1290s, St Edmunds became the centre of historical writing in eastern England.17 Its chronicle was borrowed by Bartholomew Cotton18 and the other Norwich chronicler,19 by the chronicler of the Benedictine abbey of St Benet of Hulme

14 15 16

17 18

19

See pl. V. See Wykes, Chron. For the last three of these chronicles see respectively: the introduction to Harry Rothwell’s edition of Walter of Guisborough’s chronicle; for the Westminster and Canterbury chronicles see James Tait’s introduction to those works. See also, with further references: Taylor, English Hist. Lit., pp. 78–82; Westminster Chron., ed. Hector and Harvey; Gransden, Historical Writing, ii. 101–10 passim; Gransden, ‘The continuations of the Flores Historiarum from 1307 to 1327’, Mediaeval Studies, 36 (1974), pp. 472–92 passim. For a survey of the influence of the Bury Chronicle in eastern England and beyond see Gransden, Historical Writing [i], 402–3 and nn. For Cotton’s use of Taxster, 1257–63, see Cotton, Historia anglicana, pp. lii–liii, 136–40; Antonia Gransden, ‘Cotton, Bartholomew (d. 1321/2)’, ODNB, 2004 [http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/6409, accessed 23 Sept 2014]. For Cotton’s use of the Bury Chronicle, attributed by Luard and others to John of Eversden (see below p. 260), for the years 1279–86, see Cotton, Historia anglicana, pp. lv–lvii, 159–68. It is not clear to me whether Cotton and the Norwich chronicler were working alongside each other or whether one was copying from the other. See below p. 258. For the Norwich chronicle, covering the period from the Creation to 1291, see Cotton, Historia anglicana, pp. xx–xxv, 47–182.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

257

(about nine miles north-east of Norwich)20 and by the chronicler of Peterborough abbey.21 The debts of these three chroniclers to the Bury chronicle were the most noteworthy, but the chronicler of the Benedictine priory of Spalding in Lincolnshire also made some use of it.22 The influence of the Bury chronicle rarely extended beyond eastern England, but in the late thirteenth century a chronicler in Wales, probably a monk of the Cistercian abbey of Whitland in Carmarthenshire, used it.23 Its influence just survived into the fourteenth century. Much of it was copied by the chronicler of the Benedictine abbey of St John the Baptist in Colchester, early in the century24 and by c. 1350 a copy was with the Franciscans of Babwell; this copy later passed to the Franciscans of King’s Lynn.25 In the late fourteenth century a copy of Taxster’s chronicle, made at about that time, was in the library of John Erghome, an Augustinian friar of York.26 The relationship of the Bury chronicle with the chronicles of Norwich, St Benet of Hulme and Peterborough is intricate and interesting.27 The Norwich chronicler, who is anonymous, writing c. 1291, borrowed his annals for the years from 1258 to 1263 from Taxster’s chronicle. He then wrote the annals

20

21

22

23 24

25

26

27

The Hulme chronicle, formerly attributed to John of Oxenedes, uses the Bury Chronicle in the so-called Eversden version for the years 1020–1169, and 1258–92. See Oxenedes, pp. 19–62, 218–87. The connection between this Hulme chronicle and the Bury Chronicle was pointed out by H. R. Luard. See Cotton, Historia anglicana, pp. lii–lvii; A. Gransden, ‘The “Cronica Buriensis” and the abbey of St. Benet of Hulme’, BIHR, 36 (1963), pp. 80–2 and nn. The Peterborough version of the chronicle, as preserved in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 92, is printed as a continuation of the chronicle of Florence of Worcester in Flor. Wig., ii. 136–279. See Chron. of John of Worcester, ii. liii–lix. Borrowings in the Spalding chronicle from the Bury Chronicle occur in the annals for 1265, 1267, 1269 and 1271. The Spalding chronicle is printed as Chronicon Johannis abbatis S. Petri de Burgo in Joseph Sparke, Historia Anglicanae Scriptores Varii (London, 1723). Kathleen Hughes, ‘The Welsh Latin chronicles: Annales Cambriae and related texts’, Proceedings of the British Academy, 59 (1973), pp. 247–9. The Colchester chronicle is discussed and printed (from BL MS Harley 1132) in Felix Liebermann, Ungedruckte Anglo-Normannische Geschichtsquellen (Strassburg, 1879), pp. 156–65. Discussed and printed (from BL MS Additional 47214) in A. Gransden, ‘A fourteenth-century chronicle from the Grey Friars at Lynn’, in Gransden, Legends, Traditions and History, pp. 278–88 (repr. from EHR, 71 (1957), pp. 270–80). See also Gransden, Legends, Traditions and History, pp. 204–5 and nn. (repr. from Journ. of Medieval History, 16 (1990), pp. 129–50). College of Arms MS Arundel 6. This copy descends from the authoritative text in BL, Cotton MS Julius A 1. Therefore, it has no textual value. See Bury Chron., pp. xxix, xxvii–xxxviii. For references see above nn. 19–21. For Bartholomew Cotton see Greatrex, BRECP, pp. 496–7, and also the entry on Ralph of Frettenham, a Norwich monk who occurs 1276/7 and possible copyist of Cotton’s chronicle (now Norwich Record Office, DCL/1). Ibid., 513.

258

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

for 1264–79 which are independent of all known chronicles. However, for the annals from 1279 to 1284 he copied from the first continuation of the Bury chronicle. However, for this second period, the Norwich chronicler did not copy directly from the continuation of the Bury chronicle but instead used a text derived from it and made for St Benet of Hulme. He then continued by himself composing annals for 1285–91. All of his chronicle was copied by Bartholomew Cotton, also writing at Norwich, who added his own annals to 1298.28 The Hulme chronicler, writing c. 1293, used the revised version of Taxster’s chronicle for the annals from 1020 to 1169, and both it and the first continuation for the annals from 1258 to 1292; he then compiled the intervening annals and the earlier part of his chronicle from other known chronicles. The Peterborough chronicler borrowed from the revised version of Taxster and from the first continuation for the annals from 1152 to 1294. These borrowers tended to adapt the text of the Bury chronicle to suit their own interests. Thus, they might omit material specifically relating to St Edmunds and insert material about their own houses. Comparison of the texts of the chronicles of these three borrowers with that of the first continuation of the Bury chronicle as preserved in College of Arms MS Arundel 30 and, to 1283, in the Moyses Hall MS, throws light on how the Bury chronicle was compiled and disseminated. It is a striking fact that the nearer the chroniclers of Norwich, Hulme and Peterborough approach the time in which they were writing, the more their texts differ from the Bury chronicle. It was observed above that the text of the annals from 1285 to 1296, the end of the first continuation, in Arundel 30 is an early draft and was still in a fluid state. The increasing divergences from it of the derivative chronicles confirm this view. The borrowers were not copying from a definitive text, but one subject to alteration, and finally they had perhaps only a bundle of notes and documents emanating from St Edmunds. This suggestion is supported by the advice in the Winchester chronicle for the composition of contemporaneous annals which was cited above.29 That passage is followed by brief instructions which are especially relevant to the question of the dissemination of a chronicle. It reads: ‘Then the old sheaf of leaves is removed and a new one attached’. A few examples of divergences between the text in Arundel 30 and the Moyses Hall MS, and the other chronicles related to the Moyses Hall MS, will illustrate how they diverged from one another. Thus, in the annal for 1282 the Bury chronicle records the birth of a daughter to Queen Eleanor.30 Arundel 30 gives her name as ‘Elizabeth’, but the text in the Moyses Hall MS leaves a gap for the name.31 The Hulme chronicle has ‘Elysabeth’ but on an erasure, in a darker ink and

28

29 30 31

Greatrex points out that Cotton did not die in 1298 as I had assumed, as a payment to his brief bearer (Norwich Record Office, DCN 1/5/6) proves that he died in 1321/2. Greatrex, BRECP, p. 497. Above p. 255 and n. 8. Bury Chron., p. 77 and n. a. pl. V. Moyses Hall MS, f. 103v.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

259

apparently not in the hand of the scribe of the rest of the text.32 The Norwich chronicler calls the baby ‘Walkiniana’.33 This evidence suggests that there was a delay before the name reached the chroniclers and then some confusion over what it was. It appears that the later annals in the Hulme chronicle were copied before Arundel 30 had been revised; in some instances its information is wrong whereas that in Arundel 30 is correct. For example, in the annal for 1290, the Hulme chronicle wrongly calls the duke of Brabant Walter, while Arundel 30 rightly calls him John.34 As the Hulme chronicle nears its end, it reflects the fluid state of its exemplar even more vividly. The Hulme chronicle has a copy of Edward I’s mandate of 31 December 1291, addressed to the abbot and convent of St Edmunds: it orders them to copy into their chronicles the letters of submission of the competitors for the throne of Scotland to Edward’s judgement as overlord. The letters of submission duly follow, but in a Latin text; in Arundel 30 the letters are in a French version.35 The scribe copying Edward’s mandate for the Hulme chronicle did not alter the address from ‘the abbot and convent of St Edmunds’ to ‘the abbot and convent of St Benet of Hulme’. But the scribe of the Peterborough chronicle made the appropriate alteration. In fact, the Peterborough chronicle gives the impression that the scribe was copying a letter actually addressed to the abbot and convent of Peterborough. However, examination of Arundel 30 shows that this was not so.36 He was still directly or indirectly dependent on Arundel 30. Faint pencil notes in the margins of Arundel 30 show that it was prepared for a copy (or copies) to be made for another monastery (or monasteries). Thus, some passages, many of them concerning St Edmunds, are marked vacat (that is, omit), and one note in the manuscript was clearly intended for a scribe marking a copy for Peterborough. It appears in the margin by the address of the abovementioned mandate ‘to the abbot and convent of St Edmunds’ and reads ‘Sancti Petri de Burgo’.37 The scribe, therefore, was to alter the address from ‘the abbot and convent of St Edmunds’ to ‘the abbot and convent of Peterborough’ – which is how it appears in the Peterborough chronicle. The annotator seems to have been working towards the end of the thirteenth century. The last note certainly by him in Arundel 30 relates to the entry recording that Peter of Morrone was consecrated and enthroned at Perugia as Pope Celestine V on 12 September 1294. It records that he was ‘subject to the Rule of St Benedict’; the annotator adds in the right-hand margin ‘Monte Cassino’.38 Further down the same page the chronicler records that Edward took 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

See BL, Cotton MS Nero D II, f. 235v; Oxenedes, p. 260; pl. V. See BL, Cotton MS Nero C V, f. 206; Cotton, Historia anglicana, p. 162. Bury Chron., p. 95 and n. b. Oxenedes, pp. 280–3; Bury Chron., pp. 100–3. Bury Chron., p. 100 n. b; see pl. VI; Peterborough Chronicle, 1252–1295. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 179; Bury Chron., p. 100 n. b; pl. VI. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 188; Bury Chron., p. 123 n. c.

260

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

into royal hands those religious houses, with all their properties and resources, subject to a mother house abroad. At the time Edward was raising money for his war against Philip IV, and feared that the revenues of these monasteries would be used to help fund the French campaign. The chronicler states that a fixed allowance was to be paid to those monks who remained in their monasteries, and Arundel 30 has a marginal note, with tie-marks, ‘that is, 18d a week to each monk’. The note is in pencil overwritten in ink. It would appear that the pencil note is in a different hand from that of the ‘Monte Cassino’ note, but it seems to be a late thirteenth-century hand.39

The authorship of the Bury chronicle The two continuations of the Bury chronicle are anonymous. Previously it was believed that the author of both was John of Eversden, cellarer of St Edmunds from the late thirteenth century to 1316 or later. This attribution apparently originated with John Bale, the sixteenth-century topo-bibliographer, who once owned the manuscript which is now Arundel 30.40 Bale probably based his attribution partly on the sketch of a man’s head in the margin by the notice that Eversden visited the manor of Warkton in 1300, in order to settle a dispute over a pasture with the men of Boughton (a vill near Warkton).41 Bale may have supposed that the sketch represented Eversden. But it is of a peasant’s head not a monk’s, and probably represents a peasant of Boughton. Bale may also have been influenced by the account which follows this notice, of Eversden’s visit to Warkton in the previous year, when he persuaded the king’s justices to disafforest the manor.42 But this was slender evidence on which to base an attribution, especially as the chronicle from 1265 to 1301 is obviously the work of two successive continuators, not of one monk. If even the second continuation were by Eversden it would be strange that he cited the precentor’s register, not the cellarer’s, as his authority for the description of the visit to Warkton in 1300. 39

40

41 42

‘videlicet cuilibet monacho per ebdomados’. Bury Chron., p. 123 n. c. See Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, p. 75; Chew, Ecclesiastical Tenants in Chief, p. 45; and above pp. 157–62. See John Bale, Illustrium majoris Britanniae scriptorum summarium (2nd edn, 2 pts, Basel, 1557–9), p. 410. Bale does not here include Taxster by name, so Taxster’s chronicle only occurs in so far as the text is preserved in the recension in Arundel 30. See above p. 253 n. 1. The attribution of the continuations of the chronicle to Eversden was accepted by many scholars until the late nineteenth century and later. Serious doubt was cast on it by Felix Liebermann in ‘Annales S. Pauli Londoniensis (1064–1274)’ printed in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, xxviii (Stuttgart, 1888), p. 584 and n. 9, followed by Galbraith, ‘St Edmundsbury chronicle’, pp. 51–6. See also Bury Chron., pp. xx, xli and nn. 2, 3, xlii; Gransden, Historical Writing [i], 400; Antonia Gransden, ‘Eversden, John (fl. 1294–1315)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Oct 2005 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/9006, accessed 2 Sept 2014]. College of Arms MS Arundel 30, f. 202. See pl. VIII. See above pp. 97–101.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

261

With regard to the first continuation, the contents show that its author was someone connected with the sacristy, not the cellary. It has a number of passages which relate especially to the sacrist’s office. For example, there is a detailed account of the dispute in 1285 between the king’s clerk of the market and the sacrist, at that time William of Hoo, over the sacrist’s right to hold the assize of weights and measures in Bury.43 Again, the chronicle reflects the sacrist’s responsibility for St Edmunds’ mint: he is exceptionally well informed about Edward’s recoinage of 1279, and records that in 1287 William of Hoo presented Richard of Lothbury at the Exchequer to be St Edmunds’ new moneyer.44 On the other hand, the second continuation seems to be connected with no specific obedience in the abbey, if the passage in the annal for 1300 about Eversden is discounted. However, there is a remote possibility that the author of the second continuation was Alan of Walsingham, chamberlain in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. As mentioned above, he had acquired two noble books of law for the convent from Master John of Bradenham, chancellor of Cambridge University in 1295.45 The second continuation shows some interest in canon law, but most noteworthy is a unique entry in the annal for 1297. It records that ‘a certain monk of Walden46 called Simon, having drunk deep at the fount of clerical learning, incepted at the University of Cambridge and taught canon law’.47 This is the only reference in the chronicle to Cambridge University. It was still very rare for a monk to graduate at either Oxford or Cambridge University. Gloucester college in Oxford, founded for the monks of St Peter’s, Gloucester, was not apparently thrown open to other Benedictines of the southern province until 1291.48 Although St Edmunds held property in Cambridge49 and, no doubt, some of the monks had contact with the university, there is no evidence that Alan of Walsingham himself did so. It must be admitted that there is no positive evidence that he was author of the second continuation of the chronicle.

43 44 45 46 47

48 49

Above pp. 70–1. Above pp. 63–8. Above p. 227. Walden, Essex, was a Benedictine abbey. ‘Quidam monachus de Waldena, Symon dictus, habundanter sciencie clericalis fonte potatus in universitate Cantebrigie incepit et docuit iura canonica’. Bury Chron., p. 140. Benedictines studying at Cambridge lived in scattered halls until the foundation in 1428 of a college of their own. D. R. Leader, A History of the University of Cambridge: volume I: the university to 1546 (Cambridge, 1988) pp. 48–50; Rashdall, Universities, iii. 295. For Benedictine scholars elsewhere during this period, see H. Wansborough and A. MarettCrosby, Benedictines in Oxford (London, 1997), pp. 11–29. Rashdall, Universities, iii. 185–6. Kalendar, ed. Davis, pp. 167–8 nos 158–60.

262

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

Sources of the second continuation A Bury chronicler was well placed to receive news of events of national importance. The abbot and convent received royal letters, and the abbot attended parliament and ecclesiastical convocations. St Edmunds itself was the scene of legatine council held by Ottobuono in 1267 after the issue of the dictum of Kenilworth.50 This, combined with the fact that the Isle of Ely, where the disinherited barons lay besieged, was less than thirty miles away, ensured that the first continuation had excellent information for this critical period.51 The second continuation similarly profited from the fact that in 1296 Edward held a parliament at St Edmunds and Archbishop Winchelsey held convocation there at the same time. Not surprisingly, the chronicler has a valuable account of Edward’s dispute with the clergy over his demand for a subsidy, and is the sole authority for the statement that Winchelsey published the bull Clericis laicos for the first time on this occasion. The chronicler follows this information with a good account of the subsequent course of the dispute.52 The many visitors to St Edmunds were potential bearers of news. The visits of King Edward and his entourage, which were especially frequent in the 1290s, provided the chronicler with excellent opportunities of obtaining news. Notice of a royal visit in the chronicle is often accompanied by an exceptionally detailed and graphic account of some current event. For instance, the first continuator has a full account of the affairs of Scotland and of Edward’s adjudication at Norham of the claims of the competitors for the Scottish throne in 1291 and 1292.53 If a monk or monks from St Edmunds attended the trial, as seems likely, he or they could have been among the chronicler’s informants. But the king, his son and daughters, with their households, had stayed for ten days dividing their time between St Edmunds and the abbot’s manor at Culford, in late April and early May 1292.54 Among those with the king were Florence, count of Holland (1256–96), who had been one of the competitors for the throne of Scotland, and Antony Bek, bishop of Durham (1283–1310/11), Edward’s chief advisor and negotiator in Scottish affairs. Possibly Bek, or a member of his household, kept in touch with St Edmunds after Bek’s departure. This is the more likely because less than a week later, on 8 May, Abbot John, at Bek’s request and with the convent’s consent, granted a corrody in the abbey to Bartholomew of Thetford, one of the bishop’s clerks:55 he was to have the same allowance of food and drink as that of a monk, and the abbot was to give him a robe each year, the same as a robe worn by one of the abbot’s clerks. The grant included an allowance for a

50 51 52 53 54 55

Above p. 31. Above pp. 31–2. Above pp. 163–72. Above p. 80. Bury Chron., p. 113. Above pp. 81, 83. CUL MS Mm. iv. 19, f. 50v.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

263

servant. The corrody was for Bartholomew’s lifetime, whether he were present or absent. The king was again at Culford and St Edmunds from 16 to 18 March 1294. After recording this visit the chronicler turns to the question of how Edward lost Gascony, about which he was very well informed. He relates that hitherto the king had shown himself to be like another Solomon – ‘energetic, magnificent and glorious in all his acts’. But now, alas!, he lapsed: he became infatuated with ‘unlawful love’ for Blanche, sister of Philip IV of France. (Edward and Blanche were first cousins and, therefore, within the prohibited degrees.) Having obtained a papal dispensation for marriage with her, Edward resigned Gascony to Philip, expecting to receive it back when Edward married Blanche. But Blanche, ‘the woman who was the cause of the trouble, wrote and told him that she did not wish to marry any man, especially such an old one. So Edward, through his thoughtlessness, lost the ancient inheritance of his forebears’. This story occurs in a few other chronicles of the period, but the account in the Bury chronicle is exceptionally detailed, and has that unique touch containing Blanche’s assertion that she did not wish to marry any man, ‘especially such an old one’.56 The projected marriage with Blanche is mentioned only briefly in the Worcester chronicle57 and at hardly greater length by Walter of Guisborough.58 Bartholomew Cotton, who had access to sources similar to those of the Bury chronicle gives a full account of the negotiations.59 But the closest parallel to the Bury chronicle’s account is in the chronicle of Peter Langtoft, canon of the Augustinian priory of Bridlington in east Yorkshire.60 A further characteristic of both the Bury chronicle and Langtoft’s chronicle is their frequent mention of Antony Bek, nearly always in favourable, even eulogistic, terms. Possibly Langtoft was using some lost life of Bek, or perhaps he was drawing on tales told by someone in Bek’s retinue or otherwise connected with the bishop.61 Despite his detailed account of the loss of Gascony, the Bury chronicler seems to have been sceptical about the story. He records that some people thought that Edward handed over Gascony to Philip IV so that it would be safe and secure while he himself was away, supposing he fulfilled his vow to go on crusade. The chronicler dismisses this idea as rash and offers another (historically correct) explanation: Edward forfeited Gascony because he was adjudged by Philip to be

56 57 58 59 60

61

Bury Chron., pp. 118–20. See Prestwich, Edward I, p. 380. Ann. mon., iv. 232. Guisborough, p. 242. Cotton, Historia anglicana, p. 232. Jean-Claude Thiolier, Édition Critique et Commentée de Pierre de Langtoft ‘Le Règne d’Edouard 1e’, i (CELIMA, Université de Paris XII: Créteil, 1989, pp. 260–1, the edition used here). See also The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, ed. and trans. Thomas Wright (RS 47, London, 1866–8, 2 vols). See Legge, Anglo-Norman in the Cloisters, p. 72; Legge, Anglo-Norman Literature, pp. 278–9.

264

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

a contumacious vassal:62 by the treaty of Paris of 1259, the king of England held Gascony as the vassal of the king of France; Philip wanted to treat the duchy like any other of the fiefs of France and to enforce his rights of sovereignty; Edward, on the other hand, resented any active interference. The climax came in 1293 when Philip summoned Edward to appear before the parlement in Paris: Edward rejected the summons and consequently forfeited the duchy. The Bury chronicler’s interest in the affair was, no doubt, stimulated by contacts with Antony Bek and/or his retinue, contacts, moreover, which must have supplied information. And the value to the chronicler of those contacts was manifested, as will be seen, in his accounts of later events. However, the chronicler’s exceptional knowledge of the crisis in Anglo-French relations in 1293 was surely because, as he himself records, Edward’s letters resigning the duchy were drawn up at St Edmunds and, in addition, ‘the king summoned the chancellor in Lent to come with the seal from London’.63 In fact, a royal mandate, dated 16 March at Binham, survives: it orders the chancellor (John Langton) to bring the Great Seal and a trustworthy clerk as secretly as possible to the king at the manor of the abbot of St Edmunds near Bury St Edmunds, the name of which, the mandate says, had slipped the king’s memory (Culford was meant), by 16 March at latest.

The Bury chronicle on Edward’s Flemish campaign Although Edward’s war with France to recover Gascony began in 1294, he was not free to lead a campaign himself until 1297 because of the Scottish rebellion. When he finally set out, it was to Flanders. He had made alliances with Guy of Dampierre, count of Flanders (1278–1302), and Adolph, count of Nassau, king of Germany (1292–8), and other men in Germany and the Low Countries.64 With their help he planned to attack the French from Flanders. The French, however, had already made major inroads into Flanders with the support of local people. The Bury chronicle’s description of Edward’s Flemish campaign is one of its best pieces of narrative.65 The accounts in other chronicles do not match it in vividness and detail. Perhaps the Bury chronicler was copying some now lost narrative, perhaps a newsletter, or perhaps he himself composed his account from oral information. Edward returned from Flanders, landing at Sandwich on 14 March 1298. He visited St Edmunds on his way north two months later on 9 May ‘and entertained the convent on the next day, which was a Saturday’.66 62 63 64 65 66

Foedera, i. 793 et seqq.; Rishanger, Chron., ed. Halliwell, pp. 140–1. For Edward’s relations with France at this period see Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 376–8. Bury Chron., p. 119; Cal. Chancery Warrants, p. 40. Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 392–4. See also the short notices in Rishanger, Chron., ed. Halliwell, p. 177 and in Flores, iii. 103, 296. For a few details not in the Bury Chronicle see Guisborough, pp. 315–16, 322–3. Bury Chron., p. 148.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

265

The chronicler may, therefore, have obtained a written account of the campaign or oral information from a member of Edward’s household. Another possibility is that he was indebted to someone connected with Antony Bek. The chronicler mentions Bek’s presence in Ghent early in 1298, and writes of him in very favourable terms. Bek’s itinerary is not completely known, but official records testify that he was with Edward in Ghent on 30 September and 4 November in 1297 and on 4 February in 1298.67 He returned to England with the king in March and was with him for most of April, accompanying him on his visit to St Albans on 26 April.68 The official records do not reveal Bek’s whereabouts in May, but it seems very likely that he accompanied Edward on his visit to St Edmunds. (Bek had been in the north with Edward and with him on the Scottish campaign that summer.) A chronological flaw in the Bury chronicle supports the view that the account of the Flemish war was written, so to say, at one sitting in 1298. The chronicler correctly records that Edward set sail for Flanders from Winchelsea on 23 August 1297 and arrived in the Zwyn estuary three days later.69 But, although he records the fighting which immediately broke out in Edward’s own fleet, between the men of the Cinque ports and the men of Yarmouth, he has nothing to say under 1297 about the opening of Edward’s campaign. Then, in the annal for 1298, he again mentions Edward’s crossing to Flanders and follows it with the full account of the war fought in 1297 and 1298.70 Edward had arrived late for the campaign and his army was too small. He was at once threatened with an attack by the French, who, by this time, had captured most of the principal Flemish towns. But, as the Bury chronicler explains, Edward, being ‘remarkably astute’ and ‘extraordinarily clever’, devised a ruse to make the French believe that his force was larger and better than it was.71 He sent on in advance his Welsh foot soldiers, ‘who numbered up to 30,000 men, with their lances erect and pennants flying’. The ruse succeeded, but Edward’s situation remained perilous. Having entered, and quickly left Bruges, he proceeded to Ghent.72 The chronicler describes that city in graphic terms: Ghent is a very strong and heavily fortified city, an impregnable fortress and an invincible place of refuge, surrounded by remarkable walls, ditches, palisades and moats. A thousand defensive towers dominate the city and the whole is fortified like a citadel. A siege causes no alarm unless the army is divided into four parts;

67 68 69 70 71 72

See Gough, Itinerary of Edward I, ii.; Bury Chron., p. 118. Fraser, Antony Bek, pp. 243–4. Bury Chron., p. 141. Bury Chron., p. 144. Bury Chron., p. 143. Guisborough, p. 315, gives the same number for the Welsh troops, but see Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, pp. 92–3. See Prestwich, Edward I¸ pp. 393–4.

266

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

and then one part cannot help another without winding in and out for fifteen days on account of the variety and numerous intricacies of the moats.73

Ghent may, indeed, have been impregnable, but the loyalty of the citizens to Edward was precarious and they became increasingly hostile to the English. Their chief weapon was treachery. The chronicler relates that on one occasion Edward left the city accompanied by his nobles ‘for the sake of amusement’;74 the citizens immediately barred the gates and began slaughtering the English trapped inside. They had blocked the streets with heavy bars and chains so that one Englishman could not help another. However, when a group of the Welsh soldiers (who were quartered in the suburbs) saw an Englishman killed, one of them ‘tore off his tunic, swam the river,75 crossed the palisade and unexpectedly rushed at the enemy killing three of them; he then swam back over the river and rejoined his fellows’.76 The English inside the city fought back against the Flemings and just managed to hold it until Edward’s return. The king rewarded the bravery and daring of the Welsh soldier with the gift of 100s. More and worse trouble arose with the cunning Flemings of Ghent early in 1298. They plotted to capture Edward and hand him over to King Philip. The chronicler describes the execution of their scheme. On 3 February, all the bells in the city fell silent. Then suddenly they rang out. At this signal, the bells of the neighbouring towns clanged in unison, and all the Flemish forces flocked together surrounding the walls of Ghent. Meanwhile, the citizens had barred and fortified the city gates, thus shutting out the Welsh and other foot-soldiers quartered in the suburbs. A massacre of the trapped English ensued. At length, the English and Welsh foot-soldiers outside the walls, by ‘a great and astonishing feat’, managed to burn the city gates with firebrands, enough to make an entrance; then, leaping through the flames and ashes, they came to the relief of Edward and his surviving forces. Now the slaughter of the citizens began and the burning of the city’s ‘noble monuments’. Edward attempted to restore order: ‘He appeared armed in public with a bodyguard of knights: it is said that the ballistic machines hurled missiles at him.’ On another occasion, when he ‘was riding through the streets, he trampled down a huge chain stretched across a street by clapping his spurs to his charger and rushing at it, not caring whether he and his horse fell’. When Edward had at length ‘manfully repressed [the Flemings’] insolence’, and peace was finally restored, the English foot-soldiers began looting the city’s riches and many were convicted and hanged for this. Indeed, ‘if Antony 73

74 75 76

Bury Chron., p. 144: ‘Est autem Gaunt urbs fortissima, ciuitas munitissima, castrum inuincibile, refugium indomabile, muris fossatis palis aquisque circumcincta mirificis. In ciuitate mille turres eminent defensabiles totaque castrensi robore premunitur. Obsidionem non timet nisi excercitus in quatuor partibus diuidatur. Nec potest pars parti subuenire propter magnas uariasque intricaciones aquarum nisi circumgirato xv. dierum spacio’. Bury Chron., p. 144: ‘Morante rege apud Gaunt quadam die exiit delectandi gracia cum magnatibus, …’. Ghent is on the river Lys. Bury Chron., p. 145.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

267

Bek, bishop of Durham, who often found pity in his heart for his always ready and devout countrymen, had not put a stop to the malice of a certain English magnate, nearly all the foot-soldiers of England would have been condemned to a shameful death’.77 The chronicler’s praise of Edward in this account may well have been heightened by the king’s pro-war propaganda, which has been discussed above.78 Edward’s visits to St Edmunds brought the chronicler into contact with such propaganda at first hand. Its influence is particularly apparent in the account of Edward’s Scottish campaign in the summer of 1296. It will be remembered that on his journey back the king held parliament in Bury in November (on which occasion he lodged in the town, not in the abbey itself). Antony Bek was with him. The chronicler’s description of the fall of Edinburgh castle to Edward combines precise detail with rhetorical flights, and ends with fulsome praise of Edward: In the province of Scotland called Loch Ness [presumably an error for Lothian] there is a famous and mighty fortress, built on the top of a high rock and strongly fortified with every military defence, called Maiden’s Castle, otherwise Edinburgh. Many Scotsmen fled to the shelter of this citadel because of its safety and strength. When the English army besieged the fortress it seemed impregnable. The English, however, heaped together a great mound of earth like a small mountain and on it put their machines, so that they could hurl carefully and accurately lumps of lead (which they used instead of stones) to the confusion of the citadel; low-lying places and even underground ones could be struck. See how all the elements combined admirably to serve our king! – the air was filled with an insupportable rain of metal which battered holes in the walls so that no place of safety could protect the besieged; the very ground did not seem solid and offered no firm foothold to the Scotsmen in battle, nor was there any land which once had been theirs now free of the warring English. There was a spring in the fortress which flowed continually, which now had dried up, so that there would be no safety for the besieged even in the innermost places of the castle. And thus the king of England succeeded in destroying every fortified place in Scotland in an extraordinarily short time.79 77

78 79

Bury Chron., pp. 146–7: ‘Et nisi dominus Antonius de Bek Dunelmensis episcopus qui plerumque compatriotis promtis ac piis compatitur visceribus, cuiusdam magnatis Angligeni extruncasset maliciam, omnes fere pedites de Anglia fuissent morte turpissima condempnati.’ Above pp. 79–82. Bury Chron., p. 132: ‘Est quidem in prouincia quadam Scocie que Lochenes (sic, for ?‘Lothian’) dicitur castellum precipuum et robustissimum, utpote in eminentis rupis uertice constitutum omni castrensi robore munitissimum, Puellarum siue Edineburth dictum. Ad huius castri refugium propter sui securitatem et firmitatem multi de Scotis confugerant. Obsesso igitur castro per Anglorum excercitum uidebatur quasi inexpugnabile. Angli tamen condensauerunt pregrandem terre cumulum quasi montulum, super quo machinis compositis massis plumbeis tamquam pro lapidibus ad loci predicti confusionem caucius et directius iacerent. Ecce nunc loca feriantur concaua, nunc subteranea. Eya cuncta regi nostro applaudenter subministrant elementa. Aer inportabilibus massarum iactibus quibus transuerberantur muri, nec loca tutaminis inclusos tueri preualebant. Terra[m] uero tamquam insolidam se prestitit dum numquam suis Scoticis uel pedem contulit in

268

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

No other contemporary chronicler records the capture of Edinburgh at such length and with such enthusiastic eloquence.80 The chronicler next records the submission of John Balliol later that summer, his captivity under open arrest in London and the incarceration of the other Scottish magnates in various cities throughout England.81 He then bursts into a paean on Edward and his victories: Thus the king of England reduced the whole kingdom of Scotland to his power and rule, and so obtained absolute power over England, Scotland and Wales, the former kingdom of Britain long torn and divided. Such a victory by any person of royal rank, achieved so swiftly in such a short time and in so great an emergency, could hardly be recalled. For savage wars raged against the king in Gascony, Wales and Scotland, and he fought engagements at sea to a happy issue everywhere and preserved faith and truth, even though his enemies outnumbered his ships by ten to one. In Wales he captured one prince and subdued another. In Scotland, as has been said, he triumphed nobly: the king of England put all Scotland under his English laws and ordained that it should be watched over and governed by his officials.82

The eulogistic tone of the passages on the fall of Edinburgh castle and the paean on Edward and his conquests are striking. They must have been composed before the rebellion of the magnates in 1297 and Edward’s subsequent reverses in Scotland, and with full knowledge of the proceedings of the November parliament in Bury St Edmunds. The chronicler’s enthusiasm for Edward and his Scottish campaign is the more remarkable in view of the fact that the parliament was the occasion of a bitter dispute between Edward and the clergy led by Winchelsey over the king’s demand for a subsidy.83 No other contemporaneous chronicle has similar passages in this context. Therefore, it seems possible that the Bury chronicler was subject to special influences at this time, perhaps an oral address by some royal servant, designed to persuade the clergy to accede to Edward’s demand by describing his spectacular success. Maybe the chronicler was influenced by the attitude of Antony Bek: he, together with Henry of Newark, archbishop-elect of York, and other curial bishops urged the clergy to grant a fifth.84 The royalist, eulogistic tone of the latter part of the second continuation of the Bury chronicle, could well, as has been suggested, be the result of contacts

80 81 82 83 84

bello solidatum, uel solum quondam proprium bellantibus Anglis non euacuatum. Fuit eciam predicto castello fons quasi perpetuo scaturiens qui tunc exsiccatus ita fuerat ut nec inclusis tuta fuerit interioris tuicionis. Obrui igitur omnem locum munitum Scocie sub inestimabilis breuitatis compendio consecutus est rex Anglie’. See Guisborough, p. 279; Rishanger, Chron., ed. Halliwell, p. 160; Flores, iii. 98, 288; above p. 255. Bury Chron., p. 132. Bury Chron., p. 133. Above pp. 163–72. Fraser, Antony Bek, pp. 112–13; Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 161–2; Reg. Winchelsey, i. 537; C and S, II, ii. 1148–52. Above p. 170.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

269

with the king and his court and with Bek and his entourage. Whatever the continuator’s debt to the bishop, it did not prevent him from inserting, as the penultimate item in his chronicle, verses bitterly attacking Bek for holding a visitation of Durham cathedral priory, a visitation which Bek sought to defend by appealing to canon law, and to Bek’s enforcement of his rights through violence.85 The inclusion of these verses serve as an excellent example of the chronicle’s episodic nature. In order of priority the interests of fellow Benedictines took precedence over those of the king and his friends and supporters. The chronicler had no overall scheme to give thematic unity to his work.

The monks’ book collection and scholarly studies By the end of the Middle Ages St Edmunds had one of the largest book collections among the Benedictine houses of medieval England; it owned about 2100 books.86 This collection was the result of steady growth. At the beginning of the thirteenth century the monks’ collection cannot have exceeded 300 books. We know this partly from the book-list compiled in about 1200 recording the titles of books in the monks’ collection. The list is preserved on a separate quire bound at the end of a glossed copy of Genesis, the Song of Songs and other texts in Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 47 (ff. 117–119v). It lists about 240 books, but has some duplicates and does not include St Edmunds’ total holding.87 It is impossible to estimate how many more the monks acquired in the course of the thirteenth century. The problem is compounded because during the revolt of the town against the abbey in 1327 many learned books were looted, besides service books, registers and other archives. In the subsequent proceedings in the king’s court against the rioters, the prosecution alleged, on the abbot’s behalf, that the following books were stolen: ‘20 missals, 24 portable breviaries, 12 bibles, 20 psalters and ten diurnals’, and ‘seven two-volume books of decretals.’88 Since 85

86 87

88

Bury Chron., pp. 161–3 and n. 1. For this episode see Guisborough, pp. 346–51; Robert of Graystones, Historia de statu ecclesiae Dunelmensis, 1214–1336, in Henry Wharton, Anglia Sacra, sive, collectio Historiarum …, de Archiepiscopis et Episcopis Angliae … ad annum 1540 (London, 1691, 2 pts), i. 749 et seqq. See Sharpe, in Shorter Catalogues, pp. 43–98; Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, pp. 228–85 and pls LVIIIA–LIXB. The list is printed with commentary in Sharpe, Shorter Catalogues, pp. 52–87. See also ibid., pp. 46–7; Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, pp. 230–1, 258 no. 18 and pl. LXXIIA; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey, i. p. 138 and nn. 263–4, and pl. II. ‘… necnon cistas forceria et carulas ipsius Abbatis ibidem similiter fregerunt, scilicet viginti cistas, triginta forceria, quadraginta carulas etc. et calices aureos et argenteos libros … viginti Missalia, viginti et quatuor Portiforia, duodecim bibulas, viginti psalteria, decem Jornalia, semptem Paria decretorum, decem paria decretalium et alios plures libras diuersa[?rum] scientiarum et voluminum’. The text is printed in: Pinch. Reg. i. 150 (from CUL MS Ee. iii. 60 at f. 64v); Mon. Angl., iii. 108–9, n. (from BL MS Harley 638, ff. 116–118v passim). See also Memorials, ii. 330; James, Abbey, p. 163; Sharpe, Shorter Catalogues, p. 47.

270

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

many twelfth-century books survive from St Edmunds, it seems likely that the abbot’s attorneys in the proceedings may have exaggerated the loss. Nevertheless, thirteenth-century books, or fragments of thirteenth-century books, surviving from St Edmunds are not plentiful, which indicates that the convent’s collection grew less fast in the thirteenth century than it had in the twelfth. It was not until the early fifteenth century that a library was built to house the convent’s books. Previously they had been kept in various places. A few were in the church, a few in the vestry, others in the refectory, the sacristy and elsewhere, but most were in cupboards and chests in the cloister. Monks had their own individual locked chests (carola) and cupboards (armaria) where they stored books in their possession: whether all monks had these private repositories, or only scholarly monks, is not clear.89 According to the statutes issued in 1280 for the reform of the customs observed in the abbey, when a monk died his chests and cupboards in the cloisters were to be handed to the monks.90 A note by Henry of Kirkstead indicates that this practice was still observed in the time of Prior Edmund Brundish (c. 1346–61), during the abbacy of William of Burnham (1335–61).91 Most of the books were ancillary to the monastic vocation – biblical commentaries, collections of sermons and legal texts. A monk needed to be learned in the scripture in case he was called upon to preach to the convent in chapter at Matins, or even on a feast day or on other special occasions to a mixed congregation of monks and lay people. One of the two candidates for the abbacy during the disputed election after Abbot Samson’s death in 1211 preached in chapter to rally support: but he aroused derision because his sermon showed such ignorance of the scriptures.92 Learning was also necessary for those monks responsible for the instruction of novices.93 Moreover, knowledge of canon and civil law was indispensable to a monk appointed to represent St Edmunds in the abbey’s numerous suits in ecclesiastical courts and in the papal curia. However, it is apparent that some monks studied not only because it was their religious duty,

89

90

91

92 93

In the thirteenth century carola meant a locked chest belonging to a monk for his private use, but by the fifteenth century it denoted a cubicle in the cloisters which was assigned to a scholarly monk as a study. See Dictionary of Medieval Latin, p. 285. See also the next note. ‘… carolas, cistas siue alias clausuras perscrutandas, certe cum Priore designentur persone per capitulum. Ante quorum inuestigacionem sic faciendam ad carolas, cistas siue alias ipsius defuncti seu defunctorum firminas nullus accedere uel eas audeat aperire.’ CUL MS Gg. iv. 4, f. 193/127. See Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, pp. 403–4; above p. 43. See the memorandum by Henry of Kirkstead, ‘Ex registro sacriste et ex antiquo consuetudinario tercij prioris in turpi quaterno … de relictis post fratrem defunctum de quibus prior ex consuetudine antique vendicare poterit et secundum decretum capituli temporibus dominorum W. abbatis et E. de B. prioris’ providing that ‘armariola et carolas conferenda claustralibus’. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 67–67v. Thomson, Archives, p. 9 item 6 includes the sacrist’s register and the third prior’s customary among the lost archives. Electio, pp. 56–7, 58/9. See Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 160. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 64.9, pp. 282/3.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

271

but also simply because they were interested. This was obviously the case with the monk ‘A’, whose interest in many branches of learning was discussed above.94 Light is thrown on the monks’ books in the late thirteenth century by those books which survive and by the early fifteenth-century Benefactors’ List. The monks’ legal collection may be taken as an example. There is a remarkable shortage of legal texts surviving from St Edmunds datable to before c. 1300. Yet there was no lack of interest among the monks in legal matters. It will be recalled that in 1301 the chamberlain, Alan of Walsingham, acquired two noble books of decrees and decretals, both highly prized by the monks, having taken great trouble in the transaction and paid a high price.95 Abbot Samson for his part, as Jocelin of Brackland records, studied the decrees and decretals (‘whenever he had time’), and came to be regarded as a wise judge in ecclesiastical cases.96 In fact, the monks acquired many law-books in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. For instance, William Rockland, prior 1287–1312, gave the convent four law-books, one of them a Corpus iuris in five volumes: one of these probably still survives and is now Oxford, All Souls College, MS 49, a giant-sized copy of Justinian’s Digestum vetus, copied and illuminated in Italy c. 1300.97 It is a beautiful volume, originally with twenty-three illuminated miniatures, though eighteen of them have been excised. The script and pen decoration are Italian, but the illumination appears to be French. At about this time ‘Master John of Battisford’ (‘de Batesford’), a doctor in both civil and canon law, retired to St Edmunds as a converse (‘monachus conversus’).98 He brought his library with him and gave the convent nine fine law-books,99 including a Corpus iuris, a superb copy of Gratian’s Decretum with gloss (‘Decreta optima cum apparatu’), a Rosarium in a very beautiful volume (‘… in pulcherimo volumine’)100 94 95 96 97 98

99 100

Above pp. 34–6. BL MS Harley 27, f. 4. Above p. 227. JB, pp. 33–4. See Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 68. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 13v. See Watson, Cat. All Souls College MSS, 105; Sharpe, Shorter Catalogues, p. 92. The term conversus has more than one meaning, depending on its context. Here it denotes a man who took the habit in an English Benedictine monastery at a mature age. Though he did not go through the usual course of training and study and, if a layman, took no orders, he was treated as a fully-fledged monk. See Knowles, MO, pp. 419–20, 439, 719–20 (Appendix XXIII). Cf. Harvey, Living and Dying, p. 18 and n. 45. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 15v; Sharpe, Shorter Catalogues, pp. 92–3. Sharpe, Shorter Catalogues, p. 93 item 11, cites Guido de Baysio, Rosarium seu Apparatus ad Decretum, printed Strassburg, 1472 etc., and J. F. von Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur der canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf Papst Gregor IX (Stuttgart, 1875, 3 vols). See also Christopher Wordsworth and Henry Littlehales, The Old ServiceBooks of the English Church (London, 1903), p. 66. They define it as the Creed carved on a rosary, citing a fifteenth-century will which describes one (Somerset House Wills, Vox, f. 61b): ‘a rowle [roll] of vii salmes and latany closed in a bagge of rede velwett with the payre of bedis [beads] carven with the crede’. Cf. Latham, Word-List, p. 411, col. 2, under rosa. The term Rosarium seems to have had more than one meaning, see Dictionary of Medieval Latin, p. 2853.

272

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

and a copy of the Speculum iudiciale in very beautiful volumes (… ‘in pulcherrimis voluminis’). The value of these books and the rest of Battisford’s collection was estimated at 100 marks. It is worth noting that a John of Battisford was active as a royal justice in eyre between 1293 and 1311; in 1293 he sat with John of the Isle at Cattishall, the place near Bury St Edmunds outside St Edmunds’ banleuca, where royal justices held their sessions for cases relating to the Liberty.101 It is tempting to identify this John of Battisford with the man who became a converse in the abbey. However, such an identification would be doubtful because he is never referred to as ‘Master’ in official records, unlike certain other known academic lawyers in royal service. The acquisition of this impressive collection of law-books explains the lack of twelfth- and thirteenth-century copies: the newly acquired books replaced the old ones. The latter may have needed replacement for one, or both, of two possible reasons: perhaps their glosses were out of date, or they had been so heavily annotated by generations of monk-scholars that there was no room for more commentary. The evidence supporting these suggestions is provided by some of the books from St Edmunds still extant; the monastic bookbinders used leaves from a few discarded and dismembered law-books as pastedowns and flyleaves. Thus, four bifolia of a handsome, folio-sized glossed copy of Justinian’s Digestum vetus, executed in the first half of the twelfth century probably at St Edmunds, were used as a pastedown and flyleaves in the copy of the Digestum vetus, now All Souls College MS 49. The latter was a suitable replacement for the twelfth-century copy since it had the most up-to-date gloss (that of Accursius, d. 1263/4), besides being more strikingly beautiful.102 Other examples survive of the discarded law-books being re-used as pastedowns and flyleaves in other books about various subjects, not necessarily legal ones, much, indeed most, of the original text having been erased and the vellum scraped clean. For instance, leaves from a workaday thirteenth-century copy of the Digest and from a similar copy of the Codex are preserved as the flyleaves and pastedowns in a number of the monks’ extant books.103 They must have belonged to a multi-volume copy of the Corpus iuris and are heavily annotated in more than one hand. Another example is preserved in the volume, College of Arms MS Arundel 30, ff. 213v, 214v, a miscellany of texts (including the best copy of the Bury Chronicle) which contains fragments of a decretal collection. The re-used leaves comprise a bifolia bound sideways. Enough of the erased text survives to show that they

101

102 103

See Paul Brand, ‘Batesford, John (d. 1319)’, ODNB, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1683, accessed 2 Sept 2014]. Battisford is in East Suffolk. Brand does not mention the session at Cattishall which is recorded in two of St Edmunds’ registers: BL MS Additional 14847, ff. 58–9; and CUL MS Ff. ii. 29, ff. 9–10. For sessions of royal justices at Cattishall see Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 35, 64, 94, 125, 131 n. 3. Watson, Cat. All Souls College MSS, p. 104. See BL MSS Royal 10 B XII, 12 F XV; Bodl. Lib., MS e Mus 8, Cambridge, Pembroke College, MSS 62, 69, 85, 102. See also Gransden, Catalogue, pp. 236–7, 261 no. 25, 265 no. 32.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

273

belonged to a neatly written volume of c. 1200 of decretals, probably of the kind circulated among canonists in the late twelfth century, designed to keep them up to date with recent papal legislation.104 These palimpsests of legal texts are not the only evidence of the interest of the scholarly monks in learning. Biblical exegesis also engaged their attention. A good example of this concern is provided by the volume now Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 7.105 This volume comprises two elements which were apparently bound together in the early thirteenth century. The second element is a commentary on the Gospel of St Mark, incomplete at the end (ff. 228–267v), but the first element (ff. 1–267v) is what concerns us here. It is of particular interest because it once belonged to Robert Grosseteste. Probably sometime between 1230 and 1235, when Grosseteste was lecturer (lector) to the Franciscans in Oxford (before becoming bishop of Lincoln in 1235), he borrowed from St Edmunds a copy of St Basil’s commentary on the Greek Hexaëmeron. Since Grosseteste had at that time only a very rudimentary knowledge of Greek (though he may have become more proficient later), the text was no doubt in the form of a Latin translation. He himself wrote a commentary on the Hexaëmeron;106 therefore, it was probably whilst working on this commentary that he borrowed St Edmunds’ copy. In exchange for the loan Grosseteste pledged the manuscript now Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 7, but it appears he never returned the borrowed Hexaëmeron, as St Edmunds did not give the pledged manuscript back to him. It remained with the monks until the dissolution; on the back of the front flyleaf Henry of Kirkstead has written a contents’ list; the classmark, .B.231., is on the right. This volume is of particular interest because it contains the reports (reportationes) made by students attending the set of lectures (glosses) delivered by Masters in the Paris schools on the Gloss. The latter evolved in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries and became a standard textbook for the students;107 the masters’ glosses were on separate quires and were probably circulated separately as booklets.108 104

105

106 107 108

See C. R. Cheney, ‘A fragment of a decretal collection from Bury St Edmunds’, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, n.s. 8 (1978), repr. in Cheney, The Papacy and England 12th–14th Centuries (London, 1982), VII, pp. 2–4; [Black], Catalogue of the Arundel Manuscripts, pp. 44–5. The erased leaves were re-used for historical, topographical and other entries. Ibid., pp. 56–7. For descriptions of MS 7 see James, Cat. Pemb., p. 7; S. H. Thomson, The Writings of Robert Grosseteste (Cambridge – New York, 1940), pp. 22–6; Beryl Smalley, ‘A collection of Paris lectures of the later twelfth century in the MS. Pembroke College, Cambridge 7’, The Cambridge Historical Journal, 6.1 (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 103–4; Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, 258 no. 19. The interest of this MS is greatly enhanced because it contains the notes by Grosseteste (f. 1v), reproduced in Thomson, The Writings of Robert Grosseteste, pl. facing p. 23; Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, pl. LXXIIIB, Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pl. VII. See R. W. Southern, Robert Grosseteste, The Growth of an English Mind in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1992), pp. 203–11. Smalley, ‘A collection of Paris lectures’, pp. 104–5. Many such composite volumes, collectanea, survive from thirteenth-century monasteries.

274

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

The wide intellectual interests of some of the monks are excellently illustrated by the many collectanea which survive from the abbey. Collectanea, the term applied to books of a distinct bibliographical genre, proliferated in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Most collectanea were rather untidy, small books, consisting of collections of treatises, each comprising a booklet. Some booklets occupied just one quire, some two or more. Usually each booklet was in a different hand, though occasionally more than one booklet, or even the whole book, might be by one scribe. Although generally a collectaneum was unified by one overall subject, often theology or homiletics, each booklet contained a different work relating to that subject. Collectanea were principally composed of booklets assembled by individual monks in the course of their studies. A monk would work on his pile of booklets, often adding his own notes in margins and in other spaces. The booklets probably remained unbound and would have come into the convent’s possession by the monk’s gift or on his death (when the convent was entitled to all a monk’s possessions). The booklets might be bound to form a book, a collectaneum, at any time. However, not all collectanea represent the discrete collection of an individual monk. A monk-librarian (armarius) might assemble notes and booklets in the convent’s possession regardless of their provenance, having himself acquired additional items, and have them bound together. Some of the surviving collectanea were assembled by Henry of Kirkstead who had them bound, prefixed lists of contents, numbered the leaves and gave the book a classmark. He was, for example, responsible for constructing the collectaneum now Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 87, mentioned above because it includes excerpts from ancient, late classical and early Christian authors in the hand of the scholarly monk ‘A’.109 But a collectaneum is not necessarily preserved bound as a single book. It may well form part of a composite volume, and be accompanied by one or more other complete books. For instance, a thirteenth-century collectaneum is a component of a tripartite volume now Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 85, which was bound in the early fifteenth century.110 A few examples will be given of collectanea datable c. 1300. Thus, Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 100, is a homiletic collectaneum with three main sections, each in a different hand.111 The first and third sections contain excerpts from the Old and New Testaments and other texts suitable for sermons. The second section is more remarkable. It comprises what appears to be skeleton sermons apparently composed in Bury St Edmunds, perhaps by a monk or secular priest.

109 110 111

See G. S. Ivy, ‘The Bibliography of the manuscript book’, in The English Library Before 1700, ed. Francis Wormald and C. E. Wright (London, 1958), pp. 53–5; and Robinson, ‘The “Booklet”’, pp. 46–69. Above p. 246. James, Cat. Pemb., pp. 75–6; Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, 261 no. 25, and n. 262. James, Cat. Pemb., p. 93; Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, p. 260.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

275

The text is in Latin but includes two couplets of proverbs in Middle English.112 Rendered in modern English they read: Whoever has lain long in sin, Now is the time to cease. Then is too late. Then the wolf [is at the gate].

These couplets are among the earliest known examples of the use in England of rhymed vernacular proverbs in a sermon. The purpose of such jingles was to catch the attention of the congregation, many of whom would have been better acquainted with the vernacular than with Latin.113 Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 100 also has a good medieval, possibly early fourteenth-century, binding. It is of bevelled boards covered with white tawed skin. The strap for closing the book is gone, but the pin and clasp are intact. There are two placefinding markers with silk tassels.114 Another typical collectaneum is Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 101. The contents are miscellaneous but mainly homiletic, theological and legal. It was probably assembled and bound in the fourteenth century. One of the items is a list of Anglo-Saxon legal terms with short explanations in French, in a hand of c. 1300. The list is fitted into a space at the end of a copy of some decretals (ff. 69–83): a similar but a fuller list of such terms, with the explanations in Latin, in the hand of the monk ‘A’, was mentioned above. So also was the list of Hebrew names with interpretations in Latin which constitutes one booklet in the present volume (ff. 94–131).115 Another item in Pembroke College MS 101 (ff. 86–93v) is more unusual. It is a booklet containing a biblical commentary which seems to have previously been at St Benet of Hulme. This is indicated by a prayer in French written in pencil on a flyleaf (f. 92v). It asks God to support (mayntene) the king and queen and their children, and the abbot and convent of St Benet’s and all their friends and benefactors.116 The question of how this booklet came into the possession of St Edmunds elicits intriguing speculation. It may be noted that when the townsmen rose in revolt against the abbey in 1327, the sacrist, William of Stowe, escaped their violence by scaling the town wall, with

112 113 114

115

116

Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 100, f. 114v. Siegfried Wenzel, Verses in Sermons ‘Fasciculus Morum’ and its Middle English Poems (Cambridge, MA, 1978), pp. 4–5. A large number of St Edmunds’ books retain their original bindings or remnants of them. They preserve evidence of the care taken of them and their not-infrequent repair. See J. M. Sheppard, ‘Some 12th-century bindings from the library of Bury St Edmunds Abbey: preliminary findings’, in Bury St Edmunds, ed. Gransden, p. 194 and nn. 195–203. Above pp. 246–7. See also M. Beit-Arié and R. A. May (eds.), Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library: Supplement of Addenda and Corrigenda to Volume I [A. Neubauer’s Catalogue] (Oxford, 1994); A. Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and in the College Libraries of Oxford (Oxford, 1886, 1906, 2 vols). Quoted James, Cat. Pemb., p. 95.

276

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

the help of a carpenter and a ladder.117 Moreover, a group of monks on holiday on St Edmunds’ nearby manors also fled to St Benet’s. Not all these monks returned to St Edmunds immediately after the revolt had been suppressed.118 William of Stowe himself delayed a while. St Benet’s presumably would have harboured Stowe and the others because it was bound to St Edmunds by a deed of confraternity (conventio) or of ‘confederacy.’ Many other religious houses, especially in the thirteenth century, were similarly bound together by deeds of confraternity for security in disturbed times – David Knowles compared such deeds with modern insurance policies.119 St Edmunds was in confraternity with Westminster,120 as well as with St Benet’s and possibly also with St Albans.121 The Cronica Buriensis which was compiled c. 1400, but contains earlier sources, cites the deed of confraternity between St Edmunds and St Benet’s which was wide ranging. It stipulates that in time of trouble caused by fire or war, one half of the monks, on the advice of the abbots and convents of both, could migrate to the other until their own house was restored to its former condition. While refugees in the host monastery, they were to receive the same food and clothing and be treated as part of that community. Whether or not St Edmunds and St Benet’s had a connection closer than that prescribed in similar deeds of confraternity is a vexed question. According to ancient tradition St Benet’s had had such a connection with St Edmunds since the foundation by Cnut of the Benedictine monastery at Beodericisworth,

117 118 119 120

121

‘Cronica Buriensis’, in Memorials, iii. 39. See Gransden, Legends, Traditions and History, p. 243 and n. 2. Gransden, Legends, Traditions and History, p. 243 and n. 41. Knowles, MO, pp. 474 and n. 1, 475. Abbot Hugh of Northwold and William du Hommet (de Humez), abbot of Westminster (1214–22), and their convents sealed a deed of confraternity binding their abbeys together for mutual support in time of need. It is printed in Memorials, iii. 251–2 and in Mon. Angl., i. 271, from a copy in the register of William Curteys, abbot of St Edmunds (1429–46). See ibid., p. 252 n.a. His register is in two parts, both now in the British Library: Part I is BL MS Additional 14848, and Part II BL MS Additional 7096. See Thomson, Archives, pp. 135–9 nos 1289, 1290; Davis, Medieval Cartularies, rev. edn, nos 129, 130. For the deed of confraternity see BL MS 7096, f. 151v. It is not mentioned in Thomson, Archives, but is in Mason, Westminster, p. 79. I have found no actual deed of confraternity between St Edmunds and St Albans. Nevertheless, their relations were close. Matthew Paris has much information about St Edmunds and shares its indignation at royal and papal encroachments on the privileges of these two great exempt abbeys. He twice explicitly equates the rights of sanctuary enjoyed by both churches (CM, ii. 289, iii. 413). However, the abbots might come into conflict if it was a matter of precedence. In 1163 at the Council of Tours, Hugh I, abbot of St Edmunds, had an acrimonious dispute with Robert de Gorron, abbot of St Albans (1151–66), concerning precedence. The latter claimed precedence because St Alban was England’s protomartyr, while Abbot Hugh argued that St Edmund was England’s first royal martyr. See Matthew Paris, GASA, i. 177–8; C and S, i. pt ii. 847 and nn.; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 22.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

277

the later Bury St Edmunds. We know that this occurred in 1020.122 The monastery was to replace the minster served by secular clerks tending the shrine of St Edmund.123 The late thirteenth-century chronicler of St Benet’s alleged that the new monastery was colonized with half the community of St Benet’s, who took with them half its chattels, books and the like.124 In the record of this event, and of the consecration in 1032 of the new church by Archbishop Æthelnoth, there is no mention whatever of any involvement on the part of St Benet’s.125 Indeed, the story seems incompatible with the fact that at least some of the secular clerks at Beodericisworth became monks of the new foundation. However, it may be that they simply joined the monastic community formed principally of monks from St Benet’s.126 There is reliable evidence indicating that there was contact 122

123

124

125

126

This date is inferred from the contemporaneous marginal note by the year 1020 in the Easter Tables in the Bury Psalter, BAV, Reg. lat. MS 12, f. 17v. The latter was executed probably in the second quarter of the eleventh century. The note reads: ‘Hinc deniq[ue] presul Aelfwin’ sub comite Thurkyllo constituit regula[m] monachorum s[an]c[t]i Eadmundi monasterio; et sub voluntate licentiaq[ue] Cnutoni (sic) regis p[er]manet usque in presens’’. See Thompson et al. (eds), New Palaeographical Soc. Facs, ii, pls 166–8 and commentary; André Wilmart, Codices, i. 30–5. See also Elzbieta Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, 900–1066, A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles, ed. J. J. Alexander, ii (London, 1976), no. 84; Licence, ‘The origins of the monastic communities’, p. 46. For details of the evidence concerning the origins of the monastery which, however, unfortunately omit the evidence in the Bury Psalter, see Gransden, ‘Legends and traditions concerning the origins of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds’, pp. 81–104 passim. Corrected Gransden, ‘Alleged incorruption’, p. 159 n. 43. D. N. Dumville, English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950–1030 (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 35–77 passim, also overlooked the evidence in the Psalter. For further discussion of the foundation of Bury, see Licence, ‘The origins of the monastic communities’, pp. 52–9. For the Anglo-Saxon minsters see John Blair, ‘Secular minster churches in Domesday Book’, in Domesday Book: a Reassessment, ed. Peter Sawyer (London, 1985), pp. 104–42. For references to the many other studies by John Blair on minsters see John Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford, 2005), bibliog. pp. 527–8, and index p. 592 under minsters. See BL MS Harley 1005, f. 35v; Memorials, iii. 2; Register of St Benet of Holme, ed. West, i. 36; Gransden, ‘Legends and traditions concerning the origins of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds’, pp. 97 n. 4, 103. The contemporaneous note opposite the entry for the years 1032–35 in the Easter Tables in the Bury Psalter (BAV, Reg. lat., MS 12, f. 17v), reads: ‘Hic sub Cnutono (sic) rege constucta basilica beate memorie archip[re]sul Aegelnoðus consecravit eam in honore Chr[ist]i et S[an]c[t]e Marie S[an]c[t]ique Eadmundi’. Printed Thompson et al. (eds), New Palaeographical Soc. Facs (above p. 211 n. 29). The date 1032 for the consecration of the church at Beodericisworth is accepted by: Wilmart (Codices, i. 31); the interpolator of St Edmunds’ mid-twelfth-century copy of the Worcester chronicle (Oxford, Bodl. Lib., MS Bodl. 297), printed Chron. of John of Worcester, ii. xlvi–liii, 643 and Memorials, iii. 1–2; the compiler, probably Henry of Kirkstead, of the vast collections of miracles of St Edmund in Bodl. Lib., MS Bodley 240, p. 353. Cf. Memorials, i. 342, and Horstmann, Nova legenda, i. 604. The De Miraculis attributed to Hermann ‘the archdeacon’ names six of the secular clerks. See De Miraculis Sancti Eadmundi, i. 30 § 1; Gransden, ‘Composition and authorship of the De miraculis’, p. 34 and nn. 155–7; Gransden, ‘Traditionalism and continuity in the

278

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

between St Edmunds and St Benet’s in Cnut’s time. Cnut’s charter granting extensive privileges to St Edmunds is a forgery but contains some authentic material.127 Cnut’s grant of certain estates to St Benet’s is genuine.128 But the two charters have similarities, notably the witness lists, which show that they are related to one another. This relationship is best explained by postulating that the scribe of Cnut’s original charter to St Edmunds did not copy the text within the later accretions, but copied passages from the charter for St Benet’s. There is another indication of an early link between the two foundations. It is in the Vatican Psalter, the beautiful manuscript executed in the second quarter of the eleventh century.129 The calendar preceding the psalms has already been referred to, and it and the litany and some of the twenty-two prayers following the psalter prove that the manuscript was made for St Edmunds. However, the compiler of the prayers drew on many sources, one of which would seem to have originated at St Benet’s. Three of the prayers invoke St Benedict, whose feasts also occur as major feasts in the calendar.130 The first hint in an historical narrative of a connection between St Edmunds and St Benet’s is datable to c. 1100. It is in a tendentious account of the foundation of Norwich priory issued on behalf of Herbert Losinga (bishop of Norwich 1090/1–1119) to dispose of St Edmunds’ privilege of exemption from episcopal control – that is the authority of the bishop of Norwich.131 The tract contains

127

128 129 130

131

last century of Anglo-Saxon monasticism’, JEH, 40 (1989), pp. 159–207, repr. Gransden, Legends, Traditions and History (the text used here), esp. pp. 42–5, 77–9. Sawyer, Charters, pp. 293–4 no. 980. Printed e.g. Mon. Angl., iii. 137–8. See Simon Keynes, ‘Cnut’s earls’, in The Reign of Cnut: King of England, Denmark and Norway, ed. A. R. Rumble (London – Rutherford, 1994), pp. 48–9, and n. 39; M. K. Lawson, Cnut. The Danes in England in the Early Eleventh Century (London – New York, 1993), p. 239; Harmer, Writs, pp. 433–5. Many copies of forgery survive in St Edmunds’ registers. Sawyer, Charters, p. 295 no. 984, printed e.g. Mon. Angl., iii. See Keynes, ‘Cnut’s earls’, pp. 48–9 and n. 39; Lawson, Cnut, p. 239; Register of St Benet of Holme, ed. West, i. 1–2. See above p. 277 and nn. 122, 125. André Wilmart, ‘The prayers of the Bury Psalter’, Downside Review, 47 (1930), pp. 201, 206 no. 13, 208 no. 16; Kalendars, ed. Wormald, pp. 242 (21 March), 246 (11 July). St Etheldreda of Ely also occurs but less prominently. There seems to be no independent evidence supporting the legend that twelve Ely monks joined the twelve from St Benet’s to form the monastic community at Beodericisworth. See LE, ed. Blake, p. 155 and n. 2; Licence, ‘The origins of the monastic communities’, p. 60. Discussed and printed in V. H. Galbraith, ‘The East Anglian see and the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds’, EHR, 40 (1925), pp. 222–8. The text is preserved in BL MS Harley 1005, f. 197–197v, and is copied by the same scribe who copied the Bury Customary in the same manuscript (ff. 102–19) and some other items, and has been tentatively identified as the prior, Robert Russel (1258–80, see above pp. 35–6). The heading reads: ‘Ista narracio inventa fuit scripta in biblia quam Herebertus episcopus reliquit ecclesie Norwicensi que tum in plerisque locis, tum per cronica Bede, tum per narraciones vulgares potest argui falsitatis’. The text adds a paragraph of refutation at the end. The text has annotations by Henry of Kirkstead in the margins. For more on Herbert of Losinga, see T. Licence, ‘Herbert Losinga’s trip to Rome and the bishopric of Bury St Edmunds’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 32 (2012), pp. 151–68.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

279

a fictitious account of St Edmunds’ origins, alleging that Cnut founded it as a cathedral served with secular clerks, and that the first prior of the community was a monk from St Benet’s. Despite the unhistorical nature of the narrative, it probably contains some authentic information.132 To summarize, the evidence surveyed indicates the likelihood that St Edmunds and St Benet’s were on close terms well before the late thirteenth century. However, with regard to the booklet now folios 86–93v in Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 101, all that can be concluded with any certainty is that it was at St Benet’s in the early fourteenth century, but at St Edmunds by Henry of Kirkstead’s time. The collectanea so far discussed must have been assembled and bound in the fourteenth century and probably do not represent the booklets belonging to any one particular monk. However, two collectanea survive to which a monk’s name is attached. They were given to the convent by Brother Thomas de Scrouteby (Scratby in east Norfolk). Nothing is known about him except what these collectanea reveal. They suggest that he lived possibly in the first half of the fourteenth century, and show that he was a monk of wide interests. Unlike the examples so far mentioned neither of his extant collectanea were theological or homiletic. One, now Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 46, in its present state mainly comprises works in French.133 Henry of Kirkstead gave the volume the classmark .A. 222., listed the contents on a flyleaf and noted that Scratby was the donor (f. iiv). He listed six items, but only four remain. The last items were in Latin and comprised a copy of Ptolemy’s Centilogium (a list of Assyrian, Persian, Greek and Roman rulers), with a commentary, and a work on the childhood of St Mary and concerning Christ and His passion (‘de infancia S. marie christi et passione eius’). The four surviving works in the volume are each in a different hand or hands; one is in Latin and three are in French. The Latin item is a glossed copy of the Song of Songs. The first of the three items in French is the Anglo-Norman translation by Elias of Winchester of the Disticha de moribus (‘Couplets on Manners’), a collection of apothegms wrongly attributed to Cato in the Middle Ages.134 The Latin Disticha was highly regarded both as a Latin primer and as a guide to moral behaviour. Three French translations of the Disticha, including that by Elias of Winchester, were made sometime in the thirteenth century.135 One of them has been very tentatively ascribed to a monk 132

133 134

135

For the most recent discussion of the tract see T. Licence, ‘The Norwich narrative and the East Anglian bishopric’, Norfolk Archaeology, 45 pt II (2007), pp. 198–204. Licence provides a detailed analysis of the tract’s contents and evaluates its historicity. However, he is too severe on Galbraith’s ground-breaking commentary on the tract. See James, Cat. Pemb., pp. 45–6; Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, pp. 233–5 passim and nn. 64–6, 260–1 no. 24 and n. 261; Sharpe, ‘Reconstructing the medieval library’, p. 209. See Legge, Anglo-Norman in the Cloisters, p. 16, citing ‘L’afaitement Catun translate par Elye de Wincestre nebst den Überarbeitungen Everarts und eine Anonymus’, Ausgaben und Abhandlungen (Marburg, 1886); Legge, Anglo-Norman Literature, p. 182. Printed ‘Elie’s de Wincestre, eines Anonymous und Everarts Übertragungen der “Disticha Catonis”’, ed. E. Stengel, Ausgaben und Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der romanischen Philologie, 47 (1886), without mention of Pembroke MS 46. For the anonymous AngloNorman translation of the Disticha see Le Livre de Catun, Anglo-Norman Text Soc., plain

280

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

of St Edmunds, which at that time had a strong tradition of Anglo-Norman literature.136 Following Elias’ translation of the Disticha in Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 46 (ff. 1–5v) is a collection of proverbs in French (ff. 7–9v). The volume ends with a copy of the Bible History, a well-known sacred history in verse by the twelfth-century priest, Hermann of Valenciennes.137 The other collectaneum given by Thomas of Scratby is now Additional MS 6860 in Cambridge University Library. Its contents are of especial interest because they comprise a collection of twenty-five treatises on such subjects as chronology, mathematics, astrology and astronomy.138 Henry of Kirkstead wrote a table of contents on a flyleaf and the classmark .A.229. (f. ivv), and noted on the first page (f. 1) that Scratby was the donor. Moreover, under the last item of the contents’ list is inscribed: ‘Liber monachorum sancti Edmundi de dono Fratris Thome de Scrouteby’. But the inscription has been erased. Each booklet in the volume is in a different hand. A number of the items are of well-known works, for example: the Imago mundi attributed to Honorius Augustodunensis (another copy from St Edmunds is now BL MS Royal 8 F XIV, ff. 184–94v); the treatise on the astrolabe commonly attributed to Messahalla; Robert Grosseteste’s Compotus correctiorius; and three treatises attributed to John de Sacrobosco – the Algorismus, the Compotus ecclesiasticus and the Tractatus de sphaera. The present binding of the volume is a good late fourteenth- or fifteenth-century one. It is of white tawed skin on bevelled boards. There are the remains of a pink leather strap, but the clasp and pin are missing. Scratby obviously had scientific interests, and his interest in astronomy recalls an unusual feature of the Bury chronicle. It was normal for a monastic chronicle to record memorable natural occurrences such as storms, floods and droughts. A chronicler might also record an eclipse, especially if it were regarded as a portent. What is striking about the Bury chronicle is the large number of eclipses and partial eclipses which it records in the period from 1258 to 1297.139 It notices one

136

137

138

139

texts ser., ii, Le Livre de Catun, ed. Tony Hunt (London, 1994). For the Anglo-Norman translation by Elias and that by Everard of the Disticha see ibid., pp. 1–3. This Everard is not the Everard of Gateley who revised Adgar’s Miracles of the Virgin. See Legge, AngloNorman in the Cloisters, pp. 13–17, and Legge, Anglo-Norman Literature, pp. 190, 267. Legge, Anglo-Norman in the Cloisters, pp. 16–17. For the tradition of writing in AngloNorman at St Edmunds see ibid., pp. 6–18; Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182– 1256, pp. 130–3, 135–6. See Johan Vising, Anglo-Norman Language and Literature (London, 1923), updated by Ruth J. Dean, for the twelfth-century Bible History in French verse by Hermann of Valenciennes. A typed definitive description of CUL MS 6860 by Jayne Ringrose is in the Manuscripts Room of Cambridge University Library. Miss Ringrose kindly allowed me to use this description in my ‘Descriptive Catalogue’, pp. 269, 284 nn. 290–6. See ibid. for references which mention that the present manuscript has hitherto escaped the notice of bibliographers and other scholars. See A. E. Roy and E. L. G. Stones, ‘The record of eclipses in the Bury Chronicle’, BIHR, 42 (1970), pp. 125–33. I am also indebted to Professor John Parkinson for his help in interpreting the information in the Bury Chronicle.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

281

solar eclipse, that in 1261, and eleven lunar eclipses or partial eclipses – those in the years 1258, 1265, 1270, 1276, 1280, 1281 (two eclipses), 1287, 1288, 1291 and 1297, respectively. During that period there were altogether sixty-five lunar eclipses, but thirty-six of these would not have been visible at Bury St Edmunds because they were below the horizon. Twenty-five, therefore, remain which are not recorded in the chronicle. Perhaps this was because they were not observed either on account of poor weather conditions such as cloud or mist, or because they were very low in the sky, or because only the merest slice of the moon was visible. The entries in the chronicle recording some of the eclipses were clearly based on personal observation. Thus, it records: in 1265 ‘about midnight on Christmas eve … there was a total eclipse of the moon; it was blood-coloured for three hours in the night’; in 1276 ‘there was a total eclipse of the moon on the night of the feast of St Clement (23 November); the moon was so completely eclipsed for two hours that scarcely a trace of it remained visible’; in 1280 ‘on the night of the feast of St Edward, king and martyr (18 March), there was a total eclipse of the moon, which was blood-coloured for nearly two hours’; and in 1288 ‘on 11 October there was a total eclipse of the moon which lasted approximately from midnight to daybreak’.140 The entry recording the eclipse in 1297 includes a graphic account of the accompanying storm: on the second night after Palm Sunday (9 April) there was a terrible storm before Matins; thunder, lightning, fire-balls and hail came in turn with unheard of violence. The hailstones were immense and astonishing to witness, for they were as big as a man’s thumb. After the night hymn there was an eclipse of the moon and then the storm started again raging with renewed violence.

Clearly a monk, or more likely a number of monks, observed these eclipses. As the chronicle treats none of them as portents, interest in them at St Edmunds would seem to have been objective. However, as Lionel Stones and A. E. Roy have pointed out, it is inconceivable that a monk, or a rota of monks, sat up night after night watching the sky in the hope of seeing a lunar eclipse.141 Therefore, the monks must have had means of forecasting eclipses. This must have been done by use of appropriate astronomical tables. Such tables could have reached St Edmunds in the mid-thirteenth century. A curious feature of the chronicle’s record of two of the eclipses is that they are dated according to the Hegira (more correctly ‘Hijrah’, the Mohammedan era, reckoned from the date (A.D. 622) when Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina): the solar eclipse of 1261 is dated ‘the Kalends of April at the end of the fourth month of the Hegira, in the third hour of the day’; and the lunar eclipse of 1265 is dated ‘in the year 664 of the Hegira, on the fifteenth day of Rabia, the third month’.142 These references certainly indicate that the tables used derived from some Spanish astronomer since he would have used the Mohammedan dating system. Possibly 140 141 142

Bury Chron., pp. 33, 62, 71, 91, 140, respectively. Roy and Stones, ‘The record of eclipses’. Bury Chron., pp. 25, 33, respectively.

282

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

further study of Scratby’s scientific collectaneum would result in the identification of the source, but that is a task which must be left to a scholar conversant with medieval astronomy.

Book production With the exception of All Souls College MS 49,143 assuming that the convent acquired it during John of Northwold’s abbacy (which is far from certain), the extant books and fragments of books known to have been executed for, or acquired by, the convent in the second half of the thirteenth century are plain texts, with little or no ornament. Some illuminated books may of course have been looted by the rioters in 1327.144 But as many beautiful books executed in the twelfth century survive from St Edmunds, it seems more likely that the extant plain texts are fairly representative of the books added to the convent’s collection in the second half of the thirteenth century. Presumably no monk was sufficiently skilled as an illuminator to execute a de luxe book, and possibly because of the abbey’s straitened circumstances, the convent was reluctant to buy such books, or to commission professional scribes and illuminators to execute them on their behalf. It will be remembered that Alan of Walsingham cleverly arranged matters so that the convent did not have to pay cash for the two law books which he acquired.145 Faced with a choice, the convent may have preferred to add useful rather than beautiful books to its book collection. It is a moot question to what extent the monks themselves copied and ornamented good quality but plain books with little or no illumination. Possibly shortage of money encouraged their scribal activity. Certainly, the legislation of the General Chapter lends weight to the suggestion that monks in general were increasingly engaged in copying books on their own initiative. A decree of the General Chapter of 1243 forbade any monk to copy or illuminate any book, whether great or small, without licence of his superior.146 The decree also confirms the impression given by the collectanea that monks were assembling their own private book collections: it ordains that if a monk executed a book, it was to be for the use of the monastery. The General Chapter of 1277 and the Provincial Chapter of 1343 repeated this legislation: the repetition indicates that the initial decree had not stopped the growing tendency among monks to have their own books. However, on a monk’s death his books, along with his other possessions, should have joined the conventual book collection.147 It is not, of course, possible to decide on palaeographical grounds alone whether a particular manuscript was copied by a professional scribe or by a 143 144 145 146 147

Above pp. 271–2. See Memorials, ii. 330. Above p. 269. Above p. 227. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, ii. p. 51 § 3, and Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, pp. 233–4. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. p. 38 § 10, p. 74 § 2. Above p. 270.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

283

monk. Other evidence is needed. In the case of manuscripts from St Edmunds copied in the second half of the thirteenth century a clue lies in copies of the Bury chronicle. John Taxster states that he copied the chronicle now preserved in BL MS Julius A1 and reveals that he was a monk of St Edmunds.148 No such concrete evidence is known with regard to the two continuations. However, the prologue to the Winchester chronicle implies that at St Swithun’s the chronicle was written year by year by monks, not by professional scribes.149 It seems unlikely that the practice differed in other monasteries. The early draft in College of Arms MS Arundel 30 of the annals from 1285 to 1296 in the first continuation of Taxster’s chronicle has the variations of hand and ink which would result from the piecemeal mode of composition recommended in the Winchester prologue. Just possibly secular clerks in the sacrist’s office were told to assemble the material for the chronicle and then to copy it on to the end of the existing text. However, it seems more likely that monks themselves did the copying. This obviously raises the possibility that the first continuation and, by analogy, also the second continuation, were the work of more than one monk. The palaeography of thirteenth-century manuscripts from St Edmunds has yet to be studied. However, one hand, which occurs in the first continuation of the chronicle and in a number of manuscripts, would seem to be the work of one and the same scribe. It is an elegant formal cursive script (Anglicana formata).150 The scribe of this hand apparently wrote the following: some of the later annals of the first continuation of Taxster’s chronicle in College of Arms MS Arundel 30 (ff. 152v–190);151 all the copy of the Bury chronicle in the Moyses Hall MS;152 the commentary on St Luke’s gospel in Bodl. Lib., MS Bodley 412;153 the collectaneum of geographical and religious texts, now Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 66A;154 and the copy of the Dominical Sermons of Guillaume Pérault, prior of Lyons (d. 1271), now Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 32.155 Moreover, part of two other manuscripts seem to be in this scribe’s hand: the collection of theological treatises in BL MS Royal 11 B III (ff. 281–328);156 and the collection of sermons in Bodl. Lib., MS Bodley 225 (ff. 219–20v). No

148 149 150 151 152 153

154 155 156

Above, p. 244. Ann. mon., iv. 355. Above p. 255. M. P. Brown, A Guide to Western Historical Scripts from Antiquity to 1600 (London, 1990), pp. 80–1, 98–9. See above and pls IV, VI, VIII. Above p. 256. See Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, p. 262. For Bodl. Lib., MS Bodley 412, see Falconer Madan, H. H. E. Craster et al., A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford (Oxford, 1895–1953, 7 vols in 8), i. 301 (2308). M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1909, 2 vols). James, Cat. Pemb., p. 34. See Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, pp. 261–2. For a full description of BL MS Royal 11 B III see G. F. Warner and J. P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections (London, 1921, 4 vols).

284

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

doubt further research would discover other manuscripts arguably by this scribe. However, to be reasonably sure that all the examples are by one scribe, careful study by a specialist in medieval palaeography would be necessary and even a professional palaeographer would find snags, since a scribe’s handwriting may change with age157 or illness or if he changed his pen, and a scribe working in the same scriptorium may write an almost identical script with that of a colleague. In view of the paucity of ornamentation in Bury manuscripts datable to the second half of the thirteenth century, it is noteworthy that of the texts apparently copied by our scribe, three – the copy of the Bury chronicle in the Moyses Hall MS, Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 32, and part of the chronicle in College of Arms MS Arundel 30 – have figures, mostly grotesques, drawn in some margins. They are all in ink outline, uncoloured in Arundel 30 and the Moyses Hall MS, but usually tinted in Pembroke 32. There are three altogether in Arundel MS 30, in the bottom margins of ff. 165v, 166, 170: they depict respectively a crouching monk, a jolly little monk crouching and playing bat and ball, and a charming griffin striding along. The Moyses Hall MS has many more such figures, in bottom and lateral margins. The style of the crouching monk on f. 165v in Arundel MS 30 resembles the style of the grotesques in the Moyses Hall MS so closely that it must surely be by the same artist. The figures on ff. 166 and 170 are most probably also by that artist. Since the Moyses Hall MS has the appearance of a presentation or commissioned copy and, if so, probably left the abbey soon after completion, the grotesques in it were very likely drawn soon after the copying of the text was finished. It is less easy to find stylistic similarities between the figures and grotesques in Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 32 and those so far discussed. Many of them are of faces or busts of people, some grotesque, others realistic, poking out from the edge of the text. It is not unlikely that these belong to a later period. With regard to the ornamentation of texts apparently copied by our scribe, the most remarkable example is the full page illustration in BL MS Royal 11 B III. On f. 289 is a picture of the crucifixion illustrating a copy of the Lignum Vitae (‘The Tree of Life’) by St Bonaventura.158 St Bonaventura (1221–74) was a 157

158

A good example of this is provided by another Bury manuscript, BL MS Royal 10 B XII, a collectaneum of tales and commonplaces, all defective or unfinished, mainly in mid-fourteenth-century hands, and some misbound. There are many marginal notes in various hands, some in plummet, others in ink. The hand of ff. 25v–99v (a collection of excerpts and maxims) is never good and gets worse as it proceeds, and by f. 42v it has become extremely uneven and scratchy. An explanation of the deterioration is offered in a neatly written note written in plummet below: ‘Since Nigel seems to be ailing he should give this book to Alan’ (‘cum Nigellus sit infirmus hunc librum det Alano’). See Gransden, ‘Exhibition catalogue’, pp. 239–40. The note does not betray whether the scribes Nigel and Alan were monks or hired copyists. It is observable that the handwriting of Henry of Kirkstead, the monk of St Edmund and bibliographer who copied and/or annotated many texts himself, shows a marked tremor in the period from 1370–8 (thereafter there are no known examples of his hand surviving) when he was an old man. See Rouse and Rouse (eds), Catalogus, pp. lxxiv–lxxvii. Paul Binski, Becket’s Crown. Art and Imagination in Gothic England 1170–1300 (New Haven – London, 2004), pp. 217, 311 n. 35. Reproduced, b./w. on p. 217, and here pl. XII.



MONKS AS CHRONICLERS AND HISTORIANS UNDER ABBOT JOHN

285

Franciscan friar and distinguished theologian who in 1257 was chosen MinisterGeneral of the Order and in 1273 was nominated by Gregory X as cardinalbishop of Albano. When studying at the University of Paris one of his teachers was the Englishman, Alexander of Hales, and when he toured the various Franciscan provinces, England was one of those which he visited.159 That Royal MS 11 B III is datable to the late thirteenth century would seem to indicate that a scribe made a copy of the Lignum Vitae within a generation or so of its composition. It was probably from the friary at Babwell, in the suburbs of St Edmunds, that St Edmunds gained knowledge of the Lignum Vitae; maybe the librarian (armarius) borrowed a copy from Babwell.160 The illustration shows a conventional representation of a leafy cross, with the appropriate text fitted around its six main branches and four lesser ones. It is drawn in ink outline and some outlines are tinted with colour wash, and some outlines are against a background of coloured infilling. Thus, the waves at the foot of the cross are tinted with blue, the tree trunk has infilling in two shades of green, and the decorative, formalized branches of the cross are also tinted with green and are set against a scarlet and plum red background. Christ’s loincloth is tinted with purple and the crown of thorns is tinted with scarlet. The quality of the drawing of Christ’s body and of the tree is mediocre, but Christ’s face is very well drawn, with tender feeling. Despite the mediocrity of the rest of the picture, the general effect is striking. Unlike the figures and grotesques mentioned above which must have been drawn after the text was completed, the crucifixion picture was executed before the writing of the text. The copy of the Lignum Vitae published by the Franciscans in S. Bonaventurae Opera Omnia, viii (Quarachi, 1898) opens (opposite p. 68) with a full-page image in pen outline of the tree as a crucifix with labels on the tree and branches and other captions elsewhere. At the bottom left is the caption ‘Oh Cross, tree of salvation, watered by the living fount’ (‘O crux, frutex salvificus, vivo fonte rigatus’), and at the bottom right, ‘the sweet-scented flower of the Cross, the longed-for fruit’ (‘Cuius flos aromaticus, fructus desideratus’). The whole image is more elaborate than that in Royal MS 11 B III. There is no reason to suppose that the artist of this picture also drew the marginal figures and grotesques in the other four manuscripts discussed above. It is, however, tempting to identify him with John of Woodcroft, the monk who painted the choir murals, as discussed above.161 The character of the picture in Royal MS 11 B III resembles that of a mural in so far as it is not an illumination but is in firm outline, with colour wash tinting and infilling. At any rate, there is good evidence that at least one monk was an active copyist.

159 160 161

See Farmer, Saints, pp. 45–6; Donald Attwater, The Penguin Dictionary of Saints (Harmondsworth, 1965, repr. 1966), pp. 70–1. For St Edmunds’ relations with the Franciscans at Bury St Edmunds see above pp. 15–23. See above pp. 221–2.

24 Afterword – The Deaths of Abbots Simon and John The death of Abbot Simon and of Prior Robert Russel Simon died on 9 April 1279 on the abbot’s manor of Long Melford. He was buried on 4 May in the beautiful Lady Chapel which he had built.1 Nothing seems to be known about his funeral. In fact, he remains a shadowy figure. However, the entry about him in the Benefactors’ List gives some idea of how he was remembered by the monks. The List survives in the kitchener’s register which, though compiled soon after 1425, is obviously based on earlier sources. The List was included in the register because the latter records the sum of money with which the kitchener was provided to pay for the pittance on the anniversary of each individual, and records the source of the money. In some cases the List records little besides this essential information, but fortunately the entry for Simon is fuller. His anniversary was marked by a ‘great ringing of the bells’, an honour reserved for the most important benefactors. The monks’ pittance on that day was paid for by revenue from the property Simon had acquired in Whepstead. The entry continues: Simon, having destroyed the prior’s round chapel where St Edmund lay before his translation, built the chapel of the blessed Mary in the same place: his relatives (parentes) and friends bore the cost. In place [of the round chapel], the chapel of St Stephen was assigned to the prior and the relics from the prior’s [former] chapel devoutly stored there. He relinquished to the convent the 40s which his predecessors had received annually from the manor of Cockfield. He also ordained, when he was almoner of St Edmunds, that the clerks of the almonry should eat wheaten bread, not, as formerly, barley bread, [to be paid for] from rents which he had acquired. This same abbot bequeathed £100 to the convent.2

1 2

Bury Chron., p. 68. Simon’s burial in the Lady Chapel is recorded in the Benefactors’ List. See below, and James, Abbey, p. 148. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 9: ‘Pro Abbate Simone qui destructa rotunda capella Prioris in qua sanctus Edmundus primo ante translacionem suam requieuit, Capellam beate Marie a fundamentis in eodem loco sumptibus suis parentum et amicorum edificauit. Capella vero sancti Stephani in loco illius assignata fuit priori et in ipsa Capella reliquie Capelle Prioris deuote sunt recondite. Hic quadraginta solidos predecessores sui percipiebant annuatim de manerio de Cokefeld Conuentui resignauit. Hic eciam ordinauit quando erat Elemosinarius sancti Edmundi vt de redditibus quos adquisiuit clerici elemosinarie panem comederent frumenti qui prius pane vescebantur ordeaceo. Item Abbas legauit Conuentui

THE DEATHS OF ABBOTS SIMON AND JOHN

287

Robert Russel, who had been prior throughout Simon’s abbatiate, probably did not survive him long. He resigned from office voluntarily on 25 January, early in John of Northwold’s abbatiate because of infirmity.3 The date of his death is unknown. The Benefactors’ List’s entry for him is short: his anniversary was marked with the ‘simple ringing of bells’ (‘simplex sonitus’) and the convent had a pittance worth 22s: it was paid by the chamberlain from rents acquired by Robert in the town.4 This entry belongs to the category of a short record of the essential information required by the kitchener. It seems a meagre tribute to an exceptionally able monk who had devoted his career to the faithful service of the abbey. We can see it as a foretaste of the scathing treatment accorded to Simon’s abbatiate under his successor, John of Northwold. Viewed objectively, the evidence provided by the sources tip the balance in Simon’s favour. The criticisms contained in the reforming statutes considered above5 reveal comparatively trivial faults and in any case may refer to the situation in the later years of Simon and Prior Robert, when they were both old men. Overall, Simon’s abbatiate was one of success and achievement. The abbey’s quarrels with the Friars Minor and with Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester, were settled, the abbey’s troubles during the Barons’ War overcome, and various measures taken which seem to have alleviated the abbey’s financial problems. Positive achievements under Simon were the building of the splendid new Lady Chapel and the notable improvement in the abbey’s provisions for poor relief. At the same time, there was an advance in the care of the convent’s archives, and a revival of its historiographical tradition, particularly the composition by John Taxster of a full, and latterly contemporary, monastic chronicle which, as we have seen, was the starting point of valuable continuations.

Last Years and Death of Abbot John It would appear from documentary evidence that Abbot John remained active until the year of his death. However, this appearance could be deceptive. Councillors, officials, clerks, proctors and attorneys always played an important part in an abbot’s execution of his duties and in the management of his affairs. No doubt Abbot John’s reliance on such men increased with advancing years. Nevertheless, the responsibility would have remained his. Therefore, the documentary

3 4

5

suo Centum libras. Sepultus est in Capella beate Marie ad pedes Willelmi Abbatis’. The latter abbot was Abbot William of Burnham, 1335–61. Bury Chron., p. 71. See above p. 47. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 16v: ‘Pro Priore Robertio qui viginti et duos solidos annui redditus adquisiuit in villa sancti Edmundi soluendos per Camerarium pro pitancia conuentus in die anniuersarij sui’. Robert had held the office of chamberlain at the beginning of his career. See above, p. 5. For tenements of the chamberlain in Southgate Street and Sparhawk Street see Redstone, ‘Town rental’, pp. 212, 213. See above, pp. 39–46.

288

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

evidence will be considered here as it stands. It shows him latterly preoccupied with a number of important matters. As has been discussed above, Abbot John’s concern for the spiritual exemption of St Edmunds’ and banleuca was demonstrated in 1296.6 Another case in which Abbot John was particularly involved, in the capacity of papal judge delegate, concerned the exemption of St Augustine’s, Canterbury.7 The exemption of the abbey itself was not in dispute, but Abbot Findon planned to extend the exempt jurisdiction to cover the forty or so parish churches appropriated to St Augustine’s. Findon’s project had papal support, but was incompatible with Winchelsey’s claim to jurisdiction over those churches. A prolonged dispute resulted. On 22 August 1299, Boniface instructed the abbot of St Edmunds, the abbot of Waltham and the abbot of Westminster, to cite the archbishop of Canterbury to appear in person or by proctor before an ecclesiastical judge (auditor) to answer complaints by the abbot and convent of St Augustine’s concerning the abbey’s exemption and liberties.8 Boniface confirmed the exemption of St Augustine’s and sent copies of his bull to the aforementioned abbots on 6 February 1300.9 He appointed the same abbots as conservators of the bull in a mandate of 27 February.10 In response Winchelsey warned them in a monition of 29 June not to act in a case to which the abbey’s exemption did not apply.11 The question of the claim of St Augustine’s to exemption for its churches became a cause célèbre and the resulting dispute was accompanied by acts of violence.12 The last mandate in Boniface’s register involving Abbot John is dated 28 March 1301 (that is, eight months before John’s death).13 It informs the cardinal Bishop of Tusculum (John Boccamazza Frascati, 1285–1309), the bishop of London (Richard of Gravesend) and (John) abbot of St Edmunds, that John of St Clare, canon of London, lawyer and formerly advocate there, and chaplain of Gentilis (de Monteflorum), cardinal priest of SS. Silvester and Martin, had told the pope that he was acting to safeguard the rights of exempt monasteries, especially those of St Augustine’s, and that this had aroused the hostility of the archbishop; when John of St Clare had asked for licence to visit the Apostolic See, the archbishop had threatened his person and property with dire consequences. As a result, John of St Clare, fearing for his bodily safety, had asked for papal protection. Therefore, Boniface instructs the addressees to ensure that for as long as John of St Clare lived neither the archbishop of Canterbury nor the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

See above, p. 165. Denton, Winchelsey, pp. 180–3 and nn. for refs. Reg. Boniface VIII, ii. 479 no. 3201. Reg. Boniface VIII, ii. 626–7 no. 3466. Cal. Papal Letters, i. 584–5. Reg. Winchelsey, i. 393–4. Rose Graham, ‘The conflict between Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury, and the abbot and convent of St Augustine’s, Canterbury’, JEH, 1 (1950), pp. 44–7. See also Denton, Winchelsey, p. 182. Reg. Boniface VIII, iii. 59 no. 4019.

THE DEATHS OF ABBOTS SIMON AND JOHN

289

cathedral chapter of St Paul’s should harm John or his property. They were also to protect him on his journey to Rome by judicial means, ‘summarily, however, and fully without judicial formality, so that justice is done.’ It was Abbot John’s individual concern to ensure the salvation of his soul after death. When he reformed St Saviour’s hospital in 1294, he ordained that one of the seven chaplains should pray for him and his successor by name.14 Later, at a time when he must have known that he would soon die, his foundation of the Charnel chapel indicates that his mind was increasingly occupied by thoughts of the afterlife: the two chaplains were to pray for his soul, among others.15 No doubt he hoped that these good deeds would help him win divine favour. Moreover, he made generous provision for the celebration of the anniversary of his death. He assigned rents which he had acquired in Southery with 20s for pittances, and 20s to be given to the poor in alms.16 Abbot John had obtained an indulgence from Honorius IV on 28 August 1286, giving him leave ‘to dispose at will of those movable goods which he had in his possession at the time of his death, and which did not belong to the altar of his monastery (‘que altarium ipsius monasterii non fuerunt’).17 Furthermore, on 18 October 1290, Edward had issued a licence, upon the petition of Abbot John and the convent, for John to make a testament in respect of his own goods and chattels, and allowing his executors to have free disposition of them after they had given security for debts to the king.18 Abbot John’s will is lost, but we know the names of his executors: Hervey of Stanton (‘de Staunton’), Robert of Eriswell (‘de Ereswell’), Ralph of Thorney (‘de Torny’), Robert of Northwold and Robert of Walsham. With the exception of Hervey of Stanton, these were all well established and wealthy landowners with substantial holdings not only in west Suffolk, but also elsewhere in East Anglia and even further afield. One of them, Robert of Northwold, may well have been related to Abbot John. The others may also have been his relatives or at least belonged to families connected to them.19 Hervey of Stanton was one of a small group of distinguished professional lawyers whose roots were in Suffolk.20 Abbot John died on 29 October 1301. Surprisingly, this event is not recorded in the Bury Chronicle, but luckily it is recorded in the so-called Cronica Buriensis,21 the chronicle composed at St Benet’s of Hulme by a monk of St Edmunds while staying there.22 No account of Abbot John’s funeral survives, but 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Above p. 232. CUL MS Ff. ii. 33, f. 86. Above p. 223. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 9. See below p. 291. Reg. Honorius IV, col. 433, no. 613. CPR, 1281–92, p. 389; Letters Close dated 6 July 1302. CCR, 1296–1302, p. 585. For the Northwold family and its connections with St Edmunds see Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 165–6 and nn. for references; above pp. 7–8. For details of Hervey of Stanton’s career, see above pp. 93–7. Cron. Bur., p. 36. For the composition of the Cronica Buriensis see above pp. 256–9. It will be recalled that the sacrist, William of Stowe, and some other monks of St

290

INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE

it would have been a grand affair, attended by a throng of people, both lay and clerical, and by secular and ecclesiastical magnates and by the heads of the religious houses in the region. Again, the Cronica Buriensis is helpful. It preserves a copy of the letter from William of Rockland, prior of St Edmunds (1287–1312), to Nicholas of Walsham, abbot of St Benet’s of Hulme (1275–1302), inviting him to the funeral, so that ‘you do not forsake in death him whom in life you held in affection’.23 And in a letter addressed to Abbot Nicholas and the convent of St Benet’s, William informs them that the election of Abbot John’s successor was to be held on 3 January 1302, and the letter ends: Wherefore, we require and humbly ask in Christ, the goodness of your reverend father and ruler, and of the monks, our fellow brethren, on that day to pray to the Most High that He give us grace, so that the election is pleasing to God, and conduces to the honour of our church, and to our utility and salvation.24

John was buried in front of the ‘little altar’ in the choir, which, as mentioned above, he had restored and beautified.25 Abbot John occupies a distinguished place in the history of St Edmunds abbey. His relations with his monks, unlike those of some of his predecessors, appear to have been good, and he and the convent together, supported by a powerful bureaucracy of clerks and lawyers, managed to weather the difficulties of the times and to adapt to contemporary social and political conditions. Despite the fact that serious troubles were brewing for St Edmunds, as for some other great monasteries, Abbot John deserves the appreciative obituary notice for him in the kitchener’s register:26 For Abbot John the first, who gave and assigned to the convent on the day of his anniversary each year 20s, and to the poor on that day 20s from the rents which he

23 24

25 26

Edmunds took refuge at St Benet’s during the attack on the abbey by townsmen in 1327. ‘ut quem in vita tenuistis affectu ipsum in morte dilectio non deserat paterna’. Cron. Bur., p. 36. ‘Quare vestrae reverendae paternitatis ac dominationis, necnon et mutuae fraternitatis bonitatem requirimus et rogamus humiliter in Christo, quatenus dicto die Altissimum orationum suffragiis exorare dignemini, ut nobis gratiam taliter eligendi concedat quod (ad) Dei cedat beneplacitum, et ecclesiae nostrae honorem, et ad nostrum utilitatem ac salutem’. Cron. Bur., pp. 36–7. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 9–9v. See James, Abbey, p. 148 and n. The entry in the Kitchener’s register reads thus: ‘Pro abbate Johanne primo, qui dedit et assignauit Conuentui in die Anniversarij sui annuatim viginti solidos et pauperibus eodem die viginti solidos de redditibus per eum adquisitis in Suthereye. Item legauit conuentui sancti Edmundi Centum et sexaginta solidos et quinque marcas. Item Chorum fecit fieri et depingi per manus cuiusdam monachi sui dompni Johannis Wodecroft cuiusdam pictoris Domini Regis. Item Capellam Carneli in Cimiterio fundauit et dotauit e consensu Prioris et Conuentus sub cuius concavo ossa mortuorum qui prius in Cimiterio circumquaque de sepulcro eiecta nuda iacuerunt decetero poni constituit. Item Capellam sancti Botulphi construxit. Sepultus est coram paruo altari in choro. Item legauit conuentui sancti Edmundi centum et sexaginta.’

THE DEATHS OF ABBOTS SIMON AND JOHN

291

had acquired in Southery. Item, he bequeathed to the convent of St Edmunds 165 shillings and 5 marks. Item, he had the choir made and painted by the hand of one of his monks, Dom John of Woodcroft (‘de Wodecroft’), a certain painter of the Lord King.27 Item, he founded and endowed the Charnel chapel in the cemetery with the consent of the prior and convent, in the crypt of which the bones of the dead were to be placed – bones which formerly had been thrown from their graves and scattered all over the place in the cemetery. Item, he built the chapel of St Botulph.28

Deservedly, his anniversary was marked by a great ringing, a thunderous clash, of bells.

27 28

Note that the text is corrupted here, see above p. 220. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 6.

Appendix I The identity of the abbot’s justices, Henry of Guildford and Henry of Shenholt (in 1287) [See above p. 72] Henry of Guildford A pension of four marks p.a. is recorded in the sacrist’s register, CUL MS Additional 6006, f. xviijv. This information enabled Paul Brand to identify him. I now quote from Paul Brand’s letter to me, with his kind permission: There are two contemporaries called Henry of Guildford: Henry Gerard of Guildford (who was a clerk of John de Lovetot) and Henry Marshall of Guildford (who was a clerk of Solomon of Rochester and later a Common Bench justice), and they are not always adequately distinguished in contemporary sources. Fortunately it is possible to be certain that the man who appears in your list is Henry Gerard of Guildford, for in Hilary term 1294 he sued the abbot of Bury for twenty marks arrears of this very annuity of four marks a year which had been granted to him by the abbot at 12 kal. February 12 Edw. I (21 January 1284) at Culford: TNA, CP 40/103, m. 127d. His connexion with John de Lovetot went back to at least 1276 and he was chosen as an auditor by John’s executors in 1296; he had previously been a clerk of master Richard of Staines. He was convicted of misconduct while in Lovetot’s service and imprisoned in the Tower in 1290 but was ransomed for 100 marks.

Henry of Shenholt (‘de Schineholt’) Paul Brand identifies him in a letter to me which I quote, again with his kind permission: Henry de Schineholt was a clerk in the service of Solomon of Rochester, the senior justice of the ‘southern’ eyre circuit of the eyre, from 1281 onwards (and there is a reference in a complaint about him at 1287 Hertfordshire eyre which shows him writing a plea roll there at the dictation of his senior colleague, Robert of Preston), but after Rochester’s disgrace in 1290 he passed into the service of his successor as senior justice of that circuit, John of Berwick, in whose service he is still to be found at the time of the 1299 Cambridgeshire eyre. I think the name may be derived from a place name in Buckinghamshire (he is stated to have been from Shenholt in Bucks in a Kent assize of 1203: TNA, JUST 1/1323, m. 43) but I have not found it in the English Place Name Society volume. An earlier namesake was sued for land in Bledlow in the 1232 Bucks eyre (TNA, JUST 1/62, m. 24d)

294

APPENDIX I

and our Henry held land there and in nearby High Wycombe, Horsenden and Monk’s Risborough. He also in the mid-1290s acquired land in Kent at Shoreham and Farningham and by the time of his death in 1300–1 held property also in London and in North Lambeth. In 1277 he was instituted to the Devon living of Portlemouth at the presentation of Alan fitzRoald and was still holding the living in 1297 when he received a clerical protection.

Appendix II The monks’ dietary regime: their food and drink Recently the subject of diet – when people had their meals and what they ate and drank – has attracted much scholarly attention. Because of the nature of the evidence much of the work has inevitably concentrated on the later Middle Ages, that is, on the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. For the same reason most studies (but not all) have dealt mainly with the diet of the baronial class, the aristocracy and royalty. Most works on their diet only touch tangentially on monastic diet. This was roughly the same as the diet of the baronage, but with the restrictions imposed on monks by their monastic vocation. However, Barbara Harvey has published two ground-breaking studies on monastic diet, one a substantial section in her Living and Dying, and the other an article on monastic pittances. Her expertise lies especially in the later Middle Ages and tends to concentrate on the history of Westminster Abbey. Her unrivalled knowledge of that abbey’s rich archives has established her pre-eminent authority on its history particularly, but not exclusively, in the later Middle Ages.1 Therefore, it seems appropriate here to compare the dietary customs and practices of the abbot and monks of Westminster with those of St Edmunds, and also to survey the dietary customs and practices observed at St Edmunds itself, in so far as they can be known. The nature of the evidence for St Edmunds is very different from that available for Westminster. Barbara Harvey based her study on exhaustive examination mainly of the magnificent series of the obedientiary and other account rolls preserved in Westminster abbey which date from the late thirteenth century almost until the dissolution of the abbey in 1540.2 St Edmunds has no comparable continuous series but instead it has a superb collection of registers and customaries.3 The present survey relies on these sources and the result will be a much less precise and less detailed study than Harvey’s. However, it is to be 1

2 3

It is impracticable here to do justice to all the numerous articles and books on food, especially those concerned with the dietary regime and the food and drink of monks. Therefore, listed here are those which I have used the most: Harvey, Living and Dying, esp. pp. 34–71; Harvey, ‘Monastic pittances in the Middle Ages’, in Woolgar, Serjeantson and Waldron (eds), Food in Medieval England, pp. 215–27; Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery-Books; Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch; Carlin and Rosenthal (eds), Food and Eating; Schneider, Medieval Kitchen; Hammond, Food and Feast; Dyer, Standards of Living, esp. pp. 20–1, 32, 36–8, 40, 54–5, 60. The Westminster obedientiary rolls are described individually and calendared in Harvey, Obedientiaries. Discussed in detail in the introduction, and described individually and calendared in Thomson, Archives.

296

APPENDIX II

hoped that it will give some impression of the dietary customs and practices of the monks of St Edmunds. It concentrates on the thirteenth century, but cites earlier evidence when applicable, and is divided into three sections: the dietary regime; drink; and food. These topics will be considered in relation to the Rule, the legislation of the General Chapters of the Benedictines, canon law, current circumstances, but overlap between the sections is inevitable.

The dietary regime: when the monks drank and ate The Rule was precise concerning the number of meals to be taken by monks each day, prescribing a one-meal-a-day regime during the coldest time of the year from 13th September until Easter.4 This was a particularly harsh prescription for monks living in northern countries rather than in the warm climate of Italy. By the thirteenth century very few Benedictine houses observed this prescription strictly.5 At St Edmunds, and in other houses, the regulation was modified and some of the modifications gained recognition by long usage as ‘ancient customs’. For the summer months, the Rule prescribed a different dietary regime; on ordinary days the monks were to have two meals, dinner and supper.6 Even in the Rule itself the twofold division of the year into winter and summer was not absolute: there were exceptional days in both periods, for instance, on Sundays and some feast days throughout the year, excluding the Lenten fasting season, the monks had two meals.7 The first General Chapter of the Black monks of the southern province, held at Oxford in 1218/19, slightly modified the one-meal-a-day regime: it was to be observed from the feast of All Saints (1 November) until Ash Wednesday (the beginning of Lent) except on days when the feast was celebrated in copes (that is, feasts of the first and second rank) and from Christmas day until Epiphany, unless the customs of a house imposed a stricter observance.8 The next session of the General Chapter, held at St Albans in 1219/20, modified the Rule’s prescription still further:9 it ordained that the Rule should be enforced with regard to the fast ‘saving pious consideration for the young, the sick and the infirm, according to the time and place [and] to the regular customs of the various monasteries’.10

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rule, ed. Fry, c. 41.6, pp. 240/1. See Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 196. See Knowles, RO, i. 280–5; Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 10–12. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 41.1, pp. 240/1. Knowles explains the complexities of the two-fold regime, but admits that some uncertainties remain. Lanfranc, Constitutions, ed. Knowles and Brooke, pp. xix–xxv. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. p. 10 §12. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. 17 § 14. For the rank of feasts celebrated in copes see Tolhurst (ed.), Hyde Breviary, vi. 146–7. This concession for the young, the sick and the infirm was confirmed by the General Chapter held at Northampton in 1225 and, though made obsolete in 1243, copies of the

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

297

The author of the Bury Customary (of c. 1234)11 records that at St Edmunds from the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (14 September) until Easter, when nones is sung before dinner and there are two periods before dinner when talking was allowed in the cloister, the convent does not have supper, but when nones is sung after dinner and there is only one time for talking before dinner, the convent has supper ‘which mainly happens between Christmas and the feast of the Purification of the blessed Mary’ (2 February).12 He observes that ‘in some houses monks eat a second meal more often, some more rarely, according to the ancient customs of their houses’, and comments on the failure of the General Chapter to impose uniformity.13 Indeed, the force of the ‘ancient and approved customs’ of individual houses repeatedly defeated the zeal of reformers. The author of the Customary also remarks that often abbots, priors and keepers (custodes) of monasteries had supper in their own chambers because of guests or perhaps ‘to restore the strength of ailing servants’; for such reasons a fast, unless it were a solemn one, might be broken.14 This was the situation in the midthirteenth century. In general, it will be noticed that the monks did not welcome measures to curb expenditure on food, thus reducing their creature comforts. Thus, the monks criticized the sacrist William of Hoo (1280–94) for being excessively rigid with regard to pittances, misericords and the like. Clearly, the dietary regime at St Edmunds before Alexander IV’s confirmation of the abbey’s customs in 1256 was lenient.15 From 13 September until Ash Wednesday, that is, during the fasting season, the monks might eat twice on Sundays and ‘solemn feasts’. By ‘solemn feasts’ Alexander would have meant the five principal feasts which fell within this period (between Christmas and the feast of St Edmund) and

11 12 13

14

15

statutes were sometimes preserved as sound tradition. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. pp. 23 and 23–4 § 5. The statute reads: ‘De abstinencia et ieiunio monachorum nichil aliud volumus esse statutum nisi quod in regula sancti Benedicti continetur salva pro loco et tempore pia consideratione circa iuniores, debiles et infirmos regulariter facienda’. For the Bury Customary see above pp. 10, 54 n. 17, 113 n. 62 and Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, pp. 206–12 and pl. VI. Bury Cust., pp. 48 lines 26–32, 49 lines 1–7. Bury Cust., p. 49 lines 10–16: ‘Nigri vero non sic sed illorum quidam saepius, quidam rarius bis comedunt praefato tempore anni (i.e. in the period from 14 September until Easter) secundum antiquas consuetudines domorum suarum. Hinc est quod in generali capitulo nitentes omnium locorum consuetudines in hoc casu uniformiter unire, appellatum fuit palam a singulis domibus pro suis antiquis et approbatis et usitatis consuetudinibus a suis praedecessoribus iuste et sancte statutis’. See ibid., p. 49 nn. 1, 2. Bury Cust., pp. 49 lines 16–18, 50 lines 1–2: ‘Hic quoque non est praetereundum quin sciatur, quod saepissime contingit abbates et priores et custodes domorum cenare in cameris propter hospites et eciam aliquando propter domesticos debiles confortandos, quia propter tales frangendum est ieiunium, nisi fuerit solempne’. See ibid., p. 50 nn. a, b, c, and l. Bury Cust., p. 67. For Alexander IV’s confirmation of St Edmunds’ customs in 1256 (printed in Bury Cust., pp. 63–7) see above pp. 35, 40.

298

APPENDIX II

likewise those ‘secondary’ feasts also falling within that period.16 The author of the Bury Customary was unsure of how many feasts were given secondary rank at St Edmunds. He discusses the matter in one passage: he states that though he thinks there are seven, others say there are only six. He specifies the feasts: three of them (Epiphany, the Purification of the Virgin Mary and All Saints) fall within the period from 14 September to the beginning of Lent. In another context he implies that the feast of St Stephen and the feast of St John the Apostle (the evangelist) were also primary feasts: they too fall within this period. The mid-thirteenth-century tract on customs adds the feast of Relics to this list of principal feasts.17 Henry of Kirkstead, writing c. 1370, recorded the days on which the convent might eat twice during the fasting seasons. He inserted a note on the subject into the copy of the Customary preserved in BL MS Harley 1005 (f. 116), and cites as his authority a now lost copy of the Customary ‘in the keeping of Dom Thomas of Saxham with an ancient letter [i.e. classmark] C.64’.18 Kirkstead states that the convent had supper in the period from the ‘ides of September (13 September) until the first Sunday in Lent ‘on Sundays and saints’ days having a new historia [i.e. when a new historia, or book of the Old Testament, was begun and new responds sung], and on solemn feasts’.19 Thus, Kirkstead includes feasts of the first, second and third grades, but adds that the convent fasted on all other days, including those with twelve lessons (feasts of the fourth grade). He adds: ‘This was newly ordained after Alexander IV’s bull confirming the customs had been obtained, for previously the convent had had supper on all days with twelve lessons and sometimes even on those with three lessons’.20 From Kirkstead’s information it can be calculated that the convent ate twice on about fifty-two days during the fasting season, that is on roughly a third of the days of the year, in addition to Sundays. However, one of the terms of the agreement made between Abbot John of Northwold and the convent in 1280 was the restoration of the earlier custom. A clause of the statutes states that on all days

16 17 18 19 20

Bury Cust., pp. 7 and n. 2, 28, 57–8 passim. See also Tolhurst (ed.), Hyde Breviary, vi. 146–7; Lanfranc, Constitutions, ed. Knowles and Brooke, pp. 82–3, 88–9. Ibid., p. 94. Ibid., p. 50 n. c. Listed in James, Abbey, p. 55; Sharpe, ‘Reconstructing the medieval library’, p. 211. For the reading of historia see Tolhurst (ed.), Hyde Breviary, vi. 147. The relevant passage in Alexander IV’s confirmation of St Edmunds’ customs (Bury Cust., p. 67 lines 6–12) reads: ‘Ab idibus insuper Septembris usque in Capud Quadragesimae omnes ieiunent exceptis dominicis diebus et solempnibus festis, in quibus ex consuetudine ecclesiae antiquissima et, ut predictum est, actenus approbata, fratres bis reficiuntur, tum propter laborum magnitudinem et prolixitatem necnon propter pauperum sustentationem in illis diebus maxime tunc ad monasterium confluencium memoratum’. Cf. above pp. 234, 237 on the use of leftovers for alms.

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

299

of twelve lessons when there is no solemn fast, the convent is to eat twice, by approved ancient customs.21

Drink: when, what and how much the monks drank Barbara Harvey estimates that in the fifteenth century the daily allowance of drink of the Westminster monks at dinner and supper, when it was a two-meal day, was a gallon, and they may well have exceeded this allowance by drinking at other times.22 At St Edmunds, judging from the regulations to promote economy, issued late in Abbot Simon’s abbacy or early in Abbot John’s, the monks’ allowance was generous. 23 They state that a sick monk in the infirmary was to have his daily allowance of bread and ale; ‘if alone, he was to have the ancient allowance [of ale], if there are two monks, they were to have six gallons, if three, eight gallons, if four, ten gallons …’ and so on ending ‘if there are eight monks or more they take their full allowance (“justa suas repletas”)’. The same late thirteenth-century regulations specify that ale given to servants should be of the second grade (secunda cervicia). Apparently, it was not unusual for ale to be graded into three categories. Thus, roughly speaking, in monasteries generally, the abbot and convent and distinguished guests would be served with the best brew, their servants with the second best and others with an inferior brew. These categories seem to have reflected their alcoholic content. Thus, ales of the first grade were more intoxicating than those of the third grade, which would be of a milder brew or water might have been added to a stronger brew.24 This lowgrade ale would be given to pilgrims, beggars and the like. However there is no evidence of such a precise categorization existing at St Edmunds, though a tract produced there in the mid-thirteenth century stipulates that monks convicted of minor transgressions should be allowed to drink second-grade ale, ‘on account of a weak stomach and feeble heart’.25 Moreover, the regulations to promote

21

22 23

24

25

Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 401 § 15 lines 1–3: ‘Item omnibus diebus duodecim leccionum quando jejunium solempne non est iuxta consuetudinem antiquitus approbatam bis debet refici conventus’. Cf. above p. 45. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 58, 65–6. Bury Cust., pp. 110 lines 37–111 lines 1–8. The regulations are undated. The most complete text is in a hand of c. 1300. It is discussed and printed (collated with the two other texts) in ibid., pp. xxxix, 108–11. The preamble states that it was drawn up ‘for the relief of the church of St Edmunds, by the prior and other monks sitting with him’ (‘Ad relevacionem ecclesiae sancti Edmundi per dominum priorem et alios monachos secum assistentes …’). For the grading of ale and beer in the Middle Ages and earlier see Corran, Brewing, p. 27. The stronger an ale, the better it kept. Ibid., p. 44. For the amount drunk in an aristocratic household in the early sixteenth century see Mead, English Medieval Feast, p. 115. Bury Cust., p. 88 lines 25–6: ‘Et quod cotidie bibat de secunda cervicia, propter stomachi infirmitatem et capitis debilitatem’. The tract is printed as Appendix III in ibid., pp. 82–95, and described in ibid., p. xxxviii.

300

APPENDIX II

economy stipulate that the subcellarer should always provide the convent with ‘good bread’ and ‘good ale’ – which must mean that both should be of the first grade.26 It cannot be assumed that medieval ale was a weak and watery drink. A recent study states that some late medieval household accounts show that a quarter of malted grain normally produced somewhere between fifty and one hundred gallons of ale, with most brewings producing in the range of fifty to seventy-five gallons. Provided that the brewing was effective, so that most of the sugars in the malt were converted into alcohol, the ale produced would have had a volume of alcohol at least comparable to that of modern beer.27 If so, it is hard to believe that monks imbibed so much. It seems likely that the intention was that there would be a surplus. This could be used along with other leftovers, as alms. The obligation to give alms to the poor was enjoined by the General Council held at Oxford in 1218/19:28 whatever was left of the food put before them, wherever they ate, was to be given to the poor. The Bury Customary mentions that the guest-master ‘by new grace and not by ancient custom, may daily if he wishes feed one or two poor people in the hall, for love of God’.29 The statutes of the papal visitors to St Edmunds in 1234 include clauses enjoining that ‘leftovers’ in the refectory, both food (cibi) and drink, were to be used, ‘without diminution’, for feeding the poor, on pain of severe punishment, unless the president or guest-master take some away to entertain a guest.30 The injunctions regarding alms issued by the General Chapter at Oxford in 1218/19 were re-iterated by that held at Southwark or Bermondsey in 1249 and by later General Chapters. However, the practice of using leftovers to feed servants, corrodians and other dependants was an ever-present temptation. The papal visitors in 1234 ordained that members of the refectorer’s household should be ‘honest’ and ‘mature’ and not too numerous or finely dressed; they should take their food and stipends and the refectorer should ensure that they did not eat what was intended for alms. The same ruling applied to servants eating in the refectory.31 By the mid-

26 27

28 29

30 31

Bury Cust., p. 110 lines 1–2. ‘Subcelerarius provideat omnibus modis quod conventus semper habeat bonum panem et bonam cervisiam …’. Corran, Brewing, p. 30. Medieval ale was sweet and potent. To counteract the sweetness and improve its keeping qualities various herbs were added and in the fifteenth century the use of hops became widespread. The brewing of beer, which was less alcoholic and kept better, soon rivalled that of ale, though some brewers produced both. For the times when the monks drank, and the quantities and quality (especially of the wine) which they imbibed, see also below pp. 301–5. Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. p. 10 § 13. Bury Cust., p. 7 lines 17–19: the guest-master ‘potest eciam si vult pascere in aula unum vel duos pauperes pro amore Dei. Quod quidem novae gratiae et permissione usus est non consuetudinis antiquae’. Graham (ed.), ‘Papal visitation’, p. 732 lines 8–10. Graham (ed.), ‘Papal visitation’, p. 731 lines 5 up, 13–15 up.

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

301

thirteenth century the practice was so prevalent as to cause the Southwark/ Bermondsey General Chapter to legislate specifically against it.32 The drink provided for the servant was, of course, ale, and so was that given as alms. But the monks, whose status was equivalent to that of the baronial class, drank wine as well as ale. St Edmunds had its own vineyard33 but did not produce enough wine, or wine of sufficiently high quality, to enable it to dispense with the need to purchase imported wines. The monks certainly drank, for example, muscatel, an imported sweet wine,34 and probably from the late thirteenth century, if not earlier, Bury St Edmunds itself was one of the many centres of the wine trade. Wine, therefore, was for ceremonial purposes, for the principal feastdays and other important days in the liturgical year, and for the entertainment of royalty and other distinguished guests. For example, the convent had wine on Maundy Thursday and when a bishop, or, no doubt, when the abbot of another house dined in the refectory.35 The Customary and the Pinchbeck register have some information about the quantity of wine provided. While the cellarer was responsible for the daily allowances of ale for the monks and was also in charge of the brewery, the sacrist was responsible for most of the wine allowances and had care of the vineyard. 36 Some of the allowances of wine specified in the Pinchbeck register are a little bigger than those specified in the Customary, but not appreciably so.37 (Probably it was not intended that there would be sufficient wine to provide a surplus for the poor.) Thus, on each of the principal feasts of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, the sacrist had to provide twenty-two sesters of wine (about twenty-two pints). On Ash Wednesday, he provided nine sesters of wine for the refectory. On Maundy Thursday he again had to provide the convent with twenty-two sesters in the refectory ‘ad mixtam’, probably meaning ‘for breakfast’. The allowances of wine owed by the sacrist were not confined to providing 32

33

34

35 36 37

Pantin (ed.), Chapters, i. pp. 36–7 § 3a, p. 38 § 7a, For the same injunction issued by the General Chapter of the Province of Canterbury in 1277–9 see ibid., i. p. 79 §§ 1–3. For further references see ibid., iii. p. 376 (index, under alms). St Edmunds’ vineyard was the responsibility of the sacrist but since its care was a heavy liability, the late thirteenth–early fourteenth-century ordinances for the relief of the church of St Edmunds transferred its care and produce to the infirmarer. However, the sacrist, subsacrist and the convent were to be permitted to go there ‘for relaxation’ (‘propter solacium’). Bury Cust., p. 109 lines 11–14. The ordinances for the relief of the church state that on the feast of Relics the sacrist was to provide the convent with muscatel or wine besides fresh fish, ‘but not the superfluity of seculars’: ‘In festo Reliquiarum respiciat conventum … tantum exclusa superfluitate saecularium’. Bury Cust., p. 109 lines 8–10, and BL MS Harley 645, f. 234. Muscatel was also included among the other extras in the pittance given on the anniversary of Abbot Baldwin and that of Abbot Samson, and on all other great celebrations. Muscatel took its name from the muscat grapes which grew in Andalucia in southern Spain. The raisins from the grapes were exported from Malaga. See Bury Cust., p. 19 lines 17, 24. See the regulations to promote economy, Bury Cust., p. 109 lines 11–15. Bury Cust., p. 54 § 2; Pinch. Reg., i. 399 § 3.

302

APPENDIX II

the monks with wine in the refectory. He had to give the abbot a sester of wine and a sester of ale on the abbot’s return to the abbey after an absence and, if the sacrist so wished, on every day while the abbot was resident in the abbey.38 This allowance affected the monks’ diet in so far as some of them would dine with the abbot. The same is probably true of the allowances of wine and ale which the sacrist made to visiting abbots, even those of other orders, on the day of their arrival and, if the sacrist wished, every day during their stay. Similarly, some of the monks would have dined with important visitors who lodged in the town – ecclesiastics and secular magnates. The sacrist had to supply them with bread and wine at dinner, and ale and two candles at supper. He also had to honour nobles with gifts, probably of wine, ‘especially those nobles who were friends of our church, but differently according to the difference of persons’.39 In addition to all these allowances of wine for which the sacrist was responsible, should be added the allowances needed for religious purposes, not only in the abbey church, but also in churches and chapels dependent on St Edmunds. Thus, to meet his various obligations on the feast of Relics, the sacrist was estimated to have needed eight casks (dolia) of wine, each containing fiftyfive sesters (totalling about 440 pints).40 This amount excluded any gifts of wine. The monks’ dislike of any measures to curb their eating and drinking is reflected in the agreement the convent made with Abbot John, which were issued as statutes in 1280. Two of the statutes relate specifically to food and to drink respectively. Regarding drinking, the statutes excuse those monks who had dined outside the refectory from attending compline and allowed them to go instead to whatever place they had eaten, provided that they had first obtained permission.41 This was a further relaxation of the Rule of St Benedict which enjoined attendance at compline, and opened the way for more drinking and conviviality at the end of the day. As will be seen, and the Bury Customary demonstrates, there were in fact many times of the day when the monks might take refreshment including a drink. The Rule itself stipulates that the reader for the week (the hebdomadarius) should have a mouthful of diluted wine before reading.42 Monks could, therefore, claim that the Rule gave some sanction for the taking of mixtum. By the thirteenth century it seems to have been generally taken by monks in Benedictine houses. The Customary gives much more detail about two other extra drinks, the nonal drink and the caritas. Both drinks were firmly established at St Edmunds.43 St Edmunds was one of those houses where visitors felt obliged to legislate against drinking and talking after compline. The statutes of the papal 38 39 40 41 42 43

Bury Cust., pp. 30, 33. For this and the above mentioned allowances of wine see also Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 209. Bury Cust., p. 33 lines 9–13. Pinch. Reg., i. 399 §3. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 58, 65–6. See also Knowles, RO, i. 283. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 38.10, pp. 236/7. See below p. 304 and n. 52. See Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 209 and nn.

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

303

visitors in 1234 include a specific reference to drinking at mealtimes (cena) which ends by stating that: a monk eating in the refectory was to have a flagon and cup of ale of a fixed measure; he was not to take this allowance of ale from another monk, nor give anyone his measure without good reason; and at the end of the meal all the boxes and jars belonging to the refectory were to be removed and so were all keys, except those of the sub-almoner and refectorer. Moreover, all the monks were to drink the same drink in the refectory.44 This is the most specific mention in the statutes of the monks’ drinking habits. It should be remembered that the statutes of the papal delegates who visited St Edmunds in 1234 were comparatively lenient, in comparison to the three previous visitors commissioned by Gregory IX in 1232, whom Matthew Paris described as harsh and tactless.45 In the same way the Rule’s prescriptions concerning drinks were not strictly observed. There was in any case a loophole. The Rule legislated about wine, but ale was the usual northern drink. Wine was drunk only in monasteries which could afford it and then only on special occasions. The Rule states that half a bottle of wine should be enough for a monk, though due regard should be taken for the infirmities of the sick.46 The Rule shows humane moderation, leaving it to the superior to decide when local conditions – work or summer heat – suggested the need for more drink, though it warns that great care should be taken lest excess or drunkenness result.47 The Rule also observes that ‘we read’ that monks should not drink wine at all ‘but since monks in our day cannot be convinced of this’ (‘sed quia nostris temporibus id monachis persuaderi non potest’), let us at least agree to drink moderately, not to excess, ‘since wine makes even the wise go astray’ (‘vinum apostatare facit etiam sapientes’). And no one should grumble if the amount of wine given to the monks is less than the Rule prescribes, and above all he should remember that those whom God gives the strength to abstain totally, shall earn their own reward.48 The Rule, therefore, leaves plenty of room for deviation from its stipulated allowance of half a bottle of wine for each monk. There is no doubt that by the thirteenth century the English monks were drinking an alcoholic beverage, that is, ale, in greater amounts than St Benedict would have thought proper. The Rule makes it clear that a monk’s allowance of half a bottle of wine was served at meals and presumably he was expected to drink it at mealtimes. The relaxation 44

45 46 47 48

Graham (ed.), ‘Papal visitation’, p. 732 lines 18–23: ‘Certa iusta et ciphus certus per refectorarium coram singulis apponantur nec aliquis de alterius iusta uel cypho presumat bibere sine certa ratione. Omnes etiam ciste refectorii cum doliis ammoueantur preter seruras subelemosinarii et refectorarii. Omnes etiam de eodem potu in refectorio bibant’. Ibid., pp. 728–9. See also Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 204. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., iii. 234–5. See Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 178. Gransden, Bury St Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256, p. 198. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 40.3, pp. 238/9, 240/1. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 40.5, pp. 240/1. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 40.8, pp. 240/1.

304

APPENDIX II

of observance with regard to drink at St Edmunds, as in many other Benedictine houses, can be seen in the increased number of occasions when the monks might drink – occasions sanctioned by long usage and rooted in the traditions of the house. The Bury Customary has much to say about some of these extra drinkingtimes, although one of them, the mixtum, is only mentioned by name once.49 It states that on the day of the Absolution (the Thursday before Good Friday) the refectorer ought to receive from the sacrist nine sextors (pints) of wine for mixtum in the refectory. Mixtum was, as it were, breakfast comprising bread and a drink. The Rule states that the weekly reader in the refectory (the hebdomadarius) should take some wine before reading,50 lest the fast after holy communion be too hard for him to bear.51 A paragraph of the 1234 statutes discusses the lax observance of discipline on the frequent occasions when drinking was allowed:52 While the servants are dining [in the refectory] no [monk] should hurry about, wandering among the tables, or stand about in a disorderly fashion, nor without obvious necessity should he drink there or induce any secular person to drink. After the servants had dined until vespers and after compline, those who by necessity drink in the refectory should guard against dissolute behaviour and maintain a decent, regular demeanour so that they are moderate in their drinking and do not relax the rein of silence. After compline, at the proper time, they should be content to go to bed so that they are sober when they attend matins.

The paragraph also stipulates that silence should be observed ‘according to the customs of the house’ and transgressions severely punished. Particular measures were taken to protect silence for the monks ‘meditating’ in the cloisters – that is, thinking about what they were reading. Therefore, the door of the parlour (locutorium, where talking was allowed), which opened into the cloisters, was to be kept shut and a door-keeper appointed. It is clear from the Customary and other thirteenth-century sources that there were many times of the day when, by a liberal interpretation of the Rule and by custom, the monks could drink. Thus, a drink was taken after nones (the office 49 50 51

52

Bury Cust., p. 54 lines 10–12. The text (BL MS Harley 1005, f. 117) reads mixtam. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 38.10, pp. 236/7. BL MS Harley 743, f. 266v, cited Gransden, ‘Separation of portions’, p. 401 § 15: ‘… Cum vero jejunium sollempne fuerit, commedentes extra refectorium quamvis interesse debeant collacioni non tamen cum conventu tenentur complere, sed petita licencia in exitu capituli ad loca quibus reficiebantur divertere. Provideant tamen omnes omni tempore ut compleant ante sonitum curfu appellatum, post quem nullus presumat alicubi comedere, nec eciam bibere nec moram facere nisi ex magna necessitate et licencia speciali a suo superiore et custode’. Graham (ed.), ‘Papal visitation’, pp. 731 line 3 up – 732 line 6: ‘Dum seruitores comedunt nullus per mensas uagando uel stando inordinate se ingerat uel sine certa necessitate ibi bibat uel aliquem secularem ad bibendum inducat; post prandium uero seruitorum usque ad uesperas et post completorium qui in refectorio necessitatem habuerint bibere sic desolutionem caueant et honestatem regularem custodiant ut in potatione teneant moderantiam et freno silentii non laxent habenam. Post completorium etiam tempestiue satagant cubare cum matutinis sobrie presunt interesse’.

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

305

following dinner), during the period from Easter until 11 November, before the monks sat in the cloister, except when there was a solemn fast. This occasion was particularly open to the objection of reformers – that drinking led to idle gossip. Another extra drink was the caritas. If taken in the refectory before or after the Saturday maundy – the maundy held every Saturday after vespers, when the servers washed the monks’ feet before taking up their duties for the week.53 This drink had some sanction in the Rule if the latter were loosely interpreted. The Rule prescribed that the servers were to have extra wine and bread an hour before mealtime to prevent them grumbling as they watched their fellow monks eating and drinking.54 This Saturday maundy must be distinguished from the maundy held on the Thursday before Easter when the abbot and monks washed the feet of twelve poor men in commemoration of Christ’s washing the disciples’ feet on that day. This maundy was traditionally followed by the distribution of alms, and on this occasion too the monks had a drink – the caritas.55 Nor were the nonal drinks and the caritas the only extra drinks enjoyed by the monks. Another was the drink in the refectory taken in the fasting season before or after collation – collatio, the spiritual reading which all the monks were supposed to attend before compline, the last of the daily offices. After compline the monks were supposed to observe absolute silence.

The monks’ food The Rule of St Benedict prescribed the number of dishes which monks should have at dinner. It ordained that two cooked dishes should be sufficient, so that a monk ‘not able to eat one kind of food might eat the other’. If fruit or fresh vegetables were available, a third dish might be added.56 Moreover, if the monks’ work were exceptionally hard the abbot might grant them something extra ‘provided that it is appropriate, and above all that over-indulgence is avoided’.57 The monks were also to have ‘a generous pound of bread’, which was to do for supper as well as for dinner on two-meal days.58 The overall import of these regulations is that monks should have an adequate, but a moderate and plain diet. However, in general by the thirteenth century the English Benedictines were eating more and richer food than St Benedict had intended. The two or three

53 54 55 56 57 58

See Lanfranc, Constitutions, ed. Knowles and Brooke, pp. 56–9; Bury Cust., p. 77 lines 14–20. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 35.12–13, pp. 232/3. This maundy was apparently of general observance. Bury Cust., p. 77 lines 22–5; Lanfranc, Constitutions, ed. Knowles and Brooke, pp. 64–5. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 39.1–3, pp. 238/9. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 39.6–7, pp. 238/9. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 39.4, pp. 238/9.

306

APPENDIX II

prescribed dishes were supplemented by extra dishes, pittances, which became an important part of the monks’ diet, especially in wealthy houses.59 The recorded customs and statutes of St Edmunds throw much light on what the monks ate and drank. The Bury Customary has some information, but for the second half of the thirteenth century the principal sources are the many customs apparently written down under Abbot Simon of Luton, or possibly under Abbot John of Northwold. Many are in BL MS Harley 1005, ff. 59, 59v, some of these and others appear in the Pinchbeck register. The reason for recording the abbey’s customs was mainly to ensure that the obedientiaries responsible for supplying the food fulfilled their obligations and that the monks received what was due to them. It is clear from the Bury Customary that when it was composed (soon after 1234) there were various opinions about a number of the abbey’s dietary customs. Codification of these was especially necessary in the 1260s and 1270s because of the abbey’s economic problems and, not surprisingly, some of the customs recorded indicate retrenchment in expenditure on the provision of the convent’s food. The cellarer at St Edmunds, as elsewhere, was responsible for providing the ingredients for the monks’ regular dishes (the so-called ‘generals’), but the kitchener and subcellarer had to see that they were actually served. Many details about the monks’ food were recorded under the heading ‘Customs pertaining for the kitchener and subcellarer of St Edmunds’.60 These customs specify, for example, the exact amount of fish allowed to each monk and indicate how it should be cooked. The cellarer had to purchase a great quantity of herring for Lent, that is seven lasts, but less if Easter were early and as much as eleven lasts if Easter were late. He bought these at the fair at Beccles,61 one of the fairs which served as an outlet for the internationally important herring fisheries at Yarmouth.62 The cellarer also received one last of herring as a render from Norwich.63 A ‘last’ was a measure comprising about 12,000 fish. Therefore, the total when Easter was early was about 96,000 herring, and when it was late about 144,000 herring. 59 60 61

62 63

Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 10–11. For pittances at Westminster and in other monasteries see the index to ibid., p. 284. Pinch. Reg., i. 393 lines 5–6 up: ‘Hic incipient quedam Consuetudines pertinentes ad Coquinarium et subcellerarium sancti Edmundi’. Domesday Book records that St Edmunds held the rich manor of Beccles including a third part of the market; before 1066 it rendered (that is, paid the king as part of its tax) 30,000 herrings and after 1066 it rendered 60,000. DB Suffolk, i. 14 § 120 (ff. 369v–370). A copy of the Domesday entry is in Pinch. Reg., i. 326. Reputedly Beccles was given to St Edmunds by King Eadwig (955–9) but without a charter (sine carta). See the sacrist’s register, CUL MS Ff. 33, f. 50v and Pinch. Reg., i. 326. The grant was confirmed by King Stephen and by Henry II. Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas, pp. 83 no. 63, 96 no. 85. The manor was assigned to the abbey’s chamberlain. See Stephen’s charter and Mon. Angl., iii. 157. A. Saul, ‘The herring industry at Great Yarmouth c. 1280–c. 1400’, Norfolk Archaeology, 38 (1981), pp. 33–43 passim. Pinch. Reg., i. 376. For a ‘last’, see R. E. Zupko, British Weights and Measures. A History from Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century (Madison, WI, 1968), p. 135; Latham, Word-List, p. 270 col. 1; Dictionary of Medieval Latin, p. 1562; above p. 23.

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

307

This was the amount of herring needed for Lent alone, not the total annual requirement. It was not unusual for a monastery, or for any large household to require such a large amount of herring. For example, in the year 1307–8 242,000 herring were purchased for the seventy or so monks of Durham.64 Herring was an important part of a monk’s regular diet at St Edmunds, as it was elsewhere. From Easter until Michaelmas each monk had three herrings when the convent had herring for dinner. During the fasting season the allowance was larger. During the Advent fast each monk had four herrings and during Lent five each, besides two at supper. When fresh herring first arrived each monk had two fresh herrings, until 14 September; after that the allowance was of three herrings each. If two of the regular dishes were of herrings, whether one dish was of salted herrings and the other of fresh herrings, or both were of fresh herrings, one of the three fresh herrings was to be boiled and the others roasted, until 14 September; after that both dishes were of three boiled herrings. Whether one or two dishes were of fresh herring, the gardeners should supply garlic, but if they were salted or sprinkled with salt the kitchener should do so.65 Given the preponderance of herring in the monks’ regular diet it is not surprising that it does not seem to have been their favourite dish. One custom stipulates that in the week before Lent herring was not to be served unless there was a great shortage of other fish. As will be seen, the pittances illustrate the monks’ taste for many varieties of white fish.66 The kitchener’s and subcellarer’s customs in BL MS Harley 1005 record many other kinds of food served to the monks, but they tend to mention ingredients rather than methods of preparation. However, they contain enough detail to make it possible in a few cases to identify tentatively the dish as one wellknown in the medieval English kitchen. Therefore, in what follows, wherever possible, reference will be made to an appropriate medieval recipe. In addition, the kitchener’s register (Douai, BM MS 553),67 compiled shortly after 1425, is helpful, since it includes lists of the exact quantities of the main ingredients for particular dishes. This information is especially useful because nearly all known medieval recipes are vague about the quantities of the ingredients needed for the dishes, the preparation of which they describe.68 Characteristic medieval features are very apparent in many of the dishes mentioned below. In the first place, there is a preponderance of pottages (thick soups and stews) and gruels (porridgy dishes made of coarse oatmeal cooked in meat stock or milk).69 64 65 66

67 68 69

Saul, ‘The herring industry at Great Yarmouth’, pp. 33, 42 n. 10. Pinch. Reg., i. 396. On the last Saturday in Lent ‘herring should not be given to the convent unless fish is very short’ (‘non dantur allecie conuentui nisi pro magno defectu piscium’). Pinch. Reg., i. 394 line 11 up. Thomson, Archives, pp. 37, 146–7 no. 1295; Davis, Medieval Cartularies, rev. edn, no. 131. Mead, English Medieval Feast, pp. 63–5. Mead, English Medieval Feast, p. 72. Cf. Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 6, 10; King and Brooke (eds), Book of William Morton, pp. 34, 57.

308

APPENDIX II

These dishes could be eaten with a spoon or sopped up with bread – important considerations since forks were not used in England until the early seventeenth century. Secondly, many of the recipes contain nuts. In the fifteenth century these were almonds which were imported. But in the thirteenth century local nuts – hazels and walnuts – were also used.70 Thirdly, as will be seen, various combinations of numerous spices were added in many recipes,71 and saffron used for colouring.72 In the thirteenth century honey was widely used for sweetening, but in the fifteenth century the more usual sweetener was sugar.73 It is evident from any examination of monastic diet that it followed a fixed routine throughout the year, parallel to the annual liturgical cycle. For example, the kitchener’s and subcellarer’s customs in BL MS Harley 1005 (f. 58v) record that on Septuagesima Sunday (the third Sunday before Lent) by custom the convent had rissoles (russell) at dinner.74 ‘Rissoles in Lent’ according to a medieval recipe were made of (dried) figs boiled in ale, and crushed in a mortar, shredded almonds, pears, dates, and soaked and chopped (salted) cod or ling, all mixed together, rolled, kneaded into balls, rolled in a batter of ale and flour, and fried.75 They could also be made without fish. At supper on Quinquagesima Sunday (the Sunday immediately before Lent), the monks had eggs and milk cooked with bread, or they had ‘Tyece’.76 Perhaps the former was ‘blank desure’, a medieval dish made with egg yolk, cows’ milk, rice flour or wastel bread (bread made with the finest flour), cumin and saffron, all boiled and mashed in a mortar and boiled again; cheese was then added.77 In the week before Lent, on the Monday, Wednesday and Friday, the third dish was gruel ‘without milk’. On the Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday the monks had beans, ‘but without honey’.78 The beans were ‘white beans’ which were widely grown in medieval England.79 White beans are still used today; beans such as broad beans, haricots and chick70

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

For the lavish and widespread use of nuts, both native grown hazel nuts and cobs, and imported nuts, that is pine-nuts and walnuts but especially almonds, in medieval cookery and into the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries see Mead, English Medieval Feast, pp. 105–8. In 1449/50 William Morton, almoner of Peterborough, bought 2,000 walnuts on 21 September at Peterborough Bridge fair and two pounds of almonds; and in 1453/4 he bought 1,000 walnuts for the convent in Lent. King and Brooke (eds), Book of William Morton, p. 57. See also ibid., pp. 68 and n. 5, 103, 140, etc. For the lavish use of spices see Mead, English Medieval Feast, pp. 72–7. Mead, English Medieval Feast, pp. 102–3. Mead, English Medieval Feast, pp. 77–8. See also Pinch. Reg., i. 393–4. Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, p. 93; Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, p. 141 no. 190. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 58v; Pinch. Reg., i. 394. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 58v; Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, p. 77 no. 78. See also Pinch. Reg., i. 394; Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, pp. 77–8 no. 81, 187. For the importance of beans in the medieval diet see Harvey, Living and Dying, p. 60 and nn. 80, 83. For the many medieval recipes for beans and peas see e.g.: index to Carlin and

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

309

peas are white beans. Before pulverizing them, as was required for some dishes, they would presumably have to be peeled. (Of course, all beans once peeled are white.) A female servant ‘of the granges’ (ancilla grangiarum), probably a serf, was responsible for ensuring that the kitchener received the correct quota of ‘white and skinned beans’; if more were rendered so much the better. The rest of the paragraph specifies the quantities of beans rendered during Lent in 1265, and states that if, owing to the cellarer’s thrift (providencia), there were six loads of beans, the surplus should be given to the monks as ‘the cellarer’s misericord’ (misericordia) – that is, an extra food allowance.80 The kitchener’s and subcellarer’s customs in BL MS Harley 1005 (f. 58v) do not specify further what bean dish the monks were to have on the Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday before Lent. Medieval bean dishes without honey (or sugar) commonly included onions.81 The Bury Customary records that Abbot Hugh of Northwold (1215–29) and Abbot Richard of the Isle (1229–33) had forbidden beans to be served with onions as a dish: perhaps this means that they were to be served as an addition to the three regular vegetable dishes. The Customary also states that beans could be served fresh when new on three successive days ‘provided they are well prepared with milk and eggs in the old way, or better’.82 Whenever new beans were served the gardener had to provide a herb called ‘Scatherey’. After the third time, beans were served only as pottage.83 But bean pottage was not served on Palm Sunday (the sixth Sunday in Lent) when the beans were prepared like ‘jussel’. The kitchener’s register lists the ingredients needed to make jussel: one conventual loaf, a ‘bipece’ (?saddle) of pork, forty eggs and saffron, and it also states that this pottage was served from Easter until the feast of St John the Baptist (24 June).84 There are many medieval recipes for various kinds of jussel. Basically it was a broth thickened with egg and usually also with bread crumbs,

80

81 82

83 84

Rosenthal (eds), Food and Eating, pp. 176 col. 1, 184 col. 2; Redon, Sabban and Serventi (eds), Medieval Kitchen, pp. 53–4, 76–8; below pp. 310–11. The first half of § 3 in Pinch. Reg., i. 376 reads: ‘Item Celerarii debent providere de fabis contra quadragesimam vnde si non habeant de propriis oportet easdem comparare et ancilla grangiarum debet easdem preparare vnde sciendum quod ancilla predicta cum fabas albas et excoriatas ad Coquinarium detulerit sufficienter respondet si de medietate responderit si vero plus attulerit magis approbatur. Anno vero supradicto [1265] sufficiebat quinque summe et dim. et j. bussellus de quibus ancilla respondebat de ij. summis et dim. ij. bussellis et dim. vnde si habeantur vj. summe fabarum de prouidencia celerarii sufficient in quadragesima et remanebunt in tantum vt residuo poterit dari potagium ad misericordiam celerarii post Pascha.’ Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, pp. 98 no. 4, 115 no. 76, 141 no. 189. Pinch. Reg., i. 396 lines 9–13 up: ‘Idem eciam Gardinarius ad fabas nouas quando dantur pro ferculo, herbam que vocatur Scatherey debet inuenire vnde sciendum quod in principio fabarum nouarum ter dari possunt pro ferculo et tunc inueniet eas Coquinarius et omnia ad eas necessaria’. This information is in addition to that in the Customary. Bury Cust., p. 39 lines 18–40. See also Pinch. Reg., i. 396 lines 1–13. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 5v. Jussel figures in the Westminster accounts. Harvey, Living and Dying, p. 58 and n. 73.

310

APPENDIX II

and coloured with saffron. Crushed meat or fish might be added. Presumably in a bean jussel crushed beans took the place of the meat or fish.85 During Lent, gruel, dishes made with beans and dishes made with nuts (in the form of nut milk) were, apart from herring, the most important constituents of the monks’ regular diet. The amounts of these foods which the cellarer had provided for Lent in 1265, and therefore was supposed to provide subsequently, are recorded. Thus, he had to provide four soams (summa, loads of six to eight bushels) of grout (the coarse meal used for gruel). It was to be prepared on his manor of Southery, or he had to buy it in Lynn or elsewhere. He also had to provide five and a half soams, one bushel, of ‘white beans’,86 which he had to buy if he could not supply them from his own granges. The woman servant of the granges had to prepare them and was responsible for delivering at least half the beans to the kitchener. Moreover, the cellarer had to provide three soams of the ‘smaller kind of nuts’ (‘nuces minores’, surely hazel nuts), to be bought at St Etheldreda’s fair (that is, at Ely), ‘or elsewhere as seems most expedient’.87 Also the cellarer had to provide about a gallon and two pints (‘ij sextarij et j lagena’) of honey for Lent. Meals in which the third dish was gruel, or dishes made with beans or nut milk, appeared in regular sequence in Lent.88 On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, but not on Good Friday, the convent had gruel, served cold, ‘with nut milk’. For the gruel the cellarer had to measure out two bowls (gatae) of nuts, using the same bowl as was used to measure flour; if there was a shortage of (?hazel) nuts, the cellarer had to provide four pounds of almonds. On Good Friday the gruel was served hot, without milk. On Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays cold beans were served, with honey, except on the last Saturday in Lent when no beans, either hot or cold, were served. On all Sundays in Lent except Palm Sunday the convent’s third dish was ‘morterelle’ of nuts, for which the cellarer provided six bowls of (?hazel) nuts, or, if these were lacking, 12 pounds of almonds. ‘Morterelle’ (or ‘Mortrel’, plural ‘Mortreux’) was basically a broth, thick soup or pottage of solid constituent, finely ground or pounded in a mortar (hence the name), usually meat or fish. Morterelle of nuts was probably a milk pudding made of nut milk and bread crumbs. (The kitchener’s register gives the ingredients of one made with pork.)89 On Palm Sunday beans with honey were served but prepared

85 86 87

88

89

Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 16–17, 95; Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, pp. 107 no. 44, 197; Hieatt (ed.), Pottage, p. 41 no. 18. Pinch. Reg., i. 375 § 4. Pinch. Reg., i. 376 § 2. For the use of honey as a sweetener in medieval England see Mead, English Medieval Feast, pp. 77–8. According to Carlin in Carlin and Rosenthal (eds), Food and Eating, p. 33, it was also widely used in medieval Europe. However, Carlin’s opinion is contradicted by Redon, Sabban and Serventi. See Schneider, Medieval Kitchen, p. 28. The earliest text of the dietary regulations for Lent is in BL MS Harley 1005, f. 58v. Collation with the printed text in Pinch. Reg. i. 394 lines 17–18 up shows that the latter is more or less correct though it reads Parina for farino in error (line 16 up). See SOED, i. 1284 col. 3 under Mortress; Latham, Word-List, p. 305 col. 2 under morterellus;

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

311

in a way called ‘feuesbatues’, that is beaten or pounded beans (from the French fève, a bean, and battre, to beat).90 For this dish the cellarer had to provide five bowls (gatae) of ‘kenesballard’ – possibly beans which had been dried, skinned and cut up.91 On Sundays in Lent when nut milk was needed for the convent’s supper, the cellarer had to provide 2,000 nuts. Vegetables seem to have been served as an extra dish, not as one of the three regular dishes prescribed by the Rule.92 Throughout Lent, from the first Monday, olera (probably cabbage) and cold peas were served except on Sundays. Then the convent only had olera but it also had a pottage made with leeks. For this pottage twenty-eight bundles of leeks (‘de porettis’) were sent from the cellarer’s manor of Mildenhall (besides five bundles for the abbot and five for the prior).93 The pottage was probably like the ‘Blawnche porrye’ described in fifteenth-century recipes. (The name means ‘white leek’, from the French blanche, white, and the Latin porrum, leek.) This dish comprised the white of leeks cooked and chopped up finely, and mixed with almond milk and a little rice. The mixture was then boiled, and sugar or honey and salt were added.94 A slightly different recipe uses bread instead of rice. In some fifteenth-century recipes ‘blanche porreye’ was served as a sauce with strips of boiled eel.95 Recorded customs of St Edmunds and its Customary have some details about the allowances of eggs and cheese owed by the cellarer to the convent. Thus, for supper on Easter day each monk had five hens’ eggs and one goose egg, or, if there was a shortage of goose eggs, nine hens’ eggs.96 There is no information about how they were cooked at St Edmunds, but a common medieval recipe is for poached eggs in a custard made with egg yolks flavoured with powdered ginger, saffron and salt. The undated statutes drawn up by the prior and senior monks, possibly issued in Simon of Luton’s time, to promote economy in the abbey, state that the cellarer had to provide one cheese every day for each of the monks’ two tables in the refectory,97 but ‘the abbot was to be consulted about giving a cheese to the servants’.98

90

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

and Dictionary of Medieval Latin, p. 1843. For the lavish use of nuts in cookery in medieval times and, indeed, well into the modern period see above p. 308 and n. 70. This dish was made of pounded beans, almond milk, wine, honey and raisins. Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, pp. 77–8 no. 81, 187, and Hieatt (ed.), Pottage, pp. 36 no. 2, 122. Pinch. Reg., i. 394 lines 8 up – 5 up. Rule, ed. Fry, c. 39.3, pp. 238/9. Pinch. Reg., i. 394 lines 12–15. Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 14, 90–1. Cf. Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, p. 98 no. 2. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 58v, and Pinch. Reg., i. 395 line 8 passim. For the consumption of eggs at Westminster see Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 38, 56, 218, 221 n. Bury Cust., p. 110 lines 23–5. For the statutes see above p. 138. Bury Cust., p. 110 line 25: ‘Consulendum est cum abbate super caseo servientibus dando’. The section from line 13 beginning ‘Ad superfluitatem resecandum’ to line 25 is omitted in BL MS Harley 1005, f. 221v.

312

APPENDIX II

The above information should give some impression of the monks’ food. But for a fuller picture, the extra dishes, the pittances, must be taken into account. The kitchener’s register devotes four pages to specifying the ingredients of various named pottages served as pittances which the cooks needed in order to produce the dishes.99 Further references occur scattered among records. The information from these various sources indicate that the food served as pittances was richer and, no doubt, more delicious than that contained in the regular dishes. Often much of the latter would probably have been left uneaten because the pittances were preferred, and the leftovers would be given as alms. Among the pittances mentioned by name in the records are pottages which appeared in many different forms. In a few instances the ingredients and mode of cooking a dish are given in sufficient detail to allow us to identify it with one whose recipe appears in medieval and later cookery books. Examples of this will be cited below. The instructions in the cookery books are detailed and have been slightly simplified here. In each case the evidence in the kitchener’s recipe is cited in the first paragraph and that in medieval recipe books below it, in the second paragraph.

Froise (‘Froyse’) Half a calf, more or less according to size, and 150 hens’ eggs. Served throughout the year but not during Advent and Lent because then ‘grease (that is, animal fat) is condemned’.100 To make froise the eggs were beaten, the meat cooked and chopped small and mixed with the eggs, and pepper, salt and saffron were added; the mixture was fried in ‘fresh grease until it comes together’; it was pressed with a plate until firm, turned and fried again with more grease, and turned once or twice more; when done it was cut into pieces.101 In another recipe bread crumbs were

99 100

101

Douai, BM MS 533, ff. 10–11v. Below pl. VII. Douai, BM MS 533, f. 10. The entry adds that a whole calf would be used ‘either more or less, according to the size [of the calf] in the refectory, if the froise is provided for by liveries in kind. The whole passage reads: ‘Item eciam ambo Coci supradicti debent semper habere pro froyse faciend’ tantum pro Conuentu in Refectorio, dimid’ vitulum secundum quod est siue maius siue minus. Centum et dimid’ oua gallinarum. Si autem predictus Froise sit ministratum cum liberacionibus debent semper habere vnum vitulum integrum siue plus siue minus secundum quod est pro necessitate habenda in Refectorio et liberacionibus predictis distribuenda. tempus vero istius seruicij semper durat in Refectorio predicto per totum annum except’ Aduentu, Septuagesima, et quadragesima temporibus, per que enim tempora dampnantur omnia pinguia seruicia’. For the various meanings of liberatio see Harvey, Obedientiaries, p. lxi. Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, p. 86. See also Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 38, 55 n., 220, 222.

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

313

used instead of eggs,102 and a recipe from Peterborough abbey was for a meatless froise.103

Mortreux One conventual loaf, one ‘bipece’ of pork, or as much as suffices and as much saffron as is needed. Served in winter, from Michaelmas to Ash Wednesday. The pork was boiled, skinned and boned, cut into small pieces, pounded in a mortar, mixed with bread crumbs, strained, tempered with ale and boiled in a pot. Egg yolks were added ‘and then let it boil no more’. Powdered ginger and salt were added.104

Jussel One conventual loaf, a half bipece of pork or as much as is necessary, forty eggs and sufficient saffron. To be served from Easter until the feast of St John the Baptist (24 June). Capon or beef was boiled with sage, parsley and saffron. The white and yolk of eggs were strained and mixed with bread crumbs, kneaded together by hand, thrown into the broth, stirred gently until ‘it comes together and curdles’.105

Charlet Three gallons of milk, a half ‘bipece’ of pork, forty eggs, and sufficient saffron. Served on meat days from the feast of St John the Baptist until Michaelmas, ‘as is the ancient custom’. The milk was put in a pot with salt and saffron. A ‘fair bit’ of veal or pork, ‘not too fat’, was cut up small, mixed with the milk. When boiling strained eggs and ale were stirred in until they curdled. The curds (apparently including the bits of meat) were pressed a little with a plate and served with the broth poured over them.106

102 103 104

105 106

Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, p. 65 no. 18. King (ed.), Book of William Morton, p. 20. See Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 14 (‘Mortrewys de Fleyssh’), 70–1 (‘Mortreus de Chare’) for similar recipes; Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 58 n. 73, 216–17, for mortress as part of the diet of the Westminster monks. See Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, p. 87 (Giussell), and Harvey, Living and Dying, p. 58 n. 73. See Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, pp. 66 no. 20, 107 n. 42; Harvey, Living and Dying, p. 58 n. 73.

314

APPENDIX II

Letlorre The contents were the same as in charlet, but without the meat, and it was served during the same period, but on fish days. It was made in the same way as charlet.107

Bunsewes Two ‘bipeces’ of pork, fifty hens’ eggs, spices (pepper, cloves, mace, ginger and cinnamon), currants and syrup, and sufficient saffron. Served as a pittance on the four principal feasts – Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. The ingredients suggest that they were used to make the filling of open tarts. There were tarts called ‘Tartes Bosewes’,108 but no recipe for them appears to be known. However, the ingredients listed above would have been roughly appropriate for the fillings of ‘tartee’, ‘Tartletes’109 and ‘Tartes de chare’,110 respectively, the fillings of which were composed of ground meat, dried fruit and spices. These tarts were the forerunners of our own mince pies.111

Noumbles112 Three netyssewes (the edible innards of bovine animals), two conventual loaves, spices (pepper, cloves and mace), and sufficient saffron. Served when eggs are in short supply and at supper throughout the summer when necessary, from Easter to Michaelmas. A common form of medieval dish was made with the umbles of deer: the umbles were boiled and cut up. Bread was added to the broth and ‘ground’ and tempered with ‘a good quantity’ of vinegar and wine. Onions, parboiled and finely minced, were added, and the mixture coloured with blood, and peppered and salted and boiled up.113 At Westminster, sheep’s, not bovine innards were used, and this was a winter dish. At Westminster, and probably at St Edmunds, the dish was tempered with ale, not wine.114 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114

Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, p. 17 (Letlory). Cf. Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, p. 116 no. 83. Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, pp. 40 no. 3, 218. Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, p. 136 no. 172. Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, p. 137 no. 177. Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, p. 47. Alternatively spelt ‘umbles’. Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 10, 70. Harvey, Living and Dying, p. 58. A common form of medieval dish was made with the umbels of deer. Recipes state that the umbels were boiled and cut up. Bread was added to the broth and ‘ground’ and tempered with vinegar and wine. Onions – parboiled and

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

315

Cawdelferree Five pounds of almonds, rice flour, honey to sweeten sufficiently and as much saffron as the kitchener thinks necessary. Served on fish days throughout winter because of lack of eggs. Medieval recipes headed ‘Cawdelle ferry’ and the like are not appropriate for these ingredients, but a recipe headed ‘Ryse on fische days’ is appropriate. Blanched almonds were ground and put in water. The rice was washed, sugared and salted and let stand. (Presumably the ingredients had been mixed together and cooked.) The dish was garnished with toasted almonds or sugar.115

Colys116 Two conventual loaves, two ‘bipecys’ of pork, three pounds of almonds with sufficient honey and saffron. Served on meat days from Michaelmas to Ash Wednesday. A medieval recipe describes this pottage but it was made with capon, not pork. A good capon was boiled until tender and then boned and skinned and crushed in a mortar, mixed with the broth and strained. The ‘brawn’ and flesh were mixed with a little white bread and all was crushed together in a mortar. The juices from the bones and skin and the broth of the capon were boiled and mixed together ‘but not too thick’. Everything was put in a pot and heated, but not boiled, and powdered ginger, sugar and salt were thrown in. On fish days this pottage was made with haddock, pike, tench, ray (or) coddling, boned and mixed with almond milk.117

Rys Eight pounds of almonds, five pounds of rice and sufficient honey to sweeten. If this pottage was to be served in the hall of the monks who had been bled, as well as to the convent in the refectory; it was to be cooked, not by the cook of pittances, but by the cook who cooked for the monks who had been bled. He was to have 15 or 16 pounds of almonds, nine pounds of rice and sufficient honey to sweeten.

115 116

117

finely minced – were added, and the mixture coloured with blood and tempered with pepper and salt. See Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 10, 70. Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, pp. 45 no. 5, 107 no. 43, 127 no. 129 and Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 16, 96. Defined in SOED, i. 436 under Cullis as a ‘strong broth of meat, fowl etc., boiled and strained’. The dish described here in the kitchener’s register was obviously more substantial. ‘Coleys’ in Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 10–11.

316

APPENDIX II

One medieval recipe for rice (rys) states that the rice was to be washed, cooked until it broke up, and then allowed to cool; almond milk or cows’ milk was added, and it was coloured with saffron and salted. This was the recipe for ‘potage of rys’. Another recipe, ‘Rys moille’, is similar but was made only with almond milk, sweetened with sugar, and salted. Saffron is not mentioned.118

Dalydews Four or five pounds of almonds, nine or ten loaves of wastel bread. The fish cook prepared this pottage which was served twice a year, on Easter Eve and on the vigil of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Wastel bread was a high quality white bread. Possibly these ingredients were used to prepare ‘Hote mylke of almoundys’ or ‘Colde mylke of almoundys’. Blanched almonds were mixed with water, sweetened with sugar or honey, and boiled. It was served hot and toasted bread was served in a separate dish. The recipe for ‘Cold mylke of almoundys’ is similar but more elaborate and includes a little wine.119 Besides listing the ingredients for these dishes, the kitchener’s register has a section on dishes cooked by the cook of the hall of monks who had been bled. It more or less duplicates the accounts of four of the dishes which the cook of pittances had to prepare in the section considered above, that is, Letlorre, Charlet, Jussell and Mortreux, but it adds Furmente which was cooked for all the convent.

Furmente Two bushels of wheat, four gallons of milk, and saffron provided by the kitchener. Served from the feast of St Peter in Chains (1 August) until Michaelmas, on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. In effect, furmenty pottage was served at harvest time when grain was fresh and at its most abundant. Furmenty was a common medieval dish resembling a wheat porridge. Hulled, broken, wheat was boiled until mushy, tempered with cob nut or almond milk and boiled until thick. Egg yolks might be added. The dish was coloured with saffron, sugared and salted. Some recipes are for furmenty to be served with chopped venison, porpoise or other meat.120 The customs in BL MS Harley 1005 have much information about the convent’s pittances and specify which obedientiary was responsible for providing

118 119 120

Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 113–14, and Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, pp. 75 nos 64, 67. Hieatt (ed.) Pottage, pp. 106 no. 188, 107 no. 189. Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 17, 70, 105, and Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, pp. 79 no. 89, 98 no. 1, 114 no. 70, 148 no. 2.

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

317

each particular pittance.121 The cellarer was responsible for many of them. Thus, ‘on the Sunday when “Qui habitat” is sung’ (the first Sunday in Lent) he had to provide the convent with oysters at dinner.122 These were to be served on small boards (asseres parnos) shared by two or three monks. Each monk who wished to eat oysters should have sufficient rather than any precise number. On the Sunday before Ash Wednesday, the cellarer had to provide 140 flans (flavones, fladones, open tarts); the three master-bakers who prepared the flan should have three of them, and the master-cooks five flans, not more.123 These flans were meaty. For their preparation in the bakery, the kitchen supplied the six bakers (‘ministri de pistrino’) with three lumps (frustra) of meat and twelve eggs. Flans and pies were much eaten in the Middle Ages and many recipes survive describing their preparation. In the present instance the meat would have been cut up small and probably crushed in a mortar, mixed with strained egg, and the mixture poured into the pastry cases (‘coffins’ in medieval recipes).124 On the vigil of the feast of St Edmund (19 November) the cellarer had to provide a porpoise, if available, and peas. If no porpoise was available, it seems that the cellarer had to provide one at some other time. Porpoise was considered a great delicacy and thought to be a fish in the Middle Ages.125 BL MS Harley 1005 tells how the monks’ helpings at St Edmunds were increased over the years. Originally, ‘by ancient custom’, the porpoise was cooked and cut into tiny pieces which were scattered on cold peas: in time cellarers ‘out of kindness’ allowed each monk a whole piece, and later still the cellarers ‘wishing to be more generous’ increased the allowance to two pieces.126 On the feast of St Edmund itself (20 November), the cellarer had to provide ‘one large cheese, to be carried complete into the refectory ‘in some napkin’ (‘in manutergis aliquo’), and then the kitchener ought not to supply the convent with another cheese’. At the beginning of Advent, apparently on the Monday, and again on the feast of St Nicholas (6 December), the cellarer had to provide ‘the best pittance’ at dinner, that is a rice and almond pottage ‘in three full, good dishes and also in an especially fine dish [to be placed] before the prior’.127 The ingredients needed 121

122

123 124 125 126

127

BL MS Harley 1005, ff. 36–37v, 58v–59, 61, 94–94v, and Pinch. Reg., i. 373–7 passim. The text in Harley 1005 is of course earlier than that in the Pinchbeck register, and better – at least as the printed text of the latter. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 61; Pinch. Reg., i. 376–7. For various no doubt delicious recipes for oysters see Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 13, 23, 10; Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, pp. 57 no. 62, 76 no. 73, 126 nos 124, 126. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 58v; Pinch. Reg., i. 393–4. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 58v; Pinch. Reg., i. 394. Cf. Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 47, 52, 74; Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, p. 137 no. 176. Above p. 316. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 60; Pinch. Reg., i. 373. I find no equivalent in medieval cookery books but cf. Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, pp. 17, 105, and Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch, pp. 114 no. 70, 123 no. 111. BL MS Harley 1005, f. 60; Pinch. Reg., i. 373: ‘In festo sancti Nicholai debet celerarius inuenire Conuentui pitanciam optimam et debet prouidere celerarius quod procuretur

318

APPENDIX II

for the pottage were seven pounds of rice and 14 pounds of almonds.128 Also on that day the cellarer had to supply twelve sticks (‘stiks’, that is, measures) of eels if he had them, 400 onions and thirty pieces of sturgeon. The latter was a delicacy but eels in onion sauce were a common medieval dish. Thus, for ‘Elys in Sorre’ (‘Eels in sorrel’), the eels were skinned and chopped up and boiled in the fish broth with chopped parsley and onion, and pepper; the broth was thickened with bread, strained and again boiled with the eels. Salt and vinegar were added before serving.129 Other medieval recipes for eels in onion sauce were more highly spiced and included ale or wine in the broth. Among the pittances which the sacrist had to supply were those on the feast of Relics (that is, on the seventh Sunday after Easter). At supper on that day he had to provide ale, obleys (nebulas) and wafers (wafres). This kind of medieval wafer must not be confused with an obley, a Eucharist wafer – a disc of unleavened bread. The medieval wafer was a delicacy comprising a casing of flour, white of egg, sugar and ginger, spread with a paste made of belly of pike, pounded in a mortar and ground with cheese. But most remarkable on the feast of Relics was the great variety of fish the sacrist had to provide the monks with at dinner ‘by ancient custom’, that is: twenty-four pike, each one 22 ins long from head to tail; sixty small pike ‘which are called semiuvoldes’, or thirty pike 22 ins long; and in addition three especially large pike for roasting, one for the abbot, one for the prior and one for the sacrist. Besides these pike he had to provide three sticks of small eels (steylinges), thirty-six perch, thirty-six roach and a sturgeon.130 It is perhaps surprising that on such special occasions as the beginning of Advent, the feast of St Nicholas and on the feast of Relics that a common dish like eels and onions should be served as a pittance. Although conger eels were a delicacy, it is unlikely that they were used for the dishes in question because they are large and a ‘stick’ is defined as a quantity measure of small eels. On the other hand lampreys which resembled small eels were sometimes called eels.131 Lampreys were a delicacy and, according to a fifteenth-century recipe, could be served with an onion sauce much like that served with eels.132 Therefore, possibly the cellarer and sacrist had to provide lampreys, not eels, on these respective occasions.

128 129

130 131 132

Conuentus in potagio de Rys et Amigdalis et in tribus ferculis plenarijs [Pinch. Reg.: plenarie] et bonis et Insuper in vno superferculo delicato coram priore’. Douai, BM MS 553, f. 11–11v. Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery Books, p. 89. It is not clear when the sorrel was added. For the use of sorrel in soups and sauces in the Middle Ages see Carlin and Rosenthal (eds), Food and Eating, p. 109; Schneider, Medieval Kitchen, p. 64. For other eel recipes see ibid., pp. 22, 25, 145. For the consumption of eels at Westminster see Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 48–9 and n. 44. Bury Cust., pp. 54–5. SOED, p. 2018 col. 1, under stick. Sb 2. SOED, p. 585 col. 2, i. … ‘Nine-eyed eel: the River Lamprey’. Cf. SOED, p. 1002 ‘Lambreyeel, the Sea-lamprey’.

THE MONKS’ DIETARY REGIME; THEIR FOOD AND DRINK

319

Conclusion The above account of the monks’ dietary regime and food shows that the monks enjoyed a wide variety of delicious food on the many feast days, including their vigils and octaves, and even during the fasting periods – in effect on many days in the year. Clearly, they feasted on more food and drank more ale and wine than St Benedict would have thought proper. What effect it had on their health and life expectancy is impossible to say as we do not have the necessary statistics.133 Nevertheless, a few general observations may be made. The lavish use of nutmilk would have been better for their health than creamy cows’ milk since it is lower in cholesterol. The consumption of quantities of fish, especially oily fish such as herring, rather than of a lot of red meat, would likewise have been beneficial. They also consumed large quantities of pulses – peas and beans – which are another excellent source of protein, but one very low in saturated fat and high in fibre and vitamins, while the monks’ vegetables were organic and mostly locally grown on St Edmunds’ estates and so high in vitamins. Moreover, the monks’ mainly unheated surroundings and the activity of many in the performance of their duties as obedientiaries would have stimulated their metabolism. And the monks enjoyed periodical breaks in their routine and relief from their duties during their times in the infirmary for blood-letting – the seyney. They must have benefited from the change of food, warm surroundings and walks in the vineyard. They would have returned to the cloister or to their offices refreshed in mind and body.

133

On the difficulty of estimating life expectancy at Canterbury and Westminster in the late medieval period see the contribution by Jim Oeppen to Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 236–8 (Appendix IV).

Select List of the Registers and Customaries cited Douai, Bibliothèque Municipale MS 553, Kitchener’s customary, c. 1425 (Thomson, Archives, pp. 37, 146–7 no. 1295). Cambridge, University Library MSS Additional 6006, Customary, late 13th c. (Thomson, pp. 139–41 no. 1292). Ee. iii. 60, ‘Pinchbeck (or Vestry) register’ cartulary, 14th c. (Thomson, pp. 123–6 no. 1280). Ff. ii. 29, Red Vestry register pt 1, early 15th c. (Thomson, pp. 130–1 no. 1284). Ff. iv. 35, Red Vestry register pt 2, early 15th c. (Thomson, pp. 131–2 no. 1285). Ff. ii. 33, Sacrist’s register, late 13th–14th cc. (Thomson, pp. 19–20, 148–9 no. 1296). Gg. iv. 4, Cellarer’s register pt 1, 15th c. (Thomson, pp. 150–1 no. 1299). Mm. iv. 19, Black register ‘of the vestry’, c. 1200–14th c. (Thomson, pp. 16, 19, 119–21 no. 1277). London, British Library MSS Additional 14847, White register, of the sacrist, late 13th–14th cc. (Thomson, pp. 19, 121–3 no. 1278). Additional 14848, ‘Registrum Curteys’ pt 1 or register of the acts of William Curteys, abbot of St Edmunds, pt 1, 1429–46 (Thomson, pp. 134–40 no. 1289). Additional 7096, ‘Registrum Curteys’ pt 2 or register of the acts of William Curteys, abbot of St Edmunds, pt 2, 1429–46 (Thomson, pp. 135–9 no. 1290). Harley 27, Pittancer’s register, after 1427–8 (Thomson, pp. 37, 157 no. 1308). Harley 230, Register of Abbot Thomas of Tottington and Abbot Richard of Drayton etc., late 13th–early 14th cc. (Thomson, pp. 19, 22–3, 132–3 no. 1286). Harley 638, ‘Werketone’ register, 13th–15th cc. (Thomson, pp. 23, 126–7 no. 1281). Harley 645, ‘Kempe’ register, 14th–15th cc. (Thomson, pp. 23, 127–9 no. 1282). Harley 743, ‘Lakenheath’ register, 14th c. (Thomson, pp. 5, 23–5, 30, 32, 129–30 no. 1283). Harley 1005, the White Book, 13th–14th cc. (Thomson, pp. 17, 142–5 no. 1293). TNA, Duchy of Lancaster MS 42/5, Cellarer’s register.

Select List of Further Manuscripts Cited Bury St Edmunds, Moyses Hall Museum MS (formerly MS A 8/1 in SRO/B) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 92 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum MS 328 Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 225/240 Cambridge, Pembroke College MSS 7, 26, 27, 32, 46, 47, 59, 62, 69, 85, 87, 100, 101, 102 Cambridge, St John’s College MS 138 Cambridge University Library MSS Additional 6860, Ff. iii. 5 Chicago University Library MSS Bacon 697, 805 London, British Library MSS Additional 47214 Claudius A XII Cotton Julius A 1 Cotton Nero D II Cotton Nero C V Harley 447, Gesta pontificum Harley 1132 Harley 3977 Royal 8 F XIV Royal 10 B XII Royal 11 B III Royal 12 F XV London, College of Arms MSS Arundel 6, Arundel 30 Oxford, All Souls College MS 49 Oxford, Bodl. Lib. MSS Laud or. 174, 225, 240, 297, 412 Oxford, Bodl. Lib. MS e Mus 8 Oxford, Magdalen College MS 172, Gesta pontificum San Marino, Huntington Library MS HM 45717 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. MS 12, the ‘Bury Psalter’

Select Bibliography Further titles are to be found in the list of abbreviations Primary sources Annales monastici, ed. H. R. Luard (RS 36, London, 1864–9, 5 vols) Austin (ed.), Two Fifteenth Two Fifteenth-Century Cookery-Books, ed. T. Austin (Early   Century Cookery Books English Text Soc., o. s. 91, London, 1888) Bracton Bracton: On the Laws and Customs of England, ed. George E. Woodbine, trans. and rev. Samuel E. Thorne (Cambridge, MA, 1968–77, 4 vols) Brand, Earliest Law Reports Paul A. Brand, The Earliest English Law Reports, i, Common Bench Reports to 1284 (Selden Soc. 111, London, 1995), ii, Common Bench Reports 1285–1289 (Selden Soc. 112, London, 1996), iii, Eyre Reports to 1285 (Selden Soc. 122, London, 2005), iv, Eyre Reports to 1286–9 and Undated Eyre Reports; Exchequer of the Jews Reports; pre-1290 Assize Reports; pre-1290 Reports from Unidentified Courts and Additional Pre-1290 Common Bench Reports (Selden Soc. 123, London, 2007) ‘Critical Edition of Bury St ‘A Critical Edition of the Bury St Edmunds Chronicle in   Edmunds Chronicle in Arundel 30 (College of Arms)’, ed. A. Gransden, London   Arundel 30’, ed. University, Ph.D. thesis, 1957  Gransden Chron. of John of Worcester The Chronicle of John of Worcester, ii, ed. R. R. Darlington † and Patrick McGurk, trans. Jennifer Bray † and Patrick McGurk (Oxford, 1995), iii, ed. and trans. Patrick McGurk (Oxford, 1998); (vol. i forthcoming) Chrons Edward I and II Chronicles in the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. William Stubbs (RS 76, London, 1882–3, 2 vols) Cotton, Historia anglicana Bartholomew Cotton, Historia anglicana [A.D. 449–1298], ed. H. R. Luard (RS 16, London, 1859) Cron. maiorum et De antiquis legibus liber. Cronica maiorum et vicecomitum   vicecomitum Londoniarum Londoniarum, ed. Thomas Stapleton (Camden Soc. 34, London, 1846) Crook, Records David Crook, Records of the General Eyre (Public Record Office Handbooks 20, London, 1982) De Moneta of Nicholas The De Moneta of Nicholas Oresme and English Mint  Oresme, ed. Johnson Documents, ed. and trans. Charles Johnson (London, 1956) Dymond and Martin, Atlas An Historical Atlas of Suffolk, ed. David Dymond and Edward Martin (rev. and enlarged edn, Ipswich, 1999) EEA 40 English Episcopal Acta 40: Norwich 1266–1288, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill (Oxford, 2012) Feudal Docs, ed. Douglas Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds, ed. D. C. Douglas (British Academy Records of Social and Economic History 8, Oxford, 1932) Ann. mon.

324 THE

ABBEY 1257–1301

Florentius Wigorniensis monachi Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Benjamin Thorpe (English Historical Soc., London, 1848, 1849, 2 vols) Graham (ed.), ‘Papal ‘A papal visitation of Bury St Edmunds and Westminster in   visitation’ 1234’, ed. Rose Graham, EHR, 27 (1912), pp. 728–39 Guisborough The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, previously edited as the Chronicle of Walter of Hemingford or Hemingburgh, ed. Harry Rothwell (Camden Soc., 3rd ser. 89, London, 1957) Harmer, Writs F. E. Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs (Manchester, 1952, 1959, 2nd edn with addition, Stamford, 1989) Harper-Bill, Hospitals Charters of the Medieval Hospitals of Bury St Edmunds, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill (Suffolk Records Soc. 14, Woodbridge, 1994) Hervey, Green Books S[ydenham] H. A. Hervey, Hervey, first Bishop of Ely, and some others of the same name, 1050 to 1500 (Suffolk Green Books 19, Woodbridge, 1894–1929, 20 vols) Hieatt (ed.), Pottage An Ordinance of Pottage. An edition of the 15th c. Culinary Recipes in Yale University’s MS Beinecke IG3, ed. Constance B. Hieatt (London, 1988) Hieatt and Butler (eds), Curye on Inglysch: English Culinary Manuscripts of the   Curye on Inglysch fourteenth century (including the ‘Forme of Cury’), ed. Constance B. Hieatt and Sharon Butler (Early English Text Soc. s.s. 8, London, 1885) Histoire des Conciles Hefele, C.-J. von, Conciliengeschichte (2nd edn, Freiburg, 1873–90, 6 vols), corrected and greatly enlarged, with French translation, by Henri Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles après des documents originaux (Paris, 1907–38, 20 vols), the text used here Horstmann, Nova legenda Nova legenda anglie, as Collected by John of Tynemouth, John Capgrave and others, ed. Carl Horstmann (Oxford, 1901, 2 vols) Kalendar, ed. Davis The Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds and Related Documents, ed. R. H. C. Davis, (Camden Soc., 3rd ser., 84, London, 1954) King (ed.), Book of The Book of William Morton, almoner of Peterborough   William Morton Monastery, 1448–1467, ed. P. I. King, transcribed and annotated by W. T. Mellows, with an introduction by C. N. L. Brooke (Northants Record Soc. 16, [Northampton], 1954) Lanfranc, Constitutions, The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc, ed. and trans. David   ed. Knowles and Brooke Knowles, rev. ed. Christopher N. L. Brooke (Oxford, 2002) Letter-Book of William of The Letter-Book of William of Hoo sacrist of Bury St Edmunds  Hoo 1280–1294, ed. A. Gransden (Suffolk Records Soc. 5, Ipswich, 1963) Liber Quotidianus Liber Quotidianus contrarotuloris garderobae anno regni regis primi vicesimo octavo A. D. 1299–1300, ed. John Topham (London, 1787) Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj. Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard (RS 57, London, 1872–83, 7 vols) Matthew Paris, GASA Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Gesta abbatum Flor. Wig.



Matthew Paris, Hist.   anglorum Oseney Oxenedes Pantin (ed.), Chapters

Pinch. Reg. Register of St Benet of  Holme, ed. West Reg. Boniface VIII

Reg. Honorius IV Reg. Nicholas III, ed. Gay Reg. Peckham Reg. Winchelsey Rishanger, Chron., ed.   Halliwell Robertson, Charters Rouse and Rouse (eds),  Catalogus Rule, ed. Fry Rye, Suffolk Fines Sawyer, Charters Statutes of the Realm

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

325

monasterii Sancti Albani, ed. H. T. Riley (RS 28, London, 1867–9, 3 vols) Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Historia anglorum sive historia minor, ed. Frederic Madden (RS 44, London, 1866–9, 3 vols) Annals of Oseney [1016–1347], printed along with Wykes (q.v.) in Ann. Mon., iv. 3–352 Chronica (A.D. 449–1293) Johannis de Oxenedes, ed. Henry Ellis (RS 13, London, 1859) Documents Illustrating the Activities of the General and Provincial Chapters of the English Black Monks 1215–1540, ed. W. A. Pantin, Camden Soc., 3rd ser., 45, 47, 54 (London, 1931–7, 3 vols) The Pinchbeck Register Relating to the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds, etc., ed. Francis Hervey (Brighton – London, 1925, 2 vols) (printed from CUL, MS Ee. iii. 60) St Benet of Holme 1020–1210. The Eleventh and Twelfth Century Sections of Cotton MS Galba E ii. The Register of the Abbey of St Benet of Holme, ed. J. R. West (Norfolk Record Soc., 2, 3 [Fakenham], 1932, 2 vols) Les Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. G. Digard, M. Faucon, A. Thomas and R. Fawtier, Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athenes et de Rome, ser. 2 (Paris, 1884–1935, 3 vols, 2 fascicules) Les Registres d’Honorius IV, ed. M. Prou, Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, ser. 2 (Paris, 1888) Les Registres de Nicholas III (1277–1280), ed. J. Gay, Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athenes et de Rome, ser. 2 (Paris, 1898–1938, 4 fascicules) Registrum epistolarum Johannis Peckham archiepiscopi Cantuariensis (1279–92), ed. Charles Trice Martin (RS 77, London, 1882–5, 3 vols) Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ed. Rose Graham (Canterbury and York Soc., 56, 57, Oxford, 1952, 1956, 2 vols) The Chronicle of William de Rishanger of the Barons’ War. The Miracles of Simon de Montfort, ed. J. O. Halliwell (Camden Soc., o. s. 15, London, 1840) Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. and trans. A. J. Robertson (Cambridge, 1939) Henry of Kirkestede, ‘Catalogus de Libris Autenticis et Apocrifis’, ed. R. H. Rouse and M. A. Rouse, Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues, 11 (London, 2004) The Rule of St Benedict, ed. and trans. Timothy Fry (Collegeville, MN, 1981) Walter Rye, A Calendar of the Feet of Fines for Suffolk [Richard I – Richard III] (Ipswich, 1900) P. H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters. An Annotated List and Bibliography (London, 1968) Statutes of the Realm (1101–1713), ed. Alexander Luders,

326 THE

ABBEY 1257–1301

T. E. Tomlins and others (Record Commission, London, 1810–28, 11 vols) Stones and Simpson, E. L. G. Stones and G. G. Simpson, Edward I and the   Edward I and the Throne Throne of Scotland 1290–1296. An edition of the record   of Scotland sources for the Great Cause (Oxford, 1978, 2 vols) Stubbs, Select Charters William Stubbs, Select Charters and other Illustrations of English Constitutional History from the earliest times to the reign of Edward the First (Oxford, 1870, 9th edn rev. by H. W. C. Davis, 1913) Tait, James (ed.), John of Chronica Johannis de Reading et Anonymi Cartuariensis   Reading 1346–1367, ed. with introduction and notes by James Tait (Manchester, 1914), pp. 99–186 Tolhurst (ed.), Hyde The Monastic Breviary of Hyde Abbey, Winchester, ed.   Breviary J. B. L. Tolhurst (Henry Bradshaw Soc., 59, 70, 71, 76, 78, 80, London, 1930–42, six vols) Treharne, Documents Documents of the Baronial Movement of Reform and Rebellion 1258–1267, selected, ed. and trans. by R. F. Treharne and I. J. Sanders (Oxford, 1973) Wells-Furby, Bohun of The Bohun of Fressingfield Cartulary, ed. Bridget Wells  Fressingfield Furby (Suffolk Charters Soc. 19, Woodbridge, 2011) Westminster Chron., ed. The Westminster Chronicle 1381–1394, ed. and trans. L. C.   Hector † and Harvey Hector † and Barbara F. Harvey (Oxford, 1982) Wykes, Chron. Thomas Wykes, Chronicon [1066–1289], printed along with Oseney (q.v.) in Ann. Mon., iv. 6–319

Secondary sources Allen, ‘Ecclesiastical mints’ Martin Allen, ‘Ecclesiastical mints in thirteenth-century England’, in Thirteenth Century England VIII, Proceedings of the Durham Conference 1999, ed. Michael Prestwich, Richard Britnell and Robin Frame (Woodbridge, 2001), pp. 113–22 Barrow, Robert Bruce G. W. S. Barrow, Robert Bruce (London, 1965) Binns, Dedications A. Binns, Dedications of Monastic Houses in England and Wales, 1066–1216 (Woodbridge, 1989) Binski, Becket’s Crown P. Binski, Becket’s Crown: Art and Imagination in Gothic England, 1170–1300 (New Haven – London, 2004) Binski, Painted Chamber at P. Binski, The Painted Chamber at Westminster (London,   Westminster 1986) [Black], Catalogue of the [W. H. Black], Catalogue of the Arundel Manuscripts in the   Arundel Manuscripts Library of the College of Arms (London, 1829, privately printed) Bond, Monastic Landscapes James Bond, Monastic Landscapes (Stroud, 2004) Brand, Making of the Paul Brand, The Making of the Common Law (London – Rio   Common Law Grande, 1992) Bury St Edmunds, ed. Bury St Edmunds. Medieval Art, Architecture, Archaeology   Gransden and Economy, ed. A. Gransden (British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions, 20, [London], 1998 for 1994)



SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

327

Cam, Liberties and H. M. Cam, Liberties and Communities in Medieval England.   Communities Collected Studies in Local Administration and Topography (Cambridge, 1944) Carlin and Rosenthal Food and Eating in Medieval Europe, ed. Martha Carlin and  (eds), Food and Eating J. T. Rosenthal (London – Rio Grande, OH, 1998) Carpenter, Reign of David Carpenter, The Reign of Henry III (London, 1996)   Henry III Chew, Ecclesiastical H. M. Chew, The English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief and   Tenants-in-Chief Knight Service (Oxford, 1932) Chew, ‘Scutage’ H. M. Chew, ‘Scutage under Edward I’, EHR, 37 (1922), pp. 321–36 Cobban, Medieval English A. B. Cobban, The Medieval English Universities: Oxford and   Universities Cambridge to c. 1500 (Aldershot, 1988) Corran, Brewing H. S. Corran, A History of Brewing (Newton Abbot, Devon [1975]) Davis, Cartularies G. R. C. Davis, Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain. A Short Catalogue (London – New York – Toronto, 1958) Davis, Medieval Cartularies, G. R. C. Davis, Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain and   rev. edn Ireland, rev. by Claire Breay, Julian Harrison and David M. Smith (London, 2010) Davis, ‘Commune’ H. W. C. Davis, ‘The Commune of Bury St Edmunds, 1264’, EHR, 24 (1909), pp. 313–17 Deighton, ‘Clerical H. S. Deighton, ‘Clerical taxation by consent, 1279–1301’,  taxation’ EHR, 68 (1953), pp. 161–92 Denton, Winchelsey J. H. Denton, Robert Winchelsey and the Crown 1294–1313 (Cambridge, 1980) Dickinson, Scotland from W. Croft Dickinson, Scotland from the Earliest Times to   the Earliest Times 1603, 3rd edn rev. and ed. Archibald A. M. Duncan (Oxford, 1977) Dictionary of Medieval Latin Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, ed. R. E. Latham et al. (Oxford, 1975–2013, 17 fascicules) Dyer, Standards of Living Christopher Dyer, Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages: Social Change in England c. 1200–1520 (Cambridge, 1989, repr. 1990, 1993, 1994) Dyer, ‘Trade, Towns and Christopher Dyer, ‘Trade, Towns and the Church.   the Church’ Ecclesiastical consumers and the urban economy in the West Midlands, 1290–1540’, in The Church in the Medieval Town, ed. T. R. Slater and Gervase Rosser (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 55–75 Eaglen, ‘The mint at Bury R. J. Eaglen, ‘The mint at Bury St Edmunds’, in Bury St   St Edmunds’ Edmunds, ed. Gransden, pp. 111–21 H. B. Earle Fox and H. B. Earle Fox and J. S. Shirley Fox, ‘Numismatic history   Shirley Fox, of the reigns of Edward I, II, and III’, BNJ, 6 (1909),   ‘Numismatic history’ pp. 197–212. Ibid., 7 (1910), pp. 91–142. Ibid., 8 (1911), pp. 137–48 Ekwall, Place Names Eilert Ekwall, The Concise English Dictionary of English Place-Names, 4th edn (Oxford, 1966) Farmer, Saints D. H. Farmer, The Oxford Dictionary of Saints (Oxford, 1978)

328 THE Finucane, Miracles and   Pilgrims Fraser, Antony Bek

ABBEY 1257–1301

R. C. Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims: Popular Beliefs in Medieval England (London, 1977, 2nd edn, 1995) C. M. Fraser, A History of Antony Bek bishop of Durham 1283–1311 (Oxford, 1957) Galbraith, Kings and V. H. Galbraith, Kings and Chroniclers, Essays in English   Chroniclers Medieval History (London, 1982) Galbraith, ‘Death of a V. H. Galbraith, ‘The death of a champion (1287)’, in   champion’ Studies in Medieval History Presented to F. M. Powicke, ed. R. W. Hunt, W. A. Pantin, and R. W. Southern (Oxford, 1948, repr. 1969), pp. 283–95 Galbraith, ‘St V. H. Galbraith, ‘The St Edmundsbury Chronicle,   Edmundsbury Chronicle’ 1296–1301’, EHR, 58 (1943), pp. 53–78. The section on the historical setting of the chronicle, ibid., pp. 57–61, is reprinted in Bury Chron., pp. xxix–xxxv Geary, Furta Sacra P. J. Geary, Furta Sacra. Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton, 1977, rev. edn, 1990) G.E.C., Peerage G. E. Cockayne, ed., The Complete Peerage, rev. and ed. V. Gibbs (London, 1910–59, 13 vols) Gough, Itinerary of Edward I Henry Gough, Itinerary of Edward I, 1272–1307 (Paisley, 1900, 2 vols). An expanded and corrected version in the PRO is used here Graham, ‘Papal visitation’ Rose Graham, ‘A papal visitation of Bury St. Edmunds and Westminster in 1234’, EHR, 27 (1913), pp. 723–39 Gransden, ‘The abbey of A. Gransden, ‘The abbey of Bury St Edmunds and national  Bury St Edmunds and politics in the reigns of King John and Henry III’, Monastic   national politics’ Studies, ii, ed. Judith Loades (Bangor, 1991), pp. 67–86 Gransden, ‘Alleged A. Gransden, ‘The alleged incorruption of the body of St   incorruption’ Edmund, king and martyr’, The Antiquaries Journ., 74 (1994), pp. 135–68 Gransden, Bury St A. Gransden, A History of Bury St Edmunds Abbey, i,   Edmunds Abbey [i], 1182–1256: Samson of Tottington to Edmund of Walpole  1182–1256 (Woodbridge, 2007) Gransden, ‘The chronicles A. Gransden, ‘The chronicles of medieval England and   of medieval England Scotland’, pt i, Journal of Medieval England, 26 (1990),   and Scotland’, i and ii 129–50; pt. ii, ibid., 27 (1991), pp. 217–43 Gransden, ‘Composition A. Gransden, ‘The composition and authorship of the De   and authorship of the miraculis Sancti Eadmundi attributed to “Hermann the   De miraculis’ Archdeacon”’, Journ. of Medieval Latin, 5 (1995), pp. 1–52 Gransden, ‘Cult of St Mary’ A. Gransden, ‘The cult of St Mary at Beodericisworth and then in Bury St Edmunds abbey to c. 1150’, JEH, 55, pt 4 (2004), pp. 627–53 Gransden, ‘Exhibition A. Gransden, ‘Some manuscripts in Cambridge from   catalogue’ Bury St Edmunds abbey: Exhibition catalogue’, in Bury St Edmunds, ed. Gransden, pp. 228–85 and pls LVII A – LXXXIV B Gransden, Historical A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England [i], c. 550–  Writing [i] c. 1307 (London, 1974, repr. 1998) Gransden, Historical A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England [ii], c. 1307 to the  Writing [ii] early sixteenth century (London, 1982, repr. 1998)



SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

329

Gransden, ‘John of A. Gransden, ‘John de Northwold, abbot of Bury St  Northwold and his Edmunds (1279–1301) and his defence of its liberties’, in   defence of [St Edmunds’] Thirteenth Century England III. Proceedings of the Newcastle   liberties’ upon Tyne Conference, 1989, ed. Simon Lloyd and P. R. Cross (Woodbridge, 1991), pp. 91–102 Gransden, Legends, A. Gransden, Legends, Traditions and History in Medieval   Traditions and History England (London, 1992) Gransden, ‘Legends and A. Gransden, ‘Legends and traditions concerning the   traditions concerning origins of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds’, EHR, 100   the origins of the abbey (1985), pp. 1–24, repr. eadem, Legends and Traditions,   of Bury St Edmunds’ pp. 81–104 (the text used here) Gransden, ‘Letter of A. Gransden, ‘Letter of Recommendation from John   Recommendation’ Whethamstede for a Poor Pilgrim, 1453/4’, EHR, 106 (1991), pp. 932–9 Gransden, ‘“Passio”’ A. Gransden, ‘Abbo of Fleury’s “Passio Sancti Eadmundi”’, Revue Bénédictine, 105 (Abbaye de Maredsous, 1995) Gransden, ‘Separation of A. Gransden, ‘The separation of portions between abbot   portions’ and convent at Bury St Edmunds: the decisive years, 1278–1281’, EHR, 119 (2004), pp. 373–406 Hammond, Food and Feast P. W. Hammond, Food and Feast in Medieval England (Stroud, 1993) Handbook of British Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd edn by E. B. Fryde et al.   Chronology (London, 1986) Harriss, King, Parliament G. L. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance in   and Public Finance Medieval England to 1369 (Oxford, 1975) Harvey, ‘Some mid-13th- P. D. A. Harvey, ‘Some mid-13th-century accounts from   century accounts’ Bury St Edmunds Abbey’, in Bury St Edmunds, ed. Gransden, pp. 128–38 Harvey, Living and Dying Barbara [F.] Harvey, Living and Dying in England 1100– 1540. The Monastic Experience (Oxford, 1993) Harvey, Obedientiaries Barbara [F.] Harvey, The Obedientiaries of Westminster Abbey and their Financial Record (Woodbridge, 2002) Harvey, Westminster Abbey Barbara [F.] Harvey, Westminster Abbey and its Estates in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1977) Hills, ‘Antiquities’ G. M. Hills, ‘The Antiquities of Bury St. Edmunds’, Journ. of the British Archaeological Association, 21 (1865), pp. 32–56, 104–40 Holt, Magna Carta J. C. Holt, Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1965, 2nd edn with additions, Cambridge, 1992, repr. 1994, 1995) Holt, ‘The prehistory of J. C. Holt, ‘The prehistory of parliament’, in The English   parliament’ Parliament in the Middle Ages, ed. R. G. Davies and J. H. Denton (Manchester, 1981) Homans, English Villagers G. C. Homans, English Villagers of the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, MA, 1942, repr. paperback New York, 1970) Howell, Regalian Right Margaret Howell, Regalian Right in Medieval England (London, 1962) Jacob, Studies E. F. Jacob, Studies in the Period of Baronial Reform and Rebellion, 1258–1267 (Oxford, 1925)

330 THE James, Abbey

ABBEY 1257–1301

M. R. James, On the Abbey of S. Edmund at Bury, I. The Library II. The Church (Publications of the Cambridge Antiquarian Soc., octavo ser. 8, Cambridge, 1895) James, Cat. Pemb. M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1905) Jurkowski, Smith and M. Jurkowski, C. L. Smith and D. Crook, Lay Taxes in   Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales 1188–1688 (Public Record Office   England and Wales Handbook 31, Richmond, Surrey, 1998) Knowles, Medieval David Knowles and R. Neville Hadcock, Medieval Religious   Religious Houses Houses: England and Wales (London, 1971) Knowles, MO David Knowles, The Monastic Order in England (Cambridge, 1940, repr. with corrections 1949, 2nd edn, 1963) Knowles, RO David Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, i, The Old Orders, 1216–1340 (Cambridge, 1956), ii, The End of the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1955), iii, The Tudor Age (Cambridge, 1959) Latham, Word-List Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources, prepared by R. E. Latham (London, 1965) Legge, Anglo-Norman in M. D. Legge, Anglo-Norman in the Cloisters. The Influence of   the Cloisters the Orders upon Anglo-Norman Literature (Edinburgh, 1950) Legge, Anglo-Norman M. D. Legge, Anglo-Norman Literature and its Background   Literature (Oxford, 1963) Levett, Manorial Studies A. E. Levett, Studies in Manorial History, ed. H. M. Cam, Mary Coate and L. S. Sutherland (Oxford, 1938) Licence, ‘The origins of T. Licence, ‘The origins of the monastic communities of St   the monastic Benedict at Holme and Bury St Edmunds’, Revue   communities’ bénédictine, 116 (2006), pp. 42–61 Lobel, ‘List of aldermen M. D. Lobel, ‘A list of the aldermen and bailiffs of Bury St   and bailiffs’ Edmunds from the twelfth to the sixteenth century’, PSIANH, 22 (1936), pp. 17–28 Lobel, Bury St. Edmunds M. D. Lobel, The Borough of Bury St. Edmunds: A Study in the Government and Development of a Monastic Town (Oxford, 1935) Lowe, ‘Two thirteenth- Kathryn Lowe, ‘Two thirteenth-century cartularies from   century cartularies’ Bury St Edmunds: a study in textual transmission’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 93 (1992), pp. 293–301 Lunt, ‘Consent to taxation’ W. E. Lunt, ‘The consent of the English lower clergy to taxation during the reign of Henry III’, in Persecution and Liberty. Essays in Honour of George Lincoln Burr (New York, 1931), pp. 117–69 Lunt, Fin. Relations W. E. Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England, i, to 1327 (Cambridge, MA, 1939), ii, 1327–1534 (Cambridge, MA, 1962) Lunt, Papal Revenues W. E. Lunt, Papal Revenues in the Middle Ages (New York, 1934, repr. 1965, 2 vols) Lunt, Valuation of Norwich W. E. Lunt, The Valuation of Norwich (Oxford, 1926)



McKinley, Norfolk and   Suffolk Surnames McKisack, Fourteenth   Century Maddicott, Simon de   Montfort Mate, ‘Indebtedness’

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

331

Richard McKinley, Norfolk and Suffolk Surnames in the Middle Ages, English Surnames Series, 2 (London – Chichester, 1975) May McKisack, The Fourteenth Century 1307–1399 (Oxford, 1959) J. R. Maddicott, Simon de Montfort (Cambridge, 1994)

M. Mate, ‘The indebtedness of Canterbury cathedral priory, 1215–95’, Economic History Review, 26.2 (1973), pp. 183–96 Mead, English Medieval Feast W. E. Mead, The English Medieval Feast (London, 2nd impression, 1967) Miller and Hatcher, Rural Edward Miller and John Hatcher, Medieval England: Rural   Society Society and Economic Change 1086–1348 (London – New York, 1978) Miller and Hatcher, Edward Miller and John Hatcher, Medieval England: Towns,   Towns, Commerce and Commerce and Crafts 1086–1348 (London – New York,   Crafts 1995) Mills, Place-Names A. D. Mills, A Dictionary of British Place-Names (Oxford, 2003 edn) Milsom, Studies S. F. C. Milsom, Studies in the History of the Common Law (London, 1985) Moor, Knights Charles Moor, Knights of Edward I (Harleian Soc. Publications 80–84, London, 1929–32, 5 vols) Parker, The Making of Vanessa Parker, The Making of Kings Lynn. Secular Buildings   Kings Lynn from the 11th to the 17th century (Kings Lynn Archaeological Survey 1, London – Chichester, 1971) Pevsner, Beds, Huntingdon Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England: Bedfordshire and   and Peterborough the County of Huntingdon and Peterborough (Harmondsworth, 1968, repr. 1974) Pevsner, Norfolk 1: Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England: Norfolk 1:   Norwich and N-E Norwich and North-East (Harmondsworth, 1962, repr. 1973, 1976) Pevsner, Norfolk 2: N-W Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England: Norfolk 2:   and S North-West and South (Harmondsworth, 1962, repr. 1973, 1977) Pevsner and Cherry, Nikolaus Pevsner and Bridget Cherry, The Buildings of   Northants England: Northamptonshire (Harmondsworth, 1961, rev. edn, 1973) Pevsner and Nairn, Sussex Nikolaus Pevsner and Ian Nairn, The Buildings of England: Sussex (Harmondsworth, 1965) Pevsner and Radcliffe, Nikolaus Pevsner and Enid Radcliffe, The Buildings of   Suffolk England: Suffolk (Harmondsworth, 1961, 2nd edn, 1974, rev. edn, 1975) Pevsner, Nairn and Nikolaus Pevsner, Ian Nairn and Bridget Cherry, The   Cherry, Surrey Buildings of England: Surrey (Harmondsworth, 1962, rev. edn, 1971) Plucknett, Legislation T. F. T. Plucknett, Legislation of Edward I (Oxford, 1963) Pollock and Maitland, Frederick Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The History of   History of English Law English Law before the time of Edward I (Cambridge, 1st edn

332 THE

ABBEY 1257–1301

1895, 2nd edn 1898, several reprints, and reissue with new introduction and bibliog. by S. C. F. Milsom, Cambridge, 1968) Powicke, Henry III and the F. M[aurice] Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward   Lord Edward (Oxford, 1947, 2 vols) Powicke, Thirteenth Century [F.] Maurice Powicke, The Thirteenth Century 1216–1307 (Oxford, 1953) Prestwich, Edward I Michael Prestwich, Edward I (London, 1988) Prestwich, War, Politics Michael Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance under Edward I   and Finance (London, 1972) Raban, A Second Domesday? Sandra Raban, A Second Domesday? The Hundred Rolls of 1279–80 (Oxford, 2004) Raftis, Estates of Ramsey J. A. Raftis, The Estates of Ramsey Abbey. A study in   Abbey economic growth and organization (Toronto, 1957) Rahtz, Archaeology Philip Rahtz, Invitation to Archaeology (Oxford, 1985) Rahtz, Glastonbury Philip A. Rahtz and Lorna Watts, Glastonbury: Myth and Archaeology (London, 2003) Rashdall, Universities Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1895, 3 vols, new edn [used here] by F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden, Oxford, 1936, 3 vols) Redstone, ‘Town Rental’ V. B. Redstone, ‘St Edmund’s Bury and Town Rental for 1295’, PSIANH, 13 (1909), pp. 191–222 Ridyard, Royal Saints S. J. Ridyard, The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11, Cambridge, 1988) Robinson, ‘The “Booklet”’ P. R. Robinson, ‘The “Booklet”, a self-contained unit in composite manuscripts’, Codicologica, 3 (Leiden, 1980), pp. 46–69 Roth, Jews in England Cecil Roth, A History of the Jews in England (Oxford, 1941, 3rd edn, 1964) Rouse, ‘Bostonus Buriensis’ R. H. Rouse, ‘Bostonus Buriensis and the author of the Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiae’, Speculum, 41 (1966), pp. 471–99 Rubin, Charity and Miri Rubin, Charity and Community in Medieval Cambridge   Community (Cambridge, 1987, repr. pb 2002) Rushbrook, St Albans L. F. Rushbrook Williams, History of the Abbey of St. Albans (1917) (Kila, Montana, 2008) Schneider, Medieval Kitchen The Medieval Kitchen. Recipes from France and Italy, ed. Edward Schneider (Chicago, 1998), trans. from Odile Redon et al., La gastronomie au Moyen Age: 150 recettes de France et d’Italie (Paris, 1993) Sharpe, ‘Reconstructing Richard Sharpe, ‘Reconstructing the medieval library of   the medieval library’ Bury St Edmunds abbey: the lost catalogue of Henry of Kirkstead’, in Bury St Edmunds, ed. Gransden, pp. 204–18 Sharpe, Shorter Catalogues English Benedictine Libraries. The Shorter Catalogues, ed. Richard Sharpe, J. B. Carley, R. M. Thomson and A. G. Watson, Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues, iv (London, 1996) Snape, Monastic Finances R. H. Snape, English Monastic Finances in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1926, repr. New York, 1968)



SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

333

Statham, Book of Bury Margaret Statham, The Book of Bury St Edmunds (Baron   St Edmunds Birch, 1988, rev. edn, privately printed, Frome, 1996) Statham, Yesterday’s Town Margaret Statham, Yesterday’s Town: Bury St Edmunds ([Buckingham], 1992) Statham, ‘Medieval town’ Margaret Statham, ‘The medieval town of Bury St Edmunds’, in Bury St Edmunds, ed. Gransden, pp. 98–110 Storey, ‘Papal provisions’ R. L. Storey, ‘Papal provisions to English monasteries’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 35 (1991), pp. 77–91 Sutherland, Quo Warranto D. W. Sutherland, Quo Warranto Proceedings in the reign of Edward I 1278–1294 (Oxford, 1963) Taylor, English Hist. Lit. John Taylor, English Historical Literature in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1987) Thompson et al. (eds) E. M. Thompson et al. (eds), The New Palaeographical   New Palaeographical Soc. Society: Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts, ser. 2 (London,   Facs, ii 1926) Thomson, ‘Obedientiaries’ R. M. Thomson, ‘Obedientiaries of St Edmund’s Abbey’, PSIAH, 35, pt 2 (1982), pp. 91–103 Thomson, Archives The Archives of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, ed. R. M. Thomson (Suffolk Records Soc. 21, Woodbridge, 1980) Treharne, Baronial Plan R. F. Treharne, The Baronial Plan of Reform, 1258–1263 (Manchester, 1932, repr. with additions New York, 1971) Tull, Templars George F. Tull, Traces of the Templars (Rotherham, 2000) Vaughan, Matthew Paris Richard Vaughan, Matthew Paris (Cambridge, 1958) Watson, Cat. All Souls Andrew Watson, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Medieval   College, MSS MSS of All Souls College, Oxford (Oxford, 1997) Whittingham, Bury St A. B. Whittingham, Bury St Edmunds Abbey (London,   Edmunds Abbey 1992) Whittingham, ‘Bury St A. B. Whittingham, ‘Bury St Edmunds abbey. The plan,   Edmunds Abbey’ design and development of the church and monastic buildings’, Archaeological Journ., 108 (1952 for 1951), pp. 173–84 Willard, Parliamentary Taxes J. F. Willard, Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property, 1290 to 1334 (Mediaeval Academy of America Monograph 9, Cambridge, MA, 1934) Wilmart, Codices André Wilmart, Codices Reginenses Latini (Città del Vaticano, 1937, 1945, 2 vols) Woolgar, Serjeantson and Food in Medieval England. Diet and Nutrition, ed. C. M.   Waldron (eds), Food Woolgar, Dale Serjeantson and Tony Waldron (Oxford,  in Medieval England 2006) Wormald, Kalendars Frances Wormald, English Kalendars before A.D. 1100 (Henry Bradshaw Society 72, London, 1934)

Index Abbatis, Reyner  129 Adam, son of Thomas of Bocking  95, 97 Adgar, William  212 Adolph, count of Nassau, king of Germany 264 advowsons  6, 24, 132 n. 16, 199 Æthelnoth, archbishop of Canterbury 209, 277 Agnes, widow of Walter of Boyton  75 Agnes, widow of William, son of Bartholomew 107–8 Aigueblanche, Peter d’, bishop of Hereford 121 Ailwin, bishop of East Anglia  209 Alberic, Master, canon of St Paul’s  212 Aldobrandino of Siena, Le Régime du corps pl. IXa ale see under food and drink Alexander II, pope  19 Alexander III, pope  38 Alexander IV, pope  35, 40, 297 death of  20 and election of Simon of Luton  5–6, 241 on food and drink  297–8 Processus on Friars Minor dispute 15–17, 19 and Sicily  120 Alexander, son of Roger  191 Alfonso X, king of Castile  245–6 Alice, daughter of William of Garboldisham 127 All Souls Day, observance of  225–30 Allen, Martin  xiii almsgiving  213–19, 233–8, 289, 299–300, 312 Alne (de Alneto), Ralph of  52 Amicia, relict of John Herst  230 Annales Sancti Edmundi 243 annuities see pensions, annuities, and corrodies Anselm, abbot of Bury St Edmunds  113, 211–12 Apuleius  243, 246, 254 Athelstan, king of England  84 Augustine, saint, bishop of Hippo  243 Augustodunensis, Honorius, Imago mundi 280

Aulus Gellius  243 Axmouth, Richard of  128 Aylsham  103, 107, 219 Ayssele (dictus Fikeys), Henry Petri de, apostolic notary  16 Babwell  22, 27, 53, 91, 257, 285 Bacun, Adam  109, 111 Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmunds  37, 86–7, 198 Bale, John  260 Balliol, John, king of Scotland  158, 268 Banham, Walter, sacrist of Bury St Edmunds 189 Bardolf, Osbert  4 Barningham, Humphrey of  150 Barons’ War (Second)  26–33, 39, 42, 64, 76, 119, 122, 139, 244, 287; see also Montfort, Simon de Barrow 189 Barrow, Seward of  189 Barton  95, 223 Barton Parva (Little Barton)  4, 156–7 Barton, Adam of, cordwainer  180 Basil, saint, Hexaëmeron 273 Basset, Philip, Sir, justiciar  131–3 Battisford, John of  271–2 Beaufort, Thomas, duke of Exeter  210–11 Beaumont, Godfrey de  110, 141 Beaumont, John de, Sir  111, 145 Beccles  56–7, 182–4 and herring supply  23, 181, 219, 306 Beccles, Daniel of, justice  76 Beccles, William of, cellarer of Bury St Edmunds 36–7 Becket, Thomas, saint  84 Bede, saint  243 Bek, Anthony, bishop of Durham  83, 93–4, 97, 262–5, 267–9 Benefactors’ List  54, 57, 218, 220, 271, 286–7 Beodericisworth (late Bury St Edmunds) xiv, 85, 209, 211, 276–7 Berkhamstead, John of, abbot of St Albans 200 Berners, Ralph de  141, 145 Berwick, John of  8–9, 11, 48, 99, 293 Beverley 84

336 INDEX Beverley, John of, saint  84 Bigod, Hugh, justiciar  29 Bigod, Isabella, countess of Norfolk, heart burial 250 Bigod, Roger, earl of Norfolk, heart burial 250 Bigot, John le  219 Black Death  200 Blanche, sister of Philip IV of France  263 Blois, William of, bishop of Worcester  225 Blund, William le  28 Boethius  243, 246, 254 Bohun, Humphrey de  189 Bohun of Fressingfield Cartulary xiii–xiv Bonaventura, saint, Lignum Vitae 284–5, pl. XII Bond, James  xiii Boniface, archbishop of Canterbury  8, 17, 134, 160, 288 Boniface VIII, pope  174 Clericis laicos  164–71, 262 Coram illo fatemur 170 Etsi de statu 170 Romana mater ecclesia 170 Boughton (Hall)  99, 260, pl. VIII Bosco, Richard de, prior of Bury St Edmunds  4–5, 218, 236 Boston  181, 188 Bottisdale 182–3 Botulph, saint  205–8 Botulph Claydon, Bucks.  208 Boville, William de  28 Boyland, Richard of, monk of Bury St Edmunds  6, 74 Brabazon, Roger, chief justice  99 Brackland, Jocelin of  36, 38, 113, 132, 150, 182, 218, 235, 271 Bradenham, John of, chancellor of Cambridge University  227, 261 Bradfield, Richard of  180 Bradfield Spanne  137, 142, 165, 223 Bradmere, John of  126 Brand, Paul  90, 92, 95, 293 Brandon 181 Branscombe, Walter, bishop of Exeter  29 Bray, Henry of, royal justice  88–9 Breton, John le, royal justice  31–2, 77 Brettenham 24 Brewrth, Alexander de, proctor of Bury St Edmunds 6 Bricett, Robert of Bury St Edmunds  6, 148 Bridport, Giles of, bishop of Salisbury  29 Brilaund, John de  180 Brinkley, John, abbot of Bury St Edmunds  210, 216

Brinkley, Richard, Franciscan theologian 247 Brithmer, John  191 Brockford  57, 223 Brockley 8 Brooke, Norfolk  182–3, 223 Browsers (‘Brening’)  24 Bruges  179, 265 Brundish, Edmund, prior of Bury St Edmunds 270 Brunne, Gilbert de, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds 108 Brunne, Richard de, sacrist of Bury St Edmunds 165 Brunswick, Aylbrith of, merchant  65 Burgh, Hubert de, earl of Kent, chief justiciar 160 Burgh, Margaret de  160 Burnedisse, John de, moneyer of Bury St Edmunds 65 Burnell, Robert, chancellor of Exchequer, bishop of Bath and Wells  89–90, 153 Burnell, William  88 Burnham, William, abbot of Bury St Edmunds  44, 210, 270 Bury Chronicle  pls IV, VIII authorship of  255, 260–1 on Barons’ War  26–8 composition and continuations  253–6 on Flemish campaign  264–9 on Friars Minor dispute  15, 17, 20–1 influence of  256–60 manuscripts of  255–6 sources for  xv, 243, 254, 262–5 See also Brackland, Jocelin of; Taxster, John Bury Customary compilation of  10 on food and drink  297–8, 300, 302, 304–5, 309, 311 Bury St Edmunds abbey buildings  pl. XIV abbey church  xxxiii Fig. 9, 83–4, 103, 115, 137, 144, 209, 213, 220, 229, 248–50, 302; see also choir murals, and below Charnel Chapel; John the Baptist chapel; Lady Chapel; St Denis chapel abbot’s palace  142–3, pl. XVII Charnel chapel  xxxiv Fig. 10, xxxv Fig. 11; 144–5, 220–30, pl. XIII Great Gate  pl. XVII John the Baptist chapel  115 Lady Chapel  208–13, 218, 248–9 library 270

INDEX 337

St Denis chapel  144 maps of Liberty, holdings, and banleuca xxv Fig. 1, xxvi Fig. 2, xxvii Fig. 3; xxviii Fig. 4, xxix Fig. 5, xxx Fig. 6 personnel abbots  318; see also Anselm; Baldwin; Brinkley, John; Burnham, William of; Curteys, William of; Hugh I; Isle, Richard of; Leofstan; Luton, Simon of; Northwold, Hugh of; Northwold, John of; Richard; Robert; Rushbrooke, Henry of; Timworth, John of; Tottington, Samson of; Tottington, Thomas of; Walpole, Edmund of almoners 217; see also Newnham, William of assayers, see Rede, John of cellarers  36–7, 40, 98, 102, 124, 130, 135–9, 145–6, 156, 177, 180, 187, 194, 217, 308–9, 311, 316–17; see also Beccles, William of; Eversden, John of; Hospital, Henry of the; Northworld, William of chamberlains  124, 136, 145, 157; see also Hoo, William of; Russel, Robert; Walsingham, Alan of chaplains 138, 224 die-keepers of, see Lothbury, Richard of; Scrub, William of; Shouldham, John of gate-keepers, see Ralph the Gatekeeper guest-masters, see Richard infirmarers 136; see also John keepers of vestry, see William kitcheners  137–8, 307–11, 315, pl. VII; see also Henry moneyers, 65; see also Burnedisse, John de; Hadleigh, Robert of; Lothbury, Richard of monks, cloister, see Boyland, Richard of; Cleye, William de; Mildenhall, William of; Shottisham, John of pittancers  228, 230; see also Croftis, Thomas; Wymer precentors, see Shottisham, John of priors  65, 135, 209, 318; see also Bosco, Richard de; Brundish, Edmund; Gosford, John; Gregory; Isle, Richard of the; Ixworth, Stephen of; Kirkstead, Henry

of; Robert; Rockland, William; Russel, Robert proctors, see Brewrth, Alexander de; Frostenden, Richard of refectorers 303; see also Clement sacrists  91, 93, 97, 102–4, 124, 136–7, 177, 224, 302, 318; see also Banham, Walter of; Brunne, Richard de; Colchester, Richard of; Gravesley, Robert de; Hoo, William of; Hugh; Kingston, Simon of; Nicholas; Richard; Snailwell, John of; Warwick, Nicholas of subcellarers  137–8, 307–8 subpriors, see Ixworth, Stephen of; Richard treasurers  xvi, 44, 65, 93, 136–7 plan of abbey  xxxii Fig. 8 Bury St Edmunds (town) Abbots Bridge  pl. XVI aldermen  30, 177; see also Edmund, son of Luke; Ellingham, Peter of; Green, Thomas de la; Spot, Geoffrey; William bailiffs  137, 177, 180; see also Bacun, Adam; Brunne, Gilbert de; Cressingham, Nicholas of; Denham, Thomas of; Fuke, Nicholas; John, son of Henry; Large, William le; Lincoln, John of; Luke, son of John; Melton, Robert of; Northworld, William of; Stephen, son of Benedict; Walpole, William of and Barons’ War  28, 31 goldsmiths  178–9, 228 grammar and song schools  113–15 Guild of Youth  28, 36, 242 jurors 71 maps of  xxx Fig. 6, xxxi Fig. 7 markets and fairs  179–84 rebellions of townspeople  16–17, 28, 76–7, 177, 242, 269 sacristy, assigned to  48, 102–3, 106–11 St James’ church  113, pl. XIII St John’s hospital  49, 213–15, 218 St Nicholas’ hospital  31 n. 39, 49, 97, 217–18, 224 St Peter’s hospital  49, 127, 217–18, 223–4 St Saviour’s hospital  49, 155, 220, 223, 230–3, pl. XV streets of  95, 106–8, 178–80, 223, 228–30

338 INDEX

and trade  178–84 See also Beodericisworth

Calun, Walter  225 Cam, Helen  70 Cambii, Rusticellus  129 Cambridge  31, 70, 96, 261 Cambridge, John of  88, 92 Camera, Roger de  236 Canterbury, St Augustine’s priory  256, 288 Canterbury, Gervase of  253–4 Cantyn, Nicholas  180 Castello, Nicholas de, clerk  88–9 Cattishall  55–6, 96, 141, 219, 272 Cavendish 106 Cavenham 25 Celestine V, pope  259 Chalsworth 231 Charles, count of Anjou  120 Charter of the Forest  18, 98, 169–70 Chaury, Robert de, bishop of Carlisle  20–1 Chepenhall 211 Chesterford 24 Chevington  130, 223 Chichester, Roger of, abbot of St Augustine’s  16 n. 5, 20–1 choir murals  220–1, 251, 285 Cicero 246 Cinque Ports  157, 265 Clare 24–5 Clare, Gilbert de, 7th earl of Gloucester 25, 29–30 Clare, Richard de, earl of Gloucester  22–5, 30, 119, 287 Clement IV, pope  64, 122, 139 Clement V, pope  16 Clement, refectorer of Bury St Edmunds 139 Clement, son of William Armeiard  192 Clerk, John, champion  141–2 Cleye, William de, monk of Bury St Edmunds 229 Clipstone, Notts.  153 Clopton  3, 136 Cnut, king of England  57–8, 113, 276–9 Cobham, John of, royal justice  63 Cockfield  135, 156, 185, 223, 231, 286 Cockfield, Nesta (Margaret)  141 Cockfield, Walter of, draper of Bury St Edmunds 228–30 Coggeshall, Elizabeth of  133–4 Coggeshall, Ralph of  133–4 Colchester  207, 257 Colchester, Richard of, sacrist of Bury St Edmunds  137, 139, 142, 219

Coldinghamshire 85 Cologne, Henry of, merchant  65 Comestor, Peter  243 Comnenus, Isaac, prince of Cyprus  84 Conches, William of  245 confraternity 276–9 Conrad I, king of Germany and Sicily  120 Corpus iuris 271–2 corrodies see pensions, annuities, and corrodies Cotton, Bartholomew  164, 168, 256, 258, 263 Creak, John of  141 Cressingham, Hugh of, royal justice  76 Cressingham, Nicholas (Nicholas son of Fulc), bailiff of Bury St Edmunds 107–11 Croftis, Thomas, pittancer of Bury St Edmunds 227 Cronica Buriensis  276, 289–90 Crook, David  55 Croxley, John of  99 Culford  81, 83, 90, 94, 144, 231, 262–4, 293 Curteys, William, abbot of Bury St Edmunds 143 Cuthbert, saint  85 Daffyd ap Gruffyd  149–50 Dale, William de la  191 Dalton, William of  88, 92 Dampierre, Guy of, count of Flanders  264 Darlington, John of  124 debts and financial difficulties  218 account and court rolls  130 and Barons’ War  39, 42, 119, 139 and Clericis laicos 164–71 and confirmation of abbots  6, 10, 119 and economic reform  130–40, 142–6, 297, 299, 311 and Friars Minor dispute  23, 119, 139 and interest rates  145–6 and justice, profits of  58 list of debts  7 n. 31, 22 n. 36, 122, 129 and moneylenders, Italian  7 n. 31, 22 n. 36, 121–2, 129 and natural disasters  128–9, 162 and papal taxes  119–24, 139, 141, 155–8, 174–5 and pensions, annuities, corrodies  88–97, 125–8 and rent defaulters  193–4 and royal taxation  119, 124, 147–54, 158–75, 254 and scutage  xv, 119, 150–1, 159

INDEX 339

and Semer and Groton, loss of  xiv–xv, 82, 110–11, 141–2, 144–5 Denham, Thomas of, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds 228 Denton, J. H.  158 Desning 25 Diceto, Ralph de  243 diet see food and drink Domesday Book  23, 57, 86, 183, 198, 214 Dominic, prior of Evesham  212 Douai 179–80 douzegild (duodene) 35–6, 113–14, 150 Druda, sister of Bartholomew de Yadingeden 127 duodene see douzegild Durham  85, 181, 252, 269, 307 Durham, Simeon of  244 Eadwig, king of England  56–7 Eaglen, Robin J.  xiii Eastry, Henry of, prior of Canterbury cathedral 165 eclipses 280–1 economic reforms  130–46, 297, 299, 311 Edgar, king of England  206 Edinburgh castle  255, 267 Edmund, saint  100, 250 death of  xiii and Edward I  xiv, 59–60, 83–8 royal veneration of  27, 82–7 shrine and relics of  53, 85–7, 103, 112, 143, 208–9, 211, 218, 277 Edmund, son of Henry III  120–1, 123 Edmund, son of Luke, alderman of Bury St Edmunds 228 Edmund (Crouchback), earl of Leicester 192 Edmund of Abingdon, saint  112 Edmund of Brundish, prior of Bury St Edmunds 44 Edward I, king of England  145, 177, 220, 223, 259, pl. XI accession of  124 and Barons’ War  29 and Bury St Edmunds abbatial vacancies  9, 96, 173–4, 185, 199–201 cooperation with 70–8 and Edmund, saint  xiv, 59–60, 83–8 Friars Minor dispute  20 liberties, confirmation of  48, 51, 53–4, 57–8, 77, 82, 102 visits to  52–3, 79–85, 93–4, 142–3, 164–5, 200, 262–3 and Circumspecte agatis 72



debts of  144, 147–8, 150, 152, 161 and extent (1281)  185–6 Flanders, war with  264–9 Gascony, war with  79, 82, 124, 144, 147, 152, 154, 157–8, 162–3, 259–60, 263–4 and Great Cause  80 and Jews, expulsion of  154 and justice, profits of  57–61, 63–4 knighting of  120 as legal reformer  xiv, 51–7, 147 and markets and fairs  182–3 and military service owed to  124–5 and portions, division of  49–50, 102, 137, 185 recoinage of  52, 63–4, 66–8, 261 Scotland, war with  xv, 79–82, 84, 123, 147, 157–8, 163, 170–2, 199–200, 255, 259, 262, 264–5, 267–8, pl. VI and scutage  119, 150–1 taxation by  xiv–xv, 79, 90, 119, 124, 147–75 and Clericis laicos  164–70, 262 and thirty-six articles of clergy 172–4 Wales, war with  119, 147, 149–54, 157–8, 163 Edward II (Edward of Carnarvon; Prince Edward), king of England  77, 95–6, 123, 170, 220, 256, pl. I visits to Bury St Edmunds  83–4, 86 Edward III, king of England  59 Edward the Confessor, king of England 57–8, 195 Edworth, Stephen of, royal justice  31 Egelwin 209 Eleanor of Castile, queen of England, wife of Edward I  91 n. 12, 223, 258, pls I, XI birth of daughter of  258–9, pls IV, V death of  90, 153 and ‘queen’s gold’  50 Eleanor of Provence, queen of England, wife of Henry III  20, 26, 32, 61, 119, 179 Electio Hugonis 36 electoral procedures  5–6, 10 Elias of Winchester, Disticha de moribus 279–80 Ellingham, Peter of, alderman of Bury St Edmunds 77 Elmswell  223, 231 Elveden 231 Ely  85, 154, 181–2, 206, 310 abbatial vacancies  89, 173–4 and Barons’ War  30–1, 262

340 INDEX Ely, Nicholas of, bishop of Worcester and Winchester 7 Emanuel Wood (Manhall)  24 Emma, daughter of Reginald  108 Erghome, John, Augustinian friar  257 Eriswell, Robert of  289 escheats  6, 89, 91, 103, 120, 133, 199 Etheldreda, saint  206 Eusebius 243 Eutropius 243, 254 Eversden, John of, cellarer of Bury St Edmunds  99, 101, 165, 172, 207, 206, pl. VIII Evesham abbey of  144, 225 battle of (1265)  26, 242, pl. I extents (1281)  185–6 Faber, Robert  191 Falkirk 81 Ferentino, Bartholomew de  161 Ferrers, Robert de, earl of Derby  192 Findon, abbot of St Augustine’s, Canterbury 288 Fitton 189–90 fitz Robert, Walter  189 Flixton 250 Florence, count of Holland  83, 262 Florence, Andrew of, papal sub-deacon and chaplain 126 Folcard, Life of St John 84 food and drink  162 of abbot  42 ale  xvi, 42, 56–7, 93, 128, 137–9, 177, 217, 234, 299–303, 313–14, 318, pl. IX beans  308–11, 319 bread  4–5, 42, 56–7, 71, 93, 128, 137, 177, 217, 234, 237, 286, 299, 302, 305, 309, 313–16 cheese  xvi, 93, 128, 138–9, 308, 311, 317–18 eggs 311–17 expenditure, curbing  xvi, 137–9, 143, 297 fish  23, 314–15, 318 herring  xvi, 23, 137, 139–40, 181, 306–7, 310, 319 porpoise 316–17 and hospitality  xvi, 131, 142, 302–3 meals, number of  93, 296–9 meat  217, 234, 307, 310, 313–14, 317, 319 nuts  138, 181, 308, 310, 315–19 preparation of  307–18, pls VII, IXb

and Rule of St Benedict  45–6, 296, 302–5, 319 of servants  45, 65, 137–8, 299–300 spices  181, 308–10, 312–16, 318 wine  xvi, 137–9, 301–5, 14, 318 food farms  xxix Fig. 5, 186–9, 214, 223, Forde, Roger, abbot of Glastonbury  29 Forncett, Norfolk  157 Fornham  130, 193 battle of  83–4, 160, 189 Fornham All Saints  223 Fornham St Martin  223 Fotheringhay, Ralph of  88, 92 Framlingham Earl  250 Franciscans see Friars Minor frankpledge  25, 56–7, 177 Frascati, John Boccamazza, bishop of Tusculum 288 Freculphus  243, 254 Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor  120–1 Freston, Alan, rector of Chevington, archdeacon of Norfolk  125 Freyfel, Walter  133–4 Friars Minor (Franciscans; Grey Friars) intrusion into Bury St Edmunds’ Liberty 15–23, 26, 126, 139, 242, 287 and Simon de Montfort cult  27 Frostenden, Richard of, proctor of Bury St Edmunds 6 Fuke, Nicholas, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds 73 Gainsborough 60 Galighowe, Henry de  126 Galighowe, James de  126–7, 219 Garboldisham, William of  127, 139 Gateley, Everard of  212–13 Gazeley 24–5 Gedding, Nicholas of, butler of Bury St Edmunds 135–6 Geldeston 157 Gembloux, Sigebert of  243 Genevyle, Nicholas de  91, 110–11 Geoffrey, count of Anjou  245 Gerard, Lodowycus de  18 Gerard, Petronilla de  18 Gesta sacristarum  5, 47, 137 scribe of  35–6 on William of Hoo  xvi, 104, 143, 181 Ghent 265–6 Ghothe, Cristiana  191 Gilbert, son of Gilbert of Elmswell  191, 193 Gildas 243 Gisleham, William of, royal justice  76–7

INDEX 341

Gislingham 24 Glastonbury  144, 225 Glemsford 113 Gloucester, St Peter’s abbey  261 Godefrid, son of Galfrid  191 Gosford, John, prior of Bury St Edmunds 36, 210 Gowiz, Eleanor de  xv, 73–4 Grandison, Otto de, rector of Palgrave  214 Gratian, Decretum 271 Gravesend, Richard, bishop of Lincoln 288 Gravesend, Richard, dean of Lincoln  17 Gravesley, Robert de, sacrist of Bury St Edmunds 48 Great Barton  126, 130, 219 Great Saxham  95 Greatrex, Joan  xiii Green, Thomas de la, alderman of Bury St Edmunds 229 Gregory IX, pope  16–19, 120, 303 Gregory X, pope  123–4, 285 Gregory, prior of Bury St Edmunds  209, 225 Grey, Reginald  74 Grey Friars see Friars Minor Grosseteste, Robert, bishop of Lincoln 160, 273 Compotus correctiorius 280 Groton  xiv–xv, 82, 110–11, 141–2, 144–5, 156, 167, 186, 255 and Charnel chapel  223 Grunisburg 205 Guildford 206–7 Guildford, Henry Gerard of, clerk  88, 90, 293 Guildford, Henry Marshal of, royal justice 56 n. 26, 72, 90, 293 Guisborough, Walter of  256, 263 Guy, count of Flanders  83 Hadleigh, Robert of, moneyer of Bury St Edmunds 6–8 Hales, Alexander of  285 Hamo, rector of Attleborough  56 n. 26, 75–6 Hamo the Perser  229 Harbridge, Roger of, Sir  17–18 Harlow  38, 127, 132, 223 Harlow, Ralph of  38 Harlow, Richard of  236 Harvey, Barbara  234, 295, 299 Hastings, Henry of, steward of Bury St Edmunds 29–30 Hastings, John, Sir  77–8, 254

Hawstead, Philip of  108 Hay, William de la, bishop of Connor  208 Haymund, Wydo  189, 191 Helion, Walter of, royal justice  63 Hempnall 189 Hengham, Ralph de  179 Henry I, king of England  9, 58, 77, 150 211 Henry II, king of England  35, 58, 83–4, 98–9, 113, 150 Henry III, king of England  52, 58, 109, 114, 128, 148, 160, 179, 214, 244 and Barons’ War  26–33, 64, 122 and Bury St Edmunds abbatial vacancies  5, 135, 235–6 and Guild of Youth rebellion  28 visits to  27, 109, 143, 235 and Friars Minor dispute  16, 18–20 recoinage of  66 restoration to power (1266)  27 and Richard de Clare  24 and Sicily  120–1 taxation by  64, 119–22, 139 Henry VI, king of England   143 Henry, kitchener of Bury St Edmunds  10 Henry, son of Stephen  191 Henry (the young king), son of Henry II 189 Herlewyn Fort  191 Hermann, archdeacon of Bury St Edmunds, De miraculis Sancti Eadmundi 83 Herringswell  223, 231 Heymes, son of Walter of Wiggenhall  191 Higham 25 Higham, Ralph of  99 Higham, Richard of  191–2 Hinderclay 130 Histon, John of  156 Honorius IV, pope  61, 289 Hoo, Robert of, Sir  3–4 Hoo, William of (William of Luton), chamberlain and sacrist of Bury St Edmunds  3, 68, 89–90, 92, 97, 153, 157, 176, pl. III ability of  xvi, 104, 137, 145 and almsgiving  237–8 appointment as sacrist  47, 102 archidiaconal duties of  111–13 as chamberlain  10, 102 economic reform by  137, 143–6, 297 and election of John of Northwold  10 and excommunication  103, 113–14 and grammar and song schools  113–15 judicial involvement of  72–3, 74 n. 28, 109–11

342 INDEX and property transactions  94, 106–9, 180 and rent collection  193–4 sources concerning  xvi, 104–6, 181 and trade  180–1, 188 and weights and measures  52, 70–1, 106, 261 Hopton 96 Horringer  156, 231 Hose, Robert de, Sir  156 Hospital, Henry of the, cellarer of Bury St Edmunds 36–7 Howden, Roger of  244 Howe 157 Hugh I, abbot of Bury St Edmunds 215–17, 235 Hugh, gardener of Wattlesfield  230 Hugh, sacrist of Bury St Edmunds  180 Hulme 275–9 St Benet, chronicle of  256–9, 289–90 Hundon 25 Huntingdon, Henry of  244 Hyde, Beds.  3 Icklingham  22–6, 103, 186, 231 Ickworth 38 Ikworth, Thomas of  38 Ingham  136, 156–7, 211 Innocent IV, pope  120–1 intellectual and cultural life book collection and scholarly studies 269–82 book production  282–5 as centre for historical writing  256–60 chronicle production  241–5, 253–69; see also Bury Chronicle monk ‘A’  34–6, 138–40, 245–50, 271 and palaeography  282–4 verses accompanying frescoes, etc. 248–52 Ipswich 55–6 Isabella, queen of England, wife of Edward II  96 Isle, John of the, royal justice  272 Isle, Richard of, abbot of Bury St Edmunds 235, 309 Isle (de Insula), Richard of, prior of Bury St Edmunds 209 Ixworth  95, 157, 194 Ixworth, Stephen of, subprior and prior of Bury St Edmunds  10, 39–40, 47–8, 102, 150 Jacob, E. F.  29 James, M. R.  220

John, infirmarer of Bury St Edmunds  10 John, king of England  77, 98, 132 John, prior of Ely  237 John, son of Henry, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds 107 John, son of Henry the orfreyer  228 John, son of Hervey  114 John, son of John of Necton  229–30 John, son of Stephen, goldsmith  67 John de Sacrobosco Algorismus 280 Compotus ecclesiasticus 280 Tractatus de sphaera 280 John the shearman, son of William Scissor 106 Juliana, daughter of Reginald  108 Jurmin, saint  205–7 Justin  243, 246 Justinian, Digestum vetus 272 Kenilworth, dictum of  29–31, 262 Kentford 25 King’s Lynn  181, 257, 310 Kingston, Simon of, sacrist of Bury St Edmunds  35–6, 47, 66, 102, 137, 143 Kirby All Saints (Kirby Cane)  157 Kirkby, John, archdeacon of Coventry, Lord Treasurer, bishop of Ely  150 Kirkby’s Quest (1284–5)  55 Kirkstead, Henry of, prior of Bury St Edmunds  36, 44, 57 n. 30, 225, 245–6, 270, 273–4, 279–80 on food and drink  298 on leprosy  217–18 Knowles, David  276 Lakenheath  25, 182 Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury  212 Langham, Essex  80 Langtoft, Peter, chronicle of  263 Langton, John, royal chancellor  264 Large, William le, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds 107 Lateran Council, Fourth  5–6 Laverdyn, Ralph de  126–7 Leicester, Robert of, canonist  49 n. 12, 92, 104 Leicester, Roger of, justice of the Common Bench  49, 185–6 Lekesteyn, William  191 Leofstan, abbot of Bury St Edmunds  205, 208 Lewes, battle of (1264)  28, 242, pl. I Lexington, Henry of, bishop of Lincoln 121

INDEX 343

Liber Eliensis 206 Lincoln 251–2 Lincoln, John of, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds 228 Ling 216 Little Barton see Barton Parva Little Walden  24 Livermere 77 Livermere, Robert of  195 Llywelyn ap Gruffyd, prince of Wales  125, 149 London  150, 208–9 abbot’s inn at  131–2 New Temple  6, 79, 121–2, 129, 152, 161, 171, 251 St Paul’s  165–6, 168, 170 Long Melford see Melford Longbridge 189 Losinga, Herbert, bishop of Norwich  278 Lothbury, Richard of, moneyer and die-keeper of Bury St Edmunds  68, 261 Louis IX, king of France  31 Loveday, Roger, royal justice  74 Lovetot, John de, junior see Turner, Hervicius Lovetot, John de, justice of the Common Bench  66–7, 74, 90, 110, 177, 293 Lucy, niece of Hugh of Northwold  8 Luke, son of John, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds 53 Lupus, William, archdeacon of Lincoln 160 Luton, Simon of, abbot of Bury St Edmunds 185 almsgiving  213–19, 237 and Barons’ War  28–33, 39, 119, 287 chronicles and scholarly work under 241–7, 287 confirmation in Rome  6–7, 18–19, 129 death and burial  xvi, 7–9, 134, 210, 286 economic reform by  130–40, 299, 311 election as abbot  5–7, 119, 135, 241 entry into Bury St Edmunds  4 evaluation of abbacy  287 family of  3–4 Friars Minor, dispute with  15–23, 26, 119, 126, 242, 287 and Guild of Youth rebellion  28 and Henry III  29–30, 32–3 and hospital of St John (Domus Dei)  213–15, 218 and justice, profits of  58, 60 and Lady Chapel, building of  3, 209–13, 218, 248–9, 251, 286–7



living abroad by  xvi, 131 manumissions by  189–91 and military service  124–5 and mint  63 and Palgrave chantry chapel  214–15 and papal tenths  121–4, 156 and pensions, annuities, and corrodies 125–8, 216–17, 219 as prior  5 record-keeping under  34–7, 130–1, 186, 198 Richard de Clare, dispute with  22–5, 119, 287 rights of monks, encroachment on 38–48 and royal scutage and taxes  119, 124 as sacrist  5, 22, 213–14 vacancy following  xvi, 8–9, 11, 39, 48, 173–4, 185 and verses in abbey church  248–52 Luton, William of see Hoo, William of Lutterel, Robert, canon of Salisbury  155–6 Luttrell Psalter  pls IXb, X, XI Lynn see King’s Lynn Lynn, Henry of, chancery clerk  81, 88–9, 142–3, 165 Lyons Council of (1245)  120 Council of (1272–4)  123, 152, 156 Mabilia (Mabel), goldsmith of Bury St Edmunds  109, 179 Magna Carta  18, 98, 169–70 Malmesbury 225 Malmesbury, William of  207, 212, 243, 246 Manfred, son of Frederick II  120–1 Manhal see Emanuel Wood Mansel, John  28 manumissions  94, 188–93 March, William, royal treasurer  153 Margaret, queen of England, wife of Edward I  84–5 Marianus Scotus  254 markets and fairs  179–84 Martin, author/scribe of Fifteen Joys of St Mary  213 Mary, Virgin  208–13 Masson, Rostand, papal legate  121 Matilda, queen of England, wife of William I 99–101 Maud, illegitimate daughter of Henry II 212 Melford (Long Melford)  77, 182–3, 191, 193, 223, 231, 286

344 INDEX Melton, Robert of, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds 73 Mendham 250–1 Meopham, Roger of, dean of Lincoln  123 Messahalla 280 Mettingham, John of, royal justice  76–7 Mickfield 3 Middleton  126, 136, 156–7, 195, 236, 311 and Richard de Clare  22–5 Middleton, William of, bishop of Norwich 72–3 Middlington, Ralph of, king’s clerk  52–3, 70–1, 75 Mildenhall, William of, monk of Bury St Edmunds 6 military service  124–5, 155–7, 174–5 mints of Bury St Edmunds  xiii, 52, 54, 63–9, 102–3, 261 coin-clipping and counterfeiting  63–4, 67–8, pl. IV and Durham, bishop of  64 recoinage of Edward I  52, 63–4, 66–8, 261 Monmouth, Geoffrey of  244 Montfort, Simon de, earl of Leicester 26–9, 31, pls I, II Moray, Andrew de  158 Mortimer, Roger  96 murder see Odell (Wahill; Woodhill), William of Muschet, William, steward of Bury St Edmunds 63 Narratio quaedam de processu contra fratres minores qualiter expulsi erant de villa Sancti Edmundi  15–17, 19–22, 242 Needham 24 Newark, Henry of, archbishop of York  268 Newcastle  158, 252 Newnham, William of, almoner of Bury St Edmunds 10 Nicholas III, pope  10, 51, 152, 194 Nicholas IV, pope  155, 171 Nicholas, sacrist of Bury St Edmunds  189 Nicholas, saint  84 Nicholas, son of Adam of Bottisdale  189, 192–3 Nogaret, Raymond of  124 Norham, Northumberland  80, 158, 262 Northrepps 157 Northwold 7 Northwold, Hugh of, abbot of Bury St Edmunds, bishop of Ely  7, 10, 18, 48, 130, 156, 309

Northwold, John of, abbot of Bury St Edmunds 144 ability of  145 and accidental deaths  xv, 77–8 almsgiving  233–8, 289 book collection and production under 269–85 Charnel chapel, foundation of  144, 220–30, 289, 291 and choir murals  220–1, 251, 285, 291 chronicles under  244, 253–69 and Clericis laicos 164–71 confirmation in Rome  10, 51, 193 death of  11, 199–200, 254, 287–90 and ecclesiastical courts, jurisdiction of 72–6, 109–11 economic reform by  137, 141–6, 299 election as abbot of  10, 47, 102, 135 estate management by  185–97 evaluation of abbacy of  290–1 family of  7–8 on food and drink  xvi, 298–9, 302 as guestmaster  10 and Hervey of Stanton  93–7 and judicial combat, use of  xiv–xv, 110, 141–2 and justice, profits of  57–61, 63–4, 82 and liberties, defense of  50–62, 109, 145, 153–4, 165 living abroad by  142 manumissions by  94, 190–3 and military service  155–7, 174–5 and mint  52, 54, 64–9, 102 and papal taxation  81, 155–7, 174–5 and pensions, annuities, and corrodies 88–97 and portions, division of  xv–xvi, 48–50, 102, 137, 185, 201, 231 and Quo Warranto  xiv, 54–7, 59, 153 record-keeping under  37, 54, 130, 186, 198–201 reforms of  39–45, 47–50, 102–3 register of  51 and royal taxation  124, 147–54, 158–75 and St Augustine’s, Canterbury  288 St Saviour’s hospital, reform of  220, 230–3, 289 and Scottish war  81 and Semer and Groton  xiv, 141–2, 144–5, 156 testament of  61, 97, 289 and town of Bury St Edmunds administration of 176–84 conflict with  76–7, 177

INDEX 345

and verses accompanying frescoes, etc. 248, 251 and Warkton, disafforestation of 97–101 and William of Hoo  10, 102, 104, 107–13 Northwold, Robert of  8, 289 Northwold, William of, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds 8 Northwold, William of, cellarer of Bury St Edmunds 7–8 Norton 95 Norwich  27–8, 139–40, 150, 278, 306 chronicle 256–9 St Laurence church  23 Norwich, Stephen of  67 Nova legenda  59, 86 Nowton  223, 231 Odell, John of, Sir  73 Odell (Wahill; Woodhill), William of, murder of  xv, 67, 73–6, 90, 106, 109, 111, 132 Offington, Laurence of  132–3 Ombresley, John, abbot of Evesham  225 Onehouse 91 Ordmer, William  191 Orfever, John le  76 Orosius  243, 246, 254 Orwell 96 Otto, papal legate  19 Otto IV, king of Germany  132 Ottobuono, papal legate  31, 122, 262, pl. I Ovid 246 Oxford Gloucester College  261 Provisions of  28, 160 Pakenham  95, 127 211, 219, 223, 231 Pakenham, William of, Sir  74, 90, 111, 177 Palgrave  57, 214–15 Pantin, W. A.  104–5 Paris, Matthew  21, 23, 120, 134–5, 143, 160, 236, 303 Paris, Treaty of  29 Passelewe, Robert  235–6 Passemer, Reginald  191 Pattishall, Martin of  56 Peasants’ Revolt  200 Pecham, John, archbishop of Canterbury 83, 92, 151–2, 154, 163 pensions, annuities, and corrodies  88–97, 125–8, 216–17, 219, 262

Perardus, Guilelmus, Summa de vitiis 27, pl. II Percy, Thomas, bishop of Norwich  217 Perers, John de  xv, 68, 74, 105–6 Peterborough, abbey  41 n. 20, 85, 92 n. 18, 144, 221, 251, 257, 313 chronicle of  257, 259 Pevsner, Nikolaus  207 Phileby, Adam de, canon of St Mary’s in Stratford 21 Philip IV, king of France  158, 162, 260, 263–4, 266 Philip the Spicer  179–80 Pikelin (Pickelyn), Robert de  191 pilgrimage  86–7, 205–13; see also Edmund, saint, shrine and relics of Plato 246 Polhey, William de, abbot of Walden  161 Pontoise, John de, bishop of Worcester 155, 157 Portland 24 Preston, Gilbert of, royal justice  19–21, 28 Preston, Robert of  293 Processus electionis Domini Symonis abbatis 241–2 Processus executorum in re expulsionis fratrum minorum  15, 241–2 Ptolemy, Centilogium 279 Puger, Elias, royal justice  96 Putot, William de, abbot of Fécamp  xiv, 58 Quo Warranto  xiv, 54–7, 59, 153 Ralf, son of Edward de molendino  127 Ralph the Gatekeeper  42–3 Ramsey abbey  101 Raulin, son of Stephen of Portsmouth  113 Raymond, rector of Kirtling  129 record-keeping  34–7, 54, 130–1, 186, 198–201 Rede, John of, assayer of Bury St Edmunds mint 66 Rede, Laurence of, bailiff  230 Redgrave  57, 96, 182–3, 192–3, 223, 231 Redgrave, Geoffrey of  xv, 73–4, 105–6 Reedham (Redham), William de, sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk  60 Reedham, William of, royal justice  77 rents  192–4, 228–30 Rependen, Robert of, chaplain of Bury St Edmunds 126 Reynville, Bartholomew, papal chaplain 21 Rhys, son of Rhys, Welsh rebel  83

346 INDEX Rhys ap Maredudd  152–3 Richard, abbot of Bury St Edmunds  97 Richard, earl of Cornwall  28, 120, 245 Richard, guest-master of Bury St Edmunds 5 Richard I, king of England  22, 83–4, 98 Richard, prior of Bury St Edmunds  226 Richard, rector of Snailwell  155 Richard, rector of Sutton  155 Richard, son of Thomas of ‘Schadeford’ 106 Richard, son of Walter of Wiggenhall 190–1 Richard, subprior of Bury St Edmunds  5 Richard the tiler  112 Rickinghall (Inferior)  182, 223, 231 Risbridge 25 Risby  130, 189, 223 Robert, abbot of Bury St Edmunds  9 Robert, earl of Leicester  189 Robert, prior of Bury St Edmunds  209, 226, 244 Robert, son of William of Garboldisham 127 Robert the Woolmonger  193 Rochester, Solomon of, royal justice  55–6, 141, 182, 293 Rockingham forest  98–9 Rockland, Willliam of, prior of Bury St Edmunds  74 n. 28, 80 n. 10, 89, 153, 166, 173, 271 and Charnel chapel  224, 227 as deputy collector of sexennial tenth 155–6, 162, 164 election as prior  5 and John of Northwold’s funeral  290 and markets and fairs  182 Roger, son of Henry  195–6 Roger the Taverner  193 Rokesle, Gregory de, mayor of London 66–7 Rosarium 271 Rougham  8 n. 39, 156, 223 Roy, A. E.  281 Rule of St Benedict  43, 233–5; see also under food and drink Runcton  191, 223, 231 Rushbrooke, Henry of, abbot of Bury St Edmunds  10, 66, 128, 151, 189, 235–6 Rushbrooke, Richard of  108 Russel, Robert, prior and chamberlain of Bury St Edmunds  5–6, 20, 22–3, 45, 214–15 and economic reform  133, 135–7 and Lady Chapel, building of  209–10



as monk ‘A’  35–6 and pensions, granting of  125–6 resignation of  47, 102, 135, 287

Saffron Walden  24 Saham, Hervey of  88, 92 Saham, William of, royal justice  74 Sailholme 145 St Albans  159–60, 174, 194, 200, 265, 276 St Clare, John of, canon of London, cardinal priest of SS Silvester and Martin 288 St Frideswide’s, Richard of, archdeacon of Bukingham 155–6 St John, John of, king’s lieutenant  144 St Laurence, Martin of, bishop of Rochester 209 (?)Sancton Hall, Walter of  89, 92 sanctuary, right of  32, 159–60 Savoy, Peter of  28 Saxham, Thomas of  298 Scala, Rayner de, papal chaplain  126 schools, grammar and song  113–15 Scissor, Roger  109 Scratby (Scrouteby), Thomas de  279–80, 282 scribes 282–4 monk ‘A’  34–6, 138–40, 245–50, 271 Scrub, William of, die-keeper of Bury St Edmunds 65 Semer  xiv–xv, 82, 110–11, 141–2, 144–5, 156, 167, 186, 255 and Charnel chapel  223 Seneca 246 Serlo, tanner  180 Shenholt, Henry of  72, 293–4 Shottisham, John of, precentor of Bury St Edmunds 80–1 Shouldham, John of, die-keeper of Bury St Edmunds 65 Sicily 120–1 Sidonius 246 Simon, monk of Walden  261 Simon, son of Reginald  108 Simon, son of Robert Loop  192 Skerning, Roger, bishop of Norwich 122–3, 215 Snailwell, John of, sacrist of Bury St Edmunds  176, 186 Soham 231 Soteshat, Reginald  191 Southery  191–2, 289, 291, 310 Southwold 23–4 Southwold, John of  128 Spalding  250–1, 257

INDEX 347

Speculum iudicale 272 Spile, William, clerk of Mildenhall  126 Spini, Maynetus, moneylender  7 n. 31, 22 n. 36, 129 Spot, Geoffrey, alderman of Bury St Edmunds  73, 106–8 Staines, Richard  293 Stanhard, Alan  192 Stanton  94–6, 223 Stanton, Hervey of, chancellor of Exchequer, royal justice  93–7, 289 Stanton, Hervey, junior  96 Stapleford 223 Stapleford Abbots, Essex  95–6, 132 Statham, Margaret  176 Stephen, king of England  56, 57 n. 30 Stephen, son of Benedict, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds  76–7, 107 Stephen, son of Stephen, goldsmith  67 Stewkley, Maurice, warden of St Saviour’s 232 Stichill, Robert, bishop of Durham  209 Stirchley, Thomas of (son of Lord Walter)  88, 92 Stirchley, Walter, Lord, justice  88, 92 Stirling Bridge, battle of (1297)  158, 170–1 Stoke by Clare  25 Stones, Lionel  281 Stow, John  131–2 Stow(e) cum Quy  67, 90, 211 Stow Langtoft  95, 132 Stowe, William of, sacrist of Bury St Edmunds  275–6, 289 n. 22 Stratford Langthorn, Essex  29 Sudbury 25 Suffield, Walter, bishop of Norwich  120 Surmelus, Augustine  191 Sutherland, D. W.  54 Sutton, Oliver, bishop of Lincoln  155, 157, 168 Swaffham, William of  65 Swein Forkbeard, king of Denmark and England  60, 83–5 Swinford, William of, sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk 109 Taverner, Hugh le  107 taxation 64 and Clericis laicos  164–71, 262 ‘Norwich’ valuation  120, 122–3, 149, 152, 155, 171 papal (clerical) taxation  79, 81, 98, 119–24, 139, 155–8, 174–5 queen’s gold  50

royal taxation  xiv–xv, 50, 64, 79, 90, 119–22, 124, 139, 147–75, 254 Taxatio Nicholai IV 155 Taxster, John  172, 242–5, 253–4, 283, 287, pl. I influence of  256–8 on natural disasters  128–9 on Simon de Montfort  26–7 on taxation  119–23 on William of Hoo  104 See also Bury Chronicle; intellectual and cultural life, chronicle production Taylor, Walter  229 Tedenho (Tednambury), Herts.  133 Thetford  231, 235 nunnery at  97, 187, 215–17 Thetford, Bartholomew of, clerk  93, 262–3 Thomas (poss. of Luton), father of Simon of Luton 4 Thomas the apostle, saint  205 Thomas, Master, royal painter  220 Thomson, R. M.  105 Thorney, Ralph of  289 Thornton, Gilbert of, justice of King’s Bench 75 Thurston 95 Tillot, Robert  195 Tilney 231 Timworth, John, abbot of Bury St Edmunds 200–1 Tiptoft, Robert of  89, 92–3, 148 Tivetshall 231 Topcroft 3 Tottingham, Samson of, abbot of Bury St Edmunds  xiv–xv, 22, 132, 141, 151, 182, 189, 271 and abbey church  220–1 death of  270 and grammar school  113–14 and Marian cult  212–13 and monks’ rights, encroachment of  5, 9–10, 42–3, 48 record-keeping under  35, 37, 130, 198 and St Saviour’s hospital  230–2 Tottingham, Thomas of, abbot of Bury St Edmunds  95–6, 194–7, 227, 230, 241–2 Tower, Hugh of the  109 Traditiones patrum  35, 40–1 Turnemire, William de  68 Turner, Hervicius (Hervey ‘le Turnur’, alias John de Lovetot, junior)  90–1, 110–11 Underwood, Robert  230

348 INDEX Urban IV, pope  15–16, 20–1 vacancies, abbatial Bury St Edmunds  102 1233 vacancy 235 1248 vacancy 235–6 1256/7 vacancy  6, 17, 134–5 1279 vacancy  xvi, 8–9, 11, 39, 48, 173–4, 185 1301 vacancy  96, 199 Composition with King Edward (1301)  174, 199–201 Ely  89, 173–4 king’s exploitation of  6, 8–9, 11, 48–50, 134–5, 173–4, 185, 200–1 and knights’ fees, survey of  198–200 St Albans  174, 200 Valence, William de, royal justice  30–1, 242 Vaux, John de, royal justice  74 Verdun, Robert of, deputy steward  77–8 Vezzano, Geoffrey of, papal nuncio  104, 156, 161 Virgil 246 Viterbo  6, 10, 19 Wallace, William  81, 158 Walpole, Edmund of, abbot of Bury St Edmunds  22, 58 n. 36, 121, 127, 130, 139, 214, 236 death of  5–6 Walpole, Ralph, bishop of Norwich  168 Walpole, William of, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds 53 Walsham, Nicholas of, abbot of St Benet’s of Hulme  290 Walsham, Robert of  289 Walsingham, Alan of, chamberlain of Bury St Edmunds  227, 261, 271, 282 Walter, son of Aylward of Risby  189 Walter, son of Norman of Risby  189 Waltham 288 Walton, Simon of, bishop of Norwich  160 Walton-on-the-Naze 96 Wangford, Philip of  195 wardships  6, 133, 198 Warenne, John de, earl of Surrey  30–1, 158, 231 n. 39, 242 Warin, parchment seller  106 Warkton 96 disafforestation of  97–101, 146, 172, 207, 260, pl. VIII Warwick, Nicholas of, sacrist of Bury St Edmunds 5

weights and measures  52–3, 70–1, 75, 106, 261 Wells-Furby, Bridget  xiv Welnetham 91 West Stow  49 Westminster, abbey  144, 159, 165, 251–2, 276, 288, 295, 314 chronicle 256 Weyland, Richard  56 n 26 Weyland, Thomas, chief justice of Common Bench  75, 88, 90–2 Weyland, Thomas of, junior clerk  88, 92 Weymouth 24 Whepstead  127, 133, 139, 156 223, 286 Whitland, Carmarths.  257 Whittlesford, Henry of  65 Wickwane, William, chancellor of York 105 Wiggenhall  4, 190 Wiggenhall, Alice of  189–90 Wiggenhall, Godfrey of  189–90 Wiggenhall, Peter of  189–90 Wiggenhall, Richard of  4, 189–91 William I, king of England  99–101 William, archbishop of Edessa (Rages) 209, 226 William, bailiff of Bury St Edmunds  4 William, keeper of vestry of Bury St Edmunds 10 William, Master of Hospital of St Saviour 5 William, son of Henry Peake  219 William le Eyre, clerk of Bury St Edmunds 80 n. 10 Willoughby, Philip of, chancellor of Exchequer 88–9 Winchelsey, Robert, archbishop of Canterbury  81, 92, 163–72, 262, 268, 288 Winchester  206, 254–5 chronicle  255, 258, 283 Winchester, Henry of, king’s agent  63 wine see under food and drink Wodard, Adam  133 Woodcroft, John of, monk of Bury St Edmunds, painter  221–2, 285, 291 Woodhill, William of see Odell, William of Woolpit  4, 16, 68 Worcester  125, 149, 181, 225, 263 Worcester, Florence of  254 Worcester, John of  243 Wordwell, Thomas of  195 Worlingworth  192, 231 Wortham 57 Wyke 24

INDEX 349

Wykes, Thomas, canon of Oseney, chronicle of 256 Wymer, pittancer of Bury St Edmunds  10 Yarmouth  150, 183, 265, 306

York archbishop’s palace  252 St Mary’s church  251 Ypres 179

Other Volumes in Studies in the History of Medieval Religion I: Dedications of Monastic Houses in England and Wales 1066–1216 Alison Binns II: The Early Charters of the Augustinian Canons of Waltham Abbey, Essex, 1062–1230 Edited by Rosalind Ransford III:  Religious Belief and Ecclesiastical Careers in Late Medieval England Edited by Christopher Harper-Bill IV: The Rule of the Templars: the French text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar Translated and introduced by J. M. Upton-Ward V: The Collegiate Church of Wimborne Minster Patricia H. Coulstock VI:  William Waynflete: Bishop and Educationalist Virginia Davis VII:  Medieval Ecclesiastical Studies in honour of Dorothy M. Owen Edited by M. J. Franklin and Christopher Harper-Bill VIII:  A Brotherhood of Canons Serving God: English Secular Cathedrals in the Later Middle Ages David Lepine IX:  Westminster Abbey and its People c.1050–c.1216 Emma Mason X:  Gilds in the Medieval Countryside: Social and Religious Change in Cambridgeshire c.1350–1558 Virginia R. Bainbridge XI:  Monastic Revival and Regional Identity in Early Normandy Cassandra Potts XII: The Convent and the Community in Late Medieval England: Female Monasteries in the Diocese of Norwich 1350–1540 Marilyn Oliva XIII:  Pilgrimage to Rome in the Middle Ages: Continuity and Change Debra J. Birch XIV:  St Cuthbert and the Normans: the Church of Durham 1071–1153 William M. Aird XV: The Last Generation of English Catholic Clergy: Parish Priests in the Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield in the Early Sixteenth Century Tim Cooper XVI: The Premonstratensian Order in Late Medieval England Joseph A. Gribbin

XVII:  Inward Purity and Outward Splendour: Death and Remembrance in the Deanery of Dunwich, Suffolk, 1370–1547 Judith Middleton-Stewart XVIII: The Religious Orders in Pre-Reformation England Edited by James G. Clark XIX: The Catalan Rule of the Templars: A Critical Edition and English Translation from Barcelona, Archito de la Corona de Aragón, ‘Cartes Reales’, MS 3344 Edited and translated by Judi Upton-Ward XX:  Leper Knights: The Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem in England, c.1150–1544 David Marcombe XXI: The Secular Jurisdiction of Monasteries in Anglo-Norman and Angevin England Kevin L. Shirley XXII: The Dependent Priories of Medieval English Monasteries Martin Heale XXIII: The Cartulary of St Mary’s Collegiate Church, Warwick Edited by Charles Fonge XXIV:  Leadership in Medieval English Nunneries Valerie G. Spear XXV: The Art and Architecture of English Benedictine Monasteries, 1300–1540: A Patronage History Julian M. Luxford XXVI: Norwich Cathedral Close: The Evolution of the English Cathedral Landscape Roberta Gilchrist XXVII: The Foundations of Medieval English Ecclesiastical History Edited by Philippa Hoskin, Christopher Brooks and Barrie Dobson XXVIII: Thomas Becket and his Biographers Michael Staunton XXIX:  Late Medieval Monasteries and their Patrons: England and Wales, c.1300–1540 Karen Stöber XXX: The Culture of Medieval English Monasticism Edited by James G. Clark XXXI:  A History of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, 1182–1256: Samson of Tottington to Edmund of Walpole Antonia Gransden XXXII:  Monastic Hospitality: the Benedictines in England, c.1070–c.1250 Julie Kerr

XXXIII:  Religious Life in Normandy, 1050–1300: Space, Gender and Social Pressure Leonie V. Hicks XXXIV: The Medieval Chantry Chapel: An Archaeology Simon Roffey XXXV:  Monasteries and Society in the British Isles in the Later Middle Ages Edited by Janet Burton and Karen Stöber XXXVI:  Jocelin of Wells: Bishop, Builder, Courtier Edited by Robert Dunning XXXVII:  War and the Making of Medieval Monastic Culture Katherine Allen Smith XXXVIII:  Cathedrals, Communities and Conflict in the Anglo-Norman World Edited by Paul Dalton, Charles Insley and Louise J. Wilkinson XXXIX:  English Nuns and the Law in the Middle Ages: Cloistered Nuns and Their Lawyers, 1293–1540 Elizabeth Makowski XL: The Nobility and Ecclesiastical Patronage in Thirteenth-Century England Elizabeth Gemmill XLI: Pope Gregory X and the Crusades Philip B. Baldwin

Dr Antonia Gransden is former Reader at the University of Nottingham.

A History of the ABBEY OF BURY ST EDMUNDS 1257–1301

Also available:

A History of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, 1182–1256: Samson of Tottington to Edmund of Walpole Antonia Gransden

Antonia Gransden

‘This is a volume rich in detail and interest, and monastic historians have cause to be grateful to Dr Gransden.’ ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW

A History of THE ABBEY OF BURY ST EDMUNDS 1257–1301 Simon of Luton and John of Northwold

‘Here at last is the modern study [the abbey] deserves, the fruit of half a century of Antonia Gransden's meticulous scholarship.’ JOURNAL OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

Studies in the History of Medieval Religion

Jacket illustration: ‘St Edmunds Abbey in Olden Times’ (1895), by Arthur Lankester, from the collections of St Edmundsbury Heritage Service.

an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF and 668 Mt Hope Ave, Rochester NY 14620–2731 (US)

www.boydellandbrewer.com

ANTONIA GRANSDEN

St Edmund’s Abbey was one of the most highly privileged and wealthiest religious houses in medieval England, one closely involved with the central government; its history is an integral part of English history. This book, the second of two volumes, offers a magisterial and comprehensive account of the Abbey during the latter part of the thirteenth century, based primarily on evidence in the abbey’s records (over 40 registers survive). It begins with an account of the two abbots of this period, Simon of Luton and John of Northwold, who showed outstanding ability in steering the abbey through difficult times, including conflict with the Friars Minor in the town, straitened financial circumstances (partly caused by oppressive taxation from king and pope), and domestic issues. This is followed by consideration of such matters as the abbey’s mint, its economy, religious, intellectual and cultural life, and the abbey’s architecture – especially the charnel chapel constructued by John, which survives to this day. The monks’ dietary regime (with examples of actual recipes from the time) is examined in a detailed appendix.