The Premonstratensian Order in Late Medieval England (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

c:/sjGribbin/Pre.3d ± 2/10/0 ± 10:51 ± B&B/SJ Studies in the History of Medieval Religion VOLUME XVI THE PREMONSTRATEN...

Author: Joseph A. Gribbin

359 downloads 1565 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

c:/sjGribbin/Pre.3d ± 2/10/0 ± 10:51 ± B&B/SJ

Studies in the History of Medieval Religion VOLUME XVI

THE PREMONSTRATENSIAN ORDER IN LATE MEDIEVAL ENGLAND


Studies in the History of Medieval Religion ISSN 0955±2480 General Editor Christopher Harper-Bill

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



JOSEPH A. GRIBBIN

THE BOYDELL PRESS


# Joseph A. Gribbin 2001 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 First published 2001 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 0 85115 799 8

The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. PO Box 41026, Rochester, NY 14604±4126, USA website: http://www.boydell.co.uk A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gribbin Joseph A. The Premonstratensian order in late medieval England / Joseph A. Gribbin. p. cm. ± (Studies in the history of medieval religion, ISSN 0955-2480; v. 16) Includes biblographical references and index. ISBN 0±85115±799±8 (hardback: alk. paper) 1. Premonstratensians ± England ± History ± To 1500. 2. Redman, Richard, d. 1505. I. Title. II. Series. BX3916.G75 2001 271'.19042±dc21 00±042915

This publication is printed on acid-free paper Typeset by Joshua Associates Ltd, Oxford Printed in Great Britain by St Edmundsbury Press Ltd, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk


Contents Illustrations

vi

Preface

ix

Abbreviations

xii

Introduction

xv

1

The Establishment of the Premonstratensians in England and the Development of the Provincia Angliae

2

The Visitation Records of the Late Medieval English Premonstratensians

20

3

The Visitation of England's Premonstratensian Abbeys, c.1478±1500

40

4

The English Premonstratensian Liturgy

101

5

Learning, Spirituality and Pastoralia: English Premonstratensian Manuscripts, Books and Libraries in the Later Middle Ages

132

6

Richard Redman, O.Praem.

174

Conclusion: From Cessation to Dissolution Appendices 1 The Visitation Itineraries of Richard Redman in Bodleian Library MS Ashmole 1519 2 Maps of Redman's Proposed Visitation Journeys, 1478, 1491 and 1500 3 English Premonstratensian Visitations, 1458±1503 4 Fornication Among the English Premonstratensians, 1475±1500 5 The Date of John Capgrave's Life of St Norbert

1

206

213 230 234 245 248

Bibliography

251

Index

269


Illustrations Plates 1. Front cover and frontispiece: historiated initial illustrating the presentation of the Life of St Norbert by the Augustinian friar John Capgrave, to Abbot John Wygenhale of West Dereham, from Huntington Library, San Marino, California, MS HM. 55, fol. 1 2. A fourteenth-century fresco depicting St Norbert, founder of the white canons, from the former Premonstratensian abbey of San Severo, Orvieto, Italy 3. The abbey of PreÂmontreÂ, from a seventeenth-century engraving 4. The ef®gy (top portion) of Bishop Richard Redman, O.Praem., from his tomb in Ely Cathedral 5. The fourteenth-century gatehouse of Torre Abbey, Devon 6. Exterior view of the fourteenth-century refectory at Easby Abbey, Yorkshire 7. Interior view of the refectory at Leiston Abbey, Suffolk 8. Detail of the calefactory and dormitory at Beeleigh Abbey, Essex 9. The choir-stalls from Easby Abbey, probably commissioned by Abbot Robert Bampton (1511±36), now located in the parish church of Richmond, Yorkshire 10. Ef®gy of Bishop Richard Redman from his tomb at Ely Cathedral

xx 2 17 62 78 80 81 112 204

Acknowledgements to the chapter steward of Ely Cathedral for plates 4 and 10; Dr Gwilym Dodd for plates 6 and 9; the chief curator for Torbay Museums for plate 5; Huntington Library, San Marino, California for the front cover and frontispiece; and the Premonstratensian order for plate 2.

Tables 1. Abbeys of the English Premonstratensian canons 2. Estimated number of English Premonstratensians, late ®fteenth to sixteenth century 3. Net income of the English Premonstratensian abbeys c.1535

4 51 82


ILLUSTRATIONS

4. A hierarchical categorisation of liturgical feasts among the Premonstratensian canons in the later Middle Ages 5. English Premonstratensian canons who attended or were permitted to go to university c.1384±1532

vii 106 168

Maps 1. Premonstratensian houses in England, Wales and Scotland (Appendix 2) A. Redman's proposed visitation journeys for 1478 B. Redman's proposed visitation journeys for 1491 C. Redman's proposed visitation journeys for 1500

5 231 232 233



Preface This book concerns aspects of the history of the English Premonstratensian canons in the later Middle Ages, and concentrates on the period c.1458± 1500 in particular. It focuses primarily on the conventual observances of the abbeys of the `white' canons and their visitation by Bishop Richard Redman (n 1505), commissary-general of PreÂmontreÂ and English visitor, as revealed in his visitation register and other manuscript sources. The ®rst chapter, by way of introduction, surveys the development and organisation of the English Premonstratensian province. This includes a brief discussion of the origins of the white canons, the foundation of the English houses, and their devolved government from PreÂmontreÂ, their French motherhouse. Chapter Two considers the manuscript sources containing the visitation records of the English Premonstratensians, Bodleian Library, Oxford MS Ashmole 1519, and British Library Additional MSS 4934 and 4935. The ®rst of these, the Ashmole MS, is shown to be the most important primary source for our period, as it contains Richard Redman's visitation register. Following a discussion of the register's composition, is an examination of the unpublished journey itineraries contained in the Ashmole MS, which enabled Redman to travel from abbey to abbey. The third chapter contains an extensive analysis of Redman's visitations, mainly between 1478 and 1500, and attempts to ascertain the nature and observance of monastic life within the English Premonstratensian abbeys. An account is given of the procedure of visitation as conducted by Redman and Premonstratensians generally, followed by an examination of the name lists in Redman's register, which give an idea of the level of recruitment among the canons and the complements within each abbey. Various aspects of Premonstratensian life, including conventual food and clothing, and the misdemeanours recorded during the visitations, such as sexual immorality and apostasy, are considered. Redman's comments on the maintenance of economic structures within each house and the conservation of monastic buildings, are brie¯y discussed. Chapter Four deals in a particular way with the liturgical observances which occupied much of the daily routine of the English Premonstratensians, principally by examining the visitation records, a sixteenth-century manuscript containing extracts from a Premonstratensian liturgical Ordinarius, and an Ordinale that belonged to a canon of Easby. This chapter will demonstrate that although the Premonstratensians maintained their own liturgical rite, it was subject to external in¯uences from secular and other monastic rites, including some of the English Nova Festa. An analysis of the `quality' and maintenance of liturgical observances within individual abbeys, and their usefulness to the laity as `liturgical intercessors'


x

PREFACE

with God, are considered. The ®fth chapter examines English Premonstratensian manuscripts, printed books and libraries. This sheds light upon other areas of Premonstratensian activity, including learning within the abbeys, the presence of white canons at the universities, their spirituality, and parochial ministry. The last chapter gives a brief biographical account of Richard Redman, the most prominent English Premonstratensian of the later Middle Ages, and expands on previous accounts of his life. It examines his origins from a notable Westmorland family, the controversy surrounding his appointment as commissary-general, his relationship and service to the English monarchy, and what is known about his role as bishop of St Asaph, Exeter, and ®nally Ely. The conclusion discusses the achievement of complete independence from PreÂmontreÂ by the English Premonstratensians in 1512, in the light of evidence which has been overlooked. It will be proposed that while the seeds for this were sown centuries beforehand, the break between the English canons and PreÂmontreÂ was by no means inevitable, or predetermined. I am grateful to the many institutions and individuals who assisted me during the writing of this book. Unfortunately I cannot thank everyone explicitly, but I would like to acknowledge the following in particular. Firstly I would like to thank Dr Roger Lovatt, who supervised the doctoral thesis on which this book is based. I am indebted to the constant vigilance, constructive criticism, patience, kindness and encouragement which he gave me as the thesis took shape. I am also grateful to Professor Barrie Dobson for the kindness and support which he has shown me, and to Barbara Harvey, who examined the thesis with Professor Dobson. In a particular way I would like to extend my sincerest appreciation to Professor Christopher Harper-Bill, who continues to be a great source of encouragement in my academic researches, and a ready helper in times of dif®culty. I am grateful to Professor David Smith, Dr Rosemary Horrox, Dr Mark Bailey, and the other scholars who kindly assisted me by their advice. Many libraries and institutions graciously permitted me to examine their manuscripts or answered various enquiries. I would like to thank the following in particular; Cambridge University Library, the libraries of Jesus College, Gonville and Caius College, Corpus Christi College, St John's College in Cambridge, the Bodleian Library, the libraries of All Souls College and Magdalen College in Oxford, the Library of the University of London, the John Rylands University of Manchester Library, the British Library, the Public Record Of®ce, the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, the National Library of Wales, Shef®eld Archives, Suffolk Record Of®ce, Lancashire Record Of®ce, Norfolk Record Of®ce, Nottinghamshire Archives, Devon Record Of®ce, Hampshire Record Of®ce, East Sussex Record Of®ce, the Society of Antiquaries of London, Torquay Museum, Exeter Cathedral Library, the dean and archivist of St Asaph's Cathedral, the staff of Ely Cathedral, the Real Biblioteca de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, the Huntington Library in California, and the Pierpoint Morgan Library, New York.


PREFACE

xi

If the libraries of medieval monasteries were repositories of learning, then the same is true of their modern equivalent. I am grateful to the abbot and community of Downside Abbey, and particularly Dom Daniel Rees OSB, for the hospitality extended to me on research trips there, and also to the abbot and community of Ealing Abbey, the master of St Benet's Hall and the warden of Greyfriars, Oxford. The abbot and community of Pluscarden Abbey have supported me by their friendship and prayers for over ten years, and made their library available to me: I offer them my heartfelt gratitude. I am particularly grateful to Fr Michael J. Gallagher, O.Praem. of Corpus Christi Priory in Manchester, for his encouragement and assistance, and I wish to express my gratitude to the prior of Our Lady of England Priory, Storrington, the abbot of West de Pere and his community, for providing a subsidy towards the publication of this book, and the Historical Commission of the Premonstratensian Order for their interest in my research. Sr Mary Dolorosa FSM, Rev. Alan Speight and Dr Gwilym Dodd, kindly conveyed me to the site of several Premonstratensian abbeys, and I am grateful for the assistance given to me by Deryck Seymour, Dr Michael Rhodes, Bernard Quaritch Ltd. and the Richard III and Yorkist Trust. It was a great privilege to have met H. M. Colvin, the author of The White Canons in England. His assistance on several matters was of great bene®t, and I, with other medieval historians, continue to be indebted to the researches which he undertook on the Premonstratensians over forty years ago. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, for their constant support and encouragement while writing this book, which is dedicated to them with much affection.


Abbreviations Acta O. Praem.

Acta Saxony

AP BIHR BL BL PECK I BL PECK II Bodl. Bodl. ASH BRUC BRUO BRUO 1501±40 Cal. Inq. Cal. Pat. Camb. UL CAP

Acta et Decreta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praemonstratensis, 3 vols, ed. J. B. Valvekens Analecta Praemonstratensia 42±54 (Averbode, 1966±78) Acta Capitulorum Triennalium et Annalium Circariae Saxoniae Ordinis Praemonstratensis inde ab Anno 1466 usque ad Annum 1516, ed. K. Dolista, Analecta Praemonstratensia 51±54 (Averbode, 1975±78) Analecta Praemonstratensia Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research British Library British Library, Add. MS 4934. Transcriptions from Belvoir Castle Add. MS 2, by Francis Peck, 18th cent. British Library, Add. MS 4935. Transcriptions from Belvoir Castle Add. MS 2, by Francis Peck, 18th cent. Bodleian Library, Oxford Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 1519. Richard Redman's Premonstratensian Visitation Register, late 15th±early 16th cent. Emden, A. B., A Register of the University of Cambridge to 1500 (Cambridge, 1963) Emden, A. B., A Register of the University of Oxford to AD 1500, 3 vols (Oxford, 1957±59) Emden, A. B., A Register of the University of Oxford AD 1501±1540 (Oxford, 1974) Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry VII, 3 vols, eds W. Maskelyne and D. L. Evans (London, 1898±1955) Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1452±1509, 6 vols, eds A. E. Bland, R. C. Fowler and J. G. Black (London, 1897±1916) Cambridge University Library Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia, 3 vols, ed. F. A. Gasquet, Camden Society, third series 6, 10, 12 (1904±06)


ABBREVIATIONS

CCR CFR CPL

Concilia CPR

DRO Redman Reg. EETS EHR Fasti Foedera HBS JEH Libr. Prem. Mon. Ang. Monast. Praem. PL PRO Religious Orders Rotuli Parl. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ I

xiii

Calendar of Close Rolls, 1422±1509, 10 vols, eds W. H. B. Bird, K. H. Ledward and R. E. Latham (London, 1933±1963) Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1461±1509, 3 vols, ed. P. V. Davis (London, 1949±62) Calendar of Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, 21 vols and addenda, eds J. S. Brewer, J. Gairdner, R. H. Brodie et al. (London, 1862±1932) Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, A.D. 446±1718, 4 vols, ed. D. Wilkins (London, 1737) Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, Papal Letters, 19 vols to date, eds W. H. Bliss, J. A. Twemlow et al. (London and Dublin, 1893± ) Exeter Diocesan Records, Chanter Catalogue 12, part 2. Episcopal Register of Bishop Richard Redman of Exeter, 1497±1501 Early English Text Society English Historical Review Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 12 vols, eds J. M. Horn, B. Jones and H. P. F. King (London, 1962±67) Foedera, ed. T. Rymer (London, 1704±35) Henry Bradshaw Society Journal of Ecclesiastical History The Libraries of the Cistercians, Gilbertines and Premonstratensians, ed. D. N. Bell (London, 1992) Monasticon Anglicanum, 6 vols, ed. W. Dugdale, re-edited by J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Badinel (London, 1817±30) Backmund, N., Monasticon Praemonstratense, 3 vols (Staubing, 1949, 1952, 1956) Patrologiae Cursus Completus, ed. J. P. Migne, 218 vols (Paris, 1844±55, 1864) Public Record Of®ce D. Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, 3 vols (Cambridge, 1948, 1955, 1959) Rotuli Parliamentorum, 6 vols, eds J. Strachey et al. (London, 1767±77) Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ au Milieu du XIIe SieÁcle, eds P. F. LefeÁvre and W. M. Grauwen (Averbode, 1978)


xiv

ABBREVIATIONS

Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ: ReÂformeÂs sur les Ordres de GreÂgoire IX et d'Innocent IV au XIIIe SieÁcle, ed. P. F. LefeÁvre (Louvain, 1946) Summa Theol. Summa Theologiae (Thomas Aquinas), 5 vols, eds Spanish Dominican Order (Madrid, 1952, 1961) VCH Victoria County History White Canons H. M. Colvin, The White Canons in England (Oxford, 1951)


Introduction A predominant feature of the English landscape in the Middle Ages were the monasteries of the religious orders, which were located in practically every city and town, as well as the countryside, with its secluded valleys. The medieval proverb that À ¯y and a friar will fall in every dish' is a graphic illustration that to people of the Middle Ages, the regular clergy were as familiar as the earth they walked upon.1 Much has been written on the religious orders in England, and much will undoubtedly be written in the future. The largest communities among them, and the most in¯uential, rightfully command the main focus of attention. Barbara Harvey's recent book on the Benedictines of Westminster and the voluminous work produced on the Carthusian charterhouses of England in the Analecta Cartusiana, testi®es to this.2 One group of English religious who were just as much a constituent part of the regular clergy, were the Premonstratensian canons. Despite this, research on them has been more sporadic and somewhat neglected in the past. One historian poignantly remarked in the early 1950s, that as far as ecclesiastical historians were concerned, the òbscurity' of Premonstratensian history àt many vital points has often led to tactful omission, or at best to embarrassed brevity'.3 Interest in the order's history was apparent among the Premonstratensians themselves when Charles Hugo, O.Praem., compiled his Sacri et Canonici Ordinis Praemonstratensis Annales in the ®rst decades of the eighteenth century. However his work on the English canons was somewhat limited in scope and is not always trustworthy, as he did not have adequate access to the primary sources.4 William Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum, from a slightly earlier era, provided historians with many of the foundation charters of the English canons, and other documents, and over the course of the centuries a variety of studies appeared in antiquarian and local journals on individual abbeys. The work accomplished by William St John Hope on the sites and remaining architecture of a number of Premonstratensian houses 1 2

3 4

C. Platt, Abbeys of Yorkshire (London 1988), p. 2. B. Harvey, Living and Dying in England, 1100±1540 (Oxford, 1993); The Chartae of the Carthusian General Chapter: Dom PaleÂmon Bastin's Extracts from the Acta of the Carthusian General Chapter for the Provincia Angliae: Parkminster MS. B.77, ed. J. Hogg, Analecta Cartusiana 100: 21 (Salzburg, 1989). H. M. Colvin, `Monasticon Praemonstratense', JEH 4 (1953), 101. C. L. Hugo, Sacri et Canonici Ordinis Praemonstratensis Annales, 2 vols (Nancy, 1734± 36), passim; Colvin, `Monasticon Praemonstratense', p. 101. The order's Historical Commission produces its own periodical entitled Analecta Praemonstratensia (AP), though very few studies have been published on the English white canons.


xvi


stands prominently among these, as does the general history of the English abbeys in the Victoria Country History.5 Few monographs have been produced on individual Premonstratensian abbeys with the same depth as A. Hamilton Thompson's book on Welbeck, or the short, but excellent study on Durford Abbey by E. M. Yates.6 Editions or calendars of some Premonstratensian cartularies have also been produced, such as A. Saltman's work on the Dale cartulary, R. Mortimer's edition of the Leiston cartulary, and D. Seymour's extensive work on the lands and properties of Torre Abbey.7 Prior to these works was an edition of two English Premonstratensian registers containing visitation records of the order, by Cardinal F. A. Gasquet in the Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia, at the turn of the twentieth century, which perhaps made historians more aware of available source material for the study of the English white canons.8 The need for a de®nitive history of the English Premonstratensians was recognised by C. J. Kirk¯eet, O.Praem. In The White Canons of Saint Norbert (1943), he pointed out that `no history of the Order in England [at that time] before the Dissolution of the Church in the sixteenth century has ever been published', and modestly attempted to àssemble in one volume for some future historian the scattered historical sources and particular studies concerning the Order in the British Isles', though he was aware that his endeavours were only a beginning.9 Without doubt, H. M. Colvin's The White Canons in England (1951) was a signi®cant breakthrough in producing what is really the ®rst scholarly study on the general history of the English white canons.10 Colvin's book remains an invaluable source of information, and was utilised in Norbert Backmund's Monasticon Praemonstratense.11 Nevertheless, despite references throughout Colvin's book to the white 5

6

7

8 9 10 11

Mon. Ang. VI, pt 2, pp. 857±945; W. H. St John Hope, Òn the Premonstratensian Abbey of SS. Mary and Thomas of Canterbury at West Langdon, Kent', Archaeologia Cantiana 15 (1883); A. W. Clapham, `The Architecture of the Premonstratensians, with Special Reference to their Buildings in England', Archaeologia 73 (1923); VCH, passim. A. Hamilton Thompson, The Premonstratensian Abbey of Welbeck (London, 1938); E. M. Yates, Durford Abbey and its Lands (Harting, 1980). BL MS Cotton Vespasian E.XIV; Leiston Abbey Cartulary and Butley Priory Charters, ed. R. Mortimer, Suffolk Records Society, Suffolk Charters 1 (1979); BL MS. Cotton Vespasian E.XXVI. fols 6±177v; Cartulary of Dale Abbey, ed. A. Saltman, Derbyshire Archaeological Society Record Series 2, Historical Manuscripts Commission Joint Publication, no. 11 (1967); PRO E164/19; D. Seymour, Torre Abbey (Exeter, 1977). At the time of writing, research on Beauchief Abbey, a biographical register of the `British' white canons, and a study on Shap has been announced: W. G. Wiseman, `The Premonstratensian Canons in England, Scotland and Wales', Monastic Research Bulletin 3 (1997), 49; D. Hey, `The Beauchief Abbey Cartulary', Monastic Research Bulletin 3 (1997), 51. CAP I±III. C. J. Kirk¯eet, The White Canons of St Norbert (West de Pere, 1943), pp. vii±viii. White Canons, passim. Monast. Praem. II, pp. 15±87.


INTRODUCTION

xvii

canons in the ®fteenth and sixteenth centuries, and his analysis of various aspects of their lives, the main focus of his attention was the foundation history of each individual abbey in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and their internal organisation, rather than their later history. Certain areas, such as the manuscripts and libraries of the English Premonstratensians, were not covered in any great depth, and there is no detailed analysis of the visitation records which were edited by Gasquet. They are the most important primary source for the white canons of later medieval England.12 Though David Knowles devoted a short chapter to the Premonstratensian visitations, in volume three of his monumental study The Religious Orders in England, he did not have room to exploit this valuable source material to its full potential.13 Having recourse to Gasquet's edition of the Premonstratensian visitation records for the later history of the English white canons is problematic. G. G. Coulton and, more notably, H. M. Colvin, have indicated hundreds of transcription and editorial errors in Gasquet's Collectanea.14 In addition, other English Premonstratensian manuscripts from the later Middle Ages have either come to light or were not referred to by Colvin in his book, such as a liturgical Ordinale from Easby Abbey, and a particularly interesting common-place book which belonged to a canon of Coverham.15 This book will therefore attempt to ®ll a gap in our knowledge of the late medieval English Premonstratensians by analysing their visitation records of the late ®fteenth and early sixteenth centuries, and other primary sources, the activities of the visitor and commissary-general at that time, Richard Redman (ff c.1458±1505), along with other aspects of the Premonstratensians, mainly within the context of the monastic enclosure.16 12 13 14

15 16

Religious Orders II, p. 138, n.3. Religious Orders III, pp. 39±51. C. Johnson, `Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia', EHR 19 (1904), 770±2; G. G. Coulton, Ten Medieval Studies (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 220±6, 262±70; Bodl. MS Eng. Hist. D. 277, passim; D. Knowles, The Historian and Character and Other Essays (Cambridge, 1963), p. 254. Unfortunately I could not locate the list of Coulton's corrections to the Collectanea which Knowles said was deposited at the University of Chicago, who graciously provided me with a xerox itemising Coulton's papers. However a corrected copy of the Collectanea by Coulton is available in the Library of the University of London (MSS I.H.R. 953±955), though the annotations are largely comments on the text which were made by the person who annotated Coulton's corrections. Colvin's list of corrections in the Bodleian, is by far the best: ut supra. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55; BL MS Sloane 1584. Though we shall examine economic factors indicated by the visitor during his visitations, the richness of visitation source material, in particular, prohibited a detailed analysis of estate management. A large number of estate documents were found during the author's research. Those from Titch®eld ± despite a thesis on the abbey's estates: D. C. Watts, `The Estates of Titch®eld Abbey, c.1245±c.1380', B.Litt. (Oxford, 1957) ± Leiston and Bayham, would probably take several studies to do them adequate justice: e.g. BL Add. MS 70506; BL Add. MS 70508; Hampshire Record


xviii


We begin by `setting the scene' and leading into the later Middle Ages by furnishing the necessary background information on the order's establishment in England, the geographical location of its abbeys, the relationship between PreÂmontreÂ and the English white canons, and the government of the English province.

Of®ce, 5 M51.75±81; Suffolk Record Of®ce, MSS H.D. 371.1 and H.D. 371.2; Camb. UL Vanneck Collection (uncatalogued); Centre for Kentish Studies, UB/40/M/10 and UB/40/M/12±13. Because of Gasquet's faulty editing of Redman's visitation register (Bodl. ASH) and the two volumes which contain eighteenth-century transcriptions of a sixteenth-century register (BL PECK I and II) from Welbeck Abbey, the original documents have been utilised throughout, and the volume numbers of BL PECK, which Gasquet neglected to mention in his transcriptions, will also be given. However references in the footnotes to the original manuscripts are given with their corresponding transcription document numbers (in arabic numerals) in CAP, unless Gasquet failed to transcribe a particular section. I have taken cognisance of the errors compiled by Coulton, and particularly Colvin, and have made additions to their corrections. Because a large number of emendations are necessary in the Collectanea, it was thought impractical to indicate each of these explicitly, or to alter Gasquet's use of upper and lower case letters in the transcription of words, or to change ù' to `v' and vice versa. The reader should refer to the original manuscripts and Colvin's list of corrections in the absence of a new edition of the Collectanea, which is sorely needed.



Plate 2. A fourteenth-century fresco depicting St Norbert, founder of the white canons, from the former Premonstratensian abbey of San Severo, Orvieto, Italy

c:/sjGribbin/ch1.3d ± 2/10/0 ± 10:45 ± B&B/SJ

1 The Establishment of the Premonstratensians in England and the Development of the Provincia Angliae 1

The Premonstratensian canons, founded by the enigmatic St Norbert of Xanten (n 1134), spread rapidly across Europe after their establishment in the remote valley of PreÂmontreÂ in 1121.2 By the end of 1124 there were sixteen houses. The second quarter of the twelfth century was a golden age for the order, for some two hundred houses were founded during that period.3 The desire of the Cistercian general chapter (1152) to call a halt to the rapid expansion which their order enjoyed throughout Europe, coupled with the great similarity between their lifestyle and that of the white canons, contributed greatly to the growth of the latter and the patronage which they received from the nobility when their golden age had elapsed.4 The ®rst abbot of PreÂmontreÂ and confreÁre of St Norbert, Bl. Hugh of Fosse, borrowed to some extent from the Cistercians' customary when formulating the order's ®rst statutes (ante-1140), and adopted their method of holding general chapters and governmental structures, such as the system of `®liation' between individual abbeys. Each house had a pater abbas ± not necessarily from the abbey that sent the house's ®rst inmates ± who had powers to visit the abbey annually, and eventually had the authority to supervise abbatial elections. The Premonstratensians wore a white habit, indulged in manual labour, and strove to live up to the monastic ideal of the `desert'. In time permission was given for pastoral ministry and the supervision of parishes, 1

2

3

4

The term `provincia' really denotes a geo-political unit rather than a `province' of the order, as the term was ®rst used by the mendicants. However it was used, for example, by the white canons of England and Saxony in the late Middle Ages: D. De Clerck, `Disquisitio Historico-Juridica de Visitatoribus in Ordine Praemonstratensi', AP 33 (1957), 201; Bodl. ASH, fol. 84v; CAP I, 88; Acta Saxony, passim. PL 170: 1235±1344; C. Dereine, `Les Origines de PreÂmontreÂ', Revue d'Histoire EccleÂsiastique 42 (1947), 352±78. Numerous articles on Norbert appear in AP. J. Bond, `The Premonstratensian Order: A Preliminary Survey of its Growth and Distribution in Medieval Europe', In Search of Cult: Archaeological Investigations in Honour of Philip Rahtz, ed. M. Carver (Woodbridge, 1993), p. 159. R. W. Southern, Western Society and Church in the Middle Ages (London, 1970), p. 254.


2


Plate 3. The abbey of PreÂmontreÂ, from a seventeenthcentury engraving which was largely, though not exclusively, to obtain revenue. The German houses, especially Magdeburg, were more pastorally minded than their French brethren who were closely aligned to the more contemplative observance of PreÂmontreÂ.5 Despite the notable Cistercian in¯uence on the Premonstratensians, they were essentially a reform of the Augustinian canons whose life revolved round the Laus Dei in choro. In the white canons' formative years, they adopted what was then believed to be a harsher and more primitive form of the Rule of St Augustine, with aspirations which were akin to those of the Cistercians, who strove to follow St Benedict's Rule ad litteram. The origins of the Premonstratensians should be seen against the background of the religious fervour of the twelfth 5

Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ I, pp. i±xx; J. B. Valvekens, `Relationis Ordinis nostri cum Ordine Cisterciense', AP 19 (1943), 63±9. On the schism between the Saxony circary and PreÂmontreÂ, see White Canons, pp. 9±10.


THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ORDER IN ENGLAND

3

century Renaissance, and the era of the Gregorian reformers, who worked to produce a worthier class of clergy.6 Medieval Premonstratensian catalogues from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries give diverse ®gures for the total number of Premonstratensian houses established in the Middle Ages.7 However in modern times, Norbert Backmund detailed 578 medieval houses which he regarded as well authenticated, though James Bond indicates that the total number of sites occupied at any given period never exceeded ®ve hundred.8 As far as English Premonstratensian houses were concerned, it is clear that the order had exactly thirty abbeys in late medieval England, founded between 1143 (Newhouse) and c.1267 (Wendling) inclusive. If one discounts abortive and abandoned foundations of earlier centuries, such as Charlton and Hailsham, and those monasteries that were relocated to other geographical positions, such as Swainby, which moved to Coverham, we are presented with the abbeys indicated in Table 1 (p. 4) placed in alphabetical order within their respective `circaries': the regions through which the Premonstratensians controlled and organised their abbeys.9 It can be seen from Table 1 and the map (p. 5) that the English Premonstratensian abbeys stretched across the length and breadth of the country, from Alnwick in Northumberland down to Torre in Devon, with the greatest concentration of houses situated in central England and in the north. Most abbeys were built in isolated areas like the Cistercian houses. Shap, for example, in Westmorland, was founded on the left bank of the River Lowther in a narrow valley surrounded by hills. Bayham in Sussex, was established in the solitary depths of West Weald, though the earlier alternative name for the abbey, `Beaulieu', epitomises the beauty of the 6 7

8 9

Southern, Western Society and Church, p. 242 and n.35, pp. 251±2. Bond, `The Premonstratensian Order', p. 158; T. Nyberg, `De Nordiska Premonstratenserklostrens StaÈllning I Ordensorganisationen', Tommarps Urkundsbok 1085±1600 2, ed. C. Wallin (1975±76), pp. 7±22, 33±42. Bond, `The Premonstratensian Order', p. 159; Monast. Praem. I±III, passim. The `circaries' were a unique institution of the white canons in the ®rst half of the thirteenth century, and were de®nitely regulated by 1290: N. Backmund, `The Premonstratensian Order in Scotland', The Innes Review 3 and 4 (1953), 28. The names in Table 1 and on the map of Premonstratensian abbeys, have been standardised and are cited in this way throughout, unless otherwise noted. For lists of variant spellings of the Premonstratensian houses, and sites which are thought to be spurious or dubious see Monast. Praem. II, pp. 32±87, passim. As the foundation dates of the English Premonstratensian abbeys can vary among secondary sources, the dates given here are mainly those proposed by Colvin, as he made a meticulous study of the primary sources. Fuller details of the foundation history of the abbeys is found in White Canons, pp. 27±193. By `foundation' it is intended to indicate when a parent community arrived, or had transferred to a new site or when a foundation charter is dated: see ibid., pp. 39, 40. The patronal dedications of the English Premonstratensian houses are conveniently summarised in A. Binns, Dedications of Monastic Houses in England and Wales 1066±1216 (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 161±9.


4


Table 1. Abbeys of the English Premonstratensian canons



Abbeys

Dependent Priories Fearn

NUNS Alien Priories (suppressed in the late fourteenth/mid fifteenth centuries) Circary boundaries Anglo-Scottish border marking fifteenth century Scottish circary

Dryburgh Holywood

Alnwick

Tongland

Guizance Blanchland

Soulseat

Egglestone

Whithorn Cathedral–priory

Shap Easby Coverham

Hornby Cockersand

Newhouse IRFORD West Ravendale

Cammeringham

Hagnaby

Barlings

Beauchief

Tupnolme

Welbeck Dale BROADHOLME

Croxton

West Dereham

Halesowen

Dodford

Wendling

Newbo

Sulby

Langley Leiston

Lavendon Talley Beeleigh

Durford Titchfield

Langdon Bayham St. Radegund

Torre

Map 1. Premonstratensian houses in England, Wales and Scotland

5


6


abbey's geographical location.10 Other houses also enjoyed the isolation that be®tted a house of the contemplative Premonstratensian tradition, though they were close to local towns. Beeleigh Abbey, in Essex, was just over one thousand yards north-west of the royal borough of Maldon, which had a population of just over a thousand. Easby Abbey, in Yorkshire, was built on the right bank of the River Swale, and approximately three-quarters of a mile from the market place of Richmond, which is dominated by its castle.11 The Premonstratensian abbeys, in common with the houses of most religious orders, varied in size and importance: though none of them were particularly wealthy.12 Newhouse (f. 1143) was the ®rst of the English Premonstratensian abbeys to be established, and colonised ten abbeys, while Welbeck, with its eight daughter houses, grew in importance in the English circaries. It should be pointed out here that three abbeys maintained a dependent priory/cell until the eve of the Dissolution. Croxton possessed Hornby Priory, which was staffed by canons from the abbey.13 Alnwick acquired the neighbouring Premonstratensian nunnery of Guizance, which had probably suffered from the ravages of the Black Death in the fourteenth century. According to Backmund, the former convent was maintained as a parish church in the sixteenth century, and two canons administered the property. Halesowen acquired the Augustinian priory of Dodford from Edward IV in 1464, due to the priory's poverty and the negligence of its prior. There appear to have been a handful of canons resident there in 1489.14 There were also a number of Premonstratensian alien priories in England. The priory of Cammeringham in Lincolnshire was held by the French abbey of Blanchelande in Normandy, acquired in a dispute c.1155. It suffered the same fate as the other alien priories in the early fourteenth century and was con®scated by the crown a little after 1325, though there were possibly canons there until the early 1380s, as two canons were noted in 1377. It was eventually sold to the Cistercians of Hulton.15 West Ravendale Priory, in Lincolnshire, was held by Beauport Abbey in Brittany, and possessed nine parish churches. After being suppressed in 1294, it was restored in 1327 and lasted until its ®nal suppression in 1452.16 These alien 10

11

12 13 14

15 16

H. M. Colvin and R. Gilyard-Beer, Shap Abbey (London, 1963), p. 5; S. E. Rigold and J. Coald, Bayham Abbey (London, 1974), p. 22. A. Simpson, The Carmelite Friary at Maldon, Essex: 1293 to the Present (Maldon, 1986), pp. 6±9; J. Weaver, Richmond Castle and Easby Abbey (London, 1989), pp. 19±20. See Table 3, p. 82. Monast. Praem. II, p. 60; VCH Lancs. II, pp. 160±1. Monast. Praem. II, pp. 56±7, 88±9. See Bodl. ASH, fols 67, 116v, 133, 142v; CAP II, 440, 442, 444, 445, where a prior or custos of Dodford is indicated. Monast. Praem. II, pp. 43, 594. Monast. Praem. II, pp. 87, 596. In D. Knowles and R. Neville Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses of England and Wales (London, 1971), p. 193, it is stated that this priory was non-conventual. I have mentioned only those alien houses known to have been in existence in the late 14th±15th centuries.



7

priories were never technically part of the English Premonstratensian circaries. There were few convents of the female branch of the order in England, and out of the three Premonstratensian nunneries which are known to have existed, only Irford (Orford) in Lincolnshire and Broadholme (Brodholme) in Nottinghamshire, survived until the Dissolution.17 Communities of white canons and nuns in the order's `double monasteries' ± under the authority of an abbot ± were gradually being segregated in continental Europe, from about 1140.18 Sally Thompson's illuminating study on English nunneries after the Norman Conquest proposed that Newhouse Abbey (f. 1143) may have been a double monastery, from which Irford (11536c.1156?) and Broadholme (ante-1167?) were established, on properties which had been given to the abbey. If one accepts this hypothesis, then it would appear that a double monastery at Newhouse was an innovation after the abbey's foundation, perhaps on the canons' part. According to Thompson, the earliest reference to sisters associated with Newhouse occurs in 11536c.1156, when a cimiterium sororum is apparent at Irford. Colvin's analysis of a large collection of twelfth-century charters from Newhouse, and later transcripts, gave no indication of the presence of female religious at Newhouse prior to 1153.19 In any case, the physical separation of Premonstratensian abbeys and nunneries, and the degree of autonomy exercised by prioresses in the latter, did not end the idea of a single community, which `was perpetuated in the dependence of the sisterhood on a neighbouring 17

18

19

Monast. Praem. II, pp. 42±3, 60±1; White Canons, pp. 327±36. Guizance (f. c.1152/67) was taken over by Alnwick: see p. 6. The Cistercian nunnery of Stixwold was refounded by Henry VIII, with Benedictine nuns from Stain®eld and other religious, as a Premonstratensian convent in 1537. It was suppressed in 1539: Monast. Praem. II, pp. 72±3. I have not included the latter in the map of Premonstratensian houses (p. 5) for this reason. S. Thompson, Women Religious: The Founding of English Nunneries after the Norman Conquest (Oxford, 1991), pp. 134±5. Colvin ruled out any double monasteries in England: White Canons, pp. 327±36. Thompson, Women Religious, pp. 139±40; White Canons, pp. 39±52, 329±30. Thompson also appears to suggest that a charter dated `not long before 1189', granting the `church of St Michael of Irford' to the `church of St Mary of Irford' (i.e. the nuns), is possible evidence for the existence of a double monastery, as men (canons) and women (nuns) are mentioned at Irford. However this does not take into the account that female religious in nunneries would have depended on male clergy for a variety of tasks, especially the administration of the sacraments, and, indeed, Thompson later proposes that the same charter gives the `[®rst] impression that Orford was a distinct institution', with a degree of independence from Newhouse: Thompson, Women Religious, pp. 140 (n.46), 141, 144: À Twelfth-Century Grant to Irford Priory', ed. H. M. Colvin, Lincolnshire Architectural and Archaeological Society, Reports and Papers 5 (offprint, 1957), pp. 1±4. Colvin's argument that the churches of St Michael and St Mary, mentioned in the same charter, were two different churches, seems more convincing than Thompson's suggestion that both were the same `church': À Twelfth-Century Grant', p. 2; White Canons, pp. 328±30; Thompson, Women Religious, p. 141.


8


abbey'.20 Little is known about the history of these nunneries, particularly in the later Middle Ages. One of the canons in a name list from Newhouse, dating from 1478, is styled `magister de Brodholm' ± a designation which implies a degree of authority ± and a surviving name list of nuns at Broadholme from 1494, speci®es ten inmates, including the prioress.21 The English Premonstratensian nunneries were earmarked for visitation by Richard Redman in 1488, 1491, 1494, 1500, and 1503. In addition the visitor intended to visit Broadholme in 1478 and 1497.22 Though the 1494 Broadholme name list is the only extant evidence for these visitations ± presuming that they all took place ± the fact that the visitor intended to conduct a visitation of these nunneries indicates that they continued to be viewed as an integral part of the English Premonstratensian circaries in the late Middle Ages and that the nuns had not been neglected by their male counterparts. As well as two Premonstratensian nunneries, one should note that the order's Welsh and Scottish houses were situated within the English circaries at one time or another. The circary system, like any other ecclesiastical boundaries, was not necessarily subject to national borders.23 The abbey of Tal-Y-Llychau, or Talley in Carmarthenshire, was the only Welsh abbey of the order, and was founded in 1184/89 with canons from St John of Amiens. It became part of the English middle circary only in c.1300.24 Though its 20

21

22

23

24

À Twelfth-Century Grant to Irford Priory', pp. 1±2; White Canons, pp. 328±32, 334±5. Some Premonstratensian nuns were less fortunate after segregation from the canons: Southern, Western Society and Church, pp. 313±15. For regulations concerning the nuns see Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 112±15 and Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, ed. J. Le Paige (Paris, 1633), pp. 838±89. Thompson in Women Religious (p. 144), says that there is `little to suggest [that Irford had] continuing links with the canons of Newhouse'. However see the evidence Thompson presents for contact between Newhouse and the nunneries (ibid., pp. 140±4, 250), and a reference to the excommunication of an apostate nun of Irford, Margery Boke ± with a canon of Newhouse ± at a visitation of Newhouse Abbey in 1491: Bodl. ASH, fol. 94; CAP III, 535. The names of known prioresses and other superiors of Broadholme and Irford are indicated in White Canons, pp. 421±2; D. Knowles, C. N. L. Brooke and V. London, Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales 940±1216 (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 209, 218; Thompson, Women Religious, p. 250. Bodl. ASH, fols 19, 120; CAP II, 292; III, 528: `Dam' Agnes York' should be added after the name of Agnes Aschby in CAP; Thompson, Women Religious, pp. 38, 144; White Canons, p. 334. For Redman's itineraries vide chapter two and appendices 1 and 2. For a fragment of a visitation document from Guizance (undated) and other references concerning the visitation and regulation of the English Premonstratensian nuns in the fourteenth century, see White Canons, pp. 201, 214, 390; BL PECK I, fols 60v, 135; CAP I, 30; II, 291. White Canons, p. 198. The Irish abbeys, which had little or no contact with their British confreÁres in the later Middle Ages, and are not dealt with here: A. Gwynn and R. Neville Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland (Dublin, 1970), p. 201; `The Annals of Lough Key', ed. Anon, AP 6 (1930), 410±14. Monast. Praem. II, pp. 75, 595; F. G. Cowley, The Monastic Order in South Wales 1066± 1349 (Cardiff, 1977), pp. 35±7, 270±1.



9

isolation was a contributory factor in this, the French canons gradually recruited men from the Welsh locality, which removed it from the sphere of English in¯uence to some extent, though it was visited four times for the reform of alleged ill-discipline, by English Premonstratensian abbots and one foreign prelate between 1278 and 1291, with the aid of the English crown.25 Despite this it has been suggested that `the real crime of Talley's canons was their Welshness', for their current patron, Rhys ap Maredudd (n 1292), was a cause of great vexation to Edward I of England, and in 1277 he was at odds with the king's of®cials in Carmarthen.26 The abbot of PreÂmontreÂ requested that King Edward I ± who wanted the abbey to be staffed with canons òf the English tongue' ± assist the abbots of Halesowen and Newhouse with a visitation of the abbey. The assimilation of Talley with the English middle circary was further ensured when the abbey's paternity was removed from the abbey of St John of Amiens and given to Welbeck, at the request of King Edward.27 Talley is apparent in a list of British houses dating from 1288 ± but not included in any circary ± and in another one containing the houses of the English middle circary (1320). In 1414 Talley's paternity passed to Halesowen, and the abbey remained in the middle circary for the rest of the Middle Ages, but was mainly, though not entirely, isolated from the English houses.28 The circumstances surrounding the foundation of Scotland's six Premonstratensian houses are not entirely clear in every instance.29 However the 25

26 27

28

29

Cowley, The Monastic Order in South Wales, p. 131; BL PECK I, fols 56±56v: II, fol. 57; CAP III, 571, 572. Cowley, The Monastic Order in South Wales, pp. 131±2, 210, 220, n.126. White Canons, p. 238; Cowley, The Monastic Order in South Wales, p. 132; BL PECK II, fol. 57; CAP III, 572. Bodl. MS Rawlinson B.336, fol. 186; BL PECK II, fols 58±58v; CAP II, 573; White Canons, pp. 198±9, 352±3. While Cowley indicates that Halesowen may have been Talley's pater abbas for a period of time before Welbeck, this remains uncertain; though it would be explained by the fact that Halesowen was `closer' to Talley than the other English houses, and that the abbot of Halesowen appeared in three out of four visitations carried out at Talley: Cowley, The Monastic Order in South Wales, p. 132, n.133. On the other hand it would be dif®cult to explain why Edward I wanted Welbeck to be appointed pater abbas if Halesowen already ful®lled this role. A list of abbeys (1320) places Talley under Halesowen's paternity as did a later enquiry in the 1470s: Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, pp. 333±4; BL PECK II, fol. 59; CAP III, 574. Nevertheless this is probably mistaken as various documents in a sixteenth± century register from Welbeck, and elsewhere, refer to the transfer of Talley's ®liation to Halesowen c.1414: CCR II, p. 284; BL PECK II, fols 57±58v; CAP III, 572, 573. A papal indult (1410) was granted to Talley to save its canons the trouble of travelling to meet the order's representatives outside a radius of eighty miles. Subsequent events indicate that the abbey's isolation from the English houses was not entirely absolute: CPR VI, p. 230; Bodl. ASH, fols 3, 17v, 60; CAP I, 82, 84, 149. Backmund, `The Premonstratensian Order in Scotland', pp. 28±39; I. B. Cowan and D. E. Easson, Medieval Religious Houses: Scotland (London and New York, 1976), pp. 100±4; J. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders in Britain, 1000±1300 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 57, 60.


10


present consensus among historians is that Dryburgh Abbey, in Berwickshire, was probably the ®rst Scottish house, founded in 1150 by Hugh de Morville, an Anglo-Norman, and colonised by canons from Alnwick. It became the most important abbey of the order in Scotland.30 Soulseat, in Wigtownshire, was founded after Dryburgh in c.1161, possibly with canons from PreÂmontreÂ.31 Whithorn Priory is believed to have been founded c.1173±75 with canons from Soulseat, and was the only Premonstratensian cathedral-priory in the British Isles. The shrine of St Ninian in the cathedral was a major pilgrimage centre attracting travellers from England and further a®eld.32 The prior of Whithorn was granted the privilege of wearing the mitre (non gemmatam) in 1450.33 Tongland Abbey, in Kirkcudbrightshire, was established with canons from Cockersand in 1218, and Soulseat colonised another abbey, at Holywood in Dumfriesshire, probably ante1225.34 The last Scottish Premonstratensian house to be established was Fearn in Rosshire, with canons from Whithorn, possibly c.1225, though there is much uncertainty about the actual date, and its early connections with the other Scottish houses.35 It is evident from a list of abbeys in the St Radegund cartulary, compiled in 1288, that all the Scottish houses, except Fearn, were by then a part of the northern English circary. All six of these houses were listed in the northern circary in 1320.36 Despite the close connections which evidently developed between the Scottish and English abbeys ± particularly by those houses that had been colonised by English canons ± the Anglo/Scottish±Norman world which cemented relations on both sides of the border fragmented.37 Almost 30

31 32

33

34 35

36 37

S. Cruden, Scottish Medieval Churches (Edinburgh, 1986), pp. 83±5; Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, pp. 57, 60. Backmund, `The Premonstratensian Order in Scotland', pp. 36±7. Cruden, Scottish Medieval Churches, pp. 87±8; D. Brooke, The Medieval Cult of Saintt Ninian (Whithorn, 1987), pp. 1±8. Backmund, `The Premonstratensian Order in Scotland', p. 31, n.25; M. Dilworth, Whithorn Priory in the Late Middle Ages (Whithorn, 1993), p. 11. Though the prior of Whithorn is generally assumed to have been the only mitred British Premonstratensian prelate (excluding bishops), Abbot John Romsey of Titch®eld had been granted permission by (anti) Pope John XXIII at Constance in 1414, `to use the mitre, ring and other ponti®cal insignia, and . . . to give solemn benediction after mass, vespers and matins, provided that no bishop or papal legate be present': CPR VI, pp. 465, 468. However it is not known if Abbot Romsey or his successors ever used these ponti®calia. Backmund, `The Premonstratensian Order in Scotland', pp. 35, 38. The Calendar of Fearn: Text and Additions, 1471±1667, ed. R. J. Adam (Edinburgh, 1991), pp. 28±9; T. Nyberg, `Die Skandinavische Zirkarie der PraÈmonstratenserchorherren', Secundum Regulam Vivere: Festschrift fuÈr P. Norbert Backmund, O.Praem., ed. G. Melville (poppe-Verlag Windberg, 1978), pp. 267±79 passim; idem, `Bùrglum, Tùnsberg, Dragsmark', Seminaret `Kloster Og By', 11±13 November 1992: Omkring Olavsklosteret, Premonstratenserordenen og Klostervesenet I Middelalderen, eds J. E. G. Eriksson and K. Schei (Tùnsberg, 1993), pp. 75±7. Bodl. MS Rawlinson B.336, fol. 186. K. Stringer, `Dryburgh Abbey and Bozeat, Northants ± A Sidelight on Early AngloScottish Estate Management', The Innes Review 24 (1973), 133±47.



11

constant political unrest between England and Scotland, such as the Scottish `Wars of Independence', Scotland's attachment to France in the Àuld Alliance', and ecclesiastical rifts like the Great Schism (1378±1417), made union between the Scottish and the English Premonstratensian houses impractical.38 It is not known exactly when a separate late medieval Scottish circary came into being, possibly after 1466, but certainly before 1498 when the ®rst complete Acta of the Premonstratensian general chapter list separate visitors for England and Scotland.39 Earlier on 30 May 1466, a Littera obligatoria was sent to PreÂmontreÂ by the prior of Dryburgh, David Rallston, promising to pay for the privilege of conducting the visitations of the Scottish houses for ten years.40 It is signi®cant that this letter is extant in Richard Redman's register. Redman's claims that his jurisdiction extended over the Scottish canons, which is taken for granted in many of the documents in the visitation register, including one of his letters of commission from 1459, appears to have had no basis in reality.41 He did not visit any of the Scottish houses as Premonstratensian commissarygeneral or visitor, and the request made by Prior Rallston of Dryburgh in 1466 ± if granted ± meant that Redman could not exercise his visitatorial powers over Scotland for at least ten years, which may have been the main reason why Rallston's letter was transcribed into his visitation register.42 The physical development of the English Premonstratensian circaries was paralleled with an evolution in their government.43 Until the end of the thirteenth century the highly centralised form of government that had developed within the order, continued to encompass the English canons, with the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ as overall superior, the annual general chapter, held mainly at PreÂmontreÂ, and the visitation of the abbeys within each circary by their patres abbates and the circatores, who reported to the general chapter. The abbot of PreÂmontreÂ could also undertake personal visitations.44 The consolidated relationship between England's 38

39 40 41 42

43

44

R. Nicholson, Scotland: The Later Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1974), pp. 190±1, 347, 517± 18, 549; D. McRoberts, `The Scottish Church and Nationalism in the Fifteenth Century', The Innes Review 19 (1968), 3±14. During the Great Schism Pope Benedict XIII (of Avignon) ordered the abbots of Dryburgh and Holywood to visit the Scottish Premonstratensian houses in 1414, `since the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ . . . and the father abbots of these places in England who are accustomed to make these visitations are all in rebellion' [my emphasis]. The mandate was obtained at the request of Robert, duke of Albany and governor of Scotland: Calendar of Papal Letters to Scotland of Benedict XIII of Avignon, 1394±1419, ed. F. McGurk (Edinburgh, 1976) p. 304. See n.60 below. Acta O.Praem. I, p. 187. Bodl. ASH, fol. 7; CAP I, 145. BL PECK I, fols 86±86v; CAP I, 38. Bodl. ASH, fol. 7; CAP I, 145. For the subsequent history of the Scottish white canons, see M. Dilworth, `Franco-Scottish Efforts at Monastic Reform, 1500±1560', Records of the Scottish Church History Society 25 (1994), 210±15. The following account of government within the English circaries is mainly a brief summary of White Canons, pp. 194±227. White Canons, pp. 195±203.


12


white canons and PreÂmontreÂ suffered its ®rst setback in the 1290s. King Edward I was in need of revenue after completing a campaign in Gascony, and had embarked on another in Scotland. In 1298 he made monetary demands on the Cistercians, and forbade them from attending their general chapter, and probably did the same with the Premonstratensians. Sheriffs were sent to investigate if both orders had sent subsidies outside the realm to their motherhouses, or had sent wool.45 In 1301 attempts to collect the subsidy by PreÂmontreÂ were thwarted by the crown, and the white canons were forbidden to take money out of the realm without special licence. A similar prohibition was addressed to the abbots of Durford, Bayham and Halesowen in 1304.46 The English Premonstratensian abbots were faced with the dilemma of either incurring excommunication and suspension from the order for not paying the subsidies, or the wrath of the king by acceding to the order's demands. By 1307 all payments, or journeys to PreÂmontreÂ involving money being taken out of England, were strictly prohibited by parliament in the Statute of Carlisle. However foreign superiors could still visit their English subjects.47 The English Premonstratensian abbots were under much pressure to accept the demands of crown and parliament, and whether or not any credence should be given to the speculation that they `connived' with parliament in passing the legislation, most abbots obeyed it. In fact they went further in interpreting the 1307 Statute of Carlisle. The majority of abbots, in a letter to the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ in 1310, excused themselves from paying the customary subsidy or attendance at the general chapter, claiming that they were forbidden by parliament and the king from making journeys abroad. The abbots of Sulby and Langdon were appointed to explain the situation to their abbot-general.48 Despite this a major rift developed between the English white canons and the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ, Adam de CreÂcy, who commanded both abbots in the same year to order the payment of the subsidy within ®fteen days after the following Easter, under pain of excommunication, and ordered all the English abbots to attend the next general chapter to answer for their `disobedience'.49 After a meeting was held among the English canons on 1 December 1310, during which further royal pressure was brought to bear, it was decided to resist PreÂmontreÂ's demands. In 1311 several abbots sent representatives to make an appeal at 45

46 47 48 49

White Canons, p. 207. Colvin's comments that any reluctance which the English canons may have felt in paying tribute to their foreign superior `was forti®ed by the royal veto'. This is conjectural, at least at this stage, for though the English abbots failed to pay the subsidy ± which could be heavy ± in 1288, the explicit prohibition given to three abbots concerning its payment in 1304 would indicate that they were possibly prepared to pay it: White Canons, pp. 203±4, 207±8. However, we shall see shortly that reluctance to pay the subsidy is evident in 1311, but with royal pressure. White Canons, pp. 207±8. Ibid.; Bodl. ASH, fols 50±50v. White Canons, p. 209; BL PECK I, fols 27±27v, 28±28v; CAP I, 2, 3. White Canons, pp. 209±10; BL PECK I, fols 29±29v; CAP I, 4, 5.



13

the Roman curia.50 Attitudes against the payment of the tallies had hardened by this time, and various grievances against PreÂmontreÂ were also voiced to the papacy ± in addition to the pressures imposed by parliamentary legislation ± such as the burden which the subsidies would cause the English abbeys, and the undue expenses incurred during visitations by foreign prelates.51 However the abbots of Langdon, St Radegund's, Sulby and Beeleigh had not approved of this course of action, and were exempted from the excommunication of the other English abbots in 1311.52 The case was heard at Vienne in 1312, and events generally favoured the English. Though the ®nal judgment is nowhere recorded, it appears that the English abbots won, at least in part, undoubtedly after huge ®nancial cost, or that the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ decided more or less to acquiesce. In 1314 the sentence of excommunication was lifted from the English abbots, and an agreement was reached between PreÂmontreÂ and most of the English abbeys in 1316.53 Among the main points agreed were the following: that the English abbots were to be spared àn expensive and dangerous sea crossing' to the general chapter, and that only the annual visitors and newly elected abbots were obliged to attend; the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ could personally visit the abbeys of England, Wales and Scotland annually, or by deputies, but would not have his sea journey paid for by the English or expenses over and above those incurred in England which were absolutely necessary; and, signi®cantly, money could not be demanded from the English abbeys, `nisi causis in privilegiis et statutis Ordinis contentis'. If one abbot defaulted in paying an agreed subsidy, the other prelates were not obliged to make up for the loss. When English abbots were present at the general chapter, at a time when the accounts of a subsidy were compiled, they were to be allowed to assist in the process, and to make sure that they contributed no more than their rightful burden.54 As far as the government of the English circaries was concerned, the most signi®cant change brought about in 1316 was the non-obligatory nature of attendance at the general chapter by the English abbots. However dispensations for non-attendance were not without precedent.55 The sending of the visitors to the annual general chapter and the recognition of the rights of the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ to conduct personal visitations, would have ensured that England remained in frequent contact with the central authorities of the order. The exact number of English abbots who visited PreÂmontreÂ after the 1316 agreement cannot be ascertained, but there is evidence of abbots doing 50 51 52 53

54 55

White Canons, pp. 210±11; BL PECK I, fols 30±42; CAP I, 6±15. Ibid. White Canons, p. 211; BL PECK I, fols 49±49v, 50, 53, 54; CAP I, 22, 23, 25, 26. White Canons, pp. 211±12; PECK I, fols 51±2, 55±55v, 56±57v, 58, 59±60v; CAP I, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30. White Canons, pp. 212±14; BL PECK I, fols 59±60v; CAP I, 30. Ibid.


14


so.56 Despite repeated royal prohibitions on the payment of subsidies, a little leeway was given for small amounts to be sent, though sometimes this was done illicitly. When the crown became aware of some of these payments, it forbade the English white canons to leave the country without special permission in 1343. Few references to licences obtained from the English crown by abbots wishing to expedite business at PreÂmontreÂ after this time are apparent. Royal interference on this occasion virtually ended the physical presence of any English Premonstratensians at their annual general chapter, though it did not stop contact with PreÂmontreÂ.57 There is no evidence which suggests that any of Adam de CreÂcy's successors made a personal visitation of their English abbeys. However other foreign abbots were appointed to take their place in several instances. The last of these visits took place in 1432.58 It is signi®cant that during Edward III's wars with France, the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ àppears always to have appointed an English abbot as his representative a latere', such as the abbot of Newhouse, who was commissioned to visit the English abbeys in 1346 (with the abbot of Dale), 1350, 1354 and 1361.59 The devolution of authority from PreÂmontreÂ to England was further increased by such appointments, and events during the Great Schism (1378±1417) also affected the government of the English canons. The appointment of Abbot John Baukwell of Welbeck as commissary-general by Pope Urban VI (1378±89), with powers `to exercise all the powers of the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ in England to summon a general chapter once every three years, to choose visitors, and to con®rm elections' [my emphasis], had far-reaching consequences. Though Baukwell, described as an ècclesiastical pro®teer', was deposed in 1411 after a prolonged dispute with the abbot of Newhouse over the seniority of his abbey, the abbot-general appointed the abbot of Bayham as his English commissary in the same year.60 Such commissions had been given to English abbots before, with wide-ranging powers, but it would appear that, in future, Premonstratensian commissary-generals in England exercised considerably more authority than their predecessors and for lengthier periods of time, almost as the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ's alter ego. Probably one of the main reasons why the latter continued to appoint commissaries was that they themselves were ùnable' or unwilling to make journeys to England, and that the central government of the English 56 57

58 59 60

White Canons, pp. 215±16. White Canons, pp. 218±19. However some abbots were present at the general chapter in the early sixteenth century: see pp. 208±9. White Canons, pp. 216±18, 223, n.4. Ibid. White Canons, pp. 219±22. Relations between PreÂmontreÂ and the English canons were restored in 1411 after the withdrawal of French support for anti-Pope Benedict XIII: ibid. It should be noted that it was possible for `local' chapters to be called by the abbotgeneral or his commissary as early as the twelfth century, though these appear to have been exceptional and later prohibited: White Canons, pp. 231±2.



15

circaries might best be devolved, while remaining under PreÂmontreÂ's overall authority.61 Political relations between England and France were undoubtedly a consideration in this matter, as was probably a desire on PreÂmontreÂ's part to attempt the exaction of subsidies from the English canons through a personal representative. In fact the abbot of Bayham was instructed to collect money from the English abbots c.1412, because of extensive damage done to the abbey of PreÂmontreÂ by the duke of Orleans, and the need to con®rm existing privileges of the order, and to obtain new ones at the papal curia. Negotiations on this matter went on until May 1422, when royal permission was granted for the levying of ten marks from each English abbey.62 The lengthy nature of this process, and the contents of a petition sent to the English king by the abbot of Bayham in 1421, indicates the continuing reluctance on the part of the English abbots to pay large sums of money to PreÂmontreÂ. Though this did not constitute an outright rejection of PreÂmontreÂ's authority, the links between the latter and some of the English abbots were threatened with dissolution in 1432. The abbot of Bayham, with òther abbots', obtained permission from the crown to acquire papal exemption `from attending the general chapter of their order in France, and also to have an abbot of their order in England appointed president by the pope with powers to hold a general chapter and to correct anything done contrary to the form of their order, as the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ was wont to do' [my emphasis]. Life-threatening reasons, such as being `drowned at sea' enroute to PreÂmontreÂ, were offered ostensibly for obtaining this petition.63 It has to be admitted that this request is something of an enigma. There are no indications that moves towards complete autonomy were generally desired among the English white canons prior to 1432, and no break with PreÂmontreÂ resulted from the petition. In fact the chancery rolls relate that permission was given for the abbot of Barlings and a foreign Premonstratensian prior to conduct a visitation of the English circaries, eight days after the petition to obtain papal exemption from PreÂmontreÂ's authority was granted.64 It is conceivable that those abbots who attempted to gain autonomy from their foreign motherhouse did so without seeking a general consensus within the English circaries, and thus their plan failed. It is interesting to note that after this time, provincial and sometimes `general' chapters were being held within the English circaries. Whether or not these were granted by 61

62

63

64

White Canons, pp. 223±4, 231±3. The centralisation of authority within the order was problematic, especially with the declining attendance rate of foreign abbots at the general chapter in the late Middle Ages: E. Valvekens, `La Situation FinancieÁre du Chapitre GeÂneÂral PreÂmontreÂ au DeÂbut du SeizieÁme SieÁcle', AP 14 (1938), 139±42. White Canons, pp. 222±3; BL PECK I, fols 66±9; CAP I, 35, 36; Bodl. MS Eng. Hist. D.227, p. 6. White Canons, p. 223. The circumstances surrounding the abbots' requests are unknown. White Canons, p. 223, n.4. The independence of the English white canons in 1512 is discussed on pp. 207ff.


16


PreÂmontreÂ as a direct result of the 1432 petition is certainly an open question. Colvin points out that such chapters were forbidden by the order's statutes, which, in the later Middle Ages (ante-1505), were those edited in 1290, with a supplement added in 1322.65 Nevertheless it is likely that such chapters were already being convened, largely with PreÂmontreÂ's approval. They appear to have been held in England during the Great Schism, and intermittently before it: though provincial chapters of the English Premonstratensians seem to have been convened with greater frequency from the mid-®fteenth century, under the presidency of the commissary-general.66 PreÂmontreÂ perhaps recognised the need for these convocations within the English circaries, for among the powers granted to Richard Redman as commissary and visitor in 1459 and 1466, was the authority to convene `general' chapters of the English circaries. Redman ordinarily summoned his abbots, or their proctors, once every three years for provincial chapters, mainly to discuss the results of his visitations and to promulgate, via the dif®nitors', decrees which were thought to be necessary.67 At this point we have reached the conclusion of our survey of the development of the English circaries, before the era of Richard Redman, abbot of Shap, who acted as visitor and commissary-general from c.1458 to 1505, and later became a diocesan bishop.68 Surviving evidence for this period suggests that communication between the English canons and PreÂmontreÂ continued. However when this is compared with the correspondence sent to CõÃteaux by the English Cistercian abbots between 1442 and 1521, contact between the English white canons and PreÂmontreÂ appears irregular.69 Indeed a papal mandate which was issued on Redman's behalf, concerning his commission in 1466, states that Redman had to relate èvery three years by his own envoy his doings to the said chapter [at PreÂmontreÂ]'.70 There exist copies of six letters which Redman wrote to Abbot Hubert de 65

66 67

68

69

70

White Canons, p. 231; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 94±5; Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, pp. 832±40. Placide LefeÁvre, O.Praem., produced a scholarly edition of the statutes of 1236±38, and included the variants apparent between them and the statutes of 1290. In the absence of a critical edition of the 1290 statutes, I will use the variant readings (from 1290) given beneath LefeÁvre's text of the 1236±38 statutes, which were based on the collation of a number of mss: Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, passim, esp. pp. xx±xxxii. White Canons, pp. 231±4. Bodl. ASH, fol. 8; BL PECK I, fols 87±87v; CAP I, 38, 40. Redman's chapters are noted in appendix three. There were only two occasions when Redman convened a general chapter, and it is not known how these differed from provincial chapters, save that `they did not follow a visitation': White Canons, p. 234. The circumstances surrounding Redman's appointment as commissary, and a short biography, are given in Chapter Six. Letters from the English Abbots to the Chapter at CõÃteaux, 1442±1521, ed. C. H. Talbot, Camden Society, fourth series 4 (London, 1967), pp. 17ff. CPR XII, p. 329 (this petition states that Redman's commission was perpetual). Redman's 1459 commission implies that direct contact was to be maintained every seven years: BL PECK I, fol. 88v; CAP I, 38.



17

Plate 4. The ef®gy (top portion) of Bishop Richard Redman, O.Praem., from his tomb in Ely Cathedral


18


MonthermeÂ (1470±97) of PreÂmontreÂ in the period, c.1470±89, c.1475±76, c.1477, 1486, 1488(?), 1493, and of two letters which Hubert wrote to Redman in 1475 and 1488.71 Prior to this are two letters containing faculties which were granted to Redman as commissary by Abbot Simon de la TerrieÁre (1458±70) of PreÂmontreÂ, and which date from 1459 and 1466.72 One of the ènvoys' who took Redman's letters to PreÂmontreÂ was John Rede. He was given permission by King Richard III on 13 April 1485 `to goo and passe at this tyme into the parties of Fraunce, to the Reuerend fadre in god Thabbot of Premonstre, and to the general chapitor . . . by the special desire and commaundemente of the vistour [i.e. Redman] . . . for certain matiers and causes concernyng greatly the wele of that religion'.73 In a letter sent to Abbot Hubert of PreÂmontreÂ, probably written in March 1486, Redman mentioned that he had received the abbot's letters `per Johannem Rede nuncium nostrum'. The Acta of the 1485 general chapter at PreÂmontreÂ have not survived, but Rede was probably a hired latorem as Redman's letter implies: though a canon of Leiston bore the same name (c.1475±94).74 Despite the deference which Redman showed the abbot-general, and the various matters which Redman referred to Abbot Hubert for his judgment or advice, such as the use of rochets by the English canons, the renewal of Redman's commission, and the paternity of Talley Abbey, the issue of nonpayment of subsidies to PreÂmontreÂ still predominated.75 While Redman made some effort towards paying the subsidies, in cash or by way of merchandise, such as white cloth, and was empowered to compel the English 71

72 73

74

75

Bodl. ASH, fols 1±1v, 2v±3, 66, 86v, 87, 111; BL PECK II, fol. 59; CAP I, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 51, 146; III, 574. I propose that four of Redman's letters to Hubert are datable from c.1470±89, c.1475±76, c.1477 and 1486. Two of these letters, from c.1470±89 and c.1475±76, cannot be dated with greater accuracy. The letter c.1470±89 concerns the issue of the tallies (subsidies): a matter which is prevalent in most of the extant letters which Redman wrote to PreÂmontreÂ, and referred to in the Acta of the provincial chapter of 1489. Among the contents of the c.1475±76 letter is mention of the controversy over Talley's paternity, between Welbeck and Halesowen. Redman asked the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ to consult the order's registers to settle the issue. Abbot Hubert wrote to Redman in 1475 mentioning that `nostrorum antiquorum registrorum continenciam diligenter lustravimus' on the matter. However Redman's letter also mentioned a `general' chapter that had recently been held at Lincoln. A `provincial' chapter is thought to have been held there in 1476, though there is no mention in the chapter's surviving Acta of the controversy surrounding Talley's paternity: Bodl. ASH, fols 1v, 3±3v, 103±105, 111; BL PECK II, fol. 59; CAP I, 43, 82, 89, 146: III, 574; White Canons, p. 235. For the dating of the letters from c.1477 and 1486, see above on this present page and pp. 182±3 below. Communication between Redman and/or the English circaries with the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ is implied elsewhere, in 1454 and 1476: Bodl. ASH, fols 3v, 8; CAP I, 39, 82; p. 90; p. 76. Bodl. ASH, fols 8±8v; BL PECK I, fols 84, 86±88v; CAP I, 37, 39, 40. Bodl. ASH, fol. 47v; CAP I, 44; British Library MS. 433, 4 vols, eds R. E. Horrox and P. W. Hammond (London, 1979±83): II, p. 214. Bodl. ASH, fols 2v, 4v, 22, 46, 73v, 114, 118; CAP I, 45: III, 496, 498, 500, 501, 503, 505. See n.71 above.



19

abbots to pay them, he continually offered excuses for their non-payment, including the prohibitive legislation of parliament and the crown, and previous agreements between the English canons and PreÂmontreÂ.76 Though we might give credence to Redman's attempts to pay the subsidies, and ®nd some of his excuses for their non-payment believable ± and perhaps even his claims about certain monies and articles that were stolen en-route to PreÂmontreÂ ± there was clearly great reluctance on the part of the English abbeys.77 Nevertheless suggestions that this was the result of xenophobia on the part of the English abbots towards PreÂmontreÂ, or entirely due to ill-will, would be misplaced. The subsidies were openly discussed at the English provincial chapter of 1489. The dif®nitors complained that the English houses were impoverished òb decimas domino nostro regi solutas et solvendas' and that parliament had forbidden money being taken out of the kingdom without special permission, under pain of deprivation of their temporal goods. Redman was asked to write to PreÂmontreÂ and to say that the subsidies were instituted in earlier times to defend the order's privileges: however, the English abbots should not be asked to pay them now, for they were compelled to defend their own privileges (privilegia). The Acta also relates that a tax which was levied on the abbeys by the previous provincial chapter was to be shelved until the next chapter, `decimis aliisque gravaminibus jamdudum domino regi solutis, consideratis'. There is more than a grain of truth in what the dif®nitors alleged, in addition to their reluctance to pay PreÂmontreÂ's tax.78 Despite reluctance to pay the subsidies ± due, to some extent, to royal coercion ± it is clear that some contact was maintained between the English canons and PreÂmontreÂ, albeit infrequently. Nevertheless the government of the English Premonstratensian circaries was very much devolved. The English commissary-general of the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ possessed the plenitudo potestatis of the latter.79 Richard Redman, when obtaining this post, was in a position of great authority among the English white canons, and it is to his activities as commissary-general and visitor in England, and those of his confreÁres, which the following chapters will now turn their attention.

76

77

78 79

Bodl. ASH, fols 1, 2v±3, 66, 86v, 87, 111; BL PECK I, fol. 84; CAP I, 37, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 51. Ibid. Piracy was a real threat to merchant shipping in the late ®fteenth century: L. J. Macfarlane, William Elphinstone and the Kingdom of Scotland, 1431±1514 (Aberdeen, 1985), pp. 137±8. Bodl. ASH, fol. 103v; CAP I, 89. See p. 86. Bodl. ASH, fols 8±8v; BL PECK I, fols 84, 86±88v; CAP I, 37, 39, 40. Note that the general chapter was the `legislative authority of the order when it was convened': White Canons, pp. 15±16.


2 The Visitation Records of the Late Medieval English Premonstratensians

In dealing with the history of the exempt religious orders in later medieval England, one is all too painfully aware of the frequent dearth of information among the primary sources, for they invariably limit the attainment of a high level of understanding or detailed knowledge about the internal history of many of their individual monasteries.1 Thankfully a number of the obstacles frequently presented by apparently inadequate primary source material have been overcome, to some extent, because of the many encouraging endeavours that have been undertaken in the ®eld of historical investigation in recent years.2 Great strides have been made in bringing to light new source material for the evaluation of monastic historians. The publication of the surviving letters of the English Cistercian abbots to their motherhouse of CõÃteaux, the investigation of manuscripts from individual abbeys such as Hailes in Gloucestershire, and the more recent ongoing publication of the Cartae of the Carthusian general chapter, provide invaluable insights into monastic life within the cloisters of the exempt orders, taking us beyond their often glorious, and yet ruined monasteries.3 From the perspective of the latter half of the ®fteenth century, we are fortunate with the degree of detail apparent in the visitation records of the English Premonstratensians. In fact one can say that the extant visitation documents of the other exempt orders bear no comparison with the detail or extensiveness of the Premonstratensian visitation records for the period of English history under consideration here.4 Despite the great detail afforded by the Cartae and other documents of the Carthusian order, or the extensive documentation of the London Charterhouse in particular, in revealing the 1

2

3

4

Religious Orders III, pp. 28, 33±4; Letters from the English Abbots to the Chapter at CõÃteaux, pp. 1, 6. e.g. D. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England (Cambridge, 1950); Religious Orders I± III. Letters from the English Abbots to the Chapter at CõÃteaux; C. Harper-Bill, `Cistercian Visitation in the Late Middle Ages: the Case of Hailes Abbey', BIHR 53 (1980); The Chartae of the Carthusian General Chapter: Dom PaleÂmon Bastin's Extracts. Religious Orders III, pp. 28, 33±4; Harper-Bill, `Cistercian Visitation in the Late Middle Ages', pp. 103, 113.


VISITATION RECORDS

21

internal history of the late medieval English Carthusians, there is only one fragmentary English Carthusian Carta Visitationis extant, whereas there are about 150 visitation reports alone in the Premonstratensian visitation register. There are normally only the briefest of references to each of England's nine charterhouses in the Cartae, which relate whether or not a prior was to be released from his of®ce, the misbehaviour of individual monks, and sometimes information regarding the regulation of a particular charterhouse. It will be seen that the English Premonstratensian records are more informative about the abbeys of these religious, than the Cartae, on their own, are about the English Carthusians.5 The survival of the Premonstratensian visitation records, coupled with the undoubtedly huge loss of such material from the other exempt orders, becomes all the more remarkable considering that there are fewer manuscripts and printed books from the Premonstratensians surviving after the Henrician Dissolution than there are from the Carthusian charterhouses and the abbeys of the larger Cistercian order.6 Before examining what the Premonstratensian visitation records reveal about the internal history of the English white canons in the next chapter, and how Richard Redman conducted his visitations, it is essential that we acquaint ourselves with the actual manuscripts which contain these and other related documents and the necessary preparations that were involved in organising these visitations. There are four such manuscripts in existence, namely the British Library Add. MSS 4934 and 4935, Belvoir Castle Add. MS 2. and Bodleian Library Oxford MS Ashmole 1519. The Belvoir manuscript and BL Add. MSS 4934 and 4935 are directly related, because the latter two manuscripts contain transcriptions of the former. These transcriptions were made (in the early eighteenth century) by the antiquarian Francis Peck, who included with them extracts from two cartularies that belonged to Croxton Abbey. Peck's transcriptions were originally intended to form a supplement to Dugdale's 5

6

À Carthusian Carta Visitationis of the Fifteenth Century', ed. A. Gray, BIHR 40 (1967), 91±101. An excerpt of the 1405 visitation of the London Charterhouse appears in Bodl. MS Rawlinson D.318, fols 104v±5: The Chartae of the Carthusian General Chapter: Aula Dei: The Egen Manuale from the Charterhouse of Buxheim: Oxford Bodleian Library MS. Rawlinson D. 318, eds M. Sargent and J. Hogg, Analecta Cartusiana 100: 2 (Salzburg, 1983), p. 114. Substantial extracts of the register of the London Charterhouse, and another copy of the 1405 London visitation, are apparent in W. H. St John Hope, The History of the London Charterhouse (London, 1925), pp. 50±1. In addition to the Cartae and other sources, surviving questions sent to La Grande Chartreuse by the late medieval English Carthusians shed more light on their observances: Liturgical and Miscellaneous Questions, Dubia and Supplications to La Grande Chartreuse from the English Carthusian Province in the Later Middle Ages, ed. J. A. Gribbin, Analecta Cartusiana 100: 32 (Salzburg, 1999). N. R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books (London, 1964), pp. x±xi, xxxii; A. G. Watson, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books: Supplement to the Second Edition (London, 1987), passim.


22


Monasticon Anglicanum.7 Unfortunately he did not state the origin of the manuscript source from which he obtained these particular transcriptions, and so conjecture grew about its whereabouts. The manuscript remained unidenti®ed until H. M. Colvin rediscovered it at Belvoir Castle in the 1950s, and ascertained that a former duke of Rutland had actually found it among his archives, but had not publicised the fact. It is now known as Belvoir Add. MS 2.8 Unfortunately the Belvoir manuscript is not available for study and scholars for the present time still have to rely on Peck's eighteenth-century transcriptions, as Gasquet did in the Collectanea and Colvin in The White Canons in England, which was in fact written before he rediscovered the original manuscript. It is therefore fortunate that Colvin later carried out an overall examination of Belvoir Add. MS 2 and published a summary of his ®ndings.9 Despite the obvious drawbacks in the continuing inaccessibility of the Belvoir manuscript, it is still possible to obtain a reasonably accurate impression of its layout by examining the transcriptions made by Francis Peck ± who recorded the folio numbers of the original manuscript, if not its whereabouts ± and collating these with the preliminary notes that Colvin made during his examination of the Belvoir manuscript in the 1950s and his summarised conclusions in the article mentioned above. In spite of a few discrepancies, these items agree on folio numbers and other details remarkably well.10 The Belvoir manuscript, according to Colvin, is written in various hands from the ®fteenth and sixteenth centuries, and retains its original medieval brown leather binding with chessboard pattern, and consists of 138 folios.11 It embodies a whole range of documents, including correspondence within the English circaries, items relating to the fourteenth-century subsidy controversy between England and PreÂmontreÂ, and letters concerning the privileges that were granted to the universities of Oxford and Paris.12 Despite the presence of many documents which are clearly formulaic in character and were designed to serve as epistolary models, the manuscript contains 7

8

9

10

11

12

CAP I, pp. x±xi; H. M. Colvin, `The Registrum Premonstratense: a Lost MS. Rediscovered', JEH 8 (1957), 96±7; White Canons, pp. 377, 379. Colvin, `The Registrum Premonstratense', p. 96; CAP I, pp. xi±xiv; Johnson, `Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia', pp. 770±1. Colvin, `The Registrum Premonstratense', pp. 96±7. Several attempts were recently made to arrange an examination of Belvoir Castle Add. MS 2, but to no avail. The Historical Manuscripts Commission overlooked the manuscript when they examined the Belvoir Castle muniments: ibid. Colvin, `The Registrum Premonstratense', pp. 96±7. I am grateful to H. M. Colvin for providing me with a copy of the original notes he made on Belvoir Castle Add. MS 2. I claim full responsibility for the interpretation and collation of these with Peck's transcripts (BL PECK I±II). Colvin, `The Registrum Premonstratense', pp. 96±7. Colvin's notes suggest that fols 139± 147v are blank. The ®rst 18 folios are missing: ibid. Colvin, `The Registrum Premonstratense', p. 97.


VISITATION RECORDS

23

predominantly Premonstratensian material. It is noteworthy that while it has English Premonstratensian documents of a more general nature, such as a set of de®nitions from an English general chapter held in 1458, and items concerning houses of the middle circary in particular, there are many documents which relate directly to Welbeck Abbey.13 These include a visitation that an abbot of Welbeck made at Beauchief in 1475, a letter from another Welbeck abbot to the abbot of Cockersand from 1402, and a commission that Abbot John of Welbeck sent to Durford Abbey regarding the house's administration, prior to an abbatial election in 1465.14 The amount of material relating to Welbeck is not entirely unexpected, for the assignment of a Welbeck provenance for the manuscript is con®rmed by the inscription of `Welbek' in large bold letters on the inside cover.15 This manuscript gives an interesting insight into the activities of a notable pater abbas within the English circaries, for certain documents within it concern Welbeck's relationship with several of its daughter houses.16 From the point of view of Redman's visitations and activities as commissary-general, the manuscript has a number of interesting references and documents, including a letter from Redman to the abbots of Welbeck and Dale on the subject of several apostates, dated 16 August 1478, a copy of the visitation of Welbeck that Redman made that same year, and a letter from the abbot of Blanchland to Redman concerning the reception of two canons from Shap into the Blanchland community in 1475.17 Colvin has indicated that Gasquet's suggestion that Peck had `fully transcribed' his original manuscript source in BL Add. MSS 4934 and 4935, was à hasty observation', for he discovered that Peck had failed to transcribe over one hundred documents. Colvin appears to suggest that Peck may not have considered the transcription of these documents to be of any value because they were generally formulaic in nature.18 Although the lost manuscript had long been supposed to have been a Registrum Premonstratense, Colvin ruled this out because he considered that the rediscovered Belvoir manuscript was actually an ècclesiastical' formulary, where documents were compiled solely for use as èpistolary' models, in spite of the manuscript's predominantly Premonstratensian content.19 However the original suggestion that the manuscript was a registrum may in fact be largely correct. Because the manuscript is, indeed, `predominantly Premonstratensian in content' and belonged to Welbeck, as Colvin admitted, it seems likely that such a collection would have served as a useful repository of material relating to the order's affairs. The many epistolary models apparent 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Ibid.; BL PECK I, fol. 93; CAP I, 80 and passim. BL PECK I, fols 84, 116, 136±36v: II, fol. 13; CAP I, 37: II, 229, 293, 375. Colvin, `The Registrum Premonstratense', p. 97. BL PECK I, fols 109±10: II, fols 63±63v; CAP II, 220: III, 590. BL PECK I, fols 84, 128: II, fols 80±80v; CAP I, 37: II, 276: III, 630. Colvin, `The Registrum Premonstratense', p. 97; CAP I, p. xi. Colvin, `The Registrum Premonstratense', p. 97.


24


in the Belvoir manuscript are indicative of what could be designated as a `working document' for the use of a Premonstratensian abbot, and a particularly important one at that.20 The collection of such eclectic material in this manuscript, which should rightfully be designated as the `Welbeck register', is comprehensible when it is viewed as such. It is also possible that this compilation may have had increased importance when Abbot Thomas Wilkinson of Welbeck was ®rst appointed as commissary-general of the English Premonstratensians in 1505, for he apparently caused a copy of a visitation journey itinerary of his predecessor, Richard Redman, dating from 1500, to be transcribed into the Welbeck register, and slightly adapted it for his own purposes.21 Though the Welbeck register and Francis Peck's transcriptions are vital sources for the reconstruction of English Premonstratensian history, the Bodleian MS Ashmole 1519 clearly takes on a greater degree of importance when one analyses the overall condition of monastic life among the English white canons in the second half of the ®fteenth century. This manuscript is unlike any collection of visitation material that might normally be found in a cartulary or register from an individual abbey. It not only contains an extensive collection of late medieval Premonstratensian visitation records, but is actually Richard Redman's visitation register. An understanding of the arrangement of this particular manuscript can therefore be of great assistance to an investigation of the machinery of the Premonstratensian visitation process. The Ashmole manuscript consists of 149 folios and contains over ®ve hundred separate items. The current foliation of the manuscript erroneously indicates that there are 162 folios.22 The contents of the register include visitation decrees (hereafter referred to as `reports'), columns of `name lists' (nomina canonicorum) recording the inmates of the Premonstratensian communities that Redman visited, miscellaneous letters, journey itineraries for the visitor, details on abbatial elections, dispensations, licences, most of the surviving Acta of the English Premonstratensian provincial and general chapters, and other material. It is abundantly clear from the nature and 20

21 22

Ibid. A parallel case is apparent in the Hailes Abbey register: Harper-Bill, `Cistercian Visitation in the Late Middle Ages', p. 103. BL PECK I, fols 98±99v; CAP I, 102; Monast. Praem. II, p. 26. The foliation is as follows: fols 1±13v, 13*[sic]±19[actually 20], 19bis[21], 21[22]± 24[25], 25[26]±28[29], 30[30]±32[actually 31v], 33[32]±34[32v], 35[33]±36[33v], 37[34]±38[34v], 39[35]±40[35v], 41[36]±55v[50v], 57[51]±74[67v], 75[68]±88[80v], 89[81]±90[81v], 91[82]±96[86v], 97[87]±98[87v], 99[88]±104[92v], 105[93]±106[93v], 107[94]±108[95], 108*[a long, thin folio:96]±118[105v], 119[106]±123[110], 123*[111]±130[117v], 131[118]±160[147], 161[it is attached onto the verso of a paper of more recent origin: 148v]±162[149]. It has been thought best to give the folio numbers that are currently on the manuscript throughout the book, in order to avoid confusion, and in line with those given in CAP: though even in this matter CAP contains discrepancies: e.g. CAP I, 89, which should be foliated as fols 103, 104v [sic], 105 and not fol. 103 only.


VISITATION RECORDS

25

content of these documents ± including the transcriptions of formulary letters dimissory for ordinations, commissions for the right and exercise of the patronage of churches and other strictly diocesan material ± that this manuscript was compiled for Redman's personal use, as he was also a diocesan bishop.23 Unfortunately the register no longer has its original medieval binding and is damaged throughout in varying degrees by damp, tears, fading and missing folios. The original pages of the manuscript have mostly had their medieval edges enclosed within paper of a more recent origin, undoubtedly to give them strength and as an aid to the rebinding process (see below).24 While most of the visitation records are conveniently grouped together in their respective years, the arrangement of the various types of documents apparent in the visitation register, indicate that its entire contents were not systematically grouped into separate compartments containing particular categories of documents. A number of these documents were interspersed between the visitation reports and name lists of individual abbeys or were recorded with them on the same folio. Between folios 65 and 82, for example, are the visitation reports and name lists for the 1488 visitation. However after the 1488 Cockersand visitation name list and report, a transcription was made of a letter from Abbot Hubert of PreÂmontreÂ to Redman, dated 14 April 1488. The original letter was written a few days before Redman's visitation at Cockersand (27 April). This letter is followed by a commission which Archbishop John Morton of Canterbury sent to Redman and several others, dated 24 April 1488. The visitation records for several other abbeys then follow until fol. 76v, when a standard formulary letter used to announce a visitation at a particular abbey appears. This is followed by an abbatial election decree relating to a new abbot of Langley, and then the remainder of the visitation records, with one more additional document.25 It appears that it was convenient for the scribes to add these documents to the register in a manner which they thought best, either in a chronologically grouped method or in such a way that speci®c documents relating to matters pertaining to the visitation records of individual abbeys were transcribed alongside them. The post-medieval rebinding of the register, apparently by Ashmole in the seventeenth century, is probably responsible for the displacement of a number of folios. An example of this phenomenon concerns transcriptions on folios 49±50v of letters of safe conduct which were issued by King Henry VII to Redman and several other commissioners who were involved in the peace treaty negotiations with the Scots in the early 1490s. The remainder of these letters appear in the same hand on folio 54. The intervening material on folios 51±53v, including blank pages, contains the general 23 24 25

Bodl. ASH, fols 109, 111v; CAP I, 112, 113, 123. Bodl. ASH, fols 1±3v, 8, 24v. Bodl. ASH, fols 65±82; CAP I±III, passim.


26


heading for the 1497 name lists and the nomina canonicorum from Cockersand, Egglestone, Alnwick and Blanchland. These lists must surely have originally been situated close to the visitation reports of these abbeys, between folios 130 and 131, as is the case for many of the other extant name lists and their corresponding visitation reports.26 Although the later and rather unattractive rebinding of the register is probably responsible for such mishaps, other peculiarities evident in the manuscript do not permit us categorically to rule out the possibility that those who transcribed the documents within the register caused some, or all of these errors. The manuscript is composed of paper sheets, and those which have escaped extensive damage seem to have been produced with a similar checkered watermark pattern. However Gasquet proposed that there are no less than ®ve watermarks apparent on the folios, and an examination of the manuscript by the present author seemed to verify this.27 However the most recognisable and predominant watermarks consist of a dog with a clover (?) above it, and an extended left hand with a sleeve cuff, palm facing, surmounted by a four pointed star.28 It is probable that the folios which contain the `dog' watermark, were exported from France and originated from Champagne. The `hand' watermark had many variations, and the one in the Ashmole manuscript, with its four pointed star, is not easy to identify. These folios possibly originated from Piedmont or Genoa in Italy.29 If the paper used to make the Ashmole manuscript is of several different origins, as seems likely, then Gasquet's suggestion that sheets of paper were added to it by the scribes as the need arose, in order to record and add more visitation documents and other material to the same book, may be correct.30 It would then be entirely possible that several of the original folios were displaced during the process of juxtaposing new leaves in the manuscript, and that it was loosely bound for convenience. In fact a narrow strip of paper, containing a letter from Redman to the abbots of Cockersand and Croxton, was inserted into the register.31 However the various scribes who transcribed the documents in the register did not hesitate to write later material on folios containing earlier items, as it may also have saved them the trouble of adding new sheets. On folio 128, for example, is a visitation report from Tupholme, dated 1494, which is immediately followed by a journey itinerary from 1497. The opposite side of the same folio has a citation to the provincial chapter of 1495, which is followed by another entry ± a decision of the same chapter (?) ± which appears to have been written later.32 Earlier on folios 26 27 28

29 30 31 32

Bodl. ASH, fols 49v±54, 128v±131ff; CAP II, 197, 198, 288, 289, 307, 308, 408, 409. CAP I, p. xvii. C. M. Briquet, Les Filigranes: Dictionnaire Historique des Marques du Papier, 4 vols (Amsterdam, 1968): I, p. 232: II, p. 545: III, n. 3629: IV, nn. 10711±24; 11142±52 passim. Ibid. CAP I, p. xvii. Bodl. ASH, fols 30±30v, 31; CAP II, 339. Bodl. ASH, fols 128±128v; CAP I, 91: III, 616.


VISITATION RECORDS

27

2v±3 is a letter from Redman to the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ, dated 1486, immediately followed by the Acta of the provincial chapter of 1476.33 It is regrettable that an accurate collation of the manuscript, which would have shed further light upon the physical construction of the manuscript, cannot be undertaken, as we have already seen that the edges of most of the register's pages are now enclosed by paper of a more recent manufacture, probably when the manuscript was rebound. An examination of the handwriting in the register indicates that Redman had the aid of at least ®ve individuals in its compilation. At the end of a copy of the Acta of the 1483(?) provincial chapter, the scribe who was responsible for its neatly written transcription has possibly written his name; `Legburn, Jhesu mercy'. The name lists recording the canons of Barlings indicate that a William Legburn was at that abbey in 1478, 1482 and 1488.34 A less ¯orid script appears in the almost square-lettered hand of the scribe who wrote the 1478 nomina canonicorum of Torre Abbey.35 A lighter and cruder hand transcribed the decree relating the election of Elias Attercliff as abbot of Croxton on 10 September 1491.36 A hand of the early sixteenth century that is reminiscent of the later form of copper plate writing appears on the tattered folio containing the 1503 visitation name list and report of Newhouse and a name list from Barlings.37 However the handwriting that predominates throughout the register is that of a canon of Shap, Robert Bedalle. The visitation records show that Bedalle faithfully accompanied Redman on most of his visitations from c.1478, and acted for a period of time as Redman's chaplain and the prior of Shap Abbey, which Redman held in commendam after becoming a bishop.38 Bedalle's role in assisting Redman's visitations evidently proved to be doubly useful, because he was in an ideal position to assist the visitor in transcribing most of the visitation reports and other documents contained in the register. This is probably why most of the handwriting in the register is his. At other times he may not have been on hand to transcribe material for the bishop, and thus others were called in to undertake this task, and it is possible that he was no longer active in c.1503, as what remains of the visitations reports from that year are not in his handwriting.39 While the style of Bedalle's penmanship may not have been consistent during the thirty or so years in which he transcribed documents into the register, it can nevertheless be identi®ed. In a marginal note at the side of two standard formulary letters the following is written; `Memorandum: quod in xvi folio bonum est Regestrum super hujusmodi factum [per] me 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Bodl. Bodl. Bodl. Bodl. Bodl. Bodl. Bodl.

ASH, ASH, ASH, ASH, ASH, ASH, ASH,

fols 2v±3v; CAP I, 45, 82. On the 1486 letter see p. 18 above. fols 19v, 45, 59±59v, 70v; CAP I, 86: II, 205, 207, 209. fol. 22; CAP III, 595. fols 96±7; CAP I, 59. fol. 160v; CAP II, 219: III, 541. fols 65v, 76, 128, 150v; CAP II, 298: III, 461, 550, 616. fols 61, 160, 160v; CAP II, 219, 427: III, 541, 676.


28


R. Bedall'.40 Bedalle's transcription of the visitation records and other documents, appears to have been hurriedly accomplished in some instances, with little effort towards neatness, especially in some of the name lists.41 A possible explanation for this is that Bedalle had to transcribe a copy of some of this material, especially the visitation reports and name lists, into the register before setting off with Redman to conduct the visitation of the next abbey. The visitation decrees would have been given to the abbeys concerned, as they usually detail items indicating the correction or implementation of certain things.42 It is probable that as the register was made for Redman's personal use, that he retained it. This would have been another factor which limited the time that Bedalle could allocate to his task, for he may have accompanied Redman only for his visitations and have lived on a more permanent basis at Shap Abbey. When re¯ecting on the manner in which some of Bedalle's transcriptions were speedily executed, Gasquet believed that these were òriginally intended as rough though complete notes, to be afterwards copied fairly and with all necessary corrections into a proper Register' [my emphasis]. The logical implication that could be drawn from this, is that what we regard as Redman's visitation register, is merely a notebook for hastily written documents which were afterwards transcribed at leisure into an actual visitation register.43 However the Ashmole manuscript cannot simply be taken as a rudimentary copy of material which was used for the compilation of a lost visitation register, nor should Bedalle's transcriptions be viewed in terms of being unfailingly slovenly. Gasquet's proposition does not take into account the presence of other handwriting in the register, which is sometimes much neater and more stylised than Bedalle's, or even the many instances where Bedalle's transcriptions were neatly written: an examination of the very folio which contains Bedalle's open admission that the register was his òwn' handiwork testi®es to this.44 Documents pertaining to matters of the realm and the fourteenth-century subsidy crisis, are other examples of such neatness. Some of these documents must surely have been copied on occasions when more time could be allocated for their transcription.45 If Gasquet's theory that the surviving visitation register was only a draft copy of visitation material is correct, then why did the scribes involved in compiling its contents take the trouble to write a number of these documents neatly, if they were merely a rough draft, and not just record them immediately into an òf®cial' and completely systematised register? It 40 41

42

43 44 45

Bodl. ASH, fol. 85v; CAP I, 50. e.g. The 1478 name lists for Langdon and St Radegund's: Bodl. ASH, fol. 22; CAP I, pp. xvi±xviii: III, 452, 546. Bodl. ASH, fols. 76±77v; CAP III, 550. The visitation reports given to individual abbeys were destroyed at the next visitation. vide p. 49. CAP I, p. xvii. Bodl. ASH, fol. 85v; CAP I, 50. Bodl. ASH, fols 48±54v passim.


VISITATION RECORDS

29

would seem that while we have instances of hasty, or even just bad handwriting in the register, the presence of neatly written documents and `non-visitation' material must indicate that the Ashmole manuscript was actually intended as the visitor's register. The presence of the Acta of the English provincial and general chapters, which Redman apparently sought to implement on his visitations, especially in their liturgical injunctions, indicates that the register functioned, to some extent, as a central register which contained the order's administrative documents, for the use of the commissary-general during his visitations. We can now analyse in more detail the extensiveness and the date of the actual visitation records within the Welbeck and, in particular, the Redman visitation register. The documents that relate to the period in which Redman operated as commissary-general, between c.1458 and 1505, yield varying degrees of information about the Premonstratensian abbeys in speci®c years. There are relatively few records between 1458 and 1475 and only slender details are available on the visitations that Redman actually carried out, or intended to undertake between these dates. In 1458, for example, there is a letter from Redman to the abbot of Welbeck, in which he advises the abbot to prepare for an impending visitation, as well as the collection of the order's subsidies. There are two informative visitation documents from 1472, containing insights into the internal life of Welbeck and Beauchief in the Welbeck register.46 The records take on a more substantial nature from 1475 onwards, but are most extensive from 1478 to 1500. Documents in the visitation register from this period reveal that Redman conducted the visitation of a number of Premonstratensian abbeys in 1475, 1478, 1481, 1482, 1486, 1488, 1491, 1494, 1497, 1500 and 1503. All of these visitations, with the possible exception of 1486 and 1503, were `general' visitations in which most ± if not all ± of the English Premonstratensian abbeys were visited.47 The most predominant types of documentation to be found among the visitation records have already been mentioned. Firstly there are the surviving name lists of canons from each of the abbeys where a visitation took place. These were taken from lists of names provided by the abbots of each individual monastery.48 Out of the twenty-nine English Premonstratensian abbeys that Redman visited between 1475 and 1503, excluding Shap Abbey, where Redman was the abbot, the following name lists are extant; twenty-®ve name lists survive from 1475, with the absence of lists from Blanchland, Cockersand, Egglestone and Torre; twenty-six from 1478, with those of Alnwick, Cockersand and Blanchland missing; none for 1481; 46 47

48

BL PECK I, fol. 84: II, fols 76±76v, 114; CAP I, 37: II, 227: III, 627. Bodl. ASH, passim. A document which had originally been used for the resignation of the abbot of Newhouse in 1478, was reused by Redman's successor, Abbot Thomas Wilkinson, post-1505; Bodl. ASH, fol. 41v; CAP I, 70. BL PECK I, fol. 14v; CAP I, 107.


30


twenty-seven from 1482, with those of Cockersand (visited in 1481) and Durford missing; none for 1486; twenty-seven from 1488, with the lists from Newbo and Tupholme missing; all twenty-nine from 1491; twenty-seven from 1497, with none from Lavendon and West Dereham; twenty-nine for 1500 and four from 1503.49 There are twenty-six name lists from the abbeys that Redman personally visited in 1494, with the absence of lists from Alnwick and Beeleigh. The name list from Tupholme survives from these visitations: however the abbey was visited on Redman's behalf by Robert Bedalle, because the abbot of Tupholme was gravely ill. This is the only instance where one of Redman's visitations was conducted `per . . . fratrem Robertum Bedalle'.50 The other class of visitation documents common in Redman's register are the visitation `reports' (decreta). These were copies of the original decrees that were issued to each abbey after its visitation. They contain valuable information about the state of individual abbeys, and are extant for the following years: none for 1475; twenty for 1478, with those of Alnwick, Beeleigh, Croxton, Langdon, Lavendon, Leiston, Newbo, St Radegund's and Sulby wanting; twenty-eight for 1482, with Cockersand missing (visited in 1481); only three reports from 1486; twenty-seven for 1488, with those from Newbo and Tupholme missing; all twenty-nine from 1491; twenty-seven from 1494, including Bedalle's decree from Tupholme, but with the absence of reports from Alnwick and Beeleigh; twenty-seven for 1497, with those of Lavendon and Sulby missing; all twenty-nine for 1500, and four for the abbeys of West Dereham, Hagnaby, Newhouse and Barlings (?) from 1503.51 Most of the surviving name lists and visitation reports are complete, though a small number of them are either mutilated by tears in the Ashmole manuscript, damp damage, or they have lost segments as a result of missing folios. Examples of dis®gured reports are apparent in 1486 (Blanchland and Coverham), 1488 (Barlings) and 1503 (Hagnaby).52 The same defects are also responsible for the loss of a number of the name lists and reports. However certain abbeys, in some instances, may not have been visited by Redman, and therefore some records may never have existed.53 In addition to the regular circuits of visitations undertaken by Redman, there are a few instances of extraordinary visits, which were warranted by internal trouble within several abbeys. There are examples of these visits at Cockersand in 1488 and Egglestone in 1502, which was conducted by the abbots of Easby and Welbeck on Redman's behalf. Cockersand had already had its visitation in April 1488, and the Egglestone visitation occurred at a time when no routine visitations were scheduled to take place. On 49 50 51 52 53

See Appendix three and p. 50, esp. n. 61. Bodl. ASH, fol. 128 and passim; CAP III, 616. See Appendix three. Bodl. ASH, fols 61, 62, 62v, 70v; CAP II, 208, 281, 316, 427. There are no name lists and reports from Alnwick and Beeleigh in 1494, and no indication that Redman intended to visit these abbeys: Bodl. ASH, fols 114v±15v.


VISITATION RECORDS

31

10 December 1502 Abbot Robert of Alnwick asked Redman to visit his daughter house of Langley and, if necessary, to hold an abbatial election there. No visitation report survives of this visit, if it ever took place.54 There is also a rare visitation report from Talley, dated 1497, but no accompanying name list. Redman did not actually visit the abbey, for the abbot and a member of the Talley community met him at Halesowen. It is the only record of a visitation report from Talley in Redman's register.55 There are some instances of the visitation of daughter houses by their father-abbots. The rarity of the records of these particular visitations in the later Middle Ages makes it dif®cult to estimate exactly how widespread they were among the English white canons when Redman was commissarygeneral.56 The extensiveness and frequency of Redman's visitations, occurring on average once every three years, has led Colvin to propose that, `towards the end of the ®fteenth century the omnicompetence of the commissary-general [i.e. Redman] led to a discontinuance of paternal visitation by father-abbots'.57 This shift in responsibilities, while not undermining the other roles performed by a pater abbas, is apparent in a letter that Redman wrote to Abbot William Burton of Welbeck in 1473, in which he calls Abbot Burton to account for a visitation of Leiston, Welbeck's daughter abbey. The abbot had stayed at Leiston for eight days, with ten horsemen, and was accused of abusing the rights and temporalities of the abbey. Redman declared that Burton not only held the sanctions imposed on such conduct by a previous English general chapter in contempt, but had departed from (defugistis) the order's statutes. Even more signi®cant is Redman's statement that the English father-abbots visited their daughter houses only at the time of abbatial elections, and rarely conducted formal visitations: `quia visitationes patrum abbatum in suis ®lialibus ecclesiis, nisi temporibus electionum abbatum, raro consuete fuerunt' [my emphasis].58 One cannot, however, absolutely rule out the possibility that the fatherabbots of particular abbeys visited them at this time, especially on occasions when, as Colvin puts it, `no written record was demanded, for the fatherabbot was responsible to no one in the exercise of his paternal authority'. The letter of Abbot Robert of Alnwick to Redman in 1502 certainly implies that such visits were not completely ruled out in the later Middle Ages. The 54

55

56 57

58

BL PECK II, fols 42±42v; Bodl. ASH, fols 84, 156v; CAP II, 299, 411: III, 479. However Redman planned to visit Langley in 1503, and the abbot of Welbeck supervised an abbatial election at the abbey in the same year: Bodl. ASH, fols 77, 159; CAP I, 67. Bodl. ASH, fol. 134 ; CAP III, 576. Answers which are believed to be from a visitation (1478) from Talley are apparent in BL PECK I, fol. 60; CAP III, 575. e.g. BL PECK I, fol. 116; CAP II, 229. White Canons, p. 239. Note that whenever the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ personally visited a house, or a commissary on his behalf, the circatores did not visit that abbey in the same year. Redman was the English visitor by virtue of his commission: Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 108. cf. White Canons, p. 219. BL PECK II, fols 45±45v; CAP III, 495; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 94±5.


32


abbot complained that he could not visit Langley because of àrduis et inevitalibus negotiis', and illness of the body and old age. He asked Redman to visit Langley, if he could; `vice et auctoritate nostra plenaria, correcturi et reformaturi in eadem que secundum Deum et Ordinis nostri instituta inveneritis corrigenda et reformanda'.59 The contents of Redman's earlier 1473 letter to the abbot of Welbeck would at least rule out the possibility that formal visitations were commonly carried out by father-abbots without the sanction of the commissary-general. Nevertheless the supervision of abbatial elections in the daughter houses by their respective father-abbots, appears to have been the norm in Redman's day, and the visitor rarely sought their assistance during his visitation enquiries.60 The discontinuance of formal visitations by the father-abbots on a large scale epitomises Redman's desire to control entirely the internal government of the English white canons as PreÂmontreÂ's commissary-general. It may also exemplify the increasing internal centralisation among the English canons; albeit that the rights and prerogatives of prelates within their own abbeys, and each pater abbas, were generally respected.61 Redman's apparent desire to ful®l most of his commissarial duties personally by undertaking the visitation of every single Premonstratensian abbey in England, apart from Shap, placed a great deal of responsibility on his shoulders. Indeed the extensive round of visitations that the documents in Redman's register attest to, was an arduous task, entailing much travelling around the country to reach each individual abbey, and required a degree of robust health and strong intellectual capacities on Redman's part. Before ending this general analysis of the Premonstratensian visitation records, we should consider Redman's surviving visitation itineraries. Redman used these to organise the date, route and the number of days assigned for journeying from one abbey to another while on his visitations, and to indicate whether he, or, in most cases, a particular abbot was to pay for expenses which he incurred in particular locations en-route to visit an abbey.62 Twelve separate itineraries are extant in the register, dating from 1478, 1481(?), 1486(?), 1488, 1491, 1494, and two itineraries from each of 59 60 61

62

BL PECK II, fols 42±42v; CAP III, 479; White Canons, p. 239. White Canons, pp. 239±56; BL PECK I, fol. 120; CAP II, 247. Redman's recognition of the right of a pater abbas to conduct elections, for instance, is apparent in Bodl. ASH, fols 41v±42; CAP I, 53. Bodl. ASH, fols 9±10, 24, 47, 64v±65, 114v±115v, 128, 131±131v, 141v±142, 143, 148±148v, 159, 159v. Colvin, in a brief discussion on the itineraries, demonstrates, from internal evidence, that they were not records of journeys already undertaken by Redman, contra Gasquet, but `represent Redman's route and timetable as he worked it out in advance': Bodl. MS Eng. Hist. D.227, pp. 32±7; cf. G. M. Cooper, `The Premonstratensian Abbey of Bayham', Sussex Archaeological Collections, 9 (1857), 163. A transcription of Redman's itineraries ± not printed in CAP ± is given in Appendix one, which may be compared with other examples of late medieval itineraries: Registra Johannis Whethamstede, Willelmi Albon, et Willelmi Walingforde, 2 vols, ed. H. T. Riley, Rolls Series 28 (1872±73): II, pp. 220±1; The Metropolitical Visitations of William


VISITATION RECORDS

33

the years 1497, 1500, and 1503. The itineraries are scattered throughout it and frequently appear before or after the visitation reports for their respective years, which help to date several of them, where an explicit date is lacking.63 Most of them, whether as individual itineraries in certain years or where there are two in a given year ± when Redman decided to divide the bulk of his visitations and visit the houses in each segment on two separate occasions ± concern the visitation of almost all the English Premonstratensian abbeys and nunneries, but there are exceptions to this. The 1478 and 1488 itineraries have no references pertaining to the northern abbeys; the 1481 itinerary solely concerns the visitation of Durford, Titch®eld and Torre; the 1486(?) itinerary concerns four houses of the northern circary; and the 1503 itineraries have references to only ten abbeys within the middle and southern circaries.64 It is possible, where there is a signi®cant absence of houses in the itineraries, namely in those from 1481(?), 1486(?) and 1503, that these were recorded in itineraries which are no longer extant.65 The itineraries do not indicate the mileage between each abbey and town that Redman proposed to visit, apart from a short note adjacent to the 1488 itinerary, concerning a journey from Halesowen to Shrewsbury and Chester.66 It is more than likely that Redman, and the assistants who may have aided him in compiling his visitation itineraries, had access to older journey plans. It is probable, considering that previous commissary-generals and circatores conducted the visitations of the English houses, and the great similarity apparent in the structure of the itineraries for 1478, 1488, 1491, 1494, 1497, and 1500, that Redman utilised a set of routes which had become an established tradition for the English Premonstratensian visitors.67 We saw earlier that Abbot Wilkinson copied Redman's 1500 itinerary(s) into the

63

64 65

66 67

Courteney, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1381±1396, ed. J. H. Dahmus, Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences 31 (Urbana 1950), p. 129; Visitations of the Diocese of Norwich, A.D. 1492±1532, ed. A. Jessopp, Camden Society, second series 43 (1888), 65±71. The itinerary in Bodl. ASH, fol. 47 seem to match the few surviving 1486 visitation reports. A precise date for the `1481(?)' itinerary cannot be given, as there are no corresponding visitation reports for 1481, except for one from Cockersand which precedes the itinerary. However this visitation is not mentioned in the itinerary: Bodl. ASH, fol. 24; CAP II, 297. Bodl. ASH, fols 9±10, 24, 47, 64v±65, 159, 159v. Bodl. ASH, fols 24, 47, 159, 159v. Cockersand is only mentioned in the 1494 and 1500 (®rst) itineraries; it seems that Redman visited the abbey whenever the opportunity availed itself: Bodl. ASH, fols 10v, 24, 51, 65±65v, 84, 90, 114v, 115v, 121, 128±29v, 143, 143v±44; CAP II, 296, 297, 298, 299, 302, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 309. Torre is not mentioned in the 1497 and 1500 itineraries, for Redman, as the local bishop at that time, could visit the abbey ad libitum. However beneath the abbey's 1500 visitation report is written `v die Augusti apud Tor' hora cene, in crastino visitare [et vii] Augusti die [sic] dif®nire'. These visits did not undermine Torre's exempt status. See Bodl. ASH, fols 147v±48; CAP III, 606. Bodl. ASH, fol. 65. Diagram drawings of three of the proposed routes are given in Appendix two.


34


Welbeck register, which implies that a `traditional' visitation pattern was used by successive visitors.68 While this may have been the case, we have to bear in mind that Redman's journey routes had to be constructed with the visitation programme that he had in mind, and, as we shall see, take into account his other responsibilities. Redman's itineraries appear to bear no relation to another set of itineraries from Titch®eld, transcribed in the early ®fteenth century. They are possibly the earliest surviving English road-book.69 The Titch®eld itineraries give journeys which could be undertaken from Titch®eld to any other English Premonstratensian abbey, and specify towns and cities encountered on each journey and the mileage involved. It is unclear why these itineraries were compiled as the abbots of Titch®eld do not appear to have exercised a signi®cant role among the white canons, and had no involvement in the visitation of the Premonstratensian abbeys in the ®fteenth century. The Titch®eld itineraries would have been unsuitable for conducting a circuit of visitations, as each journey was intended to end at a particular abbey, more or less independently of the other houses. A fairly typical example of the nature of Redman's itineraries can be seen in those from 1500. On 24 April Redman planned to arrive at Kendal in Westmorland. He then intended to arrive at Cockersand on 26 April, conduct the abbey's visitation the following day, and remain there (dif®nire: i.e. to produce the visitation decrees) on 27 April. He then decided to return to Kendal on 28 April, spending the night there, at his own expense, and to journey the following day to Egglestone via Burgh ± where he may have intended to spend the night of 29 April, again at his own expense ± planning to reach Egglestone on the evening of 30 April. On 1 May, Redman proposed to conduct the visitation of Egglestone, and to remain there for part of 2 May, but would stay at Durham overnight, at the expense of the abbot of Egglestone. On 3 May he planned to reach Newcastle by midday (hora prandij) ± at the abbot of Alnwick's expense ± and to conduct the visitation of Alnwick in that city, instead of within the abbey itself. On 4 May he wanted to remain at Newcastle for a while (dif®nire), but planned to spend another night at Durham, paid for by the abbot of Easby. After intending to visit a number of other abbeys in the northern and southern circaries, he planned to visit Halesowen on 16 May, and to journey south, through Gloucester, Bristol, Glastonbury, Taunton and Cullompton (Colverton), largely at his own expense, hoping to reach Exeter on 23 May.70 He 68 69

70

See p. 24. BL Add. MS 70507, fols 33v±45v. The Titch®eld itineraries were transcribed in `Premonstratensian Itineraries from a Titch®eld Abbey MS.', ed. B. Dickins, Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society 4 (1936±38), 349±61, where the foliation is numbered one folio behind that in the actual manuscript. Fols 74±76v have an itinerary for travelling to Rome, which also indicates the expenses entailed on the journey. Bodl. ASH, fol. 143. In most instances where Redman paid for his expenses, he was


VISITATION RECORDS

35

planned in his second 1500 itinerary to continue his remaining visitations in September, in the southern and middle circaries, and to conclude them at Welbeck on 21 November.71 A closer examination of Redman's 1500 itineraries reveals several indications as to why he decided to conduct his visitations in two separate periods in certain years, and the factors which determined both the dates chosen for his visitations and the speci®c location where his journeys started or ®nished. We have seen that Redman proposed to initiate his 1500 visitations at Cockersand in April. It is likely that he arrived at Kendal initially because he had intended to be already in the north, at his own abbey of Shap, which is approximately ®fteen miles north of Kendal.72 He probably journeyed south to Exeter in this particular year, because he was the local diocesan bishop at that time. His episcopal duties must have been a factor in planning the itineraries and in determining the amount of time that could be allocated for the visitations.73 The second 1500 itinerary contains an interesting reference which reveals that the tasks he performed with ± or on behalf of ± the king affected the composition of his itineraries. After intending to leave Exeter in early September, he proposed to journey to Salisbury, and then planned to make a detour from his usual direct route to Titch®eld or Durford by going to Andover and then Basingstoke. He proposed to be with the king, Henry VII, at Basingstoke for three days, and then planned to journey to Winchester to see Bishop Thomas Langton (1493±1501), before resuming the remainder of his visitations.74 There are a number of other explicit àberrations' which are seen occasionally in the itineraries. A notable detour occurs in no less than six of them. Instead of travelling directly from West Dereham to Wendling, or vice versa, he planned to travel northwards to Walsingham and then onto either of the two abbeys.75 Redman's proposed detours to visit Walsingham were no doubt to take the opportunity, while he was in the vicinity, to visit the most important shrine of the Blessed Virgin in medieval England.76 It is worth pointing out that an examination of Redman's itineraries reveals their importance in providing additional information concerning the use travellers made of the extensive English road network in the Middle Ages. For instance Redman clearly planned to use the London to Exeter road

71 72

73 74 75

76

homeward bound, after concluding his visitations. He was bishop of Exeter in 1500: ibid. Bodl. ASH, fols 148±48v. Bodl. ASH, fol. 143. The Redman family seat of Levens, near Kendal, was sold in 1490: The Old Manorial Halls of Westmorland and Cumberland, ed. M. Waistell Taylor (Kendal, 1882), p. 199. See pp. 195ff. Bodl. ASH, fols 148±48v. Bodl. ASH, fols 64v (1488), 142, (1491), 115 (1494), 131 (1497), 148 (1500), 159 (1503). The abbot of Wendling had to pay for these visits: ibid. H. M. Gillett, Walsingham: the History of a Famous Shrine (London, 1946), pp. 30±43; E. Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars (New Haven and London, 1992), p. 256.


36


on several occasions, by travelling along it from Salisbury. He intended to travel from Halesowen Abbey in Worcestershire, via Gloucester, onto the main road leading to Bristol and the West Country. Redman also planned to use the main road system on the east coast of England, travelling from Colchester, through Ipswich, to the abbeys of Leiston and Langley ± probably via Beccles ± thereby reaching Norwich. On other occasions Redman intended to undertake this journey in the reverse direction.77 Several documents in Redman's visitation register indicate that he proposed to use guides towards the end of a journey to a particular abbey, which may not have been accessible by a main road. The use of such guides by travellers was common in the Middle Ages.78 Though Redman's itineraries are useful in ascertaining how a visitor planned his visitations, and the routes that he used, how effective were they in assisting Redman in reaching the abbeys chosen for visitation? While taking into account the leeway that Redman allowed himself concerning the time of arrival at particular locations, often signi®ed in the itineraries with the words `vel circiter', and infrequent errors in apportioning dates, a comparison between the itineraries and the dates on which Redman actually visited each abbey, in the visitation reports, can establish the accuracy of the estimated visitation dates in the itineraries. Despite a few missing visitation reports in certain years, and a signi®cant lack of them for 1486 and 1503, all the itineraries, apart from 1481, have corresponding visitation reports for their designated years.79 This procedure reveals that Redman was able to keep very close to his intended dates of visitation for the years 1478, 1488, 1500, and most of them in 1497. In the majority of cases the actual date of Redman's intended visitations for these years occurred later than planned. However the inaccuracy of the estimated visitation dates in the itineraries is really very slight in actual terms. The degree of his lateness varied between one and two days, as Colvin indicated.80 Nevertheless, at the other end of the spectrum, Redman's 1491 visitations, for example, were subject to graver delays, with notable adjustments to his intended journeys. After he visited Cockersand on 26 April, which was not mentioned in his original itinerary, he journeyed south to Halesowen and conducted the abbey's visitation a day late on 15 May. He continued southwards to Devon and reached Torre. After his visitation there on 24 May, he travelled to Titch®eld and conducted his visitation there on 1 June, two days later than arranged. He 77

78

79 80

Compare the transcriptions of Redman's itineraries and map diagrams in appendices one and two with the famous Gough Map: The Map of Great Britain circa A.D. 1360 Known as the Gough Map, ed. E. J. S. Parsons (Oxford, 1958). C. M. Woolgar, The Great Household in Late Medieval England (New Haven and London, 1999), pp. 187±8. On Redman's proposals to travel across water, see n.91. See Appendix three. Bodl. MS Eng. Hist. D.227, pp. 33±6. For references to the following comparison between the 1491 itinerary and visitation reports, see Appendix one (Bodl. ASH, fols 141v±42) and Appendix three towards the end of this book.


VISITATION RECORDS

37

did not then go onto Durford, as he had intended, nor did he conduct any more visitations for just over two months. When he eventually restarted his visits, he did not begin at Durford, but at Alnwick in Northumberland on 6 August. Signi®cantly he was ®ve days early in conducting his Alnwick visitation, but held it at the abbey and not at Newcastle as he originally intended. He was ®ve days early at Blanchland when visiting the abbey on 8 August and three days early at Egglestone on 13 August. He managed to visit Easby the day before, on 12 August, ®ve days later than intended. He visited the other abbeys in reverse order to that arranged in his itineraries, but with important modi®cations. While Redman may have attempted to make up for lost time in the north, which was possibly the most convenient place to resume his visitations, he was quite late in visiting the other abbeys, and ®nished at Durford, in Sussex, over four months behind schedule, on 16 October. Redman's ®rst itinerary for 1497 indicated that he planned to visit Easby on 25 April and Coverham on 27 April.81 However he was unable to do so. In a letter Redman wrote to the abbot of Coverham, probably in 1497, he informed him that he was unable to visit the abbey on a date previously allocated, and now proposed to visit Coverham on 20 August, `hora prandii vel circiter'.82 In the second 1497 itinerary, Redman proposed to visit Easby on 18 August and Coverham on 20 August: his proposed visits to these abbeys were almost four months later than previously intended. However the actual days that Easby and Coverham were visited, were 19 August and 21 August respectively.83 What could possibly account for the visitor's lateness and the modi®cations that were made to his proposed dates of visitation? Although the reasons which caused Redman to experience a few days delay cannot be ascertained for certain, many of them, especially those of a signi®cant character, were more than likely due to the responsibilities that he incurred as a diocesan bishop, and particularly as a servant of the English crown.84 Instances where Redman delegated his visitorial or commissarial authority, were partly due to his involvement in royal affairs, though such delegations were very rare. In 1478 there is a unique case of Redman delegating his full commissarial authority to Abbot John Brom®eld of Coverham. Redman made Brom®eld his subdelegate in the northern circary ùsque ad revocationem nostram', because he was often occupied ìn servicio excellentissimi 81 82 83 84

Bodl. ASH, fol. 128. CAP I, 103; Bodl. ASH, fol. 120v. Bodl. ASH, fols 132±32v; CAP II, 179, 180, 327. Redman's involvement in peace treaty negotiations with Scotland in 1491 may have caused the signi®cant delays in his visitations in that year: see Bodl. ASH, fol. 92; CAP II, 284, and see p. 189 below. A suggestion that Redman conducted no visitations between 1483 and 1484 because of his `political af®nity' and service to Richard III may have been the case, but no triennial visitations were due in those years, and he continued to manage the internal affairs of his order at that time: R. Edwards, The Itinerary of King Richard III 1483±1485 (London, 1983), p. ix; Bodl. ASH, fol. 30; CAP II, 339.


38


principis regis nostri [i.e. Edward IV]' and would be absent from the northern circary.85 This subdelegation should not be taken as typical, as it is the only recorded instance when Redman actually delegated his commissorial powers in such an extensive manner. It should be noted also that Redman visited most of the houses of the northern circary, including Coverham, in 1478, presided over provincial convocations in 1479 and 1480, visited Cockersand in 1481, and conducted a full round of visitations in two separate periods in 1482, which included most of the northern abbeys.86 For the most part, when Redman could not personally visit an abbey, he conducted `proxy' or èxternal' visitations, some of which we have seen, in either another Premonstratensian abbey or in a nearby town, mainly in the houses of the mendicant friars. Most of those held involved several northern abbeys.87 While geographical factors and internal poverty within an abbey certainly led to a number of these visits, other tasks which Redman undertook outside the Premonstratensian order seem to have been an important reason for them. For instance Redman conducted a visitation of Alnwick at the Carmelite house in Newcastle in 1482 `quod majori sollicitudine compulsus ad suum monasterium . . . ad presens accessisse nequimus'.88 Redman's visitations at Blanchland seem to have been those which were most affected by his other commitments, for only one visitation report (1494) indicates that he made a personal visitation of that abbey.89 The 1486 proxy visitation of Blanchland took place in the camera assigned to him at Newcastle, `quod maxi[ma] pestilencia ibidem grassatur'.90 It may be asked why Redman required that those itineraries with signi®cant errors of predetermined calculations were transcribed into his visitation register, as they did not always re¯ect the actual visitations that took place. This question is clearly based upon the assumption that they were not already copied into the register from an initial draft before the visitations took place. However it is likely, when one considers that the notable dating inaccuracies in some of the itineraries were mainly caused by circumstances outside Redman's control, that these journey plans were copied before the start of the visitations, and manifest what the visitor thought were his ®nalised visitation intentions. The retention of these 85 86 87

88 89 90

Bodl. ASH, fol. 15v; CAP II, 312. See Appendix three. Bodl. ASH, fols 16, 25v±26, 51v, 62, 81v, 92, 92v, 111v, 129±30, 144±45v; CAP II, 188, 197, 199, 278, 279, 281, 282, 284, 285, 288, 289, 290, 404. The only proxy visits known in the southern circary occurred with Durford in 1482 (at Chichester, probably due to a recent plague at the abbey), and Torre in 1488 (at Durford, because of `majori solicitudine' on Redman's part): Bodl. ASH, fols 38, 79; CAP II, 381: III, 600. Newbo, in the middle circary, was visited at Croxton in 1494: Bodl. ASH, fols 126v±27; CAP III, 516. Bodl. ASH, fols 25v±26, 43v±44; CAP II, 188, 189. Bodl. ASH, fol. 121v; CAP II, 286. Bodl. ASH, fol. 62; CAP II, 281. On the use of Camera, see Woolgar, The Great Household, p. 50.


VISITATION RECORDS

39

particular itineraries, and others which were more accurate, was possibly due to their usefulness as plans which could, in due course, be utilised as journey routes for future visitations, and could serve as a ®nancial record of which abbots paid for Redman's expenses at a particular location: albeit with modi®cations of route and date.91 Moreover, it is signi®cant that Redman was determined to travel to each abbey he had allocated for visitation, in spite of delays, the rescheduling of dates and locations, and his `nonPremonstratensian' activities. This further indicates the importance that he placed on his visitation work. In the next chapter we will examine the methods and procedures that Redman used when he actually arrived at each abbey or place of visitation, and what his extensive enquiries reveal about the life and observance of the English Premonstratensian abbeys.

91

It should be noted that Redman proposed to visit Cockersand by sea in 1497, making the abbey's visitation on 3 April, and planned to cross the Thames via Tilbury (Tylberyferye) in 1478, on his way to visit the houses of East Anglia and Kent: Bodl. ASH, fols 9v, 120v; CAP I, 153. He actually visited Cockersand on 4 April: Bodl. ASH, fols 51, 128v±129; CAP II, 307, 308.


3 The Visitation of England's Premonstratensian Abbeys, c.1478±1500

Imperfectum meum viderunt oculi tui, et in libro tuo omnes scribentur [Ps. 138]

In the Premonstratensian Statutes of 1290 one ®nds written the solemn formula that each medieval English white canon pronounced in the chapterhouse of his abbey on the day of his profession. The novice offered himself to the abbot and community and vowed to live the monastic lifestyle, to undertake a process of self-reformation, stability in the same abbey, to renounce the world and all earthly belongings, and to be chaste. He committed himself to a life of perfect obedience ìn Christo', according to the Gospel and the Rule of St Augustine.1 The ascetical and evangelical demands which a white canon freely contracted in uttering his life-long Suscipe to God and monastery, were truly dif®cult undertakings. Though all religious could avail themselves of the aids offered by faith in divine assistance and the spiritual observances embodied within the monastic life, the majority of them were doubtless prone to error of one degree or another, ®ckleness, and backsliding from the order's regulations and the path leading to perfection. The acquisition of the monastic habit alone most de®nitely `does not make the monk'. However the fact of man's sinfulness (Humanum est errare) was certainly taken into account by those who devised the monastic life. The process of eliminating and preventing the accumulation of imperfections within monasteries, included the practice of visitation. With the apparent centralisation of authority within the three English Premonstratensian circaries, the commissary-general became almost entirely responsible for conducting the visitations. It is therefore to the visitation records contained in Redman's register, and to other related sources, that one must turn in order to evaluate the quality of religious life in the English Premonstratensian abbeys of the later Middle Ages. After an examination of 1

Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 25±6. A visitation question in Redman's register implies that novices in some English abbeys may have made their vows outside the chapterhouse: Ùtrum novicii, primo die professionis sue, aliqua vota voverunt, an non, in capitulo?': BL PECK I, fol. 17; Bodl. ASH, fol. 17*; CAP I, 108.


VISITATION OF THE ABBEYS IN ENGLAND

41

the Premonstratensian visitation process, we shall explore the name lists in Redman's register, focusing on the number of English white canons at this time and the recruitment of new religious. This will be followed by an investigation into the most serious faults uncovered by Redman during his visitations, namely apostasy, fornication, rebellion, and neglect in the supervision of the abbeys by their abbots and superiors. We shall also examine several recurrent deviations of a less grave nature: wandering out of the enclosure, breaking the monastic silence and the order's clothing regulations. The visitation register sheds light on various other aspects of life within the Premonstratensian abbeys, and therefore we shall analyse some of these alongside the above misdemeanours, including the presence of laity within the enclosure, the consumption of food and drink, and the economic condition of the abbeys.2 We shall principally investigate the period 1478±1500, as this era provides the most copious documentation for our purposes, though we will utilise existing records for other periods where appropriate. The last section of the chapter evaluates the general observance of the white canons of England, and the effectiveness of their visitor, Richard Redman. It is essential to begin by discussing the actual procedures used by Redman in conducting his visitations. The methods used in the visitation of religious houses by diocesan bishops have many similarities with the Premonstratensian method, but, as we shall see, there were variations.3 Redman probably alerted each abbot of®cially of a forthcoming visitation at his abbey, for the statutes envisaged that the circatores did this.4 Seven documents of this kind were copied into Redman's register, probably as exemplars. Three of them directly relate to a proposed visitation at an actual house, one pertains to an extra monasterium visitation of Alnwick (1482), and three specify no abbey in particular.5 The documents proposing visitations at speci®c abbeys ± namely at Dale (1474), Coverham (1497?) and Cockersand (1497) ± refer to Redman's proposed time of arrival and the recall of all the house's inmates for the visitation, and ask that someone would meet the visitor at a particular location and then take him to the abbey. Canons stationed in the dependent priories of Hornby and Dodford were probably recalled to 2

3

4 5

Liturgical matters and learning among the white canons are discussed in chapters four and ®ve. The results of those analyses have been borne in mind here. Èxternal' visitations outside an abbey are not inferred in the following examination, unless explicitly mentioned: though in a number of matters, such as compiling the visitation report, many elements of the normal procedure were apparent. On similarities and differences between Premonstratensian and Cistercian visitations: Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 102±8, 125; Les Codi®cations Cisterciennes de 1237 et de 1257, ed. B. Lucet (Paris, 1977), passim, esp. pp. 282±96; Statuta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Cisterciensis ab Anno 1116 ad Annum 1786, 8 vols, ed. J. M. Canivez (Louvain, 1933±41): I, pp. 20±1. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 103. Bodl. ASH, fols 2, 24v, 76v, 85v±86, 120v, 141; CAP I, 98, 100, 103, 104, 115, 120, 153.


42


their abbeys, Croxton and Halesowen respectively, for their superiors are frequently noted in their abbeys' name lists.6 Redman asked the abbots to pay for the expenses he incurred at a particular town en-route, and the abbots of Coverham and Cockersand were asked to remunerate the messenger who conveyed the visitor's letter.7 The statutes and visitation records do not specify if a formal procedure for receiving the visitor at an abbey was enacted. A reception before the visitations of diocesan bishops was held at the entrance of the monastic church, and it is likely that Redman, who was partial to ceremonial, would have been greeted in a solemn manner.8 At the commencement of the visitation, usually after Prime, the visitor made an opening address to the community in the chapterhouse. Diocesan visitors sometimes delegated this task.9 Three undated opening discourses for use at English Premonstratensian visitations have survived, two in the Welbeck register (hereafter Welbeck A and B) and one which is apparent in both the Welbeck and visitation registers.10 Welbeck texts A and B ± the latter designed for use by a pater abbas ± are datable post-1290, and the text in both registers seems to suggest a date contemporaneous with Redman. While they contain exhortations, they are clearly not sermons. Each address varies in content and length, but all of them have a very similar format and could have been delivered verbatim or, as was likely in the case for the text contained in both registers, served as useful exemplars for the preparation of an of®cial opening discourse. Although we cannot examine the transcriptions of the texts in the Welbeck register at present, it appears that the text which the Welbeck and Redman registers share in common, may have been devised speci®cally for Redman or a previous commissary, and was subsequently copied into the Welbeck register, possibly for the use of Abbot Wilkinson of Welbeck.11 In any case its presence in Redman's register implies that Redman must have made use of it to some extent, and it is this text on which we shall primarily focus. In this opening address, the shortest among the three, the visitor began by drawing the community's attention to the purpose of his visitation. The abbot of PreÂmontreÂ had granted him a commission with the authority (potestatem) to visit attentively the circary in which the house was situated, every three years or whenever necessary. The visitor's commission ± not given in the present text ± was then read, so that the canons would be aware 6

7 8

9

10 11

Ibid.; Bodl. ASH, fols 21, 45v, 67, 113v, 116v, 133, 136, 142v, 153v; CAP II, 338, 340, 345, 348, 349, 440, 442, 444, 445. Bodl. ASH, fols 2, 120v; CAP I, 98, 103, 153. Visitations of Religious Houses in the Diocese of Lincoln, 3 vols, ed. A. Hamilton Thompson, Lincoln Record Society 7, 14, 21 (1914±29): I, p. x; Bodl. ASH, fols 84v; BL PECK I, fol. 96v; CAP I, 88, 94. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 103; Visitations of Religious Houses in the Diocese of Lincoln I, p. x; Bodl. ASH, fols 64v±65. Bodl. ASH, fol. 43; BL PECK I, fols 14±14v, 15, 16±16v; CAP I, 105, 106, 107. Monast. Praem. II, pp. 26, 84.



43

of `the veracity and the extent of the visitor's authority'.12 After this the visitor drew the community's attention to three important àdmonitions' which the statutes required him to explain before the canons made their depositions.13 These items appear in Welbeck A and B, but, unlike the text in Redman's register, are accompanied with detailed explanations. This may be due to the fact that Redman, an experienced visitor and bishop, would have been well acquainted with the legal rami®cations of his order's statutes and canon law, and could quite easily give a brief explanation of their interpretation. He probably had a copy of the statutes with him, as these elaborate somewhat on these three points. The àdmonitions' in the English Premonstratensian registers were actually a condensation of those contained in the statutes, and more or less duplicated them.14 The ®rst admonition forbade the canons from reiterating accusations against anyone which had already been dealt with in the previous visitation, if the culprits had been punished. In other words, no one was to be convicted twice of the same offence, which accorded with canon law.15 No grave accusations were to be levied against the abbot if he had not received a legal warning (premonitus) or summons, or even after receiving it. Welbeck A text explains that it was not only according to the statuta ordinaria, but by canon law (jura et canonicas sanxiones) that a prelate was to have the right legitimately to defend himself ± in other words a trial ± against any accusations.16 The last admonition was similar to the ®rst one, in forbidding anyone from making serious allegations against their abbot, apart from those matters which came to their attention after the previous visitation, and this under oath.17 These legal formalities upheld the right of canons not to be accused and convicted of the same thing unnecessarily, and maintained the dignity of prelates by safeguarding them from being unjustly convicted. The text in the visitation register ends at this point. Redman may well 12

13 14

15

16

17

BL PECK I, fols 86±88v; Bodl. ASH, fols 8, 43; CAP I, 38, 40, 106; A visiting diocesan bishop received a certi®catorio premunicionis from an abbot or prior, which was required for a visitation's legality: Bishop Geoffrey Blythe's Visitations, c.1515±1525, ed. P. Heath, Collections for a History of Staffordshire, 4th series 7 (1973), p. xx. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 105±6. In the Ashmole register the text reads, `Primum est, ne ea, que digne correcta fuerint, iterum coram nobis proponatis. Secundum, ne aliquod grave de prelato vestro dicatis, de quo premonitus non fuerit. Tertium, Nichillominus est inhibendum, ne ipsum prelatum vel aliquem fratrem suum accuset, preterquam de hijs que post ultimam visitationem fuerunt perpetrata, nisi proprio jurando ®rmaverint post illam ultimam visitationem ad eorum noticiam pervenisse'; Gasquet omits the words indicated in bold: BL PECK I, fols 14±14v, 15, 16±16v; Bodl. ASH, fol. 43; CAP I, 105, 106, 107; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 105±6. Ibid.; C. Duggan, `The Becket Dispute and the Criminous Clerks', BIHR 35 (1962), 15±18. BL PECK I, fol. 16; CAP I, 105; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 105±6. For further directives on dealing with allegations levelled against abbots, and their deposition; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 106±8. BL PECK I, fols 14±14v, 16v; CAP I, 105, 107; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 105±6.


44


have concluded his opening discourse with similar admonitions that are found in Welbeck A and B texts, in which all `[cum] caritative et non odiose' were to declare transgressions and other matters which ought to be referred to the visitor.18 Whether or not Redman had the Ìnquisitionum Articuli' read to the community, as Welbeck B text stipulates, cannot be known for certain. The 1290 statutes do not envisage this, and it is unknown whether this was undertaken in every religious house which was visited by a diocesan bishop.19 No English Premonstratensian Ìnquisitionum Articuli' has survived other than six brief questions in the Welbeck and Redman registers, which largely concern liturgical matters.20 Though Redman could have relied to a great extent on his experience in seeking matters that required emendation, and, as we shall see, had a sharp eye for details, the Ìnquisitionum Articuli' may have been available to him as Welbeck B text implies this generally.21 Such texts, sometimes quite lengthy, are found among the surviving records of the English Cistercians, Benedictines and Augustinians.22 Before Redman could uncover problems with an abbey's observance, he had to acquire the previous visitation report from the prior, as this of®cial was in overall charge of monastic discipline. Welbeck B text speci®cally states this, and additionally requires that a name list of the abbey's canons be given; `Deinde dicat abbas Visitator, ``Prior, afferatis nobis literas ultime visitationis, et nomina fratrum'' '.23 Though it is likely that Redman had his visitation reports, technically known within the order as Relictum Visitationis, copied into the visitation register before handing them over to a particular community, he probably asked for the return of the original document on his next visitation, as the statutes required.24 The visitor was obliged to ascertain if everything he had decreed in the last visitation had been implemented, and at Egglestone, in 1500, for example, it was commented that `plura ultima visitacione ibidem reliquimus precepta, que ad presens plenarie non comperimus observata'. Having had these documents previously copied into his register, Redman may have saved 18 19 20

21

22

23 24

BL PECK I, fol. 14v, 16v; CAP I, 105, 107. BL PECK I, fol. 14v; CAP I, 107; Bishop Geoffrey Blythe's Visitations, pp. xx, xxi. BL PECK I, fol. 17; Bodl. ASH, fol. 17*v; CAP I, 108. A list of questions in BL PECK I, fol. 94 (CAP I, 99) are thought to have been composed by Francis Peck: Bodl. MS Eng. Hist. D.227, p. 12. Faults were also listed in the statutes (1290): e.g. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 65±82, 108±9. Harper-Bill, `Cistercian Visitation in the Late Middle Ages', pp. 104±5; Documents Illustrating the Activities of the General and Provincial Chapters of the English Black Monks 1215±1540, 3 vols, ed. W. A. Pantin, Camden Society, 3rd series 44, 47, 54 (1931, 1933, 1937): II, pp. xvi, 82±9; Chapters of the Augustinian Canons, ed. H. E. Salter, The Canterbury and York Society 29 (1922), pp. 200±13. BL PECK I, fol. 14v; CAP I, 107. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 103; E. Valvekens, Les Visites Canoniques des Abbayes PreÂmontreÂes au SeizieÁme SieÁcle, AP 22±23 (Tongerlo, 1946±47), p. 3.



45

valuable time in the process of checking the original Relictum as he had prior knowledge of their contents.25 After Redman had received the previous report, he could then begin making his enquiries. The statutes and the visitation reports in Redman's register make it clear that this was done both with a private interview with the abbot and each member of the community, and, if necessary, with general sessions, presumably in the chapterhouse.26 If the canons were aware of points for emendation, these were not to be disclosed until the visitor arrived, when they would then have the opportunity to make them known. The visitor was to deal severely with anyone who did not abide by this stipulation, as it was designed to prevent an abbey becoming embroiled in scandal.27 Serious accusations against any canon were to be made privately before the visitor. The accuser would testify to the veracity of his allegations on oath, and the visitor would decide if they were worthy of correction, or should be referred to the general chapter.28 Despite the absence of any original detecta in Redman's register, the visitation reports refer to the individual questioning of the canons, invariably using phrases such as ùbi ibidem ex deposicionibus fratrum' and Èt inquisitione facta secreto et singillatim ab omnibus confratribus'. When referring to what the visitor ascertained ± the comperta ± the reports say, for example, `solicite et attente, tam in spiritualibus quam in temporalibus, et habita legitima inquisicione super dicte ecclesie utroque statu, comperimus', or simply ùbi comperimus'.29 Though Redman's visitation reports do not give us individual detecta from each abbey, they basically relate the visitor's ®ndings, and the majority of them, as with the injunctions of a diocesan visitor, decree matters for implementation, but perhaps give more detail about how individual canons were punished for offences.30 We will ®nd later that Redman made judgments and uncovered faults not only from what he discovered from the canons' depositions and his personal observations, but by occasionally noting what people outside the monastery were saying about its inmates. We must now consider the kind of penalties ordained in the statutes for proven faults which were discovered at an abbey.31 This is important for our purposes, as we will frequently be confronted with the imposition of penalties by Redman. Though punitive measures for various offences 25

26 27 28 29 30

31

Bodl. ASH, fol. 144; CAP II, 410; Formularium Praemonstratense II, ed. J. J. Evers (Tongerlo, 1932), p. 170. Compurgation is discussed on pp. 66±7. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 106. Ibid. Bodl. ASH, fols 13*, 25v, 29v, 136v; CAP II, 348, 401: III, 512, 663. Religious Orders III, p. 40. The visitation records and statutes imply that the visitor personally conducted the visitations. However his assistants probably helped by recording the canons' detecta: Visitations of Religious Houses in the Diocese of Lincoln I, pp. x±xi; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 105±8. Penalties for serious crimes, including exsilium, and instances of fornication and apostasy, will be discussed later.


46


appear throughout the statutes, the Tertie Distinctionis is solely devoted to them, and many of the faults noted there are conveniently grouped into ®ve chapters.32 The ®rst of these, `De Levioribus Culpis', included noisiness in the dormitory, if the intonation of a responsory or antiphon perturbed the choir, and any actions which were reprehensible, though moderate in gravity. Anyone who committed these, and asked for mercy, was to recite one psalm, and to receive one stroke of the discipline.33 `De Mediis Culpis' included inattentiveness in choir and allowing one's eyes to wander, absence from chapter and negligence in the performance of tasks by monastic of®cials. Those asking for clemency after these faults were proclaimed, were given one correction with the discipline and as many psalms as the person presiding over chapter thought ®t, according to their gravity. The same section laid great emphasis on the observance of silence, especially ìn quatuor locis silentio deputatis', that is, in the church, dormitory, refectory and cloister. Redman often refers to these `locis deputatis', as greater care was to be exercised in maintaining silence within them.34 Those who were accused of breaking silence were given one stroke of the discipline and a day's fast on bread and water. If a canon immediately declared this fault, he was not given the discipline, but had to undergo the fast.35 `De Gravi Culpa' included making a false testimony against someone who was innocent of an offence, and securing bene®ces (àd novas missas celebrandas'). The statutes decreed that if mercy was asked for these faults, and if none of the other canons made the accusations, three corrections with the discipline were to be given to the offender in the chapterhouse, with three days fasting on bread and water. If someone had accused a canon of these faults, another stroke of the discipline and a day's fast was added to the above penalty. The recitation of psalms in conjunction with these penalties, or their mitigation, was left to the discretion of the superior.36 The section `De Graviori Culpa' included `minor' sacrilege (`leve sacrilegium') or theft, eating in towns and secular houses within a mile of the abbey without permission, and contempt or open rebellion against the abbot, by not returning to the cloister from parishes or granges when ordered. The penalty for these faults was ten days gravioris culpe (see below). There followed various penalties for sexual deviations.37 The next chapter elaborates on the nature of gravioris culpe, which could be undergone for any period up to a duration of forty days. A canon who had this penance imposed was to consume only bread and water on Fridays. On 32 33 34 35

36 37

Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 65±82, 79±80. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 65±6. Bodl. ASH, fol. 11; CAP II, 358; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 67±8. Modi®cations were accorded to this, if, for example, the abbot was entertaining a bishop: ibid. Other regulations on silence are given in Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 28±30. Silence is discussed below on pp. 72±3. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 69. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 70±2.



47

Mondays and Wednesdays he was to eat a dish of potage (unum tantummodo pulmentum) and have one drink. On other days the penalty could be mitigated and he was to eat whatever the abbot or superior should decide.38 On double feasts and in times of illness, gravioris culpe was suspended, but the penitent was not allowed to indulge in blood-letting, no doubt with the privileges which this entailed, unless there was great necessity. He was also to undergo the full penance for ten consecutive days, presumably fasting on bread and water. These penances were to be fully observed, unless relaxed or dispensed `[cum] auctoritate propria'.39 The section `De Gravissima Culpa' was for those who were truly incorrigible; `secundum Apostolum [Paulum] qui hereticum hominem, post correctionem adhibitam et incorrigibilitatem patefatam, devitari jubet tanquam peccantem peccatum ad mortem, ``quia subversus est qui ejusmodi est'' '.40 However the removal of the habit and then expulsion from the order, with no hope of return, as decreed by the statutes (1290), was altered to incarceration in 1322, with the possibility of release by the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ, the general chapter, or visitor.41 For other crimes, various combinations of gravioris culpe, exsilium to another abbey for a ®xed term, the referral of offenders to the general chapter for punishment, excommunication and imprisonment, were used against offenders, though dispensations from penalties were feasible.42 The penultimate chapter of the statutes allowed abbots to use their discretion in applying penalties in the statutes to offences which were not explicitly censured.43 The visitor was expected to be a skilled practitioner in the art of correcting the faults of his fellow canons, and had to weigh them on the `scales of justice' provided by the criteria enunciated in the statutes. When the main business of the visitation was completed, including an investigation into whether or not an abbey had implemented the decrees of the general and provincial chapters, Redman concluded with a closing address. Only one of these survive in both the visitation and Welbeck registers, apart from two short paragraphs in the latter manuscript, which a pater abbas recited after completing a visitation at a satisfactory daughter house.44 This document also appears to be an exemplar, as it was designed to be delivered at an abbey which was altogether acceptable, apart from the 38

39 40 41

42 43 44

Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 72±3. It is frequently presumed that forty days gravioris culpe among the white canons consisted of forty days fasting on bread and water, which was not the case: F. D. Logan, Runaway Religious in Medieval England, c.1240±1540 (Cambridge, 1996), p. 150; Religious Orders III, p. 45. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 36±7, 72±3. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 79±80; Epist. Titus, 3:10±11. Ibid.; Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, p. 833. Despite this Redman was actually given the authority to expel canons from the order by PreÂmontreÂ in 1459: BL PECK I, fol. 87v; CAP I, 38. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 74±6, 80±1, 116±21, 125±6. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 125. BL PECK I, fol. 18; CAP I, 109, and see next note.


48


correction of some minor points.45 The visitor had found that the house was well governed, with good relations between abbot and community. Everything was judged satisfactory from an economic viewpoint.46 The community were then exhorted in the words of St Paul (Epist. Rom., 6:22) that having been delivered from sin and become the servants of God, `fructum vestrum in sancti®cationem, ®nem vero vitam eternam'. The canons were allowed to acquire bene®ces and stipends (stipendium spirituale), were granted absolution, and the brethren recited the Con®teor.47 In other houses Redman would have undoubtedly `tailored' his closing address, probably touching on corrections, commands and penalties that had been given during his visitation. In order to compile the visitation report, Redman and his assistants collated all the notes made during an abbey's visitation. As explained above, it was a synthesis of what took place, though it did not give a detailed account of all the canons' depositions or the entire visitation format. The fact that the visitation reports, particularly the lengthy ones, were apparently issued on the day after the visitation, as Redman's itineraries imply (dif®nire), is a credit to the ef®ciency of the visitor and his assistants, for the process of conducting a visitation, and compiling the visitation reports from the detecta, comperta and injunctiones, must have been time consuming, in many instances.48 There is little evidence that suggests that Redman's visitations were generally delayed beyond a single day.49 Once the report was written and copied into the visitation register, immediately or shortly afterwards, Redman's commissorial seal was af®xed to it. The visitation report was then presented to the prior for the implementation of any injunctions that were stipulated. E. Valvekens has indicated that the Relictum was to be kept securely and read to the community at a speci®ed time, for example, once a week or monthly. This was to refresh the canons' memories of the visitor's injunctions, so that they could not plead ignorance of them at the next visitation.50 Several of the few 45 46 47 48

49

50

Bodl. ASH, fol. 42v; BL PECK I, fol. 19; CAP I, 110. Ibid. Bodl. ASH, fol. 42v; BL PECK I, fol. 19; CAP I, 110. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 103; Valvekens, Les Visites Canoniques des Abbayes PreÁmontreÁes, p. 3. Although the visitation reports were issued after the visitation ± which one would expect, considering the process of enquiry, etc. ± they are actually dated with the date of each visitation: cf. H. Van Bavel, `Het 15e-eeuwse VisitareCartularium van de Abdij MarieÈnweerd', AP 56 (1980), 286±92. A line in the 1497 Torre visitation report implies prorogation; Èt hoc primo die nostre dicte visitacionis'. However the date of the visitation is given at the top of the report. The report ends with the words `Data, acta et decreta etc.': Bodl. ASH, fol. 140; CAP III, 605. However prorogation was intended at Welbeck in 1458, and allowances were made for it `sicuti requiratur' at proposed visitations in Dale (1474), Cockersand (1497), and Coverham (1497?): Bodl. ASH, fols 2, 120v; BL PECK I, fol. 84; CAP I, 37, 98, 103, 153. Valvekens, Les Visites Canoniques des Abbayes PreÁmontreÁes, p. 3; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 103; Bodl. ASH, fol. 13v; CAP II, 204.



49

surviving continental examples of Premonstratensian Relicta of the early sixteenth century gave explicit instructions of this nature, while Redman's visitation reports do not.51 In all probability Redman's decrees would have been read to the community, as it does not appear how any injunctions which they contained could otherwise have been implemented. It is also possible that the practice of designating a time for reading the Relictum may not have been speci®ed necessarily, at least in the ®fteenth century, for such instructions are absent from the visitation reports for the abbey of Rengevallis (1436) in France and Berne (1462) in Holland.52 At some stage afterwards the previous Relictum was destroyed, either by incineration or shredding.53 Let us now turn our attention to the content of the visitation documents in Redman's register, beginning with the name lists. A major concern for Redman was the maintenance of conventual observance within each abbey and the provision of enough canons to ensure this. This was undoubtedly one of the main reasons why the acquisition of name lists at the outset of a visitation was a standard procedure, as they are also found or referred to, for example, in the visitation records of the Black monks.54 Though these lists would have enabled Redman theoretically to obtain the complement of each Premonstratensian abbey at a given time, they were particularly useful in revealing who occupied positions of authority and other details. In addition to the abbot's name which ordinarily appears in the lists, most of them, but not all, specify who was the prior and subprior and who held posts such as the sacristan, cantor, in®rmarian, novice master, and cellarer.55 They also indicate canons who were vicars or possessed external cures.56 The initiation of a number of canons into the religious life, or a record of their earliest monastic years, are designated in the name lists in various ways, for example as novicius non professus or non professi and, more frequently as novicii and occasionally novicii professi, a term which designated non-priest religious.57 There are also a few cases where the term nondum professi sed de novo rasi is 51 52

53 54 55

56

57

Valvekens, Les Visites Canoniques des Abbayes PreÁmontreÁes, pp. 3, 14, 25, 27. Formularium Praemonstratense, pp. 167±70; Van Bavel, `Het 15e-eeuwse VisitareCartularium', pp. 288±92. Redman occasionally ordered his canons not to relate matters discussed at the visitation to anyone outside the abbey: see the 1494 Durford visitation report: Bodl. ASH, fol. 123; CAP II, 385. Valvekens, Les Visites Canoniques des Abbayes PreÁmontreÁes, p. 3. Chapters of the English Black Monks III, pp. 221±2, 227, 228, 231±4. For example see the Langley name lists from 1475±1500: Bodl. ASH, fols 4v, 21v, 46, 73, 114, 118, 137v, 151v; CAP III, 464, 468, 470, 472, 474, 476, 477, 478. Note that the 1491 Langley name list is mistakenly referred to as that of `techfeld[e]' in the manuscript. Ibid. The white canons connections with parish churches, and their appropriation, is discussed in White Canons, pp. 22±4, 272±88. Bodl. ASH, fols 22, 114v, 116, 143v, 160v; CAP II, 178, 219, 253, 256, 309. One should note the absence of conversi in these lists: Religious Orders III, p. 49, n.3.


50


used ± which refers to the conferment of the clerical tonsure ± and references to acolytes, subdeacons and deacons.58 The names on these lists, from the prior downwards, are usually pre®xed with the appellation `frater', and the word `dominus', was normally reserved for abbots.59 It is unclear why a cross (+) occasionally appears in the lists either before or after the name of a particular abbot or canon, or whether this was of any signi®cance in every instance. These markings may simply be an unspeci®ed conventional scribal usage, and can be found in surviving examples of name lists from other religious orders.60 All of the surviving name lists from 1478 exhibit a feature that is peculiar to them. Redman apparently decided in that year to obtain some general information about each abbey's foundation date, its founder, patronal dedication, pater abbas, the number of its appropriated churches and bene®ces, and whether or not these were served directly by the canons or by secular priests.61 He possibly obtained this information in order to update the order's records, or check their accuracy. Uncertainty over Talley's paternity in the 1470s may have prompted this.62 We must assess what these lists and other sources of information in the visitation register reveal about the number of English Premonstratensians between 1475 and 1500 and the recruitment of canons, in order to obtain a reasonable indication of the growth or decline of the order in this period. Various historians in the past have attempted to give an estimate or even the exact number of English white canons in our era, within a longer or shorter time-span. In volume two of the Collectanea, Gasquet gave a ®gure of `no fewer than 1,806 canons' who were present at the visitations of 1475±1500.63 Paradoxically, however, this ®gure is both in¯ated and incomplete to say the least. G. G. Coulton indicated that Gasquet reached his total by counting the same canons again at succeeding visitations, and that he was solely working with those inmates who were recorded in volume two of the Collectanea.64 Coulton proposed that àbout 470 canons were domiciled at different times during these twenty®ve years' in the visitations in volume two.65 On the other hand Colvin said that there were around 410 canons in this period.66 Coulton also proposed that about 420 canons lived at any `given time' in the houses where name lists exist for 1475±1500, and estimated a total of 950 inmates 58 59 60

61

62 63 64 65 66

e.g. Bodl. ASH, fols 5v, 18, 67, 116, 119, 147; CAP II, 213, 232, 244, 433, 440. There were exceptions to this: Bodl. ASH, fols 44, 61, 67; CAP II, 427, 437, 440. e.g. Bodl. ASH, fols 119, 119v, 135; CAP II, 214: III, 538, 617. Gasquet did not transcribe these crosses, and they do not appear to indicate death: cf. Chapters of the English Black Monks III, pp. 227, 232±4. Bodl. ASH and CAP, passim. Extracts of this material for all of the abbeys, including Talley, occur in BL PECK I, passim; CAP I±III, passim. BL PECK II, fol. 59; CAP III, 574. CAP II, p. xxii. Coulton, Ten Medieval Studies, pp. 225, 262±3; White Canons, pp. 390±1. Coulton, Ten Medieval Studies, pp. 262±3. Bodl. MS Eng. Hist. D.227, p. 17.



51

Table 2. Estimated Number of English Premonstratensians, late ®fteenth to sixteenth century


52


for the entire period.67 Knowles and Hadcock estimated that at the outset of the period 1350±1422, and its termination, there were respectively 235 and 422 canons; from 1422 there were 493 canons, 491 by 1500, and 488 in 1534.68 These various estimations of the number of white canons not only indicates that, as with other statistical studies, there is some leeway in the time-span within which one chooses to operate ± depending on the availability of source material ± but that the whole process is fraught with dif®culty and incompleteness. In the light of the various ®gures offered for the number of white canons extant at different times, it would be useful to give estimated ®gures that would be more appropriate for our present analysis, based primarily on Redman's name lists.69 The estimated total number of canons found in our study between 1475 and 1500 was 852, a more conservative estimate than Coulton's 950 canons. This excludes the canons recorded in the handful of surviving name lists from 1502 and 1503, as their addition would cause too great a discrepancy in our general total and exaggerate the complement within these particular abbeys. The total number of canons is lesser still ± approximately 816 ± for the period 1478±1500 with its substantial visitation material. An explanation of how these ®gures were gained and the necessary caveats employed in their computation, must be given. As with previous estimations, our table includes novices and abbots. In addition to the gaps in the records in some of the abbeys, particularly the absence of name lists from Cockersand from 1475±1482 inclusive, there are no name lists from Talley or Shap. Thankfully such gaps are not detrimental to our overall analysis, as enough name lists have clearly survived.70 Apostates and other canons who seem to have left their houses permanently, have been discounted from the subsequent years which follow their last recorded appearance. Canons who were resident in or exiled to abbeys have been included in their respective houses: those who apparently changed the abbey of their profession, have been added to their new abbey where appropriate. Abbots who were 67 68

69

70

Coulton, Ten Medieval Studies, p. 263. Knowles and Neville Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, p. 491. The low ®gure in 1350 was due to the Black Death. I exclude Knowles' ®gures for canons in dependencies and alien houses. See Table 2, p. 51. Apart from the proposed number of canons at the earlier dissolution of Bayham in 1525, from Religious Orders III, p. 470, the number of canons at the Dissolution were obtained from Dr Peter Cunich. I am most grateful for his kind permission to include his ®gures here, which do not claim to be ®nalised. Full references to these will be given in his forthcoming book on the numbers of religious at the Dissolution. Apart from Redman and Robert Bedalle, the registers reveal Thomas Lucas, Henry Beverley, Henry Yate and John Durham (transferred to Blanchland in 1475) as canons from Shap: Bodl. ASH, fols 37, 160v; BL PECK I, fol. 128; CAP II, 276: III, 541, 547. Bishops' registers may reveal more names: e.g. The Register of Richard Fox Lord Bishop of Durham 1494±1501, ed. M. Peers Howden, Surtees Society 147 (1932), p. 152.



53

translated to other abbeys, for example John Swift, abbot of Beauchief (1462±78) and then Newhouse (1478±97), have been included only once in the overall total canons for the period.71 In utilising the name lists, and in calculating the number of canons they contain, care should be taken to avoid the problem of duplicating the same individuals, which Coulton stressed.72 Though many of these canons can easily be accounted for once in an overall calculation of the complement within each abbey ± even with variations in their `phonetically inspired' spelling in several visitation reports73 ± the danger of duplicating surnames is aggravated by frequently encountering the interchanging use of aliases, the majority of which are assigned to canons who are not always readily unidenti®able from previous lists.74 If possible, one must cautiously attempt to solve such anomalies by conducting a comparative analysis of the relevant name lists to ascertain if aliases could possibly be attributable to identi®able canons or were references to other individuals. Cognisance should also be taken of yet another complication within these lists. Although it may be rightly expected that they all recorded an abbey's canons at the time of a particular visitation, it is clear that this was not always the case. There are a few examples where such instances were explicitly mentioned in the lists. The 1478 name list from Easby related the names of its canons, `preter vicarios et alios extra'.75 The 1478 name list from Croxton states that there were Èxtra monasterium vii. sunt canonici preter predictos'.76 It is also possible to ascertain absences from comparing many of the lists, which may have been largely due to external occupations, such as parochial cures, as the 1478 Easby name list implies.77 At Croxton, for instance, ®ve canons who were recorded in 1491 were absent in 1494, namely William Harstone, Edmund Grene, Thomas Lynrige, John Eytone, and William Lynley. All reappear in 1497, and apart from John Eytone, had external duties.78 The statutes allow for absences during an abbey's visitation if there was a good 71 72 73

74

75 76

77 78

White Canons, pp. 397, 412. Coulton, Ten Medieval Studies, p. 262. e.g. at Croxton, John Whetlay (1475) becomes Wecclaye (1478), Whyetley (1482), Whetley (1488), Qwhytlay (1491), Whetley (1494, 1497, 1500): Bodl. ASH and CAP II, passim. Among the few aliases that are clearly identi®able are William Lich®eld alias Burne of Halesowen and Thomas Castre alias Sall of Langley: Bodl. ASH, fols 4v, 13*v, 21v, 44, 64, 151v; CAP I, 87: II, 437: III, 464, 466, 468. Bodl. ASH, fol. 23; CAP II, 167. Bodl. ASH, fol. 21; CAP II, 338. I have taken account of such canons' existence in my calculations, but after a comparison with all the lists of the appropriate abbeys. The same is said for abbots whose names are absent from the lists, but whose existence is clearly implied in their corresponding visitation reports where extant. Religious Orders III, p. 49, n.3. Bodl. ASH, fols 113v, 119, 136±36v; CAP II, 345, 347, 348: III, 613. Part of the 1491 Croxton list is erroneously printed with the 1491 Tupholme lists in CAP, from John Bever onwards: ibid.


54


reason.79 However some of the canons whom Redman found missing during his visitations, were ordered to appear before him to explain their absence.80 These absences, valid or otherwise, explain why, in certain cases, lower complements are found in some abbeys in particular years than in others. However account must be taken of other possible reasons for this phenomenon, which are not always quanti®able: human mortality, exile to another house, expulsion from the order, novices who legally left before profession and unrecorded apostasies.81 The possibility that an alias was used in succeeding lists should be ascertained before ruling out a canon's presence there. What about the numbers of canons in each individual abbey? Wendling was the least populous of all the Premonstratensian abbeys, with an average of about six canons in most years. Bayham, Durford, Langdon, and Sulby had complements that were usually ten canons or below, and St Radegund's ¯uctuated between an average of seven and ten canons.82 About a third of the houses, between 1475 to 1500 usually had a complement of less than ®fteen or sixteen canons.83 Dale was slightly better, with between approximately ®fteen and seventeen canons, while at West Dereham there were on average between thirteen to sixteen canons, and a complement of about nineteen canons in 1482. Coverham, Halesowen, Leiston, Newhouse, and Torre, had between ®fteen to twenty or so canons at the most. The largest abbeys by numerical standards were Alnwick, Barlings, Cockersand, Croxton, Easby, and Welbeck, with an average of twenty canons and above for most of our period. Alnwick and Croxton had the greatest number. There were approximately twenty-one inmates at Alnwick in 1475 and 1482, twenty-four in 1488, twenty-three in 1491, twenty-seven in 1497, and twenty-®ve in 1500. Croxton had on average more than twenty-®ve canons, and a complement of just below thirty in 1482, 1491 and 1500.84 What would the `conventual minimum' have been judged satisfactory by Redman at a particular abbey? Colvin has suggested that `many houses barely maintained the conventual minimum of thirteen for long periods in their history', which includes the later Middle Ages.85 Though it is clear that 79 80 81

82

83

84

85

Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 103. Bodl. ASH, fols 11v, 18v; CAP II, 231, 233. William Brampton, for example, was ordered to be expelled from Easby in 1491: Bodl. ASH, fol. 92v; CAP II, 173. Plague at an abbey is only mentioned explicitly in the visitation register at Durford (1482) and Dale (1500): Bodl. ASH, fols 38, 147; CAP II, 371, 381. Langdon had the extraordinarily high ®gure of eighteen canons in 1488, after which the number of inmates returned to lower levels. See Table 2. Beauchief, Beeleigh, Blanchland, Egglestone, Hagnaby, Langley, Lavendon, Newbo, Titch®eld, and Tupholme. Knowles omitted Croxton from the largest Premonstratensian communities: Religious Orders III, p. 49. White Canons, p. 358.



55

about two-thirds of the Premonstratensian houses managed ± albeit a few by the slenderest of margins in certain years ± to remain above that ®gure, it is far from certain that thirteen inmates was regarded as the conventual minimum number which any religious visitor of the late Middle Ages, would have required in any monastery.86 In fact at Barlings in 1497, Redman commented that the abbot had attained the desired number of canons there; `qui conventum suum ad perfectum perduxit numerum'. There were twentytwo inmates recorded in the abbey's name list.87 At Dale (1500) the visitor was con®dent that the abbot could raise the number of his canons to the customary level which his monastery could sustain; `Consuetum vero numerum dictus abbas [quin] adimpleturus [adimplere in MS] [sit], secundum quod facultas ecclesie permiserit, non dubitamus' [my emphasis].88 Though Dale's complement may well have been below the `consuetum vero numerum', there were sixteen inmates there in 1497 and 1500, seventeen in 1494, ®fteen in 1482, 1488, 1491 and seventeen in 1475 and 1478. Seventeen canons and over may well have been the ideal complement. It is possible that Redman's notion of the ideal minimum number of canons within a house, largely depended on its economic resources, as the 1500 Dale report implies.89 Nevertheless the degree of annual net income that a house enjoyed did not necessarily accord exactly with members. Though some large Premonstratensian houses, such as Croxton, with an estimated net income of over £385 per annum at the time of the Dissolution, generally had larger communities (an average of twenty-®ve canons and above temp. Redman) and poorer houses such as Durford, with an estimated net income of over £98, usually had lower complements (below ten canons), Sulby, with an estimated net income of more than £258, had a slightly better, if not similar complement to Durford, and Blanchland, with an income of over £40, had a complement of between ten and ®fteen canons.90 Economic factors alone do not account for recruiting problems. In a few of the instances where Redman ordered an abbot to increase his abbey's complement, he speci®ed the number of recruits to be obtained and how this was to be accomplished.91 In 1491 the abbot of Wendling was told to increase his community by a minimum of eight and to send one of his canons to Sulby, because his disobedience and rebellious behaviour 86

87 88 89 90

91

Thirteen religious in a house mirrored Christ and the apostles, and was originally a twelfth-century Cistercian concept: Bishop Geoffrey Blythe's Visitations, pp. xxxv± xxxvi. Bodl. ASH, fol. 135; CAP II, 214. Bodl. ASH, fol. 147; CAP II, 371. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 20±1. Compare Tables 2 and 3, and note the caveats concerning net income indicated on p. 83, n. 238. Apart from Dale (1500), Redman asked for an increase in inmates at Bayham (1478, 1482, 1488, 1494, 1500), Blanchland (1478, 1486, 1488, 1491, 1497), Durford (1482, 1488, 1494, 1500), Langdon (1500), Langley (1482), Newhouse (1478), Sulby (1488, 1491) and Wendling (1478, 1491): Bodl. ASH and CAP II±III, passim.


56


dissuaded novices from making their vows.92 While this is the only explicit instance where a canon was removed for these reasons, one might wonder if the conduct of inmates in other abbeys had a similar affect upon their novices.93 In the same year, at Sulby, the abbot was ordered to obtain two or three boys at least, before Christmas Day, in order to increase numbers.94 If the pueros that Redman intended the abbot of Sulby to obtain were younger than eighteen, as this word implies, then he was actually contravening, or rather using his commissorial powers to override the order's legislation in the interest of increasing monastic complements. Novices could not be received before they reached eighteen. However canon law recognised the validity of monastic profession from at least the age of ®fteen.95 There is evidence that boys may have been educated in some abbeys, and of `juvenes': though the latter were likely to have been young religious, and there is no substantial proof that the English Premonstratensians generally had schools that acted as repositories of potential religious, as at many Benedictine houses.96 An abbey could also obtain slightly older recruits. A later, and rare reference to the clothing of three novices at Welbeck in 1529, notes that they were aged twenty-two èt dimedii', twenty and twenty-two respectively.97 It is clear from many of the locative surnames in the name lists that a large number of the recruits obtained by the Premonstratensian abbeys came from the locality or neighbouring counties, as was the case with the monasteries of other orders.98 However, the widespread use of `family' and non-locative surnames in the name lists, such as William Swane of Welbeck and John Brekbrede of Titch®eld, and dif®culties in identifying some locative surnames, are hindrances to ascertaining the geographical origins of all the abbeys' canons.99 92 93 94

95

96

97 98

99

Bodl. ASH, fol. 99v; CAP III, 655. Canons accused of indiscipline are discussed on pp. 68±72. Bodl. ASH, fol. 98; CAP III, 565. Redman prohibited canons living on a permanent basis at other abbeys without permission, and also discouraged certain people from joining the order; e.g. individuals who had too many members of their family in the same abbey, as this could lead to nepotism: Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 24, 30; Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, p. 837; Bodl. ASH, fols 37, 38, 65v, 77v, 123*, 124, 150v; BL PECK I, fols 128; CAP II, 276, 298, 381: III, 458, 461, 547, 550, 553. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 24; Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, p. 834; Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 10±12, 18, 233. Bodl. ASH, fol. 92v; CAP II, 173; E. J. Gardiner, `The English Nobility and Monastic Education, c.1100±1500', The Cloister and the World: Essays in Honour of Barbara Harvey, eds J. Blair and B. Golding (Oxford, 1996), p. 86; R. B. Dobson, Durham Priory 1400±1450 (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 60±1. Some boys at abbeys may have been servants: Harvey, Living and Dying, p. 153. Lincoln Cathedral Library, MS 222, fol. 189v. Religious Orders III, p. 70; G. Halsall, `Coverham Abbey: Its Context in the Landscape of Late Medieval North Yorkshire', The Archaeology of Rural Monasteries, eds R. Gilchrist and H. Mytum (Oxford, 1989), pp. 130±1. Bodl. ASH, fols 44v, 117; CAP III, 587, 635; P. McClure, `Patterns of Migration in the



57

We can conclude our discussion of the name lists by saying that the English Premonstratensian abbeys never rose above a complement of thirty, and that most houses had a complement of between ®fteen and twenty canons within their walls. The availability of recruits, as well as economic circumstances, must have played a signi®cant part in determining monastic complements. Serious ongoing problems with recruiting in those abbeys where Redman required the acquisition of more inmates, affected only a small proportion of the twenty-nine abbeys he visited, but large (and increasing) communities, such as Croxton and Alnwick, were exceptional, and very much a thing of the past: if, indeed, large communities of white canons of thirty and above, ever normally existed in England.100 However, the name lists of most of the Premonstratensian abbeys record that recruits were still being received, mainly over a period of six years, and sometimes in large groups, and it can be inferred from this that the emphasis was placed on keeping existing complements as buoyant as possible. Substantial signs of growth are not generally recordable, though the static ®gures estimated for the number of canons who lived from 1475 to 1500, would suggest that the Premonstratensians, as a body, maintained population levels within their abbeys, relatively speaking, and were not faced with continuous decline.101 In connection with ascertaining an abbey's complement, Redman made enquiries about canons who had left the monastic enclosure without permission. This leads us to examine his investigations into apostasy (apostasia a religione). Donald Logan's recent monograph on `runaway religious' in medieval England, has largely superseded all previous studies on apostasy, and includes an examination of Premonstratensian àpostates' encountered by Redman. Logan indicates that apostasy is a more complicated phenomenon than the stereotypical assumption that it generally involved religious who `climbed over the wall' of their monasteries, albeit metaphorically.102 Those who were classi®ed as apostates de jure, according to medieval canon law, were those who rejected `the religious life and return[ed] to the world', leaving their houses without permission, who either retained or discarded their habit ± the visible symbol of monastic life ± and had no intention of returning. Excommunication for apostasy was automatic by 1298.103 However this de®nition of apostasy was extended in practice, encompassing those who left their monasteries with no intention of abandoning them permanently for a variety of reasons, including pilgrimage 100

100 101

102

103

Late Middle Ages: The Evidence of English Place-Name Surnames', Economic History 32 (1979), 167±82; J. Greatrex, Register of the English Cathedral Priories of the Province of Canterbury c.1066±1540 (Oxford, 1997), p. xxiii. Knowles and Neville Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, p. 491. This allows for gaps in 1475 and 1478 in particular, mortality and other factors, including the large number of canons in 1491 (499): Table 2. Logan, Runaway Religious, passim. The following is mainly based on Logan's book, but I have ampli®ed or modi®ed his discussion on Premonstratensian apostasies. Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 25±8, 123, 149.


58


and seeking a university education. Logan has pointed out that this interpretation of apostasy entailed `the widening application of the term and, indeed, its, misapplication in practice'.104 Perhaps this misapplication achieved `fruition' in apostasia late dicta, which `must be distinguished from the misuse of the word [i.e. apostasy] or, at least, the use in a sense beyond the canonical sense'.105 This term designates those religious who were treated as apostates because they `brie¯y' left their monastery without their superior's permission ± though possibly mischievously ± and perhaps went into the local town or village, but returned the same day or night with no intention of relinquishing the religious state.106 It is quite clear from the Premonstratensian visitation records that Redman used both the canonical and preter-canonical de®nitions in categorising apostasy.107 Logan's `Register of Apostates' includes both categories in his Premonstratensian section, which gives an estimated total of ninety-one canons either convicted or accused of apostasy from 1273 to c.1509.108 This includes sixty-six (sixty-seven?) apostasies which are recorded during Redman's period as commissary-general (c.1458±1505).109 An examination of the visitation register by the present author has found that this ®gure can be slightly extended by ®ve more canons to seventy-one (seventy-two?) ± `Robert Lane, apostata', of St Radegund's (1475), Henry Beverley of Shap (1482), Richard Norton and Oliver Hudilstone of Barlings (1491), and John York of Newbo (1500), whom Logan mentioned in the text of his book, but not in his register. If we exclude Henry Beverley of Shap, seventy (seventy-one?) àpostasies' are noted in the abbeys that Redman visited.110 Between 1475 (name lists only extant) and 1500, there 104 105 106 107 108

109

110

Logan, Runaway Religious. Ibid., pp. 31±2. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 32±3; cf. Religious Orders III, p. 44, n.2. This ®gure does not include the number of times an individual may have been accused of àpostasy': Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 66±73, 184, 232±8. The date on which Thomas Todde of Easby became an apostate is uncertain (temp. 15th cent.): Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 233±8. Bodl. ASH, fols 4, 37, 94v, 154; CAP II, 210: III, 519, 544, 547. In addition note the following suggested emendations to Logan's register. Thomas Tattershall and the four Newhouse canons had their corrections postponed in 1478: `Qui omnes et singuli dicta crimina negaverunt et ad purgationes se obtulerunt. Et tunc . . . dictus venerabilis dominus visitator [i.e. Redman], sub spe emendacionis et melioris vite, suas correctiones continuavit': Bodl. ASH, fol. 12; CAP III, 521; Logan, Runaway Religious, p. 235. Thomas Bromsgrove was not reconciled to Halesowen at a visitation c.1480. He was sent by the abbot of Welbeck to the abbot of Halesowen with a letter, in which the former asked that Bromsgrove be allowed to return, as he was penitent. The abbot of Halesowen answered in the af®rmative: BL PECK II, fols 27±8; CAP II, 434, 435; Logan, Runaway Religious, p. 235. John Barton and John Presaw of Cockersand were excommunicated on 27 April 1488 (Gasquet said 28 April 1489): Bodl. ASH, fol. 65v; CAP II, 298; Bodl. MS Eng. Hist. D.227, p. 22; Logan, Runaway Religious, p. 236. Thomas Preston of Bayham is noted as an apostate in the 1500 name list, but was not excommunicated for apostasy in 1494. Thomas Studley (designated as



59

were ®fty-nine (sixty?) àpostates', while from 1478 to 1500 there were ®ftyfour (®fty-®ve?).111 How reliable are such ®gures? As Logan is at pains to point out, his estimations of àlleged apostasy' are a `historical minimum', obtained from existing historical sources which suffer from incompleteness. While he believes that new names may be added to those which he had gathered, at some future date, `their number should not be so considerable as to distort the general picture painted here'.112 It is apparent that in all the cases of alleged apostasies among the religious orders in the late ®fteenth century, a huge proportion of them were Premonstratensians. Out of 101 apostates from the last thirty years of that period, ®fty-four of them ± and twelve out of ®fteen apostates in the 1480s ± are white canons.113 These ®gures imply that the Premonstratensians were more prone to apostasy than other religious. However, while these ®gures probably give us as accurate a re¯ection as possible of instances of Premonstratensian àpostasies', the incompleteness of historical records for the other medieval orders have to be weighed against the survival of much documentation from Redman's register.114 Another factor accounting for the large number of Premonstratensian apostates is Redman's frequent classi®cation of apostasy according to the preter-canonical sense which probably gives an exaggerated picture of canonical apostasy among the canons.115 Redman's diligence in punishing apostasy, and his continuous use of the term when chastising canons who illicitly left the enclosure, is so notable that `Contemporary canonists would have recognised that Redman in his reforming zeal was using the term broadly'. Apostasy for Redman `meant leaving the monastery without

111 112 113 114 115

apostate in the 1494, 1497, 1500 name lists) was actually the canon who was excommunicated. Gasquet omits six words here (emphasised in bold); Ìbidem insuper comperimus Thomam Studley apostatum; quem pro sua apostasia . . . suspensum decernimus pariter et excommunicatum': Bodl. ASH, fols 117, 123*v, 139, 149v; CAP II, 257, 258, 259, 260; Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 33, 237. Roger Walsall of Halesowen was also noted as having been an apostate at the 1488 visitation, but had been suitably punished and had his status restored in the community: Bodl. ASH, fol. 67v; CAP II, 439; Logan, Runaway Religious, p. 238. The two canons Logan cites as apostate at Newhouse (Newsham) in 1503, are nowhere apparent in the visitation register, and are not mentioned in his `Register of Apostates': Logan, Runaway Religious, p. 136. For Richard Wolfet of Beauchief, read Robert: Bodl. ASH, fols 116, 122v; CAP II, 243, 244; Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 33, 237, 298. Two canons of Newbo who are designated as èxtra claustrum', John Swerd and Symon de Ferrimane (unclassi®ed as such by Gasquet) in 1497 may well have been apostates, for they are not apparent in 1500. However this suggestion is too speculative, as they could have been legally outside, or did not appear for the visitation, or had died; Bodl. ASH, fols 136, 153v±54; CAP III, 518, 519. Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 233±8. Ibid., p. 68. Ibid., pp. 70, 71±2. This excludes my additions and emendations. Ibid., pp. 68, 70, 71±2, 136. Ibid., pp. 32±3, 72.


60


permission, pure and simple'.116 He was undoubtedly interpreting (with some severity) the statutes' stipulation on punishing those who left the enclosure. In fact the provincial chapter of 1487, under Redman's presidency, decreed that all who wandered outside the monastery or who were suspected of apostasy, were to be imprisoned.117 At Torre in 1491, he prohibited the canons from leaving the monastic enclosure without permission, `sub pena apostasie'; and at Easby, in 1497, he had found that John Thornton had gone outside the enclosure without permission, but would not be treated as an apostate; `quia hoc ad sue declaracionis causam iter nobis tanquam Ordinis superiori arripuerat, ideo non ut apostatam reputavimus'.118 Logan appears to infer from Redman's visitations that he punished more for preter-canonical apostasy than canonical, in widening the de®nition of apostasy.119 Instances can certainly be isolated in the visitation register where there is clearly a case of canonical apostasy, such as Thomas Ulceby of Newhouse ± an apostate for the third time ± and Marjory Buke, a nun of Irford, both pronounced as excommunicate in 1491, and instances of the preter-canonical variety, including Thomas Marsch of Leiston, who was accused of apostasy for leaving the enclosure (1500).120 However, though Logan is undoubtedly correct in what he says about Redman's wide extension of apostasy, he also admits that it is extremely dif®cult, if not impossible, to quantify the exact number of both types of apostasy in the visitation records, given Redman's interpretation of the offence. John Sandours of Halesowen (1478), for instance, was accused of fornication and apostasy. He could not clear himself of the charge of fornication, but confessed to that of apostasy. Was he de jure apostate or guilty of apostasia late dicta?121 It is possible that what even àppears' to be canonically apostate to the historian was in fact not. It is noteworthy that at least two of the canons whom Redman treated as apostates had acquired papal dispensations to obtain a bene®ce, possibly before they left their monastery. They were not technically apostate by any de®nition, as they could legally live outside their abbey. The visitor was probably unaware of these dispensations.122 While it 116 117

118 119 120

121 122

Logan, Runaway Religious. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 68; Bodl. ASH, fol. 64; CAP I, 87. For Premonstratensian legislation against apostates: Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 76±9, 97±8. Bodl. ASH, fols 91, 132; CAP II, 179: III, 601. Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 32±3. Bodl. ASH, fols 94, 151±51v; CAP III, 507, 535. Though apostasy incurred automatic excommunication from 1298, the Premonstratensian Statutes (1290) required that these be recorded, and, presumably, formally pronounced: Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 117. Bodl. ASH, fol. 10v; CAP II, 432. They were William Everard of Newbo (1481) and John Newynton of St Radegund's (described as a `seminator discordie' in 1488): CPR XIII (2), pp. 752, 776: XV, p. 131; Bodl. ASH, fols 31, 76; CAP III, 512, 550; Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 54±63. I found at least thirty-two English white canons who were granted these dispensations from the papacy between 1465 and 1505, including two canons from Shap. Out of these canons twenty-three obtained them in the period 1478±1500. A comparison



61

should be kept in mind that the precise nature of apostasy among the white canons is doubtful in many instances, it is clear from the number of recorded cases ± ®fty-four (®fty-®ve?) àpostates' out of a conservative total of 816 Premonstratensians living between 1478 and 1500 ± that apostasy `constituted a perennial but not dominant characteristic' among the white canons.123 Apostasy was generally committed by individual canons, usually one or two in a given instance. Spectacular instances of `mass apostasy', such as those at Beauchief in 1462, involving eight inmates, including the abbot, John Downham, were due to great internal unrest at that abbey, and the ®ve canons accused of àpostasy' at Newhouse in 1478, are very much isolated cases.124 Be this as it may, it is well known that wandering ùnhindered' outside the enclosure sine licentia, was very common among England's religious, and the white canons were no exception to this, even if the sanction of apostasy was not threatened or invoked.125 However we should remember that of®cials, vicars and other canons, naturally had a degree of latitude in leaving their abbeys. The visitation records imply that a degree of èxternal' recreation was permissible ± during which time some of the misdemeanours committed outside the enclosure were carried out ± and injunctions on what the canons were to wear when outside the enclosure implies legitimate excursions.126 However it is unlikely that Redman, given his zeal for maintaining the enclosure, would have tolerated external `holidays', as was apparent among the Benedictines.127 As far as the visitation records relate anything about the objective motives of canons who made excursions outside their abbey, infrequently or otherwise, there were those who sought the taverns, and some, perhaps, the ¯eshpots of the world. However the vast majority of them did so for less sinister, but still inexcusable, motives for religious, who may have enjoyed the thrill of hunting in the forest, ®shing in the monastic ®shponds, or merely wished a change of scenery, or desired to indulge in a degree of socialising with lay people outside. Notable or endemic lapses of this kind were encountered by Redman at several abbeys, particularly Bayham, Egglestone, Langley, Newhouse, Sulby, Tupholme and Welbeck.128 The

123

124 125 126

127 128

with the visitation records indicates that fourteen of them left their monasteries permanently, either before or after securing papal dispensations. This does not include abbots who obtained bene®ces or canons who were permitted to serve bene®ces which pertained to the order: CPR XII±XVIII, passim; Bodl. ASH and CAP, passim. See Logan's comments on the frequency of apostasy among the religious orders generally, which I have borne in mind here: Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 72±3. Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 234, 235. Bishop Geoffrey Blythe's Visitations, p. xlviii. Bodl. ASH, fol. 13*; CAP III, 663; La ReÁgle de Saint Augustin, ed. L. Verheijen (Paris, 1967), p. 432; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 15, 28±30. C. Platt, The Abbeys and Priories of Medieval England (London, 1984), p. 143. Bodl. ASH and CAP II±III, passim. While St Radegund's ± a house with frequent disorder ± may have had few problems with apostates and absentees, the abbot was


62


Plate 5. The fourteenth-century gatehouse of Torre Abbey, Devon canons of Egglestone appear to have been the worst offenders. In 1482 Redman forbade the canons under pain of major excommunication from meeting women who were `suspected' of fornication or theft (`furto') in the cloister or anywhere else. They were not to speak or associate with them in the town of Barnard Castle. Thomas Spenser ¯ed before the 1491 visitation, and Redman ordered his abbot that he was to appear at Coverham for judgment. The same individual, in 1494, was found to have been an apostate because he remained outside his abbey for a whole year, after a licence, which Redman had granted to him, expired. In 1497 Redman prohibited the canons from visiting Barnard Castle or Greta Bridge, and three canons were implicated in a murder outside the monastery. Even after further prohibitions in 1500, the problem of leaving the enclosure was still prevalent. In 1502 the abbots of Easby and Welbeck, visiting Egglestone on Redman's behalf, forbade anyone leaving the monastic boundaries without special permission from the abbot, under pain of apostasy, and only if it was absolutely necessary. Here Redman's representatives applied his own interpretation of what constituted apostasy.129 At the other houses, leaving

129

accused of many grave charges in 1500, including `quod singulis festis et dominicis diebus tabernam [MS has usualiter] frequentat, ibidem turpiter et abhominabiliter scurilia et vilia et verba luxuriosa colloquendo, singulos audientes tedio maximo af®ciens': Bodl. ASH, fol. 150; CAP III, 556. Bodl. ASH, fols 25v, 92v, 121v, 129, 144±44v, 156v; CAP II, 401, 404, 406, 408, 410, 411.



63

the enclosure and indulging in external activities, for purposes speci®ed or not, was noted less frequently, or was referred to at a single visitation. Hagnaby had no reports at all of any canons wandering illicitly outside the monastery.130 It is notable that many of the instances where canons went outside the enclosure, but returned, were connected with fraternising and eating and drinking with the laity, which also occurred within the monastic enclosure. At Welbeck in 1500, for instance, the canons were prohibited from entering secular houses, or to presume to eat and drink there without special permission, and earlier at Torre, in 1478, Redman forbade seculars from eating and drinking in the refectory and the in®rmary.131 While laypatrons and benefactors maintained a special relationship with their abbeys, socialising with the laity and currying their favour, were greatly discouraged by Redman, and he explicitly prohibited this on several occasions.132 At Cockersand, in 1488, `pro majori tranquillitate et securitate', he ordered, under pain of major excommunication, that no one ought to divulge the internal business of the order to magnates (magnatibus dominis) or any other secular persons, or to secure any of®ces from them or dignities, inside or outside the monastery.133 In 1482 he forbade the canons of Coverham from aiming for or acquiring of®ces and bene®ces from seculars, and made a similar order at the abbey again, in 1491.134 It is likely that such contacts were regarded as an interference in an abbey's dayto-day affairs. Eating outside the refectory or in®rmary, without permission, and discussing the order's internal matters with seculars, were forbidden by the statutes.135 Discontent with bene®ces and of®ces allotted by the abbot may have been one of the reasons why some canons sought èxtraordinarium favorem'.136 Some of these activities, on the other hand, may not have been entirely sel®sh pursuits, or detrimental to the government of the Premonstratensian abbeys, despite Redman's understandable prohibitions. Friendly relations and socialising with one's tenants, local gentry and patrons, outside or inside the monastery, would have been a practical necessity at certain times, and is perhaps indicative of the `necessary evil' of rubbing shoulders with the laity, which was commonplace in monasteries.137 Redman, as an abbot, was not naive enough to suppose that business transactions and even the acquisition of privileges, would not be undertaken by his canons, and his reprimands at Cockersand in 1488 were tempered with the proviso `nisi quos abbas ad 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137

Bodl. ASH and CAP II±III, passim. Bodl. ASH, fols 14v±15, 156; CAP III, 594, 643. White Canons, pp. 291±306. Bodl. ASH, fol. 65v; CAP II, 298. Bodl. ASH, fols 26v, 93; CAP II, 314, 322. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 30, 126. Bodl. ASH, fol. 93; CAP II, 322. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 146ff.


64


hujusmodi sua discrecione dignos recognoverit esse'.138 In a register from Titch®eld, dated c.1400±1405, a scribe recorded the number of individuals who could be seated at each table in the refectory, in®rmary hall and a room described as the `vault': eighty men in the refectory, sixty-two in the hall, and forty-seven in the `vault'. The earlier kitchen accounts from Leiston (1417), have a separate account which dealt speci®cally for the provision of guests, which itemised 16 steriles bestie, 18 young deer (vituli), 3 pigs, 2 piglets, 4 sheep, 10 geese, 12 goslings (ancerulis), 58 pulcrini (poultry, including chickens), as well as quantities of doves, herring (and other ®sh) and eggs.139 Certainly not every abbey would have had the capacity to extend the customary monastic hospitality to numerous guests or to host special, though rare, functions. It is likely that some of Redman's prohibitions against the laity consuming food and drink in certain parts of the monastery were related to lay servants and/or corrodians living within the house, and possibly the recipients of alms. While Cockersand was characteristic of Premonstratensian houses in not being very wealthy, there were twenty-two canons and thirty-seven servants, including farm labourers and other staff, recorded there by the Henrician commissioners in 1536. There was at least one corrodian living within the house, John Trenchemore, and a married couple who were provided with housing and foodstuffs by the abbot in 1528. The abbey gave `bedde & borde' to ®fteen poor men.140 At the dissolution of Durford in 1536 ± which Richard Layton rather ignominiously called `Dirtford ` the previous year, because of its low income ± there were nine canons and twenty-four servants, of whom eight were male domestic servants, four were women servants and twelve were agricultural labourers.141 Though these examples indicate that both large and small Premonstratensian abbeys possessed signi®cant numbers of servants ± which was a sign of a household's status as well as a practical necessity in certain instances ± they did not have the vast resources which were required to accommodate huge numbers, especially as servants could be a ®nancial burden and were often super¯uous to requirement.142 We do not know how many corrodians there 138 139

140

141 142

Bodl. ASH, fol. 65v; CAP II, 298. BL Add. MS 70507, fols 87±87v; White Canons, pp. 309±12. The exact location of these 1417 Leiston kitchen accounts is presently unknown. They may belong to the Vanneck Collection in the Cambridge University Library, but an examination of these did not bring them to light. They could be the missing Leiston `cook's account' (undated) from the Suffolk Record Of®ce. I am grateful to Dr Mark Bailey for providing me with a transcription. The uncatalogued Vanneck collection has a Leiston kitchen account (1320): Camb. UL, Vanneck Collection; Suffolk Record Of®ce, H.D.371.6. The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey, 3 vols, ed. W. Farrer, Chetham Society, third series, 38±40, 43, 56±7, 64 (new series), (1898±1909): III, pt 3, pp. 1155±8; White Canons, pp. 306±9. Yates, Durford Abbey, pp. 4, 6±7; CPL IX, p. 145. Religious Orders III, pp. 260±4; Woolgar, The Great Household, pp. 16±17. In 1482 at Newbo, one of the visitor's remedies for the abbey's debt was that all secular servants



65

were in Premonstratensian abbeys, and it has been recently suggested that they were fewer in number in monastic houses than hitherto supposed.143 Nevertheless the above references of contact between the laity and the white canons ± apart from the parochial ministry of the latter ± indicate that the English Premonstratensians were not removed from external contacts despite the isolated locations of most of their abbeys. In spite of Redman's insistence on the strict adherence to the monastic enclosure, the ¯exibility with which the notion of enclosure was interpreted in the Middle Ages was a long standing reality.144 One particular form of intimate lay contact by clergy was probably regarded by medieval society and the Church as the most scandalous of all. These were acts of fornication, generally termed in the visitation register as incontinentia.145 Allegations of sexual misconduct among the white canons and other religious has, as Knowles calmly indicated, `been debated, not without warmth, by the apologists of the medieval religious and by their adversaries'.146 He may well have been referring to the divergent opinions of Gasquet and Coulton on this subject.147 It is worth re-examining the evidence for fornication among the Premonstratensians, because Knowles con¯ated the issue with other misdemeanours committed by the canons. Although we shall examine the matter later, he was far more interested in how Redman actually chastised offenders for serious faults generally, rather than studying fornication as a single phenomenon, and gave no ®gures as to how many were actually accused of it.148 Let us concentrate ®rst of all on the period 1475±1500 as Knowles and Coulton did. The present study found over ®fty accusations of fornication made against individual canons.149 It is dif®cult to give a more exact ®gure, for at Langley in 1500 and Tupholme in 1494, no speci®c numbers were given of those canons who were accused as, or proven to be, fornicators. Though we must therefore prudently allow a slightly higher ®gure than òver ®fty' accusations, losses of visitation material have not been too detrimental for the period 1478±1500, which would seem to be a better, and perhaps fairer time-scale to work within. Only one visitation report from 1475 survives: a visitation conducted by the abbot of Welbeck at Beauchief. There were no recorded sexual misdemeanours during this visitation, and

143 144

145

146 147 148 149

were to be removed from the monastery, unless they were deemed essential: Bodl. ASH, fol. 31; CAP III, 512. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 179±209. Ibid., pp. 80±1. The in¯uence of secular liturgies and devotional practices on the white canons is discussed in the next chapter. P. Marshall, The Catholic Priesthood and the English Reformation (Oxford, 1994), pp. 142±5, 148, 153, 159±63; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 80. Religious Orders III, pp. 44±5. Coulton, Ten Medieval Studies, pp. 262±4. Religious Orders III, pp. 44±7. Bodl. ASH and CAP, passim. Coulton estimated that at least `forty-eight . . . were seriously accused of incontinence' from 1475 to 1500: Coulton, Ten Medieval Studies, pp. 262±44. See Appendix Four.


66


our ®gure of ®fty accusations is lowered to forty-nine when excluding a conviction under the abbot of Wendling in 1477.150 Of the `forty-nine' identi®able accusations of fornication between 1478 and 1500, twenty-seven led to conviction, thirteen were dismissed, in ®ve instances, possibly six, judgment was postponed until a later date, and in two cases it was left to the abbot to investigate, or confer penalties on the convicted. The ®nal outcome of these instances is unknown, and in the case of a canon of Dale (1494), the sentence which the abbot had imposed upon him, because of his fornication, was increased by Redman.151 One should note that the following canons were accused of fornication twice: Robert Bredon of Sulby (1491 and 1494), John Hulle of Lavendon (1491 and 1494) and Thomas Ulceby of Newhouse (1478 and 1482). Thomas Pulton of Cockersand was convicted for two cases of fornication in 1494.152 Furthermore, it is important to point out that individual accusations of fornication do not necessarily imply that these religious were alleged to have committed only one sexual indiscretion. There are many instances where canons were accused of fornicating more than once at a single visitation, and thus the offence's gravity was compounded. For example at Torre in 1491, Thomas Umfray was accused `multipliciter diffamatum cum quadam muliere, vocata Johanna Guby'. In 1482 William Kyrlew of Lavendon, `pro incontinencia graviter diffamatum [comperimus] cum quadam muliere vocata Elisabeth Trodell [CAP reads `Tidwell']'.153 There were also a handful of cases where a canon was said to have committed the offence with more than one woman, and, in several instances, children were born as a result.154 What methods did Redman use to discern if a canon was innocent or guilty of fornication, and how reliable were they? After an accusation was made, the visitor brought the matter to the community's attention. The accused was found guilty if he confessed, or, upon denying the accusation, if he could not obtain the oaths of several canons who would attest to his innocence. This was canonical compurgation, and as in the ecclesiastical courts, the judge, in this case Redman, determined how many persons were required to testify to a canon's innocence.155 At Easby in 1488, John Nym was found, `per publicam infamiam' to be suspected of fornication, of which 150 151 152

153 154

155

BL PECK I, fol. 116; II, fol. 84; Bodl. ASH, fol. 13; CAP II, 229; III, 647. Bodl. ASH, fol. 123; CAP II, 368. Bodl. ASH, fols 12, 29, 97, 98±99, 121, 126±26v; CAP II, 304: III, 489, 491, 521, 532, 565, 567. Bodl. ASH, fols 33, 91; CAP III, 485, 601. Bodl. ASH, fols 121, 125; CAP II, 304: III, 657; vide p. 88 below. A canon accused at Halesowen (1497) of counselling a woman to have an abortion ± the only recorded instance of this in the visitation records ± may well have been covering up for sexual misdemeanours, though fornication was not implied: Bodl. ASH, fol. 133v; CAP II, 445. Knowles inaccurately states that ®ve canons were required for this process: Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 75±6; R. N. Swanson, Church and Society in Late Medieval England (Oxford, 1989), pp. 176±8; Religious Orders III, p. 45.



67

he was `multipliciter diffamatum', with Elizabeth Wales. He apparently denied the accusation, and was cleared by ®ve canons.156 Richard Norton of Barlings was accused in 1491 of going out at night and `de lapsu carnis cum quadam ibidem muliere'. Having already been suf®ciently punished by the abbot for his àpostasia', he was then convicted of fornication, after he was unable to be cleared by seven canons.157 At Lavendon in 1494, Henry Lagh cleared himself `cum duobus [!] suis confratribus'.158 A canon of Coverham was legally cleared of fornication in 1478, when he satis®ed the abbot of his innocence, and another was convicted on his own admission, and shown a degree of mercy when he swore not to meet the woman again, and after his abbot and confreÁres had interceded on his behalf.159 More often than not the records do not indicate how many canons were required to clear the accused.160 The medieval system of compurgation was certainly a crude judicial procedure, but it would be wrong to expect Redman to use a process which was other than conventional.161 Knowles comments that, `the visitor had in practice no alternative but to declare [the accused] . . . innocent' if he had been cleared by compurgation, `however great might be his private misgivings'.162 Whether or not one takes the view that forensic guilt was established when a canon was convicted of fornication, there is always the possibility that the innocent could be convicted, as well as the guilty being acquitted.163 The number of canons whom the visitor decided was necessary to clear someone of fornication, and that person's `popularity' within a house, could well have determined if the required number of compurgators was reached.164 It should be noted that the merest suspicion of fornication in medieval society could lead to an accusation, and that women were often treated with a degree of distrust, rightly or wrongly. The avoidance of any hint of suspicion at an abbey, which would tarnish that community's reputation unnecessarily, and any possibility of temptation, prompted Redman to require the removal of women from an abbey in several instances. A newly elected abbot at Barlings, in 1482, was ordered not to have many women within the monastic enclosure, and that if any should come they 156 157 158 159 160 161

162 163 164

Bodl. ASH, fol. 80v; CAP II, 171. Bodl. ASH, fol. 94v; CAP II, 210. Bodl. ASH, fols 125v±26; CAP III, 491. Bodl. ASH, fol. 15v; CAP II, 312. Bodl. ASH, fol. 100v; CAP II, 255. Note that he made or intended to hold enquiries when abbots were accused of fornication ± as at Langley in 1482 (John Myntlynge) and 1494 (Walter Alpe), which was required by the statutes: Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 105±7; Bodl. ASH, fols 34v, 124v; CAP III, 469, 475. Religious Orders III, p. 45. Ibid., p. 44, n.3. However one should not completely dismiss compurgation, despite its pitfalls: Swanson, Church and Society, pp. 176±8.


68


were to be removed, unless they were above suspicion. No canons were accused of fornication at this visitation.165 In the same year at Coverham, after praising the abbot's rule and his canons' ®delity to him, Redman forbade anyone from speaking or associating with women within the enclosure, unless there was evident necessity, under penalty of a day's fast on bread and water for transgressors.166 Such safeguards need not be regarded as necessarily indicative of sexual misconduct, unless there is evidence to suggest the opposite, such as at Cockersand, during the extraordinary visitation of 1488, when Redman issued a strong prohibition on women being allowed into the in®rmary, refectory or the `jordayne chamber'. Two canons were found guilty of fornication during the visit.167 Some of the women who were regarded as suspicious or implicated in sexual accusations may well have been woman servants, for these, especially washer-women, were fairly common in monasteries.168 However this fact in itself and references in the visitation reports to women àbove suspicion', indicate that females were not completely banned, and though frequently distrusted in religious houses and parishes, suspicion of them was not absolute.169 Similarly, one should not suppose that prohibitions against boys sleeping in the dormitory at Egglestone in 1502, or seculars at Durford in 1494, are indicative of sodomy, which was nowhere explicitly mentioned during the visitations. At best, such imputations are extremely vague.170 While bearing in mind a reasonable element of doubt concerning the veracity of some of the convictions and acquittals during Redman's visitations, it is signi®cant that only forty-®ve canons at least ± allowing for four canons convicted on two occasions and unspeci®ed numbers in two instances ± were accused, out of an approximate total of 816 white canons in England between 1478 and 1500, about ®ve per cent of them. At nine abbeys, namely Beeleigh, Croxton, Durford, Egglestone, Hagnaby, Leiston, Newbo, Titch®eld and West Dereham, no accusations of fornication were noted by the visitor. Whether or not this fact, and the relative infrequency of fornication in most of the abbeys, would be indicative of a `silent witness to chastity', is certainly à moot point'.171 But, given the gravity of sexual offences and the scandal which could arise from these, `[they] would be the least likely to be amenable to a conspiracy of silence'.172 We must now consider instances of open rebellion and disobedience 165 166 167 168 169 170 171

172

Bodl. ASH, fol. 29v; CAP II, 206. Bodl. ASH, fol. 26v; CAP II, 314. Bodl. ASH, fol. 84; CAP II, 299. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 167±8; Bodl. ASH, fols 130, 145; CAP II, 288, 290. S. H. Rigby, English Society in the Later Middle Ages (Basingstoke, 1995), pp. 246±83. Bodl. ASH, fols 123, 156v: CAP II, 385, 411. Bishop Geoffrey Blythe's Visitations, p. liii. Out of these nine abbeys, Egglestone was the only house which received a strong prohibition against the canons meeting `suspected' women (1482): Bodl. ASH, fol. 25v; CAP II, 401. Ibid.; J. A. F. Thomson, The Early Tudor Church and Society, 1485±1529 (London and New York, 1993), p. 199.



69

towards the abbot, the latter's supervision of an abbey generally, and serious, disreputable behaviour within the Premonstratensian abbeys. It is well known that late medieval abbots tended to lead lives of greater segregation from their communities, inhabiting separate apartments in the monastic complex, with their own servants, as be®tted their abbatial dignity.173 If the generous annuities and privileges which former abbots were granted upon resigning their of®ce are indicative of how reigning Premonstratensian abbots lived, then they shared many of the comfortable features of their Benedictine and Cistercian counterparts, though perhaps in not so great an abundance. Among the annuities and other grants which were given to Abbot John Stanley of Dale (¯. 1472±91), upon his resignation, were: cash sums from some of the abbey's granges, tenements and lands; the continued use of rooms and a mansion that he occupied on the abbey's estate at Chaddesden, three miles equidistant from Dale Abbey and Derby; freedom to come and go as he wished; wood; suf®cient quantities of good bread (òptima pasta'), meat and ®sh; eight gallons of drink each week; servants and silver utensils.174 Abbots John Brom®eld of Coverham (¯.1470±88) and William Foreman of Barlings (¯.1503±05) were granted an annual pension of 20 marks (£13 6s 8d) and £10 13s 4d respectively by their successors, the use of a room adjacent to the cloister, the same meal as the new abbot when dining at his table, or, if they ate in their own rooms, a double portion of the canons' food. They were also allowed to use horses from the abbot's stable, and any servant and boy that they wished, no doubt to attend to their needs.175 An abbot's personal life could bode ill as far as his abbey's conventual observances were concerned, because the absence of effective leadership caused many monasteries internal problems, and a degree of disorder. He would also have been kept away from his house if he was heavily involved in external affairs. This was undoubtedly one of the reasons for indiscipline, mediocrity and laxity of various kinds in the Premonstratensian monasteries, instances of extremely bad government and periods of ill-will between abbots and their communities.176 The implementation of the entire visitor's report would naturally have concerned the abbot, and most of the visitation injunctions were explicit commands that were addressed to him. However, while an abbot had ultimate responsibility over regular life within his abbey, authority was also delegated. One can ®nd admonitions which Redman directed to those of®ce-holders who were 173

174

175

176

J. P. Greene, Medieval Monasteries (Leicester, 1992), pp. 19, 88, 108. Surviving abbatial dwellings may be seen at Torre, Easby, and Blanchland; A. HamiltonThompson, Easby Abbey (London, 1948), pp. 16±18; Seymour, Torre Abbey, pp. 20±1; G. W. O. Addleshaw, Blanchland: A Short History (Petergate, 1951), p. 17, Figs 4, 5. Bodl. ASH, fols 101v±102; CAP I, 65. Monastic prelates frequently occupied manor houses close to their monasteries: Woolgar, The Great Household, p. 47. Bodl. ASH, fol. 83; CAP I, 69. For an inventory made at Halesowen Abbey after the death of Abbot Thomas Bruge (1505), see BL PECK II, fols 32±32v; CAP II, 448. See p. 88.


70


more closely involved in the day-to-day running of an abbey, mainly the prior and subprior, who may have been negligent in the performance of their duties or indifferent towards their brethren's behaviour. In 1491, the subprior of Welbeck was said to be negligent in correcting the faults of his brothers, and was strictly commanded to amend faults daily and to impose a suitable penalty. The prior of Egglestone was ordered in 1478, under pain of contempt, to ensure that the divine of®ce and regular observances were performed day and night, and that those who failed to rise for Matins, or did not keep silence in speci®c places, were to be punished with one day's bread and water without remission. In 1488 the prior of Halesowen's problem was one of levity, for he was ordered to give any necessary commands more sternly, for his actions were an occasion for amusement among the canons, `quia nimia [nimis in MS] familiaritas parit odium'.177 Despite a measure of separation that Premonstratensian abbots had from their communities and instances where their of®cials were negligent, it is clear from Redman's visitations that if indiscipline of a serious or mediocre kind was prevalent in some abbeys because of a degree of ineffective leadership on the prelate's part, there were also instances where it was recorded that relations between `caput et membris' were satisfactory or very good, implying that the abbot was very much involved in the life of his community.178 Though most abbeys were not generally riddled with internal dissension, there were instances of insubordination and rebellion, mainly on the part of individuals, who were also disagreeable to their fellow canons. Bad tempers, especially in relatively small communities, could ¯are up. In the visitation register can be found canons like Robert Almouth of Alnwick (1488), described as a `seminator discordie' who slighted his abbot's character; Richard Blakwall of Dale (1488) who was convicted of disobedience and manifest rebellion against the abbot and prior, among other things; and John Forluf of Tupholme (1497) who scandalised the abbot and community, was insubordinate towards his abbot and spoke to him insolently.179 It is no small wonder that St Bernard of Clairvaux remarked that `vita communis poenitentia maxima'.180 177

178

179

180

Bodl. ASH, fols 16, 67v, 94; CAP II, 398, 439: III, 638. For of®cials with previous convictions for criminalia: Religious Orders III, pp. 43, 46. Bodl. ASH, fols 27, 93; CAP II, 322, 360. Abbot Robert Bampton of Easby (1511±36) may have been a disciplinarian, for he had the following carved in Latin, above the canopies of the choir-stalls which he erected; `There are ten kinds of mischief in the cloister ± extravagant living, exquisite food, gossip in church, quarrelling among the clergy, disorderliness in the choir, idle students, disobedience in the young, complacency in the old, obstinacy among the religious and worldliness among ministers'. Most of these faults are apparent in Redman's register. Bodl. ASH, fols 68, 81, 135v; CAP II, 192, 363: III, 618. For the rare instances of accusations of canons committing physical violence inside and outside the enclosure: Bodl. ASH, fols 35v, 78, 99, 128v, 129; CAP II, 254, 264, 307, 408: III, 670; Thomson, The Early Tudor Church and Society, p. 193. M. B. Pennington, Monastery: Prayer, Work, Community (San Francisco, 1983), p. 69.



71

Among the few instances where several canons were accused together of rebellious behaviour between 1478 and 1500, was a major insurrection against the authority of the abbot of Halesowen, referred to in the 1497 visitation. Roger Walsalle, a canon of the abbey, accused of apostasy, disobedience, and counselling a woman to have an abortion, instigated a rebellion among most of the abbey's youngest brethren against the abbot, and many of the other canons were said to have taken part. Richard Hamptone, Roger Wodesbury and Thomas Dudley were implicated, as well as Richard Bakyne, the subprior, who was also accused of visiting women in suspected places. Walsalle could not clear himself of the charges and was convicted with the subprior. The other three did not deny their guilt, and, with tears, implored Redman to be merciful. Although they were sentenced, their penalties were postponed in the hope of amendment, when their own abbot and community, with the abbot of Talley, present at the visitation, interceded for them.181 On the other hand serious charges were levelled against abbots by their canons on several occasions and disagreements that occurred between abbot and community are perhaps indicative of deep-seated dissatisfaction with the abbot on the community's part. For example grave allegations were made against two abbots of Langley. Abbot John Myntlynge (¯. 1482±ante-1488) was found guilty of much fornication and dilapidation of his abbey after Redman made enquiries within the community. Two canons were assigned with Langley's administration.182 There were widespread accusations of fornication and mismanagement against Abbot Walter Alpe in 1494, perhaps emanating from some of the canons. Yet, when Redman enquired into the veracity of these accusations he found that the charges were unsubstantiated. However, the same abbot, and unspeci®ed members of his community, were accused of committing fornication in 1500, and the visitor then appears to have believed in the veracity of these particular allegations.183 It is noticeable that some of the reports of internal discord within an abbey emanating from outside, may well have been ®ctitious. The allegation of a serious rift between `caput et membris' at Titch®eld ± a house where overall observance was reasonably satisfactory ± is perhaps a case in point. In 1491 Redman stated that it had come to his attention that there was a `controversia' between the abbot and community. However, upon investigation, he could ®nd no trace of it, `sicuti ex sinistra informacione perprius nobis fuisset intimatum'. Within the community, the visitor urged true peace, perfect unity and ®lial obedience, commending to them Christ's precept, ùt diligamus invicem'.184 He stipulated, under pain of maximum 181 182 183

184

Bodl. ASH, fol. 133v; CAP II, 445. Bodl. ASH, fols 34±5; CAP III, 469. Bodl. ASH, fols 124v, 151v±52; CAP III, 475, 478: and see the visitations of St Radegund's (1497, 1500), and Welbeck (1482): Bodl. ASH, fols 27v, 138v±39, 149v± 50; PECK II, fols 79±79v; CAP III, 555, 556, 634. `Mandatum novum do vobis, ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos': Jn., 13:34.


72


contempt, that no one was to speak of whatever happened before his arrival at the abbey, and gave the community absolution.185 Though Redman could not verify these allegations and erred on the side of caution, as his commands imply, he found no evidence of internal discord in the abbey's visitations in 1494, 1497 and 1500.186 More common occurrences among the Premonstratensians than apostasy, fornication and subordination were deviations (in varying degrees) in the regular observances. Though such infringements may be indicative of pedestrianism and mediocrity generally, rather than utter depravity, they militated against the high ideals of the monastic life which were formulated in earlier ages of great religious fervour. Two of the most notable divergences were in the matter of maintaining silence and in the observance of the order's clothing regulations. Silence, the `clavis religionis', a phrase employed by Redman and other Premonstratensian visitors, was regarded as an essential feature of religious life, as it was intended to foster an atmosphere of prayer and spirituality within a house and to prevent idle chatter and sinful words.187 As with other deviations, breaking the silence, while not necessarily immoral, could be more or less serious. The propensity for loquaciousness is common to most men, and it is evident, and somewhat paradoxical, that in some houses which otherwise had a reasonably good, if not excellent standard of observance, maintaining the silence was a subject that occurred frequently during Redman's visitations. At Hagnaby for instance, among the `minoribus observanciis' requiring correction in 1478, Redman observed that silence ought to be maintained ìn locis ad hoc deputatis, puniantur delinquentes pena statuti, sine aliqua remissione'. In 1488 he commented that there was little worthy of correction, but that silence in the four speci®c places was to be better maintained. In 1497 the problem was more serious; `Non modicam [sic] ibidem silencii invenimus deformitatem, quam quidem secundum statuti penam, reformari precipimus'.188 In some instances, it is entirely possible that the same zeal which Redman displayed in terming illicit wanderings outside the enclosure as àpostasy' was evident here, by being most insistent on silence being observed according to the letter of the statutes. At Titch®eld, in 1500 ± where injunctions on silence had been given in 1478, 1482 and 1497 ± he did not excuse vicars or those who conducted pastoral ministry outside the monastery from talking inside the house; though they would have been used 185

186 187

188

Bodl. ASH, fol. 91v; CAP III, 584. The name list for this year contains the following comment; Ìn quibus, propter continuam aquarum inundanciam, evideat [corrected by Gasquet to àpparet'] Christianorum interitus': Bodl. ASH, fol. 112; CAP III, 585. Bodl. ASH, fols 123v±123*, 139v, 148v±149; CAP III, 586, 588, 589. Bodl. ASH, fol. 11v; CAP II, 231; E. Valvekens, `Le Chapitre GeÂneÂral de PreÂmontreÂ et les Nouveaux Statuts de 1505', AP 14 (1938), 90; A. G. Wathen, Silence: the Meaning of Silence in the Rule of St Benedict, Cistercian Studies Series 22 (Washington D.C. 1973), pp. 136±41. Bodl. ASH, fols 13, 70v, 135, 154v; CAP II, 415, 419, 425, 426.



73

to a degree of conversation in their pastoral ministry.189 In other cases the offence was more serious. In 1491 Redman had to deal with a canon of Welbeck who was particularly talkative, and preferred the company of females, `cum eis loqui semper intendebat', to that of his community, especially at recreation. He was ordered to recite seven psalters (`viitem psalteria') within a year, and not to speak with seculars, male or female, for any reason, for forty days.190 Redman could also temper the penalty to meet the sincerity of the offender who broke the silence, in accordance with the statutes, and the gravity of the offence. At Leiston in 1488, four canons, including the circator, prostrated themselves before the visitor, because they had broken the silence. Redman enjoined upon them the appropriate penalty in the statutes, but remitted the discipline, ordering that silence was to be guarded better.191 A large proportion of the abbeys appeared at one time or another ± and several houses on several occasions ± to have been reprimanded concerning their habit. Dress in the Middle Ages was `highly symbolic', exhibiting `feeling, intention, social status, and more beside'.192 The white Premonstratensian habit was not to be `notabilis . . . nec affectetis vestibus placere sed moribus'.193 The statutes decreed that the canons were to have three tunics, a cloak, a `pellise' ± a tunic worn in cold weather ± a scapular, a covering (`coopertorium'), either a `pallium' or blanket (`pelles'). Shoes, stockings and underwear (`femoralia') could be worn if necessary, provided that permission was given.194 Most of Redman's injunctions concerned not wearing cloaks and almuces: a long scarf-like garment, which was a late medieval innovation among the white canons.195 In 1478 he ordered the canons of Titch®eld that they should `semper utantur amictibus [i.e. almuces] tam sub cappis suis quam extra', under pain of contempt.196 In 1491 Redman ordered that the community at Bayham were to be provided with cloaks, which were to be worn inside and outside the monastery, ùt uniformiter Deo servire et apparere valeant'.197 The canons of Beeleigh were told to wear cloaks at all times in 1482, but, as with similar admonitions at 189 190 191 192 193 194

195

196 197

Bodl. ASH, fols 14, 39, 139v, 148v±49; CAP III, 579, 582, 588, 589. Bodl. ASH, fol. 94; CAP III, 638. Bodl. ASH, fol. 75; CAP III, 501. B. Harvey, Monastic Dress in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1988), p. 1. La ReÁgle de Saint Augustin, p. 423; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 56±8. Ibid. The following clothing was taken by a canon of Blanchland who was temporarily exiled from his abbey in 1460: ùna tunica, una capa, i. scapularia, ii. langettis, uno coopertorio, uno pare caligarum, cum aliis minutis necessariis': BL PECK I, fol. 125; CAP II, 273. A. A. King, Liturgies of the Religious Orders (London, 1955), p. 205. The annual chapter of the Saxon Circary (1482) had the following query; `Fiat [sic] eciam diligens inquisicio an almucia sint deponenda eo quod aliquibus videtur non esse ordinis': Acta Saxony, p. 36. Bodl. ASH, fol. 14; CAP III, 579. Bodl. ASH, fol. 101; CAP II, 255.


74


other abbeys, an exception was made during work, which was a `practical reality' for the white canons.198 Redman also allowed the cloak to be removed because of of®cial duties, which he did at Croxton in 1482.199 Discarding certain articles of clothing may well have been due to the fact that, despite the statutes' regulations, and subsequent innovations, they proved to be cumbersome, and, in warm weather, too hot. It may also signal laxity in some instances. Egglestone, for example, was continuously reprimanded for its canons' clothing in 1482, 1488, 1491, 1494, and 1500.200 Occasionally Redman prohibited garments that were too short and ostentatious, and even secular styles of clothing and footwear. Though the monastic observance at Barlings was generally satisfactory, Redman inveighed against the adoption of secular clothing and footwear there on three separate occasions, especially in 1482, when he forbade the wearing of `manicis penulatis ad curiositatem et super¯uitatem', fur or ornate pellises, shoes which were `rotundos et curiales, juxta usum laicorum' [my emphasis], closed stockings, and what was described in the vernacular as `korkes and patens' (slippers), for such clothing did not please God and ought to be more sober.201 What were the reasons for these aberrations, at Barlings and in other abbeys? Higher standards of living ± even in poorer monastic houses and in the lower classes ± dressing to re¯ect the social status that religious had in medieval society, albeit inappropriately, a degree of vanity, and the amount of freedom and privacy which religious enjoyed in this period, so typi®ed in the development of separate rooms in the communal dormitory, must have been largely responsible for these aberrations.202 However the allocation of pensions to the canons, though forbidden by the Church and the Premonstratensian Statutes, was actually regulated by Redman and the English provincial chapters: these allowances were given to the canons so that they would buy their own clothing, in most cases. Some individuals probably used their pensions to buy unsuitable garments, or to indulge in gambling, as at Welbeck in 1488.203 198 199 200 201

202

203

Bodl. ASH, fols 36, 92v; CAP II, 264, 404; Religious Orders III, p. 50. Bodl. ASH, fol. 31; CAP II, 337. Bodl. ASH, fols 25v, 82, 92v, 121v, 144v; CAP II, 401, 403, 404, 406, 410. Bodl. ASH, fols 29v, 95, 127v; CAP II, 206, 210, 212. For other references to the use of `slyppars' and other clothing aberrations ; Bayham (1488), Cockersand (1481, 1491), Lavendon (1482), Newhouse (1494), Newbo (1500), Sulby (1500): Bodl. ASH, fols 24, 33, 78, 90, 121v, 127, 153, 154; CAP II, 254, 297, 302, 406: III, 485, 519, 537, 570. For archaeological evidence of discarded footwear at Bayham, see A. Streeten et al., Bayham Abbey, Sussex Archaeological Society Monograph, no. 2 (1983), pp. 119±24, 135. The provincial chapter of 1483(?) forbad `¯annolo vel ¯annolis . . . nisi tamen circa collum et sub tunicis': Bodl. ASH, fol. 59; CAP I, 86. C. Dyer, Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 176±7, 187; Greene, Medieval Monasteries, pp. 7±8, 108; Bodl. ASH, fol. 151; CAP III, 507. Bodl. ASH, fols 29, 69; CAP III, 532, 636; Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, pp. 836, 837; Acta O. Praem. I, p. 152; Religious Orders II, pp. 240±7. A lost Acta of an English Premonstratensian chapter evidently referred to the `stipulated' amount (generally £1 per annum) of the `clothing allowance': Bodl. ASH, fols 29, 33; CAP



75

Articles of black clothing, tassels and other garments which the visitor found canons wearing at a handful of abbeys, while indicative of ostentation in some instances, merits particular comment.204 At the beginning of the ®fteenth century, during the Great Schism, if not earlier, many English houses began to wear clothes, hats and linen rochets which did not conform to the customary, white Premonstratensian garb. These houses aspired to wear the habit of the more numerous Augustinian canons, including items of black clothing, perhaps hoping for an improved status as a result of adjusting their own distinctive habit. This threatened to undermine uniformity with the order's customs, and the external and corporate identity of the English white canons. It is possible that these abbeys experienced problems in wearing the white Premonstratensian habit outside the monastic enclosure, and therefore sought to adopt more àcceptable' forms of clothing. White clothing was `controversial in England' where it was generally associated with the enclosed orders, such as the Carthusians, or `radical forms of controversial piety'.205 Papal documents from 1400, 1411 and 1419 indicate that the canons of Easby were allowed to wear linen rochets beneath their cloaks, and black hoods and caps (birettis) in the same way as the English Augustinians.206 A papal mandate sent to the bishop of Ely in 1429, indicates that divergences in clothing within the English circaries caused much internal friction, if not confusion. The abbot of Newhouse claimed that the abbot of Bayham had not consulted with the other abbots of the English circaries in obtaining papal permission to adopt the habit of the Augustinian canons, albeit that the canons were to continue wearing white garments. In the same year Pope Martin V acceded to the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ's request, by ordering the English canons to return to the traditional cut and colour of the habit.207 The matter did not end there, and it appears that these aberrations became a widespread problem throughout the order by the 1430s, if not earlier.208 The decisions of an English chapter held in 1454 reveal that there was great `difformitas' in the habit, and it ordained uniformity with the order's practices, and forbade clothing of the `modum et formam nigrorum

204 205

206 207 208

II, 417: III, 667. For references to a canon of Newbo buying from a confreÁre à payre of shevys and a payre of hosse' in 1530 and a canon of Dale who was left six yards of white woollen cloth in a will (1506): BL MS Sloane 1584, fol. 87v; H. M. Colvin, `The Dissolution of Dale Abbey', Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, new series 17 (1943), 2. The vestiarius still existed in some houses: Bodl. ASH, fols 6, 29; CAP II, 202: III, 532. Bodl. ASH, fols 84, 126, 148v, 151; CAP II, 299: III, 507, 567, 589. J. Wilson, `Communities of Dissent: The Secular and Ecclesiastical Communities of Margery Kempe's ``Book'' ', Medieval Women in their Communities, ed. D. Watt (Cardiff, 1997), pp. 170±1. CPR V, p. 355: VI, p. 281: VII, p. 140; Bodl. ASH, fol. 58v; CAP I, 142. CPR VIII, pp. 77±8; see notes 208 and 211 below. Acta O. Praem. I, pp. 105±8; Acta Saxony, pp. 35, 46, 58, 110; The Life of St Norbert by John Capgrave, O.E.S.A. (1393±1464), ed. C. L. Smetana (Toronto, 1977), pp. 66±8.


76


canonicorum'. However prelates were to wear black skull-caps in England, and even rochets: these were contrary to the order's usages, though permission for their usage was obtained from the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ.209 In 1476 a chapter under Redman's presidency relates that discrepancies in the habit ìn vilipendium nostre Religionis redundare quamplurimum', and referred to a papal bull that they had received, probably Pope Martin V's (see below) and a letter sent to Redman by Abbot Hubert of PreÂmontreÂ in which he called for uniformity in the mode of dress.210 Redman was asked to adjudicate on the matter, and he, with the consensus of the chapter, apparently decided upon a compromise. Every abbey in the British Isles was to show uniformity in the habit, which was to be worn according to the manner of the black canons of St Augustine, `sub cujus beatissimi patris regula dinoscimur unde sicuti ipsi viviunt'. Yet it was emphasised that the habit, and all other clothing, was to be white according to the demands of Martin V's bull.211 The chapters of 1483(?) and 1489 passed more clothing decrees, including legislation on the use of white garments and the rochet.212 Although it is clear from these decrees that black clothing was still a concern of the provincial chapters in Redman's time, the fact that only a few houses were upbraided for wearing it during Redman's visitations from 1478 onwards, indicates that these aberrations were only the remnants of what was a cause ceÂleÁbre among the English canons in the ®fteenth century. Whether or not the compromise of the 1476 chapter towards the `modo et forma habitus canonicorum nigrorum' was submitted to PreÂmontreÂ for approval, is unknown; though in 1486 Redman asked the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ to con®rm the use of the rochet in England.213 It is conceivable that these revisions were not as extensive as they might appear. For instance Redman's injunctions on the length of the canons' tunics at Cockersand, in 1481 ± `longe et profunde usque ad cavillam' ± was in accord with the statutes; `Tunice circa cavillam pedis suf®cit ut descendant'.214 The modi®cations in the English Premonstratensian habit were clearly an important divergence from the practice of their foreign counterparts: they did not, 209

210 211

212

213 214

Backmund, `The Premonstratensian Order in Scotland', p. 30; BL PECK I, fols 83± 83v; CAP I, 77. Phrases in this document clearly indicate that the decisions of this chapter were submitted to a higher authority for con®rmation, possibly the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ; e.g. Ìtem predicti dif®nitores dif®nierunt . . . quod quilibet prelatus nostri Ordinis in regno Anglie ubique pileis nigris uti poterit, si vestre placuerit paternitati, sub modo et forma vestrarum concessionis et rati®cationis predictarum'. My emphasis throughout: ibid. No reference to this is extant in the surviving letters from Abbot Hubert to Redman. Bodl. ASH, fol. 3v; CAP I, 82; B. Ardura, PreÂmontreÂs Histoire et SpiritualiteÂ (SaintEtienne, 1995), p. 143. Bodl. ASH, fol. 59, 103v; CAP I, 86, 89. Note that the 1483(?) provincial chapter allowed black hats (`pileis et galeris') to be worn, `sed utatur vestibus ex toto candidis': ibid. Bodl. ASH, fol. 2v; CAP I, 45. Bodl. ASH, fols 24, 151, 121v; CAP II, 297, 406; III, 507; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 57.



77

however, deal a fatal blow to their identi®cation as members of a distinctive order. Redman's insistence on uniformity of dress and colour, desired by PreÂmontreÂ in 1476 and Pope Martin V, and comparable with the demands of other monastic reformers, ensured that the `white' canons of England remained white.215 Yet, while admitting this achievement, and Redman's devotion to his order, he obtained papal permission in 1477 to wear òver the habit of the said order a mantle of black or other decent (òbscuri') colour' [my emphasis], but only outside his monastery.216 Although this papal indult suggests that Redman desired to continue wearing the white habit of his order, his request to cover it probably indicates that he was forced to take account of the practicalities entailed in travelling throughout England and duties extraneous to the Premonstratensian order, as a diocesan bishop and servant of the crown.217 In addition to illicit eating and drinking with the laity, the visitation register contains some interesting sidelights on the consumption of food and drink within the Premonstratensian abbeys, as well as deviant practices. Drinking after Compline, when the brethren should have been in the dormitory, was one of them. For instance, at Cockersand in 1488, Redman forbade this under pain of bread and water for three days.218 His commands went unheeded, and he proscribed the practice again in 1491, though he permitted the abbot or superior to allow drinking if they thought it was reasonable, during meetings.219 However this permission was evidently abused, for in 1500 Redman discovered that many canons were ill because of nocturnal drinking. He prohibited such activities reminding them that potations could only be given to of®cials by reason of their of®ce.220 Drinking after Compline was commonplace in many religious houses, despite the generous amount of ale which inmates received.221 It is recorded that one canon of Beauchief was given ten gallons (80 pints) of ale a week in 1524, and a former abbot of Dale was allotted eight gallons of òptime servisie' 215

216 217

218 219 220

221

On the importance of the colour of habits, corporate identity among religious orders, and clothing to monastic reformers, see Harvey, Monastic Dress, p. 29; L'Epistola Reformatoria du Prieur de BethleÂem Henri van der Heyden pour l'Abbaye du Parc au XVe SieÁcle, ed. P. F. LefeÁvre, AP 3 (1927), 1±2, 17; Commentary on the Rule of St Augustine by Robert Richardinus, ed. G. G. Coulton (Edinburgh, 1935), pp. 102± 7, 129±31. CPR XIII (pt 1), pp. 593±4. Redman's indult should not be confused with papal dispensations granted to bene®ced religious, which allowed them to wear the clothing of secular priests over their religious habit. Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 54±63. Bodl. ASH, fol. 84; CAP II, 299. Bodl. ASH, fol. 90; CAP II, 302. Bodl. ASH, fol. 143v; CAP II, 309. For other examples of prohibited drinking ± at Barlings (1478), Blanchland (1500), Easby (1494), Langley (1488), and Newbo (1482, 1494) ± see Bodl. ASH, fols 13v, 31, 73v, 122v, 126v±27, 145; CAP II, 177, 204, 290: III, 471, 512, 516. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 58, 158.


78


Plate 6. Exterior view of the fourteenth-century refectory at Easby Abbey, Yorkshire every week.222 On a few occasions eating and drinking were done in inappropriate places or at the wrong time. For instance in 1491, Redman ordered that an appropriate place was to be provided at Durford `pro diebus gemine refeccionis [i.e. days when two meals were taken] ad manducandum et bibendum et ad recreationes in eadem excercendum', and forbade the building between the dormitory and refectory to be used. The canons of Welbeck were told to use the refectory during Advent, Lent and on fast days.223 These references no doubt concern the use ± or rather misuse ± of the misericord, which these, and other Premonstratensian abbeys clearly 222

223

Shef®eld City Archives MS PR2/21; Bodl. ASH, fol. 101v; CAP I, 65. On the alcoholic content of medieval ale, especially in monasteries, see Harvey, Living and Dying, p. 58; Woolgar, The Great Household, p. 126. Bodl. ASH, fols 101, 156; CAP II, 383: III, 643.



79

possessed, and the consumption of meat.224 As a result of divergent and seemingly ìllicit' practices concerning the use of ®sh and dairy products on Mondays and Wednesdays, a provincial chapter (1495) decreed that ¯eshmeat was to be eaten twice on those days ìn die gemina refeccione . . . sicuti ceteris diebus ebdomade re®ci consueverunt'. It was forbidden in Advent, Lent (after Sexagesima Sunday) and at other times which were prescribed by the Church.225 These stipulations re¯ect the mitigations in meat eating which were prevalent in monasticism in general; though legislation on this matter varied among the religious orders.226 The regulations of the 1495 English provincial chapter went beyond the statutes, which generally forbade eating ¯esh-meat, but more or less paralleled the mandated and proposed mitigations of their continental brethren.227 A bull of Pope Pius II, which was promulgated in 1464, con®rmed the decisions of the Premonstratensian general chapter to abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Saturdays each week, on the vigils of the four principal feasts of the Church, during the season of Advent, and from Septuagesima to Easter.228 In 1499 the general chapter at Saint Quentin sought papal permission to eat meat òmni tempore', except on Wednesdays and Saturdays, during Advent, and the period from Septuagesima until Easter. Presumably these documents tacitly assumed Friday abstinence.229 Although our examination of injunctions concerning comestibles seems to imply that there was no dissatisfaction with the quantity of monastic fare (`bonum culinam, bonum communitas'?), it should be pointed out that there were complaints about the quality of food at some visitations. In 1478 the conventual bread eaten by the canons of Halesowen was found to be ìnsuf®cienti' and was not made of wheat, but from other grain (àliis granis'). Redman ordered the abbot and the abbey's of®cials to improve the bread, and to make it from good wheat (`de frumento honestum'), so that it would be agreeable to the community's priests as `nil aliud gaudent preter solum victum et vestitum'.230 In the same year the abbot of Welbeck was 224 225

226

227

228

229

230

Hamilton-Thompson, Easby Abbey, p. 17. Bodl. ASH, fol. 110; CAP I, 92. The statutes (1290) decreed that the canons ate dinner and supper (`diebus gemine refectionis') between Easter and the Feast of the Holy Cross (14 Sept.), and on certain other days, but with exceptions: Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 11±14. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 38±46; G. Jaritz, `The Standard of Living in German and Austrian Cistercian Monasteries of the Late Middle Ages', Goad and Nail: Studies in Medieval Cistercian History 10, ed. E. R. Elder (Michigan, 1985), p. 59; Greene, Medieval Monasteries, p. 147. Acta Saxony, pp. 17, 123; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 20±1, 31±7; Acta O. Praem. I, pp. 45, 49. Valvekens, `Le Chapitre GeÂneÂral de PreÂmontreÂ', p. 56; Acta O. Praem. I, pp. 139±40, 153. Acta O. Praem. I p. 192. For a good discussion on fasting and abstinence among the Premonstratensians in the later Middle Ages, see E. Delcambre, Servais de Lairuelz et la ReÂforme des PreÂmontreÂs (Averbode, 1964), pp. 4±10. Bodl. ASH, fols 10v±11; CAP II, 432.


80


Plate 7. Interior view of the refectory at Leiston Abbey, Suffolk ordered to provide better quality bread (`meliori pane') and drink for his community.231 Welbeck could have been economising on the quality of its bread at that time as it had less than a completely satisfactory store of grain (mediocriter). However at the other abbeys where Redman ordered an improvement in the community's bread, he found that they had good provisions of wheat.232 Halesowen was said to have had an abundance of grain (frugum) in 1478, `cum necessariis pro tam pauperculis Christi ministris revelaturis'. It is possible that the bulk of Halesowen's wheat had been 231 232

Bodl. ASH, fol. 11v; CAP III, 630. Bodl. ASH, fols 11, 11v, 123*; CAP II, 257, 358; III, 630. Similar complaints occurred at Bayham (1494) and Dale (1478): ibid.



81

Plate 8. Detail of the calefactory (bottom) and dormitory (top), at Beeleigh Abbey, Essex allocated for sale or other uses, instead of making bread.233 Although the canons had enough supplies, it is probable ± and somewhat ironic ± that they did not like their bread because it consisted of mixed grain, which was associated with, and distributed to the poor. It is likely that they, and other communities, were concerned that their conventual bread be made of wheat, as this was a symbol of high status in medieval society as well as an important constituent in their diet.234 An important part of the visitor's investigations into the `temporalia' of an abbey was in the sphere of economics. The utilisation of visitation records for analysing this aspect of monastic life has rarely, if at all, been done by British economic historians.235 Redman was generally interested in several economic factors. These included the maintenance of buildings and properties; whether or not an abbey was in debt; if it had enough grain stores and suf®cient livestock to meet the house's immediate requirements; and the 233 234

235

Bodl. ASH, fols 10v±11; CAP II, 432. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 56±9, Fig. II.i; Woolgar, The Great Household, pp. 123±6 (esp. p. 124). See Dyer, Standards of Living, pp. 36±8, 67±9; Jaritz, `The Standard of Living', p. 56. I am grateful to Dr Mark Bailey for his remarks on this.


82


Table 3. Net income of the English Premonstratensian abbeys c.1535



83

overall management of its temporal affairs by the abbot.236 Redman's èconomic' comments, which will be illustrated, in his visitation reports probably refer to an abbey's home farm, which supplied it with produce and livestock for consumption. Some of these items may have been brought from outside or from other estates belonging to an abbey.237 This is very likely as Redman could not possibly have visited all of an abbey's estates during his tight visitation schedule: however comments on debt and on particular items, such as abbey mills, indicate an interest in a house's general economic well-being. Though the visitation reports do not give any precise ®gures for the gross or net income that an abbey received per annum, Knowles considered economic indicators in Redman's register to be `favourable'.238 He highlighted three economic characteristics in Redman's register. Knowles argued that for the whole period of Redman's visitations, the white canons às a body possessed abundant stores and credit'. Secondly, where debts or dilapidation were serious, àn ef®cient abbot had little dif®culty in restoring ®nancial soundness', and lastly, that the aggregate liquid assets of the order were `considerably greater at the end of Redman's life than they had been at the beginning of his career as visitor'.239 A particularly good example from Langdon illustrates Knowles' ®rst point. In 1482 the visitor extolled the abbot of Langdon's management of his abbey's home farm (manerium). There was a great abundance of grain and sumptuous pastures which, with the entire monastery, were well enclosed by fences (sepius) and deep ditches. The manor was greatly improved and enlarged. There were building work and repairs, a multitude of sheep, cattle and cows (vaccarum), and an abundance of produce. The abbey had no debt, and debts were owed to it. It was reported in 1491 that Langdon had three hundred acres of grain, and a very good supply of animals.240 There is evidence in the visitation records of instances at several abbeys where abbots exercised budgetary control, which should be appended to Knowles' ®rst economic characteristic of the white canons. At the end of several 1488 236

237 238

239 240

Colvin discusses appropriated churches and their relationship to monastic revenue: White Canons, pp. 272±88. Dyer, Standards of Living, pp. 67±9. Religious Orders III, p. 48 and n.5. See Table 3 for a conservative estimate of the net income of the abbeys at their dissolution. Dependencies, such as priories, and Talley Abbey, have been excluded. Cockersand's income was raised from over £157 to over £282 by the Henrician commissioners, and Bayham was suppressed in 1525; Knowles and Neville Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 184±5, 187. For important caveats on monastic income in the Valor and its assessment in A. Savine, The English Monasteries on the Eve of the Dissolution, Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History 1, ed. P. Vinogradoff (Oxford, 1909), see Religious Orders III, pp. 244±8. Comparisons given here between debt in the visitation records and income in the Valor are made tentatively, as the amounts given would have been greater in reality: ibid. Religious Orders, III, p. 48. Bodl. ASH, fols 36, 37, 100v; CAP III, 453, 456.


84


name lists, and after the visitation report from Cockersand in the same year, appear `memoranda' which give the amount of grain, animals, and other commodities that certain abbeys consumed, mainly on a weekly or annual basis. Cockersand, for example, consumed 16 modios (580 litres) of wheat, a quarternaria (90 litres) of ground oats, 24 modios (870 litres) of malt per week, and 50 cattle and 120 sheep each year; Èt hec expendunt in expensis per quamlibet septimanam xvi. modios frumenti et iiiior farine avene. Item xxiiii. modios brassii. Et l. boves et vixx oves, hec expendunt per annum'. Halesowen consumed each week 20 modios (720 litres) of wheat and rye (to make bread), 4 quarters (1160 litres) of oats, and, per annum, 60 cattle, 40 sheep, 30 pigs and 24 fowl. Similar notes are also extant for Newhouse, Beauchief, Dale (not printed in CAP), Hagnaby (not in CAP) and Welbeck.241 It cannot be ascertained why Redman singled out the abbeys where such memoranda are extant in 1488 only. However, the fact that speci®c quantities of commodities are itemised indicates that they exercised tight budgetary control and prudent economic management at these abbeys in 1488, at a time when great care was taken in recording even the smallest items in monastic accounts in order to prevent over-spending and maximise ef®ciency in expenditure. The relative `poverty' of the majority of Premonstratensian houses may have made budgetary control more necessary.242 In the absence of detailed accounts from all of these abbeys c.1488 we cannot ascertain how successful these measures were. An example of Knowles' second point on the economic recovery of houses which experienced ®nancial or managerial dif®culties, can be seen at Bayham. In 1482 Redman saw that the abbey buildings were very ruinous and unless diligent repairs were made, they would be reduced to the ground. The abbot was commanded under the penalty of deposition, quickly to repair and rebuild the house; the dormitory, refectory, bakery (pistrunum) and hall were explicitly named. At the last visitation, the abbey had incurred many contracts (obligationes) by use of the common seal, and much dilapidation was caused by two of the abbot's predecessors, leaving a huge debt of 900 marks (£600): more than ®ve times the abbey's net income in 1525 (£125). However by the abbot's solicitous provision and unstinting work, the debt was now £300, and there was suf®cient grain and animals.243 At the next extant visitation (1488), despite the debt left by the abbot's predecessors, upon his election (Robert Nash, ¯. 1488±91), the house now owed £100. Of grain per annum, and animals, there were laudable provisions.244 In 1491, due to the abbot's `wise supervision', ànnuatim ad summam 1. markarum 241

242 243

244

Bodl. ASH, fols 65v, 67, 68, 68v, 69, 69v, 70; CAP II, 238, 298, 364, 420, 440: III, 534, 637. My calculations are based on the estimated weights and measures given in Dyer, Standards of Living, p. xv. Dyer, Standards of Living, pp. 55±85; Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 37±8. Bodl. ASH, fol. 38; CAP II, 252; Table 3. The manuscript reads ìn granis ac aliis bestiis', which Gasquet rendered as ìn granis ac rebus aliis': ibid. Bodl. ASH, fol. 78; CAP II, 254.



85

[i.e. 13s 4d] valorem adquisivit, eciam universa debita sagaciter redemit'. There was suf®cient grain, and of animals ± of both sexes ± `habundanter instauratum'.245 In 1494, the abbey, under Abbot Richard Bexley (¯. 1494± 1500 and 1522), had no malt `nisi ex provisione'. However in wheat and other grain, there was suf®cient stored until the next harvest, and no debt was shown. The abbey was well stocked with animals and all kinds of poultry.246 In 1497 Bayham's debts were perhaps lower than expected, `notwithstanding much building work in the monastery and its tenements'. In 1500, the visitor praised God for the abbot's supervision, for the abbey had been delivered from debt, and in animals and grain per annum, there were enough stocks.247 Knowles' third point on the considerable increase of the aggregate liquid assets of the abbeys can be seen at Beeleigh. In 1482 the visitation report from the abbey noted that the recently elected abbot, Thomas Skarlet (¯. 1481±1509), governed all spiritualities and temporalities well. The debt had previously been 20 marks (£13 6s 8d), but on the abbot's creation it was increased to £100 16s, about two-thirds of the house's net income in 1536 (£157). The debt had been increased greatly because the abbey had been in¯icted with expenses `circa in®rmitatem' which the previous abbot had to rectify.248 In 1488, it was reported that the venerable abbot had lessened the debt, by his prudent supervision, to £76. In animals, grain and other necessities, there was suf®cient provision.249 In 1491 everything was found to be well regulated, and there was no debt. There were excellent provisions of grain, animals and beasts (peccoribus).250 Redman found no debt at the abbey in 1497 and there were suf®cient animals for the future. In 1500, despite building work and the installation of sumptuous windows in the church, no debt was incurred, and there were excellent stocks of grain and animals.251 While all this may be so, we have to bear in mind that Knowles' generalisations do not necessarily imply that every abbey enjoyed ùnbridled' economic health. We should recall that the Premonstratensian abbeys were poor in comparison with the largest Benedictine and Cistercian houses ± a fact which Knowles also recognised ± and have to understand their prosperity and economic growth within this context.252 While living standards in late medieval England are thought to have been higher than those on the continent, even healthy economies tend to experience periods of recession 245 246 247 248 249

250 251 252

Bodl. ASH, fol. 101; CAP II, 255. Bodl. ASH, fol. 123b*; CAP II, 257. Bodl. ASH, fols 139, 149v; CAP II, 259, 260. Bodl. ASH, fol. 36; CAP II, 264. The report mistakenly records the previous debt as `cxvi li.': Bodl. ASH, fol. 75v; CAP II, 266. Bodl. ASH, fol. 100; CAP II, 267. Bodl. ASH, fols 138, 151; CAP III, 269, 270. Religious Orders III, p. 48, n.5.


86


and, as we have seen, high debt. England was no exception, particularly in the mid-®fteenth century, when recession was compounded by periods of epidemic disease, occasionally poor harvests, and disruption to overseas trade.253 The economic fortunes of an abbey could certainly ¯uctuate, and, as with Bayham, bad ®nancial management by an abbot, and localised, as well as national, dif®culties could impinge upon an abbey's economic growth, of which the 1478±1501 visitations at Beauchief and those of Lavendon from 1482 to 1500, are particularly good examples.254 Royal taxation could be a burden on abbeys. Welbeck, Cockersand, and Egglestone, for instance, were exempted from paying moieties of the tenth on various occasions throughout the latter half of the ®fteenth century.255 Most of the land held by England's monasteries was not directly farmed by the ®fteenth century, apart from demesne lands. However Redman was concerned that his abbeys should not grant long leases of their property, and hence run the risk of alienating land, which was contrary to canon law and the order's statutes.256 While Redman prohibited lengthy leasing explicitly at only a few visitations, in 1500 he indicated to the community at Newhouse that much scandal fell upon many houses, `prout experiencia sepius nobis manifestavit' which did not follow the stipulations in the statutes, in the chapter Cum per vendiciones, thus incurring excommunication, suspension and interdict.257 Redman strictly prohibited the abbot and canons of Newhouse, under pain of the statutes, from leasing pensions, annuities, fees or anything else for many years or for life, to the detriment of the monastery.258 However lengthy leases were commonly granted from the fourteenth century onwards. Despite threatening sanctions, Redman could do nothing to prevent this among the white canons as evidence for the practice exists from Redman's era until the time of the Dissolution.259 253

254

255

256

257 258

259

R. H. Britnell, `The Economic Context', The Wars of the Roses, ed. A. J. Pollard (Basingstoke and London, 1995), pp. 41, 43±54. On several occasions, for example at Langley, again in 1497, Redman noted the unfavourable economic climate of the times; Èt licet dies moderni sint valde onerosi et mali', though the ®nancial and economic state of that abbey was sound: Bodl. ASH, fol. 137v; CAP III, 477. Bodl. ASH, fols 11v, 27, 33, 69v, 72, 93, 99, 122v, 126, 133, 146v, 152v; BL PECK I, fol. 120; CAP II, 231, 237, 239, 241, 243, 245±7: III, 485, 487, 489, 491, 493. The words ìn debitis fore alienam', written at the left-hand side of the 1494 Beauchief visitation report, were not transcribed by Gasquet: Bodl. ASH, fol. 122v; CAP II, 243. CFR XX, pp. 89±90, 119±20, 135±7, 225±7: XXI, pp. 115±18, 189±92, 192±4, 226±9: XXII, pp. 74±6, 110±12. Greene, Medieval Monasteries, p. 134; M. Dilworth, Scottish Monasteries in the Late Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1995), p. 45; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 96±7. Cf. Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, p. 839. Bodl. ASH, fol. 155; CAP III, 540. For other examples of reprimands concerning contractual agreements, the misuse of abbey property and conventual seals, from Alnwick (1482), Egglestone (1502), Langley (1482 and 1494), and Welbeck (1482) see Bodl. ASH, fols 25v±26, 27v, 34v±35, 124v, 156v; CAP II, 188, 411: III, 469, 475, 634; pp. 87±8 below. S. F. Hockey, Quarr Abbey and its Lands, 1132±1632 (Leicester, 1970), pp. 173±9; The



87

Nevertheless, despite dif®culties, the overall economic picture of the English Premonstratensians can still be viewed favourably as far as the visitation records are concerned, though the wealth and economic ®tness of each abbey could vary. Research on the surviving estate records of the canons would show if these prospered. Furthermore, in the majority of cases, it appears that monastic debt, especially those incurred upon the election of a new abbot, unpleasant as they no doubt were, were not entirely debilitating, and no houses were forced out of existence as a result.260 In fact, as well as economic achievements, a number of abbeys either had occasional debt or none for most of the period in the visitation register, and most houses appear to have recovered from the mid-®fteenth century economic recession.261 On the ongoing task of maintaining the fabric of the monastery buildings, the records are again favourable. Redman's comments on this ranged from repairs to an entire abbey, to the stair of the dormitory at Wendling in 1494, and the building itself, for the brethren could not sleep peacefully.262 Repairs and construction work were noted at Alnwick (1500), Easby (1482), Barlings (1494, 1500), Beauchief (1472, 1475, 1482, 1491), Beeleigh (1500) Cockersand (1481), Coverham (1491), Croxton (1482), Dale (1478, 1482), Langdon (1491), Leiston (1497), Newbo (1494), Newhouse (1503), Sulby (1482), Titch®eld (1482), Wendling (1488), and West Dereham (1503).263 A few abbeys had major dif®culties with rebuilding over a long term period, which was either due to insuf®cient funds or a negligent abbot. For example the visitor ordered the abbot of Blanchland to rebuild his monastery in 1478, to carry out repairs in 1486, to rebuild the chapterhouse in 1488 and 1494 (and to ®nish the rebuilding of the dormitory), and in 1497, the abbey's priests were ordered to help with repairs or building work.264 At Durford the repairs to the cloister were said to be defective in 1482, and Redman ordered it to be rebuilt. However similar injunctions had to be made at the abbey in 1494, 1497 and 1500.265 The gravest kind of economic mismanagement by an abbot is a rarity in

260 261 262 263

264 265

Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey III, pt 3, pp. 1232±3; W. Odom, Beauchief Abbey (Shef®eld, 1927), pp. 34±5. Birmingham City Archives, MS 347132. J. A. Raftis, The Estates of Ramsey Abbey (Toronto, 1957), pp. 292±9. Bodl. ASH, fols 125, 137; CAP III, 657, 659. Bodl. ASH and CAP, passim; BL PECK I, fol. 116. For building work on abbey churches in the ®fteenth century, and at Shap, see pp. 110±11, 191±2. Bodl. ASH, fols 16, 62, 81v, 121v, 130; CAP II, 278, 281, 282, 286, 288. Bodl. ASH, fols 38, 123, 139v, 149±49v; CAP II, 381, 385, 387, 388. However, one should note Mark Dilworth's comments on Scottish monastic buildings, when interpreting the word `ruinous'; `The documents of the period [i.e. the sixteenth century] habitually overstate, describing buildings as totally ruined or almost level with the ground, and then one ®nds monks living in them, or perhaps the church in use . . . Reports of buildings in ruins are therefore to be treated with caution unless veri®ed from another source': Dilworth, Scottish Monasteries, pp. 27±8.


88


the visitation register. The 1482 visitation report of Welbeck relates what was probably the worst instance of this in Redman's register. The canons stated that there was great dilapidation of the abbey's goods. Its tenements were ruinous and the abbot was said to have carried out no repairs during his regime. Trees belonging to the abbey were felled at an alarming rate, the wood was sold, and the forests badly maintained.266 Cattle, sheep and other animals were also sold. There was no oil, wax or wine for divine service, which was often omitted. The common and abbatial seals had been used to make numerous agreements with local magnates, which mortgaged or let the abbey's lands, woods and tithes, to great detriment, against the consensus of the community. The abbot lived immorally with various women, and one of the reasons that led to the large amount of asset stripping at the abbey was his use of the house's possessions to support his many children. He also played games day and night, `non considerata dignitate'. In the presence of the canons and the abbot of Beauchief, Redman removed the abbot and sent him to Barlings, appointing two of Welbeck's canons to govern the monastery in the meantime.267 The visitation records from then on reveal that Welbeck's economic condition gradually improved and prospered.268 At the end of our survey of the successes and failings of the English Premonstratensians and various aspects of their monastic life, we must now attempt to draw some general conclusions on their observance, and to indicate more precisely the overall state of religious life within each abbey over the greater part of this period of their visitations. We will also evaluate Redman's role as the Premonstratensian visitor. The interpretation of visitation records is truly à delicate exercise'.269 As commented earlier, the aim of the visitation process was to improve the level of monastic life, and, above all, to root out faults and deviations from the required norm. While discussing faults generally is a necessary part of evaluating visitation records, we have to be aware of the danger that this can sometimes, paradoxically, cloud our overall vision of the condition of an individual community. As the editor of the Lincolnshire visitations once commented, `Nothing in the world is easier than to pick holes in religious institutions. It is one inevitable result of human imperfection that, the higher the ideal aimed at by the endeavour, the more likely it is that practice will constantly fall short of profession'.270 Each abbey should be considered in the context of its own records, before evaluating the ®ndings of our general survey as 266

267 268 269

270

The sale of manorial wood was a `popular emergency cash sale over the late fourteenth and ®fteenth centuries': Raftis, The Estates of Ramsey Abbey, p. 293, n.26. BL PECK II, fols 79±79v; Bodl. ASH, fol. 27v; CAP III, 634. Bodl. ASH, fols 69, 94, 122v, 134±34v, 156; CAP III, 636, 638, 640, 642, 643. C. Harper-Bill, The Pre-Reformation Church in England 1400±1530 (London, 1989), p. 38. A. Hamilton Thompson, The English Clergy and Their Organisation in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1947), p. 161.



89

objectively as possible, and proposing conclusions. We should also take cognisance of the `silent many' who were not castigated or accused of any serious fault, as well as the actions of those which were clearly reprehensible, objectively speaking.271 The nature and gravity of the canons' deviations should also be uppermost in any analysis of visitation records. This criterion is not merely the application of modern `lenient' standards of analysing moral conduct, which can be misleading.272 Such evaluations are, in a sense, contained within the visitation records themselves. We may recall that Redman was prudent enough to discern if a breach of silence was grave or, while not praiseworthy, was of a less serious nature.273 While he clearly desired to weed out any sign of indiscipline, his overriding concern was to discover èxcessibus et criminibus'. More often than not, in making his corrections at a particular visitation, Redman would make a statement beforehand ± some of these were standard expressions used by other English Premonstratensian visitors ± such as, all was well ìn head and members' at an abbey, or quali®ed his corrections with phrases such as `nothing criminous required referral to the general (provincial) chapter', that corrections were only required ìn minoribus observanciis' and, as we shall see, that a house was in a state of excellence.274 At the same time, we must not ignore or belittle the seriousness of misdemeanours in themselves, and also note those statements which indicate that, on the contrary, a house was far from satisfactory or in a state of great disorder.275 One should also be aware of the use of language in the visitation reports. The utilisation of what can be described as `forceful' language in some of Redman's admonitions and penalties, does not always mean that those on the receiving end of these were guilty of the gravest of offences. While Redman exercised a degree of discretion in chastising offences or when requiring the implementation of a certain injunction, the disciplinary system of the medieval church was, in certain instances, harsh by modern standards.276 In some cases the interpretation of the language used in Redman's visitation reports should be understood within the visitor's general comments and the framework of a visitation report. For example, at Barlings in 1478, Redman forbade the canons from frequenting taverns and 271

272 273 274

275

276

Hamilton Thompson, The English Clergy, pp. 176±7; Thomson, The Early Tudor Church and Society, p. viii; C. Harper-Bill, `Monastic Apostasy in Late Medieval England', JEH 32 (1981), 17. Ibid. See pp. 72±3 above. e.g. Beeleigh 1488, Dale 1478, Easby, 1494; Bodl. ASH, fols 11, 75, 122; BL PECK I, fols 82, 116: II, fols 82±82v; CAP II, 177, 229, 266, 358: III, 644; Bishop Geoffrey Blythe's Visitations, p. xxxiv. e.g. ùbi [i.e. in Sulby, 1491] non modica ibidem comperimus enormia': Bodl. ASH, fol. 97; CAP III, 565. Thomson, The Early Tudor Church and Society, p. 262; R. N. Swanson, Religion and Devotion in Europe, c.1215±c.1515 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 295±6.


90


immoderate (ìmmoderatas') drinking within the enclosure, under pain of the statutes. Ìmmoderatas' does not necessarily mean that all the canons indulged in drunken behaviour in this instance, for Redman noted that peace and charity existed between the abbot and community, and that `nulla sentimus criminosa per nos corrigenda seu Capitulo generali referenda'.277 There is a great difference between this instance and what occurred at Cockersand in 1500, when drinking in the evening was so ìnordinate' that many of the brothers were ill.278 In interpreting the visitations, a ®ne line has to be frequently trod in understanding language. We also have to answer a legitimate question that could arise when analysing any visitation records. Are Redman's visitation reports trustworthy accounts of Premonstratensian monastic life? Was there any possibility that a canon, or indeed an entire community, could deceive Redman into believing that religious life in their abbey was òmnia bene'? It is always possible that a degree of collusion among several individuals in concealing some misdemeanour could have taken place, but it is unlikely that this was generally so. Each of the canons' depositions were privately heard by Redman, and could not be directly in¯uenced by anyone else. Those who wished to conceal something ran the heavy risk of being exposed by another member of the community, or by the abbot; the chances of a successful concealment were slim. Redman's ability to note the slightest of faults, such as the wearing of slippers or a faulty tonsure, enabled him to make observations independently of the canons' depositions, and his efforts on occasion to consult the local populace, would have made it less likely that grave occurrences at an abbey would have eluded his inquiries.279 An examination of the reports from proxy visitations, where it would be imagined that the chances of collusion were increased, would indicate that Redman was fully acquainted with conditions at an abbey in the vast majority of cases, from the depositions of the abbot and proctor.280 Knowles was even led to say that Redman, as a Premonstratensian himself and frequent visitor to his abbeys, `must have gained in time a pretty fair notion of the circumstances and reputation of each house, and was therefore less likely to be baf¯ed or hoodwinked by collusive action, obstructive silence 277

278 279

280

Bodl. ASH, fol. 13v; CAP II, 204. General admonitions were sometimes issued as the result of the behaviour of one or several canons: see p. 73 ut supra. Bodl. ASH, fol. 143v; CAP II, 309. Èt quamvis ibidem [i.e. Newhouse, 1494] ex deposicionibus fratrum pauca audivimus, tamen plura emendanda oculariter conspeximus'; èt nil ibidem [i.e. Newbo, 1494] ex depositio eorundem cepimus nostra correcione dignum. Attamen alias nostras pervenit ad aures aliqua, quibus nisi ex remedio procuremus obviare non modicam fovebunt insolenciam': Bodl. ASH, fols 126v, 127; CAP III, 516, 537. Note that Redman took local opinion into account at Leiston (1491) and Croxton (1497), for example: Bodl. ASH, fols 91v, 100, 136v; CAP II, 348: III, 502, 584. See the Blanchland visitations for instance: Bodl. ASH, fols 16, 25v, 62, 81v, 92, 130, 145±45v; CAP II, 278, 279, 281, 282, 284, 288, 290.



91

and hard swearing than if he had been a secular diocesan visiting perhaps for the ®rst and last time'.281 How does the observance of the individual English Premonstratensian abbeys appear in Redman's register? For most of their visitations, seven houses revealed great problems with religious observance, much laxity, little sign of any external religious fervour, frequent dilapidation of buildings, frequent economic and ®nancial dif®culties, and, more often than not, were generally in a most unsatisfactory condition. These were Egglestone, Langley, Lavendon, Newhouse, St Radegund's, Sulby, and Welbeck.282 Knowles said that twelve houses ¯uctuated between à state of disorder that fell short of disaster and a degree of well-being that failed to reach absolute excellence . . . with individual cases of incontinence and apostasy . . . internal discord and . . . considerable relaxations'; but he also noted that the visitor often relates that àll was well' there, or con®ned himself to small points of discipline and ceremonial, and, on the whole, a `tolerable mediocrity was more frequently noted than a dangerous decline'.283 Our present analysis would suggest that this category be divided, and Knowles' terminology altered or quali®ed in order to relate the situation within these abbeys with greater precision. Six houses, Blanchland, Durford, Tupholme, Bayham, Cockersand and Halesowen, had intermittent faults or setbacks of the most serious kind, and, more so at the latter three abbeys, periods of notable indiscipline. Cockersand, with a large community, was probably the most undisciplined of these houses, and Halesowen was not far behind with occasions of bad behaviour and a serious rebellion in the community in 1497.284 However what was most prevalent in all these abbeys were varying degrees of laxity, back-sliding, and pedestrianism, rather than great depravity. Durford was most unfortunate in being struck by plague in c.1482, and it appears that economic conditions and poor recruiting levels within that community, rather than a `criminal element', were largely responsible for its mediocre state, and perhaps also that of Blanchland.285 Seven houses, namely Alnwick, Dale, Easby, Langdon, Newbo, Titch®eld and Wendling, were generally in a more satisfactory state. At four of them, Titch®eld, Easby, Dale and Alnwick ± especially the ®rst two ± the visitor frequently praised the administration of the abbot, the level of observance, and noted that relations between abbot and community were more than 281

282 283 284

285

Religious Orders III, p. 41. Heath's comments on Bishop Blythe's visitations have some bearing here; `The fact that at one visitation a house may be without serious defects and at the next . . . riddled with them is in itself no proof of a conspiracy of silence on an earlier occasion, for in a small and closely-knit community tempers, morale and crises could ¯uctuate like April weather'; Bishop Geoffrey Blythe's Visitations, p. xxxiv. This concurs with Religious Orders III, p. 42. Ibid. Bodl. ASH, fol. 133v; CAP II, 445, and n.289 below. The size of a community does not necessarily determine its level of observance: e.g. compare the complements within Durford and Cockersand in Table 2. Bodl. ASH, fol. 38; CAP II, 381.


92


satisfactory. Easby, for instance, received particularly warm praise in 1486. Redman, using biblical imagery, found that the canons were servants of Christ and true religious who fed on the fruits of obedience, and loved their abbot, a true shepherd, who watched over and maintained his sheepfold in Christ.286 There were, nevertheless, instances at these abbeys where individuals were accused of criminalia, such as fornication and apostasy, pedestrianism, occasional problems between abbot and community in some of them and relaxations in observances. Frequently the problems encountered at these abbeys were, `small points of discipline and ceremonial'.287 Yet it is clear from the visitation records of these six abbeys that, as a group, they would not fall within Knowles' category of houses which mainly oscillated between à state of disorder that fell short of disaster and a degree of well being that failed to reach absolute excellence'. Taking into account instances of lukewarmness, laxity and serious faults, it would be true to say that these abbeys generally ¯uctuated between what Knowles described as a `tolerable' mediocrity to a reasonably satisfactory, or commendable state, which did not denote àbsolute excellence'.288 The best category of abbeys are those which Knowles termed as èntirely and continuously satisfactory': Barlings, Beauchief, Beeleigh, Coverham, Croxton, Hagnaby, Leiston, Torre, and West Dereham.289 Knowles' general description of these houses is unintentionally misleading. It appears to give the impression that no faults or aberrations at all were noted there during the visitations of 1478±1500, while, on the contrary, it is a rather modest description for the level of observance within at least two of these abbeys. It would be more appropriate to state that these houses maintained a consistently good, if not high, standard of observance throughout most of their visitations, though not without fault entirely, and even showed signs of excellence and a degree of fervour. Despite a prohibition on frequenting 286

287 288 289

This visitation is incorrectly placed among Alnwick's visitations in CAP: Bodl. ASH, fol. 62; CAP II, 190. Praise was also given in 1478, 1482, 1488, 1494, and 1500: ASH and CAP, passim. Religious Orders III, p. 42. Ibid. Religious Orders III, p. 41. Knowles' inclusion of Cockersand among them is seemingly an oversight. Discipline went downhill after the visitation of 1481: which Knowles cited as evidence of the house's observance. The present author is inclined to agree with C. Haigh's general impression of the abbey, as òne of consistent laxity punctuated by occasional more serious lapses . . . Redman recommended the Abbey on two occasions, and was critical of the monastery as a whole on four . . . [the abbey] left much to be desired in the last quarter of the ®fteenth century', though it continued to attract recruits and increase its complement, and appears to have undergone a notable improvement in observance before the Dissolution: C. Haigh, The Last Days of the Lancashire Monasteries and the Pilgrimage of Grace, Chetham Society, third series 17 (1969), pp. 4, 5, 11±14. I have retained Beauchief, but there was perhaps less fervour at this abbey in comparison with the other houses listed here, and serious problems ante-1482: Bodl. ASH and CAP, passim.



93

taverns and ìmmoderate' drinking within Barlings in 1478, that abbey received warm praise at the visitation.290 Of the faults recorded at its other visitations, there were injunctions on dress, on removing women from the monastery (1482) ± unless they were beyond suspicion ± one charge of fornication and four àpostates' ± a canon transferred to Newhouse (for misdemeanours?) by the 1489 provincial chapter, a few liturgical corrections, and an admonition directed to superiors who were unduly harsh in correcting their brethren (1497). This did not prevent the visitor from concluding overall that the abbot was `circumspecta subtilitate et providencia, utriusque status [i.e. spirituals and temporals] publica relucet bona fama' (1482), or that the abbey's virtue and religious observances shone, among other things (1500).291 West Dereham was similarly praised, especially in 1500, when Redman paid one of the warmest complements which he gave an abbot during his visitations; ùbi discretum pariter in spiritualibus et temporalibus non mediocriter comperimus prelatum, ad quem illud Salamonis [sic] reducere et assimilare merito possimus, ``Sapiens semper sapienter agit et gubernacula possidebit'' [Prov., 1:5]', and added that if he were not acting out of obedience, he would not come àd dictum monasterium causa reformacionis illuc diebus quo vixerit'.292 However, two abbeys, Croxton and Leiston, appear to have been even more meritorious, and consistently so, with minor faults being infrequently recorded during their visitations.293 Almost half of Redman's visitation report at Croxton in 1482 is taken up with praising the abbot and his relations with the community. In 1488 he found the community, as one read in the Rule of St Augustine, ùnanimiter et concorditer viventes Dominum [in vobis] invicem devoteque honorantes, patrique eorundem amore pariter et timore inherentes'.294 It was noted that the observances of the order and the liturgy `¯ourished inviolably' at Croxton in 1494, and that relations between the abbot and community were extremely good.295 Leiston was undoubtedly the most observant of the English Premonstratensian houses. Among Redman's comments on the abbey's observance are the following: that mutual love, charity and the bonds (vinculum) of peace ¯ourished between the abbot and community, for 290 291

292 293

294

295

Bodl. ASH, fol. 13v; CAP II, 204. Bodl. ASH, fols 29v, 94v±95, 105, 127v, 135±35v, 155v; CAP I, 89: II, 206, 210, 212, 214, 215. Bodl. ASH, fol. 152v; CAP III, 675. The most serious faults at Croxton were the following: one apostate in 1491, and several canons were absent in 1494: Bodl. ASH, fols 97, 126v; CAP II, 344, 346. Corrections made at Leiston: repairs to the cloister (1482); incorrect tonsures (1488, 1491) ± a common fault ± four canons who broke the silence (1488); directions on the of®ce of the dead (1488); windows to be made in the doors of the brothers' rooms, which should be left unlocked at night; black and white tassels; a canon àpostate' who returned on the same day (1500): see n. 296 below. Òmnes ergo unanimiter et concorditer uiuite, et honorate in uobis inuicem deum': La ReÁgle de Saint Augustin, p. 420. Bodl. ASH, fols 31±2, 71, 97, 126v, 136v, 153v; CAP II, 337, 341, 344, 346, 348, 349.


94


which thanks were given to God (1482); that the abbot, as a loving shepherd, provided the canons with all their necessities in abundance, and that the visitor's soul (`nostre mentis') exulted, as praise for the abbey came from the mouths of all (1494).296 The English Premonstratensians, as a particular group of late medieval religious, do not shine with the same brilliance as their illustrious forefathers in the early twelfth century, but perhaps they should not be judged against such a rigorous standard. Though a monastic institute in the last resort, will `prosper or decline' in proportion to its ®delity to its rule, it is almost inevitable that ± with the notable exception of the Carthusians and Bridgettines ± religious observance would slip over time, for the task of maintaining an order's ®rst enthusiasm is extremely dif®cult.297 The high ideals of the religious life certainly suffered in varying degrees in many of the Premonstratensian houses. This was a widespread phenomenon, so typi®ed in the response of the Benedictine general chapter to Cardinal Wolsey's wishes to initiate a reform, almost a hundred years after King Henry V made a similar attempt.298 They complained that if they were to return to the original severity of the rule, their monasteries would depopulate, as not many would be able to bear Wolsey's measures.299 Most of the Premonstratensian abbeys lacked the determination to observe their statutes àd litteram' in their entirety. The relaxation of certain rules within abbeys, in addition to sanctioned mitigations, was probably due to the direct in¯uence of a higher standard of living in English medieval society in general, which affected the old, and often rigid institution of religious life.300 Mediocrity and laxity were more prevalent tendencies in the houses of the white canons than extreme indifference towards the religious state or depravity or immorality, which were exceptions rather than the rule. The faults recorded in Redman's register were human failings which were manifested by monks and canons throughout the Middle Ages.301 It is worth stressing that, despite black spots and blemishes, about half of the abbeys which Redman visited were generally in a reasonably satisfactory 296

297

298 299

300

301

Bodl. ASH, fols 35v, 74v±75, 100, 124, 138, 151±51v; CAP III, 499, 501, 502, 504, 506, 507. Knowles, Monastic Order, pp. 688±90. One should also bear in mind other factors which led to monastic inertia and decline in the popularity of the monastic orders generally; e.g. the concept of living the religious life in the world, and the rise of the mendicant friars: Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, pp. 264±8; Harper-Bill, The Pre-Reformation Church, pp. 38±9. Chapters of the English Black Monks II, pp. 98±134: III, pp. 123±4. Chapters of the English Black Monks III, pp. 123±4. However, we must bear in mind that the Premonstratensians were, in many respects, a stricter congregation than the Black monks. Bishop Geoffrey Blythe's Visitations, p. lix; Jaritz, `The Standard of Living in German and Austrian Cistercian Monasteries', pp. 59, 62. Harper-Bill, `Cistercian Visitation', pp. 107±8; Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, pp. 184±6.



95

state and well governed, and that most abbeys were `tolerably observant'.302 While the visitation records leave us in no doubt about Redman's sincerity in taking great pains to investigate the observances of the Premonstratensians, certain remarks he made in a letter to the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ in 1493 should not, on the other hand, be taken too literally: Èt quamvis, reverendissime pater, singula monasteria nostre provincie temporalibus sint pauperrima, tamen Deo gratias referentes, virtutibus et omnimodis religionis ceremoniis existunt ditata, etc'.303 Redman's words may only be a re¯ection of the observance of the English houses at that particular time in toto, in an age when `rich observance' may well have meant `satisfactory' observance. If they were written as a veiled excuse for not paying the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ the subsidies, or intended as means to maintain the abbotgeneral's favour, then it is hard to see why Redman would incriminate himself by having this document copied into a register containing the visitation records which reveal the actual state of the English houses, if it was his deliberate intention to deceive PreÂmontreÂ. It could have given other prelates a pretext for Redman's removal as commissary-general. An earlier letter from Abbot Hubert of PreÂmontreÂ, from 1488, implies that Redman also made similar praises on the state of the English houses in a lost letter, to which this was the abbot's reply.304 While we still have to examine their liturgical observances and evidence for the canons' spiritual inclinations, it would be fair to remark at this point that while they were clearly driven `by no extraordinary fervour' generally, it would be incorrect to suggest that there was no fervour at all, or complete inertia.305 The eloquent statements of praise that Redman made at some of his visitations speak for themselves, and the level of fervour evidently differed from abbey to abbey. General efforts to repair conventual buildings, maintain existing complement levels ± in an age when lay spiritual endeavours were more focused at a local parish level ± and corrections to observances which were performed, albeit imperfectly, are indicative that the English Premonstratensians were not in a state of terminal decline, though generally mediocre. How can we evaluate the career of Richard Redman as a visitor? As we saw with our analysis of his itineraries, he was a man of extraordinary energy and zeal for his order, who generally accomplished his visitations with great skill and ef®ciency, undoubtedly with the able assistance of men such as Robert Bedalle. Nevertheless Redman undoubtedly had his shortcomings. Knowles has suggested that `Redman erred, if at all, on the side of leniency', in the punishments that he imposed on those guilty of serious misdemeanours.306 Leaving aside how one should judge the issue of leniency from a modern perspective, Knowles analysed twenty-three cases where a sentence 302 303 304 305 306

Religious Orders III, p. 51. Bodl. ASH, fol. 87; CAP I, 51. Bodl. ASH, fol. 66; CAP I, 47. Religious Orders III, p. 51. Religious Orders III, p. 44.


96


of exile was imposed on canons convicted of serious misdemeanours, and found that in eight instances the sentence was `remitted on the spot or its execution deferred inde®nitely', that three canons disappeared completely from their abbeys, six `de facto' never left their houses, and that only six went into exile; Ìn other words, about one in four of those sentenced actually went into exile, while two-thirds of the total stayed at home either with or without authorisation, though some of these soon disappeared, either by death or apostasy'.307 Knowles stated that his ®gures were not exhaustive in default of à satisfactory index and cross-references' in the Collectanea.308 A search through the manuscript has revealed that between 1478 and 1500 there were forty-three sentences of exile in Redman's visitations, including one abbot: two canons were exiled twice by the visitor, and another, a canon of Sulby, sentenced twice to exile to two different abbeys for two offences, and sentenced again at the next visitation.309 Over and above these cases there were instances where the formal sentence was not carried out, but postponed, or a relatively light penance was imposed. Of the forty-three sentences of exile issued to thirty-nine canons who committed serious offences, sixteen were postponed. Thomas Studley of Bayham was sentenced to three years at Newhouse and forty days gravioris culpe for fornication in 1491, but his sentence was postponed. In 1494 Robert Wolfet of Beauchief was accused by the abbot and community of many àbominable' crimes and excesses, including rebellion and physical violence. He was given a total of eighty days gravioris culpe and six years exile to Torre for his criminalia. These sentences were postponed.310 Though Redman's apparent leniency in many of these cases could be viewed as inappropriate from a modern viewpoint, we have to recall again that judging such matters in the context of the twentieth century can be 307

308 309

310

Religious Orders III, pp. 45±6. Coulton proposed that about thirty-eight canons were sentenced to exile, of which twenty-eight sentences were `mitigated on the spot' by the visitor: Coulton, Ten Medieval Studies, p. 266. Religious Orders III, p. 45. Alnwick 1482, Barlings 1491, Bayham 1491 and 1494, Beauchief 1494 (a canon was sentenced twice), Cockersand 1488 (two canons) and 1494, Coverham 1478 and between 1488 and 1491, Dale 1488 and 1494 (two canons), Egglestone 1497, Halesowen 1478 and 1497 (®ve canons), Langdon 1491, Langley 1478 and 1491, Lavendon 1491 and 1494, Sulby 1491 (two canons, one of whom was sentenced twice) and 1494 (one of the canons convicted in 1491), Torre 1478 (two canons), Tupholme 1497 (two canons), Welbeck 1482 (abbot), 1488 (two canons) and 1491 (a canon from Sulby), Wendling 1482, 1491 and 1494 (canon originally from Barlings, sentenced twice), West Dereham, 1491: Bodl. ASH and CAP, passim. As well as adding sentences to Knowles' calculations, I excluded from his ®gures, a canon of Blanchland exiled to Welbeck in 1460; six canons of Newhouse, who were not formally sentenced in 1478; a canon of Sulby not sentenced in 1488. I have excluded the period 1475±77, as only one visitation report, from Beauchief, survives from 1475, with no instances of exile: Religious Orders III, p. 45, n.1. Bodl. ASH, fols 100v±1, 122v; CAP II, 243, 255.



97

misleading, and Knowles does not appear to have taken suf®cient account of the precise context within which a penalty was postponed. It is noticeable that almost all the postponements were either at the intercession of the abbot or community, or even both, or a combination of them with any other prelates who were present during the visitation. Postponements were allowed pending efforts made by the canon to reform his moral character, and in half of these cases a monitum was issued which threatened sanctions if he did not amend. Usually the sentence was suspended until the next provincial chapter or visitation, when presumably the visitor would ascertain if a sentence should be carried out. Robert Wolfet was sentenced after he asked for mercy, but when his abbot and confreÁres interceded for him, his punishments were postponed (continuavimus) until the visitor returned to the abbey on the feast of the Assumption, which was just less than three months away, to see if Wolfet had made any efforts to reform. The abbot was threatened with deposition, and the canons with major excommunication, if they falsely testi®ed to Wolfet's good character. He does not appear to have been in trouble again.311 Richard Blakwall of Dale was sentenced to exile for ten years to Alnwick and a period of gravioris culpe, because of disobedience, rebellion and òther enormities' in 1488. After he promised to reform himself, with tears, and, at the intercession of the abbot and community, his penalty was postponed until 24 June, just over a month after the visitation, to see if he amended. If Blakwall was to lapse immediately into his old ways, he was to be imprisoned. It appears that he did relapse, because in the next visit in 1491, Redman found that Blakwall was deprived of his rights within the community.312 In Thomas Studley's case it was Redman who took the initiative. The visitor postponed his sentence for fornication, until the next provincial chapter, to see if he amended, but threatened life imprisonment if he saw the woman again. Redman may have taken what he thought to be the canon's vehement denials of committing the offence into account, though he could not purge himself. However, in this instance, Redman's con®dence in the canon's assertions were perhaps misplaced, as he apostatised, and was excommunicated in 1494, and evidently never returned to Bayham.313 Of the sixteen sentences that Redman postponed, fourteen were at the insistence of the abbot and/or the community or other prelates, and two were on Redman's own initiative.314 The statutes indicate that a canon could not be sent to another house unless the pater abbas, or one or two of the neighbouring abbots thought that this was necessary; on other occasions it could be done with the permission of the convicted canon's abbot, with 311 312 313

314

Bodl. Bodl. Bodl. Bodl. Bodl.

ASH, fol. 122v; CAP II, 243 and passim. ASH, fols 68±68v, 93v; CAP II, 363, 365. ASH, fols 100v±101, 117, 123*, 139, 149v; CAP II, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260; MS Eng. Hist. D.227, p. 21. ASH and CAP, passim.


98


consultation of the seniors in the community.315 It is thus clear that Redman was following the precepts of the statutes in deferring or postponing sentences in virtually all those instances, and by taking into account the wishes of abbot and community, who almost always interceded on behalf of convicted canons, most of whom are not recorded as committing serious offences again.316 If Redman could be said to be lenient in these matters, it was generally on account of the statutes' provisions rather than due to personal preference. The same phenomenon is evident from a mid-fourteenth century visitation report from Wendling.317 There remains Knowles' argument that some canons remained at home `de facto' rather than suffer banishment.318 How many do we know for certain went into exile? Of the forty-three sentences of exile issued by Redman to thirty-nine canons ± including those originally postponed ± ten canons were transferred to a different house (one canon was granted leave by chapter to go to university!), two became apostates, and seven canons disappear from the records, presumably on account of death or apostasy.319 It is evident, for the remaining twenty-four sentences, affecting twenty canons, that nineteen of them were present in their abbeys at the next extant visitation, usually the one immediately following, and twelve of them were in their abbeys until at least 1500. Some of these (ten canons), as Knowles suggests, may not have gone into exile as their sentences were postponed. However it is very likely that the other canons who did not have their sentences postponed entirely, did not remain in their abbeys de facto, but went into exile for a period of time, possibly having their sentences shortened later, in whole or in part. The probability of this is increased because in some cases, the visitor used the phrase `nisi alias secum fuerit misericorditer dispensatum', or a similar one, when sentencing a canon to exile. This expression actually appears in the statutes on a number of occasions to signify a dispensation from punishment. The statutes also state that canons could not return to their own abbeys unless they were dispensed by the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ, in this case his commissary, or the general chapter.320 These canons are not seen to 315

316 317 318 319

320

Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 78, 119; Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, pp. 832±3; BL PECK I, fols 60±60v; CAP I, 30. Religious Orders III, p. 46. BL PECK II, fols 82v±82; CAP III, 644. Religious Orders III, pp. 45±6. I have taken the actions of the provincial chapters into account in my calculations, especially postponements which led to exile: Religious Orders III, pp. 46±7. Note that George Littleport and William Farley of West Dereham were exiled by various provincial chapters more than once, over and above sentences which Redman may have conferred on them during his visitations: ibid. I have discounted instances in the chapter Acta where canons were transferred to other abbeys, or became professed canons of those abbeys for no speci®c reason, as this may not have been due to previous criminalia: see Bodl. ASH, fols 38, 42±42v, 60; CAP I, 149, 157: II, 381. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 78, 107, 119; Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, pp. 832±3; Bodl. ASH, fols 94v, 123*v; CAP II, 210, 257.



99

have been exiled in the visitation register because they may have been exiled in the intervening period between the visitations, ordinarily a gap of three years, and therefore there are no records of their exile. Very few copies of the necessary transfer documents used in banishing a canon to another house have survived.321 If one accepted Knowles' assertion that such canons `de facto' did not go into exile, then one would have to assume ± incorrectly ± that the visitor did not check that the injunctions of the previous Relictum, mentioning the banishment, were ful®lled. We have seen in general that Redman unstintingly enforced the statutes and corrected faults, and yet, as with the design of the habit, he also used his commissarial powers to mitigate. His strict adherence to the statutes could sometimes be overzealous, though he generally exercised prudence. Donald Logan has intimated that Redman may not have exercised the mercy which should have been shown to apostates ± the de®nition of which the visitor interpreted in the popular `wider sense' ± in view of a fourteenth-century papal decree which required this.322 Richard Redman could be said to have shown similarities to his great Cistercian contemporary, Marmaduke Huby of Fountains, in being a reformer of sorts. Lukewarmness in the Premonstratensians and Cistercians did not prevent serious efforts by the two commissaries to reform their monasteries.323 Despite Knowles' comments on Redman's leniency and problems of one kind or another in the religious life of the white canons, he was able to say that èfforts to mend matters and the success attending these efforts were greater among the white canons than among any other body of monks and canons, the Carthusians alone excepted'.324 The pedestrianism and lassitude so prevalent in many monasteries throughout Europe, did not inhibit some of Redman's counterparts on the continent from initiating reforms, and the general chapter, under the leadership of the abbot-general, itself proposed to update the order's statutes: though with mitigations to take into account the spirit of the age.325 While a number of divergences from continental practice resulted from the decrees of the devolved English provincial chapters, Redman perhaps shared some of the reforming aspirations of Huby, `based upon a rediscovery and reapplication of past glories and standards, and a renewed expression of earlier spiritual values and teaching, once again in vogue', rather than effecting a 321

322 323

324

325

Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 119; Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, pp. 832±3; BL ASH, fol. 15; CAP I, 147; BL PECK I, fols 124±24v, 125: II, fols 62, 67±67v; CAP II, 272, 273: III, 467, 597. Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. 123±5, 150±1. D. Baker, Òld Wine in New Bottles: Attitudes to Reform in Fifteenth-Century England', Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History, ed. D. Baker, Studies in Church History 14 (Oxford, 1977), pp. 206, 210±11. Religious Orders III, pp. 44±5; Baker, Òld Wine in New Bottles', pp. 206, 210±11. One should not forget the consistently high observance of the Syon Bridgettines: A. M. Hutchison, `Syon Abbey: Dissolution, No-Decline', Birgittiana 1 (1996), 245±53. Valvekens, `Le Chapitre GeÂneÂral de PreÂmontreÂ', pp. 53±94; Ardura, PreÂmontreÂs Histoire et SpiritualiteÂ, pp. 181±3, 208±11; L'Epistola Reformatoria, pp. i±vii.


100


more radical revision of the order's existing legislation, in an attempt to combat prevalent ills.326 A more thorough reformation of the statutes by Redman himself, may well have even been outside the bounds of the plenitudo potestatis which he possessed as English commissary-general.327 Redman failed to raise the level of observance in most of his abbeys to that of àbsolute excellence', or even to an acceptable standard of regular life in a handful of houses, which were generally unsatisfactory.328 His achievements, with the co-operation of some of his fellow abbots, must be seen in the maintaining of an acceptable, albeit mediocre, observance throughout most of the Premonstratensian houses, by his ®delity to the visitation procedure, ®rm and well-structured government within the English circaries, and in the degrees of fervour which were evident in nearly a third of his abbeys.

326 327

328

Baker, Òld Wine in New Bottles', pp. 207±8, 210±11. Yet see, for example, the liturgical decrees of the provincial chapters in the next chapter. Nevertheless notable improvements in the monastic observances were apparent at Bayham (1497, 1500), Lavendon (1500), Newhouse (1503) and Welbeck (1494, 1497, 1500), but how sustainable these were is unknown: Bodl. ASH, fols 134±34v, 122v, 139, 149v, 152v, 156, 160v; CAP II, 259, 260: III, 493, 541, 640, 642, 643.


4 The English Premonstratensian Liturgy

During the rationalist age of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, many of the older religious orders felt compelled to justify their continued existence within the Catholic church. The Premonstratensian canons, for their part, offered the following reasons as a vindication and characterisation of their canonical lifestyle since the Middle Ages: `Laudes Dei in choro; cultus eucharisticus; cultus marialis; spiritus jugis paenitentiae; zelus animarum'.1 The presence of the liturgy is prevalent in each of these elements, which were shared in varying degrees with most of the other religious orders of the Western church. Despite this fact, the liturgical observances of those orders who maintained their own liturgical `Rites' or Ùses',2 in many instances exempli®ed the origins, purpose and identity of each order concerned.3 The importance of accounting for the liturgical activities of the religious orders has been neglected by many historians in the past. This is understandable, because liturgiology is a technical ®eld with its own nomenclature.4 While Knowles made an invaluable contribution towards the understanding of monastic liturgy, he stated that, `The liturgy of the monasteries of the medieval Church . . . is a subject altogether remote from the interests and experience of the general reader and of the majority of historians in this country, [and] is peculiarly the province of specialists'.5 Happily, steps have been taken to remedy the divorce between liturgical and monastic studies.6 1 2

3

4

5 6

F. Petit, La SpiritualiteÂ des PreÂmontreÂs aux XIIe et XIIIe (Paris, 1947), p. 200. The word Ùse' is technically employed to mean a liturgy of a region, diocese or religious order derived from the Roman Rite. As the word `Rite' is often understood as synonymous with Ùse', I have done likewise in order to avoid confusion: King, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, pp. vii±viii; R. W. Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts in Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1970), p. 6. Compare the austere liturgy of the Carthusians with the more elaborate rites of the Benedictines: J. A. Gribbin, Aspects of Carthusian Liturgical Practice in Later Medieval England, Analecta Cartusiana 99:33 (Salzburg, 1995), pp. 3±7; Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, pp. 159±64. Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts, p. 133; E. M. Thompson, The Carthusian Order in England (London, 1930), pp. vii, 525. Knowles, The Monastic Order, p. 539. D. L. F. Chadd, `Liturgy and Liturgical Music: the Limits of Uniformity', Cistercian Art


102


H. M. Colvin, for his part, has given a ®ne account of the important role that the Premonstratensians played as liturgical mediators on the laity's behalf, and in their parochial activities. He indicated that ìn the case of the white canons . . . the frequency with which the founder [i.e. patron of an abbey] arranged for his [chantry] masses to be said by canon-priests . . . suggests that the layman had not altogether lost con®dence in the value of the monastic life as a means of intercession', in the later Middle Ages, despite the endowment of secular chantries.7 Though recent studies would demonstrate that the Premonstratensians and most of the older monastic orders did not match the degree of ìntercessory' popularity enjoyed by the less numerous, but more rigorous Carthusian charterhouses and some of the mendicant friars, Colvin's ®ndings retain their validity.8 Indeed, further evidence, including recently discovered material, corroborates them. One can add to the names of the handful of lay confraters and other benefactors recorded in Redman's visitation register ± which include John Gunthorpe (n 1498), humanist and servant of the crown ± a surviving confraternity grant from 1504. The abbot and community of Coverham granted Ralph Neville, Anne his wife and `Johanni et Katerine' (presumably his children) admission to the abbey's confraternity and a share in all `Missarum, ceterarum que horarium . . . Jeiuniorum, Vigiliarum, Meditacionum' and other spiritual works undertaken by the canons and their successors. These and other promises of spiritual graces were granted during the recipients' lives, and in death acted as a comprehensive insurance policy for the afterlife.9 More `physical' evidence indicating that patrons and other laity continued to be buried in at least some Premonstratensian houses was unearthed during excavations at Torre Abbey between 1986 and 1989. This uncovered a variety of artefacts, including a `large volume of ®nelycarved sculptured stone from tomb monuments and chapel screens', and

7

8

9

and Architecture in the British Isles, eds C. Norton and D. Park (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 229±314. White Canons, p. 272. Redman emphasised the spiritual and temporal importance of benefactions to the white canons at Hagnaby in 1488; `dignum sit quod fundatores omnesque nostri benefactores ut pro bene®ciis, que nobis pro nostra sustentacione largiti sunt, hic existentes in terris nostrorum precibus adjuti liberentur a penis': Bodl. ASH, fol. 70v; CAP II, 419. Among the few injunctions that Redman made on the observance of obits in the Premonstratensian abbeys, were those given at Alnwick in 1482: Bodl. ASH, fol. 26; CAP II, 188. N. P. Tanner, The Church in Late Medieval Norwich 1370±1532 (Toronto, 1984), pp. 113±40; Gribbin, Aspects of Carthusian Liturgical Practice, pp. 33±51. Bodl. ASH, fols 59v, 107v, 110; CAP I, 86, 90, 92; Lancashire Record Of®ce, MS RCHy.3.6.18. For other benefactors of Coverham, including the Neville family: Halsall, `Coverham Abbey', pp. 124, 127, 131±2; J. Hughes, Pastors and Visionaries: Religion and Secular Life in Late Medieval Yorkshire (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 48±9. Instructions and prayers connected with the reception of individuals into the confraternity at West Dereham (c.1520), are apparent in El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., f. 13.


THE ENGLISH PREMONSTRATENSIAN LITURGY

103

®fteenth-century fragments of a recumbent knight of near-life size, which lay on a raised tomb chest, and are described as of `the highest quality and greatest elaboration known in the South-West'.10 While Colvin's work on the connection between the English Premonstratensian liturgy and the laity remains important, the liturgical activities of the English white canons per se are mainly discounted by him, in a similar vein as others; `the daily round of worship among the white canons contained no important departure from the familiar scheme of of®ces common to western monasticism, and the peculiarities of the Premonstratensian horarium are a matter for the liturgical expert rather than for the ecclesiastical historian'. Colvin primarily focused on `the religious obligations of the order towards the outside world ± to peer in at the west door of the nave with the curious layman rather than to sit in choir with the canons themselves'.11 As a consequence the importance of the liturgical rites of the English Premonstratensians is not really given proper emphasis, nor investigated to uncover more about how well they observed them or those factors which shaped their liturgy, and externally expressed their identity. The aim of this present chapter is principally to `peer in' and go beyond the screen which separated the nave from the monastic choir, in order to ascertain the liturgical observances of the late medieval white canons of England, as they occupied much of their daily existence. We shall ®rst give a necessary brief reÂsumeÂ of the origins and development of the Premonstratensian liturgical rite, and then examine a number of aspects of its observance in England, including Redman's `liturgical' enquiries during his visitations, the introduction of new feasts by the provincial chapter, the surviving liturgical manuscripts of the English white canons, and the in¯uence of secular usages on their liturgy. The ®rst liturgical customs and rites of the order, formulated in the ®rst decades of the twelfth century, have largely eluded scholars as no 10

11

A. R. Pye, Torre Abbey Excavations, 1986±89: Assessment Report and Post-Excavation Research Design, Exeter Museums Archaeological Field Unit (Exeter, 1994), pp. 4±5, 10, 20. I have been told by the conservator working on these artifacts that they are thought to be late ®fteenth-century imitations of an earlier style, and are probably a memorial of the abbey's founder, William Brewer (n 1226) who was buried at Dunkeswell Abbey in Devon: Seymour, Torre Abbey, pp. 47±50. For other instances of lay patronage and benefactions at Barlings, Beauchief, Croxton, Easby, Egglestone, Newhouse, Halesowen, and the nuns of Broadholme, see BL MS Cotton Caligula A.VIII; R. Graham and P. K. Ballie Reynolds, Egglestone Abbey (London, 1958), pp. 12±13, 21; VCH Yorks. III, p. 248; Chapter Acts of the Cathedral Church of St Mary of Lincoln, A.D. 1520±1536, ed. R. E. G. Cole, Lincoln Record Society 12 (1915), pp. 49±50; CPR XIII, pt. 1, p. 264; White Canons, pp. 297±8; The Register of Bishop Philip Repingdon, 1405±1419, ed. M. Archer, Lincoln Record Society 57, 58, 74 (1963, 1982): I, pp. 151, 179±80: II, pp. 211±12: III, pp. 91, 210±11; D. N. Bell, What Nuns Read: Books and Libraries in Medieval English Nunneries, Cistercian Studies Series, n.158 (Kalamazoo, 1995), p. 120. White Canons, p. 257.


104


manuscripts are extant for this period. What can be discerned is that they were based upon the aspirations of the founder, St Norbert, towards the primitive observance of the Rule of St Augustine and the reform of the canonical life. His adoption of the strict Ordo Monasterii is thought to have led to the appropriation of its liturgical code. However the prescriptions of this rule stood in marked contrast with the generally accepted liturgical customs of the canons regular.12 This led to some criticism within the Church, and in 1126±27 Pope Honorius II ordered the Premonstratensians to conform their liturgical observances `secundum aliorum regularium fratrum consuetudinem'.13 Although minute traces can be found of the Ordo Monasterii in the medieval Premonstratensian liturgy, the order conformed to the pope's wishes by abandoning its liturgical prescriptions. The Premonstratensians set about the task of compiling their ®rst Ordinarius to regulate the liturgy, probably between 1126 and 1131.14 Unfortunately it is no longer extant, though the ®rst edition of the statutes (between 1131 and 1134), and various papal bulls, indicate the existence of a standard set of liturgical books within the order.15 The statutes of c.1174 and another Ordinarius, compiled between the end of the twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth century, and several papal bulls, insisted on liturgical unity within the order, which seems to have been lacking.16 Liturgical uniformity was intended to facilitate greater unity between each individual monastery and strengthen bonds within the order, as well as to preserve its identity. As time progressed the medieval Premonstratensian liturgy, while mainly aligned on a conservative course, witnessed the addition of feasts and ceremonies by various general chapters. After another edition of the statutes appeared, between 1236 and 1238, a new liturgical compilation was made at PreÂmontreÂ, the Consuetudines Ecclesiae Premonstratensis, usually referred to as Usus I.17 The beginning of the thirteenth century saw the introduction of the triplex rank for greater feasts, which was peculiar to the Premonstratensians.18 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

P. LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ: Histoire, Formulaire, Chant et CeÂreÂmonial (Louvain, 1957), pp. 3±4. LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. 4, 5; King, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, pp. 166± 7. LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. 5±7, 9. The order abandoned the Ordo Monasterii before the mid-twelfth century: White Canons, pp. 10±11. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ I, pp. v±vii, xiii, 49; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. viii; LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, p. 6. L'Ordinaire de PreÂmontreÂ d'ApreÁs des Manuscrits du XIIe et du XIIIe SieÁcle, ed. P. F. LefeÁvre (Louvain, 1941); Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ I, p. 49; LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. vii, 6±7, 9, 12±13. Coutumiers Liturgiques de PreÂmontreÂ du XIIIe et du XIVe SieÁcle, ed. P. F. LefeÁvre (Louvain, 1953), pp. viii±x; `Das Ordensrecht der PraÈmonstratenser vom SpaÈten 12. Jahrhundert bis zum Jahr 1227: Der Liber Consuetudinem und die Dekrete des Generalkapitels', ed. B. Krings, AP 69 (1993), 107±33 and passim. LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, p. 45; Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts, p. 59; see Table 4.



105

Further liturgical directives issued by the general chapter, and the statutes of 1290, entailed more additions to the order's liturgical texts, and the appearance of yet another set of Consuetudines Ecclesie Premonstratensis (Usus II) at the beginning of the fourteenth century.19 All these changes affected the Ordinarius, and either supplemented existing copies or led to modi®ed versions.20 The increasing complexity of rites was accompanied by the elaboration of the accessories used in the liturgy's performance. The severe and unadorned priestly vestments of the early twelfth century gave way to the lifting of a prohibition of albs decorated with silk embroidery, the introduction of a colour sequence, sumptuous vestments, and the use of ponti®calia by most Premonstratensian abbots by the sixteenth century.21 What can be said about the liturgical sources that were utilised in the construction of the Premonstratensian rite and its characteristics? Placide LefeÁvre has commented that the principal source of the Premonstratensian liturgy èst le rite gallo-romain, c'est-aÁ-dire, celui de la Ville eÂternelle tel qu'il eÂtait recËu au XIIo sieÁcle, avec quelques varieÂteÂs de terroir, dans les grandes eÂglises seÂculieÁres, ± catheÂdrales ou colleÂgiales, ± de l'Occident'.22 The Premonstratensian liturgy, particularly the Ordinarium Missae, contains elements of the earliest Roman liturgical texts, notable in¯uences from the Cistercian rite, and usages which were adopted from other congregations of canons and the monks of Cluny.23 As well as the communal chanting of the divine of®ce there was the daily recitation of the Of®ce of the Dead and the Little Of®ce of the Virgin Mary. The arrangement of the psalms of the canonical hours was generally taken from secular, rather than monastic sources.24 There are a number of peculiarities in the divine of®ce, such as the chanting of the Salve Regina in procession to the church, on the conclusion of chapter.25 Premonstratensian chant has a certain distinctiveness in dialect and tonality, and it has been said that `le chant de PreÂmontreÂ est encore d'une facture excellente'.26 In addition to the private masses of individual canons the Premonstratensians celebrated three daily community masses; the Missa de Beata, in honour of the Virgin, before Prime, the Missa Matutinalis, usually a mass for the dead, after Prime, and the Missa Summa 19 20

21

22 23

24 25 26

Coutumiers Liturgiques de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. x±xii. Le Liber Ordinarius d'ApreÁs un Manuscrit du XIIIe/XIVe S., ed. M. Van Waefelghem, (Louvain, 1913); King, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, pp. 174±5. LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. 67±8; King, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, pp. 200±3; Textes Relatifs a une Provision Ponti®cale a l'Abbaye d'Averbode au XVe SieÁcle, ed. P. LefeÁvre (Tongerlo, 1926), pp. 14±16; 20±1. Mitres do not appear to have been used in England, but see p. 10, n. 33. LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, p. 11. Sacramentarium Praemonstratense, ed. N. I. Weyns (Averbode, 1968), pp. xxii±iii, 14± 28; LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. 11, 57, 62, 114±16. LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. 50, 55. Ibid., p. 53. Ibid., pp. 15±16.


106


Table 4. A hierarchical categorization of liturgical feasts among the Premonstratensian canons in the later Middle Ages*

* Subdivisions of these festal ranks and octaves have been omitted for clarity.

Major after Terce or Sext, which was the conventual mass, and followed the liturgical cursus of the day or was votive in character.27 Any attempt to discover how the Premonstratensian liturgy was observed, and traces of the liturgical rites in the order's English abbeys, when Redman was commissary-general, must be based on an analysis of their surviving liturgical manuscripts. In addition several important factors must be borne in mind concerning the relationship of the English circaries with PreÂmontreÂ. Because Redman was the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ's commissary-general in England, a degree of authority in liturgical matters was vested in him. It 27

Acta O. Praem. I, p. 37; Coutumiers Liturgiques de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. 17±18; P. LefeÁvre, `La Messe Quotidienne De Beata dans la Liturgie PreÂmontreÂ', AP 27 (1951), 51±7; LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. 61, 63±5.



107

was naturally Redman's duty to enquire into the performance of the Opus Dei in the abbeys he visited. The statutes (1290) required the circatores to report to the general chapter negligent abbots who strayed from the uniformity of the order's observances.28 Authority also resided with the English general and provincial chapters, which issued liturgical legislation. Therefore, before turning our attention to the few surviving liturgical manuscripts of the English white canons, it is essential that we ®rst examine the liturgical injunctions from Redman's visitations and those of the provincial chapters. Although these particular injunctions were primarily ± though not exclusively ± oriented towards the expurgation of ritual and rubrical errors, norms can also be discovered which Redman sought to put in place, especially liturgical uniformity, the nature of the liturgical observances of the English white canons, and their devotion towards them. The liturgical importance of the visitation documents cannot be emphasised enough, as only three liturgical manuscripts from England's Premonstratensian abbeys are extant.29 The provision of enough canons in each abbey for the liturgy's performance, was one of the reasons why Redman asked particular houses to increase their inmates; namely at Bayham, Durford, Langley, Wendling and Blanchland.30 Although Redman had commented in 1488 that the divine of®ce was solemnly celebrated at Durford `fratrum paucitate considerata', he commanded the abbot to increase the number of canons, and did so again in 1494, so that the of®ce could be properly carried out.31 In 1482 the abbot of Bayham was told to increase the community ùt divinum servicium die et nocte persolvant'. Similar commands were given at Bayham in 1488 and 1494. By 1500 Redman again told the abbot of Bayham to increase his community, despite making the observation that `Non minus vero in cultu divino cum universis religionis cerimoniis et virtutibus circumfulti'.32 In connection with this, Redman had to deal with canons who were absent from the divine of®ce because of of®cial duties, which was a common enough occurrence in the Benedictine houses.33 Redman insisted that of®cials attended the of®ce, though an element of prudence can be noted in his injunctions. At Cockersand in 1488, he ordered that all of®cials should ùt in quantum possint' attend the divine of®ces, though he stipulated that canons who were not delegated external duties, had to be present `sub pena maximi contemptus'.34 Previously, in 1478, he ordered that of®cials at Welbeck, who had external responsibilities, were to recite Matins silently 28 29

30

31 32 33 34

Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 93. See pp. 117ff. I exclude here certain liturgical manuscripts where English Premonstratensian provenance has not been fully ascertained, at least at present. Bodl. ASH, fols 13*, 16, 34v, 37±8, 62, 77v, 78v, 123±23*v, 149v; CAP II, 252, 254, 257, 260, 278, 281, 382, 385: III, 469, 648. Bodl. ASH, fols 78v, 123; CAP II, 382, 385. Bodl. ASH, fols 37±38, 77v, 123*v, 149v; CAP II, 252, 254, 257, 260. Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 77, 157. Bodl. ASH, fol. 65v; CAP II, 298.


108


(`conquiescant') in a different part of the church: no doubt so that they could leave quietly and attend to their duties.35 Redman was also sensitive to those who could not attend the services in church for valid reasons, for he occasionally granted dispensations from the liturgical services, which were either partial or plenary in character. For instance at Hagnaby in 1491, he dispensed Thomas Cotom, formerly subcellarer, from attending choir completely, as he was `longo senio in religione per quinquaginta annos confractum et debilem'.36 Gilbert Egliston of Newhouse was dispensed from certain liturgical duties in the same year, on account of his many `genuine in®rmities', but had to celebrate the daily Missa Matutinalis, unless vexed by illness or preoccupied by other matters.37 It is signi®cant that while the English white canons continued to serve personally many of their appropriated parish churches and maintained other external liturgical tasks, these activities were not to undermine their abbey's liturgical obligations. Redman ordered the recall of Premonstratensian vicars from their cures, from Blanchland (1486) and Bayham (1488) for instance, and forbade their priests from serving parishes or bene®ces which were unappropriated, for he felt that their abbey's liturgy was affected by a shortage of canons.38 By far the most common fault as far as non-attendance at the of®ce was concerned, was the failure to rise for Matins during the night which was noted by Redman in over half of the abbeys that he visited. Often there are only occasional references to this fault in the houses concerned. Torre, for example, was castigated for this only in the 1482 visitation, while the canons of West Dereham were ordered to rise for Matins in 1488 and 1491.39 At several abbeys the problem seems to have been endemic, and Lavendon and Newhouse appear to be the worst offenders. Canons from Newhouse, both collectively and individually, were noted for this offence in 1482 and 1488, while Lavendon was reprimanded in 1482, 1488, 1491 and 1494.40 In 1488 no less than four canons from Newhouse were accused of frequently missing Matins, going out before Prime and after Compline to a place to talk, and also frequenting taverns. Redman lamented that they pursue these things, `quasi canis ad vomitum iterum'.41 In 1494 the abbot of Lavendon was ordered that all were to rise for Matins, and that Prime, Vespers, Compline and the other of®ces were not to be omitted by the community, provided 35 36

37 38 39 40 41

Bodl. ASH, fol. 11v; CAP III, 630. Bodl. ASH, fol. 94v; CAP II, 421. Gasquet claims that two canons were dispensed from choir at Hagnaby in 1491. However Alan Hannay only appears to have been dispensed from his duties in the abbey tannery; ibid. Bodl. ASH, fols 94±94v; CAP III, 535. Bodl. ASH, fols 62, 77v±78; CAP II, 254, 281. Bodl. ASH, fols 39, 72v, 99; CAP III, 598, 669, 670. Bodl. ASH, fols 29, 33, 69v±70, 72, 99, 125v; CAP III, 485, 487, 489, 491, 532, 534. Bodl. ASH, fols 69v±70; CAP III, 534.



109

that four (!) canons remained in the monastery.42 The persistency of missing matins in an abbey, and other parts of the of®ce, is generally indicative of a recurrent lassitude towards the performance of the Opus Dei. However it is natural enough that, in other cases, genuine tiredness, at a time when the body is at its most weary, was responsible for a great many instances.43 Other faults in the liturgical observances ranged from very minor matters to more serious aberrations: though they mainly fall into the former category, and are similar in nature to those cited in the `De Levioribus Culpis' and `De Mediis Culpis' of the statutes (1290).44 Redman, as with other aberrations, clearly based his judgments upon the circumstances in which they were committed, as warranting a greater or lesser penalty. In 1494 John Brand of Cockersand made an error in the collects of the Majori Missa, but, because he did not declare his fault, he was to be punished with ùnum nocturnum Psalterii' in the cloister, `cum corporali disciplina'. In the same year Edward Melling of Sulby said one gospel instead of another at mass. Because he had voluntarily (`sponte') come forward and begged pardon for this fault, he was only required to say one nocturn in the cloister.45 On several occasions Redman gave admonitions on the correct bows to be made when entering or leaving choir, or when meeting an abbot or superior, and made stipulations concerning the appointment of canons who ful®lled certain liturgical duties on a weekly basis.46 There were a few instances where Redman made injunctions on the liturgical cult of the Virgin Mary, and gave directions on the appropriate chants and rubrics. For example, at Barlings, in 1491, he ordained that any commemorations of the Virgin Mary, chanted by the priest hebdomadarius, and the Angelic Salutation (Ave Maria), were to be devoutly intoned by him, at all the of®ces, day and night, and concluded by the community.47 However Redman also took practicalities into account. In 1494 he asked the community of Lavendon to sing both the mass of the day and the Lady Mass daily, unless it was a time of harvest or when much work had to be done. The singing of the daily Missa De Beata was stipulated by the 1489 provincial chapter and Usus I.48 Most of the visitation injunctions indicate that the 42 43

44 45 46 47 48

Bodl. ASH, fol. 125v; CAP III, 491. Other complaints about matins related to the time that the of®ce was held at. There were two complaints about faulty clocks being responsible for irregular services in general, and Redman did not countenance Alnwick's excuses for not holding matins at midnight in 1488: `quia licet lucerna aliis lumen prebet, attamen seipsum consumit'; Bodl. ASH, fols 72v, 81, 127, 130, 137v, 145±45v, 147; CAP II, 192, 288, 289, 290, 371: III, 477, 537, 669. See comments on `clock-time' and `natural time' in operation within Benedictine monasteries in tandem, in Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 155±6. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 65±8; Bodl. ASH, fols 31v, 133; CAP II, 337, 370. Bodl. ASH, fols 121, 126; CAP II, 304: III, 567. Bodl. ASH, fols 13, 15v, 81, 123v; CAP II, 192, 312, 415: III, 586. Bodl. ASH, fol. 95; CAP II, 210; Acta O. Praem. I, pp. 21±2. Bodl. ASH, fols 103, 125v; CAP I, 89: III, 491; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 12±13; Coutumiers Liturgiques de PreÂmontreÂ, p. 17.


110


prominent liturgical cult with which the Virgin ± who grew in even greater popularity towards the end of the Middle Ages ± was honoured among the white canons, was being observed, but required either minor corrections, or textual ones. There is even some evidence, mostly outside the visitation records, that probably indicates that attempts were made to enhance the celebration of sung mass in the Virgin's chapel in some abbeys.49 Later inventories from Beeleigh and Cockersand, both compiled in 1536, record that their Lady chapels contained à payer of organes', and are illustrative of musical accompaniment in the English Premonstratensian liturgy.50 In 1500, Redman praised the repairs and building work on the Lady chapel at Croxton.51 In addition to elaborating the cult of the Blessed Virgin, attempts were made to beautify the abbey church as a whole, in some abbeys, and thus enhance their liturgy. Redman praised a recently elected abbot at Coverham for building work and repairs to the church in 1491, which he described as `sumptuosissime'. Redman extolled the abbot, not as a repairer, but as a `novus fundator'.52 Even for Sulby, which had many internal dif®culties later, there was an exceptionally good visitation report in 1482, in which Redman delighted in the repairs and building which were accomplished, including work on the roof and the windows of the church. The abbot had two large antiphonaries made for the choir and ®ve bells (campanas) èx una concordia', among other praiseworthy items.53 Other visitation reports speak of varying degrees of repairs and building work in the churches at Beeleigh, Beauchief, Croxton, Newbo, Langdon, and Welbeck. Additional archaeological and architectural evidence indicates similar things at Shap, Torre and Dale (as well as Croxton) between the ®fteenth and early sixteenth centuries, and even at Egglestone, the least wealthy Premonstratensian abbey.54 The repair work and rebuilding in these abbeys ®t within 49 50

51

52 53 54

Swanson, Religion and Devotion, pp. 144±5. The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey III, pt 3, p. 1171; R. C. Fowler, A. W. Clapham et al., Beeleigh Abbey (London, 1922), p. 33. On utilising Dissolution lists see n.56 below. Bodl. ASH, fol. 153v; CAP II, 349; Clapham, `The Architecture of the Premonstratensians', pp. 133, 134. A chapel in honour of the Blessed Virgin ± akin to a chantry chapel ± and a daily mass `with music by canons and chantors', was in the process of being established at Whithorn Priory in 1431, with prayers for the prior's soul ànd sermon to the people'. This was possibly an additional Missa de Beata: Scottish Supplications to Rome, 1428±1432, eds A. I. Dunlop and I. B. Cowan (Edinburgh, 1970), p. 175. Bodl. ASH, fol. 93; CAP II, 322. Bodl. ASH, fol. 32; CAP III, 561. Bodl. ASH, fols 31, 93, 93v, 95, 100v, 151; CAP II, 241, 270, 337: III, 456, 514, 638; Clapham, `The Architecture of the Premonstratensians', pp. 133, 134; Colvin, `The Dissolution of Dale Abbey', p. 24; Graham and Ballie Reynolds, Egglestone Abbey, p. 7. For Shap see pp. 191±2, and for a recent article which questions the extent to which Cistercian architecture in¯uenced Premonstratensian abbey buildings, W. W. Clark, `Cistercian In¯uences on Premonstratensian Church Planning: Saint-Martin at Laon',



111

the context of the huge amount of ecclesiastical building and rebuilding taking place within the English church at the same time.55 References to liturgical artifacts from some of the Premonstratensian houses, mainly from the time of the Dissolution, give some idea of the elaborateness with which divine worship was clothed.56 One must, nevertheless, be cautious of sweeping generalisations, of attributing fabulous wealth to the Premonstratensians, or extending what evidence there is to all or most of the houses. Poverty in certain abbeys, even where there may have been generous benefactors, may have resulted in liturgical items of a poorer quality, or even the neglect of the Divini Cultus.57 On the other hand a list from Beauchief (1536), reveals a number of good quality items for liturgical use, as well as plainer artifacts, including three chalices of parcell gilt, with patens, two small `thinges of siluer to putt relikes in', and also records four sets of silk vestments, of various colours.58 A detailed inventory from Beeleigh lists the vestments and other accoutrements in the church and the sacristy. As well as older and more worn items, such as a cope of silk with green ¯owers `garnysshed with golde' and a set of vestments òf olde crymsen velvett . . . with starres of gold', there was a cope of crimson satin with gold stars and a set of vestments of `russett velvett with orses of cloth of sylver'. Among the abbey's plate were four chalices with four silver patens, a censer of silver parcell gilt and a crozier of silver gilt.59 The benefactors and patrons of Beeleigh were generous with the provision of vestments, for the vestry contained items with their heraldic devices. There was a cope of blue velvet `with ffetter locks and bousers knotts'. These `bouser knotts' constituted the badge of the Bourchier family, the earls of Essex, who were the abbey's patrons. There were also two copes of green velvet with the same design, and some items containing the insignia of the Stafford family.60 The beautifully carved choir-stalls which once stood in Easby Abbey, now located in St Mary's Church in neighbouring Richmond, were probably erected by Robert Bampton, the last abbot (1511±36).61 The loss of the

55 56

57

58 59 60 61

Studies in Cistercian Art and Architecture 2, ed. M. Parsons Lillich, Cistercian Studies Series no. 69 (Kalamazoo, 1984), pp. 161±88. Religious Orders III, pp. 21±4. There are drawbacks to using Dissolution lists which were compiled over thirty years after Redman's death (n 1505). Items recorded there may have been acquired subsequent to this date, and some of the lists may be incomplete due to loss or theft. However, they remain good indications of the liturgical accoutrements used by the canons for our period. Some of the older vestments may have been available pre1505 and then in better condition. Compare the Beeleigh list with examples of testamentary bequests in Fowler and Clapham, Beeleigh Abbey, pp. 24±9, 31±6. For a list from Langley (1536) which contains `nothing of value': F. C. Elliston Erwood, `The Premonstratensian Abbey of Langley, co. Norfolk', Norfolk Archaeology 21 (1920±22), 185. Nottinghamshire Archives, MS D.D.F.J. 11/1/8. Fowler and Clapham, Beeleigh Abbey, pp. 33±5, 36. Ibid., pp. 34±5. Weaver, Richmond Castle, p. 28. Weaver and other authors incorrectly call Abbot


112


Plate 9. The choir-stalls from Easby Abbey, probably commissioned by Abbot Robert Bampton (1511±36), now located in the parish church of Richmond, Yorkshire



113

primitive simplicity of the order's liturgy clearly affected the English white canons to a great extent, and must have been due in great part to their benefactors and patrons who wanted to equip their abbeys and chantries with as many beautiful liturgical accoutrements as possible.62 Thus far the visitation records con®rm that Redman paid close attention to the observances, rubrics and chants which the canons used for their worship. He was evidently thoroughly versed in the liturgical traditions and observances of his order, and strove to standardise and enhance the liturgy throughout the abbeys. This process included implementing the liturgical ordinances of the provincial chapters.63 The dif®nitors at these chapters, presided over by Redman, were responsible for issuing liturgical legislation, and it is evident from the visitation reports that a number of the chapters' decisions were based on what Redman noted in individual abbeys, concerning their failure to observe certain feasts and ceremonies. A few abbeys even lacked copies of their Acta, which they were obliged to obtain, and were slow in implementing the chapters' liturgical legislation.64 At Alnwick (1491), for example, the community were given a year to obtain the liturgical texts for the feast of St Martha, and other feasts which the provincial chapter ordered.65 Redman gave a whole series of commands to Halesowen on liturgical matters in 1478 and 1488, which included orders to observe the feasts of St Anne, St Martha, and St Kenelm, `cum aliis et singulis institucionibus et decretis provincialis Capituli anno Domini millesimo CCCCLXXVI, mensis Julii xv die'. The failure of Halesowen to observe the feast of St Kenelm, aside from the abbey's lateness in implementing the chapter's decrees, is surprising, as it possessed the chapel of St Kenelm at Romsley, which was a place of pilgrimage.66 Nevertheless delays in implementing the liturgical wishes of the provincial chapters at the abbeys where this occurred do not appear to have been deliberately intended, at least in most cases. They were probably due to either

62

63 64 65 66

Bampton `John' and give a later than 1511 date for the beginning of his abbacy: see C. Cross and N. Vickers, Monks, Friars and Nuns in Sixteenth Century Yorkshire, The Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series 150 (1995), p. 360 and illustration on p. 112. On lists from other English abbeys (14th±16th cent.) and building work and liturgical items from Flanders at Fearn Abbey, see VCH Suff. II, p. 119: Hants. II, pp. 184±5; J. Swarbrick, `The Abbey of St Mary-of-the-Marsh at Cockersand', Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 40 (offprint, 1925), plate L; The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey III, pt 3, pp. 1170±2; BL PECK II, fols 32± 3; CAP II, 448; Colvin, `The Dissolution of Dale Abbey', p. 7; The Calendar of Fearn, p. 31. Cockersand possessed vestments called the `Scottes sute' and `Foxe sute' and among the ®ne quality liturgical items at Easby, were acquisitions from the Scrope family: The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey III, pt 3, p. 1170; VCH Yorks. III, p. 248; White Canons, pp. 297±8. Bodl. ASH, fol. 59v; CAP I, 86. Bodl. ASH, fols 109v±10, 122v; CAP I, 92: II, 243. Bodl. ASH, fols 59v, 92; CAP I, 86: II, 195. Bodl. ASH, fols 3±3v, 11, 67v; CAP I, 82: II, 432, 439; White Canons, p. 181.


114


carelessness, or dif®culties in obtaining the appropriate liturgical texts and the capitular Acta. This is not necessarily indicative of a complete failure of centralised government among the English Premonstratensians. Even the highly centralised monks of England's Carthusian charterhouses experienced dif®culties in obtaining the proper exemplars for the correction of their liturgical books.67 Though most of the liturgical failings recorded in the visitation records were relatively minor aberrations, several rubrical, ceremonial, musical and textual errors were not simply mistakes which arose in the performance of òf®cial' Premonstratensian usages. Some of these errors imply that there was a degree of admixture of the English Premonstratensian Rite with secular or other monastic rites. Overt references to what are described, in some cases, as `secular' customs and usages occur at Egglestone, Dale, Langdon, Cockersand, Wendling and St Radegund's. At Egglestone, in 1478, Redman ordered that prayers, collects and the Con®teor, with the Misereatur, were to be said according to the order's liturgy, òmnino spretis secularibus consuetudinibus' [my emphasis].68 In 1482 Redman made the following command at Langdon; `Cantent eciam fratres Con®teor, tonos et ympnorum notam, secundum formam nostre religionis, usibus secularibus omnino spretis, sub pena excommunicacionis'.69 In addition to these is one particular ritualistic deviation that Redman found in no less than ten abbeys, which strongly suggests the in¯uence of non-Premonstratensian liturgical usages; namely at Coverham (1494), Easby (1494), Barlings (1494), Welbeck (1491), Langley (1491), Titch®eld (1478 and 1497), Torre (1491), West Dereham (1494) Cockersand (1494) and Dale (1497). This concerned the posture of kneeling, by the liturgical ministers, mainly the deacon and subdeacon, before or after the elevation of the host or chalice at mass.70 Redman prohibited these gestures, and although he described them as an abusum at Titch®eld in 1478, he categorised them at Dale and Cockersand as faults in `minor observances'.71 He made clear that the sacred ministers were to make a bow at the elevation, and that the deacon and subdeacon were to assist the priest, especially by holding the edges of his chasuble. Kneeling was also denied to the deacon and subdeacon while the priest received the host; `ne diaconi ad missam prescripti de cetero ad elevacionem hostie vel in precepcione ejusdem [i.e. the priest's communion] genua ¯ectant, sed eidem reverenter inclinent casulam sacerdoti alleviando'.72 At Cockersand and West Dereham, Redman included the priest in this, by stipulating that the 67 68 69 70

71 72

Gribbin, Aspects of Carthusian Liturgical Practice, pp. 23±4. Bodl. ASH, fol. 16; CAP II, 398. Bodl. ASH, fol. 37; CAP III, 453. Bodl. ASH, fols 14, 91, 94, 99v, 121, 122, 125v, 127v, 133, 139v; CAP II, 177, 212, 304, 324, 370: III, 473, 579, 588, 601, 638, 672. Bodl. ASH, fols 14, 121, 133; CAP II, 304, 370: III, 579. Bodl. ASH, fol. 122; CAP II, 324.



115

priest only bowed his head before elevating the host or chalice.73 In forbidding genu¯ections at the elevation and priest's communion Redman was upholding the traditional liturgical practices of the order.74 Kneeling at the elevation among certain houses of the English Premonstratensians is very likely to have been due to the in¯uence of lay practices, because it was a widespread usage which was prescribed or èncouraged' among the laity of medieval England and further a®eld.75 The utilisation of secular liturgical texts and ritualistic practices could have been partly due to the in¯uence of the secular liturgies which the English Premonstratensians may have encountered, or even used, to some extent, when ministering to the laity in their parishes. In fact on several occasions Redman inveighed against `parochial' ministrations within an abbey. At Cockersand in 1494, he prohibited infant baptisms and con®rmations, and baptism was forbidden at Halesowen in 1488. Redman's admonitions were in line with those of the statutes, which only allowed the canons to conduct baptism `propter grave periculum vel scandalum evitandum'.76 Though we have seen evidence for the use of `secular' texts at several abbeys, a particularly ®ne example of a secular `quasi-liturgical' text at Dale merits particular comment. In 1478 Redman stated that there were a number of prayers and devotions at Dale which were contrary to the form and `fundamentum' of the order, `videlicet Patris sapiencia, Hora prima, Cruci®ge', which he strictly prohibited.77 The Patris sapiencia, Hora Prima and Cruci®ge are the initial words from three verses of the Òf®ce of the Passion', 73

74

75

76

77

Bodl. ASH, fols 121, 125v; CAP II, 304: III, 672. Curiously Redman prohibited the priest to genu¯ect `nisi solummodo semel ante elevacionem sacramenti' at Titch®eld in 1478. A. A. King claims that this was permitted by the order's rubrics, though cites no authority for this other than the Titch®eld visitation: King, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, p. 215, n.4. Le Liber Ordinarius, pp. 72±6; BL MS Sloane 1584, fols 3±3v; Bodl. ASH, fol. 122; CAP II, 177. This does not include some later choir rubrics: ibid. M. Rubin, Corpus Christi (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 57, 104; Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, pp. 117±18. Priests generally bowed at this time, though deacons and subdeacons began to adopt the posture of kneeling at the elevation: J. A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite (London, 1959), p. 427; C. Folsom, `Gestures Accompanying the Words of Consecration in the History of the Ordo Missñ', The Veneration of the Eucharist: The Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on the Roman Catholic Liturgy, eds the members of the Centre International d'Etudes Liturgiques (Southampton, 1997), pp. 75±82. Bodl. ASH, fols 67v, 121; CAP II, 304, 439; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 122. See pp. 122ff. on localised feasts and J. Deveson, `Reading Between the Lines', Choir and Organ 4 (1996), pp. 15±18 on the ®fteenth-century Sarum antiphoner from Ranworth parish church in Norfolk, which was appropriated to Langley. Deveson may be correct in proposing that the white canons were directly responsible `for the performance of plainchant in all services', at Ranworth, but one should also consider the use of vocalists in some English parish churches: ibid.; C. Burgess, ` ``For the Increase of Divine Service'': Chantries in the Parish in Late Medieval Bristol', JEH 36 (1985), 54±9. Bodl. ASH, fol. 11; CAP II, 358.


116


otherwise known as the Òf®ce of the Holy Cross'. This devotional of®ce was often recited with the Hours or Of®ce of the Blessed Virgin.78 Ad Matutinas de Cruce [i.e. Matins and Lauds] Patris sapientia veritas diuina Deus homo captus est hora matutina A notis discipulis cito derelictus, A Judeis venditus, traditus, af¯ictus . . . [Ad Primam] Hora prima ductus est Jesus ad Pylatum. Falsis testimonijs multum accusatum, In collo percutiunt manibus ligatum. Vultum Dei conspuunt, Lumen celi gratum . . . [Ad Tertiam] Cruci®ge, clamitant hora tertiarum: Illusus induitur veste purpuratum. Caput eius pungitur corona spinarum: Crucem portat humeris ad locum penarum . . .79

The use of this of®ce at Dale is an interesting example of the adoption by the English Premonstratensians of a `popular' devotion used by owners of `Books of Hours', and is perhaps indicative of the devotional tastes of that particular abbey, along with several others. A copy of the same of®ce is extant in a late (?) fourteenth-century Augustinian liturgical book which West Dereham probably acquired in the early sixteenth century.80 This of®ce may have been recited at Dale after each appropriate hour of the Premonstratensian of®ce of the Blessed Virgin, as it was increasingly recited in 78

79

80

Horae Eboracenses: The Prymer or Hours of the Blessed Virgin Mary According to the Use of the Illustrious Church of York, ed. C. Wordsworth, Surtees Society 132 (1920), pp. xxiv±xxv, 37±62. Horae Eboracenses, pp. 46, 49, 51. The text of this of®ce in manuscripts has minor variations: cf. The Monastic Breviary of Hyde Abbey, Winchester, ed. J. B. L. Tolhurst, HBS 69, 70, 71, 76, 78, 80 (1932±42): VI, pp. 135±7. Horae Eboracenses, pp. xxiv±xxv; El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fols 13v±14v. The of®ce in this manuscript is not accompanied by the Lady Of®ce. At the end of the Of®cium Defunctorum is written Èxplicit psalterium ordinis Sancti Augustini', and in the calendar St Augustine's feast (28 Aug.) is a `major duplex' with octave (fols 10v, 11): cf. G. AntolõÂn, CataÂlogo de los CoÂdices Latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial 3 (Madrid, 1913), p. 377.



117

this way in secular circles. However its exact performance at Dale is not indicated in the visitation records.81 It is abundantly clear that Redman generally enforced the liturgical customs and statutes of the order during his visitations and spurned deviations from the norm, yet, paradoxically, there is substantial evidence from most of the Acta of the provincial chapters which indicates that several compromises and adaptations were actually made by Redman and the dif®nitores in legislating and even aligning secular liturgical practices with their own. For instance at the 1476 provincial chapter the feast of the Ascension was ordered to be celebrated within the English circaries ùt moris est in universa ecclesia Anglicana'. The feast of Relics was to be solemnly celebrated `cum legenda et historia, prout habetur propria in ecclesia Anglicana'. It is more than likely that the practices of the Ecclesia Anglicana which the English Premonstratensians decided to conform to, embody what R. N. Swanson has graphically termed `the spiritual imperialism' of the Sarum use. It is quite clear that the provincial chapters, with Redman at the helm, utilised to a certain degree lay piety and English liturgical practices as a vehicle in achieving the standardisation and `modernisation', where necessary, of the liturgy of the white canons, in the same way as the Sarum liturgy was used among other secular rites, with the advent of printing.82 An important factor in this phenomenon must have been the `necessity' for the English Premonstratensians to manage their own liturgical affairs in the light of their devolved government from PreÂmontreÂ, and perhaps a shortage of proper liturgical texts. Having carried out an analysis of Redman's visitation register and other source material, we must now examine the few precious Premonstratensian liturgical manuscripts that have survived. A further glimpse beyond the rood screen into the choir and sanctuary of a late medieval English Premonstratensian abbey is afforded in a miscellaneous compilation which was written by John Gisborn, a canon of Coverham.83 Though the section of the manuscript under consideration here probably dates from the ®rst quarter of the sixteenth century after the English canons broke with PreÂmontreÂ in 1512, it effectively passed on a tradition of observance which Redman would have recognised, àfter the order off premonstratens, writtyne i[n] owr bokes 81

82

83

Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, pp. 225, 237; Horae Eboracenses, pp. xxiv±xxv. The of®ce is also found in some Benedictine liturgical books: The Monastic Breviary of Hyde Abbey VI, pp. 134±5. Bodl. ASH, fols 3, 3v; CAP I, 82; Catholic England: Faith, Religion and Observance before the Reformation, ed. R. N. Swanson (Manchester and New York, 1993), p. 32; Swanson, Religion and Devotion, pp. 95±6. Ìtem quod omnes abbates et canonici predicti Ordinis Premonstratensis infra Angliam sint uniformes in dicendo Divinum servicium in omnibus locis dicti Ordinis et in omnibus observanciis': Bodl. ASH, fol. 59v; CAP I, 86. See pp. 124ff. BL MS Sloane 1584, fols 2±6.


118


by our eldar fathers be ffore'.84 The manuscript contains four and a half folios of rubrics on the role of the deacon and subdeacon during mass and of those who collaborated with the sacred ministers at mass and vespers, but lacks their original beginning.85 These rubrics seem to have been culled from the order's customaries and ordinals, but are not mere citations which have been adjoined. They were written in the vernacular and not ± presumably ± in their original Latin, probably for the scribe's own bene®t as the manuscript's contents indicate that it was a personal compilation. This could explain the utilisation of the vernacular as a useful medium for the transcriptions, which could have been designed to give a clear explanation of the rubrics, were the canon to take a ministerial role in the liturgy. This denotes a degree of conscientiousness on Gisborn's part towards the liturgy's performance. Though the rubrics for deacon and subdeacon, for instance, begin imperfectly before the Gospel, they give many vivid descriptions of a number of ceremonies which were performed during the Premonstratensian Mass rite, speci®cally in the Missa Summa Major. An example of this is the veneration accorded to the Gospel book by everyone in choir during the Credo, on feasts of nine lessons and upwards; `when the gospell ys done, the subdekyne bere the boke to the prest to kyse. yff the dekyn [sic] abbott celebratt masse he must kys the boke be fore the dekyne that redes the gospell, elles the dekyne must kysse the boke before any other that celebrattes masse. yff ye cred' [i.e. the Credo] be song the subdekyne take the gospell boke and the text and bere ytt after, mynyster to the quer[e] and gyff the abbott ye gospell boke to kysse and all the con[v]ent the Image wt owt the boke that is ys [sic] pantyd'.86 Usus I stipulates Àbbates osculantur textum ewangelii apertum, et ceteri omnes textum clausum, crucem vel ymaginem majestatis af®xam deforis vel depictam'.87 The manuscript also sheds more light on the medieval origins of at least one liturgical custom which was practiced in various ways in a number of medieval rites.88 Michel Van Waefelghem and A. A. King proposed that the practice of the deacon receiving the paten from the subdeacon during the Pater noster, elevating it at the words `Panem nostrum', until he gave it to the priest during the Libera nos, are not present in any manuscript copy of the (medieval) Premonstratensian Ordinarius and missal. They claim that the ceremony ®rst appears in the Ordinarius of 1739, where it is stated that it was a custom of the motherhouse of PreÂmontreÂ which could be extended to the other abbeys.89 84

85 86 87 88 89

BL MS Sloane 1584, fol. 4. For the date of these liturgical extracts see A. G. Dickens, The English Reformation (London and Glasgow, 1967), pp. 16±17; J. B. Friedman, Northern English Books, Owners, and Makers in the Late Middle Ages (Syracuse, 1995), pp. 152±3; cf. Cross and Vickers, Monks, Friars and Nuns, p. 354. BL MS Sloane 1584, fols 2±6. BL MS Sloane 1584, fols 2±2v. Coutumiers Liturgiques de PreÂmontreÂ, p. 15. King, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, p. 217. Ibid.; Le Liber Ordinarius, p. 83, n.2.



119

The early sixteenth-century rubrics in the Sloane manuscript contain this liturgical gesture, which has been regarded ± in this instance ± as originally symbolising an invitation for those present to receive holy communion. While this symbolism was retained, the general practice of infrequent reception prevailed in reality; àtt Pater noster the subdekyne onbar [i.e. uncover] the paton and att panem nostrum the dekyne take the paton att the subdekyne and hold it vpe [my emphasis] by the prest to he say da propicius, then the dekyne deliuer the paton to the prest'.90 If Waefelghem and King were correct in their assertions about the lateness of the evidence for this ceremony, then the Sloane manuscript contains the earliest available evidence which testi®es to the antiquity of this custom among the Premonstratensians. In any case these rubrical extracts are a rare and unique survival of what the ceremonial Ordinales of the English Premonstratensians contained. In order to observe the development of the Premonstratensian festal calendar in England, when Redman was commissary-general, one can examine the only surviving complete English Premonstratensian Ordinale, now Jesus College, Cambridge MS 55. This late ®fteenth-century Ordinale, consisting of 145 folios91 ± written in one hand ± and retaining its original brown leather binding, belonged to John Tan®eld, a canon from Easby, who is found in the visitation records from 1475 to 1497.92 The designation of this manuscript as a `tractata de ordinali premonstratensis ordinis' in its prologue, requires clari®cation.93 An ordinal was originally one of a number of books which established the ritual and performance of the liturgy and customs of a particular church or religious community. By the later Middle Ages, the ordinal's format was often changed, as rubrics were sometimes incorporated into individual liturgical books, such as missals and breviaries. This new variety of ordinals, known invariably in England as a `Pie', `Pic' or Directorium Sacerdotum, were `restricted to systematic instructions on the variants in the annual Calendar'.94 It is clear that while the rubrical extracts in the Sloane manuscript and references in Redman's visitation register indicate that Ordinales of the ceremonial type existed among the English Premonstratensians at that time, the Easby Ordinale pertains to the newer variety of ordinals. Before continuing our examination of the Easby Ordinal, we have to note 90 91 92

93 94

BL MS Sloane 1584, fol. 3v; Rubin, Corpus Christi, pp. 147±50. The manuscript was foliated only recently. Bodl. ASH, fols 6v, 23, 44, 80, 92v, 112, 116, 132; CAP II, 165, 167, 170, 172, 174, 178, 179, 180. On Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fol. 1 is the inscription Ìste liber constat Johanni Tanfyld canonici de Skyrpynes'. It is in a similar hand to that of the Ordinale, and may therefore have been written by Tan®eld. John Tan®eld was chaplain of St Silvester's chapel in Skirpenbeck in Yorkshire (c.1491), which belonged to Easby Abbey: Bodl. ASH, fol. 112; CAP II, 174; White Canons, p. 267. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fol. 1. J. Harper, The Forms and Orders of Western Liturgy (Oxford, 1991), p. 60.


120


that the usefulness of such Ordinales in investigating the liturgical observances and feasts generally has been questioned by the liturgical historian R. W. Pfaff; inferences [on the observance of feasts in later medieval England] which might be drawn from ordinals must in general be discounted. Of all the books having to do with the performance of the liturgy the ordinal is probably the most conservative: because an ordinal . . . must have been a very great deal of trouble to work out ± as indeed its purpose of regularizing and providing a guide to the immense complexities of medieval services indicates ± and having once been worked out, it is unlikely that it would be altered each time a change was introduced . . . [and] they were mostly compiled before . . . new feasts . . . gained currency [my emphasis].95

Space does not permit us to establish whether or not Pfaff 's views on ordinals require modi®cation, though we must certainly allow for the kind of liturgical errors and negligence seen in the Premonstratensian visitations, and subsequent liturgical developments.96 It is suf®cient to say at this point that the date of the Easby Ordinal, with its inclusion of certain feasts established in the order in the later Middle Ages, justi®es it being viewed ± as far as its overall elements are concerned ± as a re¯ection of Premonstratensian practice in the latter half of the ®fteenth century, and therefore a document contemporaneous with Redman. The prologue of the Easby Ordinal explains that it was intended to provide a ®xed directory of all the Historia, commemorations and other feasts observed throughout the entire year.97 The ordinal also took into account the liturgical seasons of Advent, Lent, and Easter, the effect of octaves and leap years on feast days, and their displacement by greater liturgical celebrations. As well as explaining the Historia that were used at Matins, the Easby Ordinal also noted some of the lessons which would have been read in conjunction with them. In Dominical letter À' section one, for example, from the 8th Kalends of October (24 September), the Historia, Adonay and readings from the Book of Judith were appointed. The Historia, Vidi Dominum, was directed to be sung from the 4th Kalends of November (29 October), with readings from the Book of Ezekiel.98 A special section entitled `Regula de prophetis inchoandis', relates to the lessons read a month or so before Advent. These list the scriptural lessons and expositiones of gospel readings for a particular Sunday or weekday.99 This accorded with the 95 96

97

98 99

Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts, pp. 1±2. The usefulness of ordinals to the historian is apparent in Knowles, The Monastic Order, pp. 539±60; Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, pp. 159±64; Rubin, Corpus Christi, passim; N. Orme, Exeter Cathedral As it Was: 1050±1550 (Exeter, 1986), pp. 63±81. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fol. 1. In the Premonstratensian Rite the Historia were responsories to the lessons at matins at certain times of the year: LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, p. 51. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 17, 17v. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 18v ff.



121

Premonstratensian Ordinarius, though some of these features are common enough in secular and monastic ordinals and liturgical books.100 In addition the Easby Ordinal contains several other useful liturgical aids, such as indications of when the Ò' Antiphons were to be sung at vespers, on the days leading up to Christmas Day. In several places the last of these antiphons in the Premonstratensian liturgy, the O Virgo Virginum, appears.101 The main components which made the Easby Ordinal a comprehensive guide to the annual celebration of feasts and liturgical seasons, are not only indicative of the festal calendar which was observed at Easby. They are an important source of evidence for discerning the basic calendar that all the English Premonstratensians would have used ± allowing for certain variants and aberrations (see below) ± when Redman was commissary. Although the feast days are noted on the appropriate weekday on which they occur in a given year, there are few indications of their calendar dates, and some of them were mistakenly omitted, replaced or duly transferred to other days in a number of the tables because of greater liturgical feasts.102 Yet, despite these, and other anomalies, the ordinal is not substantially diminished in importance as a source for analysing the festal observances of the English circaries. A careful comparison of the feasts in each section of the Easby Ordinal with other Premonstratensian liturgical documents, is invaluable in reconstructing the arrangement of the calendar that the ordinal was based upon, as well as locating the `®xed' dates in the sanctoral.103 It is most important to compare the Easby Ordinal with a calendar in a manuscript from West Dereham in order to ascertain variations in the calendars of the English white canons, and whether the `festal' directions of the provincial chapters were implemented. Although this late (?) fourteenth-century Augustinian manuscript was either acquired or given to the canons of West Dereham ± probably in the ®rst decades of the sixteenth century if not before ± its calendar was thoroughly, if not completely, annotated to make it accord with Premonstratensian practice. The manuscript's psalter was also adapted, for a speci®c choral purpose. Annotations adajcent to the psalms for ferial vespers from Monday to Friday indicate the music used for intoning each antiphon and psalm. These annotations clearly pertain to the Premonstratensian rite.104 This whole process is further aided by contrasting all the above with late medieval English calendars and rubrical books.105 100

101

102 103 104 105

Jesus College Cambridge MS 55, fols 1±19; Le Liber Ordinarius, pp. 302±6; The Ordinal and Customary of the Abbey of St Mary York, eds L. McLachlan and J. B. L. Tolhurst, HBS 73, 75, 84 (1936±51) 3, pp. 349±67. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 18, 18v, 144v; P. LefeÁvre, `Les Antiennes `Ò'' dans la Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ', AP 32 (1956), 145. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 26±66. L'Ordinaire de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. 125±38; Le Liber Ordinarius, passim. El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fols 7±12v. Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury: Edited from the Fifteenth Century MS. No. 148, with Additions from the Cathedral Records, and Woodcuts from the


122


The results of such an analysis reveal that the majority of feasts in the Easby Ordinal, though commonplace throughout Western Christendom, undoubtedly originated from earlier Premonstratensian calendars, as most of them perfectly match the dates on which they were observed in the latter, but not necessarily the liturgical grading in every instance. For example two feasts which had a special prominence among the white canons, and the Augustinians, were those of St Augustine. His feast day was kept on 28 August and his translation on 11 October. Both festivals were observed as triplex feasts with a solemn octave.106 The connection of this ordinal to Easby in particular, is not only assured by Tan®eld's identi®cation as a canon from that house, but from the solemn observance of St Agatha's day (5 February) as a triplex feast with a solemn (properis) octave and her translatio on 21 August with a solemn octave. This popular saint was venerated elsewhere in the English abbeys and outside the order, largely on 5 February, with a lower grading than that allotted at Easby.107 While the observance of St Agatha indicates that adjustments would have been made to the basic Premonstratensian calendar and ordinale to allow for more solemn commemorations of patronal saints in individual abbeys, there also appears to have been the in¯uence of national and regional festivals upon the Easby Ordinal. Several of them, namely St George (23 April), and the feast of St Thomas of Canterbury (29 December), were certainly observed throughout medieval Europe and are present in the thirteenthcentury Premonstratensian calendar and were retained in the West Dereham calendar. However most of these feasts are mainly, or even solely, found in calendars from both the Canterbury and York provinces.108 It is not insigni®cant that while a number of `northern' saints in the Easby Ordinal, namely St Cuthbert and his translatio (20 March and 4 September), St John of Beverley (7 May) and St Wilfred (12 October), had found their way into both the York and Sarum calendars, two observances of northern English

106

107

108

Sarum Processionale of 1502, ed. C. Wordsworth (1901); Missale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis 1, ed. W. G. Henderson, Surtees Society 59 (1874); Ordinal and Customary of the Abbey of St Mary; Monastic Breviary of Hyde Abbey; English Benedictine Kalendars after A.D. 1100, ed. F. Wormald, HBS 72 (1939). I take account here of possible variations in the calendars of individual manuscripts. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 34, 34v; L'Ordinaire de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. 133, 135; LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, p. 94; The Holyrood Ordinale, ed. F. C. Eeles (Edinburgh, 1916), pp. 12, 14. St Augustine's translation and its octave were added to the West Dereham calendar, as a `duplex' and a feast of nine lessons respectively: see n. 80 above and El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fols 10v, 11, 11v. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 16v, 33v±4, 37; Bodl. ASH, fol 104; CAP I, 89; El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fols 7v, 10v; English Benedictine Kalendars, pp. 118, 169; Missale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis I, p. xxxi. El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fols 8v, 10, 12v; L'Ordinaire de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. 129, 138; Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury, pp. 6, 14; Missale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis, pp. xxxi, xli.



123

provenance which are present in the York calendar(s) and the Easby Ordinal, do not seem to be apparent in the calendars or liturgical books of the predominant Sarum Use, at least before c.1500; namely St William of York (8 June) and the `translation' of St Wilfred of Ripon (24 April).109 Despite the dif®culties often encountered in attributing the direct process by which a feast or observance crosses from one liturgical rite to another, the evidence above would suggest that Easby's geographical situation enabled the in¯uence of certain northern liturgical observances and other English feasts to penetrate its liturgy. Nevertheless one should not fall into the trap of supposing that such in¯uences had an all-encompassing affect on the Easby Ordinal. A number of feasts in the York calendars, for example, which were either present in other calendars or were peculiar to York, were not adopted at Easby, including the deposition of St Edward the Confessor (5 January), the translation of St William of York (8 January) and St Gilbert (4 February); these festivals were later additions to the York calendar, and are found in the Sarum calendar. Of all these feasts, St Gilbert's day is only apparent in the West Dereham calendar, which again indicates local variations in the calendars of each Premonstratensian abbey.110 The liturgical classi®cation of some of the northern feasts adopted in the Easby Ordinal had to ®t in with the liturgical cursus of the Premonstratensian ordinal to some extent, which could entail a decrease in their liturgical rank. For example St John of Beverley (7 May) was a minor double at York, but a feast of nine lessons in the Easby Ordinal, and also in the West Dereham calendar.111 What is perhaps more astonishing is that while there is little indication of the liturgical observance of St John of Bridlington's feast day (9 October) in the York calendars ± apart from a mass formularium in at least one manuscript ± one not only ®nds a memoria of the saint at Easby, but also his translation on 11 May, as a feast of nine lessons.112 The in¯uence of the 109

110

111

112

Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury, pp. 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12; Breviarium ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Sarum 1, eds F. Proctor and C. Wordsworth (Cambridge, 1879), pp. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 (the pagination is my own for this calendar); Missale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis I, pp. xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxviii, xxxix; Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 2v, 3, 3v, 16v, 17v, 38, 38v. All of these feasts, except St Wilfrid's and St Cuthbert's translation, are apparent in the West Dereham calendar: El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6, fols 8, 8v, 9, 9v, 11, 11v. Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury, pp. 3, 4; Breviarium ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Sarum, pp. 1, 4, 5; Missale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis, pp. xix, xxx, xxxi; El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fol. 7v. One should not overlook the English feast days retained in the West Dereham calendar from prePremonstratensian ownership, which are not apparent in the Easby Ordinal: for example, the feast of St Patrick (17 March) and St Erkenwald (30 April). Missale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis, p. xxxiv; Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 38v, 44v; El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fol. 9. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 3, 17v; Missale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis, I, pp. xxix, xxxiv, xxxix. Both celebrations are nowhere apparent in the West Dereham manuscript, again pointing to a northern in¯uence ± if not a predominantly `Yorkist' one ± over the Easby Ordinal.


124


Sarum use in the adaptation of local feasts in the Easby Ordinal should not be underestimated. Both the Easby Ordinal and the West Dereham calendar, and others, including the Sarum and Durham calendars, commemorate St Edward king and martyr (18 March), while there is little or no indication of the feast in the York liturgical books.113 In addition to the adoption of local liturgical observances at Easby, the sanctoral was further supplemented by votive commemorations that supplanted more of the ferial days on which no feasts occurred. The Easby Ordinal exhibits three of these, which lead us to examine the effects of the liturgical reforms of Redman and the provincial and general chapters on an actual liturgical document of an English Premonstratensian abbey. The weekly commemoration of the Virgin Mary, De Domina, in addition to her daily mass and frequently recited of®ce, and the commemoration of the local patron saint, signi®ed by `de festo loci', or similar words, were stipulated by the order, and were legislated for by the 1476 English provincial chapter.114 The third commemoration, also mentioned in the Acta of the same chapter and that of 1487, was in honour of St Thomas of Canterbury. It was to be held every Tuesday, if no other feast occurred. If the latter was the case, the commemoration was transferred to another day. This indicates that the English white canons had a particular devotion to this popular English martyr.115 Other liturgical regulations and feast days in the Easby Ordinal which were stipulated or modi®ed by various provincial chapters, included the elevation of the feast of the Blessed Trinity to the rank of `triplex festum prime dignitatis' (1492) and the observance of St Anne's feast (26 July) as a double (1476).116 Although this constitutes proof that some of the liturgical directives of the provincial and general chapters were complied with, there were a signi®cant number of saints' feast days which did not appear at all in the Easby Ordinal, and at least three instances where the old classi®cation of one feast was retained throughout. The feasts which fall into the former category were St Kenelm (17 July), legislated for in 1476, St Radegund (9 February), St Martha (27 July) and St Antony (17 January) in 1483(?), the Conception of St John the Baptist (24 September) in 1489 and 1495, the Translation of St Mary Magdalene (19 March), St David (1 March) and St Chad (2 March) in 1492, and St Roch (16 August) in 1495.117 The liturgical ranks of St Blaise (3 February), St Sytha (27 April) and St Margaret (20 July), were 113

114

115

116 117

Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury, p. 5; Missale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis I, p. xxxii; English Benedictine Kalendars, pp. 119, 170; Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 2v, 31v; El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fol. 8. Bodl. ASH, fol. 3v; CAP I, 82; Coutumiers Liturgiques de PreÂmontreÂ, p. 72; Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 1v, 3v. Bodl. ASH, fols 3v, 63v±64; CAP I, 82, 87; Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 3v, 17, 17v. Bodl. ASH, fols 3v, 107; CAP I, 82, 90; Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 3, 4. Bodl. ASH, fols 3v, 59, 59v, 104, 107, 109v, 110; CAP I, 82, 86, 89, 90, 92. Some of these feasts were of recent institution elsewhere: Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts, p. 55.



125

upgraded by the provincial chapters, though the Easby Ordinal retains their old designation throughout.118 The reasons why there is no explicit reference to these feasts in the ordinal, or their proper classi®cation in some cases, can only be surmised: though the possibility cannot be discounted that the omission of a number of them resulted from several of the factors which Pfaff enumerated.119 It would be erroneous, however, to draw the conclusion that the Easby Ordinal, in its totality, became a document of `theoretical norms which a combination of innovation, laziness, and individualism rapidly made obsolete'.120 The common failure to obtain liturgical books for new feasts because of the unavailability or shortage of proper liturgical texts may have accounted for many of these omissions. Although the 1489 provincial chapter ordained that the feast of the Conception of St John the Baptist was be observed as a `trium leccionum unius martyris', the 1495 chapter explained that certain texts of the of®ce were proper to it; `capitulis, ympno, atque antiphonis, ad primas vesperas super Magni®cat et Benedictus solummodo que propria habentur, exemptis'.121 This feast remained a somewhat obscure and rare festival in England, as it does not appear in any of the English calendars which have been examined in this present chapter, nor in `standard' Premonstratensian calendars, despite its observance in several European dioceses.122 Nevertheless as noted above a number of later liturgical ordinances of the provincial chapters were, to some extent, incorporated into the ordinal. Therefore there was clearly no `cut-off date' for the inclusion of new feasts, or the complete fossilisation of the Easby Ordinal. It might have been the case that some of the omissions or lack of revision were due to the scribe and/or the individual canon who may have possessed the ordinal. Redman's painstaking enquiries found no major errors in the liturgical observance at Easby, and did not lead to corrections on the observance of feasts.123 One can only speculate whether or not the `negligent observances' for which Redman reprimanded John Tan®eld at the visitation of Easby in 1497, included the liturgical aberrations in the otherwise practical and wellcalculated Premonstratensian ordinal which he possessed.124 It should not be inferred that the omission or lack of reclassi®cation of feasts in the Easby Ordinal meant that this happened at other abbeys, or that the liturgical directives of the provincial chapters were completely ¯outed at every turn. It is signi®cant that most of the feasts mandated by the provincial 118

119 120 121 122

123 124

Bodl. ASH, fols 104, 107; CAP I, 89, 90; Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 1, 3, 7v. This excludes the high rank accorded to St Agatha's feast and translation at Easby. See p. 120 above. Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts, p. 2. Bodl. ASH, fols 104, 109v; CAP I, 89, 92. N. Nilles, Kalendarium Manuale: Utriusque Ecclesiae Orientalis et Occidentalis, 2 vols (Innsbruck, 1896±97): I, pp. 282±3. Bodl. ASH, passim; CAP II, 168, 169, 171, 173, 177, 179, 182, 190. Bodl. ASH, fol. 132; CAP II, 179.


126


chapters in Redman's era ± even the Conception of St John the Baptist (24 September) ± were added to the West Dereham calendar. The only exception to this was the absence of the feasts of St Martha (27 July) and St Martial (12 November).125 While this would indicate that West Dereham may have implemented the wishes of the chapters that legislated these feasts, soon after their promulgation, we cannot be certain because of the lateness of these annotations. The inclusion and omission of feasts apparent in the Easby Ordinal and the West Dereham calendar, leads us to ask whether the English white canons observed the so-called Nova Festa which were introduced into the various English liturgies in the later Middle Ages, the most prominent of which were the Trans®guration (6 August), the Holy Name of Jesus (7 August), the Visitation of Mary (2 July), and her Presentation in the Temple (21 November).126 The 1476 provincial chapter ordered that the Visitation, named in the Acta as the `festum Sancte Elizabethe', was to be kept as a `principale festum triplex prime dignitatis' on 2 July, followed by a solemn octave that gave way for feasts of nine lessons.127 The 1479 chapter decided to forbid feasts of nine lessons ìnfra octavas Corporis Christi atque Visitacionis beate Marie et Elizabethe sancte matris Johannis Baptiste'.128 This feast and its unimpeded octave can be seen throughout the Easby Ordinal; in some cases with a commemoration of St Elizabeth.129 The date for this festival in the ordinal approximates with that ordained by the chapter, namely 2 July, which was generally the date on which the feast was observed in England, not the peculiar 2 April date in some of the printed missals of the York Use. It was also added to the West Dereham calendar, but its rank and octave are not speci®ed.130 The evidence in the 1476 provincial chapter for this feast day constitutes the `fullest information we possess about [the] acceptance of the Visitation by any religious order in 125

126 127

128 129 130

El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fols 7, 7v, 8, 10, 10v, 11, 12. St Roch's feast, with the rank of nine lessons, was annotated on 28 July. This does not accord with the date in the Sarum calendar (1483) or the date and rank (three lessons) stipulated by the 1495 provincial chapter (16 August). A subsequent provincial chapter may have changed the date and the classi®cation of this feast, as it occurred within the octave of the Assumption: El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fol. 10; Bodl. ASH, fol. 110; CAP I, 92; Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury, p. 358; Breviarium ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Sarum, p. 8. Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts, pp. 13ff. Bodl. ASH, fol. 3; CAP I, 82. Gasquet mistakenly confused the designation `Sancte Elizabeth' with the later feast of St Elizabeth of Portugal ± canonised in the 17th century ± by giving the date of the feast as 8 July. The Visitation was described as `beatissime matris Jhesu atque Elizabethe' at Halesowen (1488) and `Visitationis beate Marie' at Cockersand (1481) and Alnwick (1491): Bodl. ASH, fols 24, 67v, 92; CAP II, 195, 297, 439. Bodl. ASH, fol. 17; CAP I, 84. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fols 33, 52, 66, 70v. Missale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis I, pp. xiii, xix, xxxiii; El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fol. 10.



127

England'.131 Halesowen (1488), Cockersand (1481) and Alnwick (1491) were ordered to observe this high ranking feast.132 The Presentation of Mary was established by the chapter of 1495, as a feast of nine lessons, on 21 November.133 There is no mention of any aberrations concerning this festival in the visitation records, though there is only one explicit mention of it in the Easby Ordinal (`De domina Oblacio'). The word Òblacio' was added to the script by another hand, implying a degree of recognition, despite its absence elsewhere in the manuscript.134 This feast day was added to the West Dereham calendar, but its duplex rank may indicate that it was raised to a higher status by a provincial chapter whose Acta are no longer extant.135 There are no available references to the observance of the Trans®guration or the Holy Name of Jesus. It is perhaps understandable why the Trans®guration may never have been observed among the English Premonstratensians, for though it was promulgated in the provinces of Canterbury and York in 1487 and 1489 respectively, it was still `not everywhere observed in England'.136 However there is proof of a cult, if not a ®xed feast day of the Holy Name, in existence among the white canons. Just as the Premonstratensians were in¯uenced by secular piety and feast days, they were not immune from this extremely popular devotion, which was `liturgically' celebrated as a votive mass for a long period of time, before and after its of®cial promulgation in England as a liturgical feast.137 As well as references to the Holy Name itself in Premonstratensian documents, the 1483 (?) provincial chapter decreed that when the name of Jesus was pronounced, all had to bow deeply.138 Halesowen was the only abbey which was explicitly reprimanded for not implementing this, in 1488.139 A devotional and liturgical cult of the Holy Name, and a Jesus Chapel, existed at Beeleigh. The will of one William Malb, a corrodian living at the abbey, proved on 21 February 1505, indicated his desire to be buried ìn the church of Byley in Jhesus chapell next the body of Johane my ®rst wif '. He wanted a papal bull to be obtained ± for which he left a hundred marks ± in which generous pardons were offered to all those who heard the `Jhesus masse' in the Jesus Chapel at Beeleigh every Friday, or assisted in its performance. These stipulations clearly refer to pre-existing Jesus masses at Beeleigh.140

131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140

Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts, p. 58. Bodl. ASH, fols 24, 67v, 92; CAP II, 195, 297, 439. Bodl. ASH, fol. 110; CAP I, 92; Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts, p. 115, n.3. Jesus College Cambridge, MS 55, fol. 144. El Escorial, MS Q.ii.6., fol. 12. Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts, pp. 4, 38±9. Ibid., pp. 62±83. Bodl. ASH, fol. 59; CAP I, 86; Bodl. MS Rawlinson Letters 108, fol. 33. Bodl. ASH, fol. 67v; CAP II, 439. Fowler and Clapham, Beeleigh Abbey, pp. 26±9, 34.


128


* Having now analysed the visitation records and the surviving liturgical manuscripts of the English white canons we must consider what conclusions can be drawn about the Premonstratensian liturgy in England and its observance. How `Premonstratensian' was it? We have seen that certain ritualistic practices in the abbeys, or the lack of them, deviated from the liturgical norms which Redman and the provincial chapters sought to implement. There were also widespread `secular' in¯uences within the rite, in approximately half of the abbeys, due, in great part, to the in¯uence of contemporary lay piety, and possibly because of the white canons' frequent contact with secular liturgical rites in their appropriated churches and chapels. While Redman inveighed against these aberrations, the fact that he and the provincial chapters sanctioned similar liturgical in¯uences, indicates that compromises were made in order to foster liturgical uniformity within the English circaries. The white canons were naturally spiritual children of their own day, and along with the Cistercians and Carthusians, susceptible to secular rites and devotional practices.141 Nevertheless the English Premonstratensian liturgy was not completely anglicised. Redman's constant insistence in his visitations on the adherence to the order's statutes, ordinals, liturgical usages, and the basic substructure and festal classi®cation in the Easby Ordinal, overwhelmingly indicate that it was the Premonstratensian Rite which Redman sought to maintain, and was in fact generally in place. Corrections he made to the observance of practices which are clearly Premonstratensian imply that the canons generally possessed the order's liturgical books. The Great Schism (1378±1417) and the devolved government within the English circaries did not lead to a complete breach with the order's liturgy, in spite of the compromises which the provincial chapters and Redman made. It is noteworthy that the English white canons were by no means unique in their liturgical deviations. The Premonstratensian abbeys of continental Europe were also subject to deviations from the of®cial norm, as well as local in¯uences. P. LefeÁvre has indicated that the surviving medieval liturgical manuscripts of the order ± while only a comparatively small number from hundreds of abbeys ± did not absolutely concur with the order's liturgical laws, and, as with the English canons, the liturgy of the continental Premonstratensians was subject to the in¯uence of local secular liturgies.142 Before the advent of printing, the order's liturgical texts could not be entirely uniform, and could be standardised only by using of®cial exemplars.143 Nevertheless, there was substantial liturgical 141

142 143

Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts, p. 6; Gribbin, Aspects of Carthusian Liturgical Practice, pp. 22±51; Chadd, `Liturgy and Liturgical Music', pp. 313±14. LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, pp. 18±19. Ibid.



129

unity among the white canons: and in this we must include the English houses.144 Having established that the liturgy of the English white canons was essentially Premonstratensian, we must assess its overall standard within each abbey. It is very easy, and even simplistic, to view the celebration of monastic liturgy stereotypically, particularly in the Middle Ages. We are not dealing with abbeys containing large numbers of inmates where the liturgical performance was on a grand scale, as was apparent at Westminster and Durham.145 The quality and scale of the liturgical observances among the Premonstratensians would have varied from abbey to abbey, and low complements, in some houses, undermined the liturgical round.146 However, it is clear that few canons were individually accused by Redman of any serious failings with regard to the Opus Dei. Faults were more than likely due to mere human error, forgetfulness, or perhaps ignorance coupled with a lack of clarity over the ful®lment of the rubrics rather than complete dissatisfaction with the daily liturgical observances.147 Though clear-cut evidence of continual major liturgical laxities or signs of excellent observance in an abbey generally indicate whether a house was truly decadent or observant, the occurrence of minor, or infrequent major faults, cannot be used to gauge the overall observance in any house per se. This is only obtainable by viewing the visitation records of these houses in their entirety, as was done in the last chapter. This is apparent when we ®nd that houses of good overall observance, such as Titch®eld and Torre, can be `liturgically' grouped with houses which had poorer levels of observance or were mediocre, such as Welbeck and Newhouse, because Redman occasionally noted that they experienced dif®culties in liturgical matters.148 Redman's visitation register reveal that in Lavendon, Bayham, Halesowen, Langley, St Radegund's, and Langdon, liturgical errors were clearly of a persistently grave nature, such as neglectful non-attendance at the divine 144

145

146

147

148

LefeÁvre, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ, p. 20. It is interesting to note that at the dissolution of Beeleigh (1536), the Henrician commissioners noted liturgical books in the abbey church òf their owne use' (i.e. Premonstratensian). Ironically they proposed to sell them `to men of their religion': Fowler and Clapham, Beeleigh Abbey, p. 33. Religious Orders III, pp. 97±99, 130±7; Harvey, Living and Dying, frontispiece and pp. 73, 118±21. The size of a house does not necessarily determine the degree of liturgical observance. Compare the liturgical observance of Wendling, Welbeck and Leiston on p. 130, with their complements indicated in Table 2. Admonitions were given at Torre (1491) and Titch®eld (1494), implying that the canons ought to study the rubrics and the proper liturgical chants: Bodl. ASH, fols 91, 123v; CAP III, 586, 601. Bodl. ASH, passim; CAP III, 532±41, 579±89, 594±606, 627±43. For an examination of the relationship between liturgical deviations and monastic observance among the Carthusians, see Gribbin, Aspects of Carthusian Liturgical Practice, pp. 17±58. The following examination takes into account any adverse effect that monastic complements may have had on the Opus Dei, where this is related in the visitation records.


130


of®ce by the canons, or constant dilapidation of their monastic buildings, including the church. We have seen that the monastic observances had generally declined there.149 Immediately above this level of liturgical laxity come thirteen other abbeys ± Newhouse, Cockersand, Wendling, Durford, Egglestone, Tupholme, Sulby, Welbeck, Torre, Titch®eld, Alnwick, Dale, and Blanchland ± where liturgical faults were mostly minimal, but divine worship was not completely satisfactory in every instance, and even neglected and badly executed in some cases, with varying degrees of mediocrity and pedestrianism. Eight abbeys maintained a liturgical observance which was generally satisfactory throughout with relatively minor liturgical faults: Newbo, Easby, Beauchief, West Dereham, Coverham, Hagnaby, Beeleigh, and Barlings. In the last four abbeys the order's observances were particularly good, with words of praise by the visitor.150 There were two houses that not only maintained a consistently high standard of monastic observance throughout, but excelled in their high level of liturgical observance. Leiston was singled out for particularly warm praise. In 1488 the visitor said that the liturgy was celebrated better in that abbey than in any other house, and in 1497 he found `virtute caritatis atque religionis observanciis plenum atque perfectum, cum cultu of®cii divini ad honorem Dei et suorum meritorum incrementum'. In the 1491 name list the comment `bonus cantator' was added at the side of Thomas Went, who was the succentor.151 The only liturgical admonition that Leiston received was that vigils of the dead had to be chanted daily in 1488: the year in which the abbey's liturgy was placed above that of the other houses.152 Redman also praised the liturgical and religious observances at Croxton in 1494; òmnia circa religionis observancias, divina of®cia et Ordinis instituta, comperimus inviolabiliter re¯orere'.153 If all these abbeys are viewed together, the emerging picture of liturgical observance among the English Premonstratensians overall is more positive than negative, though clearly not without blemishes. In the vast majority of the abbeys, even in smaller houses, the normal routine of the liturgy continued on its daily course. Numbers were generally smaller in the Premonstratensian abbeys than perhaps in previous centuries, but one can infer from the visitation records that their liturgical observances were generally of an acceptable standard, albeit punctuated by minor faults and occasional back-sliding and pedestrianism. Though the Acta of the provincial chapters indicate that ceremonies and feast days required uniformity in 149 150

151 152 153

See p. 91. Bodl. ASH passim; CAP II, 168±82, 204±15, 227±47, 264±70, 312±28, 415±26: III, 512±19, 663±76. Note that Beeleigh was not reprimanded for any liturgical faults, and that while West Dereham was generally in a satisfactory state, liturgical injunctions were given. Bodl. ASH, fols 74, 114, 138; CAP III, 501, 503, 506. Bodl. ASH, fol. 75; CAP III, 501. Bodl. ASH, fol. 126v; CAP II, 346.



131

the abbeys, the visitation records clearly show that this was not symptomatic of liturgical chaos prevailing within all the Premonstratensian houses, but rather the vigilance of the commissary-general in referring liturgical matters to the dif®nitores for correction, no matter how trivial. However the somewhat lofty demands made by Redman and the provincial chapters for absolute liturgical unity did not achieve their complete ful®lment everywhere. When one takes into account the regular liturgical observance in most of the English Premonstratensian abbeys, the undertaking of building work of various sorts, the evidence of the continued usefulness of many, if not all the abbeys to their benefactors in offering prayers, and the quality of the liturgical accoutrements in some of them, there are further indications that despite the presence of mediocrity, there was no terminal decline among the white canons, and there were signs of con®dence and vitality in some abbeys.


5 Learning, Spirituality and Pastoralia: English Premonstratensian Manuscripts, Books and Libraries in the Later Middle Ages

In The White Canons in England Colvin wrote a brief, but informative, chapter on the intellectual activities of the English Premonstratensians, highlighting attitudes to reading and scholarly work within the order. The white canons `never claimed to be a learned order' and basically consisted of monastic clergy who were not impelled to pursue lofty academic studies.1 They were expected to have a working knowledge of Latin, and each canon was obliged to devote himself to some reading or Lectio Divina every day in the cloister.2 While no one would doubt the basic premises of Colvin's arguments on the intellectual pursuits of the English white canons, and the important comments he made on the relatively few canons who attended the universities or were noted for their distinction as scholars or spiritual writers, some of the themes he outlined can be expanded on. A number of manuscripts, including a collection of sermons from Welbeck and a common-place book from Coverham, were not discussed by him, and a new edition of the extant English Premonstratensian library lists by David Bell now provides a convenient overview of the order's books, especially if these are collated with extant manuscripts and printed books.3 A ®fteenthcentury English Life of St Norbert by John Capgrave, which Colvin discussed brie¯y, was edited some twenty years after he wrote.4 The present chapter will examine certain aspects of the Premonstratensians' activities principally by surveying their extant books, manuscripts and library lists within the `subject' categories of theology, philosophy, secular and historical writings, grammar, medicine, spiritual and pastoral writings. The place of manuscript 1 2 3

4

White Canons, pp. 315±26. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 12, 16±17, 27; Bodl. ASH, fol. 69v; CAP II, 239. Libr. Prem.; BL MS Sloane 1584; John Rylands University of Manchester Library, MS Eng. 109. Life of St Norbert; Huntington Library San Marino, MS HM. 55. We will analyse this important work in greater detail, as it was commissioned for an abbot of West Dereham, and gives an interesting insight into an outsider's perceptions of the white canons.


LEARNING, SPIRITUALITY AND PASTORALIA

133

production, learning and the attendance of the Premonstratensians at the universities will also be considered. We might initially ask how the Premonstratensians stored their books and the nature of their extant library catalogues. The Cistercians, from their earliest days, had special repositories or rooms where books were kept, originally a cupboard or recess in the wall between the chapterhouse and the church, which eventually developed into a special room between these buildings. In contrast most Benedictine monasteries did not have a single room for depositing books until the ®fteenth century. As books were functional objects, they were kept in those parts of the monastery where they were utilised: i.e. the church, refectory and cloister.5 The Premonstratensians generally adopted the Cistercian usage of having a special repository or library for their books, and the statutes devoted a short chapter to their custody under the librarian (armarius) and his assistant.6 The librarian was responsible for distributing books to the canons, correcting faulty texts, and, if possible, keeping a record of the number of his abbey's books, among other things.7 While the Premonstratensians may have adopted Cistercian legislation in respect of the conservation of books, they attached greater importance to the librarian's role than the latter, as he acted independently from the cantor.8 In addition to extant printed books and manuscripts, it is possible to learn about the contents and size of some of the English Premonstratensian libraries from the book catalogues which the canons compiled, and other sources. Library lists exist from Welbeck (late twelfth century), St Radegund's (late thirteenth century), and, the most prominent among them, from Titch®eld (1400).9 Very little is known about the contents of the other Premonstratensian libraries, apart from the manuscripts themselves. Three works which belonged to Barlings, and one title from Tupholme are recorded in an anonymous list (c.1530), and another list records that Arthur Wadington was given, or loaned, ®ve books from Hagnaby in 1511. Two more manuscripts from Hagnaby ± one of which is probably that which contains the 1511 list ± were recorded by John Leland. He also made the 5

6

7

8

9

Knowles, The Monastic Order, p. 527; R. Stockdale, `Benedictine Libraries and Writers', The Benedictines in Britain, British Library Series, no. 3 (London, 1980), pp. 62±3. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ I, p. 26; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 49±50; T. Gerits, À Propos de l'Organisation des BibliotheÁques MeÂdieÂvales de l'Ordre de PreÂmontreÂ en Angleterre et en Allemagne', AP 37 (1961), 78, 79. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 49±50; P. LefeÁvre, `L'Ancienne BibliotheÁque de l'Abbaye d'Averbode d'ApreÁs les Sources d'Archives', AP 36 (1960), 64. LefeÁvre, `L'Ancienne BibliotheÁque de l'Abbaye d'Averbode', pp. 64±5; Gerits, À Propos de l'Organisation des BibliotheÁques', pp. 75±6. There is no indication of who acted as librarians among the white canons in Redman's name lists. St John's College Cambridge, MS 9, fols iira±iiv (at the end); Bodl. MS Rawlinson B. 336, fols 187±93; BL Add. MS 70507, fols 2±33; Libr. Prem., pp. 159±78, 180±254, 255±67.


134


following comment about the books of Newhouse; `Sunt ibidem quamplures libri communes tamen arteque impressoria litteris dediti', and noted two titles from Tupholme.10 To these meagre book references, we can, at least, add the following. An inventory from Cockersand, dated 1536, records `lij Bookes in the seyd Librarye . . . [and] an Ambury one the cloysterside wherin ar liiij Bokes'.11 Eleven titles from Easby were recorded in the early fourteenth century by the Franciscans of Oxford in the Registrum Anglie de Libris Doctorum et Auctorum Veterum.12 Transcripts from the lost cartulary of Shap possibly indicate the fate of some of the abbey's books, though they reveal nothing about their contents: `The originall Books of Hepp [i.e. Shap] was deliuered By Order of court to the Register of the Star chamber in the yeare 1622 by Sir James Bellingsam'.13 A letter to the abbot of Welbeck, written in 1458, mentions that the abbey had sold to Thomas Hill, rector of Great Chesterford near Saffron Walden, ùnam Bibliam portativam, et librum Januensis in suo Catholicon'.14 Though the extant Premonstratensian library lists are informative about the books of three abbeys, a comparison between them presents serious problems, for only the Titch®eld list dates from the beginning of the ®fteenth century: the Welbeck and St Radegund lists are too early for our purposes. The peculiarities of the Titch®eld list also prohibits a full comparative analysis with the others. This library catalogue is one of the most detailed and comprehensive of all the extant medieval monastic library lists and is something of an anomaly. Not only does it list over a thousand individual titles on various subjects, but, as David Bell indicates, `we do not know who was responsible for the acquisition of the Titch®eld books or whether they were the result of major donations'. It may have been due to the muni®cence of Bishop Peter des Roches of Winchester, who founded Titch®eld in 1232, and several notable endowments later, that the abbey acquired such a rich library.15 Because of the peculiar nature of the Titch®eld list, it is impossible to say whether or not earlier Premonstratensian libraries of a `Cistercian' type, such as the late twelfth-century Welbeck list, developed along similar lines as the Titch®eld library: though more variety in the way of book titles and subject matter became available.16 However it 10

11

12

13 14

15 16

BL MS Cotton Vespasian B.XI, fol. 61v; Libr. Prem., pp. xxx, 159, 178±80, 254±5. The book references which follow in the text are not indicated by Bell, ibid. This excludes the 54 `Parchemyn Bookes' in the abbey's choir: The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey III, pt 3, pp. 1171, 1172. Registrum Anglie de Libris Doctorum et Auctorum Veterum, eds R. H. Rouse and M. A. Rouse (London 1993), pp. xiii, 259, 308. The libraries of Bayham, Croxton, Dale, Leiston, Langley, Titch®eld, Torre and West Dereham, were earmarked for examination by the surveyors, but no reports on these were made. Bodl. MS Dodsworth 159, f. 189. BL PECK II, fol. 75; CAP III, 626. For examples of books bequeathed to abbeys, and Broadholme nunnery: White Canons, p. 319 and n.6; Bell, What Nuns Read, p. 120. Libr. Prem., pp. xxvi, 181; White Canons, pp. 185±7. Religious Orders II, p. 342; Libr. Prem., p. xxvi. On the arrangement of the Titch®eld



135

may reasonably be assumed that common generic book-types, such as theologica and patristica, existed among the white canons, and examples of these have survived. Though the factors determining book accession by monasteries must be borne in mind, especially donations by benefactors and limitations such as the huge and irreparable loss of Premonstratensian books during the Reformation, it is still useful to make tentative comparisons between surviving books and manuscripts and the early ®fteenth-century Titch®eld catalogue and references to the manuscripts of other abbeys. While we may not learn as much as we would wish about the composition of individual libraries from this procedure, surviving literature gives a broad indication of the kind of reading matter available for the canons' study or devotional reading, and even, in some cases, what certain individuals read. However it must be emphasised that because one particular work was available at one abbey, it does not necessarily follow that it was possessed by another.17 Ex libris markings and annotations from the ®fteenth and sixteenth centuries, can tell us whether a manuscript was acquired by an abbey by that date and was in use, or, if it is an older book, remained within its library until the Dissolution. Let us begin from the viewpoint of theological and biblical study. Of commentaries and glosses on the Bible, four early concordances survive.18 A thirteenth-century copy of the Harmonia Evangeliorum, attributed to both Eusebius and Ammonius of Alexandria, exists from Barlings and as well as a sixteenth century ex libris, it was one of the works noted in the abbey c.1530. Another copy (c. twelfth/thirteenth century) exists from Tupholme.19 This work was actually the Diatessaron of Tatian in the Latin version of Victor of Capua. The texts of both manuscripts are accompanied by marginal and interlinear glosses.20 Two of the other works noted at Barlings c.1530, and not extant, were commentaries on the Apocalypse and the Cantica Canticorum by Haimo of Auxerre.21 A brief concordance, the Pictor in

17

18

19 20 21

library, its location in the abbey, and the cataloguing of its books, see Libr. Prem., pp. 180±3; R. Graham and S. E. Rigold, Titch®eld Abbey (London, 1976), pp. 8±9, 10± 11, 13. For book lists from continental Premonstratensian libraries, see LefeÁvre, `L'Ancienne BibliotheÁque de l'Abbaye d'Averbode'; Gerits, À Propos de l'Organisation des BibliotheÁques'; Ùn Inventaire de la BibliotheÁque de Fontcaude en 1352', ed. A. BondeÂelle-Souchier, AP 74 (1998), 5±40. Unless explicitly mentioned, the earlier St Radegund and Welbeck library lists, and liturgical manuscripts, are excluded from this analysis. Cartularies and registers are also ignored, for which see White Canons, pp. 377±85; G. R. C. Davis, Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain (London, 1958): note supplementary material in Monastic Research Bulletin 2±5, passim. Part of a 12th/13th century bible from West Dereham and a bible (13th cent.) from Langley are extant: Trinity College Dublin, MS 51; Ker, Medieval Libraries, pp. 57, 108. BL MS Royal 3B.XV; BL MS Royal 4A.IV; Libr. Prem., pp. 159, 255. Ibid. Libr. Prem., p. 159.


136


Carmine, survives in a late twelfth/early thirteenth century manuscript from Welbeck.22 Another gospel concordance, from Leiston Abbey (c. twelfth/thirteenth century), was a copy of the In Unum ex Quatuor sive de Concordia Evangelistarum Libri Quatuor by Zachary Chrysopolitanus, a Premonstratensian of Laon (c.1157), who had once taught in the school at BesancËon (1131±34). It was widely circulated and popular right up to the thirteenth century.23 An ex libris inscription, which was recorded later, reveals that the manuscript was given by `dompni Galfridi archidiaconi', who cannot be identi®ed with certainty.24 Annotations in the manuscript indicate that it enjoyed continual use until at least the ®fteenth century, perhaps at the abbey. A strip of paper with handwriting of the same period was also inserted between two folios of the manuscript.25 Titch®eld apparently had a large number of scriptural glosses and commentaries. Part two of Titch®eld's copy of Augustine's Enarrationes in Psalmos is still extant (fourteenth century), as is the Flores Psalmorum of Lethbert of Saint-Ruf (c. twelfth/thirteenth century), and a copy of Peter of Blois' Compendium in Job.26 A portion of Augustine's Enarrationes, containing Psalms 1±50, from the thirteenth century is extant from West Dereham, and contains a ®fteenth-century inscription, `[ . . .] in thys hows off Westderan' [sic]'.27 The Registrum Anglie (early fourteenth century) records that Easby possessed a copy of Gregory's Super Cantica Canticorum ± probably accompanied with Robert Turnbalena's commentary ± Ambrose's Super Lucam (book ten), Bernard of Clairvaux's Super Cantica Canticorum (book one), Hugh of St Victor's De Archa Noe (book ®ve) and Richard of St Victor's Beniamin Minor.28 In the only known surviving manuscript from Beeleigh, dating from the thirteenth century, are glosses on St Luke by Walafridus Strabo and Anselm of Laon, and numerous annotations from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century.29 A partially erased ®fteenth-century annotation indicates the manuscript's provenance; 22 23

24

25

26

27

28 29

Lincoln Cathedral Library, MS 222, fols 182±9. Corpus Christi College Cambridge, MS 27; J. B. Valvekens, `Zacharias Chrysopolitanus', AP 28 (1952), 53±8; G. R. Evans, `Zachary of BesancËon and the Bible's Contradictions', AP 58 (1982), 319±23. T. Gerits, `Notes sur la Tradition Manuscrite et ImprimeÂe du Traite In Unum ex Quatuor de Zacharie de BesancËon', AP 42 (1966), 282, 288; M. R. James, Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS. in the Library of Corpus Christi College Cambridge, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1912): I, p. 59. Corpus Christi College Cambridge, MS 27, fols 1, 2, 5. The visible portion of ®fteenthcentury writing inserted between folios 4v±5, reads `[ . . .]s sui omnia[?]', `[ . . .]s propriis' and `[?]'. The tight binding of the manuscript precluded further analysis. Bodl. MS Bodley 249; Bodl. MS Laud Misc. 357, fols 1±60, 125±51v; Bodl. MS Digby 154, fols 14±25; Libr. Prem., pp. 188±9, 190, 229±30. Trinity College Dublin, MS 223. A twelfth-century copy of Augustine's Tractatus in Evangelium Johannis survives from Welbeck: St John's College Cambridge MS 9. Registrum Anglie, p. 308. Bodl. MS Auct. D. inf.2.6., fols iv±vii, 120.



137

èc[c]le[sie] s[an]c[t]e marie et s[an]c[t]i Nich[olaus] [de Meldone]'.30 A ®fteenth-century note adjacent to St Luke's account of the ten lepers, which relates that Jesus travelled through Samaria and Galilee, brie¯y explains the origins and ethnicity of the Samaritans.31 Interest in biblical commentaries at one abbey in the early sixteenth century is also apparent in a printed book which probably belonged to Leonard North, a canon of Dale, for an annotation in the book reads Òrate pro anima Leonardi North canonici [sic] de dala decretorum doctorum [sic]'.32 It is a copy of the Expositio super Librum Psalmorum by Peter Herentals (1322±91), a prior of the Premonstratensian abbey of Floreffe in Namur, and was printed in Rouen in 1504.33 This commentary on the psalms consists of excerpts from Jerome, Augustine, Hugh of St Victor, Nicholas de Lyra and others. About a third of the book has intermittent annotations in a sixteenth-century hand, with comments and emendations on various psalm verses or their accompanying commentaries, with nota indicating texts of particular interest.34 A number of patristic writings, apart from biblical commentaries, are also extant from the Premonstratensian libraries. A thirteenth-century compilation belonging to Hagnaby, contains the Speculum Beati Gregorii Pape, attributed to Adalbert of Metz, consisting of extracts from Gregory the Great's Moralia.35 Though the manuscript has a thirteenth-century ex libris from the abbey, a sixteenth-century annotation indicates that Hagnaby retained it at that time; `Monosterium [sic] de Hagnebij premonstratensis'.36 Easby possessed a copy of the same work in the early fourteenth century according to the Registrum Anglie, along with the English corpus of the writings of Gregory Nazianzen.37 A twelfth-century copy of Augustine's De Trinitate was given to Barlings in the thirteenth century.38 There is practically no evidence which suggests that it was in the abbey's possession in the late Middle Ages , apart from a brief, and unintelligible annotation from the late ®fteenth or early sixteenth century; `libris [?] ab dei gratia Aug [ . . .?]'.39 There were a good number of patristic works available at Titch®eld, including the De Fide Orthodoxa of St John Damascene, Origen's Cantica Canticorum, and a large collection of St Augustine's works. However there was little in the way of the writings of St Ambrose, or, lesser still, those of St 30 31

32

33 34 35

36 37 38 39

Bodl. MS Auct. D. inf.2.6., fol. 120. Lk., 17:11±12; Bodl. MS Auct. D. inf.2.6. fol. 89. A gloss on St Matthew's Gospel (13th cent.) survives from Bayham: Eton College MS 43. North was a novice and subsacristan in 1500: Bodl. ASH, fol. 146v; CAP II, 371; Bodl. Don.e.598. The book has no pagination of its own. Bodl. Don.e.598, pp. 1±2; Life of St Norbert, p. 133. e.g. Bodl. Don.e.598, pp. 83±7, 120±8. BL MS Royal 5 F.V.; G. F. Warner and J. P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections, 4 vols (London, 1921): I, p. 121. BL MS Royal 5 F.V., fol. 184v. Registrum Anglie, pp. 140, 308. Emmanuel College Cambridge, MS 17. Emmanuel College Cambridge, MS 17, fol. 121.


138


Jerome.40 Extant non-patristic theological writings include an imperfect copy of Peter Alphonsus' dialogue Adversus Judaeos (early thirteenth century) from Beauchief, which has a ®fteenth-century ex libris inscription on its ¯yleaf.41 A surviving compilation of writings (thirteenth/fourteenth century) from Titch®eld includes the Ars Fidei Catholicae of Nicholas of Amiens (pseudo Alan of Lille), and a fourteenth-century manuscript from the abbey contains St Anselm's De Humanis Moribus per Similitudinibus. Both works are listed in the abbey's library catalogue.42 Though the library at Titch®eld contained a good number of books by `standard medieval authorities', there were none of the voluminous writings of Aquinas, or of Bonaventure and Duns Scotus.43 The lack of scholastic writings and the dominance of older theological works at Titch®eld, could be said about the English Premonstratensians in general, from the manuscripts that we have examined so far. This would suggest that the theological and exegetical writings that belonged to the English white canons were largely conservative. Though there appears to be a general lack of interest in collecting more recent theological works among the English Premonstratensians, or, indeed, composing them, there was one white canon in the later Middle Ages who was engaged in theological writing: Thomas Wygenhale of West Dereham. In regards to Thomas Wygenhale's identity, there were two canons from West Dereham that are known to have borne this name. In John Bale's Scriptorum Illustrium Maioris Brytanniae Catalogus (1559), it is stated that the author, Thomas Wygenhale, was a canon of West Dereham who lived in the reign of Edward IV (1461±70, 1471±83).44 A Thomas Wygenhale appears in the name lists from West Dereham in Richard Redman's register, from 1475 to 1482.45 Colvin accepted Bale's identi®cation of Wygenhale as a canon living in the late ®fteenth century.46 However another Thomas Wygenhale, also from West Dereham, is indicated in Emden's register of Cambridge Alumni. This individual was a bachelor of canon law by 1384, and vicar of the church of the Holy Trinity, Cambridge ± appropriated to West Dereham ± from c.1378 to at least 1406.47 The ®fteenth-century manuscripts containing Wygenhale's surviving works, or extracts from them, concur with the 40 41

42

43 44

45 46 47

Libr. Prem., pp. 181, 190, 191±2. `Liber iste est de armario de Bello capite': St John's College Cambridge, MS 86. For a manuscript (13th cent.) containing theological writings by William de Montibus, from Newhouse: Ker, Medieval Libraries, p. 134. Bodl. MS Digby 154, fols 54±62v; Camb.UL Ff.4.45, fols 2±28; Libr. Prem., pp. 206, 229. For a thirteenth-century theological compilation from Cockersand(?): Bodl. MS Rawlinson C.317. Libr. Prem., pp. 181, 188, 193. `Vixit impostor, anno post incarnatum Dei uerbum 1470, sub Edvuardo quarto': J. Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium Maioris Britanniae (Basel, 1557±59), p. 617. Bodl. ASH, fols 4v, 21v, 45v; CAP III, 662, 665, 668. White Canons, p. 323. BRUC, pp. 655±6.



139

information related in Emden's register.48 It is therefore certain that Thomas Wygenhale the author, was the same individual who became vicar of Holy Trinity Church, and studied canon law at Cambridge in the late fourteenth century.49 Wygenhale produced several works, among which was a collection of `stories' entitled Sanctissimae Matris Christi Mariae Miracula and a history of West Dereham in the same volume. Though these compositions are no longer extant, a Speculum Juratoris, and short treatises on `Freewill', `Predestination', `Reprobation', `Sin', `Meritorious Works', `Purgatory', Ìndulgences' and `Blasphemy' have survived. A late ®fteenth-century manuscript in Trinity College Cambridge preserves extracts from a Speculum Hereticorum, which was also written by Wygenhale.50 No less than three copies of the Speculum Juratoris exist in three separate manuscripts: British Library, MS Harley 148, National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth, MS 22688B, and Cambridge University Library, MS Ii.1.39. The Harley manuscript also contains the rest of Wygenhale's surviving works, following on from the Speculum Juratoris, apart from the tract on blasphemy and the extracts from the Speculum Hereticorum.51 The Cambridge University manuscript containing the Speculum Juratoris (hereafter Speculum), with an index, is followed by a copy of the Templum Domini, a popular work of pastoral theology written in the thirteenth century by Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln.52 The Aberystwyth copy of the Speculum, purchased from Lord Kenyon in 1989, lacks its ®rst quire, and begins in a section of chapter one in the ®rst part of the work. Only the treatise on blasphemy follows the Speculum in this manuscript.53 The Aberystwyth and Harley manuscript 48

49

50

51 52 53

`Frater Thomas Wygnale Canonicus Monasterii B[eate] M[arie] de West Derham, Ordinis Premonstratensis, Norwicensis Diocesis, perpetuus Vicarius Ecclesiae S[ancte] Trinitatis in Cantabrigia, Eliensis Diocesis, inter Bacchalaureos in Decretis minimus': BL MS Harley 148, fol. 2: cf. Camb. UL MS Ii.1.39, fol. 2; `Thomas Wygenhale canonicus monasterii beate marie de Westderham ordinis premonstracensis norwicensis': Trinity College Cambridge MS 262 (B.11.23), fol. 104; `Per Thomam de Wygenhale, laus tibi sit christe quem liber explicit iste, per quem cuncta valent quo sine cunctas stalent': National Library of Wales MS 22688B, fol. 130v. The following is written in the latter manuscript, fol. 129; Thomas tax turbis tutis titul > etur < > etur Wygnal vulg vere vite vocit R. Sharpe, Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland before 1540 (Brepols, 1997), p. 691. Note that the late ®fteenth-century West Dereham name lists from Redman's register relate nothing about the Thomas Wygenhale who lived at the abbey in that era, beyond his name. Trinity College Cambridge, MS 262 (B.11.23), fols 104±32v. The Speculum Hereticorum is not mentioned by Colvin. White Canons, p. 323; BL MS Harley 148, fols 1±117, 117±19v. Camb. UL MS Ii.1.39, fols 1±103, 103±18. National Library of Wales, MS 22688B, fols 1±129, 129±30v. The medieval scribe's


140


copies of the Speculum date from the ®fteenth century, but the Cambridge manuscript dates from at least the late ®fteenth century, possibly into the early sixteenth century. The copies of the Speculum within these manuscripts are written by a different, single hand in each case, apart from annotations. The Speculum can be dated from 1384, as Wygenhale's degree in canon law is mentioned in the Harley and Cambridge manuscripts.54 The survival of three copies of the Speculum clearly indicates that the work enjoyed a degree of circulation in the ®fteenth, and possibly the sixteenth century. The Aberystwyth copy was possibly made for a particular individual or corporate body, because the initial letters of the ®rst words of each chapter are illuminated, and the hand is near professional in quality. The Cambridge manuscript also has a number of decorated initial letters, and is neatly written. The text in the Harley manuscript is neat, but slightly cruder. There is a discrepancy in the arrangement of the work in the surviving manuscripts. The Aberystwyth manuscript divides the Speculum into six parts which are largely subdivided into chapters, while the Harley and Cambridge texts divide the Speculum into twenty-three and twenty-two sections respectively, with subdivisions thereafter.55 The Speculum Juratoris is, as its name suggests, a treatise on swearing, and draws heavily from secular and classical literature, scripture, the church fathers, and ± signi®cantly ± the scholastics. For instance, quotations can be found in the work from the psalms, Isaiah, and Ezekiel; Seneca, Metrodoros of Chios, and Ovid; St John Chrysostom, St Augustine, St Ambrose, Pope St Gregory the Great, St Cassidorus, St Jerome, Pope St Leo the Great, and St Bernard of Clairvaux; Richard and Hugh of St Victor, St Anselm, St Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, Nicholas de Lyra (Commentary on the interpretation of sacred scripture), and St Thomas Aquinas, who also considered oath-making in his Summa Theologiae, which is cited in the Speculum.56 At the beginning of the Speculum, Wygenhale speaks about the use of analogy to illustrate a particular point in sacred scripture or theological truths: various things re¯ect an image of truth, like a mirror

54

55

56

foliation of the manuscript is from `9' to `120'. This manuscript is not indicated by Sharpe, Handlist of the Latin Writers, p. 691. See nn. 47 and 48 above. A few contemporaneous annotations appear in the text of the Harley manuscript, while several appear in the Aberystwyth manuscript, dating from the ®fteenth(?) to the late seventeenth century: BL MS Harley 148, fol. 30v; National Library of Wales, MS 22688B, fols 9, 49v, 56, 110v, 130v, 131. The description of the Aberystwyth manuscript which the National Library of Wales kindly provided me with, relates that it may have originated from England or Wales. An inscription at the foot of fol. 9, `Sir Thomas Llen [Llywelyn]', possibly dates from the ®fteenth century. Though this may be evidence of Welsh ownership in the later Middle Ages, it does not necessarily mean that the manuscript was written in Wales. See Camb. UL MS Ii.1.39, fols 1, 1v, 3v, 4, 11v, 14, 16v, 18v, 19v, 20, 24, 37, 37v, 41, 42v, 54, 83v, 100; Summa Theol. II, 2: q. 89, a. 1±10. Some of the attributions in the Speculum may, of course, be spurious.



141

(Speculum). The three persons of the Trinity are re¯ected in the constituent members of the Church; `Genus laicorum assimilatur patrem, propter potenciam. Genus clericorum seculariam [sic] ®lio, propter sapienciam; Genus Religiorum spiritum [sic] sancto, propter benignitatem seu graciam. In hiis generibus, scilicet laicorum, clericorum ± secularium et religiosorum ± est Trinitas'.57 Invisible things are made intelligible by visible things, though Wygenhale indicates their imperfect nature by quoting St Paul's ®rst letter to the Corinthians ± `Videmus nunc per speculum in enigmate'.58 Wygenhale then proceeds to develop the main theme of his work, and discusses, for example, twenty-two instances where individuals do not take oaths. For instance, in response to the argument that a man should not make an oath due to immemorial custom, part of the responsio consisted of the well-known quote from Pope Gregory VII to indicate that this proposition did not apply to oaths which did not violate God's law; Christ said ` `Ègo sum veritas'', non dicit `ègo sum consuetudo'' '.59 The author then expands on the lawfulness or illicitness of certain oaths, the Lex Dei, and other topics. He introduces spiritual allusions and themes in these discussions, using the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary in her ®delity to the law of God ± including a favourable discussion on the immaculate conception ± and the `seven words' of Christ on the cross.60 Wygenhale's shorter tracts, such as those on `Freewill', `Predestination', Ìndulgences' and `Purgatory', discuss themes which attained greater notoriety during the Protestant Reformation. Wygenhale's tract on purgatory, for instance, maintains the popular notion of praying for the dead.61 He proposed that the dead were absolved in two ways: `per viam iustie' and `per viam gratie'. Absolution was granted by the offering of the mass (ìn oblacione sacri®cium altaris') and by the prayers of the just (ìustorum').62 The extracts from Wygenhale's Speculum Hereticorum are particularly interesting. If they are representative of the contents of Wygenhale's original work, then he drew heavily from collections of exempla: stories and tales which were compiled in order to convey, and defend theological and moral truths. Older collections, such as Paschasius Radbert's De Corpore et Sanguine Christi (c.83163) and stories in Pope Gregory the Great's Dialogues, from the seventh century, were used by later compilers of exempla to obtain stories and tales, which were supplemented with more recent material. Notable examples were the exempla in James of Vitry's sermons of 1227±40 and the 57 58 59

60

61 62

BL MS Harley 148, fol. 1; Camb. UL MS Ii.1.39, fols 1, 2v. BL MS Harley 148, fol. 2v; Camb. UL MS Ii.1.39, fol. 2v; I Corinth., 13:12. National Library of Wales, MS 22688B, fol. 6v; cf. BL MS Harley 148, fol. 10v. In De Virginibus Velandis (chap.1) Tertullian said `Christ called Himself the Truth, not Custom'. BL MS Harley 148, fols 35v ff.; National Library of Wales, MS 22688B, fols 39 ff.; Camb. UL MS Ii.1.39, fols 38ff. and 100v. Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, pp. 368±76. BL MS Harley 148, fol. 119v.


142


Legenda Aurea (c.1255). The extracts from Wygenhale's Speculum Hereticorum are none other than a collection of exempla, which were increasingly deployed by clergy in their preaching.63 Their pastoral usefulness is underlined in the fact that they were transcribed in the Trinity College manuscript after a copy of John Mirk's Manuale Sacerdotis, written in the same hand as the Speculum, at the end of 1474 according to a note, and followed by several verses and a tract on absolution.64 Wygenhale could have obtained his material from any of the standard collections of exempla in existence, and he apparently indicated his sources in many instances; for example, the writings of James of Vitry, the Dialogues of St Gregory, and the Vitas Patrum in particular.65 These stories dealt with a number of topics, though exempla concerning the eucharist are prominent, particularly those featuring Jews.66 One tale concerns a Jew in Rome, who frequently visited a church. When he viewed the elevation of the host during mass, he saw a beautiful child in the priest's hands. This led him to convert to the Christian faith, and he was duly baptised. He did not see the child at the elevation again, and learned from this the important role that faith played in believing in Christ's living presence in the eucharist, without visible signs. The story concludes with a quotation from St John's Gospel, concerning the incredulity of St Thomas the Apostle: `Beati qui non viderunt et crediderunt'.67 Exempla which have a distinctly English context also appear, including a story concerning St Edward the Confessor, in which he saw a vision of Christ, at mass in Westminster Abbey.68 Unfortunately space does not permit a more detailed analysis of Wygenhale's surviving writings. What can be said, however, is that Wygenhale was orthodox in his thought and was typical of his age in his interest in the theological aspects of praying for the dead and indulgences, albeit related in the briefest of treatises. Wygenhale's collection of exempla in the Speculum Hereticorum and his surviving minor works, indicates that his writings were practical from a pastoral point of view, as well as theoretical.69 It is worth bearing in mind that Wygenhale's works were composed at a time when the English church was active in uprooting the recent Lollard heresy. It is possible that these writings were partly intended as a contribution to the Church's efforts in counteracting the spread of heresy by af®rming Catholic 63

64 65 66 67 68

69

Trinity College Cambridge, MS 262 (B.11.23), fol. 104. For an excellent summary on the exempla, with reference to teaching the eucharist, see Rubin, Corpus Christi, pp. 108±29. Trinity College Cambridge, MS 262 (B.11.23), fols 1±104, 104±32v. Trinity College Cambridge MS 262 (B.11.23), fols 116v, 125, 129±29v. Rubin, Corpus Christi, pp. 122, 124, 126. Trinity College Cambridge, MS 262 (B.11.23), fols 107±7v; Jn., 20:29. Trinity College Cambridge, MS 262 (B.11.23), fol. 120; Rubin, Corpus Christi, pp. 117±18. It is interesting to note that Wygenhale was a founder of the Holy Trinity Guild, in Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge in 1384: BRUC, p. 656.



143

doctrine and religious practices.70 Wygenhale's discussion in the Speculum Juratoris on the re¯ection of invisible (spiritual) realities in visible things, though perhaps crude, echoes that Augustinian exemplarism of which St Bonaventure was a prime exponent: in other words, the re¯ection of the Trinity in the works of creation.71 Though the Speculum Juratoris does not rank Wygenhale with theological giants such as Bonaventure, or Aquinas for that matter, it reveals that he was a competent, learned author, whose work probably deserves more recognition, as the three extant copies of the Speculum Juratoris and its contents indicates. Wygenhale possessed a good knowledge of scripture and the writings of patristic and medieval authors, especially St Augustine.72 References throughout the Speculum Juratoris to scholastic authors, particularly St Thomas Aquinas, and the scholastic methodology in which the presentation of the work was in¯uenced, is important evidence that demonstrates that the English Premonstratensians were not entirely unaffected by scholasticism, despite the conservative nature of their surviving theological texts. However one has to be cautious in generalising Wygenhale's reading matter upon other English white canons. Though Wygenhale may have had access to some of his sources in the library of West Dereham Abbey and could have owned some of the books personally, it is likely that he had plenty of research material at hand in Cambridge, where he exercised a pastoral role as vicar of Holy Trinity. Wygenhale's writings indicate his continued interest in theological and pastorally orientated issues, as well as canon law, in the period following the completion of his university studies.73 What about surviving philosophical works in the English Premonstratensian libraries? Apart from those noted in the Titch®eld catalogue, such as an extant copy of the Tractatus Super Librum Aristotelis de Coelo et Mundo, by pseudo Avicenna, an Aristotelian compilation survives from Bayham (late thirteenth century), which includes the Liber Eticorum Novorum.74 As well as several late thirteenth and ®fteenth century annotations, there is a late fourteenth or, more likely, a ®fteenth-century inscription which indicates that the manuscript was at Bayham at that time, if not earlier; Àbbas de Begeham ord' premonstracensis'. Moreover, inserted within the manuscript is a smaller, loose and discoloured page with late ®fteenth or possibly early sixteenth-century handwriting on both sides, in one hand. This is omitted in M. R. James' description of the manuscript.75 The script is mainly in Latin, 70 71

72 73

74

75

On Lollardy see A. Hudson, The Premature Reformation (Oxford, 1989). E. H. Cousins, Bonaventure and the Coincidence of Opposites (Chicago, 1978), pp. 45, 56±9, 126±7. National Library of Wales, MS 22688B, fols 34, 59, 72. Wygenhale's surviving works remain unedited to date. The author intends to produce an edition of these in the future. Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge MS 458/396; Bodl. MS Laud Misc. 357, fols 118±24v; Libr. Prem., p. 189. Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge MS 458/396, fols 100v, 175v, 185. The ex


144


although almost half a page is written in English. It is possible that the scribe could have been referring to any part of the thirteenth-century text in which this loose leaf is found, though the text(s) written on the pages are spiritual in content. The theme throughout the main Latin text seems to relate to the notion of `joy' (gaudium) and happiness in the afterlife, and discernment between true and false happiness. In at least three places the text refers to St Augustine, and his Confessions in particular. The English text speaks of the man who is blind to his `synne', and the èxamination of conscience'. A few lines ponder on whether `we' [i.e. the canons of Bayham?] love the world more, `quam dominum, seculum quam claustrum, gulam quam abstinenciam, luxuriam quam castitatem'.76 There are a number of Premonstratensian manuscripts containing `secular' literature, including historical works, chronicles, grammatical and medical writings, which, again, are mainly older works. A fourteenth-century manuscript from Hagnaby contains several historical works.77 The ®rst of these was an eclectic work known as the Imago Mundi, ascribed to various authors, including Honorius of Autun, and consisting of cosmographical subject matter and a historical chronicle, beginning with the Creation. This is followed by the `Scheme of the Heptarchy', with descriptive texts and a diagram illustrating the dimensions of England. There are also two metrical French chronicles: the widely known Roman de Brut by Wace, on the kings of England from Brut, translated from the Latin, and the Estorie des Engles by Geoffrey Gaimar, which ends with the death of William Rufus.78 A folio of the Imago Mundi has the inscription `Hangeby', in a ®fteenth-century hand.79 A thirteenth-century manuscript, that belonged to Barlings in the sixteenth century, includes the Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum attributed to Peter Tudebodi, which describes the holy places in Jerusalem.80 Leland found a copy of Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana and a Historiolae de Britannia at Tupholme.81 A manuscript which possibly belonged to Langdon ± judging from visitation documents (1315) within it ± and mainly written in an early fourteenth-century hand, includes sections of the Imago Mundi of St Anselm, a chronicle of the popes from the time of Jesus Christ to Clement VI (1342±52), a chronicle of the Roman emperors to the year 1308 (the Provinciale), by Martin Polonia, and other works, especially legal texts. There

76 77 78

79 80

81

libris inscription is on fol. 185 and not fol. 105, as related in M. R. James, Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS. in the Library of Gonville and Caius College, 3 vols (Cambridge 1907±14): II, p. 532. The loose leaf is inserted between fols 46v and 47. Gonville and Caius College Cambridge MS 458/396 [between] fols 46v and 47. BL MS Royal 13A.XXI. BL MS Royal 13A.XXI, fols 13v ff.; Warner and Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts II, pp. 86±7. BL MS Royal 13A.XXI, fol. 14. There is a sixteenth-century ex libris at the end of the manuscript: Ìste liber constat ecclesie [ . . .] Barlynges': El Escorial MS D.iii.11, fols 1v±19, 21; AntolõÂn, CataÂlogo I, pp. 481±2. Libr. Prem., p. 254.



145

is little or no indication that the manuscript was in Langdon's possession before the Dissolution.82 As well as the chronicles listed in the Titch®eld library catalogue, there are several extant manuscripts, or later transcripts, of chronicles written by white canons elsewhere, before the ®fteenth century.83 There is the Narratio Fundationis of Dale, written in c.1260 by Thomas of Muskham, a canon of that abbey. Three fragments of the Narratio, containing sections of the work, exist within one manuscript, dating individually from c.1260 to the fourteenth century: the c.1260 portion may have been dictated or written by Muskham himself.84 Interest in Dale's earliest history was perhaps shared by a later canon, who transcribed the Narratio in the late ®fteenth century. However this was not a work of scholarship, but a `poor transcript, copied by a barely-literate scribe'.85 From Hagnaby there is a fourteenth-century chronicle entitled `Chronicon monasterii de Hagnebie in Com' Lincolniae', from King Harold (1066) to the death of Edward II (1307). It seems to have been written in the same hand as the abbey's copy of the Imago Mundi.86 As well as being a general historical chronicle, it relates the story of Hagnaby's foundation and gives information on the Premonstratensians in general. The short booklist written after the chronicle in 1511, indicates that the abbey retained it at that time.87 The Barlings Chronicle (fourteenth century) covers English history from Harold to the birth of Edward II (1284).88 The scribe copied material from the annals of Waverley Abbey up until 1254, thereafter the text is thought to be the work of a canon of Barlings, as there are references to the abbey's patrons, the LongespeÂe family, events in the abbey's history, and to other Premonstratensian houses.89 Unfortunately the original copy of the Liber Annalium de Langley is now lost, and only extracts survive from late sixteenth- and eighteenth-century transcripts.90 There are only transcripts (sixteenth 82

83 84

85

86

87 88

89 90

Corpus Christi College Cambridge, MS 59, fols 1±24v, 40±75v, 77±82v, 237v±41. Titch®eld had many secular legal writings and statutes of the realm, some of which are extant: Camb. UL MS Kk.5.33; Harvard Law School, MS 28; Bodl. MS Digby 154, fols 27±30, 35v±40, 63±112v; Libr. Prem., pp. 208±9, 229, 243±6. Libr. Prem., pp. 190, 191, 229, 231, 232. BL MS Cotton Vespasian E.XXVI, fols 5, 195, 195v; N. Backmund, Die Mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreiber des PraÈmonstratenserordens (Averbode, 1972), pp. 273±8; `The History of the Foundation of Dale Abbey or the So-Called Chronicle of Dale', ed. A. Saltman, Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society 87 (1967), 18±38. `The History of the Foundation of Dale Abbey', p. 18; BL MS Cotton Vespasian E.XXVI, fols 180±7. Another copy exists in the Welbeck register: Backmund, Die Mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreiber, p. 273, n.2. BL MS Cotton Vespasian B.XI, fols 1±61v; Backmund, Die Mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreiber, p. 279. Libr. Prem., pp. 178±9; BL MS Cotton Vespasian B.XI, fol. 61v. Magdalen College Oxford, MS Lat. 199; Backmund, Die Mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreiber, pp. 286±9. Ibid. BL MS Harley 972, fols 79±80; BL Add. MS 5485, fols 9±10; Backmund, Die Mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreiber, pp. 285±6.


146


century) available of the late ®fteenth-century Alnwick Chronicle, which is believed to have been given to King's College, Cambridge by Henry VI, but was subsequently lost.91 There is little extant in the way of classical Roman literature. References to these works in the Titch®eld catalogue include Ovid's Remedia Amoris (two copies), and Virgil's Bucolica, Georgica and Aeneis.92 The in¯uence of the revival of classical learning during the Renaissance may be apparent in a surviving printed book which belonged to Abbot John Green of Leiston, who resigned his abbacy in 1531 in order to live as a hermit. The following inscription was made in the book; `Domini [sic] Johannis G[reen]e veteris cenobij Anachorite tituli Sancte Marie quondam Abbatis de leyston'.93 It contains a copy of the letters of Cicero `[ad] FAMILIARIVM AD LENTVLVM PROCONSVLEM', printed in Venice in 1480.94 There are annotations throughout the book in two hands, correcting or highlighting words in the printed text, ®lling in letters which are missing at the beginning of some passages, and making observations on the text. The most predominant handwriting is clear and neat, and indicates that the annotator ± possibly Green in this case ± not only took an interest in Cicero's letters, but was competent enough to correct the text.95 However, the book had more than one owner in the Middle Ages, possibly three. On the same page as Green's inscription are written: `Fratris th[ome?] imma [ . . .?]' and `Dominus halton monachus'. These inscriptions must date post-1480, when the book was printed. Halton's identi®cation is ascertained in an annotation on the last printed page of the book, as a monk of St Mary's Abbey York; `Dominus [corrected to `Donus' in the text] Johannes Halton monachus monasterii [?]sore virginis prope alta pergama ample civitatis Ebor' decentur situati'.96 Grammar books were particularly important to monasteries, especially in the education of younger brethren.97 By the late ®fteenth century the small Durford community acquired a fourteenth-century manuscript with an alphabetical Latin vocabulary and a copy of Huguccio of Pisa's Derivationes.98 91 92

93

94 95 96

97 98

White Canons, p. 385; Backmund, Die Mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreiber, pp. 289±91. Libr. Prem., pp. 221, 237±8. A manuscript containing writings by Seneca from Barlings (12th cent.) was formerly among the `Wentworth Woodhouse' MSS deposited at Magdalene College, Cambridge. I have been told that it is now in the British Library, but, upon enquiry, I was unable to locate it: Ker, Medieval Libraries, pp. 7, 228; Watson, Medieval Libraries, p. 3. BL IB. 24866, fol. 2v (my own numbering); Ker, Medieval Libraries, pp. 113, 274; White Canons, p. 125. Ibid. These annotations appear to be in the same ink as the `Greene' inscription. `[?]sore' is `pcÕ ore' in the inscription: for `professore'? These inscriptions are not mentioned in Ker, Medieval Libraries, p. 274 and Watson, Medieval Libraries. Religious Orders II, pp. 335±6, 338. Ìste liber est ecclesie de Dureford' (late 15th cent.): Lincoln Cathedral Library, MS 179 (B.3.7.), fols 1, 2±35, 36±221.



147

A common-place book which may have originated from Beauchief (c.1500), contains an alphabetical vocabularium based on the Greek roots, entitled Àticum eolitus iouitus doricusque Boetus', with notes added by two other hands.99 For example, under the letter àlpha', is the word Àbba' with the explanation, `Dicitur `àbba'', ``pater'', absalon inde venit'. For Àthana[m?]', Àc `ìmmortalis'' dicitur `àthanathos'' '; for Àndro', `Sicut `àlexander andro'' virile notat''. Among its other contents are Latin/English phrases extracted from a `Legend of St William', and texts from the `sequences' of the same saint.100 The presence of a large number of medical books in the Titch®eld list, and in the earlier Welbeck and St Radegund catalogues, indicates some preoccupation with medical matters. Premonstratensian booklists contain more medical books than those of the Cistercians.101 A medical compilation attributed to Hagnaby, includes crudely drawn diagrams, accompanied by texts on the human circulatory system and various organs, dating from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, to which were added the Experimenta and the more popular De Fistula in Ano by the medical practitioner John Arderne of Newark.102 The Experimenta was transcribed in 1440 by John Welles of Hagnaby, en-route from (?) the Roman curia; `qui scripsit ista a.d. mo cccco. xlo. quando uenit de Curia Romana ipso anno quartanam paciebatur per vii menses'.103 Recipes for various ailments, including cures for `the pestilence or plage', were added to the manuscript in the late ®fteenth or early sixteenth century.104 Medical recipes may also be found in the common-place book from Coverham (c.1529).105 We must now turn to the matter of spiritual reading, and what surviving books and manuscripts may reveal about the spirituality of the white canons. As well as the availability of scriptural texts, biblical commentaries and patristic writings for the purpose of spiritual reading, one can ®nd hagiographical writings in their libraries and surviving manuscripts, some of which are attributed to the church fathers. Welbeck was given, or acquired, in the Shef®eld City Archives, MS MD. 3500. A positive Beauchief provenance for this manuscript cannot be veri®ed. It contains a letter to the Bishop of Coventry and Lich®eld from the abbot and community, dated 17 August 1500, in which they ask that John Sitwell òn the title of the monastery' receive Holy Orders [my emphasis]. I have been unable to identify the names of `Ric. Cowpern', `Johannes crowsha' and `Hieronymus aleander', apparent in the manuscript: Shef®eld City Archives, MS MD. 3500, fols 19v, 21. 100 Shef®eld City Archives, MS MD. 3500, fols 2, 2v, 17v±21. 101 Libr. Prem., pp. xxv, 181, 215±20. 102 Gonville and Caius College Cambridge, MS 190/223, fols 1±43v, 50±100; C. H. Talbot, Medicine in Medieval England (London, 1967), pp. 121±3. 103 Gonville and Caius College Cambridge, MS 190/223, fol. 43v. 104 Gonville and Caius College Cambridge, MS 190/223, fols 43v±44, 46±46v, 47±47v, 48±49v. 105 BL MS Sloane 1584, fols 6v, 41v±45, 88. 99


148


early sixteenth century, a compilation from the late twelfth/early thirteenth century, which was probably Cistercian in origin.106 It included the life of St Bernard by William of St Thierry and others, Jerome's Vita Hilarionis, the Apophthegmata Patrum (Verba Seniorum), with sayings and sermons of the early desert fathers, and the Epistola ad Filios, by pseudo Macharius.107 Similar collections appear in the Hagnaby manuscript which contains the Speculum Beati Gregorii Pape (thirteenth century), including the Historia Monachorum in Aegypto translated by Ru®nus from the Greek, and the life of St Malchus (Actus Monachi), attributed to St Jerome.108 Langley possessed a Vitas Patrum, printed in 1512.109 Attached to the Barlings' copy of the Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum is an incomplete Vita S. Malachiae by Bernard of Clairvaux. A list of articles at the beginning of the manuscript indicates that most of its contents have been removed, including St John Chrysostom's De Reparatione Lapsi, copies of a Vita Sancti Silvestri, Vita Sancti Hilarii cum Miraculis, and a Vita Beati Jeronimi.110 Among the hagiographical writings indicated in the Titch®eld library catalogue were a Vitas Patrum, and lives of more local saints, among which were a Vita of St Thomas of Canterbury, possibly Benedict of Peterborough's Vita et Miracula Sancti Thomae Cantuariensis.111 It is evident that as with the surviving theological and `secular' books of the English Premonstratensians, the literature that was available for their spiritual reading generally follows the same conservative pattern. Moreover, there is little evidence that suggests that the English white canons expressed any interest in more contemporary `schools of spirituality', such as the Devotio Moderna, and English mystical literature of the same calibre as the Cloud of Unknowing.112 Nevertheless the English Premonstratensians were not totally unaffected by late medieval spirituality, nor were they solely conservative in their spiritual reading and devotional practices. As well as the predominance of older spiritual writings, the Titch®eld library had a copy of the Prophetia of St John of Bridlington (n 1379), whose feast day(s) are indicated in the Easby Ordinal.113 There is at least one single reference to 106

107 108 109 110 111 112

113

Lincoln Cathedral Library, MS 222. This manuscript includes the Pictor in Carmine mentioned on p. 136. Lincoln Cathedral Library, MS 222, fols 2±72, 73±82v, 83±178v, 178v±80. BL MS Royal 5 F.V; Warner and Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts I, p. 121. Watson, Medieval Libraries, p. 41. AntolõÂn, CataÂlogo: I, p. 482; El Escorial, MS D.iii.11. Libr. Prem., pp. 194, 198, 199, 200. J. Leclercq, F. Vandenbroucke and L. Bouyer, The Spirituality of the Middle Ages (London, 1968), pp. 417±46; R. Lovatt, `The Library of John Blacman and Contemporary Carthusian Spirituality', JEH 43 (1992), 206±7. The Prophetia were `mistakenly attributed' to John of Bridlington in the Middle Ages: Libr. Prem., p. 239; Jesus College Cambridge MS 55, fols 3, 17v; Hughes, Pastors and Visionaries, pp. 26, 303, 360±1. A ®fteenth-century manuscript with an imperfect copy of Lydgate's `Life of Our Lady', was thought to have originated from Halesowen according to Rev. Charles Lyttelton (n 1768), who bequeathed the manuscript to the



149

the Revelations of St Bridget of Sweden in Thomas Wygenhale's Speculum Juratoris, in a section concerning the immaculate conception: the excerpt concerns an occasion when the Blessed Virgin spoke to St Bridget in Rome. This reference may indicate that Wygenhale, at least, had some interest in the newer forms of mystical spirituality.114 The contents of a late ®fteenthcentury prayer roll, written and possibly illustrated by a canon of Coverham, named Percival ± probably Percival Melsynby, noted in the abbey's name lists from 1491±1500 ± are worth pondering. As with some other prayer rolls of the period, Melsynby's contains crudely drawn pictures with Latin and English prayers, and àntiphons' to saints who were extremely popular in late medieval England, as well as Christocentric and Marian orientated devotions.115 Among the saints venerated in the roll are St Roch ± who was frequently invoked for averting plague or pestilence ± St Michael the Archangel, St George, and there are prayers accompanying portrayals of the martyrdom of St Lawrence and St Erasmus, a much-venerated saint.116 There are also prayers to King Henry VI and an illustration of the monarch, who is styled `beate' and, in a rubric, `[Oracio de] Sancto Henrico'. His cult was popular in England, with its centre at the royal chapel at Windsor.117 A particularly interesting feature of the prayer roll is a copy of the `Measure of the Nails', with a drawing of the three nails trans®xed in the centre of a crown of thorns, with the symbols of the four evangelists at the top and bottom corners of the illustration. The bearer of this image was promised that if they carried it on their person daily and recited ®ve paters, ®ve aves and a credo, they would have seven `peticions' granted, which included the avoidance of a sudden death and protection `fro all maner of Wekid spretis,

114

115 116

117

Society of Antiquaries of London. Though this is plausible ± the Lyttelton family possessed other documents from the abbey ± there is no evidence in the manuscript for this attribution: The Library of the Society of Antiquaries of London, MS 134, fols 1±30; White Canons, pp. 380, 388. `Legitur eciam sic in libro sancte Brigide per sedem apostolicam approbato: ``Mater loquitur, `si alicui volenti ieiunare qui desiderium haberet commedendi, sed voluntas resisteret desiderio, preciperetur que a superiore, cui obediend[um] esset, quod per obedienciam commederet, et ille propter obedienciam contra velle suum commederet. Illa commestio maiore remuneracione digna esset quam ieiunium, per similem modum coniunctio parentum meorum fuit, quando ego concepta fui. Et ideo veritas est, quod ego concepta fui sine peccato originali, et non in peccato, quia sicut ®lius meus, et ego nunquam peccauimus, ita nullum coniugium fuit, quod honestius esset, quam illud, de quo ego processi' ''.' I have taken the text from Camb. UL MS Ii.1.39, fol. 103v, and added capital letters and punctuation where necessary. I am most grateful to the Mother Abbess and community of Syon Abbey for indicating the precise location of the reference in St Bridget's Revelations, Book 6, chapter 49 (Altomunster, 1680). Bodl. ASH, fol. 146; CAP II, 328. Pierpoint Morgan Library, MS G.39; Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, pp. 164, 170±1, 178. The roll is written on nine membranes sown together. Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, pp. 164±5, pl. 76, 77.


150


pestilens, [and] Fevers'.118 The concluding lines of the prayer roll seem to imply that the scribe compiled it for an unknown patron: though J. B. Friedman has suggested that it could have been made `for the use of the abbey [i.e. Coverham]', as other works in a similar roll form are extant from Durham Cathedral-priory.119 Although Melsynby's handiwork could have been made for the speci®cations of an unknown patron, it is a further indication that Melsynby, and possibly other canons ± if we bear evidence for English Premonstratensian liturgical practices in mind ± were not entirely unaffected by popular saintly cults and devotions.120 A copy of pseudo Bonaventure's Meditationes Vitae Christi, written in the ®fteenth century, belonged `de Almario ecclesie beate marie de alnewycke [i.e. Alnwick]'.121 A few of the annotations in this manuscript, which highlight sections of the work, indicate that it was utilised.122 These Meditationes circulated widely in medieval England, and were `popularised' in a vernacular paraphrase by Nicholas Love, in the Mirrour of the Blessed Lyfe of Jesu.123 In addition to the devotional items that John Gisborn of Coverham copied into his common-place book, including the `Sent Bernardes Fast' ± a common feature in printed Horae ± and a drawing of the ®ve wounds of Christ, with prominence given to the bleeding, Sacred Heart, is a treatise on the life of a hermit, an English version of a fourteenth-century Regula Heremitarum.124 As well as discussing why one should become a hermit, and how, it gives a basic outline of the eremetical state, taking into account the `lewed' as well as the `learned', and the hermit-priest, who was counselled to say daily mass, as well as matins and èvensong'.125 It is a much shorter treatise than the Ancrene Riwle, which consists of eight books, and the Rule 118

119 120

121

122 123 124 125

The `trew lenth of the thre Nailis' was claimed to have been given to Charlemagne by a pope, who is named as ` Innocent' in this prayer roll: cf. Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, pp. 273±5, pl. 110, 112. Friedman, Northern English Books, p. 167; and see n.205 below. e.g. see pp. 115±17, 126±7 above. An interesting insight into the use of allegory and the desire for a symmetrical explanation for liturgical ceremonies is apparent in a decree of the 1495 provincial chapter concerning the recitation of the seventh verse of the hymn `Veni Creator Spiritus'. This was omitted in some houses: `super quibus prefati patres [i.e. the dif®nitors of the chapter] animo intellectuali considerando viitem demonia de Maria Magdalene fuisse ejecta, per quod septennium numerum universitas designatur, quicquid virtutis sive vicii imputatur, eo quod mater nostra clamat Ecclesia, graciam Sancti Spiritus invocando, ympnum Veni Creator decantando, in quo viitem versus continentur contra cuncta vicia remediabiles': Bodl. ASH, fols 109v, 122; CAP I, 92: II, 177; Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, pp. 81±7, 9± 98; Rubin, Corpus Christi, pp. 93±8. For further discussion of the Coverham prayer roll see Friedman, Northern English Books, pp. 167±70. BL MS Harley 217, fols 2v±3. It also contains a copy of De Laude Caritatis, attributed to Hugh of St Victor: BL MS Harley 217, fols 156v±60v. BL MS Harley 217, fols 10v, 14v. Lovatt, `The Library of John Blacman', p. 210. BL MS Sloane 1584, fols 12±18v, 89±95v. BL MS Sloane 1584, fols 89±95v.



151

of St Paul, and emphasises the external features of the hermit's lifestyle. Gisborn's vernacular transcription of the Regula Heremitarum appears to re¯ect the in¯uence which the eremetical life had upon certain sections of Yorkshire society in the late middle ages.126 Aside from hagiographical writings there survives an interesting ascetical compendium from Titch®eld, of continental origin. Three different works, bound together but printed separately in Paris in 1497 and 1498, were in the possession of Abbot Thomas Oke of Titch®eld (1486±1508), according to an ex libris inscription.127 They are the Figurae Biblie by Antony Rampegollis, an Austin friar, a Dictionarium Pauperum and a Speculum Salvationis Humanae, probably by the same author. The Speculum concerns the Fall of Man and his redemption by Christ, while the Dictionarium deals with various spiritual topics which were suitable for consideration throughout the liturgical year, including the virtue of fasting, contrition and `friendship with God'. The Figurae Biblie, with the ex libris inscription at the beginning, is similar to the Dictionarium. It discusses, in alphabetical order, various topics such as `De Maria virgine', `De iudicio vltimo' and `De Diabolo' and draws analogies from the scriptures.128 Most of the annotations which appear intermittently in this work, itemise subject matter of personal interest. In the section `De Diabolo' for example, the drowning of the Hebrew children by Pharaoh, in Exodus, is seen as an example of the work of `the evil spirit'. The annotator, possibly Oke, wrote in the margin `Pharo ordinatur paruulos suffocari in aquis'.129 It may be asked at this point whether there are any indications that the English white canons had any devotion to their founder, St Norbert, or drew inspiration from his life. The library list from Titch®eld shows that this abbey possessed a copy of one of the standard Latin lives of St Norbert, which are now designated as Vita A and Vita B.130 A specially commissioned Vita of St Norbert was written in 1440 for Abbot John Wygenhale of West Dereham.131 The author of this work, which merits a more detailed examination, was not a Premonstratensian, as one would expect, but an Austin friar, John Capgrave, who later established himself as a proli®c writer 126

127

128

129 130

131

Hughes, Pastors and Visionaries, pp. 64±126. For further details on the Regula Heremitarum, see N. Watson, Richard Rolle and the Invention of Authority (Cambridge, 1991), passim esp. pp. 41±5. Bodl. MS Auct.1.Q.6.1: Ìste liber pertinens [ad] dominum Thome oke, abbat[is] [sic] monasterij beate marie de Tychefeld, ordinis premonstratensis'. Bodl. Auct.1.Q.6.1, fols 48, 84v±85v, 96v±106v [of the Figurae], fol. 2 and passim [of the Dictionarium]. Bodl. Auct.1.Q.6.1, fol. 48 [Figurae]. Libr. Prem., p. 198, n.60. A brief summary of the order's foundation by Norbert is apparent in Redman's register. See n.171. On the date of Norbert, see Appendix ®ve.


152


and luminary among the English Augustinians.132 There is only one manuscript copy of Capgrave's `Life of St Norbert' (hereafter Norbert) in existence, which belongs to the Huntington Library in San Marino, California and is classi®ed as MS HM. 55. It was edited by Cyril L. Smetana O.S.A. in 1977.133 The Norbert is of particular note because it is written in English in an East Anglian dialect and is based mainly on the Vita B, with extracts from the Additamenta Fratrum Capperbergensium, which is usually appended to it, containing miracles attributed to Norbert.134 Although there is no categorical proof that the sole manuscript of Norbert, which appears to be a presentation copy, was actually written by Capgrave, sound reasons have been advanced in favour of this view, such as the text's East Anglian dialect which, despite minor variations in Capgrave's works, `conforms to what scholars have felt was the usage of King's Lynn [where the author was born in 1393] during the ®fteenth century'.135 A historiated initial at the beginning of the prologue portrays Capgrave, in his black habit, presenting the work to the white-robed Abbot Wygenhale, who is seated under a canopy.136 While Capgrave openly admits his dependence on Vita B, mainly following the text closely and adding no new material to the life of Norbert, his vernacular `translation' is not merely a slavish rendition, for it is written in rhymed stanzas. The author often comments on Vita B's text and makes editorial changes.137 Norbert has been described as belonging to the `same school of hagiography as the author of the Vita B; for him, [Capgrave] as for his àuctour', edi®cation was the end and wonderment the means'.138 The use of the miraculous to edify, convey moral truths and, perhaps, theological propositions, is particularly apparent in the story of the spider that fell into St Norbert's chalice, on one occasion while he was saying mass.139 Norbert was in a dilemma. He feared death by poisoning, as his love for the blood of Christ within the chalice prompted him to consume it: `This man [i.e. Norbert] is astoyned with fere & with loue, Feer for venym, love for the sacrament.'140 132

133

134 135

136 137

138 139 140

A. De Meijer, `John Capgrave O.E.S.A.', Augustiniana 5 (1955), pp. 404±40; E. J. Fredeman, `The Life and English Writings of John Capgrave' Ph.D. (British Colombia, 1970). See Life of St Norbert which is used here throughout, but with modernised letter characters where appropriate. Sentences and words of Life of St Norbert in italics are mine throughout. Life of St Norbert, pp. 11, 13, 15. Life of St Norbert, pp. 1, 4±7; P. J. Lucas, `John Capgrave, O.S.A. (1393±1464), Scribe and Publisher', Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 5 (1969), 1±35. For an opposing viewpoint, E. Colledge, `The Capgrave `Àutographs'' ', Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 6 (1974), 137±48. Illustrated in the frontispiece. Life of St Norbert, pp. 11±16, 172. For a collation of Vita B with the Life of St Norbert: Fredeman, `The English Writings', pp. 139±56. Life of St Norbert, p. 13. Life of St Norbert, ll. 246±94. Ibid., 258±9.



153

Norbert consumed the contents of the chalice containing the spider, and afterwards prayed to God for consolation at the prospect of death. But help is at hand; Oure lord with mercy mad to him resort, And as oure book [Vita B] ful notabily can report, Before the autere where he gan knele, Aboute his nose ¿ekyng gan he fele. Wherfore with handis bisily rith anoon Onto that place to scrat it mad he hast With his fyngeris scharply on the boon. And in a nezyng sodeynly thoo he brast. With that nezyng alsoo eke he cast The grete ereyn rith oute at his nose; Whech was a miracule ful grete, I suppose.141

Capgrave did not wish to counsel his clerical readers to imitate Norbert if they faced a similar situation. Nevertheless, while showing remarkable prudence in handling this miracle story by citing the opinions of `Doctouris' on what to do if similar situations arose in the ®fteenth century ± in the light of theological advances ± he still fosters admiratio for this eucharistic `miracule ful grete'; Now wil I ask this, if euery man be bounde, Whann that he stant in swech manere chaunce, To receyue onclennesse whech is ifounde On the autere in only habundaunce? Doctouris of Ytaile and eke thei of Fraunce And Englisch men eke sey ``nay `' thertoo. Eke thei telle us who that we schal doo. Thei sey alle this: it schal be taken oute, Leyd on the patene or on sum othir thing, And aftirward withouten ony doute Put forth in the lauatory forth in wasching.142 This seynt at that tyme of age was ful 3ing And had not lerned alle thing be stodye; Or ellis God ded this his name to magni®e.143

Why was the Norbert commissioned by Abbot Wygenhale? It is clear from miracle stories such as the above, which have an emphasis on edi®cation, and more explicit passages, that Norbert was primarily designed to foster the 141 142

143

Ibid., ll. 270±80. This is comparable with the opinion of Jacques de Vitry: Life of St Norbert, p. 32, note for l.285. Also see that of St Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theol. 3, q.83, a.6. The white square `pall' used for covering the chalice only came into more common usage in the later Middle Ages: Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, p. 340, n.2; N. Gihr, The Holy Sacri®ce of the Mass (St Louis and London, 1935), p. 261, nn.1, 3. Life of St Norbert, ll. 281±94.


154


devotion of the abbot and community of West Dereham towards their saintly founder. In the prologue Capgrave presents Norbert to the canons as worthy of veneration; Lete neuyr his lif fro youre hertis fal, ye men of ordre that be to him named. Alle that forget him iwis thei schal be blamed . . . Thus endith this prologe, my goodly fadir dere, Whech I write to you with ful pure entent . . . And if ye list that this book present May be receyued in youre fraternyte, Onto youre name [i.e. Wygenhale] dedicate than schal it be.144

Excisions from the text of Vita B during the production of Norbert, such as Norbert's `worldly' life as a courtier, and the incident when a mob threatened to kill him in Magdeburg, appear to have been undertaken with the object of heightening Norbert's sanctity and popularity.145 Other omissions, such as Norbert's triumph over the eucharistic heresies of Tanchelin in Antwerp in c.1124, and the miraculous ®nding of the relics of St Gereon in Cologne in 1121, are thought to have been due to either àuthorial inattention', or gaps in the copy of Vita B that Capgrave was working from. However these omissions may have also been due to the author's desire to produce a less complicated work, and are compensated for by the other miracle stories in the book.146 It is signi®cant that Capgrave wrote in the vernacular and not in Latin. Fredeman believes that Norbert was written in the vernacular because, àlthough priests [i.e. clergy] were expected to have a working acquaintance of Latin, the Premonstratensians were never known as a learned order; for this reason a vernacular life of their founder would be a prized accession'.147 This would most certainly be the case when illiterate or badly educated canons were concerned, but we should recall the level of literacy among the canons, which the statutes stipulated: that is the ability to read Latin with reasonable facility.148 It is possible that Norbert was written in the vernacular, of East Anglia, for its own sake, as a vehicle to convey in common language the life of the white canons' founder. The production of vernacular works was not solely accomplished in order to appeal to a non-Latin speaking audience. Abbot Whethamstede of St Alban's commissioned the notable Benedictine author, John Lydgate, to write `The glorious lyfe and passion of seint Albon' in 1439, for the protomartyr of England was patron of Whethamstede's abbey. This 144 145 146

147 148

Ibid., 33±5, 57±8, 61±3. Life of St Norbert, pp. 14±16. Ibid. and p. 13, ll. 2185±338; H. Campbell, St Norbert (Storrington, n.d.), pp. 63±4, 96±9. Fredeman, `The Life and English Writings', p. 111. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 12, 14, 16±17, 27.



155

vernacular hagiographical work was `written for a sophisticated audience . . . [and] owed very little to the popular saints' lives of religious or didactic purpose', like Capgrave's Norbert.149 Abbot Wygenhale may also have commissioned Norbert as the order's founder was not universally venerated as a saint. No evidence exists from late medieval England of a liturgical cult of St Norbert among the Premonstratensians, which was possibly due to Norbert's late canonisation in 1582.150 One of the earliest representations of `S[ancti] Norbert[i]' only dates from the fourteenth century.151 `Secondary' evidence for Norbert's veneration in England, probably many years before 1479, is apparent in the itineraries of William Worcestre.152 In 1479 Worcestre transcribed a memorandum, which originated from an àntiquo kalendario' belonging to George Hevyrston of St James's parish in Norwich. The calendar must have been of Premonstratensian provenance originally, because it contained a list of all the English Premonstratensian abbeys, and some of the Scots, and also gives a feast day for St Norbert: `Sanctus Norbertus fundator ordinis Premonstrensis [sic] accidit die 5to Junij super B littera nonas Junij'. One should note that Norwich, where Worcestre transcribed the calendar, is fairly close to Wendling.153 Nevertheless the lack of substantial evidence for any devotion to Norbert in the later Middle Ages would suggest that Wygenhale sought to produce a `translation' of the Vita B for his own house: though the absence of Norbert's feast day (6 June) in the sixteenthcentury West Dereham calendar and in the late ®fteenth-century Easby Ordinal indicates that the Norbert did not lead to a liturgical cult in the English circaries.154 Capgrave indicated in Norbert that his work would be subjected to criticism. J. J. Munro's view that `ye noble men', according to Capgrave's prologue, that would criticise Norbert were possibly the canons of West Dereham, who had rather that the book had been written in their own scriptorium, than by an Austin friar, does not seem to tally with what 149 150

151

152

153

154

Stockdale, `Benedictine Libraries', p. 81; Religious Orders II, p. 275. Ardura, PreÂmontreÂ Histoire et SpiritualiteÂ, pp. 246±47. A `commemoration' of Norbert was kept in the Saxony circary ± where Magdeburg, the saint's archbishopric, is situated ± though there is no evidence that this was universal at this time. A late sixteenth-century reference occurs in the Fearn Abbey calendar: Acta Saxony, p. 40; Le Liber Ordinarius, p. 382; The Calendar of Fearn, p. 60. See p. xx. For an older manuscript portrayal of Norbert, see Ardura, PreÂmontreÂ Histoire et SpiritualiteÂ, front cover. William Worcestre Itineraries, ed. J. H. Harvey (Oxford, 1969), pp. 240±5. See p. 151 above for a copy of a Latin life of Norbert at Titch®eld and n.172 below. Ibid. Note that the tabular letter B is for 5 June, while Norbert's feast day is actually 6 June. Late ®fteenth-century annotations in the manuscript (by a canon(s) of West Dereham?) appear to endorse `the statements on religious life' expressed within the Life of St Norbert: ibid., p. 2; Huntington Library MS HM. 55, fols 20, 21, 22, 22v, 23v, 26.


156


Capgrave says in the prologue.155 He writes that although he expects criticism, Ì have myn entent, So I plese him that gaue me comaundment', that is, the abbot of West Dereham. If one looks carefully at the passage in which Capgrave expects criticism of Norbert, it appears that he was speaking about criticism in general terms, foreseeing disapproval of his work within a wider readership; Who schal these dayis make now ony thing But it schal be tosed & pulled as wolle ? Summe schul sey alle this is ¯ateryng; Summe of charite schul preise it at the fulle. Now lete hem rende, lete hem hale and pulle . . .156

Furthermore, in the light of these anticipated criticisms, Capgrave actually invites the canons to cast a critical eye over the work if they so wish, to be the `judges' of his critics, and he expects acquittal from them; Ye noble men, if that ye list to race [i.e. slash this work], Or rende my leuys that I to you write, Ye may weel doo it; I schal you neuyr wite. In youre correccioun put I this matere For I wil sewe & translate this story, And wele I wote youre hertis be so clere, So ful of charite withouten trechery, Ye wil not put on me no vyleny, But I deserue it, and that schal I nowt, As I hope, neythir in speche ne thowt.157

Worries that Capgrave expressed over criticism, mainly concerning his use of poetry ± `though I be of rymeris now the leest, Yet wil I now, obeying youre comaundment, Put me in daungere in this werk present' ± could well have been genuine, as the Norbert was his ®rst venture into the vernacular. His later Life of St Katharine (c.1445) was a `more sophisticated and polished work' than Norbert: though deprecatory language of this sort is common in middle English writings.158 Why did Abbot Wygenhale choose Capgrave to write the work? First of all, Wygenhale probably knew Capgrave who was a native of Kings Lynn, 155

156 157 158

John Capgrave's Lives of St Augustine and St Gilbert of Sempringham and a Sermon, ed. J. J. Munro, EETS, original series 140 (1910), p. xiv. Life of St Norbert, ll. 8±12. Ibid., 19±28. Ibid., 5±7; Fredeman, `The Life and English Writings', pp. 101, 123, 223; The Life of St Katharine of Alexandria by John Capgrave, ed. C. Horstmann, EETS, original series 100 (1893). Smetana indicates that `There is no evidence that Capgrave's Norbert was subject to the kind of criticism he anticipates in the prologue': Life of St Norbert, p. 2. Capgrave's authorship or editing of the Nova Legenda Anglie (ante-1450?) has been discounted: P. J. Lucas, `John Capgrave and the Nova Legenda Anglie: A Summary', The Library, ®fth series 25 (1970), 8±10.



157

which is not far from West Dereham. He may have been based at the Austin priory in Lynn in 1440 when he completed the Norbert as he was probably prior there in 1446 when Henry VI visited the monastery. Fredeman suggests that visits to West Dereham by Capgrave and his fellow friars, while on preaching missions, are possibly implied in a line of the Norbert, where Capgrave thanks Wygenhale òf youre hertly chere, Whech ye make us whan we are oute sent'.159 However it is also possible that Capgrave remained in Cambridge until c.1446, after his studies were ®nished.160 A number of lines addressed to Wygenhale in the prologue and the epilogue suggest that Capgrave knew the abbot personally; Ioye, grace & pees, loue, feith & charite Euyr rest upon your goodly religious breest, To whom that I with moost humylite Euyr recomende me lowly as youre preeste . . . Thus endith this prologe, my goodly fadir dere, Whech I write to you with ful pure entent . . . The abbotes name was called at that tyde The good Ion Wygnale, that neuer wold him hide For no gestis but rather he wold hem seke . . .161

Again, it could be suspected that such language was only placatory words addressed by an author to a patron. However Smetana points out that Capgrave's `portrayal' of the abbot is no mere platitude, and can be substantiated in the mortuary roll announcing the abbot's death c.1451.162 Capgrave also appears to display his personal knowledge of the abbey in the epilogue, and says that the house ìs to lordes and gentilys alle in sam, And eke to pore men a very Iulianes ham [i.e. a place of hospitality]'.163 Capgrave also speaks highly of the Premonstratensian order in general; 159 160 161 162

163

Fredeman, `The Life and English Writings', pp. 9, 111; Life of St Norbert, ll. 59±60. Life of St Norbert, pp. 7±8; De Meijer, `John Capgrave', pp. 409±10, 417±18. Life of St Norbert, ll. 1±4, 57±8, 4101±3. `Honoratus non minus a dominis quam ab universa familia; inter peritos disertus, cunctis se amabilem et gratum exhibebat; erat enim aspectus hilaris, vultu serenus, sermone jucundus, in conversacione affabilis . . . omnibus virtutibus congruebat': BL Add. MS 46411; Life of St Norbert, p. 10, note for l. 4102. The accounts of Abbot John Wygenhale's life given by Colvin and Smetana have been con¯ated with another John Wygenhale who was active in the diocese of Norwich at the same time: White Canons, pp. 321±3, 421; Life of St Norbert, note for l.4102. This other Wygenhale (alias Saresson/Sareson) was a graduate of Cambridge, archdeacon of Sudbury and dean of the College of St Mary in the Fields, and was a secular priest. A Norwich will, dated 1461, is not that of Abbot Wygenhale, as has been claimed, but of the other cleric bearing his name. Abbot Wygenhale died in c.1451, ten years before the will was written, as a sermon appended to Capgrave's Life of St Gilbert (1451) refers to the abbot `that deyid last'. It is not known if Wygenhale studied at university: John Capgrave's Life of St Augustine, pp. 61, 147; Tanner, The Church in Late Medieval Norwich, pp. 95±6, 114, 216; BRUC, p. 655. Life of St Norbert, ll. 4099±100.


158


To make this werk of that noble with, Norbert called, wich with ful hye grace, Made a ordre that schewith now very lith [agile] Of good ensaumple to men in euery place.164

Capgrave, perhaps as a result of writing Norbert, appears to have had a genuine devotion to St Norbert. Capgrave's devotion to the saint in Norbert, and his particular desire for closer bonds between those orders which followed the Rule of St Augustine ± while recognising their individual characteristics ± is apparent, for example, in these stanzas from the prologue, after encouraging the white canons to venerate and imitate Norbert; I myselue, thou that I mech ferther be Fro his patronage, yet haue I deuocioun Ful special, leueth weel, in his benygnyte, Rith for this cause and this conclusion: That he schuld kepe me fro alle illusioun Of myn enmye bodely and goostly eke. Seyntis be ny to hem that hem seke. The secunde cause eke whi I him loue, For sothe, is for bretherin me thinkith we be, His ordre and oure if ye wil it proue, Beholdeth here lyfe, beholde here vnyte Of here professioun, & therby proue may ye That of o reule thei and we be alle. Wherefore o kynrod men may us now calle.165

Capgrave's desire for unity among religious orders, as expressed in Norbert and elsewhere, makes it clear that his devotion and praise of Norbert and the Premonstratensians were genuine sentiments, and not merely gestures designed to placate his patron, Abbot John Wygenhale.166 It might be asked whether Capgrave's expectation of criticism of his Norbert would allow one to propose that the author expected it to be circulated beyond the con®nes of West Dereham Abbey. The shortening of the Vita B in Norbert ± despite the expansion of some passages ± its conversational and poetic style and the use of the vernacular, would have made it an ideal `pastoral' life of St Norbert, which could be easily read by literate lay people who would then learn to venerate the saint and pro®t from the work's moral teaching.167 Various types of religious texts in circulation, including lives of the saints were òriginally intended for reading 164 165 166

167

Ibid., 15±17. Ibid., 36±49. De Meijer, `John Capgrave', pp. 414±16 and n.63; De Meijer, `John Capgrave O.E.S.A.', Augustiniana 7 (1957), 547±8, 558±60. Life of St Norbert, ll. 954±72, 1849±55, 1926±9.



159

aloud to the laity by clerics', or, indeed, by the laity for the laity.168 Although Capgrave may have expected criticism of his work on linguistic grounds, Norbert's East Anglian dialect could be appealing to a local readership, especially a readership that had an interest in spiritual writings, as is so evident in Margery Kempe's Boke, written in neighbouring King's Lynn.169 It could be imagined, on the contrary, that the existence of only the presentation copy of the Norbert militates against any notion that it was circulated beyond East Anglia, if at all.170 Nevertheless there is important evidence that seems to indicate that the opposite may have been the case. Capgrave made known the existence of Norbert to the Gilbertines. He appended to his Life of St Gilbert (1451), written for the Gilbertine nuns at the request of Nicholas Reysby, master-general of the order, a short English tract entitled à tretis of tho orderes that be vndyr the reule of oure fader Seynt Augustin', which was based on a Latin sermon that he delivered while at Cambridge in 1422.171 In the tract Capgrave likens St Augustine to Jacob, and those orders which followed Augustine's Rule as Jacob's sons. However, Capgrave did not elaborate on the foundation of the white canons by St Norbert, because he explained that he had already written Norbert's life, and did not need to relate it again: `the ordr' of Premonstracenses, whech be-gan in Fraunce vndir a holy man thei cleped Norbertus, the yere of oure Lord a M and a hundred, and be-cause that I mad his lyf in Englisch to the abbot of Derham that deyid last, therfor as now I wil no lenger' tarie in that fundacion' [my emphasis].172 This passage strongly implies that Norbert was intended to be 168

169 170

171

172

Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, pp. 68±9; J. A. Burrow, Medieval Writers and Their Work (Oxford, 1982), p. 47. The Book of Margery Kempe, ed. B. A. Windeatt (London, 1985), pp. 15±19. Though R. N. Swanson and others argue against the idea of a `monolithic PreReformation English spirituality' because of linguistic, devotional, regional and social differences, the circulation of spiritual texts throughout the country, such as the Cloud and Nicholas Love's Myrrour, which originated in the north, perhaps indicates that one should not equally push Swanson's point to extremes. While not everyone occupied the same spiritual niche in late medieval England, there was often a `blurring' of spiritual boundaries between social classes. It is proper to speak of a `late medieval spirituality' for factors such as the eucharist, the sacramental life and devotion to the saints, were common to all, while allowing for plurality between individuals: The Cloud of Unknowing and Related Treatises, ed. P. Hodgson, Analecta Cartusiana 3 (Exeter, 1982), pp. xiv±xviii; Catholic England, pp. 7±8, 31±2; Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, passim; Lovatt, `The Library of John Blacman', pp. 206±7, 210. John Capgrave's Life of St Augustine, pp. 61, 145±8; De Meijer, `John Capgrave': 7, pp. 558±60, 556±8, 571±2. John Capgrave's Life of St Augustine, p. 147. We should recall that the white canons were actually established in 1121: p. 1. A list in Redman's register, referring to the number of the order's houses in the world ùt patet publice in quodam registerio in Techfelde' begins, Ànno Domini millesimo centesimo nonodecimo, tercio kalendas Aprilis, incepit Ordo Premonstratensis in ecclesia Premonstratensi per Norbertum institutorem dicti Ordinis, qui rexit ecclesiam Premonstratensem annis viii, mensibus ix; et postmodum factus est archiepiscopus Magdeburgensis et ibidem


160


read by an audience outside the Premonstratensian order, and that the biography would seem to have enjoyed a certain circulation, though how extensive this was remains unknown.173 The reference to Norbert was obviously added to the original sermon (1422) by Capgrave, as Norbert was written in 1440.174 The `pastoral' and didactic elements in Norbert lead us to consider pastoral literature belonging to the Premonstratensians. As parish priests, the white canons would have been expected to instruct their parishioners in the rudiments of the Catholic faith. Although it is dif®cult to judge exactly how often parochial clergy delivered sermons, the practice of preaching received greater prominence in the ®fteenth and early sixteenth century.175 Evidence for the availability of speci®c homiletic and pastoral writings which the English Premonstratensians could have used, is apparent, though scarce. However we must bear in mind the limitations incurred when analysing sermon literature. There is still uncertainty over the extent to which written texts re¯ect spoken sermons, and, if they were used, it is possible that they may not have been preached as they survive, especially if written in Latin.176 Some of these texts may have been memorised for delivery, or were produced as meditative aids for private devotional purposes.177 Nevertheless, considering that the white canons were actively involved in parochial ministry, it would be reasonable to assume that some of their few surviving homiletic material was intended for use within a pastoral context. Among the surviving literature from Titch®eld ± indicated in the abbey's library list ± which could have been useful for compiling sermons, are the Sermones de Diebus Festis et Dominicis, by Peter Lombard and the Sermones of Geoffrey Babbio, con¯ated with sermons written by Hildebert of Lavardin, or attributed to him, and three sermons by Geoffrey of Troyes.178 There is also a reference to a `Legenda sanctorum que dicitur Aurea in anglicis'. Bell has suggested that this entry probably refers to a version of the South English Legendary.179 R. M. Wilson did not entirely discount this designation, but he also proposed that it could be the Festial of John Mirk, an extremely popular sermon collection in late medieval England: though he admitted that ìt is

173

174 175 176 177 178

179

obdormivit in Domino': Bodl. ASH, fol. 10; CAP I, 158. Note there are errors in Gasquet's transcription, ibid. Apart from the references to Norbert in Capgrave's `tretis of tho orderes', I have been unable to ®nd any other contemporary reference to the work. De Meijer, `John Capgrave': 7, pp. 558±60. Marshall, Catholic Priesthood, pp. 86±107. Ibid., p. 12. Catholic England, pp. 12±13. Libr. Prem., pp. 188±9; Bodl. MS Laud Misc. 357, fols 71±86v, 99±103, 152±59v. For a copy (13th cent.) of the Sermones and Liber Poenitentialis of Odo of Cheriton, from West Dereham (?): Camb. UL MS Kk.1.11; Ker, Medieval Libraries, pp. 57, 251. Libr. Prem., p. 200.



161

not certain that Myrc had ®nished his work by 1400'.180 However it has been recently suggested that the Festial probably dates to the 1380s, and therefore it is possible, though by no means certain, that Titch®eld had a copy of this sermon compilation.181 An interesting ®fteenth-century sermon compilation from Welbeck is extant in two separate manuscripts: John Rylands University of Manchester Library MS Eng. 109 (R.21638) and Norwich Cathedral Library MS 5. The Rylands' manuscript, containing most of the sermons, appears to have originally been three separate compilations.182 The third section, if not the other two, àlmost certainly' belonged to Welbeck, and was written there in 1432, according to a partially erased inscription: Ìste liber constat domino Roberto Prestwold. Si quis hunc librum a predict' [abbathia] alienauerit anatema [sic] sit. amen. Et scriptus erat anno domini millesimo CCCCmo xxxmo secundo'. The words `domino Roberto Prestwold' were written in black lettering over the words À[bbathie] de Welle[beck?]', which were erased.183 Linguistic evidence in this section of the Rylands manuscript points to a `north Nottinghamshire origin'. Welbeck was situated in that area.184 As there is a doubt about the origin of the ®rst two segments of the Ryland manuscript, we will only brie¯y examine the third segment and the Norwich manuscript, which contains folios from the former.185 The third segment of the Rylands manuscript and the Norwich folios, are a vernacular translation of the `Miroir' of Robert de Gretham. Several folios of the work are missing, and folios 59 and 60 are damaged. Attached to the end of this `Miroir' is a series of miscellaneous vernacular sermons, which are also apparent in another copy of the work.186 The `Miroir' comprises sermons for the liturgical year, from Advent to the 24th Sunday after Pentecost. The sermons appended to this work concern a number of feast days and doctrinal topics, such as the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, St Michael the 180

181

182

183

184 185

186

`The Medieval Library of Titch®eld Abbey', ed. R. M. Wilson, Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society: Literary and Historical Section 5 (1940), 166, n.23; Mirk's Festial: a Collection of Homilies by Johannes Mirk (John Mirk), ed. T. Erbe, EETS, extra series 96 (1905). S. Powell, À New Dating of John Mirk's Festial', Notes and Queries 227 (1982), 487±9; A. J. Fletcher, `John Mirk and the Lollards', Medium Aevum, 56 (1987), 217±24. N. R. Ker, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, 4 vols (Oxford, 1969±92): III, pp. 418±20. John Rylands University of Manchester Library, MS Eng. 109, fol. 126v; Ker, Medieval Manuscripts III, p. 419. Ker, Medieval Manuscripts III, p. 419, n.1. Ibid.; John Rylands University of Manchester Library, MS Eng. 109, fol. 78v. Note that this portion of the manuscript was alienated before the sixteenth century: Ker, Medieval Manuscripts III, p. 419. Bodl. MS Holkham Misc. 40, fols 108v±33; Ker, Medieval Manuscripts III, p. 420. A collation of both manuscripts in order, illustrates the confused arrangement of their folios: fols 54, 37±51 (Rylands); 5±7 (Norwich); 52, 53, 55±74 (Rylands); 1±4 (Norwich); 75±122 (Rylands); 8 (Norwich); 123±26 (Rylands): Ker, Medieval Manuscripts III, p. 420.


162


Archangel, the Ten Commandments, and an explanation of the Pater noster.187 While the `Miroir' sermons could conceivably have furnished suitable material for devotional reading, their content and design would suggest that they were primarily intended to be preached to a congregation, perhaps during high mass on Sundays and special feast days, as they are based on the gospel texts for those days. Each sermon not only comments on themes from each gospel text, but `translates' them. For example, the gospel for the seventh Sunday after Pentecost, from St Matthew, concerns false prophets who are wolves in sheep's clothing: Àttendite a salsis [sic] prophetis . . . Jhesus seid to his deciples, thise wordes: ``kepe yow fro fals prophetes that sodenly comen to yow in clothing white as schepe, and bene wt inne rauyschand wolfes'' '. Among the `fals prophetes' the author speci®es `heretykes, for thei bene disseheired fro heuen for thei make yo folke to vnderstonde thinges that bene ageyne yo lawe of god'.188 The sermon for the Sunday within Septuagesima ± three weeks before the ®rst Sunday of Lent ± concerns St Luke's gospel on the parable of the sower, and comments on Christ's explanation of the story (`The sede it is goddes word and ye sower is god'); `God hym selue' wolde exponne this [parable] for to amoneste vs for to do, so that we shuld more vnderstande them that ye letter sais: that ilk men mon yt wil exponne holy wrytte mykel he owe for to ordeyne his spech, for to herim [i.e. harm] hym self and teche oery men'.189 Among the sermons appended to the `Miroir' is a section of a discourse for the feast of a church's dedication; `We make to day ye feste of yo halowing of this kirke, of this holy hous of god, to whilk we come ofte to bede oure bedes and for to here ye seruise of god'.190 The sermons of the `Miroir', and particularly those of its supplement, transcribed and probably translated at Welbeck in 1432, were likely to have been written for the purposes of preaching, in the vernacular of the local area. Apart from the writings of Thomas Wygenhale, pastoral material is also apparent in the common-place books from Beauchief (?) and Coverham. In the former manuscript are brief notes on the twelve articles of faith, based on the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments, the seven corporal works of mercy, and the seven sacraments, among other items.191 A note in the manuscript speci®es the duties of a parish priest; `Quot pertinent ad Curam animarum . . . pueros baptizare, Confessiones audire, penitencias inungere, verbum dei predicare, In®rmos visitare, discordantes paci®care'. This is 187

188

189

190 191

John Rylands University of Manchester Library, MS Eng. 109, fols 102±26v; Norwich Cathedral Library, MS 5, fols 8±8v. John Rylands University of Manchester Library, MS Eng. 109, fols 81±82v; Matt., 7:15±21. Norwich Cathedral Library, MS 5, fols 6±7; Luke, 8:4±15. For a sermon on Lazarus and Dives, see The Style of Preaching Four Hundred Years Ago, ed. Anon. (Great Totham, 1837), pp. 1±11; Norwich Cathedral Library, MS 5, fols 1±4v. John Rylands University of Manchester Library, MS Eng. 109, fol. 122v. Shef®eld City Archives, MS MD. 3500, fols 24±25v.



163

followed by a few words on baptism, confession, and on the duties of the deacon, which says, rather curiously, `Confessionem in tempore necc[es]itas audire [!].'192 The pastoral writings in the common-place book of John Gisborn, mainly in the vernacular, largely consist of confessional material, which is fairly standard.193 Gisborn was evidently preoccupied with hearing confessions. A nota which he transcribed, indicates that he was a priest at the church of Allington in Lincolnshire.194 Although Gisborn was a canon of Coverham, Allington was a bene®ce controlled by Newbo.195 Gisborn transcribed questions which were to be posed to penitents, according to their social status ± for example, questions `Vnto a husbandman', `Vnto the Syngull woman', `vnto a seruant, mane or womane' ± two copies of a tract on how to hear confessions, one of which is incomplete (Àt the begynnynge it is necessare unto a preste to knowe what tyme os confessione'), the pains of hell and the seven deadly sins, and other items.196 There are also two exhortations to be given on Easter Sunday, probably during mass, which were to ensure that the annual holy communion was received worthily.197 Well-known confessional and pastoral manuals, mostly of the thirteenth and fourteenth century, appear in the Titch®eld library list: Bartholomew of Exeter's Poenitentiale, Raymond of PenÄafort's Summa de Casibus Poenitentiae, William of Pagula's Oculus Sacerdotis, possibly the Summa in foro Poenitentiali attributed to Berengarius Freddi of Frascati, and either John of Fribourg's or Thomas de Chobham's Summa Confessorum or that of another author.198 A copy of John de Burgo's Pupilla Oculi belonged to Hagnaby in 1511.199 As far as pastoral material among the Premonstratensians is concerned ± if surviving manuscripts and references in library lists can give any general indication ± it was certainly available, though we cannot gauge how effective it was, or, in the case of confessions, if they were all conducted 192 193

194

195 196

197 198

199

Shef®eld City Archives, MS MD. 3500, fol. 25v. `Scriptum per me Johannes Gysborn Canonicus De Coverham': BL MS Sloane 1584, fol. 12. `Notum Sit omnibus et Singulis: Curam animarum habentibus quod ego Dominus Johannes Gisborne Curatus De alyngton lincolniensis Diocesis audiui confessionem T.R. in feria Tercia in prima Dominica xl anno': BL MS Sloane 1584, fol. 35. Gisborn was ordained to the priesthood in 1524: Cross and Vickers, Monks, Friars and Nuns, p. 354. Friedman, Northern English Books, p. 152. The confessional tract is unidenti®able for the moment: BL MS Sloane 1584, fols 7±8, 9±10, 19±20v, 34v±35, 63±76. BL MS Sloane 1584, fols 10±12, 46±55. Libr. Prem., pp. 194, 203, 205, 206; M. J. Haren, `Social Ideas in the Pastoral Literature of Fourteenth-Century England', Religious Belief and Ecclesiastical Careers in Late Medieval England, ed. C. Harper-Bill (Woodbridge, 1991), pp. 47±8; L. E. Boyle, `The Oculus Sacerdotis and Some Other Works of William of Pagula', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, ®fth series 5 (1955), 81±108. Similar books are apparent in the late thirteenth-century library list from St Radegund's: Libr. Prem., pp. 162, 166. Libr. Prem., pp. 178±9.


164


in the manner speci®ed in the standard text books. Nevertheless, surviving evidence would suggest a degree of conscientiousness with regards to parochial ministry, like other clergy,200 but how general this was among the Premonstratensians may never be known. Undoubtedly there were individuals who took their pastoral responsibilities seriously. Detailed accounts (1454±55) from the parish of Kirkby Malham in West Yorkshire, appropriated to West Dereham, which were compiled by the vicar, John Dytton, a canon of that abbey, `seem to tell of a well-ordered parish'.201 However other `parochial' canons were slack or perfunctory. Dissatisfaction with the ministrations in two of Langdon's appropriated churches in 1511, may be found in the Kentish visitations of Archbishop Warham of Canterbury (1503±32). The people of the parish church of Langdon complained that the abbey `leve us oftentymes without divine service'. The complaints of the parishioners of Lydden were worse, for, `there is noo preest suf®cient to syng mass among us' for two years, and the abbot withheld the curate's pension.202 Having examined most of the surviving English Premonstratensian manuscripts, printed books, and the Titch®eld library list, the practice of manuscript production and study ought to be considered. Though there is little evidence for the production of chronicles after the fourteenth century, the medical compilation from Hagnaby and a copy of the Dale Narratio Fundationis illustrate that scribal activity continued within Premonstratensian cloisters. It could be cautiously suggested, however, that if the few extant manuscripts from the later Middle Ages indicate anything about the quality of Premonstratensian penmanship at that time, it appears to have been generally of a non-professional calibre. There is a reference to scribal activity at Sulby in 1491. The canons appear to have produced works `to order', and some of the scriptores apparently retained the proceeds for themselves. Redman ordered that the scribes were not to be negligent in giving what they had gained by their labours to the abbot, as this was for the common good of all, as the Rule stipulates.203 The handwriting in the Coverham common-place book, is largely non-professional, though its compiler, John Gisborn, was evidently involved in scribal activities. On 200

201

202

203

This would suggest that the following comments by Knowles require modi®cation: `there is no evidence from the later Middle Ages to show that they [i.e. the white canons] regarded themselves as having a vocation to minister to the neglected or to raise the level of spiritual life in their parishes' [my emphasis]: Religious Orders II, p. 140; Marshall, Catholic Priesthood, pp. 5±6. P. Heath, Medieval Clerical Accounts, Borthwick Papers, no. 26 (York, 1964), p. 4; id., The English Parish Clergy on the Eve of the Reformation (London, 1969), p. 181; BL Add. Roll. 32957. Kentish Visitations of Archbishop William Warham and His Deputies, 1511±1512, ed. K. L. Wood-Legh, Kent Archaeological Society Records Series 24 (1984), 105, 117±18. Bodl. ASH, fol. 98; CAP III, 565; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 16; La ReÁgle de Saint Augustin, p. 418.



165

several leaves he transcribed the alphabet in large, neat gothic letters. The extent of his scribal and secretarial activities is apparent in some of the `recipes' in his book. For example, how to `grind Gold to Write wt all', to `Grave in metelle' in iron or `stele' and the process of making `Red Wax' ; how to make `paper to shyne', to `glewe parchement or vellum [to]gether', and the kind of implements required `Forre hyme that wold be a drawer'.204 The prayer-roll written by Percival Melsynby, also from Coverham, was neatly executed in gothic letters, but was not of a professional standard. A long rhythmic postscript at the end of the roll made its recipient aware of the scribe's possible shortcomings, and relates something about his origins and entry into the order.205 Evidence of study among white canons presents a contrasting picture. A number of abbeys, on occasion, were criticised by Redman for not educating their younger brethren suf®ciently. In 1488 he ordered that the subditos in Beauchief ought to be instructed, and a period for reading books allocated. At Langdon, in 1482, Redman asked the abbot to show diligence in instructing the youths and added that they ought to learn enough grammar. One of the most noticeable references to negligence and indifference towards learning occurs at Tupholme in 1482. The visitor ordered Thomas Ludley, an àpostate', and his fellow canons, to work attentively towards the acquisition of knowledge, as they are completely devoid of reading and study ± `suisque omnino vacent leccioni et erudicioni' ± if they wish to escape the indignation and most bitter discipline of the order.206 Some of these examples indicate the dif®culties that certain abbeys experienced in being unable to properly educate their brethren, especially novices or juniors: the older canons may have lacked the necessary education to instruct them or possibly had inadequate resources. In some cases Redman may well have been attempting to raise standards of learning in the Premonstratensian abbeys to a greater level than was currently 204

205

206

BL MS Sloane 1584, fols 27±8, 35v±36, 39v±41. Gisborn's writing is described as an Ànglicana hand for the English excerpts and an idiosyncratic Secretary for the rest of the text': Friedman, Northern English Books, pp. 152±3. `Noghte to lyke thow me to lake/ For this schrowyll by-hynd my bake/ Bot whare ye fynde that I offende / I pray thow mekely it amende / For ilk a sere man hath a wyte / And thare-by he shall wyrke it / For vnto powre erudicione / I make thys symple formacion / Channon in Couerham wt owten' le/ In the ordere of Premonstre / That tyme this schrowyll I dyd wryte / Whare-fore I pray thou me not wyte / In haste done so trewle / Thare-fore it apperyth full symple/ In Rudby towne [i.e. Rudby, near Stokesley, Yorks.] of my moder fre / I was borne wyth-owtyn le/ Schawyn I was to the order clene/ the vigill of all haloes evyn/ My name it was percevall/ Ihesu to the blys he bryng vs all' : Pierpoint Morgan Library, MS G.39; Bodl. ASH, fols 112v, 116, 132v, 146; CAP II, 323, 325, 327, 328. Bodl. ASH, fols 29v, 37, 69v; CAP II, 239: III, 453, 611 and see visitations at Easby (1491), Halesowen (1482), Titch®eld (1494), and West Dereham (1503): Bodl. ASH, fols 27, 92v, 123v, 160: CAP II, 173, 436: III, 586, 676. On external teachers being brought in to teach novices and canons at Beauchief (1490) and Alnwick (1519): White Canons, p. 321.


166


acceptable. In other houses, such as Tupholme, the problem seems to have been that the canons had little motivation towards reading or other intellectual activities. However this has to be balanced against evidence where the canons' education appears to have been adequate, at the very least. The transcription of charters and other documents, especially in registers, by the English white canons in the later Middle Ages, and the performance of the liturgy in the majority of abbeys, albeit with imperfections, suggest that at least a working knowledge of Latin, the lingua franca of the Middle Ages, would have been acquired by most canons, and was a requirement in the statutes for clerical orders.207 It is also important to examine attitudes to academic study and attendance at the universities by the English white canons. They had no studium or hall of residence in either Oxford or Cambridge, in comparison with the Benedictines and Cistercians, and although the order had a college in Paris, there is no evidence that English canons frequented it.208 Yet Redman's register and other sources show that canons were sent to the universities, and Colvin indicates about a dozen of them by name.209 The 1459 provincial chapter required that the commissary-general or general chapter should not allow a canon to go àd scolatizandum' without his own abbot's permission; yet, conversely, the statutes decreed that an abbot could not send a canon to university, without the permission of the general chapter.210 However it appears that the English commissary-general or visitor could decide on his own authority if a canon should go to university, and Colvin suggests that Redman perhaps desired that at least one inmate from each house should do so. A letter in the Titch®eld register (c.1400), concerning an unnamed canon who wished to attend university, states that his abbot was required by the visitor `to keep certain of his canons at the schools at the expense of the house'. The 1487 provincial chapter excused abbeys from paying an annual tax if they had inmates who were at Oxford or Cambridge.211 There are examples of canons being sent to university on Redman's instructions or who asked permission for this. In 1472 he commanded the abbot of Welbeck to send one of his religious to Oxford or Cambridge at the abbey's expense, and in 1482 he ordered that a canon of Halesowen be sent to university for a year or more, with the abbot's consent.212 How many English Premonstratensians studied at the universities in the late Middle Ages? Between 1384 and 1532 twenty-seven white canons, including two from the Welsh house of Talley, 207

208 209 210 211 212

Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 27. It should also be noted that the ownership of books by some ®fteenth-century canons, the Latin writings of Thomas Wygenhale (a university graduate) and some of the annotations in library books and other manuscripts of the white canons, suggest that some of them possessed more than an adequate knowledge of Latin. White Canons, p. 320; Religious Orders II, pp. 14±28. White Canons, p. 320, nn. 3, 4: p. 321, nn. 1±5, 8±9. BL PECK I , fol. 93; CAP I, 80; Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, p. 43. White Canons, pp. 320±1; Bodl. ASH, fol. 63v; CAP I, 87. White Canons, p. 321; Bodl. ASH, fol. 27; BL PECK II, fol. 76; CAP II, 436: III, 627.



167

are known to have gone to university, or were sent there by the visitor. All of them, except Thomas Wygenhale of West Dereham (1384), were students in the ®fteenth and sixteenth centuries. In some cases it is not absolutely certain which university a canon attended, though most of them apparently went to Oxford. The fact that source material is incomplete, and can be supplemented by evidence from Redman's visitation register, would indicate that the number of Premonstratensians at university may have been slightly higher than surviving sources suggest.213 Each of these abbeys, which varied in size, sent the following number of canons to university: West Dereham (2), Newbo (1), Alnwick (1), Barlings (3), Halesowen (3), Cockersand (2), Torre (2), Croxton (1), Lavendon (1), Egglestone (1), Sulby (1), Shap (1), Titch®eld (2), Beeleigh (1), Dale (1), and Talley (2). Two canons, Richard Newman (1516) and Richard Wattys (1522), belonged to unspeci®ed abbeys.214 It is noteworthy that nine of these canons became abbots. For example, John Barkworth of Barlings, who was probably at Oxford in 1439, was abbot of his monastery between 1479 and 1482.215 Elias Atterclyffe of Croxton was in Cambridge in 1475, where he obtained a degree in canon law. He became abbot of Croxton in 1491, having previously been prior of Hornby.216 It is remarkable that one of these men, Matthew Mackarell of Cockersand, who became abbot of Alnwick (c.1519±22), a suffragan bishop (Chalcedon, 1524), and abbot of Barlings (c.1529±37) is believed to have obtained his doctorate in divinity from Freiburg after spending time in Cambridge in 1509±10. He was later incorporated at Cambridge in 1516±17 (he was executed after his alleged involvement in the `Pilgrimage of Grace'). This is the only existing record of an English Premonstratensian studying at a foreign university.217 There is little information on where most of these canons lodged during their academic studies. Ralph, a canon of Newbo, lodged at Peterhouse, Cambridge in c.1403±4. Richard Cade of Torre, who was at Oxford from 1456, was charged for rent of a room in Exeter College in 1457, and an unnamed abbot of Talley, who died at Oxford in 1528, stayed at St Edmund Hall, Oxford. An inventory made of his possessions mentions four canon law texts, including `the decretalles'.218 Of those canons whose 213

214

215 216 217

218

See Table 5, pp. 168±9. I exclude a reference to two foreign Premonstratensians who attended Oxford in the late twelfth/early thirteenth centuries: BRUO I, pp. 14, 641. Henry Bagwell of Torre (1527±32) may have obtained his doctorate in theology after the Dissolution: BRUO 1501±1540, p. 20. The references given for each canon in Table 5 are not exhaustive in every instance. It is not known if Redman or Abbot Wygenhale of West Dereham (c.1430±51) attended university: see p. 157, n.162, p. 175, and Table 2 on monastic complements. BRUO I, p. 109. BRUC, p. 22. J. Venn and J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigiensis, pt 1, 4 vols (Cambridge, 1922±27): III, p. 125; M. Bowker, The Henrician Reformation: The Diocese of Lincoln Under John Longland 1521±1547 (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 108, 154±5. BRUO I, p. 337; BRUC, p. 470; BRUO 1501±40, p. 556. The unknown abbot of Talley is not listed in Monast. Praem. II, p. 76.



168

Table 5. English Premonstratensian canons who attended or were permitted to go to university c.1384±1532



169

degrees can be ascertained, the vast majority obtained them in canon law.


170


The Premonstratensians, along with the Augustinian canons, `showed the greatest partiality for legal studies' among the religious orders. About one in ®ve of the canons and monks who attended Oxford, studied canon law and, more rarely, civil law. The law faculties of the universities were dominated by seculars.219 Attitudes to the study of canon law among the Benedictines differed from abbey to abbey, though most of the larger houses maintained basic collections of canon law books in their libraries.220 One of the reasons why the canons regular favoured canon law in particular, was because of their parochial activities. Titch®eld, at least, possessed a ®ne collection of canon and civil law books in its library.221 Two other white canons whose English university degrees are known, namely Matthew Mackarell of Cockersand (1509±10) and Richard Wattys (1522), from an unspeci®ed abbey, obtained them in theology. Wattys had pursued an eight-year course of studies, consisting of logic and philosophy, as well as theology, before supplicating for his bachelor's degree in 1522.222 The sparsity of English Premonstratensians at university may have been due in great part to the relative poverty of their abbeys. The 1492 provincial chapter permitted Edward Seyton of Sulby, a troublesome individual, to go to Oxford or Cambridge, but at his friends' expense (àmicorum suorum'). Redman allowed Thomas Burton of Egglestone, a poor abbey, to study at university in 1481. He was permitted to receive stipends and bene®ces in order to defray expenses.223 The English canons' attitude to higher learning makes for an interesting comparison with that of their foreign counterparts. Research on the German Premonstratensians who attended Ingolstadt University between 1472 and 1550, does not reveal that they `maintained very extensive relations with the University'.224 From the circaries of Saxony, Bavaria and Swabia, twenty-one canons are known to have gone to Ingolstadt between 1472 and 1549. Only ®fteen of these religious came to the university between 1472 and 1539.225 Though the number of Premonstratensian matriculations was very small, canons from those circaries also attended other universities. For instance, from 1472 to 1550 there were forty-eight Premonstratensians at TuÈbingen, twenty-®ve at Heidelberg, 219

220 221

222 223 224

225

R. B. Dobson, `The Religious Orders 1370±1540', The History of the University of Oxford 2, eds J. I. Catto and R. Evans (Oxford, 1992), p. 571. Ibid. Libr. Prem., pp. 208±9, 243±6. A copy of William Lyndwood's Provinciale, printed in Paris in 1501, belonged to West Dereham: Watson, Medieval Libraries, p. 16. For a Summa Juris Canonici (13th/14th cent.) from Wendling (?): Jesus College Cambridge, MS 68. BRUO 1501±40, p. 611. BL PECK II, fol. 75v; Bodl. ASH, fols 17, 107v; CAP I, 90, 148: III, 626. J. John, `The Canons of PreÂmontreÂ at the University of Ingolstadt, 1472±1550', Secundum Regulam Vivere: Festschrift fuÈr P. Norbert Backmund, O. Praem., ed. G. Melville (poppe-Verlag Windberg, 1978), p. 343. However defects in the university's degree lists, and other drawbacks, have to be borne in mind: John, `The Canons of PreÂmontreÂ', pp. 347, 356±60.



171

thirteen at Basel, and thirty-two at Freiburg.226 Though these ®gures are much higher than the number of English white canons who are recorded as attending university, it does not mean that the latter were less interested in education than their German confreÁres, some of whom possessed greater resources. The Swabian houses were particularly wealthy, more so than their Bavarian counterparts, and six of them were imperial abbeys.227 The English abbeys were not the only houses of the order where attendance at university was affected by economic circumstances. A study of the Premonstratensian college in Paris has shown that, `the intellectual endeavours of the students often rested on a precarious ®nancial substructure. Undoubtedly many young canons of intellectual promise never had the chance . . . [of] training in Paris because of the poverty of their abbeys. Of those who did get there, undoubtedly many were never sure of how long they could stay. This insecurity was not conducive to intellectual progress'. Economic reasons, rather than hostility to academic study on an abbot's part, may have been frequently responsible for some canons not proceeding to university.228 The recent foundation of most of the German universities must have given an added impetus to academic studies within the German circaries. Furthermore it is noteworthy that, as with the English canons, the German Premonstratensians `studied canon law much more frequently than theology', perhaps for the same reasons which we have already indicated.229 There is little evidence that English Premonstratensian graduates continued with academic pursuits after leaving university. There were no spiritual or theological authors from the same mould as Adam of Dryburgh (c.1140± 1212), or Richard `the Premonstratensian' (late twelfth century), who was possibly an English abbot who wrote a sermon on the mass.230 Thomas Wygenhale of West Dereham is the only known exception to this. We must now attempt some general conclusions. While bearing in mind that relatively few manuscripts and printed books are extant from only a small number of Premonstratensian abbeys, one would tentatively suggest that they mainly possessed conventional and conservative monastic reading material. If the subject matter of surviving books from these houses is in any 226

227 228

229 230

The vast majority of these canons were from Swabia, but canons from the other German circaries also attended universities elsewhere: John, `The Canons of PreÂmontreÂ', p. 349, n.22; A. L. Gabriel, `Les PreÂmontreÂs dans les UniversiteÂs MeÂdieÂvales dans l'Allemagne du Nord-Est', AP 36 (1960), 5±15. John, `The Canons of PreÂmontreÂ', pp. 349±50. J. John, The College of PreÂmontreÂ in Mediaeval Paris (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1953), pp. 35±6. John, `The Canons of PreÂmontreÂ', p. 351, n.29. Leclercq, Vandenbroucke and Bouyer, The Spirituality of the Middle Ages, pp. 147±8; White Canons, pp. 324±6. Serious doubts have been expressed in identifying Richardus Praemonstratensis with Richard of Wedinghausen or Arnsberg (twelfth century), and uncertainty still prevails over his nationality: G. Macy, À Bibliographical Note on Richardus Praemonstratensis', AP 52 (1976), 64±9.


172


way broadly representative of the literature available in others, then there was enough material for biblical and theological studies, with the kind of emphasis on patristics which would be expected in any monastic library. However there is little indication that they read scholastic authors of the thirteenth century and later, apart from the references to their works in Wygenhale's Speculum Juratoris.231 Annotations and ex libris inscriptions in manuscripts and books dating from the late Middle Ages, would imply that they were certainly read in that period, and the acquisition of older volumes and recently printed material by communities or individual canons, shows the continuous accession of books until the Dissolution, either by personal benefactions or direct acquisition. The existence of vernacular writings, such as Capgrave's Norbert, the Sermones from Welbeck, and the eremetical treatise in the Coverham common-place book, with their pastoral connotations, indicates the Premonstratensians' openness to more `recent' forms of literary expression. However the majority of surviving manuscripts, and small number of printed books, were written in Latin, and clearly demonstrate that literature in this language continued to dominate the canons' reading material. As far as academic studies were concerned, relatively few attended the universities, though over a third of these graduates ± some of whom were particularly gifted ± became prelates in the order. It was not a golden age as far as innovative writing was concerned. Thomas Wygenhale of West Dereham is the only English Premonstratensian theological writer of whom we are aware. Most canons were doubtless educated enough to have an adequate knowledge of Latin which allowed them to perform their Lectio and the Opus Dei. Others, including the `barely literate scribe' of the ®fteenth-century copy of the Narratio Fundationis of Dale, fell below acceptable standards of learning, though Redman took steps to remedy these situations during his visitations, and fostered learning in the English abbeys by encouraging a few canons to go to university. The spirituality of the English Premonstratensians, as expressed in surviving literature and prayers, was conventionally monastic, but not completely unaffected by more contemporary devotional forms, which are witnessed by the vernacular life of St Norbert, Titch®eld's copy of the Prophetia of St John of Bridlington, and, in a particular way, by evidence from liturgical sources. Nevertheless, one should be cautious in ascribing indications of newer varieties of spirituality and piety from evidence in one abbey, or individual canon, to another, in the same way that observance between houses varied. Although it is possible to speak of the openness of some communities to certain more recent manifestations of piety, such as an intensi®ed devotion to Christ, seen in the veneration of the Holy Name at Beeleigh and the Of®ce of the Passion at Dale, or the admixture of orthodox and superstitious practices apparent in the Coverham common-place book, 231

See p. 137 concerning references to Nicholas de Lyra (n 1349) in Bodl. Don.e.598, passim.



173

there is no evidence to suggest that the Premonstratensians were generally numbered among the narrow spiritual èlite' who read, and promoted, contemporary forms of mystical literature.232 There is no indication of the Premonstratensian abbeys possessing any English mystical works, such as Richard Rolle's Incendium Amoris, or Walter Hilton's Scala Perfectionis, and one looks in vain for the more notable devotional works of the Low Countries, such as the Imitatio Christi. However evidence that Thomas Wygenhale of West Dereham referred to the Revelations of St Bridget of Sweden in his Speculum Juratoris, indicates the caution that must be exercised in evaluating the spirituality of a religious order from its surviving books: though this single reference should clearly not be taken as a general indication that the English white canons were interested in the Revelations or similar writings en masse. Though one must take into account the vicissitudes of the Dissolution, the conservative nature of the surviving texts of the white canons, some of which were two hundred years old by the ®fteenth century, is still clearly apparent. The Premonstratensians were, to a great extent, no different from their Augustinian and Benedictine counterparts in their reading matter.233 However it is signi®cant that the Carthusians, despite their association with newer mystical writings, were not `nourished exclusively, or even predominantly' from the writings of the English mystics, but from a wide range of sources, which were not necessarily vernacular works.234 This implies that traditional monastic spirituality was not considered obsolete with the arrival of newer forms of spirituality, but continued to play an important role within English monasticism, including the Premonstratensian abbeys, in the later Middle Ages.

232

233

234

Lovatt, `The Library of John Blacman', pp. 206±7. Redman forbade the abbot of Sulby from allowing his canons to practice a `superstitious fast' in 1491: Bodl. ASH, fol. 98; CAP III, 565. Religious Orders II, pp. 343, 351; C. Cross, `Monastic Learning and Libraries in Sixteenth-Century Yorkshire', Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England, and Scotland, ed. J. Kirk, Studies in Church History, subsidia 8 (Oxford, 1991), p. 268. Lovatt, `The Library of John Blacman', pp. 209±10, 226±7, 229±30; A. I. Doyle, `Carthusian Participation in the Movement of Works of Richard Rolle Between England and Other Parts of Europe in the 14th and 15th Centuries', KartaÈusermystik und-mystiker, Band 2, Analecta Cartusiana 55 (Salzburg, 1981), pp. 109±20.


6 Richard Redman, O.Praem.

Our study of the late medieval English Premonstratensians has shown throughout the tireless activities of Richard Redman, the most notable English white canon of that era. While we have largely considered his role as a Premonstratensian visitor, as is right, this ®nal chapter will take a closer and `holistic' examination of the multifaceted aspects of his life and career, including the controversial circumstances leading to his appointment as commissary-general, his rule as abbot in commendam at Shap, his involvement in affairs of state and his activities as the only English Premonstratensian diocesan bishop of the Middle Ages. Such a task may appear to be an elusive one for many limitations are imposed on those who attempt to explore the life and character of most late medieval bishops. The principal barrier is the lack of `personal' historical evidence, including private correspondence, which often renders these particular princes of the Church, `colourless ®gures, lacking in zeal and subservient to routine', though there are notable exceptions to the rule.1 Many of these drawbacks manifest themselves when investigating Redman's life as a bishop, and they are augmented because his episcopal registers for the dioceses of St Asaph and Ely are no longer extant.2 Although it is not possible to achieve the intricate and intimate detail that is demanded of biographers of modern ®gures, the task of presenting a brief account of Redman's life is not insurmountable. Redman's informative visitation register not only contains documents relating to his Premonstratensian work, but also some material concerning his role as a bishop and diplomat, albeit relatively sparse. His Exeter episcopal register, which has survived, sheds important light on his activities as a diocesan bishop. The register may not give us a detailed view of Redman's psyche, but it does allow us to `touch the hem of his garment' when evaluated in toto and collated with other available sources.3 In this way we will attempt to bridge the gap 1

2

3

Harper-Bill, The Pre-Reformation Church, p. 27. On Bishop William Elphinstone of Aberdeen and Cardinal Wolsey: Macfarlane, Bishop Elphinstone and P. Gwyn, The King's Cardinal (London, 1990). D. M. Smith, Guide to Bishops' Registers of England and Wales (London, 1981), pp. 71, 180. DRO Redman Reg.; Smith, Guide to Bishops' Registers, pp. 82±3.


RICHARD REDMAN, O.PRAEM.

175

between Redman as a Premonstratensian commissary-general, abbot and bishop, and build upon, to some extent, what historians have previously discovered about his life. Redman was born into a notable Westmorland family, whose main seat was at Levens, near Kendal. He was probably the son of Richard Redman of Bossall in Yorkshire, and the grandson of Sir Richard Redman of Harewood, speaker of the House of Commons in 1415.4 Practically nothing is known about his early life, education, or indeed when he was born. Colvin and other historians suggested that he received a university education at Cambridge and Oxford.5 Though this is plausible, as nearly all members of the episcopate possessed university degrees in the later Middle Ages, it is clear that the Magister who bore the name of `Richard Redman' is not our individual. This other Redman supplicated for a BA at Oxford in 1449±50 and was incorporated as MA in 1455. He was incorporated into Cambridge in 1472±73 and his inception in theology took place in 1479±80. On these facts alone we can reject identifying this man with Bishop Redman, for during this time he was bishop of St Asaph, abbot of Shap and the industrious visitor of the Premonstratensians. This other Redman in fact became the chaplain to Bishop William Gray of Ely in 1456 and was later rector of Stretham in Cambridgeshire, resigning in 1488 on account of `[old] age and in®rmities'.6 Though Redman encouraged learning among his canons, there is not a single mention of his possessing any academic quali®cation in any of the documents in his Premonstratensian register, or elsewhere. At any rate Redman opted for the religious life, and chose the Premonstratensians of Shap. It is open to speculation as to whether or not he was a younger son, for this would have freed him from the responsibilities incurred by inheriting family property.7 He may have chosen Shap as it was only ®ve miles from Levens, and his family were among the abbey's earliest benefactors.8 It is not known when Redman made his monastic vows, but it is quite clear that despite the lack of evidence for a university education, he was considered able enough to be elected as the abbot of his community, probably before 1458. It is also possible, according to Augustus Jessopp, that 4

5

6 7

8

J. C. Wedgwood, History of Parliament, 2 vols (London, 1936 and 1938): I, pp. 309± 10; White Canons, p. 363. On the Redman family and their monuments at Harewood, see P. Routh and R. Knowles, The Medieval Monuments of Harewood (Wake®eld, 1983). J. Venn and J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigiensis, pt 1, III, p. 436; White Canons, p. 363; A. Jessopp, `Redman, Richard (d.1505)', Dictionary of National Biography 16, eds L. Stephen and S. Lee (Oxford, 1921/22), p. 826; J. Bentham, The History and Antiquities of the Conventual and Cathedral Church of Ely (Cambridge, 1771), p. 183 and n.7. BRUC, p. 476. This presumes that the practice of primogeniture was in operation: Dyer, Standards of Living, pp. 44, 254±55. White Canons, p. 363.


176


the in¯uence of Redman's family may have brought this about, though there is no evidence for this.9 Possibly a few years after becoming an abbot, Redman received his ®rst appointment as commissary-general of the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ in the British Isles. It has been suggested by Colvin that Shap's patron, John Lord Clifford, the hereditary sheriff of Westmorland, was instrumental in obtaining this position for Redman.10 His commission caused some friction among the English white canons and led to nearly ten years of controversy between himself and Abbot Thomas Shorham of Bayham, who, with the Abbot of St Radegund's, were recent commissaries.11 In order to ascertain the rationale behind Redman's designation as commissary-general, at least from evidence in the external forum, and if there is any substance to Lord Clifford's intervention, we have to attempt to unravel the somewhat complicated evidence surrounding the events pertaining to Redman's appointment, chie¯y from the Welbeck register. It appears that Redman was ®rst appointed commissary between 1454±56 and 1458. Abbot Shorham of Bayham held this post in 1454 when he called a provincial chapter which met in July of that year, and there is evidence that the abbot of St Radegund's was acting as commissary general in 1456.12 In a letter that Redman wrote to the abbot of Welbeck, dated 11 September 1458, he informed the abbot of an impending visitation that he would make, during which time he would collect the order's subsidies.13 While there is no explicit mention of Redman's commissarial position in Peck's transcription of the letter, the contents would imply that he was acting in this capacity. He commanded the abbot of Welbeck to pay the subsidies ìn virtute sancte obedientie, auctoritate qua fungimur in hac parte' [my emphasis].14 However on 24 March 1459 Abbot Shorham summoned the English Premonstratensian abbots to attend a general chapter at Smith®eld on 4 June and claimed that he was now ìn partibus Anglie et Wallie unicus commissarius generalis', by permission of the recently elected Abbot Simon de la TerrieÁre of PreÂmontreÂ.15 Shorham appears to have been particularly jealous of his supposed 9 10 11

12 13 14

15

Jessopp, `Redman, Richard', p. 826; White Canons, pp. 364, 414. White Canons, p. 364. Sometimes PreÂmontreÂ appointed two commissaries to act together: White Canons, p. 224. BL PECK I, fols 81±83v: II, 64, 65; CAP I, 75±77: III, 591±2. BL PECK I, fol. 84; CAP I, 37. Ibid. Knowles in Religious Orders III, p. 39, n.2, has indicated that there is confusion on the date of Redman's permanent appointment as commissary-general. I will propose here ± based on the sources ± that he was ®rst appointed between 1454/56±1458, lost his commission in January 1459, but was reappointed in the same year and remained commissary thereafter. The main problem seems to be a letter dating 1466 from the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ to the English abbots, which might be seen to imply that Abbot Shorham of Bayham was still acting as commissary at this time. The following expands and modi®es the account of this controversy in White Canons, pp. 224±5. BL PECK I, fols 89±90; CAP I, 78.



177

role as commissary-general, for he not only insisted upon his position as the `sole' commissary-general, but he went to great lengths in stressing the nullity of Redman's commission ± and that of any other abbot ± claiming that Redman's `concessiones et commissiones' had ceased to be valid on 9 January of that year.16 Why did Shorham go to great pains to emphasise his pre-eminent and singular commission and the nullity of Redman's? It would appear from other Premonstratensian documents that Shorham, on the contrary, was not only not commissary-general on 24 March 1459, but that he had called, in effect, an illegal general chapter. Even if Shorham's claim that Redman's commission had actually ceased by 9 January was true ± and there is good reason to suppose this to be so as we shall see ± Shorham's commission was null and void by 4 March 1459. On that date the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ revoked the letters of commission granted to him and the abbot of St Radegund's, and conferred the post of commissary-general on Redman `vita vestra durante sine aliqua revocatione'.17 Redman elaborated on the events surrounding the removal of Shorham's commission in a letter to the English abbots dated 12 April 1459. This letter not only indicates Redman's personal involvement in the matter, but suggests that his own commission did not merely cease in January 1459, but was actually undermined by the actions of Abbot Shorham, thus leading directly to Redman's removal from his position. Redman claimed that Shorham falsely told the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ that he despoiled Bayham and St Radegund's, presumably while acting as visitor, appropriating the order's tallies and `multaque alia enormia in Ordine fecisse'. Shorham attached the seals of sixteen other prelates, with his own, onto a blank piece of paper (à ``Ragman'' vulgariter nuncupatam'), and then wrote on it his accusations against Redman, without their prior knowledge, and summoned all the abbots to appear before him in London. Redman relates that after the inadmissibility of Shorham's accusations was made known to the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ, the latter appointed Redman as commissary and withdrew the post from Bayham, who must have reacquired it after the charges he levied against Redman.18 The abbot of PreÂmontreÂ delegated the abbots of Newhouse, Barlings, Welbeck, West Dereham, Halesowen and Leiston, to enquire into Shorham's conduct at another English general chapter and ùtrum nos predictum abbatem de Heppe [i.e. Shap], suum commissarium, fecit arrestari? an non?' Redman then prohibited the English abbots from obeying the abbot of Bayham and forbade them from attending the general chapter that he had summoned at London (Smith®eld). On the same day Redman called a general chapter to be held 16 17 18

Ibid. BL PECK I, fols 86±88v; CAP I, 38. BL PECK I, fols 92±92v; CAP I, 144. PreÂmontreÂ also nulli®ed any decrees made by Shorham, or judicial sentences: ibid.


178


at Lincoln on 11 June and where, presumably, the enquiry into Shorham's conduct was to take place.19 Although no account of this enquiry is extant from the Lincoln general chapter, the surviving Acta of the chapter have bearing on the `commissarygeneral' controversy, and were possibly the outcome of the enquiry's deliberations. The most signi®cant decree was the following: `quod nullas abbatis seu subditus . . . impetrabit aliquam commissionem seu potestatem a Domino Premonstrati seu Capitulo generali, vel a summo ponti®ce; seu alias impetratam recipiet, ad visitandum et reformandum, seu aliquam jurisdictionem exercendam in dicto Ordine, nisi ille quem prelati dicti Ordinis, vel saltem major pars eorundem, concorditer elegerit ad jurisdictionem hujusmodi exercendam' [my emphasis]. These measures were surely not meant to inhibit the authority of the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ through his commissary-general, but to prevent an individual obtaining a commission on their own initiative, and exercising an autocratic style of leadership. This perhaps implies that the English abbots experienced this kind of leadership at the hands of Abbot Shorham, and that they wanted to make the post of commissary-general more accountable, despite his plenitudo potestatis.20 It is surprising that Shorham does not appear to have been deposed from his abbacy despite his actions ± though he may have been imprisoned ± for he retained his abbacy after 1459.21 The reasons for this are nowhere apparent. The level of support that the abbot of Bayham may have received among the English canons is equally unascertainable. While his citation for a general chapter to be held in Smith®eld in June 1459 survives, the acts of any such chapter do not. It cannot be stated with certainty that Shorham's chapter was actually held.22 Nevertheless he may have had the support of Abbot John Downham of Beauchief and several of the latter's canons. In February 1462, John Swyft, one of Beauchief 's canons, wrote a rambling letter to the Abbot of Welbeck, the abbey's pater abbas, in which he called for the abbot's help and counsel concerning the state of the house. The abbot of Welbeck decided to act on the matter and contacted Redman, the commissary-general, requesting that he visit Beauchief. There followed a trial concerning Abbot Downham's conduct, held by Abbot Redman, the abbot of Welbeck and the prior of Easby, by royal command, àliorumque dominorum'. Downham was found guilty of perjury, ruination of the house, incontinence, rebellion, and other offences. He had evidently left his abbey in order to avoid judgment, with seven of his own canons, having taken up arms: ìnsurgendo cum armatis et armis defensivis, gladiis et fustibus'. Downham was excommunicated with the seven canons, and was deposed.23 The matter did not end there. Another court, consisting of Redman, the 19 20 21 22 23

Ibid.; BL PECK I, fol. 91; CAP I, 79. BL PECK I, fol. 93; CAP I, 80. See p. 180. BL PECK I, fols 89±90v; CAP I, 78. BL PECK I, fols 109±12v; CAP II, 220±4.



179

prior of Easby, and the abbots of Welbeck, Barlings, Newhouse and Dale, con®rmed Downham's deposition on 13 May 1462. On 29 May, at the abbey of Welbeck, Downham and several of his supporters renounced certain opinions they held `contra reverendos patres, dominum Ricardum Redmayn, abbatem de Heppa, dominum Johannem Grene, abbatem de Welbeck', and John Swyft, the new abbot of Beauchief. It is tempting to propose that some of the opinions referred to are perhaps related to the controversy surrounding Redman's commission, which was still a current issue among the canons.24 An earlier letter that Downham wrote to his pater abbas, the abbot of Welbeck, in December 1458, asking for the latter's advice, mentions that òwre Vysitur [Redman] hath wryten, [th]at he wyll visyte hus in haste. And . . . charges hus, in Vertue of holy Obediaunce, that we schall make redy Tallias or Contribuciones . . . Whilk, as I conceyve, is expreste agaynes owre Constitucyones . . . And, as I am credably infourmede, odyr places wher he hath bene hath wythsayde him therin' [my emphasis]. This not only indicates the reluctance that was felt about the payment of PreÂmontreÂ's subsidies, but perhaps support for Shorham among some of the English Premonstratensians, motivated by Redman's apparent desire to raise a subsidy at this stage. It is noteworthy that Shorham was said to have accused Redman of `mismanaging' the order's tallies in 1459. Abbot Downham may well have been `credably infourmede' by Shorham himself, though we have no certain proof that he sided with him.25 In the light of our above enquiry, what are we to make of the proposition that the post of commissary-general was obtained, or even `bought' by Lord Clifford from PreÂmontreÂ? Though patrons in the later Middle Ages could, and did, promote the interests of their monastic bene®ciaries, there was little in the way of direct interference by them in the internal government of the English Premonstratensians or in abbatial elections ± though they had an interest in them ± and there is no explicit evidence that Lord Clifford intervened on Redman's behalf at PreÂmontreÂ.26 In fact the accusation appears solely in a `bill of complaint' dating from 1466±67, which was sent on behalf of none other than Abbot Shorham, to Archbishop George Neville of York (1465±76) chancellor of England. This petition was no doubt another effort by Shorham to recover his authority among the English white canons, and probably to exact revenge upon Redman, by requesting that a writ be issued against him and that he be examined before the archbishop. It also shows Abbot Shorham's animosity, understandably, towards PreÂmontreÂ, for he claimed that he was the visitor for twenty-®ve years and more, and continued in his post uninhibited ± not strictly true ± 24

25

26

BL MS Lansdowne 207B, fol. 358v; BL PECK I, fol. 113; CAP II, 226. For Downham's latter days in `retirement' see White Canons, p. 255. BL PECK I, fols 84, 85, 92; CAP I, 37, 143, 144. See pp. 12ff. on the subsidy controversy. White Canons, pp. 224, 225±6, 293±6, 364. Colvin appears to discount a ®nancial agreement between Clifford and PreÂmontreÂ, but not Clifford's involvement per se: ibid.


180


until he was usurped òf late in the dayes of Henr' [VI] late kyng . . . in dede and not of ryght by the Subtiell meanes of thabbot of Shappe' whiche abbot purchessed of the Hedhous in Fraunce a commission to thentent [sic] to be vysitour of the same ordour and so by auctoryte thereof and also by the mayntenance of the lord Clyfford that last was'.27 It is interesting to note that John Lord Clifford was a member of a prominent Lancastrian family, who led a force against Edward IV and the Yorkists at the battle of Towton in 1461, and was killed shortly afterwards. He was among the Lancastrians attainted by statute in the parliament of 1461.28 Shorham's accusations and his association of Redman with Clifford may have been an attempt to smear Redman's credentials politically as Edward IV was on the throne. This would have no doubt back®red, because of Redman's Yorkist inclinations.29 One should also recall that the trial of Abbot Downham of Beauchief in February 1462 was conducted by Redman, the abbot of Welbeck and the prior of Easby, èx mandato excellentissimi Regis nostri [i.e. Edward IV]'. This implies that the king accepted Redman's authority as the English Premonstratensian commissary-general.30 It is clear that Shorham refers to the events of 1459 when he talks of Lord Clifford (n 1461). After relating that Shoreham had received a new commission, discharging Redman of his duties, the letter goes on to say that, `The said abbot of Shap' havyng knowelage that his auctorite was expired [January 1459] dyd imprisone the servante of your sead Oratour within his said monasterie [Shap] and hym there kepte prisoner the space of a monyth and more'. According to Shorham, his imprisoned `servante' was in the act of carrying out a commission from PreÂmontreÂ, which discharged Redman of his commissarial duties. Redman supposedly took this commission ànd diverse other instrumentes', signed under the seal of Master Robert Kent, and proceeded to uphold his authority over Shorham's among the English canons, with royal approval. The letter also said that `nowe of late the said abbot of Shapp' by the mayntenance of James Redman [presumably a relative] wrongefull[y] ayenst all ryght and conscience caused your said Oratour to be imprisoned in the prison of the marchalsie', to prevent him from acting as commissary.31 Whether or not Redman had Shorham and his servant imprisoned, and took documents belonging to them, was true, as Shorham claimed, the legal petition within which these accusations were made has to be viewed with more than a pinch of salt, particularly as it fails to mention that PreÂmontreÂ actually revoked Shorham's commission on 27

28 29 30 31

White Canons, p. 224; PRO C1/31/468. Perhaps Shorham hoped to obtain his wishes by implicating PreÂmontreÂ because of the delicate political manouverings between Edward IV and France in the 1460s: C. Ross, Edward IV (New Haven and London, 1997), pp. 105±25. Ross, Edward IV, pp. 36±7, 66, n.6. See below pp. 185ff. BL PECK I, fols 111±11v; CAP II, 222. PRO C 1/31/468.



181

4 March 1459, with Redman's reappointment, and the decrees of the Lincoln general chapter in 1459.32 Prior to, or after Shorham had his letter sent to the chancellor, the whole episode took a ®nal turn in Redman's favour. Abbot Simon of PreÂmontreÂ wrote to the English Premonstratensian abbots on 1 October 1466, informing them that Shorham's commission had been cancelled and that Redman had taken his place, `non obstantibus quibuscumque per prefatum abbatem de Begham in contrarium allegatis seu allegandis'. He granted faculties to Redman as commissary-general on 7 October, for twelve years.33 It was as if the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ had decided to pronounce ®nally on the matter of who should exercise his delegated powers in England, as the prolonged dispute must have led to some internal confusion and uneasiness among the English canons.34 The abbot of PreÂmontreÂ indicated that Shorham had been wholly negligent in the performance of his duties, including the collection of the order's tallies.35 The letter sent to the archbishop of York on Shorham's behalf appears to have done him no good, as there is no record of any trial or subsequent action taken against Abbot Redman. In fact the king once more acknowledged Redman by recognising the new commission given to him by the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ, which Redman exhibited in the king's chancery, and granted him a letter of protection.36 In 1468 the bishop of Durham was sent a mandate by Rome to bestow papal con®rmation upon Redman, if his appointment as commissary-general was found to be valid.37 How are the circumstances in which Redman was appointed as the English Premonstratensian commissary-general to be viewed? Though we do not know the precise manner in which Redman was ®rst appointed commissary between 1454±56 and 1458, it would seem ± particularly from evidence in the Welbeck register and the surviving decrees of the 1459 general chapter ± that there was dissatisfaction with Shorham's leadership in the English circaries and that Redman, with or without secular aid, became 32

33 34

35

36 37

BL PECK I, fols 86±88v, 92±3; CAP I, 38, 80, 144. It is interesting to note that the letter in which Redman asserts his authority as commissary general on 12 April 1459, purports to have been written at Bayham. However `Begham' appears to be a scribal error for `Shap'; `Datum et scriptum in Monasterio nostro de Begham predicta' [my emphasis]. BL PECK I, fol. 92v; CAP I, 144; cf. BL PECK I, fol. 91; CAP I, 79. Bodl. ASH, fols 8±8v; CAP I, 39, 40. This would seem a logical interpretation of this letter. Although it may give the impression that Shorham could have actually possessed a commission up until that moment, or even regained it, it would be inconceivable, given the document sent on Shorham's behalf in 1466±67, and Redman's commissarial activities prior to 1466 related ut supra. Bodl. ASH, fols 8±8v; CAP I, 39. Abbot Simon allowed Redman to con®rm abbatial elections at Bayham and St Radegund's, which had PreÂmontreÂ as their pater abbas: Bodl. ASH, fol. 8; CAP I, 40. Bodl. ASH, fol. 8v; CAP I, 97, and see the following reference below. CPR XII, p. 329.


182


an alternative candidate for the position. We must consider the continuous support that Redman received from the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ in the letters of 1459 and 1466.38 It is possible that Redman was heavy-handed in his dealings with Shorham, as the latter claimed in 1466±67. However we should consider that Shorham's initiation of legal proceedings against Redman was a last desperate attempt at regaining his position of authority among the English white canons, which he achieved brie¯y in 1459.39 Redman appears to have been widely recognised as the `Vysitur' and commissary-general prior to 1466±67, though some abbots may have sided with Shorham.40 The support of the other abbots, along with that of PreÂmontreÂ, and also the crown, was clearly essential at this stage in Redman's commissarial career. The events of 1459±1466/67 were the most serious challenge to the authority of Richard Redman as commissary-general. The visitation records suggest that he retained this position largely unchallenged for over forty years, asking for a renewal of the original commission on at least four occasions.41 The only records of any other direct challenge to his authority from within the order occur in 1477 and 1493. The abbot of Alnwick complained to the Holy See in 1477 that his abbey was ìmpoverished by the border wars' and that the bishop of St Asaph, Richard Redman, àlleging himself to be visitor and reformator-general of the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ, frequently visits the said monastery [i.e. Alnwick] with many persons, so that in one short hour the provisions of a long time are consumed, wherefore the abbot and convent are compelled to alienate the ornaments of their monastery; that in order to make them pay he drags them to distant chapters, and that he molests them with undue exactions'. The pope granted the abbey an indult on the 8 July 1477, which stipulated that the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ and Newhouse (`Neysam'), Alnwick's pater abbas, ìn person or by their claustral priors, may visit and reform etc the said monastery in perpetuity, and that the said abbot and convent shall not be bound to appear at any chapters of the Order not presided over by the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ or by the abbot of Neysham' [my emphasis].42 This was quite a serious breach of Redman's authority, albeit by a single abbey. A mutilated letter in Redman's visitation register, to PreÂmontreÂ, dated 20 December (c.1477?), appears to relate to the matter, though it sheds no more light on the motivation that led Alnwick to petition the papacy. Redman apparently states that the abbot of Alnwick's 38 39 40

41 42

Bodl. ASH, fols 8±8v; BL PECK I, fols 86±88v; CAP I, 38, 39, 40. The post of commissary-general could cause rivalry: White Canons, p. 225. BL PECK I, fols 111±11v, 124±24v, 125, 126, 127±27v; CAP II, 222, 272±5. Edward IV's letter of protection to Redman and others (26 October 1466), hints of opposition to Redman's visitations from some quarters, though expressions of `fear' by the bene®ciaries of such guarantees are fairly standard: Bodl. ASH, fol. 8v; CAP I, 97. See pp. 11, 16, 17 above. CPR XIII (pt. 1), p. 64.



183

contacts with the papacy undermined PreÂmontreÂ's authority in England; `quod abbas monasterii beate Marie de Awnewyk [nostri ordinis] temporum ef¯uxis curriculis a Sede Apostolica [. . .] solum quod sit summo ponti®ci subjectus in re[gno Anglie . . .] ac perniciosum plurimorum exemplum, conte[mptus] jurisdictionis et auctoritatis vestrarum non modicam [. . .] singulis in quadam litera velle vestram [. . .] latorem per presencium enucliari et vestro sub sigillo'. Redman requested a generous new commission of his authority as commissary, perhaps as a response to the actions of the abbot of Alnwick.43 The reasons for Alnwick's desire to remove itself from Redman's authority remain unknown. It may have been due to genuine grievances about the payment of Redman's visitation expenses, or the visitor's `reforming zeal'. Alnwick, the most northern Premonstratensian abbey, may have even contemplated a greater degree of independence from the order's central governing bodies, despite their protestations of submission to PreÂmontreÂ and pater abbas, which the words `he [i.e. Redman] drags them [i.e. the canons of Alnwick] to distant chapters', may imply. In any case Abbot Alnwick (n 1490) of Alnwick was elected as one of the dif®nitores of the provincial chapter at Lincoln in 1476 and again in 1489.44 There is no further mention of the matter, and Abbot Alnwick appears to have kept his abbacy and submitted to Redman's visitations in 1482 and 1488. Redman made the 1482 visitation of Alnwick at the Carmelite monastery in Newcastle, because of àrduis negociis' and other `reasonable causes', including the wish to save Alnwick great expense. While this was probably a sop to placate the abbot of Alnwick's fears about expense, Redman clearly insisted on his authority as visitor in a lengthy preamble at the beginning of the letter and enjoined upon the abbey the usual legal penalties if it did not comply with the visitation. He also insisted that they were to renumerate the visitor for his stay of one night and day at Newcastle.45 The only other record of discontent is related by Redman himself. In a letter to the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ (28 March 1493), he mentioned that certain canons who ¯ed their abbeys might approach him and make petitions, ostensibly in good faith. Redman asked the abbot not to give them credence and to send them back to him for examination.46 No more information is obtainable on this matter, and thus we cannot ascertain whether these canons had genuine grievances against Redman or were rebellious malcontents and monastic 43

44 45

46

Bodl. ASH, fols 1±1v; CAP I, 42: cf. Bodl. ASH, fol. 17v; CAP I, 84, where the provincial chapter (1479) mandated severe penalties and a prohibition against anyone from obtaining any `privilegium' which was prejudicial to the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ or his commissary. Bodl. ASH, fols 3, 103; CAP I, 82, 89. Bodl. ASH, fols 24v, 25v±26, 81; CAP I, 100: II, 188, 192. CAP II, 190 (1486 visitation report) is from Easby not Alnwick: Bodl. ASH, fol. 62. Redman may have visited Alnwick in 1486: Bodl. ASH, fol. 47. Bodl. ASH, fol. 87; CAP I, 51.


184


mis®ts. If there was a `plot' against Redman in 1493 ± of which there is not the slightest indication elsewhere ± then nothing came of it.47 Four years after Redman's position as commissary-general had been ®rmly secured another important responsibility was placed upon his shoulders. Redman was provided to the diocese of St Asaph on 17 August 1472 after his predecessor, Thomas Bird, was removed from his bishopric by Edward IV, for his Lancastrian sympathies.48 The exact circumstances that led to Redman's appointment are unknown, but Colvin has suggested that it was `not without its political signi®cance', as Redman was a Yorkist.49 Redman's diocese included most of the counties of Denbigh and Flint in the north, the greater part of Montgomeryshire, apart from certain areas which came under the authority of Bangor and Coventry and Lich®eld, eastern Merionethshire and some Shropshire parishes located around Oswestry.50 The diocese was poor, having suffered from the ravages of the Welsh Wars and the rebellion of Glyn dwÃr, which had a catastrophic effect on the Welsh church, and was regarded as being the lowest rung in the ladder of episcopal promotion.51 Undoubtedly one of the reasons that prompted Redman to obtain an indult from Rome in 1472, allowing him to retain Shap Abbey in commendam ± which was a rarity in England ± was in order to supplement his income from St Asaph: though Colvin remarks that the combined revenues `can scarcely have been suf®cient to support his dignity'.52 The cathedral church of St Asaph had been badly damaged during the Glyn dwÃr revolt in 1402, although some attempts at reconstruction and rebuilding the roof were undertaken in the early ®fteenth century.53 It was therefore necessary that damage to the cathedral be repaired and its fabric enhanced in order to boost morale and foster stability in the diocese. Just before Redman became bishop, a period of church rebuilding had actually been initiated in Wales in the 1460s and 1470s.54 Redman undertook the crucial task of restoring his cathedral, in spite of his diocese's poverty.55 47

48

49

50 51

52 53

54 55

Apart from circumstances at Beauchief in 1462, I have been unable to ®nd any references to àrmed' resistance (`Waffengewalt') against Redman's visitations, as related in N. Backmund, `SpaÈtmittelalterliche Reformbestrebungen im PraÈmonstratenserorden', AP 56 (1980), 198. However see n.40 above. R. G. Davis, `The Church and the War of the Roses', The War of the Roses, ed. A. J. Pollard (Basingstoke, 1995), p. 141; CPR XIII, pt 1, p. 316; pt. 2, p. 871; Fasti XI, p. 39. White Canons, p. 364; R. B. Dobson, `The English Monastic Cathedrals in the Fifteenth Century', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, sixth series 1 (1991), 161, n.34. Smith, Guide to Bishops' Registers, p. 179. G. Williams, Renewal and Reformation: Wales, c.1415±1642 (Oxford, 1993), pp. 3±30, 118. CPR XIII, pt 1, p. 316; White Canons, p. 364. The extent of the damage to the cathedral and diocese has recently been questioned: T. W. Pritchard, St Asaph Cathedral (Much Wenlock, 1997), p. 7. Williams, Renewal and Reformation, p. 120. White Canons, p. 364.



185

Although restoration in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has obscured much of the earlier rebuilding of the medieval fabric, it is clear that Redman completed reroo®ng the nave, which Bishop Roger of Lancaster (1411±33) had begun, probably reroofed the transepts, installed the perpendicular east window in the chancel, erected a stone pulpitum at the east crossing (now no longer extant) and the ®nely carved stallwork in the choir. The latter is thought to have been accomplished by William Frankelyn, who was master carpenter in the counties of Flint and Chester c.1480.56 Although the restored cathedral is the smallest of its kind in England and Wales, and could not claim to rival some of the great cathedrals in Britain, its rebuilding was a remarkable feat, considering the great expense that such an enterprise entailed in a poor diocese. While the medieval episcopal documents from St Asaph's diocese from this time have largely perished, the cathedral stands as a living witness to Redman's pastoral concern for his new diocese, whose cathedral church had remained damaged for over seventy years.57 Apart from this, and references to the St Asaph diocese in sources such as the Calendar of Papal Registers, Redman's Premonstratensian register contains two formulary documents concerning the right to exercise patronage in a parish church, and a document granting a dispensation for ordination under the canonical age, which date from Redman's time as bishop of St Asaph. Two diocesan letters of indulgence, in the same manuscript, possibly date from the same period.58 Besides Redman's undoubtedly heavy workload of pastoral and administrative duties as a bishop and visitor of the Premonstratensians, the crown also employed him in the ®eld of politics and diplomacy. Though his appointment to the poor diocese of St Asaph does not signify that he occupied the highest ranks of the monarch's favour in the early 1470s ± despite having Yorkist sympathies and royal approval for his commission from PreÂmontreÂ ± governmental tasks, in varying degrees, were part and parcel of medieval episcopal life.59 Redman was appointed as one of the commissioners in the counties of Flint and Chester in 1474 by Edward IV, `to approve all the castles, manors and other properties' in those counties, and to consider `the appointments of all ministers and of®cials, and to negotiate with the county community concerning a mise'.60 In 1482 he was appointed as trier of petitions for Gascony, and again, with other individuals in 1484.61 To the extent that one can refer to Redman as a politician, his `political career' accelerated dramatically after Richard III took the throne 56

57

58 59 60

61

E. Hubbard, The Buildings of Wales: Clwyd (Harmondsworth, 1986), pp. 435, 439, pl.35; Pritchard, St Asaph Cathedral, p. 11. G. M. Grif®ths, À St Asaph ``Register'' of Episcopal Acts, 1506±1571', Journal of the Historical Society of the Church in Wales 6 (1956), 25. Bodl. ASH, fols 108v, 109, 110v, 111v; CAP I, 112, 113, 123, 125, 126. Swanson, Church and Society, pp. 103±39. D. J. Clayton, The Administration of the County Palatine of Chester: 1442±1485, Chetham Society, 3rd series 35 (1990), 55. Rotuli Parl. VI, pp. 196, 238.


186


on 26 June 1483.62 Redman was made a member of the king's council, an organ of government which was the `hub of national political and administrative activity . . . [and] . . . managed much of the state's day-to-day organization'.63 His appointment was probably not due solely to royal recognition of his obvious administrative skills, as evidenced in his visitation register. It is no coincidence that other members of Redman's family were faithful servants of King Richard throughout his reign. Of particular note is Edward Redman, who inherited the family's estates in Yorkshire and Westmorland only in March 1483.64 Edward was one of the èsquires of the body' of the king's household, and by January 1484 probably ful®lled the dual roles as sheriff of Somerset/Dorset and as MP for Carlisle. He was also one of those appointed by Richard III to conduct an enquiry into the rebels of Bodmin on 13 November 1484, after `Buckingham's Rebellion'.65 Richard Redman's appointment to the king's council and the activities of Edward Redman, cannot therefore be unconnected. The allegiance of the Redmans to Richard III, and the king's patronage of that family, and his northern connections, must have been determining factors in Richard Redman's royal appointment. The extent of Richard III's patronage of Bishop Redman is particularly apparent in the king's registers in BL Harley MS 433. Redman was granted an annuity of £10, `whiche thabbot and Convent of Welbek for the ferme of mylnes of Ratford in the Countie of Notingham' paid.66 On another occasion it is recorded that Redman `hathe a prive seale to John Hayes Receyvor in the west parties to content unto him during the kinges pleasire vc markes yerely of thissues of his Receipt before al other de primis denariis'.67 In the king's second register Redman was given a warrant (as above) on 24 February 1485 `directed unto John Hayes oon of the kinges Receivors of the lyvelode in the west parties, to content & pay yerely unto him . . . fyve hundrethe markes of the Revenues of his Receipt (of) afore alle other, of the furst money that commethe of (youre) his handes'.68 King Richard also obtained a papal dispensation for Redman on 10 June 1485 `to receive and retain in commendam . . . the said church of St Asaph . . . the said monastery [Shap] . . . the yearly value of both not exceeding 1300 gold ¯orins of the Camera, any bene®ce with or without cure [etc]'.69 These annuities and papal dispensation, reveal that Richard endeavoured to augment Redman's income ± possibly at Redman's request ± given the poverty of his diocese. 62 63 64 65

66 67 68 69

Edwards, The Itinerary of King Richard III, p. 3. Swanson, Church and Society, p. 106, n.44. R. Horrox, Richard III: A Study in Service (Cambridge, 1989), p. 192. Horrox, Richard III, pp. 51, 58, 156, 192, 248; L. Gill, Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion (Stroud, 1999), pp. 96, 104, 108. British Library, Harleian MS. 433 I, p. 185; Cal. Pat. Rich. III, p. 480. British Library, Harleian MS. 433 I, p. 268. British Library, Harleian MS. 433 II, p. 205. CPR XIV, p. 13. For an earlier grant in 1483, see Cal. Pat.: Rich. III, p. 412.



187

Furthermore the papal dispensation indicates that the king himself was willing to petition the pope on Redman's behalf, as his counsellor. Though it has been argued that King Richard's patronage of various individuals was òvergenerous to a fault', it can also be shown that there was a growing tendency for Richard after 1484, a period in which he was losing support, to place his trust in, and to reward, only a closely de®ned group of persons who were committed to his regime.70 Redman was clearly one of these men, whose patronage by the king must indicate the degree of esteem in which Richard held Redman's counsel as an advisor in matters of state. It is unfortunate that the records of this council's activities are largely lost, for they would have shed interesting light on Redman's role in this important body.71 However surviving documentation for Richard III's reign is enough to indicate Redman's role in the council, diplomatic endeavours, and close allegiance to the king. It is known that in 1483 Redman took part in Richard's coronation and met him at Oxford on 24 July; at Warwick in August when King Richard held discussions on the proposed marriage between his son Edward and the daughter of the Spanish king; at York and Lincoln (September and October) when news of Buckingham's rebellion against the king broke; at Grantham, when the king received the Great Seal (19 October); and at Westminster on 26 November, when the Great Seal was returned to the chancellor. In 1484 Redman was at York on 25 June when the treaty between King Richard and John of Portugal was rati®ed, and at Westminister with members of the privy council on 12 August.72 Redman's diplomatic activity is apparent in the truce that was forged between England and Scotland during Richard's reign.73 On the king's instructions the Scots were met by Redman, the earl of Nottingham, with other noblemen and clerics, who were to escort them to their lodgings on 11 September 1484. Redman also joined the English delegation the next day, which included Archbishop Thomas Rotherham of York and Bishop John Russell of Lincoln, for a more formal ®rst meeting between both parties at Nottingham Castle and was appointed as a commissioner when negotiations began on 14 September. After six days a three-year truce was agreed upon, with a treaty on 20 September 1484.74 Redman's fortunes changed with the accession of Henry VII in 1485. In the same year the new king issued writs summoning parliament to meet at 70 71 72

73 74

Horrox, Richard III, pp. 26, 316±17. Hicks, `The Sources', p. 34. Edwards, The Itinerary of King Richard III, p. ix, n.23; C. R. Markham, Richard III: His Life and Character (London, 1906), p. 129; PRO C 81/1530/45; PRO C 81/1530/49; CCR Rich. III, p. 346; Gill, Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion, p. 73. Redman was also involved in collecting the tenth in 1484 and 1485: CFR XXI, pp. 281, 310. Macfarlane, William Elphinstone, pp. 131±5. Ibid.; Foedera XII, pp. 235±47; Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII, 2 vols, ed. J. Gairdner, Rolls Series (London, 1861±63): I, pp. 63, 64, 66.


188


Westminster on 7 November. It is not surprising that Redman's name was omitted, with certain other bishops, from the surviving list of those who attended this parliamentary session, given his support of the previous regime.75 Despite such actions Henry tried to be conciliatory towards his former opponents: Redman was granted royal protection and a general pardon on 22 February 1486.76 Although the new monarch naturally appointed his supporters to posts of responsibility, the leniency he extended to many Yorkists was to a great extent due to his desire to maintain continuity with the former government of the realm, just as Richard III had done after the death of Edward IV and deposition of Edward V, and in an effort to place his rule on a stable footing.77 However the transition from Richard III's government to that of Henry VII was not as smooth or as speedily achieved as is sometimes allowed. Michael Bennett has gone so far as to suggest that ìt was scarcely conceivable that Henry Tudor's remarkable seizure of the throne would go uncontested, and throughout the ®rst six months of his reign a major rising was widely expected'.78 In fact one of the most serious of dynastic challanges that befell Henry was the rebellion of `Lambert Simnel' (1487), who pretended to be Edward, the young earl of Warwick.79 A rival claimant to the throne proved attractive to Yorkist sympathisers and Bishop Redman appears to have been implicated in the plot, according to a papal bull issued on 5 January 1488, which commanded that an enquiry be held into Redman's conduct. It has even been proposed that the Cumbrian rebel recruits ®rst assembled at Shap ± Redman's abbey ± before meeting the other rebel forces near Sedbergh in Yorkshire.80 Though the exact outcome of the papally approved enquiry (if it was held) is unknown, there is no indication that Redman incurred ecclesiastical sanctions. He retained his bishopric after the crisis, and was still functioning as commissary-general after this time.81 He was also given a commission (24 April 1488) by Archbishop Morton of Canterbury to implement a papal bull (August 1487), which was issued at the request of King Henry, partly as a conciliatory measure to those 75

76 77

78

79 80

81

J. Enoch Powell and K. Wallis, The House of Lords in the Middle Ages: A History of the English House of Lords to 1540 (London, 1968), p. 528. Cal. Pat. Hen.VII (I), p. 57. J. Guy, Tudor England (Oxford, 1988), pp. 55±6; M. Bennett, Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke (Stroud, 1987), pp. 3±4, 29±30. There were also exceptions to this in Henry VII's case, and one must bear in mind the involvement of those of Edward IV's af®nity in `Buckingham's Rebellion' against Richard III: see Davis, `The Church and the War of the Roses', p. 154; Gill, Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion, pp. 60±3, 86± 95, 105±7. Bennett, Lambert Simnel, pp. 29, 35. On a more cautionary note, Guy, Tudor England, p. 58. Bennett, Lambert Simnel, passim, esp. pp. 41±8. PRO SC 7/23/2; Bennett, Lambert Simnel, p. 74; Wedgwood, History of Parliament II, p. 516. R. J. Knecht, `The Episcopate and the Wars of the Roses', University of Birmingham Historical Journal 6 (1958), 127; Bodl. ASH and CAP II±III, passim.



189

who had incurred excommunication during the rebellion.82 Redman was also at Convocation early in 1490, and was appointed as one of the commissioners to preside over it in the absence of Archbishop Morton.83 As far as Redman's diplomatic and advisory services are concerned, he seems to have recovered the king's favour. In addition to more mundane governmental tasks, such as collecting the tenth in 1487 and 1492, appointments as a commissioner for the peace (between 1495 and 1504) and as a trier of petitions for the British Isles and elsewhere (1488 and 1495), he was closely involved as a commissioner in further negotiations with the Scots, in 1488, and particularly in 1491 and 1492. In the following year he attended the privy council. In this we can see Henry VII's general policy of appointing men `solely on the basis of competence and willingness to serve the Tudor regime'.84 By this time Redman had undoubtedly put all hope of a restoration of a Yorkist monarch aside and had thrown in his lot with King Henry. Redman was involved in the negotiations which culminated in the eighteen-month truce that was rati®ed at Coldstream on 3 November 1492.85 He was again commissioned with several others in 1493, including Christopher Urswick, an experienced and trusted servant of Henry VII, to renew the truce and to look into the possibility of arranging an AngloScottish marriage alliance. Though this did not come about at that time, the peace treaty between both nations was extended to April 1501.86 Redman's northern background, as well as his diplomatic skills, must have been a factor in his involvement in negotiations with the Scots.87 He was present 82

83

84

85 86

87

Foedera XII, pp. 324±5; Knecht, `The Episcopate and the Wars of the Roses', p. 127; Bodl. ASH, fols 66v±67; CAP I, 49. The commission was addressed to Redman, and to the dean and two members of the bishop's cathedral chapter. It enabled them to absolve from excommunication òmnes et singulos viros religiosos Ordinis Premonstratensis aliosque quoscunque per civitatem et diocesim Assavenses . . . secundum formam et effectum literarum Apostolicarum'. The contents of the commission may indicate that it was issued at Redman's request. The Register of John Morton Archbishop of Canterbury 1486±1500, vol. 1, ed. C. HarperBill, Canterbury and York Society 75 (1987), pp. 29±32. Jessopp, `Redman, Richard', p. 826; Guy, Tudor England, p. 56; CFR XXII, pp. 65, 173; Rotuli Parl. VI, pp. 410, 458; Rotuli Scotiae in Turri Londinensi et in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi, 2 vols, ed. D. Macpherson (London, 1814±18): II, p. 487; Cal. Pat.: Hen. VII (II), pp. 634, 636, 644, 664. Also see notes 85±90 below. On Henry VII's council see M.M. Condon, Àn Anachronism with Intent? Henry VII's Council Ordinance of 1491/2', Kings and Nobles in the Later Middle Ages: A Tribute to Charles Ross, eds R. A. Grif®ths and J. Sherborne (Gloucester and New York, 1986), pp. 228±53. Foedera XII, pp. 465, 468, 494±7. Foedera XII, pp. 525±6, 529±31, 532±4, 542; J. D. Mackie, The Earlier Tudors 1485± 1558 (Oxford, 1952), pp. 137±48, 157±64. Note that the letters of safe conduct granted to Redman in Bodl. ASH, fols 48±49v (not printed in CAP I, 151), dated 17 June 1491, should probably be dated 17 June 1493 as in Foedera XII, pp. 532±3. Knecht, `The Episcopate and the Wars of the Roses', p. 125. For Redman's dealings with Bishop Richard Bell of Carlisle (1478±95) ± who went to meet Redman at Penrith ± and Prior Robert Ebbchester of Durham, see R. B. Dobson, `Richard Bell,


190


with other prelates of the realm at the creation of Henry Duke of York at Westminster on 1 November 1494 and at the tournament which followed.88 His service to Henry VII evidently continued, as his later commissions have shown above. We should recall that Redman planned to be with the king at Basingstoke, from 14 to 16 September 1500.89 Two letters written between 1501 and 1505, including one by Margaret Beaufort to her son, the king, indicate that some individuals who sought promotion or to have a particular matter dealt favourably, requested Bishop Redman's assistance, or at least considered it.90 While Redman never acquired the political standing of Cardinal Wolsey or Richard Fox, he was certainly a valued and conscientious servant of the crown, as his appointments and diplomatic tasks indicate. The notion that Redman was one of those few bishops who had `no record of service to the Crown in . . . government', is clearly unjusti®able.91 Before examining Redman's episcopate in the Exeter diocese, let us now turn to his abbacy at Shap. It is paradoxical that while we know much about most of England's Premonstratensian abbeys from Redman's register, comparatively little can be ascertained about Shap in the late Middle Ages: though a careful sifting of written source material and architectural evidence can give us some insights.92 What sort of attitude can we discern in Redman's relationship with Shap after becoming a bishop? Though the revenue that Redman derived from his abbey, albeit meagre, would probably have been welcomed in any case, he may also have decided to retain his former abbacy because of his position among the English white canons.93 While his episcopal orders are mentioned throughout the visitation documents, matters could have been more dif®cult had he not held an abbacy, as his authority within the order could have been compromised. Redman was appointed commissary-general as the abbot of Shap, and not because of the episcopal status which he subsequently acquired: he was particularly conscious of maintaining the order's episcopal exemption.94

88 89 90

91 92

93 94

Prior of Durham (1464±78) and Bishop of Carlisle (1478±95)', Church and Society in the Medieval North of England (London and Rio Grande, 1996), p. 159; A. J. Pollard, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower (Stroud 1997), pp. 233, 238; idem., `St Cuthbert and the Hogg: Richard III and the County Palatine of Durham, 1471±85', Kings and Nobles in the Later Middle Ages: A Tribute to Charles Ross, eds R. A. Grif®ths and J. Sherborne (Gloucester and New York, 1986), p. 109. Letters and Papers, pp. 393, 403. Bodl. ASH, fol. 148. PRO SC 1 /51/173; The Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources, 3 vols, ed. A. F. Pollard (London, 1913, 1914), p. 219. Thomson, The Early Tudor Church and Society, p. 49. As commissary Redman could not conduct a visitation of his own abbey, and it is not known who held Shap's visitations during Redman's era, of which there is no record. CPL XIV, p. 13; Knowles, Religious Orders III, p. 39. See p. 201. Archbishop John Morton's desire to visit the exempt houses, including the



191

Although Redman did not live continuously at Shap, he was not simply an absentee superior. Various documents in his visitation register were actually dated by Redman at Shap, thus indicating that despite his heavy workload of episcopal, governmental and diocesan business, he took time to visit the abbey. Redman is found to be at Shap, after becoming a bishop, in 1479, 1482, 1485, 1486, 1489, 1495(?), 1497 and 1499. The 1486 visitation report from Blanchland implies that he planned to be at Shap shortly afterwards, because he summoned a canon to appear before him there within seven days. Several references in his visitation itineraries record that he considered visiting the abbey in 1481(?), 1494 and 1500. The probability of visits other than those which are indicated or clearly implied by these documents cannot be ruled out.95 It would be safe to propose that Redman kept in fairly close touch with what was going on at Shap, in the light of these actual or proposed visits. The episcopal register of Bishop Richard Fox (1494±1501) of Durham also relates that Redman ordained some of his own canons to major orders, among other individuals, at Barnard Castle on 27 March 1501.96 There is no record of any major internal unrest at Shap in the visitation records during Redman's abbacy, and only one recorded case of apostasy, in 1482.97 The most tangible evidence available for discovering how Shap fared under Redman is apparent in the visible remains of the abbey buildings. Colvin has pointed out that `there is every reason to suppose that Shap prospered during his long rule [c.1458±1505] . . . [as] Its buildings were certainly well cared for'.98 It is likely that rebuilding at the abbey from the second half of the ®fteenth century to the early sixteenth century was due to Redman, as Colvin implies, for he constantly pressed certain abbots to rebuild parts of their monasteries during his visitations and was responsible for restoring St Asaph's Cathedral.99 It is evident that both the original thirteenth-century presbytery (chancel) and the north chapel of the south transept of the abbey church were extended in the ®fteenth century. The celebration of the liturgy was the principal duty of the white canons, and

95

96

97 98 99

Premonstratensians, in the 1480s and 1490s, was not ful®lled, generally speaking. There were no instances of his direct in¯uence over the internal visitations of the white canons: Concilia III, pp. 630±2; Religious Orders III, pp. 76, 77. Bodl. ASH, fols 2v±3, 16v, 24, 24v, 60, 62, 84v, 86, 111, 115v, 120v, 148v; CAP I, 43, 45, 61, 83, 88, 100, 149, 153: II, 281; `Two Documents Relating to Shap Abbey', ed. F. W. Ragg, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 9 (1909), 276±81; Historical Manuscripts Commission: Tenth Report, Appendix, Part VI (London, 1887), pp. 97±8. The Register of Richard Fox, pp. 151±3. It is interesting to note that Redman was given a commission to confer the episcopal benediction upon William Lyngard of Easby Abbey, on 6 March 1493: The Register of Thomas Rotherham Archbishop of York 1480± 1500, vol. 1, ed. E. E. Barker, Canterbury and York Society 69 (1976), p. 236. Bodl. ASH, fol. 37; CAP III, 547. Colvin and Gilyard-Beer, Shap Abbey, p. 4. See pp. 87, 184±5 above.


192


Redman would no doubt have wished to enhance this at Shap by extending the presbytery, for it was here that the ceremonies and rites of the Premonstratensian High Mass and solemn liturgical of®ces were celebrated. This extension allowed more room for the quire to be moved further east to the crossing.100 In c.1500 further adjustments to the church's fabric were undertaken, in that a tower was added at the west end. This tower is the most impressive feature of the abbey church today, and the masons whom Redman commissioned for its construction were probably those who built the contemporaneous towers of Fountains and Furness.101 It is not known if Redman's decision to erect such a tower was intended as a monument to him ± as Marmaduke Huby's was at Fountains ± for it is not highly decorative. While the tower may have been designed to appear larger than it actually was, there is only a single niche with a vaulted canopy and iron dowel to hold a saint's statue, perhaps that of the abbey's patron, St Mary Magdalene, as well as partial remains of its former window tracery and parapets.102 The nave of six bays in length with its single aisle on the north side, was later given a clerestory and a new low-pitched roof.103 Before these alterations took place the nave was repaved and circular processional markings were carved upon the stone. These markings indicated where the canons were to stand after the Sunday liturgical procession before the high mass, facing the nave altar. These particular markings are a rare survival and were designed in order to give greater liturgical accuracy and decorum.104 The rebuilding programme at Shap, and its distinctively liturgical overtones, demonstrates that, despite the abbey's relatively low income, Redman both conserved and improved the fabric of his abbey. This exhibits a degree of self-con®dence at Shap.105 The Black Death had decimated the community from about twenty to six in 1379, and the conversion of the reredorter into what appears to be a large lobby indicates that the abbey never again reached its full complement. However Redman's development programme at Shap probably shows that there was a recovery in the number of monastic personnel between 1379 and the end of Redman's abbacy in 1505. A list recording the ordinations that Redman carried out for Bishop Fox of Durham in 1501, reveals that three of Shap's canons were ordained to major orders. There were at least sixteen canons present in the abbey, including the abbot, at the time of the Dissolution.106 100 101 102 103 104

105

106

Colvin and Gilyard-Beer, Shap Abbey, pp. 8±9, 10. Ibid., pp. 6±7; R. Gilyard-Beer, Fountains Abbey (London, 1970), pp. 34±5. Colvin and Gilyard-Beer, Shap Abbey, pp. 7, 15. Ibid., pp. 8, 9. Ibid. Another example of these may be found at Easby: Hamilton Thompson, Easby Abbey, p. 7. Colvin and Gilyard-Beer, Shap Abbey, p. 4. For the abbey's income at the Dissolution, see Table 3. Colvin and Gilyard-Beer, Shap Abbey, pp. 1±4; The Register of Richard Fox, pp. 151±3; see Table 2.



193

* On 6 November 1495 Redman's ministry as the bishop of St Asaph came to an end, for he was appointed bishop of Exeter after Oliver King was translated to Bath and Wells.107 It is most probable that Redman's appointment to Exeter was a reward for his services to the crown. Exeter was a contrast from St Asaph. The diocese was approximately twice its size, consisting of the counties of Devon and Cornwall, divided into four archdeaconries.108 The income which Exeter provided for its bishop was said in Richard Fox's day (1487±92) to be àn appropriate income for the lord privy seal', as Fox was, but was not among the wealthiest dioceses.109 However in 1535, the diocese's annual income was at least £1566 14s 6d, and far outshadowed any amount of money that Redman could have extracted from St Asaph. The temporalities included ten houses in Devon and Cornwall, a house in London and a manor in Surrey.110 As far as Redman's Exeter episcopacy (1495±1501) is concerned, we are fortunate in possessing his Exeter diocesan register. It consists of forty-three folios and is written throughout largely in one hand, with several additions in other hands.111 The scribe signs himself in three places as one `m[agister?] Scoos'.112 The register contains material from 1497 to 1501 and begins with institutions to churches throughout the diocese (fols 1±23), including collations, resignations, inquisitions, two papal bulls and documents relating to a chantry at Slaxton. These are followed by material from Bishop Oldham's episcopate (1504±19) which does not belong to the register.113 There are then a series of inquisitions, papal dispensations, a licence granting a pension, a will, resignations, several compositiones, vows of chastity made by three individuals, and an examination of a man accused of fornication and adultery (fols 24±36v). The register ends with two papal bulls (fol. 37) and a section containing the names of individuals who were tonsured, and received minor and major orders (fols 38±43). Although the 107 108

109

110

111

112

113

Cal. Pat. Hen. VII (II), p. 47; CPR XVI, p. 644. Smith, The Bishops' Registers, p. 76; R. L. Storey, Diocesan Administration in FifteenthCentury England, Borthwick Papers, no. 16 (York, 1972), p. 2. The Register of Richard Fox, p. xvii; D. N. Lepine, `The Origins and Careers of the Canons of Exeter Cathedral 1300±1455', Religious Belief and Ecclesiastical Careers in Late Medieval England, ed. C. Harper-Bill (Woodbridge, 1991), p. 87. The Register of Richard Fox, p. xvii; A. L. Rowse, Tudor Cornwall (London, 1969), pp. 143, 158±9. For an informative article on additional income raised from Exeter's spiritualities see R. N. Swanson, Èpiscopal Income from Spiritualities in the Diocese of Exeter in the Early Sixteenth Century', JEH 39 (1988), 520±30. DRO Redman Reg. It is bound with several other registers and is presently unpublished: Smith, The Bishops' Registers, pp. 82±3. DRO Redman Reg., fols 23, 36v, 43. Although a William Scoos was ordained priest in 1499 (fols 38v, 40v) our scribe is probably John Scoos, who is mentioned on fol. 2. The signature on the other folios appears to be m. J. Scoos. DRO Redman Reg., fols 23v [blank], fols 24 [bis]± 26 [bis].


194


register is Redman's own episcopal register, as the general headings to the institutions, inquisitions and ordinations clearly specify, it is a compilation of materials relating to the activities of both the bishop and his vicarsgeneral, neatly and conveniently written into one book. However it is not a register where material concerning the bishop and vicar-general is entered in separate sections, for both sets of material are written together on the same folios. The register is for the most part, but not entirely, written in a chronological order. Redman was not unlike other late medieval bishops in that he relied, when he was both inside and outside his see, upon the diocesan machinery of government to assist him in directing and ministering the ¯ock committed to his charge. Redman's register is an important source for discovering how he employed the various of®cials and clerics whom he required for these tasks.114 As regards the sacrament of holy orders, he employed the services of a suffragan bishop, Thomas Cornish, bishop of Tenos, in his absence.115 Cornish was active in the neighbouring diocese of Bath and Wells, as well as Exeter, from about 1485±1513, and had previously assisted Richard Fox when he was at Exeter (1487±92). It is therefore quite natural that Redman should choose a suffragan bishop whose services were used in a neighbouring diocese and who was already familiar with Exeter. Cornish had also a closer connection with the diocese as warden of the collegiate church of Ottery St Mary.116 Apart from conducting several ordinations for Redman, it is not known whether he performed any other sacramental functions, including con®rmation.117 Although the suffragan bishop exercised spiritual power under the authority of the local ordinary, Redman's diocesan commissary and vicar-general was naturally his chief of®cial from an administrative and juridical point of view. This role was largely ful®lled by John Nans, a wellquali®ed and highly trained of®cial, who held a doctorate in canon law and a licentiate in law from Bologna, and had probably studied at Oxford.118 Though the post of vicar-general was given for a limited period in the Exeter diocese, often on an ad hoc basis, `from a pool of expert administrators',119 it is clear from Redman's register that he felt con®dent enough to retain Nans' services for most of his Exeter episcopate in the performance, to some degree, of routine administration within the diocese. While this is largely so, the register mentions another vicar-general, William Silk, a talented Oxford graduate, canon, prebendary and, from 1499, precentor of 114 115 116

117 118

119

Cf. Swanson, Church and Society, pp. 28±9. DRO Redman Reg., fols 40±3. The Register of Richard Fox, pp. xviii±xx; Thomson, The Early Tudor Church and Society, p. 112, nn. 33, 34. DRO Redman Reg., fols 40±3. DRO Redman Reg., passim; BRUO II, pp. 1336±7; Fasti IX, p. 60; Storey, Diocesan Administration, pp. 5±6. Nans may have became vicar-general in 1497, though no act of commission is recorded in the register. Thomson, The Early Tudor Church and Society, p. 109.



195

Exeter Cathedral, who was employed for a short period towards the end of Redman's time in Exeter, between 5 June and 2 October 1501.120 When examining Redman's Exeter register, the question of the extent of his dedication to his role as a diocesan pastor presents itself. How often did he take the trouble to visit and reside in his diocese and carry out the run-ofthe-mill episcopal and administrative functions, considering his heavy workload with the Premonstratensians and the crown? It might be argued that such a question is an irrelevant one, for it is clear from Redman's register that the machinery of diocesan administration at Exeter proved effective in maintaining those parochial structures necessary for the salus animarum, whether the bishop was present or not. Such ®ndings are equally valid for most other dioceses of the later Middle Ages. A diocese need not be neglected because of a bishop's absence, especially as many duties were ordinarily delegated to subordinates.121 Nevertheless a bishop's residence in his own bishopric, so that he could personally play an important part in the life of the diocese, was still envisaged as the ideal. Indeed a diocese would only bene®t if a bishop personally took his pastoral responsibilities seriously. This standard of episcopal service ± which bishops like John Carpenter of Worcester (1444±76) and William Gray of Ely (1454±78) strove to maintain in their dioceses ± and the `moral tensions' that were caused when a bishop was forced to choose between serving crown and diocese, were appreciated by the bishops themselves.122 When Richard Fox wrote to Cardinal Wolsey upon resigning the privy seal in 1516, he was clearly aware of his pastoral responsibilities while giving his counsel to the state; `to serue wordly with the damnacion of my saule and many other sawles wherof I have the cure, I am sure ye [Wolsey], woll not desire' [my emphasis]. Even Wolsey is reputed to have said, on his deathbed, ìf I had served God as diligently as I have done the king, He would not have given me over in my grey hairs'. And yet perhaps a more balanced overview of their careers would give a more favourable verdict.123 The question of episcopal residence and of coping with tasks outside the con®nes of the diocese, is therefore an important one 120 121 122

123

BRUO III, pp. 1701±2; Fasti IX, p. 57; DRO Redman Reg., fols 21±3. Storey, Diocesan Administration, pp. 3±19. R. M. Haines, Àspects of the Episcopate of John Carpenter, Bishop of Worcester, 1444±1476', JEH 19 (1968), 11±40; idem., `The Practice and Problems of a FifteenthCentury English Bishop: the Episcopate of William Gray', Medieval Studies 34 (1972), 435±45. In a study on the Richard II and the Church, R. G. Davis suggests that `Largescale episcopal absenteeism from dioceses for secular reasons and close partisanship for or against the ruler of the day are among the most dubious myths of English medieval history': R. G. Davis, `Richard II and the Church', Richard II: The Art of Kingship, eds A. Goodman and J. Gillespie (Oxford, 1999), pp. 100±1, n.77. Nevertheless we should bear in mind that lengthy periods of episcopal non-residency ± due to secular reasons and other matters ± and the tensions this could cause bishops, were real enough, at least in the ®fteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Letters of Richard Fox, 1486±1527, eds P. S. Allen and H. M. Allen (Oxford, 1929), p. 83; Mackie, The Earlier Tudors, p. 332; Harper-Bill, The Pre-Reformation Church, p. 30; Gwyn, The King's Cardinal, passim.


196


concerning Bishop Redman, who must have felt the same kind of tensions, if not for exactly the same reasons, as Fox and Wolsey did. It is possible to assemble a tentative reconstruction of Redman's movements for a large part of his Exeter episcopacy, from both his episcopal and Premonstratensian registers and other manuscripts, including the Welbeck register. Admittedly such a reconstruction must be incomplete, with the limitations of source material and chronological gaps. Nevertheless our attempt to evaluate how much time Redman spent at Exeter is greatly assisted by the institutions and other activities of his vicars-general, particularly those of John Nans. If the dates of these are compared with items in the register which pertain to Redman's activities and residency in the diocese, we ®nd remarkably that, with only a handful of exceptions, they do not overlap, as Redman's vicars-general were inoperative when he resided in the diocese. Those dated items which do coincide, namely 22 June 1498 and 15 April 1499, must have been tasks which the vicar-general performed after the bishop left the diocese. Both these dates were the last time that Redman was noted in the diocese, until 30 October (1498) and 16 October (1499) respectively. The entry dated 22 June 1498, also states explicitly that Redman was ìn remotis'.124 Let us give a concise outline of what the reconstruction of Redman's movements c.1495±1501 reveals.125 There appears to be no record that Redman resided in his diocese at the very beginning of his episcopate from 1495 till nearly the end of November 1497. It is possible that after he was translated on 6 November 1495, he attended the parliamentary session which concluded on 21/22 December.126 It is interesting to note that Redman ± an experienced monastic visitor ± along with Cardinal Morton of Canterbury and Bishops Fox of Durham and Thomas Savage of Rochester, were sent a papal mandate (22 July 1496), requested by King Henry, to summon the superiors of the Conventual Franciscans. They were to warn the conventuals to reform themselves within eight months, or face a visitation of their houses by the bishops. The extent of Redman's involvement, if any, in the king's plans to extend the in¯uence of the Observant Franciscans and to reform the Conventuals, is unknown.127 In 1497 Redman may have attended 124

125

126

127

DRO Redman Reg., passim and fols 5, 5v, 7, 9, 12, 12v. J. A. F. Thomson believes that Nans was co-acting with the bishop as vicar-general at Torre on 29 November 1497, as well as 22 June 1498: DRO Redman Reg., fols 2v, 5, 5v: Thomson, The Early Tudor Church and Society, p. 110. On fol. 2v Nans appears as the recipient of a collated prebend and vicarage (29 Nov. 1497), not as a `co-collator' with the bishop. Nans may not have been at Torre, for William Silk was with Redman on 30 November, during Torre's visitation. See p. 201. The following is largely composed of references extracted from the following: DRO Redman Reg.; Bodl. ASH, and BL PECK I, passim. Wedgwood, History of Parliament II, pp. 564±82. On attendances at Henry VII's parliaments, see S. B. Chrimes, Henry VII (New Haven and London, 1999), p. 141. CPR XVII (pt 2), pp. ciii±iv, 155±6; J. Moorman, A History of the Franciscan Order (Oxford, 1968), pp. 491±2, 573.



197

the parliament which met between 16 January and 13 March,128 though it is quite clear that he was not present during this parliament's ®nal stages for we ®nd Redman at Shap on 13 March, no doubt preparing himself for a round of visitations in the north, which occupied him from 4 to 24 April.129 After a gap of just less than four months Redman planned to embark from the north of England, in order to commence a more arduous round of visitations from Easby in Yorkshire, to Titch®eld in Hampshire, from 19 August until 24 October. He then planned to be in Exeter by 29 October. It is interesting to note that during his absence from Exeter, his episcopal register does not even begin until the second year of his translation in October 1497, nearly two years after the last recorded institution in his predecessor's register.130 A cursory perusal of other Exeter registers of the late Middle Ages appears to indicate similar gaps between them.131 There is a possibility that such omissions indicate either the loss of sede vacante information, or that there was a vicar-general's register which is now lost. Yet, if the latter was the case, it is strange that the scribe decided to begin Redman's register in October 1497, when Redman was still ìn remotis' and his vicar-general was clearly of®ciating in the diocese. There is no simple answer to this problem.132 It is not known, at present, if Redman arrived at Exeter on 29 October as he intended, for he was a day late at Titch®eld. However he was at Torre Abbey on 29 and 30 November.133 He then went to his episcopal manor at Chudleigh, where he performed ordinations in his manor chapel two days before Christmas. For the ®rst six months of 1498 Redman appears to have spent a considerable period of time in his diocese, with no recorded absences in the register. He moved between his manors of Chudleigh and Bishop's Clyst, in Sowton, and his episcopal palace in Exeter, which is adjacent to the cathedral. During this time he carried out collations, institutions and several ordinations. It would be reasonable to assume, in the light of such activity, that he would have involved himself in the administration of his estates and the local diocesan legal processes and other functions pertaining to his episcopal status.134 It is unfortunate that the register does not relate how far 128 129 130

131 132 133 134

Wedgwood, History of Parliament II, pp. 583, 585. Bodl. ASH, fol. 120v; CAP I, 153. The ®rst institution in the register is dated 8 October 1497: DRO Redman Reg., fol. 1v. Smith, The Bishops' Registers, pp. 82±3. DRO Redman Reg., fol. 1. DRO Redman Reg., fol. 2v; Bodl. ASH, fol. 140; CAP III, 605. In 1498 Redman was in Exeter during Holy Week (8±14 April), on the eve of the Ascension (23 May), on the eve of Pentecost (2 June), and on the feast of Corpus Christi (14 June). He may well have participated at some of the liturgical services and processions in the cathedral and town on those days: DRO Redman Reg., fols 4v, 5, 5v, 39; Orme, Exeter Cathedral, pp. 32, 76±8.


198


he ventured into his large and scattered diocese on episcopal business, beyond those places cited above.135 From 22 June we ®nd that Redman left his diocese, probably from his episcopal palace where he conducted an institution on the same day. He does not appear again in his diocese for the rest of the year, except at Exeter in October. In 1499 entries for Redman are scarcer than the previous year, though there is at least one entry in January and April, and another source indicates that he was at Exeter in May.136 For the rest of the year there are only three entries in his episcopal register, for 16 October. In 1500 Redman was in his diocese in March and April, though he was apparently absent at the beginning and end of April. He planned to journey north to Westmorland at the end of the month in order to begin a visitation of the Premonstratensian abbeys. His visitations concluded at Halesowen on 17 May, from where he proposed to journey south, via Gloucester, thereby arriving at Exeter on the 23rd. His plan must have been largely successful, for we ®nd him at his episcopal palace on 25 May. For the remaining days of May until the beginning of September, Redman remained active in his diocese, staying at his palace in Exeter and in Bishop's Clyst, probably conducting an ordination at his cathedral on 13 June, and making a visitation of Torre at the beginning of August.137 On 8 September Redman planned to leave Exeter and conduct another series of Premonstratensian visitations. En-route he planned to see the king at Basingstoke from 14 to 16 September, and Bishop Thomas Langton at Winchester. He was preoccupied with his visitations from the end of September until 22 November, when he then wished to journey to Shap. In 1501 Redman was in the diocese at the beginning of the year, probably in February, after which he travelled to Yorkshire, and performed an ordination at Barnard Castle for Bishop Fox in March.138 Between 7 and 21 April he returned to his diocese, and was translated to Ely the following month.139 The last entry in his Exeter episcopal register for his residence in the diocese is dated 15 June.140 Although there is no record of Redman's residency at Exeter for 1496 ± while not precluding the possibility of this ± and for most of 1497, there does appear to be some kind of pattern in his movements. Redman was clearly preoccupied with his responsibilities to his order, and to some degree the 135

136

137

138 139 140

Redman was appointed a commissioner of the peace for Devon (12 March 1496) and Cornwall (1 June 1498): Cal. Pat. Hen. VII (II), pp. 634, 636. Exeter Cathedral Library MS 2395. He presided over a provincial Chapter in 1498(?) and was at Shap on 8 January 1499: Historical Manuscripts Commission (10th rpt.), pp. 97±8; White Canons, p. 235. Redman was in Exeter (1500) two days before the Ascension (26 May), on the eve of Pentecost (6 June), on the eve of Trinity Sunday (13 June), and three days before the feast of Corpus Christi (15 June): DRO Redman Reg., fols 14v, 15, 15v, 32, 41±41v. The Register of Richard Fox, pp. 151±3. CPR XVII (pt 1), p. 395. 1501 is not a complete year. See DRO Redman Reg., fol. 23.



199

crown, and spent only about fourteen or ®fteen months resident in his diocese for the entire period of his episcopacy. He did not spend as much time in his diocese as Bishop Hugh Oldham (1504±19), who `spent [more] considerable time in his diocese'.141 However it would be purely negative to simply portray Redman as ànother Father in God who exercised his fatherhood usually in places remote from his diocese', for it would also appear from our examination of his movements that he made a concerted effort to reside in his diocese as much as possible, especially in 1498 and 1500.142 An important piece of evidence extraneous to the episcopal register which also suggests this, is a ®ne the bishop paid to Henry VII in c.1499± 1500.143 He continued to serve the king after the Lambert Simnel crisis, as we have shown, but his consciousness of his episcopal duties is apparent in this document because he was granted licence to reside in his diocese for three-quarters of the year for the large sum of £100 per annum.144 The acquisition of such a licence from King Henry, albeit an expensive one, was quite an achievement for a bishop who was a servant of the crown. Bishop William Smith of Lincoln (1496±1514) failed to obtain permission to leave the marches of Wales in order to attend to the pressing needs of his large diocese.145 While Redman's attempts to reside at Exeter for most of the year did not achieve fruition ± though he was in the diocese for much of 1498 and 1500 ± he could claim to have made more of an effort to reside in the Exeter diocese than Bishop Richard Fox, who stated that he never saw his cathedral city.146 Redman's register also indicates that while his vicars-general `®lled in' for his absences, he more than made up for lost time. From October 1497 to October 1501 there are a total of 140 institutions, thirty-nine collations, eighteen inquisitions, nine resignations, two compositiones, three vows of chastity, one examination of an accusation of fornication and adultery, and three permutationes.147 Redman was personally responsible for twenty-four institutions, thirty-eight collations, two inquisitions, two resignations, one compositio, and receiving three vows of chastity. Though the loss of much of the diocesan material for Redman's period at Exeter (including parochial visitation records) makes the present calculation less than complete, Redman's register indicates that he was responsible for almost half of the work of 141

142 143 144 145

146 147

Thomson, The Early Tudor Church and Society, p. 109; Exeter Diocesan Records, Episcopal Register of Bishop Hugh Oldham of Exeter, fols 1±183. The Register of Richard Fox, p. xxv. PRO E101/415/3, fol. 287. Ibid. M. M. Condon, `Ruling Elites in the Reign of Henry VII', Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England, ed. C. Ross (Gloucester, 1979), p. 111. From 1494 onwards, Bishop Smith was a member of the Prince of Wales' council, based in Ludlow: Williams, Renewal and Reformation, p. 53. Letters of Richard Fox, pp. 92ff; The Register of Richard Fox, pp. xv, xviii, xxii±xxv. My calculations do not include ordinations or items that are not attributable to either Redman or his vicars-general, but I include documents where commissions were sent by them to various individuals.


200


his vicars-general. This surely indicates a degree of personal care for the administration of the diocese by a bishop who had many other responsibilities.148 What can we discern about Redman's work as the bishop of Exeter, in addition to the normal business of regulating the diocese's administration and clerical ordination? Apart from Redman receiving the vows of chastity from three widows, which is recorded in his register, there is evidence that he sought to increase devotion in his diocese to the Holy Name of Jesus: though the cult was widespread in the later Middle Ages and had probably established itself in Exeter by Redman's time.149 He wrote a letter at his Chudleigh manor on 18 January 1498 to the clergy of his diocese concerning the Guild of the Holy Name in London.150 Redman sought to assist the procurator or messengers of the guild who presented themselves with the bishop's letter(s) in the diocese and sought to obtain funds from the faithful. The bishop gave the guild generous provisions in order that they could carry out their aims in the diocese: `Christi ®delium elimosinas ad sustentacionem dicte fraternitatis sive gilde nominis Ihesu pie petiturus et collecturus, ipsum, cum favore quo poteritis, admittatis diebus Dominicis et festivis, ac congruis locis et temporibus aliis, ubi Christi ®delium major multitudo convenerit'. The bishop granted an indulgence of forty days to those who confessed and were contrite, and gave any assistance to the guild.151 Another interesting insight into Redman's activity in the liturgical ®eld occurs in the surviving decrees for the bishop's visitation of his cathedral church, on 2 May 1499.152 A predecessor of Redman, Bishop Edmund Lacy (1420±55), instituted a cult in honour of St Raphael the Archangel in 1443, and obtained papal approval for appropriate liturgical texts.153 The feast, held on 5 October, remained popular in Exeter, and during Redman's visitation he acceded to the requests of the dean and chapter for the elevation of the feast day to a higher degree of veneration by raising it to the rank of a medium double (medium duplex). He also made stipulations on the annual performance of the Requiem liturgy for the souls of Bishop Lacy, and two of Lacy's relatives.154 Although Redman's dealings with most of the religious houses in the diocese remain largely unknown, the register contains references to them, 148 149 150

151 152 153

154

For a visitation of Exeter Cathedral by Redman, see the following paragraph. DRO Redman Reg., fol. 36v; Orme, Exeter Cathedral p. 89. Bodl. ASH, fol. 140v; CAP I, 154. J. A. Gribbin, Ìndulgences, Fund-Raising and Piety In Nomine Jesu: A Letter of Bishop Richard Redman of Exeter', Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries vol. 38 (2000), 193±9. The provisions in the letter were valid for a year: ibid. Exeter Cathedral Library, MS 2395. N. Orme, `Two Saint-Bishops of Exeter: James Berkeley and Edmund Lacy', Analecta Bollandiana 104 (1986), 413±16. Exeter Cathedral Library, MS 2395; N. Orme, `Whose Body?', Friends of Exeter Cathedral Annual Report (Exeter, 1996), pp. 14±15. Redman's ordinations indicate the observance of the feast in the Church ± where kept ± as that of `9 lessons': cf. Orme, Exeter Cathedral, p. 89.



201

including `religious' ordinations, collations and institutions to their parishes, including those belonging to the Cistercians of Buckland and Buckfast in Devon, the Benedictine priory of St Germans and the Augustinians of Launceston in Cornwall.155 While the register does not contain òf®cial' Premonstratensian business connected with Redman's position as commissary-general, Colvin's statement that the register contains `no documents connected with the white canons' is not strictly accurate.156 The ordination lists indicate that major and minor orders were bestowed on several canons from Torre, which was within the Exeter diocese.157 The register also records the institutions of several canons to the churches of Townstall and Bradworthy, which were appropriated to the abbey, and the resignation of Roger Lagg, O.Praem. from the latter.158 On carrying out Torre's visitations in 1497 and 1500, Redman carefully drew a distinction between his roles as the local diocesan bishop and that of visitor. In his visitation of 30 November 1497 he arrived with William Silk, in order to explain to the canons, and to the diocese in the person of Silk, acting as an of®cial, that future Exeter bishops were not to visit the abbey, for it would be prejudicial to the ordinances and customs of the order. Redman came to Torre solely as the representative of the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ and effectively left his episcopal authority at the abbey gates while conducting visitations. He obviously wished to avoid initiating a dangerous precedent.159 While Redman was most insistent on this point, it appears that he conducted some diocesan business at the abbey before conducting his 1497 visitation, though this was the only instance when this occurred.160 Redman was not free from run-of-the-mill problems and disputes in his diocese, as enquiries into the right of presentations in his register imply.161 A complaint was sent to the papacy against Redman and his vicar-general in 1500 by one John Hikkys, concerning the delay in his presentation to the parish church of Exminster. It appears that this was due to a query over the right to present a priest for institution at the church by the Augustinians of Plympton. Redman's episcopal register indicates that the bishop resolved the dispute, ten days before a papal mandate commanding an investigation of the matter, was issued.162 Redman also seems to have experienced some 155 156 157

158

159 160 161 162

e.g. DRO Redman Reg., fols 38±43. White Canons, p. 364, n.4. e.g. Redman ordained Brother Peter Smith subdeacon in 1498 (alias Milwarde in the visitation register) and William Mug to the priesthood in the same year (`Philip Mogge'): DRO Redman Reg., fols 38v, 39, 41v±42; Bodl. ASH, fols 112, 116v, 140, 147v; CAP III, 602, 604, 605, 606. DRO Redman Reg., fols 5v, 10v, 11, 28; Bodl. ASH, fols 22, 46v, 79, 112, 139±40; CAP III, 595, 599, 600, 602, 605. Bodl. ASH, fols 140, 147v; CAP III, 605, 606. DRO Redman Reg., fol. 2v. DRO Redman Reg., fols 24ff. CPR XVII (pt 1), p. 299; DRO Redman Reg., fol. 16v.


202


problems with the temporalia of the diocese, the exact nature of which is unknown. A memorandum dated 31 May 1505, indicates that Redman and Henry Dokett, a relative of the bishop, had paid the executors of the late Bishop John Arundel (1502±04), Redman's successor at Exeter, 200 marks, `due by reason of a bond . . . in part payment of a larger sum due to the testator for dilapidation of the bishopric'.163 There is no indication that Redman was deliberately negligent in handling his diocese's temporalia, and the use of the word `dilapidation' should not be taken too literally in every instance. The administration of `temporalities and spiritualities' was generally highly organised in a late medieval diocese.164 It is unclear `how far such fabric problems [i.e. dilapidation by bishops] re¯ected mismanagement and how far they sprang from immediate and more easily recti®able causes.'165 Because bishops were liable to charges of dilapidation, as other clerics were, some dioceses had arrangements whereby previous incumbents, who were translated, would pay their successors a ®xed sum `to cover dilapidations'. This is possibly the case with Redman's `bond'.166 On 26 May 1501, Redman was translated for a ®nal time, to the diocese of Ely.167 Unfortunately little can be said about his four years as bishop here, mainly due to the fact that his Ely episcopal register has not survived.168 There is little evidence that he involved himself to any great extent in the life of the neighbouring Cambridge University. While there is a record of a benefaction of a tablecloth marked with an `R' and six napkins to Queens' College,169 there is no such record for Jesus College, which was closely associated with the bishops of Ely.170 Although nothing of great signi®cance can be gleaned from the Ely diocesan records concerning Redman's relationship with the Benedictines who staffed his cathedral, a list of monastic sign language in a sixteenth-century manuscript from Ely is 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

170

CCR Hen. VII (II), p. 192; PRO Prob.11/14, fol. 301. Swanson, Èpiscopal Income', pp. 520±30; Macfarlane, William Elphinstone, p. 226. Thomson, The Early Tudor Church and Society, pp. 59±60. Swanson, Church and Society, p. 82 and n.151. CPR XVII, pt 1, p. 395; Cal. Pat. Hen. VII (II), pp. 253, 265. Smith, The Bishops' Registers, p. 71. BRUC, p. 476. One is tempted to suggest that the tablecloth Redman gave with the letter `R', could have been in memory of Richard III, whom Redman served devotedly. The former king was a benevolent patron towards Cambridge University: W. G. Searle, History of Queens' College Cambridge, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1867±71): I, pp. 89± 90; R. B. Dobson, `Richard III and the Church of York', Kings and Nobles in the Later Middle Ages: A Tribute to Charles Ross, eds R. A. Grif®ths and J. Sherborne (Gloucester and New York, 1986), p. 140, n.50. I am grateful for the assistance of the archivist of Jesus College Cambridge. A search of the Ely diocesan records in the Cambridge University Library and enquiries made to Ely Cathedral, have brought nothing to light.



203

thought to bear Redman's in¯uence.171 The list's contents and overall character suggest that it originated from an external source, as it is more akin to monastic sign lists used by the Augustinian canons rather than those of a Benedictine community.172 David Sherlock has proposed that Redman probably introduced it, mainly because of his insistence on silence, `the key to our religious life', during his Premonstratensian visitations. Redman, as a conscientious visitor, could feasibly have taken an interest in the internal life of the monks of Ely.173 Nevertheless the list's attribution to Redman must be viewed with some uncertainty, as there is nothing peculiarly Premonstratensian about it. Redman's insistence on silence, strict though it was, can be paralleled with what the Premonstratensian Statutes stipulated and cannot be advanced as evidence that Redman was responsible for the list's introduction.174 Redman's interest in the Premonstratensians had not abated at this time, despite his advanced years, possibly now into his seventies or even eighties. On 24 May 1503, while at Beauchief, Redman wrote to the canons of Barlings, informing them that he would assist at an abbatial election at the abbey. He planned to conduct several visitations in the same year, some of which he accomplished. He also wrote to all the English Premonstratensian abbots at his episcopal palace on 20 May 1504, commanding them to attend a provincial chapter on 5 August at Nottingham.175 By this time his life was drawing to a close. He died, at Ely Place, his of®cial episcopal residence in London, on 24 August 1505.176 How does one sum up the career and character of Richard Redman? As a bishop he appears to have been hardworking and conscientious, as far as his Exeter episcopacy is concerned. When living in Exeter, Redman did not leave certain routine matters to his able diocesan of®cials who generally regulated his see well when other duties took him èxtra diocesim'. However he did not reside in the Exeter diocese to the extent that he wished. Redman was not devoid of political and regional loyalties, and proved to have been a useful servant of the crown, in particular to Richard III, whose regime he supported wholeheartedly. In time he eventually became a loyal and trusted servant to Henry VII, despite his alleged involvement in the Lambert Simnel affair. Perhaps the leniency which Redman was shown in the changeable political climate of Henry's early reign is evidence of his 171

172 173

174 175

176

The list (Lambeth Palace Library MS 448, fols 103v±205v) has been edited: Signs for Silence: The Sign Language of the Monks of Ely in the Middle Ages, ed. D. Sherlock (Ely, 1992). Signs for Silence, p. 6. Ibid., pp. 6, 17±18. For examples of parlours in Premonstratensian houses: Clapham, `The Architecture of the Premonstratensians', pp. 128±9, 130, 132, 134, 140, 144. Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ II, pp. 67±8. BL PECK I, fols 96±7; Bodl. ASH, fols 61, 155, 157, 159, 159v, 160, 160v, 162; CAP I, 68, 94: II, 219, 427: III, 541, 676. White Canons, p. 364; Cal. Pat. Hen. VII (II), p. 514.


204


Plate 10. Ef®gy of Bishop Richard Redman from his tomb at Ely Cathedral abilities, though he never occupied the highest posts of authority in government, like Richard Fox. His hard work and conscientiousness were displayed in a particular way throughout the many years in which he guided the English white canons, by authority devolved from PreÂmontreÂ, and in the manner in which he sought to balance a myriad of responsibilities upon his shoulders, in serving church and state. His remarkable visitation register, displaying both his successes and failures in raising the standard of observance in each Premonstratensian abbey, remains overall a testimony to his achievements, and illustrates his ®delity to his order throughout his life. As a bishop he preferred to recite the Premonstratensian liturgical of®ce than a secular one.177 He lies to this day in a magni®cent perpendicular tomb near the high altar of Ely Cathedral, as 177

CPR XIII, pt 2, pp. 797±8.



205

he stipulated in his will, and not in a Premonstratensian abbey.178 Yet both venues would be ®tting resting places for this son of the Church and Premonstratensian abbot.

178

Apart from leaving money for his funeral and liturgical commemorations (£150 in toto), towards the fabric of Ely Cathedral (100 marks), and to the prior (40s) and Benedictine community of Ely (6s 8d to each monk) for the performance of his Requiem and funeral liturgies ± and `xxti[ . . .?]' to be distributed to the poor on the day of his burial ± the benefactions in Redman's will are largely to religious communities in his diocese, mainly to nunneries: e.g. the customary bequest to the four mendicant friars, at Cambridge (20s), 40s to the Benedictine nuns at Chatteris, and 20s to the Poor Clares at Denney. Most of his belongings, including his domestic animals, silver and gold vessels, and the `stuff of [the] household', he left to Shap Abbey. Redman's will is dated 18 August 1505: PRO Prob.11/14, f. 301. For the liturgical prayers offered `pro fratre vel abbate defuncto' of the Premonstratensian order, see Le Liber Ordinarius, pp. 389±93.

c:/sjGribbin/concl.3d ± 2/10/0 ± 10:50 ± B&B/SJ

Conclusion: From Cessation to Dissolution With the passing of Richard Redman in 1505 came the end of an era for the English white canons. For over forty years, Redman visited and governed the Premonstratensian abbeys. As a group of medieval religious, the white canons exhibited many of the frailties common to humanity, some more than others, but they were not, as a body, wholly depraved or completely devoid of spiritual motivation: back-sliding and mediocrity, of varying degrees, were more prevalent tendencies. The English Premonstratensians were not in a state of terminal decline. Òra, labora, vita communis' are evident in the pages of Redman's visitation register, in greater measure in some abbeys (about a third of them) and much less so in several others. Generally speaking, the ideal for which each canon was supposedly striving, namely the praise of God on earth and the `premium gloriae' in Heaven, was no easy task, even for those who may have possessed deeper spiritual resources and greater will-power to perform the daily monastic observances, than others.1 There were undoubtedly canons who perhaps had no genuine vocation to religious life, as evidenced by their misdemeanours. Yet their behaviour may not only be indicative of disdain for the religious state (acidia), or even boredom, but also deep unhappiness and personal tragedy in individual cases, which should evoke sympathy.2 The society in which the late medieval English Premonstratensians lived contrasts markedly, in many respects, with that of their twelfth- and thirteenth-century predecessors. Though the white canons were bound to observe the 1290 statutes with supplementary legislation in the later Middle Ages, mitigations and, perhaps, necessary adaptations to the age were prevalent, though not all-pervading. Redman sought to disallow these if he thought they militated against the ethos and statutes of the order, as we have seen in his prohibition of secular clothing. Yet even he accepted certain mitigations, such as meat-eating and the adoption of the `cut', if not the colour of the Augustinian canons' habit. The substantial maintenance of the Premonstratensian liturgy by Redman and the provincial chapters allowed for the in¯uence and coexistence of certain cults and feasts of the Ecclesia Anglicana. Nevertheless, in all these matters, the English white canons maintained their own identity as a distinctive religious order, which 1

2

`®li, accedens ad servitutem Dei . . . et praepara animam tuam ad tentationem': Eccles., 2:1; La ReÁgle de Saint Augustin, p. 437. See Donald Logan's sensitive comments on apostates: Logan, Runaway Religious, pp. xiv±xv.


CONCLUSION

207

was so important to religious congregations of that age, and also maintained links and communications with PreÂmontreÂ, albeit infrequently. Redman, as commissary-general, played an important role in this, as his surviving correspondence with, and queries directed to, the abbot-general shows. Colvin indicates that Redman avoided any major dispute with PreÂmontreÂ while he was commissary-general.3 This was not only due to Redman's diplomacy when dealing with the abbot-general, but perhaps also to a sense of loyalty for the order, which his numerous, and arduous visitations attest to. He did not address himself òn equal terms' when communicating with the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ, as has been suggested, but merely as the àbbas et minister monasterii de Schappe'.4 Indeed, with Redman's death an era in English Premonstratensian history had passed, for while the internal regulation of the English circaries continued under his successors Abbot Thomas Wilkinson of Welbeck (1505±08, 1509±11 onwards) and Abbot William Curlew of Langley (1508±09) ± though not without dif®culties and some instability, as we shall see ± their stable, if infrequent relationship with the abbot-general only lasted another seven years. While Redman is more notable for his successes, he also had his failings, one of which was the non-payment of the `tallies' (tallia) to PreÂmontreÂ.5 The abbot-general, John de L'EÂcluse (1497±1512) was faced by a ®nancial crisis within the order, due to heavy debts. Attendance at the general chapter had fallen, and a number of circaries, including those of Germany and Spain, as well as the English, were the main defaulters in non-payment of the tallies.6 It was perhaps due more to desperation on L'EÂcluse's part than a deliberate intention to adopt a militant stance on the issue, at least initially, which prompted more decisive action against the English. In 1501 he sought a cardinal and a procurator to represent the order's interests in Rome. Two years before Redman's death William Enckevoirt, a canon of Notre Dame of Antwerp was appointed to obtain powers from the papacy to compel the English and the Scots canons to pay an annual sum of 40 golden crowns to PreÂmontreÂ. By 1507 Daniel Taypfel, from the abbey of St Augustine in TheÂrouanne, replaced Enckevoirt, and with the collaboration of the order's Cardinal Protector, he sought to make the English pay the tally. Aware of regal prohibitions against foreign payments, the 1508 general chapter sent a letter to the English king 3 4 5

6

White Canons, p. 227. Ibid.; Bodl. ASH, fol. 87; CAP I, 51. See pp. 18±19. The following account of the cessation of the English white canons from PreÂmontreÂ in 1512, is extracted from White Canons, pp. 227±31 and Valvekens, `La Situation FinancieÁre du Chapitre GeÂneÂral', pp. 137±88 passim. However I have added some overlooked evidence on the somewhat complicated circumstances surrounding the deposition of the abbot of Langley and other information from Acta O. Praem. II, and elsewhere. Some of this material is brie¯y summarised in Monast. Praem. II, p. 21, n.16. I also propose that the break with PreÂmontreÂ was not a foregone conclusion. Here the term `general chapter' refers to that held by PreÂmontreÂ. Valvekens, `La Situation FinancieÁre du Chapitre GeÂneÂral', pp. 138ff.


208


asking permission that their English monasteries pay a `minorem contributionem' for the order's bene®t. A similar letter was also sent to the bishop of Norwich, in whose diocese the commissary-general's abbey (Langley) was situated.7 It is clear from the general chapter's Acta that the English Premonstratensians did not, at that time, contemplate papal exemption from PreÂmontreÂ's control, despite the latter's actions. They were preoccupied with acting against their commissary-general, Abbot Curlew of Langley, whose conduct was unsatisfactory. In 1509 (9 May) the abbot of Beeleigh was actually present at the general chapter in France, probably acting as a representative of the English canons in the matter. The chapter Acta relate that the abbot of Sulby appealed against certain grave charges made against him by Abbot Curlew. Two foreign abbots were appointed to investigate the charges, and to report on the matter to the chapter. The abbot of Barlings, who was pronounced contumacious and excommunicated by Curlew, was found to be innocent by the chapter, and Abbot Wilkinson of Welbeck, `modernum visitatorem', was authorised to absolve him.8 It also states that twenty-®ve English abbots believed that the abbot (`nuper Abbatem') of Langley was un®t (`minus idoneum') to carry out his of®ce, and committed many grave crimes, and ought to be convicted. From English sources we know that a writ de excommunicato capiendo had been issued in January of the same year against Curlew `sometime abbot' of Langley.9 The general chapter revoked Curlew's commission. Apart from his crimes, it was then said that Curlew was deprived of his abbatial dignity by Abbot Wilkinson `tunc visitatorem', and replaced by John Maxey as abbot. However Maxey was forcibly ejected from Langley by Curlew.10 The general chapter felt unable to make a decision on the matter, due to the complexity of the evidence submitted to it. It decided to establish a commission, consisting of the abbots of Leiston, Croxton and Wendling, to conduct again the process of Curlew's deposition, made by the abbot of Welbeck. If deposition was appropriate, it was to be approved 7

8 9

10

Acta O. Praem. II, p. 111; Valvekens, `La Chapitre GeÂneÂral de PreÂmontreÂ', p. 78, n.14; Valvekens, `La Situation FinancieÁre du Chapitre GeÂneÂral', pp. 150±2. Acta O. Praem. II, pp. 116, 120±1, 124; White Canons, p. 228, n.2. Acta O. Praem. II, p. 121; Logan, Runaway Religious, p. 238. See Religious Orders III, p. 43 on Curlew's notorious career. An undated document in the Welbeck register (c.1509±11?) sent to Abbot Maxey, Curlew's successor, and two Langley canons, by Abbot Wilkinson of Welbeck, `commissarius generalis', relates that Curlew, the late abbot, was to appear before him at a provincial chapter held at Nottingham on 9 April next. This letter may refer to events prior to the 1509 central general chapter, though Wilkinson is styled as commissary: BL PECK II, fol. 43; CAP III, 481; Bodl. MS Eng.Hist. D.227, p. 27. èt loco eius [i.e. Curlew] frater Iohannes Maxia in dicto monasterio suffectus, et exinde per dictum Willelmum [Curlew] violenter expulsus': Acta O. Praem. II, p. 121. From subsequent events, it is possible that Welbeck was jealous of Langley's commission.


CONCLUSION

209

by the general chapter, and a pension (!) was to be given to Curlew. John Maxey was not to be elected or provided as abbot of Langley, unless he was found to be worthy of abbatial dignity, and Abbot Wilkinson, who was appointed visitor for three years, was not to visit Langley until the whole matter had been concluded.11 In 1510 no less than three English abbots, from Welbeck, Leiston and Langley (John Maxey?), appeared at the general chapter at Saint Quentin. Abbot Wilkinson even celebrated the ®rst chapter mass, and the abbot of Leiston celebrated the second.12 Again, intrigue over William Curlew caused these abbots to cross the English Channel. Several judicial sessions on the matter were held at the chapter, and the Acta reveals that Maxey, supported by Abbot Wilkinson, and Curlew both contested the abbacy of Langley.13 Once more the complicated nature of the evidence presented led, in effect, to the chapter postponing its decision on the matter, and it is evident that the process of dragging a case of deposition to the general chapter was considered unsatisfactory. The chapter noted that such procedures caused scandal and indicated that because the English circaries were distant, they rarely visited the chapter (`vix raro visitatur'). The English visitor was basically told to conduct the appropriate juridical procedures at home, and to send the results to the chapter or the patres abbates at PreÂmontreÂ for judgment.14 The matter of Curlew's deposition was probably brought directly to PreÂmontreÂ because he had been commissary-general, for Redman had personally deposed abbots, according to the statutes, or removed them from governing their abbeys.15 Abbot Thomas Waite of Leiston had apparently been excommunicated by Abbot Wilkinson for not attending the provincial chapter, and was ordered by that body to go to the general chapter with Wilkinson.16 Waite must have had a suf®ciently good, though unspeci®ed, reason for his actions, because the general chapter excused his attendance at the provincial chapter for six years, but he had to send a proctor and pay towards the chapter's expenses and other payments.17 In 1511 the chapter approved of the sentence given by the abbot of Leiston and Walter Stone, acting as commissaries of the abbots of PreÂmontreÂ, Laon and Cuissy, ìn causa . . . inter fratrem Iohannem Max[ey] ex una actorem, et dominum Willelmum Cullew [sic] abbatem de Langleya partem ream et querelatam, [sic] ex altera partibus'.18 However of greater 11 12 13 14 15 16

17

18

Acta O. Praem. II, pp. 121±2. Ibid., pp. 129±30. Ibid., II, pp. 133, 134, 140±1; White Canons, p. 409. Acta O. Praem. II, pp. 138, 140±1. Bodl. ASH, fols 27v, 34v; CAP III, 469, 634. Acta O. Praem. II, p. 136. The acts of this provincial chapter (ante-1510) are not extant. Acta O. Praem. II, p. 140. Leiston was also to submit to the authority of, and visitations by, the pater abbas, who was Abbot Wilkinson of Welbeck: ibid. Acta O. Praem. II, p. 151; cf. ibid., pp. 140±1. Maxey was abbot of Langley until c.1516: White Canons, p. 409.


210


signi®cance was the removal of Abbot Wilkinson as visitor in England. The `certas rationabiles causas' which prompted the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ to take direct control of the English circaries are not explicitly stated, but were undoubtedly connected with the opposition of the English canons to Taypfel's efforts in Rome to force them to pay the tallies. It also appears that abbots from Spain and Germany, who were in a similar situation to the English prelates, went to Rome to consult the latter on the possibility of complete independence from PreÂmontreÂ's jurisdiction, to avoid paying the tallia.19 The English Premonstratensians, at this time, adopted the same view, and a papal bull was obtained in 1512, granting them complete autonomy from PreÂmontreÂ, giving all authority to the abbot of Welbeck, the power to hold general chapters, to make legislation and conduct visitations. To secure the bull, the English Premonstratensians and King Henry VIII argued ± in a somewhat ostensible manner ± that the canons could not conveniently travel to PreÂmontreÂ to resolve `various contentions and causes occurring in those parts', due to distance, `the dangers of the sea', `heavy and immoderate expenses' and `many other impediments'. `Swift expedition' of their business ± the demise of which caused them great loss ± could be done in England, according to the law and their order's institutes.20 The death of Abbot de L'EÂcluse in the same year, and hostility between Pope Julius II and L'EÂcluse's successor, Jacques de Bachimont (1512), because of his attendance at the schismatic second Council of Pisa (1511) and conciliarism, may also have enabled the English to win their case.21 Similar moves were made among the English Cistercians, spurred on by the actions of the white canons, but were opposed by Abbot Huby of Fountains. A letter from Huby to the abbot of CõÃteaux (8 August 1517) reveals more information on how the English Premonstratensians became autonomous. Huby relates that the English Premonstratensian abbots obtained their independence at great expense, and with the aid of Cardinal Christopher Bainbridge of York (1508±14), the English ambassador to the Holy See, and a man of considerable in¯uence in the papal curia. Huby also comments that the Premonstratensians' actions were a bad (`perniciosum') example to all the other (exempt) religious orders.22 19

20 21 22

Acta O. Praem. II, p. 155; Valvekens, `La Situation FinancieÁre du Chapitre GeÂneÂral', p. 153. CPR XIX, pp. 439±40. Foedera XIII, pp. 338±9; White Canons, p. 229, n.1. White Canons, p. 228. `Tale quid in Anglia infra octavos [?] annos elapsos inter Abbates premonstratensis ordinis contingebat super pluralitate commissionum et commissariorum, que sicut leniter pententibus concesse fuerant, ita eciam breviter inconsulta deliberacione revocate fuerant. Ex quo facto invicem adversantes tandem tot laboribus et expensis fatigati, convenerunt in unum adversus Dominum Abbatem et supremum capud illius ordinis confederati, et per media Domini Eboracensis Cardinalis defuncti [i.e. Christopher Bainbridge n 1514] in Romana curia permaximam solventes pecuniarum summam, seipsos et monasteria sua in Anglia ab obediencia et superioritate domini Abbatis generalis illius religionis sequestrarunt. Ac eciam exempcionem pro perpetuo


CONCLUSION

211

Was the acquisition of complete independence by the English Premonstratensians a foregone conclusion in the later Middle Ages, considering their devolved internal government? Moves towards this on the part of some abbots in 1432 certainly occurred, but failed.23 Once again, however, correspondence between Redman and PreÂmontreÂ, and his general maintenance of Premonstratensian `structures' within the English circaries would generally rule out a predetermined àutonomy plan'. Even the appearance of three English abbots at the 1510 general chapter at Saint Quentin, and the lengthy business that was conducted there, would seem to imply that independence was not an immediate consideration, despite their opposition to payment of the tallia. Colvin's suggestion that one of the factors which widened the gap between the English canons and PreÂmontreÂ, and culminated in independence in 1512 was `the incipient nationalism which made possible the breach with Rome [at the Henrician Reformation]', is very unlikely. One should consider the maintenance of relations between the English canons and PreÂmontreÂ ± despite royal prohibitions towards paying foreign subsidies ± and recent research on what were generally stable relations between England and Rome prior to Henry VIII's divorce proceedings.24 Another suggestion that the history of the English white canons in the later Middle Ages ìs, in fact, like that of their Cluniac brethren, `à record of their struggle to shake off the yoke of the French mother-house'' ', is unsatisfactory. Though the Cluniac vicar-general in England possessed similar powers to Redman's among the white canons, the gradual acquisition by some English Cluniac houses of independence from Cluny from the beginning of the ®fteenth century until all the abbeys were exempt in 1490, bears little resemblance to the history of the English Premonstratensians.25 The in¯uence of the Spanish and German abbots c.1511, along with the support of Cardinal Bainbridge in the papal curia, could have been signi®cant determining factors which prompted the English abbots, under Abbot Wilkinson, to seek autonomy as a solution to their problems. The removal of Wilkinson's position as òf®cial' commissary-general, possibly in connection with English opposition to the tallies, undoubtedly exacerbated the situation, and hardened the resolve of the English canons to overcome PreÂmontreÂ's authority in Rome.26 Only in hindsight is it possible to see that

23 24 25

26

procurantes, seipsos obediencie summi ponti®cis submiserunt in perniciosum exemplum omnium aliarum religionum': Letters from the English Abbots, p. 251; D. S. Chambers, Cardinal Bainbridge in the Court of Rome 1509±1514 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 93± 4, 98; Religious Orders III, pp. 34±5. Above, p. 15. White Canons, p. 215; Swanson, Church and Society, pp. 11±16. White Canons, p. 215; R. Graham, English Ecclesiastical Studies (London, 1929), pp. 62± 90. Attempts to obtain complete independence from PreÂmontreÂ, or a degree of autonomy, by several abbots in 1432, and Alnwick in 1477, may have been the only exceptions to this: see pp. 15, 182±3. See the extract (n.22 above) from Huby's letter concerning `commissionum et


212


the devolved government of the English circaries, and the factors which led to this, were to become the potential seed-ground for moves towards complete autonomy: and this despite their white habit and the order's distinctive liturgy. Sustained efforts made by PreÂmontreÂ to bring their English abbeys to heel after 1512 culminated in a lifting of the papal exemption in 1531; but by then it was too late. The failure of Henry VIII to gain a papal annulment of his marriage to Queen Katherine, and his desire to ®ll the royal coffers, led to the gradual dissolution of England's religious houses, and thus the end of the Premonstratensian abbeys.27

27

commissariorum'. This possibly refers to the removal of the commissions granted to the abbots of Langley and Welbeck. Acta O. Praem. II, pp. 185±6, 198, 212±13, 250, 274±5: III, p. 7; Valvekens, `La Situation FinancieÁre du Chapitre GeÂneÂral', pp. 154±5, 161±2, 171. For selected references on the fate of some of the white canons after the Dissolution and the `Pilgrimage of Grace': CPL XI, pp. 311±12, 324; The State of Ex-Religious and Former Chantry Priests in the Diocese of Lincoln 1547±1574, ed. G. A. J. Hodgett, Lincoln Record Society 53 (1959), pp. 36, 37, 58, 83, 100, 115, 145, 147; Bowker, The Henrician Reformation, pp. 108, 154±5; Cross and Vickers, Monks, Friars and Nuns, pp. 355±6, 360±6, 366±9. On Bayham's dissolution in 1525, see J. Goring, `The Riot at Bayham Abbey, June 1525', Sussex Archaeological Collections 116, The Sussex Archaeological Society (1978).

c:/sjGribbin/ap1.3d ± 2/10/0 ± 10:44 ± B&B/SJ

Appendix One The Visitation Itineraries of Richard Redman in Bodleian Library MS Ashmole 1519 What follows is a transcription for the ®rst time of all Richard Redman's visitation itineraries, in his Premonstratensian visitation register (ASH). While H. M. Colvin transcribed and made some private notes (not for publication) from them ± which he kindly gave the author ± and at least the ®rst itinerary from 1500 was fully transcribed by W. Farrer (The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey III, pt 3, pp. 4143±4), it was felt that all the itineraries should be re-edited with a fresh examination of the manuscript. I am indebted to Colvin and Farrer's work on these and their usefulness in making the new transcriptions. I have capitalised place names and proper names and used my own punctuation. Certain capital letters have been reduced to the lower case and vice versa. The scribe[s] interchangeable use of ù' and `v' has been standardised where appropriate, but `t's' and `c's' (etc.) have not been modernised. Minor erasures by the scribe[s] have not been noted. Dates in roman numerals have invariably been capitalised and arabic numerals refer to the footnotes. While many of the place names in the itineraries will be obvious some may not be, and the reader is referred to E. Ekwall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names (Oxford, 1960), and Monast. Praem. II for variant readings of them. Where omission marks contained in the place names do not clearly render the scribe[s] intended extension of those words ± into English, or Latinised English words in some cases ± the omission mark alone will be indicated by an apostrophe. However in certain cases it has been thought best to decide the extension of a place name arbitrarily. One should note the scribe[s] irregularity in the spelling of place names and words; e.g. èxpensis' and èxspensis'. Most of the itineraries were clearly written by Robert Bedalle, Redman's companion on many of his visitations, and erasures and corrections, as well as the handwriting, indicate that the itineraries were speedily written in many instances and also certain modi®cations Redman made to intended journeys. The itineraries are arranged in chronological order, and have been formatted in such a way as to facilitate easier reading. Further information is given in Chapter Two. I wish to express my gratitude to the Bodleian Library, the University of Oxford, for permission to reproduce the following transcriptions.


214

APPENDIX ONE

[1478] [fol. 9] Progressus visitacionis reverendissimi patris Ricardi Assavensis episcopi qui de diocesys [s]ua Assavensis equitando. Incepit visitacionem sua[m] in monasterio de Hales Owen auctoritate reverendissime patris et domini Huberti Prem[onstratensis] abbatis xxo [die] mensis Maij Anno Domini MoCCCCLXXVIIJo; et dicte rever[endissimi] patris consecracionis anno sexto et sic prosequendo ut inferius patet per omnes circarios [et] partes infra regnum Anglie et Wallie ductore[m] domino intendentes dicte visitationem deducer[ . . .] essemus [?]. Mensis Maij. xixo die Maii apud Lichfeld pernoctare expensis abbatis de Halesowen et die xxo hora prandij eiusdem mensis apud Halesowen [ . . .] dei gratia propris [?] xi. xxijo die apud Burton super Trente pernoctare expensis abbatis de Dale et xxiijo die hora prandij apud Dale. xxvto die apud Chesterfeld pernoctare expensis abbatis de Beuchefe et xxvjto die hora prandij apud Bewchefe. xxviijo die apud Donkast' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Welbek et xxix die hora prandij apud Welbek. Mensis Junij. Primo die Junij apud Glameforth bryg pernoctare expensis abbatis de Newhouse et ijo die apud Newson hora capitulari. iiijto die apud Lowthe pernoctare expensis abbatis de Hagneby et quinto die hora prandij apud Hagneby. vijo die hora cene apud Barlynges et ibidem esse usque xmo diem ad nonam. x die apud Thopholme hora cene et ibidem esse usque xijmo diem ad nonam. xijo die apud Lincoln' pernoctare sumptibus abbatis de Thopholme. o

xiijo die hora prandij apud Brodholme et apud Newark eadem nocte pernoctare expensis abbatis de Newbo et xiiijo die hora prandij apud Neubo. / [fol. 9v] xvmo die hora cene apud Croxton et die xviijo Leycetyr pernoctare expensis abbatis de Croxton. xixa die hora prandij apud Sulby et die xxjo apud Northampton pernoctare expensis abbatis de Sulby.


VISITATION ITINERARIES OF RICHARD REDMAN

215

xxijo die hora capitulari apud Lawenden et die xxiijo apud Huntyngton pernoctare expensis abbatis de Lawenden. In festo Sancti Johanne Baptiste apud Cantabrigiam ante nonam et ibidem hac die quiescere propter reverenciam festi expensis propriis. xxvto die apud Mildnall' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Derham1 et die xxvjto apud Derham hora prandij. xxviijo die hora cene apud Wenlyng et ultimo die Junii apud Norwych pernoctare expensis abbatis de Wenlyng. Mensis Julij. Primo die Julij hora capitulari apud Langley et iijo die hora prandij apud Bekkylles expensis abbatis de Langley et eadem nocte apud Leyston. iijo [sic] die hora cene apud Leyston et vjto die pernoctare apud Colchest' expensis abbatis de Leyston. vijo die apud Bylegh hora prandij et ixo procedendo usque Tylberyferye deinde usque Rochest' eodem ixo die pernoctare sumptibus abbatis de Bylegh. xo die apud Cantuariam pernoctare expensis abbatis de Langdon et die xjo hora cene apud Langdon. xiijo die hora cene apud monasterium Sancte Radegundis et xvo die pernoctare apud Ashforth expensis abbatis Sancte Radegundis. xvjo die hora cene apud Begham et die xviijo apud Lewse pernoctare, expensis abbatis de Begham. / [fol. 10] xixo die apud Arondale pernoctare expensis abbatis de Techfeld et die xxo hora cene apud Techfeld et ibidem esse in festo Marie Magdal[ene]. xxiijo die hora cene apud Dureford et die xxvto apud Wynchest' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Dureford. xxvjto die apud Saylsbery pernoctare expensis propriis et die xxviijo apud Exetyr pernoctare expensis abbatis de Torr'. xxixo die apud Torr' hora cene et quiescere ibidem usque tertiam [sic] diem Augusti et viijo die Augustus [sic] apud London et ibidem pro circaria boriali ulteriora dirige [?].2

1 2

Derham = West Dereham Abbey. [ . . .]homo (?) written in smaller writing below the above.


216

APPENDIX ONE

[1481?]3 [fol. 24] xxviijmo [sic] [die Julij] apud Arandall' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Durforth. Deinde xxixno [die] hora vespertina apud Durforth et penultimo visitare et ultimo die mensis Julij ibidem dif®nire et pernoctare apud Tychfeld; primo die Augusti visitare et secundo die ibidem dif®nire et iijo die apud Salesbery pernoctare expensis abbatis de Tychfeld. Deinde iiijto die apud Schafftbery hora cene ibidem pernoctare expensis proprijs. Deinde vto die apud Exiter ibidem pernoctare expensis abbatis de Torr'. Deinde vjto die hora vespertina apud Tor' et vijmo die visitare et viij ibidem dif®nire. Deinde ad Schapp' vel ad London' et ibidem in pace quiescere. [1486?] [fol. 47] Progressus venerabilis [sic] patris Ricardi Assavensis episcopi. In primis xviij mensis Maij apud monasterium de Egliston hora cene; crastino die visitare et xx die dif®nire et eodem die pernoctare apud Durham', expensis abbatis de Alnwyke4 et apud Alnwyke xxij die hora prandij.5* Et abbati [sic] de Blankalanda visitandi in domo fratrum Carmelitarum xxvj [die] hora novena.5* Et xxvij die apud monasterium de Sancta Agatha6 hora vespertina vel circiter; premittentur [sic] unum de vestris apud Durham' xxvj die mensis prefate, etc. [1488] [fol. 64v] Progressus visitacionis reverendissimi patris Ricardi Redmayn Assavensis episcopi qui a diocesis sua Assavensis equitando. Inciperit visitacionem suam in monasterio de Haleshewen [sic] auctoritate reverendissime patris et domini Huberti Premonstratensis abbatis. xiij die mensis Maij apud Lechfeld quo inpransi et ibidem pernoctare expensis abbatis de Halesowen. Et deinde usque prefatum monasterium hora prandij vel circiter, videlicet xiiij die mensis Maij et in crastino7 3 4 5*

6 7

At the top right of the itinerary is written JHc, a monogram for the Holy Name. de Egliston' is scored out here. The words vel circiter occur in such a position on the manuscript that they may follow after either place where indicated. Sancta Agatha = Easby Abbey. xv added above crastino.



217

intrare capitulum et die veneris dif®nire8 et per diem et noctem ibidem exspectare. Et in xvij die mensis predicti apud Lechfeld pernoctare expensis abbatis de Dall' et in xviij die apud Dall' hora cene et in crastinum capitulum intrare, et videlicet [sic] xix die; et in xx die dif®nire per totamque illam diem ibidem quiescere et in xxj die apud Welbeke hora cene et in crastino intrare capitulum et xxiij die dif®nire et ibidem illa die quiescere. Insuper apud Bewcheffe xxiiij [die] inpransi hora prandij vel circiter et in crastino capitulum intrare et xxvj die dif®nire et illa di[em] ibidem propter solemmpnitatem [sic] quiescere. Item: xxvij [die] apud Doncast' pernoctare exspensis abbatis de Bewcheffe. xxviij que die inp[r]ansi apud Glamfordbrige pernoctare exspensis abbatis de Neuhous et deind[e] usque Neuhous hora prandij et xxx die capitulum intrare; ac ultimo9 die mensis Maij dif®nire. Primo etiam die mensis Junij apud Hyrforde hora capitulari vel circiter et eodem die visitare et pernoctare apud Lowth expensis abbatis de Hangby. Et deinde secundo die eiusdem mensis hora prandij vel circiter apud Hangby et eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire et illam diem [sic] ibidem quiescere. Et iiijto die apud Barlinges inpransi hora vespertina; in crastino intrare capitulum. Et vj die dif®nire et ibidem quiescere. Et deinde [vij die?] apud Topholme hora prandij vel circiter, eodem que die capitulum intrare et viij die dif®nire et ibidem quiescere. Et ix die eiusdem mensis apud Lyncoln' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Topholme. x que die apud hora capitulari apud Brodholm' et eodem die visitare et pernoctare apud Neuwarke expensis abbati[s] de Neubo; et xj die apud Neubo hora capitulari, eodem die visitare et post nonam dif®nire. Item: xij die apud hora capitulari [sic] Croxton10 eodem die visitare et in crastino dif®nire et per illam diem quiescere. Item: in crastino xiiij die apud Laycist' expensis abbatis de Croxton. Et xv die apud Sulby hora cene et in crastino visitare et xvij die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Nor[t]hampton' expensis abbatis de Sulby. xviij die hora prandij apud Lavenden eodem die visitare et in crastino dif®nire et ibidem illa die quiescere. xx die pernoctare apud Huntyngton inpransi expensis abbatis de Lavenden. Deinde apud Hely xxj die ibidem pernoctare expensis abbatis de 8 9 10

xvj written above dif®nire. xxxj scored out. Two // strokes above Croxton and apud previously.


218

APPENDIX ONE

Westderham et xxij die hora cene apud Westderham, in crastino visitare et xxiiij die dif®nire et ibidem quiescere propter solempnitatem festi, videlicet Johannis Baptiste. Et xxv die apud Walsingham' hora cene expensis abbatis de Wenlinge; et xxvj die hora prandij apud Wenlinge eodem die visitare et in crastino dif®nire et ibidem quiescere. Et deinde apud Norwich inpransi et ibidem pernoctare expensis abbatis de Langley. In crastino apud Langley hora cene ultimo que die mensis predicti visitare et primo die mensis Julij dif®nire et ibidem requiescere. Secundo die apud Leyston hora cene et in crastino visitare et iiijto die dif®nire et ibidem quiescere. Et deinde usque Colch/ [fol. 65] [-ester?] inpransi ibidem pernoctare expensis abbatis de Leyston. Et in crastino apud Bylegh hora cene et in crastino visitare et viij die dif®nire et ibidem quiescere. Deinde que ix die apud Rochest' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Bylegh et x die mensis predicti apud Cantuar' expensis abbatis de Langdon. xj que die apud Langdon hora prandij, eodem die visitare et in crastino dif®nire et pernoctare apud Sanctam Radegund' [sic]; in crastino visitare et xiiij die dif®nire et ibidem quiescere. Et xv die apud Rochest' expensis abbatia [sic] Sancte Radegundis. Et xvj die apud Begham hora cene in crastino visitare et in xviij [die] dif®nire et ibidem quiescere. Et xix die apud Lewce expensis abbatis de Begham et xx die apud Arandall'. Item: xxj die apud Techfeld hora cene in crastino visitare et in xxiij die dif®nire et ibidem quiescere. Deinde usque Durford inpransi hora prandij vel circiter, videlicet xxiiij die, crastino visitare et xxvj die dif®nire. a11 monasterio de Halesowen usque Schrowysbey [sic] xxx miliaria, videlicet usque ad Brige north xv miliaria, deinde usque Shorsbery L [sic] miliaria; a monasterio Hales Owen usque Stavford [sic] xx miliaria. Deinde usque Sten' xvj [miliaria]. Deinde usque in Chest' xiiij [sic] [miliaria]. [1491] [fol. 141v] xij die May apud Lechfeld pernoctare expensis abbatis de Halesowen,12* crastina die hora prandij vel circiter inpransi apud Ha[lesowen]; xiiij die capitulum intrare et xv die dif®nire. 11

12*

These lines are written at the bottom right-hand side of the list and are separated from the 1481 Cockersand name list by a line. + is written above these abbeys.



219

xx die Maij apud Excet' pernoctare inpransi expensis abbatis de Tore. Crastina die hora prandij vel circiter inpransi apud T[orre] et ibidem quiescere propter solempnitatem festi Pentecostes. xxvj die apud Excet' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Tore. xxvij [die] apud Evyll. xxviij die apud Salesber[y?] inpransi expensis abbatis de Techfeld et ibidem pernoctare. xxix die hora cene vel circiter apud Techfeld, crastina die visitare et ultimo die dif®nire. Primo die mensis Junij hora vespertina vel circiter apud Durford; secunda die visitare et iij die dif®nire. iiija die Junij apud Arandall' expensis abbatis de Durford. va die apud Lewis pernoctare expensis abbatis de Begham. vja die apud Beg[h]am12* hora cene vel circiter, vij die visitare et dif®nire. viij die apud [monasterium] Sancte Radegundis12* hora cene vel circiter, ix die visitare et x die dif®nire et eodem die hora cene apud Langdon; xj die visita[re] et xij die dif®nire et eodem die pernoctare apud Canterbery expensis abbatis de Langdon. xiij die apud Rochest' expensis abbatis Sancte Radegundis pernoctare: sed et etiam xiij die apud Rochest' ut quiescere expensis abbati[s] de Bilegh. xiiij die hora cene apud Bilegh12*; xv die visitare et xvj die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Colchest' expensis abbatis de Leyston. xvij die hora vespertina vel circiter apud Leyston,12* xviij die vis[itare]/ [fol. 142] et13 xix die dif®nire. xx die hora cene apud Langley, xxj die visitare et xxij die dif®nire. xxiij die pernoctare apud Norwich expensis abbatis de Langley et crastina die ibidem p[ro]videre [?] expensis eiusdem abbatis de Langley; et pernoctare apud Wenlynge hora vespertina illuc veniendi; xxv die visitare et xxvj dif®nire et pernoctare apud Walsyngham' expensis abbatis de Wenlynge.14 xxvij die hora cene apud Westderham crastina die visitare et xxix [die] dif®nire. Ultimo die eiusdem mensis Juniij apud Hely pernoctare expensis abbatis de Westderham. Primo die mensis Julij apud Huntyngton inpransij pernoctare expensis abbatis [de] Lavenden. Secunda die hora cene apud Lavenden; iija die visitare et iiij die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Northampton' expensis abbatis de Sulby. v die hora prandij apud Sulby, eodem die visitare et in crastino dif®nire et pernoctare apud Lacet' expensis abbatis de Croxton. vij die hora cene apud Croxton, crastino visitare et ix die dif®nire.

13

14

At the very top of fol. 142 is written Leycest'. At the top right-hand corner of the folio is written an abbreviation for Ebor[acensis] dioc[esis]. + is written above Wenlynge.


220

APPENDIX ONE

x die apud Dall' hora cene, crastina visitare, xij die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Newarke expensis abbatis de Dale.15 xiij die hora prandij apud Neubo, eodem die visitare et in crastina dif®nire et pernoctare apud Newarke expensis abbatis de Neubo. xv die apud Brodhom' hora prandij et pernoctare apud Lyncoln' expensis abbatis de Newhous. xvj die hora vespertina apud Neuhous, crastina visitare et xviij die dif®nire. xix die visitare moniales de Yrford et pernoctare apud Lowth expensis abbatis de Hangneby. xx die hora vespertina apud Hangnby, crastina die visitare et xxij die dif®nire. xxiij die apud Barlinges hora vespertina, crastina die visitare et xxv die dif®nire. xxvj die hora prandij apud Tupholme; eodem die visitare et in crastino dif®nire et pernoctare apud Lyncoln' expensis abbatis abbatis [sic] de Tupholm'. xxviij die hora cene apud Welbeke, crastino die visitare et xxx die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Beucheff; crastino die ibidem visitare et primo die Augusti dif®nire. Secundo die Augusti apud Ponte'fractam pernoctare expensis abbatis de Beuchef. iij [die] apud Rippon' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Coverham. iiij die hora cene apud Coverham, crastino die visitare [et] vj [die] dif®nire et pernoctare apud Sanctam Agatheum [sic]; vij die visitare et viij die dif®nire. ix die apud Durham' pernoctare expensis abbatis Sancte Agathe. x die pernoctare apud16 Neucastell' expensis abbatis de Alnwike et in crastino eundem [sic] et conventum in domo fratrum Carmelitarum visitare et xij die ibidem dif®nire et eodem die apud Blanchland hora vespertina; xiij die visitare et xiiij [die] dif®nire et pernoctare apud Durham expensis abbatis de Blanchland. xv die hora cene apud Egliston, crastino visitare et xvij die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Burgh expensis abbatis de Egliston. Et17 quid ex jure canonum comperimus quod nullus proprijs tenetur militare stipendijs [sic] attamen omnimodas vestras expensas circa nos et servos nostros sepius exhibetas ad memoriam reducentes propter quas vestris multipliciter tenemur parcere sumptibus. Igitur volumus ut aliquem de vestris nobis per viam obviare permittetis aut nobiscum post visitacionem quoquam [sic] ire assignetis sed tam latorem pecuniam pro suis expensis et labore etc.

15 16 17

+ is written above Dale. Alnwike deleted here. These lines are written in smaller handwriting and with a thinner nib.



221

[1494] [fol. 114v] Progressus reverendissimi in Christo patris et domini domini Ricardi Assavensis episcopi et abbatis de Schappe', Anno Domini millesimo CCCC nonogesimo iiijto. In primis xij die mensis Maij hora cene apud Egliston; crastina die intrare capitulum et xiiij die dif®nire. Eodem die pernoctare apud Staynhoppe expensis abbatis de Egliston. xiiij [sic] die eiusdem apud Blanschland hora cene, crastina die visitare et dif®nire. xvj die pernoctare apud Gretobrige [sic] expensis abbatis de Blanschland. xvj die apud Gretobrige [sic] pernoctare expensis abbatis Sancte Agathe. xvij die apud Sanctam Agatheum [sic] hora prandij vel circiter, xviij [die] visitare et xix die dif®nire. xx die apud Coverham hora prandij et post nonam intrare capitulum et xxj die dif®nire. xxij die apud Wedderby pernoctare expensis abbatis de Coverham. xxiij die apud Dancast' inpransi pernoctare expensis abbatis de Beucheff. xxiiij die inpransi apud Beucheff hora prandij vel circiter post nonam visitare et in crastino dif®nire. xxvj die apud Dancast' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Welbeke. xxvij die apud Welbek hora cene vel circiter; crastino visitare et xxix die dif®nire. Penultimo die Maij apud Dale inpransi hora vespertina, ultimo die visitare et dif®nire. Primo die Junij apud Lichfeld pernoctare expensis abbatis de Dale. Secundo die apud Hales18 hora vespertina, tercio die visitare et iiijto die dif®nire. [xxv19 die mensis Aprilis apud Kyrkby Kendall' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Cokersand, xxvj die apud Cokarsand hora cene, xxvij [die] visitare et xxviij die dif®nire et penultimo die ad propria remeare.] / [fol. 115] vto die apud Glocest' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Halesowen. vjto die apud Brysto expensis proprijs. vij die apud Glassenbury. viij die apud Tawnton. ix die apud Excet' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Tore. x die apud Tor' hora cene vel circiter; xj die visitare et xij die dif®nire et ibidem exspectare xiij die. 18 19

Hales = Halesowen. These lines are written at the bottom of fol. 114v.


222

APPENDIX ONE

xiiij die apud Excet' pernoctare. xv die pernoctare apud Evyll' expensis propriis inde usque Salesbury. xvj die pernoctare [apud Salesbury?] expensis abbatis de Techfeld et xvij die apud Techfeld hora cene vel circiter; xviij die visitare et xix die dif®nire. xx die apud Durford hora vespertina inpransi. xxj die visitare et dif®nire. xxij die apud Arandall' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Durford. xxiij die apud Lewce pernoctare expensis abbatis [de]20 Begham. xxiiij die apud Begham hora cene, crastino die visitare et dif®nire. xxvj die apud Aschford pernoctare expensis abbatis Sancte Radegundis. xxvij [die] apud Sanctam Radegundi' [sic] hora cene vespertina inpransi; xxviij die visitare et penultimo die dif®nire. Et eodem die apud Langdon hora vespertina, ultimo die visitare et dif®nire. Primo21* die Julij apud Sittyngborne pernoctare expensis abbatis de Langdon. vij die apud Clemesford [sic] pernoctare expensis proprijs. viij die apud Colchest' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Leyston. ix die apud Leyston hora cene; x [die] visitare et xj die dif®nire. xij die apud Langley hora cene vel circiter; xiij die visitare et xiiij die dif®nire. xv die apud Norwich expensis abbatis de Langley pernoctare. xvj die hora cene apud Wenlynge, xvij [die] visitare et xviij die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Walsyngham', expensis abbatis de Wenlynge. xix die apud Westderham hora cene, xx die visitare et xxj die dif®nire et xxij die ibidem exspectare. xxiij die apud Hely pernoctare expensis abbatis de Westderham. xxiiij [die] apud Huntyngton pernoctare expensis abbatis de Lavenden. xxv die apud Lavenden hora vespertina inpransi; xxvj die visitare et xxvij die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Northampton' expensis abbatis de Sulby. xxviij die apud Sulby hora cene; xxix die visitare et penultimo die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Leycest' expensis abbatis de Croxton. Ultimo21* die apud Croxton hora cene; primo die Augusti visitare, secundo die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Newbo hora cene;22 tercio die visitare et dif®nire. iiijto die apud Lyncoln' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Newbo. vto die apud Brodholm hora capitulari et pernoctare apud Lincoln' expensis abbatis de Tupholme. vjto die apud Tupholme hora cene, vij die visitare et viij die dif®nire. ix die apud Barlinges hora prandij; x die visitare et xj die dif®nire et xij die ibidem exspectare. 20 21* 22

de [ . . .] is scored out. A nota abbreviation is written to the left of this word. hora cene added between Newbo and tertio in the same hand.



223

xiij die apud Hangby hora cene; xiiij die visitare et xv die dif®nire. xvj die apud Lowth pernoctare expensis abbatis de Hangby./ [fol. 115v] xvij die apud Yrford hora capitulari et visitare et pernoctare apud Newhous hora cene; xviij die visitare et xix die dif®nire. xx die apud Dancast' expensis abbatis de Neuhous. Et remeare ad monasterium de Schappe' sive usque London' ad placitum. [1497] [fol. 128] Progressus reverendissimi patris et domini domini [Ricardi] permissione divina Exoniensis episcopi circa quedam monasteria in ista occidentali parte incepta Anno Domini MCCCCLXXXXVIJ, xvij die mensis Aprilis. In23 primis xvij die mensis Aprilis apud Burgh expensis proprijs. xviij die eiusdem mensis apud Egliston hora cene vel circiter; xix die eiusdem ibidem visitare et xx die eiusdem dif®nire et pernoctare apud Durham' expensis abbatis de Egliston. xxj die eiusdem apud Novum Castrum super Tinam hora vespertina vel circiter inpransi expensis abbatis de Alnwik; xxij die ibidem visitare, xxiij die eiusdem mensis dif®nire et pernoctare apud Durham' expensis abbatis Sancte Agathe. xxiiij die mensis eiusdem hora vespertina vel circiter apud Sanctam Agatheum [sic]; xxv die ibidem visitare et xxvj die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Coverham; xxvij die eiusdem ibidem visitare et xxviij die ibidem dif®nire et pernoctare apud Grathambryge, expensis abbatis de Coverham. Penultimo die visitare abbatem abbatem [sic] de Blanschland in monasterio de Egliston hora capitulari vel circiter. Ultimo die mensis ut prefertur Aprilis apud Burgh expensis abbatis de Blanschland etc. [1497] [fol. 131] Prefatijs monasterijs debite ut premittitur visitatis. Deinde Progressus reverendissimi domini Ricardi Exoniensis episcopi per circarium [?] 24 totius Anglie prout infertur etc. In primus xvj die mensis Augusti apud Burgh. xvij die eiusdem mensis apud Grethambrige expensis abbatis Sancte Agathe. xviij die apud Sanctam Agatheum hora prandij; eadem [sic] die intrare capitulum et in crastinum dif®nire. 23 24

A nota abbreviation is written at the top of the Ì' of In. The abbreviated words are possibly circariumtamen [sic], though it is by no means certain.


224

APPENDIX ONE

xxmo die apud Coverham hora prandij; eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire et xxij [die] pernoctare apud Wederby, expensis abbatis de Coverham. xxiij die pernoctare apud Dancast' expensis abbatis de Beucheff. xxiiij die apud Beucheff hora cene; eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire. xxvj die apud Dalle hora cene; eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire. xxviij die pernoctare apud Lechfeld, expensis abbatis de Dall'. xxix die apud Halesowen hora cene; eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire. Ultimo die apud Burton super Trent, expensis abbatis de Halesowen. Primo die mensis Septembris apud Notyngham' pernoctare, expensis abbatis de Welbek. Secundo die eiusdem mensis apud Welbek hora cene; eodem die capitulum intrare et in crastino dif®nire. iiijto die apud Gaynsburgh, expensis abbatis de Neuhous. Quinto die apud Neuhous hora cene; eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire. vijmo die apud Lowth inpransi expensis abbatis de Hagneby. viij die apud Hagneby hora prandij; eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire. xmo die apud Barlinges hora cene; xj die et [sic] visitare pariter et dif®nire et eodem die pernoctare apud Tupholme; et ibidem in crastino visitare et xiij die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Lincoln' expensis abbatis de Tupholme. xiiij die hora capitulari apud Brodholme et pernoctare apud Newark expensis abbatis de Neubo. xv die apud Neubo hora prandij; eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire et eodem die pernoctare apud Croxston; ibidem xvij die visitare et in crastino dif®nire et pernoctare apud Laycet' expensis abbatis de Croxton. xix die apud Sulby hora cene, xx die visitare et in crastino dif®nire et pernoctare apud Notyngham' expensis abbatis de Sulby. xxij die apud Lavenden hora prandij; eodem die visitare et dif®nire. xxiij die pernoctare inpransi apud Huntyngton expensis abbatis de Lavenden. xxiiij die pernoctare apud Hely expensis abbatis de Westderham. xxv die apud Westderham hora cene; in crastino visitare et xxvij die dif®nire. xxviij die pernoctare apud Walsingham' expensis abbatis de Wenlynge.25 xxix die hora/ [fol. 131v] hora [sic] prandij apud Wenlynge; eodem die visitare et in crastino dif®nire et pernoctare apud Norwich expensis abbatis de Langley. Primo die 25

eodem die visitare et in crastino dif®nire is scored out here.



225

mensis Octobris apud Langley hora cene, secundo die visitare et iij die dif®nire. iiijto die apud Leyston hora cene; vto die visitare et vj [die] dif®nire et vijmo die pernoctare apud Colchest', expensis abbatis de Leyston. viij die apud apud [sic] Byley hora cene; eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire. xmo die pernoctare apud Rochest', expensis abbatis de Byley. xj die apud Cantuar', expensis abbatis de Langdon. xij die apud Langdon hora cene; eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire et pernoctare apud Sanctam Radegundam: et ibidem eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire. xv die apud Aschford expensis abbatis Sancte Radegundis. xvj die apud Begham hora cene; eodem die intrare capitulum et in crastino dif®nire. Et xviij die pernoctare apud Lewys expensis abbatis de Begham. xix die pernoctare apud Arandall' expensis abbatis de Durford. xx die apud Durford hora prandii inpransi; eodem die visitare et in crastino dif®nire. xxij die hora cene apud Techfeld; in crastino visitare et xxiiij die dif®nire. xxv die pernoctare apud Salesbery expensis abbatis de Techfeld. xxvj die pernoctare apud Schaftesbery. xxvij die pernoctare apud Crokhorne. xxviij [die] pernoctare apud Hunyngton. xxix die apud Excestr', gratia ad hoc concurrente mediatoris Dei. Et ibidem placitum nostrum permansuri etc. Et deinde secuntur nomina omnium et singulorum fratrum nostri ordinis cum decretis sequentibus prout palam in sequentibus asspicientibus [sic] apparebit etc.26 [1500] [fol. 143] Progressus reverendissimi in Christo patris et domini domini Ricardi Redmayn Exoniensis episcopi, abbatis de Schapp', et visitatoris ac reformatoris ordinis Premonstratensis tocius Anglie, Wallie, Scocie et Hibernie, auctoritate domini Premonstratensis plenarie et litteratorie suf®cienter deputati, incipientis visitacionem in monasterio de Cokarsand, videlicet xxvj die mensis Aprilis Anno Domini MCCCCC, anno vero consecracionis eiusdem xxvijj et sue translacionis quarto, etc. Amen. In primis apud Kyrkbykendall', videlicet xxiijj die mensis Aprilis inpransi, deinde usque Cokarsand xxvj27 eiusdem mensis hora vespertina vel circiter; incrastino [sic] visitare et xxvij die ibidem dif®nire. 26 27

The last lines refer to the visitation name lists and reports beginning on fol. 132. This numeral was apparently altered by the scribe from xxvij to xxvj by scoring out the ®rst ì'.


226

APPENDIX ONE

Item: xxviij die eiusdem mensis apud Kendall' pernoctare exspensis proprijs. Penultimo vero die apud Burgh proprijs ibidem expensis et ultimo die apud Egliston hora vespertina; in crastino visitare et secunda die mensis Maij dif®nire; et eodem die pernoctare apud Durham' expensis abbatis de Egliston. Tercio die mensis Maij apud Newcastell' hora prandij, expensis abbatis de Alnewyk;28 eodem die visitare et in crastino dif®nire et pernoctare apud Durham' expensis abbatis Sancte Agathe; et ibidem [eodem die]29 visitare abbatem et conventum de Blanschland. Quinto vero die apud Sanctam Agatheum hora vespertina vel circiter, in crastino visitare et vij die dif®nire; et eodem die pernoctare apud Coverham, in crastino visitare et ix die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Wedderby expensis abbatis de Coverham. Decimo die apud Pomfreth hora cene exspensis abbatis de Beucheff. xj die apud Beucheff hora cene, in crastino visitare et eodem die dif®nire. xiij die apud Dalle hora cene; xiiij die30 visitare et in crastino dif®nire et pernoctare apud Lichfeld expensis abbatis de Dalle inpransi. xvj die apud Halesowen hora vespertina; eodem die visitare et xvij die dif®nire. xviij die apud Glocestr' pernoctare expensis abbatis de Halesowen. Deinde xix die apud Brystow31 expensis proprijs. xx die apud Glassenbery. xxj [die] apud Tawnton. xxij die apud Colverton. xxiij die apud Excestr', gracia dei mediante etc. [1500] [fol. 148] Hic32 autem prefatus reverendus [sic] pater apud Exon' moram ad placitum trahens, iam apud se deliberans cetera nostri ordinis monasteria visitare, sic progressum suum in Domino incipiens, videlicet viij die mensis Septembris apud Hunnyngton. ix die apud Scherburne. x die apud Schafftysfbery. xj die apud Salesbury. xij die apud Andower. xiij die apud Basyngstok; xiiij, xv, xvj cum rege existente ibidem. 28 29

30 31 32

expensis abbatis de Alnewyk added here in the same hand. eodem die probably belongs here. However the words are written in such a way that they could occur after Sanctam Agatheum hora vespertina vel circiter. eodem die cancelled beneath xiiij die. The `y' of Brystow was created out of another `s' (Brsstow). Below the 1500 Torre visitation report, on the previous folio (fol. 147v), are written the words `v die Augusti apud Tor' hora cene, in crastino visitare [et vii] augusti die [sic] dif®nire'.



227

xviij apud Wy[n]chest' expensis abbatis de Techfeld. xix die cum episcopo Wyntoniensis. xx die apud Techfeld hora cene;33 in crastino visitare et xxij die dif®nire. xxiij die apud Durford hora cene; xxiiij die visitare et dif®nire.34 xxv die apud Arandall' inpransi expensis abbatis de Durford. xxvj die apud Lewys expensis abbatis de Begham. xxvij die apud Begham hora cene; xxviij die visitare et penultimo die dif®nire. Ultimo die apud Aschforth expensis abbatis Sancte Radegundis. Primo die mensis Octobris apud Sanctam Radegundi' [sic] hora cene; secundo die visitare et tercia die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Langdon; iiijto die ibidem visitare et vto die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Cantuariam expensis abbatis de Langdon. vj die apud Rochest' expensis abbatis de Bylegh. vij die apud Bylerica eiusdem expensis. viij die apud Byley hora cene; ix die visitare et dif®nire et pernoctare apud Colchest' expensis abbatis de Leyston. xj die apud Ypeswich' expensis eiusdem. xij die hora cene apud Leyston; eodem die intrare capitulum; et xiij die dif®nire. xiiij die apud Langley hora cene; in crastino visitare et xvj die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Norwich expensis abbatis de Langley. xvij die apud Wenlynge hora cene; eodem die intrare capitulum et xviij die dif®nire. xix die apud Walsyngham', expensis abbatis de Wenlynge. xx die apud Westderham hora cene; xxj die visitare et xxij die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Hely expensis abbatis de Westderham. xxiij die apud Huntyngton expensis abbatis de Lavenden. xxiiij die apud Lavenden hora cene; xxv die visitare et dif®nire. xxvj die pernoctare apud Nor[t]hampton' expensis abbatis de Sulby. xxvij die apud Sulby hora prandij; eodem die visitare, et xxviij die dif®nire. xxix die pernoctare apud Leycet' expensis abbatis de Croxton. Penultimo die apud Croxton hora vespertina inpransi; ultimo die visitare et primo die mensis Novembris dif®nire. ij die apud Newbo hora prandii; eodem die visitare, iiij die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Newark expensis abbatis de Newbo. v die apud Brodholme hora prandij et pernoctare apud Lyncolne'35 / 33 34

35

hora cene added in the same hand. This sentence was added by the same hand between . . . et xxij dif®nire and xxv die apud . . . The words verte folium follow immediately.


228

APPENDIX ONE

[fol. 148v]36 expensis abbatis de Tupholme. vj die hora cene apud Tupholme; vij die visitare et viij die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Barlynges; viij [sic] die visitare ibidem et dif®nire. ix die apud Hagnby hora cene; x die visitare, xj die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Lowth expensis abbatis de Hagneby. xij die apud Irford hora capitulari et pernoctare apud Newhous; xiij die ibidem visitare, xiiij die dif®nire et xv die pernoctare apud Gaynsburgh expensis abbatis de Newhous. xvj die apud Barlinges37 hora cene; xvij die ibidem visitare et xviij die dif®nire. xix die apud Lytylburgh Bery38 pernoctare, expensis abbatis de Barlinges.39 Et sic via proximiori ad monasterium de Schappe' equitare etc. xx40 die apud Welbek inpransi hora vespertina; xxj die visitare, xxij [die] dif®nire. xxiij d[i]e apud Doncast', èt sic' ut supra. [1503] [fol. 159] Memorandum. xxvij die mensis Julij apud Byley hora vespertina; in crastino [visitare?] et xxix die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Colchest', expensis abbatis de Leyston. Ultimo die mensis predicti apud Leyston hora vespertina; in crastino visitare et dif®nire. Secundo die apud Langley, videlicet mensis Augusti hora cene; in crastino visitare41 et iiij die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Norwich expensis abbatis de Langley. Quinto die mensis predicti apud Wenlynge hora cene; vj die visitare et dif®nire. Septimo die apud Walsinghm' expensis abbatis de Wenlynge. Octavo die apud Westderham; in crastino visitare et x die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Lytilport expensis abbatis de Westderham.

36

37 38 39 40

41

Several illegible abbreviated words are written in an upward slant at the top of this folio: qe uerco vobis in scipt . . . he'um [?]. Welbek is erased. Dancast' is erased. Welbeck is erased. The lines following are thus in the manuscript and probably refer to a time prior to his proposed arrival at Shap. Hence ad monasterium de Schappe' equitare etc. dif®nire is scored out here in the same hand.



229

[1503] [fol. 159v] Progressus reverendissimi in Christo patris et domini domini Ricardi Eliensis episcopi versus monasteria et diocesis Lincolniensis, Anno Domini Mo quingentesimo tercio, videlicet xxvj die mensis Se[p]tembris apud Huntyngdon. Item: xxvijo die eiusdem apud Stanford. Item: xxviijo die apud Gramtham [sic]. Penultimo die apud Lincoln' impransi [sic], expensis abbatis de Tupholm'. Ultimo die apud Tupholm'; eadem [sic] die visitare et in crastino post vesperas dif®nire. Secundo die mensis Octobris apud Hangby hora cene; in crastino visitare et iiijto die dif®nire et pernoctare apud Louth expensis abbatis de Hangby. Quinto die apud Yrford hora capitulari; eodem die apud Neusumj,42* hora cene; in crastino visitare et vij die dif®nire. viij die apud Lyncoln' hora cene expensis abbatis de Neusunj.42* ix die apud Brodholme hora decima. Et apud Barlinges pernoctare eodem die; Item: xmo die visitare et xj die dif®nire. Et propter causas ibidem tractandis xij die moram facere. Item: xiij die apud Lytilburgh [Bu]ry expensis abbatis de Barlynges. Item: xiiij die apud Welbek; incrastino [sic] visitare [et x]vj die dif®nire et xvij die pernoctare apud Dancast'; et sic gratia Dei mediante ad [ . . .]remeare.

42*

i.e. Newhouse.


Appendix Two Maps of Redman's Proposed Visitation Journeys, 1478, 1491 and 1500 The following maps, based on Richard Redman's visitation itineraries for 1478, 1491, and 1500, are provided as an illustration of the similarity in routes which Redman proposed to take in his visitation itineraries (1478± 1503) and the probability that he planned his journeys on established journey plans which were used by preceding Premonstratensian visitors and circatores. They are given only as tentative indications of these proposed journeys and do not claim absolute topographical accuracy. The two itineraries for the year 1500 have been combined. The place names of some of the abbeys and towns which Redman intended to visit, with dates, have been added intermittently. In some cases Redman planned to travel along the same route more than once; e.g. in 1500, Kendal (24 April) to Cockersand (26 April), to Kendal (28 April). In a number of instances (e.g. 1491) criss-crossing of the routes indicated in the map illustrations were unavoidable. The abbeys and nunneries in the diagrams are indicated with the same symbols as used in Map 1 (p. 5).


231

REDMAN'S PROPOSED VISITATION JOURNEYS

Newhouse June 2nd

Hagnaby June 5th

Beauchief May 26th

Wendling June 28th Welbeck May 29th Lichfield May 19th

Croxton June 15th

Lavendon June 22nd

West Dereham June 26th

Beeleigh July 7th

Bayham July 16th

Torre August 29th

Map A. Redman's proposed visitation journeys for 1478

Langdon July 11th


232

APPENDIX TWO

Blanchland Aug. 12th

Newcastle Aug. 10th Durham Aug. 9th & 14th

Brough Aug. 17th

Newhouse July 16th Broadholme July 15th

Louth July 19th Hagnaby July 20th

Welbeck July 28th Newark July 12th & 14th Lichfield May 12th

Newbo July 13th West Dereham June 27th

Lavendon July 2nd

Yeovil May 27th

Exeter May 20th & 26th

Beeleigh June 14th

Bayham June 6th

Torre May 21st

Map B. Redman's proposed visitation journeys for 1491

Langdon June 10th


REDMAN'S PROPOSED VISITATION JOURNEYS

233

Newcastle May 3rd Egglestone April 30th Easby May 5th Kendal April 24th & 28th Cockersand April 26th Pontefract

Newhouse Nov. 12th

May 10th Doncaster Nov. 23rd Hagnaby Nov. 9th

Beauchief May 11th

Welbeck Nov. 20th

Newbo Nov. 2nd

Halesowen May 16th

Leiston Oct. 12th Lavendon Oct. 24th

Bristol May 19th

Durford Sept. 23rd

Honiton Sept. 8th Exeter May 23rd Torre August 5th

Map C. Redman's proposed visitation journeys for 1500

Langdon Oct. 3rd


Appendix Three English Premonstratensian Visitations, 1458±1503 The following tables relate the visitations of the English white canons by Richard Redman as commissary-general, between 1458 and 1503 inclusive. The left-hand column details the surviving visitation reports and name lists, in chronological order. Unless stated otherwise, the folio numbers in round brackets refer to those of Redman's visitation register (Bodl. ASH). These are generally preceded by references to the same sources as edited in CAP I± III. Each entry presupposes the existence of a visitation report and name list, and, for the 1478 visitations, answers to certain enquiries made by Redman. Where one of these items is lost in a particular entry, the sole surviving document will be cited; however, when the visitation report has been lost, or its date is defective, the reader should examine the second column for any parallel entries (see below). Use has been made of other documents in Bodl. ASH and BL PECK MSS I and II, which reveal actual or proposed visitations: citations of these are placed within square brackets. Visits by Redman to the abbeys for any other purpose, such as abbatial elections, have not been included. The right-hand column contains references to proposed visitations as related in Redman's visitation itineraries. Where an abbey's visitation report is lost, or the date of the visitation is unknown, any corresponding references in existing itineraries for the year in question will be indicated, as they illustrate Redman's intention to visit the house. The dates given in the itineraries, however, are not entirely accurate in every instance. The 1478 itinerary does not state the actual days on which Redman proposed to visit the Premonstratensian abbeys, and therefore Redman's proposed date of arrival and probable departure at a particular house, where the visitation date is absent, will be given. The various towns and cities that Redman intended to travel en-route to an abbey have not been included, but references to the nunneries of Broadholme and Irford are noted. Èxtraordinary' and `proxy' visitations by Redman, are speci®ed. Visitations conducted by anyone else other than Redman will be noted explicitly. It was thought useful to indicate general and provincial chapters of the English Premonstratensians. References to these may be found in White Canons, p. 235. It should be pointed out that the general chapter held Àfter 1471: probably before 1475', could have been held in 1473, but this is uncertain (ibid.).


ENGLISH PREMONSTRATENSIAN VISITATIONS

Visitations, 1458±1503

235

Visitation dates taken from the itineraries 1458

[December 9th: Forthcoming visitation of Welbeck indicated in a letter from Redman to the abbot of Welbeck, dated September 11th 1458, and a visitation at Beauchief is noted in a letter from the abbot of Beauchief to the abbot of Welbeck, December 7th (1458); (BL PECK I, fols 84, 85; CAP I, 37, 143]. 1460 [April 22nd: Visitation of Blanchland by Redman, with William Durham, subprior of Easby, indicated in a letter from Redman to the abbot of Welbeck, BL PECK I, fols 124±24v; CAP II, 272]. 1472 May 5th: Beauchief (BL PECK I, fol. 114; CAP II, 227). May 7th: Welbeck (BL PECK II, fols 76±76v; CAP III, 627). 1473 General Chapter ante-December 10th. [Reference to an illicit visitation at Leiston, made by the abbot of Welbeck as pater abbas, in a letter from Redman to the aforesaid, dated December 10th 1473. The abbot was to appear before Redman at Egglestone on January 10th following (1474); BL PECK II, fols 45±45v; CAP III, 495]. 1474 [Redman noti®es Dale of an impending visitation on October 26th; Bodl. ASH, fol. 2; CAP I, 98]. General Chapter after 1471 and probably ante-1475 on June 17th. 1475 [28th April (die S. Vitalis): Beauchief, by the abbot of Welbeck as pater abbas (report only); BL PECK I, fol. 116; CAP II, 229]. Hec sunt nomina omnium canonicorum nostri Ordinis in regno Anglie ut fuerunt in visitatione Ricardi Assavensis episcopi . . . incipientis visitacionem suam in monasterio de Durefforde vito die mensis Junii, anno Domini MCCCCLXXVto etc. (fol. 4). Alnwick, 186 [name list] (fol. 6v).


236

APPENDIX THREE

Beauchief, 232 [name list] (fol. 5v). Barlings, 202 [name list] (fol. 6). Bayham, 250 [name list] (fol. 4). Beeleigh, 262 [name list] (fol. 4v). Coverham, 310 [name list] (fol. 6). Croxton, 333 [name list] (fol. 5). Dale, 356 [name list] (fol. 5). Durford, 377 [name list and general heading] (fol. 4). Easby, 165 [name list] (fol. 6v). Hagnaby, 412 [name list] (fol. 6). Halesowen, 430 [name list] (fol. 5v). Langdon, 450 [name list] (fol. 4v). Langley, 464 [name list] (fol. 4v). Lavendon, 482 [name list] (fol. 5). Leiston, 496 [name list] (fol. 4v). Newbo, 509 [name list] (fol. 5). Newhouse, 520 [name list] (fol. 6). St Radegund's, 544 [name list] (fol. 4). Sulby, 558 [name list] (fol. 5). Titch®eld, 577 [name list] (fol. 4). Tupholme, 607 [name list] (fol. 5v). Welbeck, 629 [name list] (fol. 5v). Wendling, 646 [name list] (fol. 4v). West Dereham, 662 [name list] (fol. 4v). Provincial Chapter ante-1476 at Stamford. 1476 Provincial Chapter on July 15th at Lincoln. 1478 April 27th: Cockersand, 296 [report and general answers only] (fol. 10v). May 21st: Halesowen, 432, 433 (fols 10v±11, 18). May 23rd: Dale, 358, 359 (fols 11, 18±18v). May 27th: Beauchief, 231, 233 (fols 11v, 18v). May 31st: Welbeck, 630, 632 (fols 11v, 19 and BL PECK II, fols 80±80v). June 3rd: Newhouse, 521, 528 (fols 12, 19 and BL PECK II, fols 53±53v). June 6th: Hagnaby, 415, 416 (fols 13, 19v June 10th: Barlings, 204, 205 (fols 13v, 19v June 12th: Tupholme, 609, 610 (fols 13v, 19v). Newbo, 511 [name list only] (fols 19v±21). Croxton, 338 [name list only] (fol. 21). Sulby, 560 [name list and general answers only] (fol. 21). Lavendon, 484 [name list only] (fol. 21).

June 13th: Broadholme (fol. 9). June 14th/15th: Newbo (fols 9±9v). June 15th/18th: Croxton (fol. 9v). June 19th/21st: Sulby (fol. 9v).



June 28th: West Dereham, 663, 665 (fols 13*, 21v). June 30th: Wendling, 648, 650 (fols 13*, 21v). July 3rd: Langley, 466, 468 (fols 13*v, 21v). Leiston, 498 [name list and general answers only] (fols 21v±22). Beeleigh, 261 [name list heading and general answers only] (fol. 22). Langdon, 452 [name list and general answers only] (fol. 22). St Radegund's, 546 [name list and general answers only] (fol. 22). Bayham, 248, 253 (fols 14, 22). July 22nd: Titch®eld, 579, 580 (fols 14, 22v). July 25th: Durford 379, 380 (fols 14, 22v). August 1st: Torre, 594, 595 (fols 14v±15, 22±3). September 13th: Easby, 167, 168 (fols 15v±16, 23). September 16th: Blanchland at Newcastle, 278 [report and general answers only] (fol. 16). September 23rd: Egglestone, 398, 399 (fols 16, 23v). Coverham, 312, 313 (fols 15v, 23). Alnwick, 184 [general answers only] CBL PECK I, fol. 101). Talley, 575 [general answers only] CBL PECK I, fol. 60).

237

June 22nd/23rd: Lavendon (fol. 9v).

July 3rd [?]/ 6th: Leiston (fol. 9v). July 7th/9th: Beeleigh (fol. 9v). July 11th/ 13th: Langdon (fol. 9v). July 13th/15th: St Radegund's (fol. 9v). July 16th/18th: Bayham (fol. 9v).

1479 Provincial Chapter on April 26th at Leicester. 1480 General/Provincial (?) Chapter on April 21st at Leicester. 1481 April 27th: Cockersand, 297 [report only] (fol. 24).

1482 April 10th: Egglestone, 401, 402 (fols 25v, 43v). April 13th: Alnwick at Newcastle, 188, 189 (fols 25v±26, 43v±44). April 13th: Blanchland at Newcastle, 279, 280 (fols 25v, 43v).

July 30th: Durford (fol. 24). August 1st: Titch®eld (fol. 24). August 7th: Torre (fol. 24).


238

APPENDIX THREE

April 18th: Easby 169, 170 (fols 26v, 44v). April 21th: Coverham, 314, 315 (fols 26v, 44). July 13th: Halesowen, 436, 437 (fols 26v±27, 44v). July 16th: Dale, 360, 361 (fols 27, 44±44v). July 17th: Hagnaby, 417, 418 (fols 29, 45). July 18th: Beauchief, 237, 240 (fols 27, 44v). July 25th: Newhouse, 532, 533 (fols 28v±29, 44v±45). July 30th: Tupholme, 611, 612 (fols 29v, 45). July 31st: Barlings, 206, 207 (fols 29v, 45). August 3rd: Newbo, 512, 513 (fols 29v±31, 45v). August 5th: Croxton, 337, 340 (fols 31±32, 45v). August 8th: Sulby, 561, 562 (fols 32, 45v). August 10th: Lavendon, 485, 486 (fols 32±3, 45v). August 17th: Wendling, 651, 652 (fols 33±4, 46). August 20th: Langley, 469, 470 (fols 34v±35, 46). August 22nd: Leiston, 499, 500 (fols 35, 46). August 25th: Beeleigh, 264, 265 (fols 35±36, 46). August 29th: Langdon, 453, 454 (fols 36±7, 46v). August 30th: St Radegund's, 547, 548 (fols 37, 46v). September 3rd: Bayham, 249, 252 (fols 37±8, 46v). September 6th: Durford at Chichester, 381 [report only] (fol. 38). September 9th: Titch®eld, 581, 582 (fols 38±9, 46v). September 21st: Torre, 598, 599 (fols 39±40, 46v). Welbeck, 634, 635 (fols 27v, 44v and BL PECK II, fols 79±79v). West Dereham, 667, 668 (fols 33, 45v±46). (?)1483(?) [Provincial Chapter in 1483(?) on May 16th]. 1486 General Chapter on May 12th at Lincoln.

Blanchland at Newcastle, 281 [report only] (fol. 62). May 28th: Easby, 190 [report only] (fol. 62). May 28th: Coverham at Easby, 316 [report only] (fol. 62v).

May 19th: Egglestone (fol. 47). May 22nd/26th (?): Alnwick (fol. 47). May 26th: Blanchland at Newcastle (?) in domo fratrum Carmelitarum (fol. 47).



239

1487 Provincial Chapter on August 14th at Leicester. 1488 April 27th: Cockersand, 298 (fols 65±65v). May 16th: Halesowen, 439, 440 (fols 67, 67v). May 20th: Dale, 363, 364 (fols 67v±68, 68±68v). May 23rd: Welbeck 636, 637 (fols 68v±69). May 25th: Beauchief, 238, 239 (fols 69±69v). May 31st: Newhouse, 534 (fols 69v±70). June 3rd: Hagnaby, 419, 420 (fols 70v, 70). June 6th: Barlings, 208, 209 (fol. 70v).

June 13th: Croxton, 341 (fol. 71). June 17th: Sulby, 564 (fols 71±71v). June 18th: Lavendon, 487, 488 (fols 71v,72). June 24th: West Dereham, 669 (fols 72±72v). June 27th: Wendling, 653, 654 (fols 72v, 73). July 1st: Langley, 471, 472 (fols 73±74). July 4th: Leiston, 501 (fols 74±5). July 8th: Beeleigh, 266 (fols 75±75v). July 12th: Langdon, 455 (fols 75v±76). July 14th: St Radegund's, 550 (fols 76, 77v). July 17th: Bayham, 254 (fols 77v±78). July 23rd: Titch®eld, 583 (fols 78±78v). July 25th: Durford, 382 (fol. 78v). July 25th: Torre at Durford, 600 (fol. 79). August 14th: Coverham, 317 (fol. 79v). August 18th: Easby, 171, 172 (fols 80±80v). August 23rd: Alnwick 191, 192 (fols 80v±81). August 27th: Blanchland at Newcastle, 282, 283 (fols 81±81v). August 30th: Egglestone, 403 (fols 81v±82). December 17th: extraordinary visit to Cockersand, 299 [report only] (fol. 84).

June 1st: Irford (fol. 64v). June [7th]: Tupholme (fol. 64v). June 10th: Broadholme (fol. 64v). June 11th: Newbo (fol. 64v).

1489 Provincial Chapter on September 28th at Lincoln. 1491 April 26th: Cockersand, 302, 303 (fols 90, 142v). May 15th: Halesowen, 441, 442 (fols 90±1, 142v). May 24th: Torre, 601, 602 (fols 91±91v, 112). June 1st: Titch®eld, 584, 585 (fols 91v, 112).


240

APPENDIX THREE

August 6th: Alnwick, 195, 196 (fols 92, 112). August 8th: Blanchland at Newcastle, 284, 285 (fols 92, 111v). August 12th: Easby, 173, 174 (fols 92v, 112). August 13th: Egglestone at Easby, 404, 405 (fols 92v, 112v). August 14th: Welbeck, 638, 639 (fols 93v±94, 112v). August 15th: Coverham, 322, 323 (fols 93, 112v). August 18th: Newhouse, 535, 536 (fols 94±94v, 113). August 20th: Beauchief, 241, 242 (fols 93, 112v). August 22nd: Dale, 365, 366 (fols 93v, 112v). August 31st: Hagnaby, 421, 422 (fols 94v, 113). September 3rd: Barlings, 210, 211 (fols 94v±95, 113v). September 5th: Tupholme, 613 [the ®rst column of names only], 614 (fols 95, 113v). September 8th: Newbo, 514, 515 (fols 95, 113). September 12th: Croxton, 344, 345 and 613 [second column of names in addition] (fols 97, 113v). September 15th: Sulby, 565, 566 (fols 97±98, 113v). September 17th: Lavendon, 489, 490 (fols 98±9, 113v). September 22nd: West Dereham, 670, 673 (fols 99, 113v). September 24th: Wendling, 655, 656 (fols 99v, 113v). September 28th: Langley, 473, 474 (fols 99v± 100, 114). September 30th: Leiston, 502, 503 (fols 100, 114). October 3rd: Beeleigh, 267, 268 (fols 100, 114). October 7th: Langdon, 456, 457 (fols 100±100v, 114). October 9th: St Radegund's, 551, 552 (fols 100v, 114v). October 12th: Bayham, 255, 256 (fols 100v±01, 114v). October 16th: Durford, 383, 384 (fols 101, 114v).

July 15th: Broadholme (sic: fol. 142). July 19th: Irford (sic: fol. 142).

1492 Provincial Chapter on April 30th at Grantham. 1494 April 28th: Cockersand, 304, 305 (fols 121, 115v).



May 14th: Egglestone, 406, 407 (fols 115v, 121v). May 15th: Blanchland, 286, 287 (fols 115v, 121v). May 19th: Easby, 177, 178 (fols 115v±16, 121v± 22). May 21st: Coverham, 324, 325 (fols 116, 122). May 25th: Beauchief, 243, 244 (fols 116, 122v). May 29th: Welbeck, 640, 641 (fols 116±116v, 122v). May 31st: Dale, 368, 369 (fols 116v, 122v±23). June 4th: Halesowen, 443, 444 (fols 116v, 123). June 12th: Torre, 603, 604 (fols 116v, 123v). June 19th: Titch®eld, 586, 587 (fols 117, 123v± 23*). June 21st: Durford, 385, 386 (fols 117, 123). June 25th: Bayham, 257, 258 (fols 117, 123*± 23*v). June 28th: St Radegund's, 553, 554 (fols 117, 123*). June 30th: Langdon, 458, 459 (fols 117, 124). July 11th: Leiston, 504, 505 (fols 118, 124). July 14th: Langley, 475, 476 (fols 118, 124v). July 18th: Wendling, 657, 658 (fols 118, 125). July 21st: West Dereham, 671, 672 (fols 118±19, 125v). July 26th: Lavendon, 491, 492 (fols 119, 125v± 26). July 30th: Sulby, 567, 568 (fols 119, 126±26v). August 1st: Croxton, 346, 347 (fols 119, 126v). August 1st: Newbo at Croxton, 516, 517 (fols 119, 126v±27). Broadholme, 292 [name list only] (fol. 120). September 23rd: Newhouse, 537, 538 (fols 119, 127±27v). September 26th: Hagnaby, 423, 424 (fols 119v, 127v). September 29th: Barlings, 212, 213 (fols 119, 127v±28). October 1st: Tupholme, by Robert Bedalle in Redman's place, 616, 617 (fols 119v±120, 128).

August 5th: Broadholme (fol. 115). August 17th: Irford (fol. 115v).

1495 Provincial Chapter in September 23rd at Lincoln. 1497 April 4th: Cockersand, 307, 308 (fols 51, 128v± 29). April 20th: Egglestone, 408, 409 (fols 51, 129). April 22nd: Alnwick at Newcastle, 197, 198 (fols 51±51v, 129±30).

241


242

APPENDIX THREE

April 24th: Blanchland at Durham, 288, 289 (fols 51v, 130).

August 19th: Easby, 179, 180 (fol. 132). August 21st: Coverham, 327 (fol. 132v). August 25th: Beauchief, 245 (fols 132v±33). August 26th: Dale, 370 (fol. 133). August 30th: Halesowen, 445 (fols 133±33v). August 31st: Talley at Halesowen, 576 (fol. 134). September 3rd: Welbeck, 642 (fols 134±34v). September 6th: Newhouse, 539 (fol. 134v). September 8th: Hagnaby, 425 (fols 134v±35). September 10th: Barlings, 214 (fols 135±35v). September 13th: Tupholme, 618 (fol. 135v). September 16th: Newbo, 518 (fol. 136). September 18th: Croxton, 348 (fols 136±36v). Sulby, 569 [name list only] (fol. 136v).

West Dereham, 674 [mutilated report only] (fol. 137). September 30th: Wendling, 659 (fol. 137). October 3rd: Langley, 477 (fol. 137v). October 6th: Leiston, 506 (fols 137v±38). October 9th: Beeleigh, 269 (fol. 138). October 11th: Langdon, 460 (fols 138, 138v). October 14th: St Radegund's, 555 (fols 138v±39). October 17th: Bayham, 259 (fol. 139). October 21st: Durford, 387 (fols 139±39v). October 24th: Titch®eld, 588 (fol. 139v). November 30th: Torre, 605 (fols 139±40).

April 27th: Coverham (fol. 128). April 29th: Blanchland at Egglestone (fol. 128).

September 14th: Broadholme (fol. 131). September 20th: Sulby (fol. 131). September 22nd: Lavendon (fol. 131). September 26th: West Dereham (fol. 131).

(?)1498(?) Provincial Chapter in 1498(?) at Nottingham. 1500 April 27th: Cockersand, 309 (fols 143v±44). May 1st: Egglestone, 410 (fols 144±44v). May 3rd: Alnwick at Newcastle, 199, 200 (fols 144v±45). Blanchland at Durham, 290 (fols 145±45v). May May May May

7th: Easby, 181, 182 (fols 145±46). 9th: Coverham, 328 (fol. 146). 12th: Beauchief, 246 (fol. 146v). 15th: Dale, 371 (fols 146v±47).

May 4th: Blanchland at Durham (fol. 143).



243

May 17th: Halesowen, 446 (fols 147±47v). August 7th: Torre, 606 (fols 147v±48). September 22nd: Titch®eld, 589 (fols 148v±49). September 24th: Durford, 388 (fols 149±49v). September 29th: Bayham, 260 (fols 149v). October 3rd: St Radegund's, 556 (fols 149v±50). October 5th: Langdon, 461 (fol. 150v). October 9th: Beeleigh, 270 (fols 150v±51). October 13th: Leiston, 507 (fols 151±51v). October 16th: Langley, 478 (fols 151v±52). October 18th: Wendling, 660 (fol. 152). October 21st: West Dereham, 675 (fols 152± 52v). October 25th: Lavendon, 493 (fol. 152v). October 28th: Sulby, 570 (fols 152v±53). November 1st: Croxton, 349 (fol. 153v). November 3rd: Newbo, 519 (fols 153v±54). November 8th: Tupholme, 619 (fols 154±54v). November 11th: Hagnaby, 426 (fols 154v±55). November 14th: Newhouse, 540 (fol. 155). November 18th: Barlings, 215 (fols 155±55v). November 22nd: Welbeck, 643 (fols 155v±56).

November 5th: Broadholme (fol. 148). November 12th: Irford (fol. 148).

1501 April 3rd: Beauchief by the abbot of Welbeck, by command of Redman, 247 (BL PECK I, fol. 120). An unrecorded chapter in 1501(?). 1502 May 5th: Egglestone by the abbots of Easby and Welbeck, on Redman's authority, 411 [report only] (fol. 156v). [December 10th 1502: The abbot of Alnwick requested that Redman visit Langley, a daughter house of his abbey (BL PECK II, fols 42±42v; CAP III, 479) ]. 1503 [May 24th: Visitation at Beauchief? Letter from Redman concerning an abbatial election at Barlings, sealed at Beauchief on May 24th 1503: 68 (fol. 159v)].

July 28th: Beeleigh (fol. 159). August 1st: Leiston (fol. 159).


244

APPENDIX THREE

August 10th: West Dereham, 676 (fol. 160). October 11th: Hagnaby, 427 (fol. 61). October 13th: Newhouse, 541 (fol. 160v). [October 17th?] Barlings, 219 (fols 160v, 162).

August 3rd: Langley (fol. 159). August 6th: Wendling (fol. 159). September 30th: Tupholme (fol. 159v). October 5th: Irford (fol. 159v). October 9th: Broadholme (fol. 159v). October 10th: Barlings (fol. 159v). October 15th: Welbeck (fol. 159v).

1504 Provincial Chapter on May 20th at Nottingham. [Visitation of Beauchief by the abbot of Welbeck (BL PECK I, fols 115±15v; CAP II, 228): The year in which the document alleges that the visitation took place under `Frater Willielmus [sic] . . . abbas monasterii de Welbek', namely 1472, appears to be incorrect. The visitation report speaks of an abbot nuper defuncti. No abbot of Beauchief died that year, for Abbot John Swift was created abbot in 1462 and was translated to Newhouse in 1478. No abbatial death occurred at Beauchief until 1537 (Abbot John Greenwood), the year in which the abbey surrendered to the Henrician commissioners. Therefore, the Abbot William of Welbeck in the report cannot have been William Burton, who was abbot of Welbeck between 1472/73 and 1482. `Frater Willielmus' must have been one of Burton's predecessors, four of whom are recorded with the same Christian name in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: see White Canons, pp. 397, 412, 418±19; Knowles and Neville Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 184, 186.]


Appendix Four Fornication among the English Premonstratensians, 1475±1500 The following emendations and addenda pertain to the list of accusations of fornication among the English Premonstratensians as compiled in G. G. Coulton's Ten Medieval Studies (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 262±4. These enabled me to reach my ®gure of òver ®fty' canons accused of fornication from 1475 to 1500. I have indicated the particular heading that Coulton assigned to various accusations, the source reference Coulton gave from CAP (with the page number in brackets) followed by my addenda and corrections. For further discussion see pp. 65±8 above. `Condemned [for fornication]': CAP II, 281 (p. 97); John Forest of Blanchland was accused of much fornication in 1486 and was ordered to appear before Redman at Shap ìnfra septem dies . . . ibidem recepturum quod justicia exigit'. CAP II, 368 (p. 182); John Bebe of Dale was punished by his abbot for fornication and fathering a child. However Redman thought that the penalty `non erat culpe digna', and imposed another sentence upon him, which he decided to postpone (`continuavimus'). CAP II, 445 (p. 258); a canon of Halesowen counselled a woman to have an abortion, but no formal charge of fornication was made. I have therefore excluded this canon from my ®gure. CAP: III, 647 (pp. 199±200); a canon was convicted of fornication by the abbot of Wendling in 1477, not by Redman. However I have retained this canon in my calculations as he falls within the 1475± 1500 parameter. Àssumed to be guilty': CAP III, 478 (pp. 29±30); general presumption of guilt at Langley in 1500, but no canons named speci®cally. Penalties (?) against the accused were postponed until next visitation (not extant). CAP III, 616 (p. 162); unspeci®ed number at Tupholme àllata ulteriusque probata' of fornication. Robert Bedalle in 1494 left the abbot to carry out the


246

APPENDIX FOUR

necessary corrections. I have taken account of this instance, and the previous one, in estimating that òver ®fty' canons were accused. CAP III, 489 (p. 39); John Hulle of Lavendon, the subprior, was unable to clear himself of the charge of taking a woman into the dormitory, in order to commit fornication. He denied the crime and was submissive to the visitor. Redman postponed penalties until the next provincial chapter. CAP III, 491 (p. 40); John Hulle of Lavendon (again) `nullo modo se inde potuit legitime purgare' of fornication, and was sentenced in 1494. `[Accusations] Not pressed further': CAP II, 441 (p. 254); Redman ordered that Marjory Coke and other `suspected' women to be removed from Halesowen in 1491, but no formal accusations of fornication were made. I therefore discount this from my calculations. CAP III, 262 (pp. 68±9); ®ve canons of Newhouse were accused of fornication in 1478; òmnes et singuli dicti crimina negaverunt, et ad purgationes se obtulerunt'. Corrections (for fornication?) were postponed in the hope of amendment. CAP III, 556 (pp. 104±5); the abbot of St Radegund's was accused of much fornication and other ènormibus' in 1500. There is no mention of conviction or postponement, though he was forbidden from going to taverns and lay meetings unless it was absolutely necessary, and was to be assiduous in governing his abbey, and in participating in the divine of®ce (èt divino ascultet of®cio'). Nevertheless a memorandum appended to the visitation report relates some of these accusations, upon which the visitor's injunctions were based, and perhaps suggests that further action was intended later. CAP III, 567 (p. 115); a canon of Sulby constantly met `cum muliere consanguinea sua, de qua ultima visitacione diffamatus fuerat'. There is no mention of this in the previous visitation report of 1491, and no formal charge of fornication was made. I have therefore discounted this canon. CAP III, 634 (p. 185); two canons were accused of apostasy and fornication at Welbeck in 1482. Judgment was postponed until Redman's next visit; but there is no mention of it at Welbeck's 1488 visitation. Coulton omitted the following: CAP II, 245 (p. 68); a canon of Beauchief, formerly of Welbeck, was accused of fornication and other faults in 1497. Redman decided to judge him in over a week's time at Welbeck, though there is no explicit mention of this in the 1497 Welbeck visitation report.


FORNICATION AMONG THE ENGLISH PREMONSTRATENSIANS

247

CAP II, 316 (p. 135); the abbot of Coverham was told to investigate a canon accused of fornication in 1486, and to remove the woman with whom he was alleged to be involved. CAP III, 275 (p. 25); in 1494 the abbot of Langley was cleared of an accusation of fornication with a woman, who was to be removed from the abbey. CAP III, 532 (p. 76); a canon of Newhouse who was previously accused of apostasy and fornication in 1478, was excommunicated for the same crimes by his own abbot, and then by Redman for failing to appear before him (for judgment?) in 1482. CAP III, 618 (p. 164): a canon of Tupholme was accused of fornication in 1497, and of fathering a child. He was unable to purge himself by ®ve hands, and sentenced. I include these six accusations in my total. Furthermore, Coulton's overall ®gure of at least `forty-eight accusations' should be àt least forty-seven', as there are only references to òver' fortyseven accused canons in his footnotes. Thus, to this ®gure, I add six accusations to Coulton's calculations, and subtract three of Coulton's to give a ®gure of òver ®fty'. Coulton unduly stressed the loss of the Premonstratensian visitation records in our period, apparently to give the impression of a much bigger ®gure. On top of his forty-eight accusations, he then added twelve cases of banishment from the acts of the provincial chapters to give a ®gure of sixty.1 However nowhere is it evident that these `banishments' were entirely due to fornication. From the visitation reports and other documents, it is probable that of those twenty-one individuals transferred to another abbey (some more than once) ± temporarily or otherwise ± four were due to fornication (whom Coulton already added to his ®gures), two for other reasons, and a total of ®fteen for reasons unspeci®ed, as they are not mentioned in the extant visitation reports.2 George Littleport of West Dereham, who was among the twenty-one exiled canons, may have committed fornication, but this is far from certain, as he was broadly accused of `de furto aliisque criminibus'. Earlier Coulton actually excluded half-a-dozen cases where canons were accused of `multa enormia' (etc.), because these were not speci®ed, and also a case of suspected women being prohibited from frequenting Egglestone in 1482, and other similar instances in the register. I have not added these cases to my calculations.

1 2

Coulton, Ten Medieval Studies, p. 264. Bodl. ASH, fols 17v, 59v, 64, 105, 107±8, 110v; CAP I, 84, 86, 87, 89, 90, 92 and passim; BL PECK I, fol. 95.


Appendix Five The Date of John Capgrave's Life of St Norbert It has generally been held that John Capgrave's Life of St Norbert dates from 1440. This date is given in the work's epilogue (Envoy), along with its dedication to Abbot John Wygenhale of West Dereham.1 However in 1981 P. J. Lucas challenged this view, proposing that Norbert was written `before 1422' for an unnamed abbot of West Dereham ± the prologue does not mention the name of the dedicatee ± and was completed in 1440 for dedication to the current abbot, John Wygenhale.2 In a revised version of a sermon Capgrave delivered at Cambridge in 1422, appended to his Life of St Gilbert in 1451 and entitled à tretis of tho orderes that be vndyr the reule of oure fader Seynt Augustin' (hereafter Tretis), Capgrave related that he would not discuss the Premonstratensians as he had already written a life of Norbert, their founder, which was composed ìn Englisch to the abbot of Derham that deyid last'.3 Lucas proposed that the abbot referred to in this line is not John Wygenhale. He suggested that Wygenhale died in c.1462, as his will is dated 14 January 1461. The abbot who had commissioned Norbert and `deyid last' was not even Wygenhale's predecessor, Robert, who òccurs [in] 1428', but possibly Abbot John, who was elected in 1412.4 The Envoy was written on completion of the work in Àssumpcion weke', 1440, and dedicated to Abbot Wygenhale, whose abbey was dedicated to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.5 Lucas also points out that a reference to a contemporary schism in Norbert, and its comparison with the schism of 1130±38,6 is not the schism of 1439±49, as C. L. Smetana claimed, but the earlier, Great Schism of 1378±1417. As Norbert was completed in the week of 15 August 1440, it is unlikely that news about the coronation of anti-pope 1 2

3

4 5 6

Huntington Library, San Marino MS HM. 55; Life of St Norbert, ll. 4096±102, 4104±8. P. J. Lucas, Òn the Date of John Capgrave's Life of St Norbert', The Library, sixth series 3 (1981), pp. 328±30. Ibid., p. 329, n.5; John Capgrave's Lives of St Augustine and St Gilbert of Sempringham, p. 147. Lucas, Òn the Date of John Capgrave's Life of St Norbert', pp. 328±29. Ibid. `Too popes regned at ones that same year/ As now thei doo, God amende the caas !/ The o pope thus he named was/ Innocent the secunde whech be dew eleccioun/ Was made pope. The othir eke hith thus,/ As this story seith, Petir the Leoun;/ But othir bokes sey he hith Anacletus/ Whatsoeuer he hit¿, contrarye to Iesus,/ Wheche is prince of pees, was he euyr founde' [my emphasis]: Life of St Norbert, ll. 3533±41.


THE DATE OF THE LIFE OF ST NORBERT

249

Felix V (24 July 1440) could have reached England in time for Capgrave to incorporate it into Norbert. It is more likely that Capgrave referred to the Great Schism in Norbert, and not the schism of 1439±49. Ìn view of this evidence', according to Lucas, `we must conclude that Capgrave's Norbert was written before 1422 and completed for presentation in 1440'.7 However the present author proposes that the `traditional' date given to Norbert, namely the date of its completion (1440), should still be used to date the work, and that Lucas' much earlier `before 1422' date, should be discounted. I indicated earlier that the will of 14 January 1461 is actually that of a secular priest, and therefore cannot be advanced as evidence that Abbot Wygenhale was still alive in 1451 when Capgrave's Tretis was appended to the Life of St Gilbert. There is therefore no reason to oppose the view that the line `the abbot of Derham that deyid last', in the Tretis, actually refers to the death of Abbot Wygenhale, to whom the work was dedicated in 1440. This line should be regarded as an addition to Capgrave's original sermon of 1422, as does the reference to the existence and availability of Norbert (from 1440).8 Internal evidence in Norbert's prologue, epilogue and Wygenhale's mortuary roll, strongly suggest that the work was speci®cally commissioned for Wygenhale, even though his name is missing from the prologue of the surviving, presentation copy of Norbert.9 In the Envoy Capgrave says `Go litil book [i.e. the Norbert] to hem that wil ye rede. Say thou were made to the abbot of Dereham . . . The abbotes name was called at that tyde The good Ion Wygnale' [my emphasis throughout].10 Capgrave's reference in the prologue to ful®lling the desires of the abbot in writing Norbert would make little sense if they were not addressed to Wygenhale: `though I [i.e. Capgrave] be of rymeris now the leest, Yet wil I now, obeying youre comaundment, Put me in daungere in this werk present' [my emphasis].11 What about Lucas' interpretation of the reference to a contemporary schism in Norbert? England was very much in touch with events at the Council of Basle, including Pope Eugenius IV's suspension (24 January 1438) and deposition (16 May 1439) and anti-pope Felix V's election (5 November 1439) and coronation (24 July 1440). News about the schism appears to have reached England with more rapidity than Lucas allows for. There was suf®cient time for news of Felix V's election (5 November 1439) to reach Capgrave for inclusion in Norbert by Assumption week in 1440: a period of over nine months.12 In fact Lucas accepts that 7 8 9 10 11 12

Lucas, Òn the Date of John Capgrave's Life of St Norbert', pp. 329±30. See pp. 157, n.162, pp. 159±60. See pp. 152, 156±7. Life of St Norbert, ll. 4096±102. Ibid., 5±7. A. Black, Monarchy and Community: Political Ideas in the Later Conciliar Controversy 1430±1450 (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 99±102; M. Harvey, `John Whethamstede, the Pope and the General Council', The Church in Pre-Reformation Society: Essays in


250

APPENDIX FIVE

`the terms of the comparison' between the schism of 1130±38 and the contemporary schism mentioned by Capgrave, `speci®cally allow for one pope properly elected and one not' [my emphasis].13 It seems likely that the contemporary schism which Capgrave refers to is actually that of 1439±49, and that one can conclude that Capgrave's Norbert should still be assigned the date of 1440, when it was presented to Abbot Wygenhale.

13

Honour of F. R. H. Du Boulay, eds C. M. Barron and C. Harper-Bill (Woodbridge, 1985), pp. 108, 111±12, 113±14. Lucas, Òn the Date of John Capgrave's Life of St Norbert', p. 330.

c:/sjGribbin/bib.3d ± 2/10/0 ± 10:45 ± B&B/SJ

Bibliography Manuscript Sources Great Britain Aberystwyth National Library of Wales MS 22688B. Speculum Juratoris and a treatise on blasphemy by Thomas Wygenhale of West Dereham Abbey, 15th century. Belvoir Belvoir Castle, Add. MS 2. Register of visitation records and miscellaneous material from Welbeck Abbey, 15th±16th century. Birmingham Birmingham City Archives MS 347132. Cellarer and granger accounts from Halesowen Abbey, September 29th 1368 ± September 29th 1369. Cambridge Corpus Christi College MS 27. Unum ex Quatuor of Zachary Chrysopolitanus, O.Praem., from Leiston Abbey, 12th±13th century. MS 59. Ecclesiastical and secular legal documents and miscellaneous material, from Langdon Abbey, 14th century. Emmanuel College MS 17. Augustine's De Trinitate and miscellaneous material, from Barlings Abbey, 12th century. Gonville and Caius College MS 190/223. Medical works by John Arderne and miscellaneous material, from Hagnaby Abbey, late 12th(?)±15th century. MS 458/396. Aristotelian compilation from Bayham Abbey, 13th century (?). Jesus College MS 55. Ordinale Premonstratense, formerly belonging to a canon of Easby Abbey, late 15th century. MS 68. Notule Decretalium (etc.) from Wendling Abbey (?), 13th±14th century. St John's College MS 9. Augustine's Tractatus in Evangelium Johannis, with library list from Welbeck Abbey, 12th±13th century. MS 86. Peter Alphonsus' Adversus Judaeos from Beauchief Abbey, 13th century. Trinity College MS 263 (B. 11.23). John Mirk's Manuale Sacerdotis, notes from the Speculum


252

BIBLIOGRAPHY: MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

Hereticorum by Thomas Wygenhale of West Dereham Abbey, and miscellaneous material, late 15th century. Cambridge University Library MS Ff.4.45. Speculum Juniorum (etc.) from Titch®eld Abbey, 14th century. MS Ii.1.39. Speculum Juratoris by Thomas Wygenhale of West Dereham Abbey and Templum Dei by Robert Grosseteste, late 15th ± early 16th (?) century. MS Kk.1.11. Sermones (etc.) by Odo Cheriton, from West Dereham Abbey(?), 13th century. MS Kk.5.33. Miscellaneous works, from Titch®eld Abbey, 14th century. Vanneck Collection (uncatalogued). Leiston manor court rolls and miscellaneous documents, temp. Edward I±. Eton Eton College MS 43. Gloss on St Matthew's Gospel (etc.) from Bayham Abbey, 13th century. Exeter Exeter Cathedral Library MS 2395. Ordinations from the visitation of Exeter Cathedral by Bishop Richard Redman, May 2nd 1499. Devon Record Of®ce Exeter Diocesan Records, Chanter Catalogue 13. Episcopal Register of Bishop Hugh Oldham of Exeter, 1505±19. Exeter Diocesan Records, Chanter Catalogue 12, part 2. Episcopal Register of Bishop Richard Redman of Exeter, 1497±1501. Ipswich Suffolk Record Of®ce MS H.D. 371.1. Wreck roll from Leiston Abbey, 1378±97. MS H.D. 371.2. Wreck roll from Leiston Abbey, 1398±1405, 1408±09. MS H.D. 371.6. (?) Leiston Abbey cook's account (missing since 1974, date unknown). Lewes East Sussex Record Of®ce SAS/G5/11. An extent of the manor of Friston, belonging to Bayham Abbey, November 29th 1455. SAS/G3/18. Composite court book, including Bayham manor from the recently dissolved Bayham Abbey, 1526/27. Lincoln Lincoln Cathedral Library MS 179 (B.3.7). Huguccio of Pisa's Derivationes, Latin vocabulary and miscellaneous notes (14th±15th century), from Durford Abbey, 14th century. MS 222 (C.4.12). Vita Sancti Bernardi and miscellaneous works, from Welbeck Abbey, 12th±13th century.



253

London British Library Add. MS 4934. Transcriptions from Belvoir Castle Add. MS 2 by Francis Peck, 18th century. Add. MS 4935. Transcriptions from Belvoir Castle Add. MS 2 and other material by Francis Peck, 18th century. Add. MS 5485. Extracts from the lost annals of Langley Abbey, 16th century. Add. MS 46411. Mortuary bill of Abbot John Wygenhale of West Dereham (c.1430±c.1451), 15th century. Add. MS 70506. Register from Titch®eld Abbey (formerly Welbeck Abbey MS I.A.2 ), late 14th century±1559. Add. MS 70507. Miscellaneous material from Titch®eld Abbey, including library list and Progressus, (formerly Welbeck Abbey MS I.A.1), 1400±c.1405. Add. MS 70508. Rental of Titch®eld Abbey, late 14th century±1567. Add. Roll 32957. Accounts of Kirkby Malham parish Yorks., compiled by John Dytton, canon of West Dereham, 1454±55. MS Cotton Caligula A.VIII. Obituary from Beauchief Abbey, 13th±16th century. MS Cotton Vespasian B.XI. Chronicle from Hagnaby Abbey, 14th century. MS Cotton Vespasian E.XIV. Cartulary from Leiston Abbey, 13th century. MS Cotton Vespasian E.XXVI. Cartulary and Historia Fundationis of Dale Abbey, early 14th century. MS Harley 148. Speculum Juratoris and other works by Thomas Wygenhale of West Dereham Abbey, 15th century. MS Harley 217. The Meditationes Vitae Christi, formerly attributed to St Bonaventure and Hugh of St Victor's De Laude Caritatis, from Alnwick Abbey, 15th century. MS Harley 972. Extracts from the lost annals of Langley Abbey and miscellaneous material, 17th century. MS Lansdowne 207B. Transcripts of charters and miscellaneous items from Beauchief Abbey, 17th century. MS Royal 3B.XV. The Harmonia Evangeliorum, formerly attributed to Eusebius, from Barlings Abbey, 13th century. MS Royal 4A.IV. The Harmonia Evangeliorum, formerly attributed to Eusebius, from Tupholme Abbey, 12th±13th century. MS Royal 5F.V. Adalberti Speculum and other works, from Hagnaby Abbey, 13th century. MS Royal 13A.XXI. Imago Mundi and miscellaneous material, from Hagnaby Abbey, 14th century. MS Sloane 1584. The common-place book of John Gisborn of Coverham Abbey, c.1529. Library of the University of London MSS I.H.R. 953±955. Annotated copy of the Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia, ed. F. A. Gasquet, Camden Society, 3rd series, vols 6, 10, 12 (1904±06), by G. G. Coulton et al. 20th century. The Library of the Society of Antiquaries of London MS 134. John Lydgate's Life of Our Lady, and miscellaneous works, from Halesowen Abbey (?), 15th century.


254


Public Record Of®ce C 1/31/468. Bill of complaint issued on Abbot Thomas Shorham of Bayham's behalf, against Abbot Richard Redman of Shap, 1466/67. C 81/1530/45. Treaty between Richard III of England and John of Portugal, witnessed by Bishop Richard Redman and others, York, June 25th, 1484. C 81/1530/49. Warrant from Richard III to Bishop John Russell of Lincoln and Chancellor of England, witnessed by Bishop Richard Redman and others, Westminster, August 12th, 1484. E 101/415/3, fol. 287. Annual payment by Bishop Richard Redman of Exeter for permission to reside in his diocese, c.1499/1500. E 164/19. Cartulary from Torre Abbey, 15th century. Prob. 11/14, fol. 301. The will of Bishop Richard Redman of Ely (1501±05), dated August 18th 1505. SC 1/51/173. Letter to Thomas Kelyngworth, steward of the Duke of Suffolk, from John Griffes, c.1501/5. SC 7/23/2. Bull of Pope Innocent VIII ordering an investigation into the conduct of Bishop Redman of St Asaph, January 5th, 1488. Maidstone Centre for Kentish Studies UB/40/M/10. Bayham manor compoti, from Bayham Abbey, 1411. UB/40/M/12 and 13. Frant Manor court book, belonging to Bayham Abbey, 1523±39 (?). Manchester John Rylands University of Manchester Library MS Eng. 109 (R. 21638). Sermons in Latin and English, from Welbeck Abbey, 1432. Norwich Norwich Cathedral Library MS 5 (deposited in the Norfolk Record Of®ce, MS DCL.5). Sermons in English, from Welbeck Abbey, originally from John Rylands Library MS Eng. 109 (R. 21638), 15th century. Nottingham Nottinghamshire Archives MS D.D.F.J.11/1/8. Inventory from Beauchief Abbey, 1536. Oxford Bodleian Library MS Ashmole 1519. Richard Redman's Premonstratensian Visitation Register, late 15th±early 16th century. MS Auct.D.inf.2.6. Glosses on St Luke's Gospel, and other theological material from Beeleigh Abbey, 13th century. MS Bodley 249. A portion of Augustine's Enarrationes in Psalmos, from Titch®eld Abbey, 14th century. MS Digby 154. Tractatus Expositione Missae and miscellaneous works from Titch®eld Abbey, 13th±14th century.



255

MS Dodsworth 159, fol. 189. Extracts from lost cartulary of Shap Abbey, 17th century. MS Eng. Hist. D.227. H.M. Colvin's corrections to Gasquet's Collectanea AngloPremonstratensia, 20th century. MS Holkham Misc. 40. Sermones, 15th century. MS Laud Misc. 357. Miscellaneous theological and philosophical material from Titch®eld Abbey, 12th±13th century. MS Rawlinson B.336. Cartulary with rental, library list and other material from St Radegund's Abbey, late 13th century±. MS Rawlinson C.317. Theological material and accounts from Cockersand Abbey(?), 13th century. MS Rawlinson D.318. Chartae and miscellaneous material from the London Charterhouse, 15th±16th century. MS Rawlinson Letters 108, fol. 33. A letter of Abbot William Curlew of Langley, December 15th, 1507. Magdalen College MS Lat. 199. Chronicle from Barlings Abbey, 14th century. Preston Lancashire Record Of®ce MS RCHy.3.6.18. Letter of confraternity granted by the abbot and canons of Coverham, September 24th, 1504. Shef®eld Shef®eld City Archives MS MD.3500. Common-place book from Beauchief Abbey (?), c.1500. MS PR2/21 (Norton Church deeds). Agreement between the abbot of Beauchief and Thomas Gylbert, canon of the abbey and vicar of Norton, November 3rd, 1524. Winchester Hampshire Record Of®ce 5 M51. 75±81. Court rolls from various manors belonging to Titch®eld Abbey, including Titch®eld, Portsea, Porchester and Swanwick, c.1500±32.

Ireland Dublin Trinity College MS 51. Bible (pars ii), from West Dereham Abbey, 12th±13th century. MS 223. St Augustine's, Enarrationes in Psalmos (ps. 1±50), from West Dereham Abbey, 13th century.

Spain El Escorial Real Biblioteca de San Lorenzo de El Escorial MS Q.ii.6. Kalendarium, Psalterium and miscellaneous material, from West Dereham Abbey, 14th±16th century.


256

BIBLIOGRAPHY: INCUNABULA

MS D.iii.11. Itinerarium Jerosolim and other works, from Barlings Abbey, 13th century.

United States of America Harvard Harvard Law School MS 28. Magna Carta and miscellaneous material, from Titch®eld Abbey, 14th century. New York Pierpoint Morgan Library MS G.39. Prayer roll in Latin and English, written by a canon of Coverham Abbey, late ®fteenth century. San Marino Huntington Library MS HM.55. John Capgrave's `Life of St Norbert', from West Dereham Abbey, 1440.

Incunabula and Early Sixteenth Century Books London British Library IB. 24866. Various letters by Cicero, from Leiston Abbey, printed in Venice, 1480. Oxford Bodleian Library Auct.1.Q.6.1. Figurae Biblie by Antony de Rampegollis, and other works, from Titch®eld Abbey, printed in Paris, 1497, 1498. Don.e.598. Expositio super Librum Psalmorum, by Peter Herentals, from Dale Abbey, printed in Rouen, 1504.

Printed Primary Sources Acta Capitulorum Triennalium et Annalium Circariae Saxoniae Ordinis Praemonstratensis inde ab Anno 1466 usque ad Annum 1516, ed. K. Dolista, AP 51±54 (Averbode, 1975±78). Acta et Decreta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praemonstratensis, 3 vols, ed. J. B. Valvekens, AP 42±54 (Averbode, 1966±). `The Annals of Lough Key', ed. Anon., AP (1930). Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis Ordinis, ed. J. Le Paige (Paris, 1633). Bishop Geoffrey Blythe's Visitations, c.1515±1525, ed. P. Heath, Collections for a History of Staffordshire, 4th series 7 (1973). The Book of Margery Kempe, ed. B. A. Windeatt (London, 1985).


BIBLIOGRAPHY: PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

257

Breviarium ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Sarum 1, eds F. Proctor and C. Wordsworth (Cambridge, 1879). British Library, Harleian MS. 433, 4 vols, eds R. E. Horrox and P. W. Hammond (London, 1979±83). Calendar of Close Rolls, 1422±1509, 10 vols, eds W. H. B. Bird, K. H. Ledward and R. E. Latham (London, 1933±1963). Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, Papal Letters, 18 vols to date, eds W. H. Bliss, J. A. Twemlow et al. (London and Dublin, 1893±). The Calendar of Fearn: Text and Additions, 1471±1667, ed. R. J. Adam (Edinburgh, 1991). Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1461±1509, 3 vols, ed. P. V. Davis (London, 1949±62). Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry VII, 3 vols, eds W. Maskelyne and D. L. Evans (London, 1898±1955). Calendar of Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, 21 vols and addenda, eds J. S. Brewer, J. Gairdner, R. H. Brodie et al. (London, 1862± 1932). Calendar of Papal Letters to Scotland of Benedict XIII of Avignon, 1394±1419, ed. F. McGurk (Edinburgh, 1976). Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1452±1509, 6 vols, eds A. E. Bland, R. C. Fowler and J. G. Black (London, 1897±1916). Catholic England: Faith, Religion and Observance before the Reformation, R. N. Swanson (Manchester and New York, 1993). À Carthusian Carta Visitationis of the Fifteenth Century', ed. A. Gray, BIHR 40 (1967). Cartulary of Dale Abbey, ed. A. Saltman, Derbyshire Archaeological Society Record Series, vol. 2, Historical Manuscripts Commission Joint Publication, no. 11 (1967). Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury: Edited from the Fifteenth Century MS. No. 148, with Additions from the Cathedral Records, and Woodcuts from the Sarum Processionale of 1502, ed. C. Wordsworth (1901). Chapter Acts of the Cathedral Church of St Mary of Lincoln, A.D. 1520±1536, ed. R. E. G. Cole, Lincoln Record Society 12 (1915). Chapters of the Augustinian Canons, ed. H. E. Salter, The Canterbury and York Society 29 (1922). Documents Illustrating the Activities of the General and Provincial Chapters of the English Black Monks 1215±1540, 3 vols, ed. W. A. Pantin, Camden Society, 3rd series 44, 47, 54 (1931, 1933, 1937). The Chartae of the Carthusian General Chapter: Aula Dei: The Egen Manuale from the Charterhouse of Buxheim: Oxford Bodleian Library MS. Rawlinson D. 318, eds M. Sargent and J. Hogg, Analecta Cartusiana 100:2 (Salzburg, 1983). The Chartae of the Carthusian General Chapter: Dom PaleÂmon Bastin's Extracts from the Acta of the Carthusian General Chapter for the Provincia Angliae: Parkminster MS. B.77, ed. J. Hogg, Analecta Cartusiana, 100:21 (Salzburg, 1989). The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey, 3 vols, ed. W. Farrer, Chetham Society third series, 38±40, 43, 56±7, 64 (new series) (1898±1909). The Cloud of Unknowing and Related Treatises, ed. P. Hodgson, Analecta Cartusiana 3 (Exeter, 1982).


258


Les Codi®cations Cisterciennes de 1237 et de 1257, ed. B. Lucet (Paris, 1977). Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia, 3 vols, ed. F. A. Gasquet, Camden Society third series 6, 10, 12 (1904±06). Commentary on the Rule of St Augustine by Robert Richardinus, ed. G. G. Coulton (Edinburgh, 1935). Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, A.D. 446±1718, 4 vols, ed. D. Wilkins (London, 1737). Coutumiers Liturgiques de PreÂmontreÂ du XIIIe et du XIVe SieÁcle, ed. P. F. LefeÁvre (Louvain, 1953). English Benedictine Kalendars after A.D. 1100, ed. F. Wormald, HBS 72 (1939). L' Epistola Reformatoria du Prieur de BethleÂem Henri van der Heyden pour l'Abbaye du Parc au XVe SieÁcle, ed. P. L. LefeÁvre, AP 3 (1927). Foedera, ed. T. Rymer (London, 1704±35). Formularium Praemonstratense II, ed. J. J. Evers (Tongerlo, 1932). Historical Manuscripts Commission: Tenth Report, Appendix, Part VI (London, 1887). `The History of the Foundation of Dale Abbey or the So-Called Chronicle of Dale', ed. A. Saltman, Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society 87 (1967). The Holyrood Ordinale, ed. F. C. Eeles (Edinburgh, 1916). Horae Eboracenses: The Prymer or Hours of the Blessed Virgin Mary According to the Use of the Illustrious Church of York, ed. C. Wordsworth, Surtees Society 132 (1929). Ùn Inventaire de la BibliotheÁque de Fontcaude en 1352', ed. A. BondeÂelleSouchier, AP 74 (1998). John Capgrave's Lives of St Augustine and St Gilbert of Sempringham and a Sermon, ed. J. J. Munro, EETS, original series 140 (1910). Kalendarium Manuale: Utriusque Ecclesiae Orientalis et Occidentalis, 2 vols, N. Nilles (Innsbruck, 1896±97). Kentish Visitations of Archbishop William Warham and His Deputies, 1511±1512, ed. K. L. Wood-Legh, Kent Archaeological Society Records Series 24 (1984). Leiston Abbey Cartulary and Butley Priory Charters, ed. R. Mortimer, Suffolk Records Society, Suffolk Charters 1 (1979). Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII, 2 vols, ed. J. Gairdner, Rolls Series (London 1861±63). Letters from the English Abbots to the Chapter at CõÃteaux, 1442±1521, ed. C. H. Talbot, Camden Society, 4th series 4 (London, 1967). Letters of Richard Fox, 1486±1527, eds P. S. Allen and H. M. Allen (Oxford, 1929). Le Liber Ordinarius d'ApreÁs un Manuscrit du XIIIe/XIVe S., ed. M. Van Waefelghem (Louvain, 1913). The Libraries of the Cistercians, Gilbertines and Premonstratensians, ed. D. N. Bell (London, 1992). The Life of St Katharine of Alexandria by John Capgrave, ed. C. Horstmann, EETS, original series 100 (1893). The Life of St Norbert by John Capgrave, O.E.S.A. (1393±1464), ed. C. L. Smetana (Toronto, 1977). Liturgical and Miscellaneous Questions, Dubia and Supplications to La Grande Chartreuse from the English Carthusian Province in the Later Middle Ages, ed. J. A. Gribbin, Analecta Cartusiana 100:32 (Salzburg, 1999). The Map of Great Britain circa A.D. 1360 Known as the Gough Map, ed. E. J. S. Parsons (Oxford, 1958).



259

`The Medieval Library of Titch®eld Abbey', ed. R. M. Wilson, Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society: Literary and Historical Section 5 (1940). The Metropolitical Visitations of William Courteney, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1381± 1396, ed. J. H. Dahmus, Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences 31 (Urbana, 1950). Mirk's Festial: a Collection of Homilies by Johannes Mirkus (John Mirk), ed. T. Erbe, EETS, extra series 96 (1905). Missale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiae Eboracensis, 1, ed. W. G. Henderson, Surtees Society 59 (1874). The Monastic Breviary of Hyde Abbey, Winchester, ed. J. B. L. Tolhurst, HBS 69, 70, 71, 76, 78, 80 (1932±42). Monasticon Anglicanum, 6 vols, ed. W. Dugdale, re-edited by J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Badinel (London, 1817±30). `Das Ordensrecht der PraÈmonstratenser vom SpaÈten 12. Jahrhundert bis zum Jahr 1227: Der Liber Consuetudinum und die Dekrete des Generalkapitels', ed. B. Krings, AP 69 (1993). L'Ordinaire de PreÂmontreÂ d' ApreÁs des Manuscrits du XIIe et du XIIIe SieÁcle, ed. P. F. LefeÁvre (Louvain, 1941). The Ordinal and Customary of the Abbey of St Mary York, eds L. McLachlan and J. B. L. Tolhurst, HBS 73, 75, 84 (1936±51). Patrologiae Cursus Completus, 218 vols, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris 1844±55, 1864). `Premonstratensian Itineraries from a Titch®eld Abbey M.S.', ed. B. Dickins, Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society 4 (1936±38). The Register of Bishop Philip Repingdon, 1405±1419, ed. M. Archer, Lincoln Record Society 57, 58, 74 (1963, 1982). The Register of John Morton Archbishop of Canterbury 1486±1500, vols 1 and 2, ed. C. Harper-Bill, Canterbury and York Society 75 (1987). The Register of Richard Fox Lord Bishop of Durham 1494±1501, ed. M. Peers Howden, Surtees Society 147 (1932). The Register of Thomas Rotherham Archbishop of York 1480±1500, vol. 1, ed. E. E. Barker, Canterbury and York Society 69 (1976). Registra Johannis Whethamstede, Willelmi Albon, et Willelmi Walingforde, 2 vols, ed. H. T. Riley, Rolls Series 28 (1872±73). Registrum Anglie de Libris Doctorum et Auctorum Veterum, eds R. H. Rouse and M. A. Rouse (London, 1993). La ReÁgle de Saint Augustin, ed. L. Verheijen (Paris, 1967). The Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources, 3 vols, ed. A. F. Pollard (London, 1913, 1914). Rotuli Parliamentorum, 6 vols, eds J. Strachey et al. (London, 1767±77). Rotuli Scotiae in Turri Londinensi et in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi, 2 vols, ed. D. Macpherson (London, 1814±18). Sacramentarium Praemonstratense, ed. N. I. Weyns (Averbode, 1968). Scottish Supplications to Rome, 1428±1432, eds A. I. Dunlop and I. B. Cowan (Edinburgh, 1970). Signs for Silence: The Sign Language of the Monks of Ely in the Middle Ages, ed. D. Sherlock (Ely, 1992). The State of Ex-Religious and Former Chantry Priests in the Diocese of Lincoln 1547± 1574, ed. G. A. J. Hodgett, Lincoln Record Society 53 (1959). Statuta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Cisterciensis ab Anno 1116 ad Annum 1786, 8 vols, ed. J. M. Canivez (Louvain, 1933±41).


260

BIBLIOGRAPHY: SECONDARY SOURCES

Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ au Milieu du Xiie SieÁcle, eds P. F. LefeÁvre and W. M. Grauwen (Averbode, 1978). Les Statuts de PreÂmontreÂ: ReÂformeÂs sur les Ordres de GreÂgoire IX et d' Innocent IV au XIIIe SieÁcle, ed. P. F. LefeÁvre (Louvain, 1946). The Style of Preaching Four Hundred years Ago, ed. Anon. (Great Totham, 1837). Summa Theologiae (Thomas Aquinas), 5 vols, eds Spanish Dominican Order (Madrid, 1952, 1961). Textes Relatifs a une Provision Ponti®cale a l'Abbaye d'Averbode au XVe SieÁcle, ed. P. LefeÁvre (Tongerlo, 1926). À Twelfth-Century Grant to Irford Priory', ed. H. M. Colvin, Lincolnshire Architectural and Archaeological Society, Reports and Papers 5 (offprint, 1957). `Two Documents Relating to Shap Abbey', ed. F. W. Ragg, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 9 (1909). Visitations of the Diocese of Norwich, A.D. 1492±1532, ed. A. Jessopp, Camden Society, 2nd series 43 (1888). Visitations of Religious Houses in the Diocese of Lincoln, 3 vols, ed. A. Hamilton Thompson, Lincoln Record Society 7, 14, 21 (1914±29). William Worcestre Itineraries, ed. J. H. Harvey (Oxford, 1969).

Secondary Sources Addleshaw, G. W. O., Blanchland: A Short History (Petergate, 1951). AntolõÂn, G., CataÂlogo de los CoÂdices Latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial, 1, 3 (Madrid, 1910, 1913). Ardura, B., PreÂmontreÂs Histoire et SpiritualiteÂ (Saint-Etienne, 1995). Backmund, N., Monasticon Praemonstratense, 3 vols (Staubing, 1949, 1952, 1956). ÐÐÐÐ, `The Premonstratensian Order in Scotland', The Innes Review 4 (1953). ÐÐÐÐ, Die Mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreiber des PraÈmonstratenserordens (Averbode, 1972). ÐÐÐÐ, `SpaÈtmittelalterliche Reformbestrebungen im PraÈmonstratenserorden', AP 56 (1980). Baker, D., Òld Wine in New Bottles: Attitudes to Reform in Fifteenth-Century England', Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History, ed. D. Baker, Studies in Church History 14 (Oxford, 1977). Bale, J., Scriptorum Illustrium Maioris Britanniae (Basel, 1557±59). Bell, D. N., What Nuns Read: Books and Libraries in Medieval English Nunneries, Cistercian Studies Series, n.158 (Kalamazoo, 1995). Bennett, M., Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke (Stroud, 1987). Bentham, J., The History and Antiquities of the Conventual and Cathedral Church of Ely (Cambridge, 1771). Binns, A., Dedications of Monastic Houses in England and Wales 1066±1216 (Woodbridge, 1989). Black, A., Monarchy and Community: Political Ideas in the Later Conciliar Controversy 1430±1450 (Cambridge, 1970). Bond, J., `The Premonstratensian Order: A Preliminary Survey of its Growth and Distribution in Medieval Europe', In Search of Cult: Archaeological Investigations in Honour of Philip Rahtz, ed. M. Carver (Woodbridge, 1993).



261

Bowker, M., The Henrician Reformation: The Diocese of Lincoln Under John Longland 1521±1547 (Cambridge, 1981). Boyle, L. E., `The Oculus Sacerdotis and Some Other Works of William of Pagula', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series 5 (1955). Briquet, C. M., Les Filigranes: Dictionnaire Historique des Marques du Papier, 4 vols (Amsterdam, 1968). Britnell, R. H., `The Economic Context', The Wars of the Roses, ed. A. J. Pollard (Basingstoke and London, 1995). Brooke, D., The Medieval Cult of St Ninian (Whithorn, 1987). BuÈhler, C. F., `Prayers and Charms in Certain Middle English Scrolls', Speculum 39 (1964). Burgess, C., ` ``For the Increase of Divine Service'': Chantries in the Parish in Late Medieval Bristol', JEH 36 (1985). Burrow, J. A., Medieval Writers and Their Work (Oxford, 1982). Burton, J., Monastic and Religious Orders in Britain, 1000±1300 (Cambridge, 1994). Campbell, H., St Norbert, Storrington (no date). Chadd, D. F. L., `Liturgy and Liturgical Music: the Limits of Uniformity', Cistercian Art and Architecture in the British Isles, eds C. Norton and D. Park (Cambridge, 1986). Chambers, D. S., Cardinal Bainbridge in the Court of Rome 1509±1514 (Oxford, 1965). Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII (New Haven and London, 1999). Clapham, A. W., `The Architecture of the Premonstratensians, with Special Reference to their Buildings in England', Archaeologia 73 (1923). Clark, W. W., `Cistercian In¯uences on Premonstratensian Church Planning: SaintMartin at Laon', Studies in Cistercian Art and Architecture, vol. 2, ed. M. Parsons Lillich, Cistercian Studies Series, no. 69 (Kalamazoo, 1984). Clayton, D. J., The Administration of the County Palatine of Chester: 1442±1485, Chetham Society, 3rd series 35 (1990). Colledge, E., `The Capgrave `Àutographs'' ', Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 6 (1974). Colvin, H. M., Èxcavations at Dale Abbey', Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, new series 12 (1938). ÐÐÐÐ, `Medieval Glass from Dale Abbey', Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, new series 13 (1939). ÐÐÐÐ, `The Dissolution of Dale Abbey', Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society new series, 17 (1943). ÐÐÐÐ, The White Canons in England (Oxford, 1951). ÐÐÐÐ, `Monasticon Praemonstratense', JEH 4 (1953). ÐÐÐÐ, `The Registrum Premonstratense: a Lost MS. Rediscovered', JEH 8 (1957). Colvin, H. M. and R. Gilyard-Beer, Shap Abbey (London, 1963). Condon, M. M., `Ruling Elites in the Reign of Henry VII', Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England, ed. C. Ross (Gloucester, 1979). ÐÐÐÐ, Àn Anachronism with Intent? Henry VII's Council Ordinance of 1491/ 2', Kings and Nobles in the Later Middle Ages: A Tribute to Charles Ross, eds R. A. Grif®ths and J. Sherborne (Gloucester and New York, 1986). Cooper, G. M., `The Premonstratensian Abbey of Bayham', Sussex Archaeological Collections 9 (1857). Coulton, G. G., Ten Medieval Studies (Cambridge, 1930). Cousins, E. H., Bonaventure and the Coincidence of Opposites (Chicago, 1978).


262


Cowan, I. B. and Easson, D. E., Medieval Religious Houses: Scotland (London and New York, 1976). Cowley, F. G., The Monastic Order in South Wales 1066±1349 (Cardiff, 1977). Cross, C., `Monastic Learning and Libraries in Sixteenth-Century Yorkshire', Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England, and Scotland, ed. J. Kirk, Studies in Church History, subsidia 8 (Oxford, 1991). Cross, C. and Vickers, N., Monks, Friars and Nuns in Sixteenth Century Yorkshire, The Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series 150 (1995). Cruden, S., Scottish Medieval Churches (Edinburgh, 1986). Davis, R. G., `The Church and the War of the Roses', The War of the Roses, ed. A. J. Pollard (Basingstoke, 1995). ÐÐÐÐ, `Richard II and the Church', Richard II: The Art of Kingship, eds A. Goodman and J. Gillespie (Oxford, 1999). De Clerck, D., `Disquisitio Historico-Juridica de Visitatoribus in Ordine Praemonstratensi', AP 33 (1957). De Meijer, A., `John Capgrave O.E.S.A.', Augustiniana 5 (1955). ÐÐÐÐ, `John Capgrave O.E.S.A.', Augustiniana 7 (1957). Delcambre, E., Servais de Lairuelz et la ReÂforme des PreÂmontreÂs (Averbode, 1964). Dereine, C., `Les Origines de PreÂmontreÂ', Revue d'Histoire EccleÂsiastique 42 (1947). Deveson, J., `Reading Between the Lines', Choir and Organ 4 (1996). Dickens, A. G., The English Reformation (London and Glasgow, 1967). Dilworth, M., Whithorn Priory in the Late Middle Ages (Whithorn, 1993). ÐÐÐÐ, `Franco-Scottish Efforts at Monastic Reform, 1500±1560', Records of the Scottish Church History Society 25 (1994). ÐÐÐÐ, Scottish Monasteries in the Late Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1995). Dobson, R. B., Durham Priory 1400±1450 (Cambridge, 1973). ÐÐÐÐ, `Richard III and the Church of York', Kings and Nobles in the Later Middle Ages: A Tribute to Charles Ross, eds R. A. Grif®ths and J. Sherborne (Gloucester and New York, 1986). ÐÐÐÐ, `The English Monastic Cathedrals in the Fifteenth Century', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th series 1 (1991). ÐÐÐÐ, `The Religious Orders 1370±1540', The History of the University of Oxford, 2, eds J. I. Catto and R. Evans (Oxford, 1992). ÐÐÐÐ, `Richard Bell, Prior of Durham (1464±78) and Bishop of Carlisle (1478± 95)', Church and Society in the Medieval North of England (London and Rio Grande, 1996). Doyle, A. I., `Carthusian Participation in the Movement of Works of Richard Rolle Between England and Other Parts of Europe in the 14th and 15th Centuries', KartaÈusermystik und-mystiker, Band 2, Analecta Cartusiana 55 (Salzburg, 1981). Duffy, E., The Stripping of the Altars (New Haven and London, 1992). Duggan, C., `The Becket Dispute and the Criminous Clerks', BIHR 35 (1962). Dyer, C., Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1989). Edwards, R., The Itinerary of King Richard III 1483±1485 (London, 1983). Ekwall, E., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names (Oxford, 1960). Elliston Erwood, F. C., `The Premonstratensian Abbey of Langley, co. Norfolk', Norfolk Archaeology 21 (1920±22). Emden, A. B., A Register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500, 3 vols (Oxford, 1957±59). ÐÐÐÐ, A Register of the University of Cambridge to 1500 (Cambridge, 1963).



263

ÐÐÐÐ, A Register of the University of Oxford, A.D. 1501±1540 (Oxford, 1974). Evans, G. R., `Zachary of BesancËon and the Bible's Contradictions', AP 58 (1982). Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 12 vols, eds J. M. Horn, B. Jones and H. P. F. King (London, 1962±67). Fletcher, A. J., `John Mirk and the Lollards', Medium Aevum 56 (1987). Folsom, C., `Gestures Accompanying the Words of Consecration in the History of the Ordo Missñ', The Veneration and Administration of the Eucharist: The Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on the Roman Catholic Liturgy, eds the members of the Centre International d'Etudes Liturgiques (Southampton, 1997). Foulds, T., Ùnpublished Monastic Cartularies of Nottinghamshire: a Guide to their Contents', Transactions of the Thoroton Society 88 (1984). Fowler, R. C., Clapham, A. W. et al., Beeleigh Abbey (London, 1922). Friedman, J. B., Northern English Books, Owners, and Makers in the Late Middle Ages (Syracuse, 1995). Gabriel, A. L., `Les PreÂmontreÂs dans les UniversiteÂs MeÂdieÂvales dans l'Allemagne du Nord-Est', AP 36 (1960). Gardiner, E. J., `The English Nobility and Monastic Education, c.1100±1500', The Cloister and the World: Essays in Medieval History in Honour of Barbara Harvey, eds J. Blair and B. Golding (Oxford, 1996). Gerits, T., À Propos de l'Organisation des BibliotheÁques MeÂdieÂvales de l'Ordre de PreÂmontreÂ en Angleterre et en Allemagne', AP 37 (1961). ÐÐÐÐ, `PreÂmontreÂs Inscrits aux UniversiteÂs de Vienne (1377±1658/59), de BaÃle (1460±1665/66) et de Fribourg-en-Breisgau (1656±1806)', AP 39 (1963). ÐÐÐÐ, `Notes sur la Tradition Manuscrite et ImprimeÂe du Traite In Unum ex Quatuor de Zacharie de BesancËon', AP 42 (1966). Gihr, N., The Holy Sacri®ce of the Mass (St Louis and London, 1935). Gill, L., Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion (Stroud, 1999). Gillett, H. M., Walsingham: the History of a Famous Shrine (London, 1946). Gilyard-Beer, R., Fountains Abbey (London, 1970). Goring, J., `The Riot at Bayham Abbey, June 1525', Sussex Archaeological Collections 116, The Sussex Archaeological Society (1978). Graham, R., English Ecclesiastical Studies (London, 1929). Graham, R. and Ballie Reynolds, P. K., Egglestone Abbey (London, 1958). Graham, R. and Rigold, S. E., Titch®eld Abbey (London, 1976). Greatrex, J., Register of the English Cathedral Priories of the Province of Canterbury c.1066±1540 (Oxford, 1997). Greene, J. P., Medieval Monasteries (Leicester, 1992). Gribbin, J. A., Aspects of Carthusian Liturgical Practice in Later Medieval England, Analecta Cartusiana 99:33 (Salzburg, 1995). ÐÐÐÐ, Ìndulgences, Fund-Raising and Piety In Nomine Jesu: A Letter of Bishop Richard Redman of Exeter', Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries 38 (2000). Grif®ths, G. M., À St Asaph ``Register'' of Episcopal Acts, 1506±1571', Journal of the Historical Society of the Church in Wales 6 (1956). Guy, J., Tudor England (Oxford, 1988). Gwyn, P., The King's Cardinal (London, 1990). Gwynn, A. and Neville Hadcock, R., Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland (Dublin, 1970). Haigh, C. The Last Days of the Lancashire Monasteries and the Pilgrimage of Grace, Chetham Society, 3rd series 17 (1969).


264


Haigh, C., Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge, 1975). Haines, R. M., Àspects of the Episcopate of John Carpenter, Bishop of Worcester, 1444±1476', JEH 19 (1968). ÐÐÐÐ, `The Practice and Problems of a Fifteenth-Century English Bishop: the Episcopate of William Gray', Medieval Studies 34 (1972). Halsall, G., `Coverham Abbey: Its Context in the Landscape of Late Medieval North Yorkshire', The Archaeology of Rural Monasteries, eds R. Gilchrist and H. Mytum (Oxford, 1989). Hamilton Thompson, A., The Premonstratensian Abbey of Welbeck (London, 1938). ÐÐÐÐ, The English Clergy and Their Organisation in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1947). ÐÐÐÐ, Easby Abbey (London, 1948). Haren, M. J., `Social Ideas in the Pastoral Literature of Fourteenth-Century England', Religious Belief and Ecclesiastical Careers in Late Medieval England, ed. C. Harper-Bill (Woodbridge, 1991). Harper, J., The Forms and Orders of Western Liturgy (Oxford, 1991). Harper-Bill, C., `Cistercian Visitation in the Late Middle Ages: the Case of Hailes Abbey', BIHR 53 (1980). ÐÐÐÐ, `Monastic Apostasy in Late Medieval England', JEH 32 (1981). ÐÐÐÐ, The Pre-Reformation Church in England 1400±1530 (London, 1989). Harvey, B., Monastic Dress in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1988). ÐÐÐÐ, Living and Dying in England, 1100±1540 (Oxford, 1993). Harvey M., `John Whethamstede, the Pope and the General Council', The Church in Pre-Reformation Society: Essays in Honour of F. R. H. Boulay, eds C. M. Barron and C. Harper-Bill (Woodbridge, 1985). Heath, P., Medieval Clerical Accounts, Borthwick Papers, no. 26 (York, 1964). ÐÐÐÐ, The English Parish Clergy on the Eve of the Reformation (London, 1969). Hey, D., `The Beauchief Abbey Cartulary', Monastic Research Bulletin 3 (1997). Hicks, M. A., `The Sources', The War of the Roses, ed. A. J. Pollard (Basingstoke, 1995). Hockey, S. F., Quarr Abbey and its Lands 1132±1631 (Leicester, 1970). Horrox, R., Richard III: A Study in Service (Cambridge, 1989). Hubbard, E., The Buildings of Wales: Clwyd (Harmondsworth, 1986). Hudson, A., The Premature Reformation (Oxford, 1989). Hughes, J., Pastors and Visionaries: Religion and Secular Life in Late Medieval Yorkshire (Woodbridge, 1988). Hugo, C. L., Sacri et Canonici Ordinis Praemonstratensis Annales, 2 vols (Nancy, 1734, 1736). Hutchison, A. M., `Syon Abbey: Dissolution, No Decline', Birgittiana 1 (1996). Jacob, E. J., The Fifteenth Century 1399±1485 (Oxford, 1961). James, M. R., Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS. in the Library of Gonville and Caius College, 3 vols (Cambridge, 1907±14). ÐÐÐÐ, Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS. in the Library of Corpus Christi College Cambridge, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1912). Jaritz, G., `The Standard of Living in German and Austrian Cistercian Monasteries of the Late Middle Ages', Goad and Nail: Studies in Medieval Cistercian History 10, ed. E. R. Elder (Michigan, 1985). Jessopp, A., `Redman, Richard (d.1505)', Dictionary of National Biography 16, eds L. Stephen and S. Lee (Oxford, 1921/22).



265

John, J., The College of PreÂmontreÂ in Mediaeval Paris (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1953). ÐÐÐÐ, `The Canons of PreÂmontreÂ at the University of Ingolstadt, 1472±1550', Secundum Regulam Vivere: Festschrift fuÈr P. Norbert Backmund, O. Praem, ed. G. Melville (poppe-Verlag Windberg, 1978). Johnson, C., `Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia', EHR 19 (1904). Jungmann, J. A., The Mass of the Roman Rite (London, 1959). Ker, N. R., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List Of Surviving Books (London, 1964). ÐÐÐÐ, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, 4 vols (Oxford, 1969±92). King, A. A., Liturgies of the Religious Orders (London, 1955). Kirk¯eet, C. J., The White Canons of St Norbert (West de Pere, 1943). Knecht, R. J., `The Episcopate and the Wars of the Roses', University of Birmingham Historical Journal 6 (1958). Knowles, D., The Religious Orders in England, 3 vols (Cambridge, 1948, 1955, 1959). ÐÐÐÐ, The Monastic Order in England (Cambridge, 1950). ÐÐÐÐ, The Historian and Character and Other Essays (Cambridge, 1963). Knowles, D., Brooke, C. N. L. and London, V., Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales 940±1216 (Cambridge, 1972). Knowles, D. and Neville Hadcock, R., Medieval Religious Houses of England and Wales (London, 1971). L'Anson, W. M., `Coverham Abbey', The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 25 (1920). Leclercq, J., Vandenbroucke, F. and Bouyer, L., The Spirituality of the Middle Ages (London, 1968). LefeÁvre, P., `La Messe Quotidienne De Beata dans la Liturgie PreÂmontreÂ', AP 27 (1951). ÐÐÐÐ, `Les Antiennes `Ò'' dans la Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ', AP 32 (1956). ÐÐÐÐ, La Liturgie de PreÂmontreÂ: Histoire, Formulaire, Chant et CeÂreÂmonial (Louvain, 1957). ÐÐÐÐ, `L'Ancienne BibliotheÁque de l'Abbaye d'Averbode d'ApreÁs les Sources d'Archives', AP 36 (1960). Lepine, D. N., `The Origins and Careers of the Canons of Exeter Cathedral 1300± 1455', Religious Belief and Ecclesiastical Careers in Late Medieval England, ed. C. Harper-Bill (Woodbridge, 1991). Logan, F. D., Runaway Religious in Medieval England, c.1240±1540 (Cambridge, 1996). Lovatt, R., `The Library of John Blacman and Contemporary Carthusian Spirituality', JEH 43 (1992). Lucas, P. J., `John Capgrave, O.S.A. (1393±1464), Scribe and Publisher', Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 5 (1969). ÐÐÐÐ, `John Capgrave and the Nova Legenda Anglie: A Summary', The Library 5th series 25 (1970). ÐÐÐÐ, Òn the Date of John Capgrave's Life of St Norbert', The Library 6th series 3 (1981). Lunt, W. E., Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327±1534, Studies in Anglo-Papal Relations During the Middle Ages 2 (Cambridge, Mass., 1962). Macfarlane, L. J., William Elphinstone and the Kingdom of Scotland, 1431±1514 (Aberdeen, 1985). Mackie, J. D., The Earlier Tudors 1485±1558 (Oxford, 1952). Macy, G., ` A Bibliographical Note on Richardus Praemonstratensis', AP 52 (1976).


266


Markham, C. R., Richard III: His Life and Character (London, 1906). Marshall, P., The Catholic Priesthood and the English Reformation (Oxford, 1994). McClure, P., `Patterns of Migration in the Late Middle Ages: The Evidence of English Place-Name Surnames', Economic History 32 (1979). McRoberts, D., `The Scottish Church and Nationalism in the Fifteenth Century', The Innes Review 19 (1968). Midmer, R., English Medieval Monasteries 1066±1540 (London, 1979). Moorman, J., A History of the Franciscan Order (Oxford, 1968). Nicholson, R., Scotland: The Later Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1974). Nyberg, T., `De Nordiska Premonstratenserklostrens StaÈllning I Ordensorganisationen', Tommarps Urkundsbok 1085±1600 2, ed. C. Wallin (1975±76). ÐÐÐÐ, `Die Skandinavische Zirkarie der PraÈmonstratenserchorherren', Secundum Regulam Vivere: Festschrift fuÈr P. Norbert Backmund, O. Praem, ed. G. Melville (poppe-Verlag Windberg, 1978). ÐÐÐÐ, `Bùrglum, Tùnsberg, Dragsmark', Seminaret `Kloster Og By', 11±13 November 1992: Omkring Olavsklosteret, Premonstratenserordenen og Klostervesenet I Middelalderen, eds J. E. G. Eriksson and K. Schei (Tùnsberg, 1993). Odom, W., Beauchief Abbey (Shef®eld, 1927). Orme, N., Exeter Cathedral As It Was: 1050±1550 (Exeter, 1986). ÐÐÐÐ, `Two Saint-Bishops of Exeter: James Berkeley and Edmund Lacy', Analecta Bollandiana 104 (1986). ÐÐÐÐ, `Whose Body?', Friends of Exeter Cathedral Annual Report 1996 (Exeter, 1996). Pennington, M. B., Monastery: Prayer, Work, Community (San Francisco, 1983). Petit, F., La SpiritualiteÂ des PreÂmontreÂs aux XIIe et XIIIe SieÁcles (Paris, 1947). Pfaff, R. W., New Liturgical Feasts in Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1970). Platt, C., The Abbeys and Priories of Medieval England (London, 1984). ÐÐÐÐ, Abbeys of Yorkshire (London, 1988). Pollard, A. J., `St Cuthbert and the Hogg: Richard III and the County Palatine of Durham, 1471±85', Kings and Nobles in the Later Middle Ages: A Tribute to Charles Ross, eds R. A. Grif®ths and J. Sherborne (Gloucester and New York, 1986). ÐÐÐ, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower (Stroud 1997). Powell, Enoch J. and Wallis, K., The House of Lords in the Middle Ages: A History of the English House of Lords to 1540 (London, 1968). Powell, S., À New Dating of John Mirk's Festial', Notes and Queries 227 (1982). Pritchard, T. W., St Asaph Cathedral (Much Wenlock, 1997). Pye, A. R., Torre Abbey Excavations, 1986±89: Assessment Report and Post-Excavation Research Design, Exeter Museums Archaeological Field Unit (Exeter, 1994). Raftis, J. A., The Estates of Ramsey Abbey (Toronto, 1957). Rigby, S. H., English Society in the Later Middle Ages (Basingstoke, 1995). Rigold, S. E. and Coald, J., Bayham Abbey (London, 1974). Ross, C., Edward IV (New Haven and London, 1997). Routh, P. and Knowles, R., The Medieval Monuments of Harewood (Wake®eld, 1983). Rowse, A. L., Tudor Cornwall (London, 1969). Rubin, M., Corpus Christi (Cambridge, 1991). Sargent, M., `The Transmission by the English Carthusians of Some Late Medieval Spiritual Writings', JEH 27 (1976). Savine, A., The English Monasteries on the Eve of the Dissolution, Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, 1, ed. P. Vinogradoff (Oxford, 1909).



267

Searle, W. G., History of Queens' College Cambridge, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1867±71). Seymour, D., Torre Abbey (Exeter, 1977). Sharpe, R., Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland before 1540 (Brepols, 1997). Simpson, A., The Carmelite Friary at Maldon, Essex: 1293 to the Present (Maldon, 1986). Smith, D. M., Guide to Bishops' Registers of England and Wales (London, 1981). Southern, R. W., Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (London, 1970). St John Hope, W. H., Òn the Premonstratensian Abbey of SS. Mary and Thomas of Canterbury at West Langdon, Kent', Archaeologia Cantiana 15 (1883). ÐÐÐÐ, The History of the London Charterhouse (London, 1925). Stockdale, R., `Benedictine Libraries and Writers', The Benedictines in Britain, British Library Series, no. 3 (London, 1980). Storey, R. L., Diocesan Administration in Fifteenth-Century England, Borthwick Papers, no. 16 (York, 1972). Streeten, A. et al., Bayham Abbey, Sussex Archaeological Society Monograph, no. 2 (Lewes, 1983). Stringer, K., `Dryburgh Abbey and Bozeat, Northants ± A Sidelight on Early AngloScottish Estate Management', The Innes Review 24 (1973). Swanson, R. N., Èpiscopal Income from Spiritualities in the Diocese of Exeter in the Early Sixteenth Century', JEH 39 (1988). ÐÐÐÐ, Church and Society in Late Medieval England (Oxford, 1989). ÐÐÐÐ, Religion and Devotion in Europe, c.1215±c.1515 (Cambridge, 1995). Swarbrick, J., `The Abbey of St Mary-of-the-Marsh at Cockersand', Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 40 (offprint, 1925). Talbot, C. H., Medicine in Medieval England (London, 1967). Tanner, N. P., The Church in Late Medieval Norwich 1370±1532 (Toronto, 1984). Thompson, E. M., The Carthusian Order in England (London, 1930). Thompson, S., Women Religious: The Founding of English Nunneries after the Norman Conquest (Oxford, 1991) Thomson, J. A. F., The Early Tudor Church and Society, 1485±1529 (London and New York, 1993). Valvekens, E., `Le Chapitre GeÂneÂral de PreÂmontreÂ et les Nouveaux Statuts de 1505', AP 14 (1938). ÐÐÐÐ, `La Situation FinancieÁre du Chapitre GeÂneÂral PreÂmontreÂ au DeÂbut du SeizieÁme SieÁcle', AP 14 (1938). ÐÐÐÐ, Les Visites Canoniques des Abbayes PreÂmontreÂes au SeizieÁme SieÁcle, AP 22± 23 (Tongerlo, 1946±47). Valvekens, J. B., `Relationis Ordinis nostri cum Ordine Cisterciense', AP 19 (1943). ÐÐÐÐ, `Zacharias Chrysopolitanus', AP 28 (1952). Van Bavel, H., `Het 15e-eeuwse Visitare-Cartularium van de Abdij MarieÈnweerd', AP 56 (1980). Venn, J. and Venn, J. A., Alumni Cantabrigiensis, part 1, 4 vols (Cambridge, 1922± 27). Waistell Taylor, M. (ed.), The Old Manorial Halls of Westmorland and Cumberland (Kendal, 1882). Warner, G. F. and Gilson, J. P., Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections, 4 vols (London, 1921).


268

BIBLIOGRAPHY: UNPUBLISHED THESES

Wathen, A. G., Silence: the Meaning of Silence in the Rule of St Benedict, Cistercian Studies Series 22 (Washington DC, 1973). Watson, A. G., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books: Supplement to the Second Edition (London, 1987). Watson, N., Richard Rolle and the Invention of Authority (Cambridge, 1991). Weaver, J., Richmond Castle and Easby Abbey (London, 1989). Wedgwood, J. C., History of Parliament, 2 vols (London, 1936 and 1938). Williams, G., Renewal and Reformation: Wales, c.1415±1642 (Oxford, 1993). Wilson, J., `Communities of Dissent: The Secular and Ecclesiastical Communities of Margery Kempe's ``Book'' ', Medieval Women in their Communities, ed. D. Watt (Cardiff, 1997). Wiseman, W. G., `The Premonstratensian Canons in England, Scotland and Wales', Monastic Research Bulletin 3 (1997). Woolgar, C. M., The Great Household in Late Medieval England (New Haven and London, 1999). Yates, E. M., Durford Abbey and its Lands (Harting, 1980).

5. Unpublished Theses Fredeman, E. J., `The Life and English Writings of John Capgrave', Ph.D. (British Colombia, 1970). Watts, D. C., `The Estates of Titch®eld Abbey, c.1245±c.1380', B. Litt. (Oxford, 1957).

c:/sjGribbin/index.3d ± 3/10/0 ± 16:26 ± B&B/SJ

Index Numbers in bold refer to illustrations Abbeys, English Premonstratensian foundation of 3, 4, 5 number of canons in 49, 50±57, 91 (n.284), 192 observance and complement levels 91 (n.284) patronal dedications 3 (n.9) see also separate entries for speci®c abbeys Abbeys, Premonstratensian catalogues of 3 numbers of 3 Abbots ponti®calia 10 (n.33), 105 (and n.21), 111 allegations against 71, 88, 208±10, 246, 247 and conventual observance 69, 70, 88, 92, 93, 94, 178±9 and exiled canons 97±8 commendations 92, 93, 94 judicial procedures against 43, 208±10 lifestyle 69, 87±8 retirement 69 see also individual entries Academic studies see University Adalbert of Metz, Speculum Beati Gregorii Pape (attrib.) 137 Adam of Dryburgh 171 Additamenta Fratrum Capperbergensium 152 Alexander of Hales 140 Alien priories, Premonstratensian see Cammeringham, West Ravendale Almouth, Robert, canon of Alnwick 70 Alnwick Abbey (Northumb.) 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 26, 29, 30, 34, 37, 38, 41, 51, 54, 86 (n.258), 87, 91, 96 (n.309), 102 (n.7), 109 (n.43), 113, 127, 130, 146, 150, 165, 167, 182±3, 211 (n.25), 213±44 passim; see also Guizance, Almouth, Robert; Alnwick, Robert of; Mackarell, Matthew; William [. . .] Alnwick, Robert of, abbot of Alnwick 31, 183

Alpe, Walter, abbot of Langley 71 Alphonsus, Peter, Adversus Judaeos 138 Ambrose, St 137, 140 Super Lucam (book ten) 136 Ammonius of Alexandria, Harmonia Evangeliorum 135 Analecta Praemonstratensia xv (n.4) Ancrene Riwle 150 Anselm, St 140 De Humanis Moribus per Similitudinibus 138 Imago Mundi 144, 145 Anselm of Laon, gloss on St Luke 136 ap Maredud, Rhys 9 Apophthegmata Patrum (Verba Seniorum) 148 Apostasy (a religione) 57±61, 93, 99 number of àpostate' white canons 58± 60 (esp. n.110) Premonstratensian legislation against 60 (and n.120) see also bene®ces Aquinas, St Thomas 138, 140, 143 Summa Theologiae 140, 153 Arderne, John Experimenta 147 De Fistula in Ano 147 Arundel, John, bishop of Exeter 202 Attercliff (Atterclyffe, alias Scherwode), Elias, prior of Hornby, abbot of Croxton 27, 167, 168 Augustine St 140, 143 Confessions of 144 De Trinitate 137 Enarrationes in Psalmos 136 Rule of 2, 40, 93 Tractatus in Evangelium Johannis 136 see also Ordo Monasterii Augustinian Order canons 2 friars in Kings Lynn 157 habit 75±6, 206 Inquisitionem articuli 44 libraries 173 sign language 203


270

INDEX

Augustinian Order (cont.) studies at university 170 pseudo Avicenna Liber Eticorum Novorum 143±4 Tractatus Super Librum Aristotelis de Coelo et Mundo 143±4 Babbio, Geoffrey/Hildebert of Lavardin, Sermones 160 Backmund, Norbert xvi, 3, 6 Bagwell (alias Corlays), Henry, canon of Torre 167 (n.213), 169 Bainbridge, Cardinal Christopher 210, 211 Bakyne, Richard, subprior of Halesowen 71 Bale, John, Scriptorum Illustrium Maioris Brytanniae Catalogus 138 Bampton, Robert, abbot of Easby 70 (n.178), 111 Barkworth, John, abbot of Barlings 167, 168 Barlings Abbey (Linc.) 4, 5, 15, 27, 30, 51, 54, 55, 74, 77 (n.220), 87, 88, 89±90, 92, 93, 96 (n.309), 103 (n.10), 109, 114, 130, 133, 135, 137, 144, 145, 146 (n.92), 148, 167, 177, 179, 203, 208, 213±44 passim; see also Barkworth, Thomas; Belesby, Thomas; Foreman, William; Hudilstone, Oliver; Legburn, William; Lincoln, William; Mackarell, Matthew; Norton, Richard Bartholomew of Exeter, Poenitentiale 163 Barton, John, canon of Cockersand 58 (n.110) Basle Council of 249 University of 171 Baukwell, John, abbot of Welbeck, commissary-general 14 Bavaria, circary of canons at university 170, 171 Bayham Abbey (Sussex) xvii (n.16), 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 51, 54, 55 (n.91), 61, 74 (n.201), 75, 84±5, 86, 91, 96 (n.309), 100 (n.328), 107, 108, 129, 134 (n.12), 137, 143±4, 213±44 passim; see also Bexley, Richard; Nash, Robert; Preston, Thomas; Studley, Thomas; Shorham, Thomas Beauchief Abbey (Derb.) 4, 5, 23, 29, 51, 53, 54 (n.83), 61, 65±6, 86, 87, 88, 92 (n.289), 96 (n.309), 103 (n.10), 110,

111, 130, 138, 163, 165, 203, 213±44 passim, 246; see also Downham, John; Greenwood, John; Swift, John; Wolfet, Robert Beaufort, Lady Margaret 190 Beauport Abbey (Brittany) 6 Bebe, John, canon of Dale 246 Bedalle, Robert, prior of Shap, chaplain and visitation assistant to Richard Redman 27±8, 30, 52 (n.70), 95, 245 Beeleigh Abbey (Essex) 4, 5, 6, 13, 30, 51, 54 (n.83), 68, 73±4, 81, 85, 87, 89 (n.274), 92, 110, 111, 127, 130, 136± 7, 167, 172, 208, 213±44 passim; see also Copscheffe, John; Skarlet, Thomas Belesby, Thomas, abbot of Barlings 168 Bell, Richard, bishop of Carlisle 189 (n.87) Belvoir Castle, Add. MS 2 21±4, 29 Benedict St, Rule of 2 Benedict of Peterborough Vita et Miracula Sancti Thomae Cantuariensis 148 Benedictine Order and universities 166, 170 Inquisitionem articuli 44 libraries 133, 170, 173 liturgy 101 (n.3), 107 name lists 49 recruitment 56 reform in England 94 sign language 203 Bene®ces acquisition and discretion 63±4 and apostasy 60 (and n.122) penalties against securing 46, 63 Bernard, St 70, 140 Super Cantica Canticorum (book one) 136 Vita S. Malachiae 148 Berne Abbey (Holland) 49 Bever, John, canon of Croxton 53 (n.78) Beverley, Henry, canon of Shap 52 (n.70), 58 Bexley, Richard, abbot of Bayham 85 Bible, the 134 Biblical study, see Libraries, Premonstratensian Bird, Thomas, bishop of St Asaph 184 Bishop's Clyst (Devon) 197, 198 Black Death, the 6, 52 (n.68), 192; see also Illness


INDEX

Blakwall, Richard, canon of Dale 70, 97 Blanchelande Abbey (Normandy) 6 Blanchland Abbey (Northumb.) 4, 5, 23, 26, 29, 30, 37, 38, 51, 54 (n.83), 55, 73 (n.194), 77 (n.220), 87, 90 (n.280), 91, 96 (n.309), 107, 108, 130, 191, 213±44 passim; see also Forest, John Blessed Virgin Mary, cult of 101, 105, 109±10, 116, 124, 126±7 Bonaventure, St 138, 140, 143 pseudo Bonaventure, Meditationes Vitae Christi 150 Books see Libraries, Premonstratensian Bourchier family 111 Brampton, William, canon of Shap 54 Brand, John, canon of Cockersand 109 Bredon, Robert, canon of Sulby 66 Brekbrede, John, canon of Titch®eld 56 Brewer, William 103 (n.10) Bridget of Sweden, St, Revelations 149, 173 Bridgettine Order 94, 99 (n.324) Brockley (Kent) 4 Broadholme Nunnery see Nuns, English Premonstratensian Brom®eld, John, abbot of Coverham 69 subdelegate of Redman in the northern circary 37±8 Bromsgrove, Thomas, canon of Halesowen 58 (n.110) `Buckingham's Rebellion' 186, 187, 188 (n.77) Buckfast Abbey (Devon) 201 Buckland Abbey (Devon) 201 Buke, Marjory, nun of Irford 60 Building work, repairs and 83, 84, 85, 87, 93 (n.293), 191±2 `ruinous' buildings 87 (n.265) Burton, William, abbot of Welbeck 31 Burton, Thomas, canon of Egglestone 168, 170 Cade, Richard, abbot of Torre 167, 168 Calendar, West Dereham 116, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 155 Calendars, York 122±3, 126 Cambridge Holy Trinity church 138, 143 Jesus College 202 Peterhouse 167 Queens' College 202 see also University Cammeringham Priory (Lincs.) 5, 6

271

Canon law 138, 139, 140, 167, 170, 171 compurgation 66±7 Canons absent from their abbeys 53±4 Canterbury convocation 189 Capgrave, John, Augustinian friar and author a tretis of tho orderes that be vndyr the reule of oure fader Seynt Augustin 159, 248, 249 Life of St Gilbert 159, 248, 249 Life of St Katharine 156; see also Life of St Norbert Nova Legenda Angliae 156 (n.58) Capitular Acta, dif®culties in obtaining 113±14 Carpenter, John, bishop of Worcester 195 Carthusian Order 20, 75, 94, 99 Cartae and English visitation documents 20±21 liturgy 101 (n.3), 102, 114, 128, 129 (n.148) spirituality 173 see London Charterhouse Cassidorus, St 140 Castre, Thomas (alias Sall), canon of Langley 53 (n.74) Chapters, English provincial and general 14, 15, 16, 19, 60, 76±7, 79, 93, 99± 100, 109, 113±14, 128, 131, 166, 170, 176, 177±8, 181, 183, 234±44 passim Chapters, Premonstratensian general 11, 13, 16, 18, 47, 79, 99, 104±5, 207±12 passim Chrysopolitanus, Zachary In Unum ex Quatuor sive de Concordia Evangelistarum Libri Quatuor 136 Chrysostom, John, St 140 De Reparatione Lapsi 148 Chudleigh (Devon) 197, 200 Churches, Premonstratensian interior decoration 103 Lady chapels 110 repairs and building work 110±11, 191±2 silence within 46 Cicero letters [ad] Familiarium ad Lentulum Proconsulem 146 Circary system 3 (n.9) circatores 11, 41 Cistercian Order English abbeys 12, 20, 99, 100


272

INDEX

Cistercian Order (cont.) general chapter 1 in¯uence upon the Premonstratensians 1, 2, 54 (n.110) Inquisitionem articuli 44 libraries 133, 134 liturgy 128 universities 166 visitation procedure 41 (n.3), 44 Clothing almuces 73 apostasy and 57 black attire 75±7, 93 (n.293) cloaks 73±4 controversy in English abbeys 75±7 during manual labour 73±4 for external excursions 61 medieval conventions concerning 73, 77 of®cial duties 74 Premonstratensian habit 1, 47, 73; see also frontispiece and xx regulation by Redman and provincial chapters 73±4 (and nn.201, 203), 75±7 removal of 47 rochets 18, 75, 76 secular and ostentatious 74 stipends for 74 (and n.303) stipulations and reprimands 73, 74 see also Footwear Cloud of Unknowing 148, 159 (n.170) Cluniac monks 211 Cockersand Abbey (Lanc.) 4, 5, 10, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30±1, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39 (n.91), 41, 42 (nn.63, 65), 51, 52, 54, 63±4, 68, 74 (n.201), 76, 77, 83 (n.238), 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92 (n.289), 96 (n.309), 107, 110, 114, 115, 127, 130, 134, 166, 213±44 passim; see also Barton, John; Brand, John; Presaw, John; Pulton, Thomas; Whalley, Roger Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia xvi, xvii (and n.16), 50, 96 Colvin, H. M. xvi, xvii, 22, 50, 102, 103, 133 Combar, John, canon of Halesowen 168 Commissary-generals, English relations with PreÂmontreÂ 11±19, 31 (n.57), 176 (nn.11, 14) see Baukwell, John; Curlew, William; Redman, Richard; Shorham, Thomas; Wilkinson, Thomas

Commonplace-book, Beauchief (?) containing alphabetic vocabularium 147 `Legend of St William' 147 notes on teaching the faith 162±63 see also Gisborn, John Complement levels see Abbeys, English Premonstratensian Compurgation see Canon law Copscheffe, John, abbot of Beeleigh 169 Cornish, Thomas, bishop of Tenos 194 Corrodians 64, 65, 127 Cotom, Thomas, canon of Hagnaby 108 Coulton, G. G. xvii, xvii±xviii (n.16), 50, 53, 245±7 Coverham Abbey (Yorks.) 3, 4, 5, 30, 37, 41, 42, 51, 54, 62, 63, 67, 68, 87, 92, 96 (n.309), 102, 110, 114, 130, 147, 149, 150, 163, 164, 165, 172, 173, 213±44 passim, 247; see also Brom®eld, John; Gisborn, John; Melsynby, Percival Croxton Abbey (Leics.) 4, 5, 6, 21, 26, 27, 30, 38 (n.87), 41, 51, 53, 54, 55, 68, 87, 90 (n.279), 92, 93, 103 (n.10), 110, 130, 134 (n.12), 167, 208, 213±44 passim; see also Attercliff, Elias; Bever, John; Eyntone, John; Grene, Edmund; Harstone, William; Lynley, William; Lynrige, Thomas; Whetlay, John; see also Hornby Curlew (Kyrlew), William, abbot of Langley accused of fornication when a canon of Lavendon 66 commissary-general 207, 208, 209, 210 Dale Abbey (Derb.) 4, 5, 14, 23, 41, 51, 54 (and n.81), 55, 66, 75 (n.205), 87, 89 (n.274), 91, 96 (n.309), 110, 114, 115±17, 130, 134 (n.12), 164, 167, 172, 179, 213±44 passim; see also Bebe, John; Blakwall, Richard; North Leonard; Stanley, John; Thomas of Muskham Damascene, John St, De Fide Orthodoxa 137 de Bachimont, Jacques, abbot of PreÂmontreÂ 210 de CreÂcy, Adam, abbot of PreÂmontreÂ 12, 14 de L'EÂcluse, John, abbot of PreÂmontreÂ 207, 210


INDEX

de Ferrimane, Symon, canon of Newbo 58 (n.110) de Gretham, Robert, `Miroir' 161 de MonthermeÂ, Hubert, abbot of PreÂmontreÂ 16, 19, 25, 76, 95 de Montibus, William 138 (n.40) de Morville, Hugh 10 de la TerrieÁre, Simon, 16, 19, 176, 181 Dead, Of®ce of 93 (n.293), 102 (n.7), 105 Debt, monastic see Economic management Derby, John, abbot of Halesowen 168 Dereham, West see West Derham Des Roches, Peter, bishop of Winchester 134 Devotio Moderna 148 Dioceses, bishops' residency in 195±6 Discipline, conventual ¯ogging (`the discipline') 46±7 negligence of superiors 69±70 Dissolution 82, 212 Dodford Priory (Worcs.) 5, 6, 41 Dokket, Henry, relative of Richard Redman 202 Downham, John, abbot of Beauchief, misconduct and rebellion 61, 178±9, 180 Drink, consumption of see Food and drink Dryburgh Abbey see Scotland, circary of Dudley, Thomas, canon of Halesowen 71 Dugdale, William xv Durford Abbey (Sussex) 4, 5, 12, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38 (n.87), 51, 54 (and n.81), 55, 64, 68, 78, 87, 91, 107, 130, 146, 213±44 passim Durham Cathedral-priory 129, 150 Durham, John, canon of Shap 52 (n.70) Dytton, John, canon of West Dereham, vicar of Kirkby Malham (Yorks.), parish accounts 164 Easby Abbey (Yorks.) 4, 5, 6, 30, 34, 37, 51, 53, 54, 60, 62, 75, 77 (n.220), 78, 87, 89 (n.274), 91, 92, 103 (n.10), 110 (n.51), 112, 114, 130, 134, 136, 137, 165 (n.206), 178, 179, 180, 183 (n.45), 192 (n.104), 197, 213±44 passim; see also Bampton, Robert; Nym, John; Tan®eld, John; Thornton, John; Todde, Thomas; Ordinal, Easby East Anglia, dialect 152, 159 Ebbchester, Robert, prior of Durham 189 (n.87)

273

Economic management affect upon recruitment 55, 57 animals in general 84±5, 88 appropriated churches as monastic revenue 83 (n.236) bakery 84 budgetary control and consumption 83±4 cattle/cows 83, 84, 85, 88 debt 83, 84, 85, 87 dilapidation and mismanagement 71, 84, 87±8, 178 economic condition of abbeys 83±8 fences and ditches 83 fowl/poultry 84, 85 grain (including wheat) 83, 84, 85 leasing and land alienating 86 (and n.258), 88 monastic home farms 83±8 net income of the abbeys 82, 83 (n.238) pigs 84 recession 85±6, 87 servants and ®nancial dif®culties 64 sheep 83, 84, 88 taxation 86; see also Subsidies visitation enquiries concerning 81±88 woodland 88 see Clothing, Building work, Food and drink, Churches Education 55, 165±6 Latin literacy 154, 166, 172 see also University Edward I, king of England 9, 12 Edward III, king of England 14 Edward IV, king of England 6, 37, 180, 182 (n.40), 185±6, 188 Egglestone Abbey (Yorks.) 4, 5, 29, 34, 37, 44, 51, 54 (n.83), 61, 62, 63, 68, 70, 74, 86, 91, 96 (n.309), 103 (n.10), 110, 114, 130, 167, 213±44 passim; see also Burton, Thomas; Spenser, Thomas Ely Cathedral-priory 205 (n.178) sign language 202±3 Ely diocese see Redman, Richard Ely Place, London 203 Egliston, Gilbert, canon of Newhouse 108 Enckevoirt, William, canon of Notre Dame of Antwerp 207 Enclosure, monastic attitudes to 59±60 wandering outside 54, 56 (n.94), 59±60, 61±3


274

INDEX

Enclosure, monastic (cont.) and women 68±9 see also Apostasy Eremetical life 146, 150±1 Eucharist, the see Mass Eugenius IV, Pope 249 Eusebius, Harmonia Evangeliorum 135 Everard, William, canon of Newbo 60 Eytone, John, canon of Croxton 53 Exemption, episcopal 190, 201 Exeter, diocese of 34, 35 constituent parts of 193 register of Richard Redman 193±4, 196, 197, 199±201 religious houses 200±1 visitation of cathedral 200 wealth and temporalities 193 see Cornish, Thomas; Nans, John; Redman, Richard; Silk, William; Torre Abbey Exile, sentences of 93, 95±9 Exminster (Devon), complaint concerning presentation 201 Farming see Economic management Fasting see Food and drink Fearn Abbey see Scotland, circary of Feast days, liturgical Blessed Trinity 123 St Agatha and Translation 122, 125 (n.118) St Anne 113, 123 St Antony 124 St Augustine and Translation 122 St Blaise 124 St Chad 124 St Cuthbert and Translation 122, 123 (n.109) St David 124 St Edward the Confessor, Deposition of 123 St Edward, king and martyr 124 St Elizabeth 126 St Erkenwald 123 (n.110) St George 122 St Gilbert 123 St John the Baptist, Conception of 124, 125, 126 St John of Beverley 122, 123 St John of Bridlington and Translation 123 St Kenelm 113, 124 St Margaret 124

St Mary Magdalene, Translation of 124 St Martha 113, 124, 125 St Martial 125 St Patrick 123 (n.110) St Radegund, 124 St Roch 124, 126 (n.125) St Sytha 124 St Thomas of Canterbury (and votive commemoration) 122, 123 St Wilfred of Ripon and Translation 122, 123 St William of York and Translation 123 Felix V, anti-pope 248, 249 Fishponds and ®shing 61 Floreffe Abbey (Namur) 137 Food and drink abstinence from meat 78±9 ale 69, 77±8 bread 69, 79±81 complaints 78±9 eating with the laity, and in secular places 46, 63 eggs 79 fasting as a punitive measure 46±7 ®sh 69, 79 frequenting taverns 61 (n.128), 89±90, 92±3 Leiston kitchen accounts 64 (and n.139) legislation 79 meat consumption 69, 78±9, 206 milk-based products 79 prohibitions 77 (and n.220), 78±9, 90 refectory 46, 78, 80 seating in the refectory, in®rmary hall and `vault' at Titch®eld 64 see also Economic management Footwear 73 (and n.194), 74, (and n.203), 90 see also Clothing Foreman, William, abbot of Barlings 69 Forest, John, canon of Blanchland 246 Forluf, John, canon of Tupholme 70 Fornication accusations of 65±6, 71, 245±7 attitudes to 65 offspring as a result 66, 88 penalties for 46 sodomy 68 `suspected' women 62, 67±8, 93, 246 Fox, Richard, bishop of Exeter, Durham, and Winchester 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199


INDEX

Franciscan Order Observants 196 in Oxford 134 reform of the Conventuals 196 see also Registrum Anglie de Libris Doctorum et Auctorum Veterum Freddie, Berengarius, of Frascati, Summa in foro Poenitentiali (attrib.) 163 Freiburg, University of 161, 171 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana 144 Gambling 74, 88 Gaimar, Geoffrey, Estorie des Engles 144 Gasquet, F. A., Cardinal xvi, xvii±xviii (and n.16), 26, 28±29, 50 Geoffrey of Troyes, sermons 169 Gilbertine Order 159 Gisborn, John, canon of Coverham 132 commonplace-book 117±19 containing: evidence of parochial ministry 163 evidence of scribal activity 164±65 Five wounds of Christ, drawing of 150 medical recipes 147 Regula Heremitarum (in English) 150± 51 Sacred Heart, drawing of 150 `Sent Bernardes Fast' 150 tracts on hearing confessions 163 vernacular liturgical rubrics 117±19 Ã r 184 Glyn dw Gray, William, bishop of Ely 195 Great Chesterford 134 Green, John, abbot of Leiston 146 Greenwood, John, abbot of Beauchief 244 Gregorian reform movement 3 Gregory VII, Pope 141 Gregory the Great, Pope St 140 Dialogues 141, 142 Moralia 137 Super Cantica Canticorum 136 Grene, Edmund, canon of Croxton 53 Grosseteste, Robert, bishop of Lincoln, Templum Domini 139 Guests 64; see also corrodians Guizance Priory (Northumb.) 4, 6 Gunthorpe, John, lay confrater of the Premonstratensians 102 Habit, Premonstratensian see Clothing Hagnaby Abbey (Linc.) 4, 5, 30, 51, 54 (n.83), 63, 68, 72, 92, 102 (n.7), 130,

275

133, 137, 144, 145, 147, 163, 164, 213±44 passim; see also Cotom, Thomas; Welles, John Haimo of Auxerre commentaries on Apocalypse and Cantica Canticorum 135 Pictor in Carmine 136 Halesowen Abbey (Worcs.) 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 31, 33, 34, 36, 41, 51, 54, 66, 70, 71, 80±1, 91, 103 (n.10), 113, 115, 125, 127, 129, 148 (n.113), 165 (n.206), 166, 167, 177, 198, 213±44 passim, 245, 246; see also Bakyne, Richard; Bromsgrove, Thomas; Combar, John; Derby, John; Dudley, Thomas; Hampton, Richard; Lich®eld, William; Sandours, John; Taylor, William; Walsall, Roger; Wodesbury, Roger Halton, John, monk of St Mary's Abbey, York 146 Hampton, Richard, canon of Halesowen 71 Harstone, William, canon of Croxton 53 Heidelberg, University of 171 Henry, VI, king of England 157, 180 cult of 149 Henry VII, king of England 25, 35, 187±90 passim, 196 (n.127), 197, 199 Henry VIII, king of England 210, 211, 212 Henry, duke of York 190 Herentals, Peter, Expositio super Librum Psalmorum 137 Hill, Thomas 134 Hikkys, John 201 Hilton, Walter, Scala Perfectionis 173 Historiolae de Britannia 144 Holywood Abbey see Scotland, circary of Honorius II, Pope 104 Honorius of Autun (?), Imago Mundi 144 Hornby Priory (Lanc.) 5, 6, 41, 167 Huby, Marmaduke, abbot of Fountains 99, 100, 192, 210, 211 (n.26) Hudilstone, Oliver, canon of Barlings 58 Hugo, Charles xv Hugh of Fosse, Bl 1 Hugh of St Victor 137, 140 De Archa Noe (book ®ve) 136 Huguccio of Pisa, Derivationes 146 Hulle, John, canon of Lavendon 66, 246 Hunting 61 Illness 38, 54 (n.81), 85, 86, 91, 149±50 see Black Death, Medical texts


276

INDEX

Imitatio Christi 173 Incontinentia see Fornication Indulgences 141, 139, 141, 200 Inquisitionem articuli 44 Immaculate Conception 141, 149 Ingolstadt, University of 170 Internal discord 71±2 see also Rebellion Ireland, Premonstratensian abbeys of 8 (n.23) Irford (Orford) Nunnery see Nuns, English Premonstratensian church of St Mary 7 (n.19) church of St Michael 7 (n.19) Itineraries, visitation 24, 32±9, 48, 213±44 Itineraries, Titch®eld 34 James of Vitry 141, 142, 153 (n.142) Jerome, St 137, 138, 140 Vita Hilarionis 148 Life of St Malchus (Actus Monachi) (attrib.) 148 Jesus, Holy Name of see Nova Festa pseudo John of Bridlington, Prophetia 148 John de Burgo, Pupilla Oculi 163 John of Fribourg, Summa Confessorum 163 John, Lord Clifford 176, 179, 180 Julius II, Pope 210 Kempe, Margery, Boke 159 Kendal (Westmor.) 34, 35, 175 King, A. A. 118±19 Kings Lynn 152, 156±7, 159 Kirkby Malham (Yorks.), parish accounts 164 Kirk¯eet, C. J. xvi Knowles, David xvii, 52, 95±100, 101 Lacy, Edmund, bishop of Exeter 200 Lagg, Roger, canon of Torre 201 Lagh, Henry, canon of Lavendon 67 Laity, Premonstratensian canons and the grants of confraternity 102 (and n.9) lay burials in abbey churches 102±3 lay patronage of the liturgy 102±3, 111± 13, 127 relations with 63, 179; see also Corrodians, Food and drink, Fornication, Guests, Servants Lane, Robert, canon of St Radegund's 58 Langdon Abbey (Kent) 4, 5, 12, 13, 30, 51, 54 (and n.82), 55 (n.91), 83, 87, 91, 96 (n.309), 110, 114, 129, 144, 145, 165

Langley Abbey (Norf.) 25, 31, 32, 36, 54 (n.83), 55 (n.91), 61, 65, 77 (n.220), 86 (n.253), 91, 96 (n.309), 107, 111 (n.57), 114, 115 (n.76), 129, 134 (n.12), 134 (n.12), 135 (n.18), 145, 148, 211 (n.26), 213±44 passim, 245, 247; see also Maxey, John; Myntlynge, John Langton, Thomas, bishop of Winchester 35, 198 Launceston Priory (Cornw.) 201 Lavendon Abbey (Bucks.) 4, 5, 30, 51, 54 (n.83), 74 (n.201), 86, 96 (n.309), 100 (n.328), 108±9, 129, 167, 213±44 passim; see also Curlew, William; Hulle, John; Lagh, Henry; Systher, Edmund Legburn, William, canon of Barlings 27 Lectio Divina 132, 172; see also Education `Legend of St William' 147 Legenda Aurea 142, 160 Leiston Abbey (Suff.) xvi, xvii (n.16), 4, 5, 30, 31, 36, 51, 54, 64 (and n.139), 68, 73, 87, 90 (n.279), 92, 93±4, 130, 134 (n.12), 136, 177, 208, 209, 213±44 passim; see also Green, John; Marsch, Thomas; Waite, Thomas Leland, John 134, 144 Leo the Great, Pope St 140 Lethbert of Saint-Ruf, Flores Psalmorum 136 Levens (Westmor.) 175 Liber Annalium de Langley 145 Libraries, Premonstratensian biblical and theological study 135±43 book lists 132±3 canon law 170 classical literature 146 general conclusions on the canons' reading matter 171±3 grammatical writings 144, 146±7 historical works and chronicles 144±6 librarians 133 library catalogues 133, 135 (n.17) medical writings 144 pastoral literature 160±4 philosophy 143±4 spiritual writings and hagiography 147± 60, 172±3; see also Capgrave, John storage and conservation of books 133 vernacular literature 172; see also Capgrave, John; Gisborn, John; Sermons


INDEX

Lich®eld, William (alias Burne), canon of Halesowen 53 (n.74) Licques Abbey (nr. Calais) 4 Life of St Norbert 132, 151±60, 172; see also frontispiece authorship 151±1, 156±7 circulation 158±60 composition and sources 152, 154 criticism of 156 date 248±50 motivation for composition 153±5 use of miracles 152±3 vernacular medium 152, 154±5 views expressed on the white canons and St Norbert 157±58 Lincoln, William, abbot of Barlings 168 Littleport, George, canon of West Dereham 247 Liturgy in England, Premonstratensian admixture with secular usages 114±17 allegorical explanations 150 (n.120) appointment of liturgical duties 108 bells 110 bowing 109 chant 105, 109, 110 (n.51), 114, 121 choir-stalls 111, 112 classi®cation of liturgical feasts 104, 106 Consuetudines Ecclesiae Premonstratensis 104, 105 dispensations from attending 107±8 elevation of the host/chalice 114±15 genu¯ections 114±15 history and sources of 103±6 liturgical artifacts 111; see also churches liturgical books 110 liturgy and historians 101±2 non-attendance at of®ce 108±9 Ò' antiphons 121 of®cial adaptations of the liturgy 117 of®cials and 107±8 ordinals 119±20, 121; see also Ordinal, Easby Ordinarius 104, 105 organ, use of 110 parochial clergy and monastic liturgy 108 performance and monastic complements 107, 108 praise for 93, 94 Premonstratensian liturgy on the continent 128 processional markers 192

277

reading errors 109 regulation by Redman and provincial and general chapters 102 (n.7), 106± 9, 111, 113±17, 124±5, 126, 127, 206 relics 111 rochets, use of 18, 75, 76 statutory penalties for faults in performance 46, 70 vernacular rubrics 117±19 vestments 105, 111, 113 (n.62), 114± 15; see also, Abbots; Blessed Virgin Mary, cult of; Calendar, West Dereham; Calendars, York; Dead, Of®ce of; Feast days, liturgical; Laity, Premonstratensian canons and the; Mass; Matins, attendance at; Nova Festa; Ordinal, Easby; Prayers and devotions; Redman, Richard Lollardy 142±43 Lombard, Peter, Sermones de Diebus Festis et Dominicis 160 London Charterhouse 20±21 LongespeÂe family 145 Love, Nicholas 159 (n.170) Mirrour of the Blessed Lyfe of Jesu 150 Lucas, P. J. 248, 249, 250 Lucas, Thomas, canon of Shap 52 (n.70), 169 Ludley, Thomas, canon of Tupholme 165, 165 Lydgate, John `Life of Our Lady' 148 (n.113) `The glorious lyfe and passion of seint Albon' 154±5 Lyndwood, William, Provinciale 170 (n.221) Lynley, William, canon of Croxton 53 Lynrige, Thomas, canon of Croxton 53 pseudo Macharius, Epistola ad Filios 148 Mackarell, Matthew, abbot of Alnwick, Barlings, suffragan bishop of Chalcedon 167, 169, 170 Malb, William, corrodian at Beeleigh Abbey 127 Malton, John, canon of Titch®eld 169 Manual labour 1, 73±4, 87, 109 Marsch, Thomas, canon of Leiston 60 Mass 105±6, 108, 109, 110, 114±15, 117± 19, 124, 141, 142, 152±3, 192 see Liturgy, English Premonstratensian Matins, attendance at 70, 107±8, 108±9 Maxey, John, abbot of Langley 208, 209


278

INDEX

Medical texts 147 Melling, Edward, canon of Sulby, liturgical error 109 Melsynby, Percival, canon of Coverham, prayer roll 149±50, 165 Metrodoros of Chios 140 Mirk, John Manuale Sacerdotis 142 Festial 160±1 Misdemeanours, statutory penalties for 45 (and n.31) `De Levioribus Culpis' 46, 109 `De Mediis Culpis' 46, 109 `De Gravi Culpa' 46 `De Graviora Culpa' 46 `De Gravissima Culpa' 47 discretion, application of 46, 47 excommunication 47 expulsion from the order 47 (and n.41) gravioris culpe 46±7 incarceration 47 medieval disciplinary system 89; see also Exile, Fornication, Silence, Theft (etc.) Monasteries, double 7±8 Morton, John, Cardinal, archbishop of Canterbury 25, 188±9, 196 Mug, William, canon of Torre (`Philip Mogge') 201 (n.157) Murder, outside the enclosure 62 Myntlynge, John, abbot of Langley 71 Name lists see Visitation documents Nans, John, vicar-general of Bishop Redman of Exeter 194, 196 Nash, Robert, abbot of Bayham 84 Nazianzen, Gregory, St 137 Neville, George, archbishop of York 179 Neville, Ralph and Katherine, bene®ciaries of a confraternity grant 102 Newbo Abbey (Linc.) 4, 5, 30, 51, 54 (n.83), 64 (n.142), 68, 74 (n.201), 75 (n.205), 77 (n.220), 87, 91, 110, 130, 167, 213±44 passim; see also de Ferrimane, Symon; Everard, William; Ralph; Swerd, John; York, John Newhouse Abbey (Linc.) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 27, 30, 51, 53, 54, 55 (n.91), 58 (n.110), 61, 74, 75 (n.201), 86, 87, 90 (n.279), 91, 96 (and n.309), 100 (n.328), 103 (n.10), 108, 129, 130,

134, 177, 179, 182, 213±44 passim, 246, 247; see also Egliston, Gilbert; Swift, John; Tattershall, Thomas; Ulceby, Thomas Newman, Richard, canon of (?) 167, 169 Newynton, John, canon of St Radegund's 60 Nicholas of Amiens (pseudo Alan of Lille), Ars Fidei Catholicae 138 Nicholas de Lyra, Commentary 137, 140 Norbert, St, founder of the Premonstratensian canons, archbishop of Magdeberg xx, 1 and the early Premonstratensian liturgy 104 devotion to the saint 153±5, 158±60 Vita A and B 151, 152; see also Capgrave, John North, Leonard, canon of Dale 137, 169 Norton, Richard, canon of Barlings 58, 67 Nova Festa Holy Name of Jesus 126, 127, 172, 201 Presentation of Mary in the Temple 126, 127 Trans®guration 126, 127 Visitation of Mary 126 see also Feasts, Liturgical Novices 55±6 education 165±6 Nuns, English Premonstratensian Broadholme (Brodholme) Nunnery (Notts.) 5, 7±8, 103 (n.10), 134 (n.14), 213±44 passim; see also York, Agnes Irford (Orford) Nunnery (Lincs.) 5, 7±8, 213±44 passim visitation of 8, 213±44 passim see also Buke, Marjory Nym, John, canon of Easby 66±7 Observance in England, general assessment of 128±31, 208±9 Odo of Cheriton Liber Poenitentialis 160 (n.178) Sermones 160 (n.178) Oke, Thomas, abbot of Titch®eld 151 Oldham, Hugh, bishop of Exeter 199 Ordinal, Easby 119±27 passim, 155 Ordo Monasterii 104 Origen, Cantica Canticorum 137 Otham (Sussex) 4 Ovid 140 Remedia Amoris 146


INDEX

Oxford, University of 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 St Edmund Hall 167 Exeter College 167 Paris, Premonstratensian college at 171 Parochial ministry 1, 2, 72±3, 115, 138, 139 as a form of revenue 83 (n.236) exempla, use of 142 parish administration 163±4 parish canons within the monastery 72± 3 preaching 142, 160±2 ministrations within the abbeys 115 monastic liturgy and parish canons 108, 115 teaching and administering the sacraments 162±4 Paschasius, Radbert, De Corpore et Sanguine Christi 141 Patres abbates 4, 11, 23, 42, 97±8, 178, 179 visitations by 31±2 Peck, Francis 21±22, 23 Penalties see Misdemeanours Pensions 74; see also abbots leasing of 86 Peter of Blois Compendium in Job 136 Pictor in Carmine 136 Pfaff, R. W. 120 Pius II, Pope 79 Plympton Priory (Devon) 201 Polonia, Martin, Provinciale 144 Prayer Roll see Melsynby, Percival Preaching see Parochial ministry, Sermons Prayers and devotions `Measure of the Nails' 149±50 Òf®ce of the Passion' 115±17, 172 see also Commonplace book; Feasts; Nova Festa; Gisborn, John; Liturgy; Melsynby, Percival Premonstratensian circaries, English 3, 4, 5 Northern Circary see Alnwick, Blanchland, Cockersand, Coverham, Easby, Egglestone, Shap Middle Circary see Barlings, Beauchief, Croxton, Dale, Hagnaby, Halesowen, Lavendon, Newbo, Newhouse, Sulby, Talley, Tupholme, Welbeck Southern Circary see Bayham, Beeleigh, Durford, Langdon, Langley, Leiston,

279

Titch®eld, Torre, St Radegund, Wendling, West Dereham as a provincia 1 independence from PreÂmontreÂ 15±16, 207±12 nunneries see Nuns, English Premonstratensian Scottish abbeys see Scotland, circary of Premonstratensian Order foundation, and growth of 1±3 friction between contemplative and parochial ministry 2 PreÂmontreÂ 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 76, 119, 177, 180, 183, 185, 207±12 passim abbot of 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 27, 42, 47, 75, 76, 95, 99, 106, 176, 177, 178±82, 183, 207±12 passim; see also de Bachimont, Jacques; de CreÂcy, Adam; de L'EÂcluse, John; de la TerrieÁre, Simon; de MonthermeÂ, Hubert Presaw, John, canon of Cockersand 58 (n.110) Preston, Thomas, canon of Bayham 58 (n.110) Profession, monastic 40, 56 Pulton, Thomas, canon of Cockersand 66 Rallston, David, prior of Dryburgh Abbey 11 Rampegollis, Antony Figurae Biblie 151 Dictionarium Pauperum 151 Speculum Salvationis Humanae 151 Ranworth (Norfolk) antiphoner 115 (n.76) parish church 115 (n.76) Ralph, abbot of Newbo 167, 168 Raymond of PenÄafort, Summa de Casibus Poenitentiae 163 Rebellion 70±1, 178, 182±3 physical violence and murder 70 (and n.179), 184 (n.47) Recreation 61, 78 Recruitment see Abbeys, English Premonstratensian Rede, John 18 Richard of St Victor 140 Beniamin Minor 136 Recruitment 54±6 Redman family see Redman, Edward; Redman Richard Redman, Edward 186


280

INDEX

Redman, Richard, abbot of Shap, commissary-general of the abbot of PreÂmontreÂ in England, bishop of St Asaph, Exeter, Ely origins and early years 175 entry at Shap 175 election as abbot 175±6 opposition to his appointment as commissary-general and visitor in England 16, 176±82 activities as commissary-general see below as bishop of St Asaph 184±5, 189 (n.82) in the service of Edward IV 185±5 role during the reign of Richard III 25, 185±7 early opposition to Henry VII and alleged role in the Lambert Simnel revolt 187±9 in the service of Henry VII 25, 35, 37 (n.84), 189±90 relationship with northern clergy 189 (n.87) abbacy at Shap 184, 190±2 activities as bishop of Exeter 193±202 as bishop of Ely 202±3 latter years and death 203 will 205 (n.178) tomb at Ely 17, 204, 204±5 Role as commissary-general and visitor apostasy and enclosure 57±65, 99 assessment of career and ef®ciency as visitor 32, 48, 90±1, 95±100, 111, 203±5, 206±7 as a reformer 99±100 attitudes to education 165±6, 172 challenges to his authority 182±4 consulting local people during visitations 90 (and n.279) enquiries into internal discord 71±2 general praise for speci®c abbeys 91± 4, 130 observance of the abbeys under his authority 88±100, 129±31 personal clothing 77 powers of dispensation 98±9, 107±8 preparation of visitations 41±2; see also Itineraries, visitation provincial/general chapters in England 19, 60, 76±7, 113±14, 203 rebellion 71, 178±9 relations with father±abbots 31±32 relations with PreÂmontreÂ 11, 16,

18±19, 25, 27, 76, 77, 95, 176±84 passim, 207 Scottish abbeys 11 sentencing for grave offences 89, 95± 9 visitation of Premonstratensian nunneries, 8, 213±44 passim Further details concerning Redman are dealt within individual entries Redman, Richard, chaplain to the bishop of Ely and vicar of Stretham 175 confused with Bishop Redman 175 Registrum Anglie de Libris Doctorum et Auctorum Veterum 132, 136, 137 Regula Heremitarum 150±1 Renaissance, the 146 Renaissance, Twelfth century 2±3 Rengevallis Abbey (France) 49 Reysby, Nicholas, master-general of the Gilbertine canons 159 Richard III, King of England 18, 37 (n.84), 186±7, 188, 202 (n.169) Richard `the Premonstratensian' 171 Richmond (Yorks.) castle 6 St Mary's church 111, 112; see also Easby Abbey Rolle, Richard, Incendium Amoris 173 Rotherham, Thomas, archbishop of York 187 Romsey, John, abbot of Titch®eld 10 (n.33) Romsley, chapel of St Kenelm 113 Ru®nus (transl.), Historia Monachorum in Aegypto 148 Rule of St Paul 150±1 Russell, John, bishop of Lincoln 187 St Asaph (Clwyd), diocese of see Redman, Richard St Germans Priory (Cornwall) 201 St John Hope, William xv±xvi St John Of Amiens Abbey (France) 8, 9 St Radegund's Abbey (Kent) 4, 5, 13, 30, 51, 54, 61 (n.128), 91, 111, 129, 133, 134, 135 (n.17), 147, 163 (n.198), 176, 177, 213±44 passim, 246; see also Lane, Robert, Newynton, John Sandours, John, canon of Halesowen 60 Sarum Use 117, 123, 124, 126 (n.125); see also Feasts, liturgical Saxony, circary of 1 (n.1) commemoration of St Norbert 155 (n.150)


INDEX

canons at university 170, 171 schism from PreÂmontreÂ 2, (n.5) `Scheme of the Heptarchy' 144 Schism, Great (1378±1417) 10, 14, 16, 75, 129, 248, 249 Schism of 1130±38 248, 249 Schism of 1439±49 248, 249, 250 Scholasticism 138 see also Aquinas, Thomas, St; Bonaventure, St; Nicholas of Lyra; Wygenhale, Thomas Scoos, John 193 (n. 112) Scoos, William 193 (n.112) Scotland, circary of 5, 9±11 Dryburgh Abbey (Berwickshire) 5, 10; see also Rallston, David Fearn Abbey (Rosshire) 5, 10, 111 (n.61), 155 (n.150) Holywood Abbey (Dumfriesshire) 5, 10 Soulseat Abbey (Wigtownshire) 5, 10 Tongland Abbey (Kirkcudbrightshire) 5, 10 Whithorn Cathedral-Priory (Wigtownshire) 10, 110 (n.51) non-payment of subsidies 207 Scribes, English Premonstratensian 27, 164±5 see Bedalle, Robert; Gisborn, John; Legburn, William Seneca 146 (n.92) Sermons 160±2, 172 manuscript collections 132 vernacular 161±2 Servants 64 as a ®nancial burden 64 Sexual deviations see Fornication Seyton, Edward, canon of Sulby, permission to go to university 169, 170 Shap Abbey (Westmor.) 3, 4, 5, 23, 28, 29, 32, 51, 52, 60, 134, 167, 175, 176, 177, 186, 188, 190±2, 197, 213±29 passim; see also Bedalle, Robert; Beverley, Henry; Durham, John; Lucas, Thomas; Redman, Richard; Yate, Henry Shorham, Thomas, abbot of Bayham and commissary-general opposition to the appointment of Richard Redman as commissary 176± 81 Silence, observance of 46, 70, 72±3, 93 (n.293) penalties and regulations 46, 70, 71±3

281

Silk, William, vicar-general of Bishop Redman of Exeter 194±5, 201 Simnel, Lambert 188 Skarlet, Thomas, abbot of Beeleigh 85 Smith (alias Milwarde), Peter, canon of Torre 201 (n.157) Smith, William, bishop of Lincoln 199 Soulseat Abbey see Scotland, circary of Speculum Beati Gregorii Pape 148 Spenser, Thomas, canon of Egglestone 62 Spirituality, assessment of English Premonstratensian 172±3 Stafford family 111 Standard of living 74, 85±6, 87; see also Clothing, Economic management, Food and drink Stanley, John, abbot of Dale 69 Statutes, Premonstratensian 1, 16, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46±7, 86, 97±9, 104, 105, 107, 166, 206 reform of 99 Stixwold Nunnery (Lincs.) 7 (n.17) Strabo, Walafridus, gloss on St Luke 136 Studley, Thomas, canon of Bayham 58 (n.110), 96, 97 Subsidies (tallia) to PreÂmontreÂ, nonpayment of 12±19, 179, 207±8, 209, 210, 211 Sulby Abbey (Northants.) 4, 5, 12, 13, 30, 51, 54, 55, 56, 61, 74 (n.201), 87, 89 (n.275), 91, 96 (and n.309), 130, 164, 167, 173 (n.232), 208, 213±44 passim, 246; see also Bredon, Robert; Melling, Edward; Seyton, Edward Summa Juris Canonici 170 (n.221) Swabia, circary of, canons at university 170, 171 Swainby 3 Swane, William, canon of Welbeck 56 Swerd, John, canon of Newbo 58 (n.110) Swift, John, abbot of Beauchief and Newhouse 53, 179 Syon Abbey see Bridgettine Order Systher, Edmund, canon of Lavendon 168 Talley (Tal-Y-Llychau) Abbey (Carmarthenshire) 5, 8±9, 18, 31, 50, 52, 71, 83, 166 (n.238), 167; see also Talley, David; Talley, unknown abbot Talley, David, abbot of Talley 169 Talley, unknown abbot of 167, 169 Tan®eld, John, canon of Easby 119, 121, 125


282

INDEX

Tan®eld, John, canon of Easby (cont.) chaplain at Skirpenbeck (Yorks.) 119 (n.92); see also Ordinal, Easby Tattershall, Thomas, canon of Newhouse 58 (n.110) Taxation see Economic management Taylor, William, canon of Halesowen 169 Taypfel, Daniel, canon of TheÂrouanne 207, 210 Theft, penalties for 46 Theological study see Libraries, Premonstratensian; University; Wygenhale, Thomas Thomas de Chobham, Summa Confessorum 163 Thomas of Muskham, canon of Dale, Narratio Fundationis of Dale 145, 172 Thornton, John, canon of Easby 60 Time keeping (clocks) 109 (n.43) Titch®eld Abbey (Hants.) xvii (n.16), 4, 5, 33, 34, 35, 36, 51, 54 (n.83), 64, 68, 71±2, 73, 87, 91, 114, 115 (n.73), 129, 130, 133, 134 (and n.12), 136, 137, 138, 145, 146, 147, 151, 160, 161, 163, 165 (n.206), 166, 167, 170, 172, 197, 213±44 passim; see also Malton, John; Oke, Thomas; Romsey, John Todde, Thomas, canon of Easby 58 Tongland Abbey see Scotland, circary of Tonsures, faulty 90, 93 (n.293) Torre Abbey (Devon) 3, 4, 5, 27, 29, 33, 36, 38 (n.87), 51, 54, 60, 62, 63, 92, 96 (and n.309), 102±3, 108, 110, 114, 129, 130, 134 (n.12), 167, 196 (n.124), 201, 213±44 passim; see also Lagg, Roger; Mug, William; Smith, Peter; Umfray, Thomas TuÈbingen, University of 171 Tudebodi, Peter, Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum (attrib.) 144, 148 Tupholme Abbey (Linc.) 4, 5, 26, 30, 51, 53 (n.78), 61, 65, 91, 96 (n.309), 130, 133, 134, 135, 144, 165, 213±44 passim 245, 247; see also Forluf, John; Ludley, Thomas Turnbalena, Robert 136 Ulceby, Thomas, canon of Newhouse 60, 66 Umfray, Thomas, canon of Torre 66 University English white canons frequenting 98, 164, 166±71, 172

German canons at 170±1 students in Paris 171; see also Wygenhale, Thomas Urswick, Christopher 189 Van Waefelghem, M. 118±19 Victor of Capua, Diatessaron of Tatian (Latin version) 135 Virgil, Bucolica, Georgica and Aeneis 146 Visitation documents caution in the interpretation of name lists 53±4, 55, 56, 57 compilation of reports 48±9 concluding address 47±8 destruction of 49 letters announcing visitations 41±2 name lists (nomina canonicorum) 29±30, 44, 49±57 opening address of visitor 42±4 Redman's itineraries see Itineraries, visitation reports (decreta, relicta) 30±31, 44±5, 213±44 transfer documents for exiled canons 99 Visitation register (Bodleian Library MS Ashmole 1519) 20±39 passim (esp. 24±39), 40 Visitations, diocesan 42 Visitations, elements surrounding the Premonstratensian extraordinary 30±1 procedure 41±9, 90±1 prorogation 48 (n.49) proxy/external 38, 41 (and n.3), 90 secrecy 63 their interpretation and general assessment 88±100 see also Visitation documents; Visitation register; Redman, Richard Vita Beati Jeronimi 148 Vitas Patrum 148 Vita Sancti Hilarii cum Miraculis 148 Vita Sancti Silvestri 148 Wace, Roman de Brut 144 Wadington, Arthur 133 Waite, Thomas, abbot of Leiston 209 Walsall, Roger, canon of Halesowen 58 (n.110) Walsalle, Roger, canon of Halesowen 71 Walsingham (Norf.), shrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary 35 Walton, Robert, canon of West Dereham 169


INDEX

Wattys, Richard, canon of (?) 167, 169, 170 Waverley Abbey, Annals 145 Welbeck Abbey (Notts.) 4, 5, 6, 9, 23, 29, 30, 32, 35, 42±4, 51, 54, 56, 61, 62, 63, 65, 70, 73, 74, 78, 79±80, 86, 87±8, 91, 96, (n.309), 100 (n.328), 107±8, 110, 114, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135 (n.17), 136, 147, 161, 162, 166, 172, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 186, 213±44 passim, 244, 246; see also Baukwell, John; Burton, William; Swane, William; Wilkinson, Thomas Welles, John, canon of Hagnaby 147 Wendling Abbey (Norf.) 3, 4, 5, 35, 51, 55±6, 66, 87, 91, 96 (n.309), 98, 107, 111, 130, 170 (n.221), 208, 213±44 passim, 245 West Dereham Abbey (Norf.) 4, 5, 30, 35, 51, 54, 68, 87, 92, 93, 96 (n.309), 102 (n.9), 108, 114, 121, 130, 132 (n.2), 135 (n.18), 136, 138, 139, 143, 160 (n.178), 165 (n.206), 167, 170 (n.221), 177, 213±44 passim; see also Dytton, John; Littleport, George; Walton, Robert; Wygenhale, John; Wygenhale, Thomas West Ravendale Priory 5, 6 Westminster Abbey xv, 129 Westmorland 175, 176, 186, 198 Whalley, Roger, canon of Cockersand 168 Whethamstede, John, abbot of St Albans 154 Whetlay, John, canon of Croxton 53 (n.73) Whithorn Cathedral-Priory see Scotland, circary of

283

Wilkinson, Thomas, abbot of Welbeck, commissary-general 24, 29 (n.47), 33±34, 42, 207±11 passim William [. . .], canon of Alnwick 168 William of Pagula, Oculus Sacerdotis 163 William of St Thierry, Life of St Bernard 148 Wodesbury, Roger, canon of Halesowen 71 Wolfet, Robert, canon of Beauchief 58 (n.110) sentence of exile 96, 97 Wolsey, Thomas, Cardinal 94, 190, 195, 196 Women see Enclosure, Fornication, Nuns, Servants Worcestre, William 155 Wygenhale, John, abbot of West Dereham 151±8, 248±50; see also frontispiece commissioning Life of St Norbert 151, 248, 249; identity 157 (n.162), 167 (n.214), 249; see also Capgrave, John Wygenhale, Thomas, canon of West Dereham evaluation of writings 142±3, 166 (n.207) identity of the author 138±9, 167, 168, 171, 172 Sanctissimae Matris Christi Mariae Miracula 139 short treatises 139, 141 Speculum Juratoris 139, 140±1, 143, 149, 172, 173 Speculum Hereticorum 139, 141±2 Yate, Henry, canon of Shap 52 (n.70) York, St Mary's Abbey 146 York, Agnes, nun of Broadholme 8 (n.21) York, John, canon of Newbo 58

c:/sjGribbin/vol-list.3d ± 2/10/0 ± 10:51 ± B&B/SJ

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 Wayn¯ete: 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

c:/sjGribbin/vol-list.3d ± 2/10/0 ± 10:51 ± B&B/SJ

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 Lich®eld in the Early Sixteenth Century Tim Cooper

The Premonstratensian Order in Late Medieval England (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

The Masculine Self in Late Medieval England

The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History

The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History

The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History

Late Medieval Monasteries and their Patrons: England and Wales, c.1300-1540 (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

Studies in the History of Medieval Science

Chivalry in Medieval England

The Detection of Heresy in Late Medieval England

The Convent and the Community in Late Medieval England: Female Monasteries in the Diocese of Norwich, 1350-1540 (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

The Culture of Medieval English Monasticism (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

Leadership in Medieval English Nunneries (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

History and the Supernatural in Medieval England (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series)

History and the Supernatural in Medieval England (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series)

History and the Supernatural in Medieval England (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series)

Women Pilgrims in Late Medieval England (Routledge Research in Medieval Studies)

Parks in Medieval England (Medieval History and Archaeology)

Transforming Talk: The Problem With Gossip in Late Medieval England

Legends, Tradition and History in Medieval England

The Foundations of Medieval English Ecclesiastical History: Studies Presented to David Smith (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

Marriage Litigation in Medieval England

The Knight in Medieval England, 1000-1400 (Medieval Military Library)

Generation of Identity in Late Medieval Hagiography: Speaking the Saint (Routledge Research in Medieval Studies, 1)

Everyday Life in Medieval England

Medieval Single Women: The Politics of Social Classification in Late Medieval England

History and supernatural medieval england

The Creation of Lancastrian Kingship: Literature, Language and Politics in Late Medieval England (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature)

The Ages of Faith: Popular Religion in Late Medieval England and Western Europe

Medieval Households (Studies in Cultural History)

Telling Tales: Sources and Narration in Late Medieval England

The Premonstratensian Order in Late Medieval England (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

The Masculine Self in Late Medieval England

The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History

The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History

The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History

Late Medieval Monasteries and their Patrons: England and Wales, c.1300-1540 (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

Studies in the History of Medieval Science

Chivalry in Medieval England

The Detection of Heresy in Late Medieval England

The Convent and the Community in Late Medieval England: Female Monasteries in the Diocese of Norwich, 1350-1540 (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

The Culture of Medieval English Monasticism (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

Leadership in Medieval English Nunneries (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

History and the Supernatural in Medieval England (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series)

History and the Supernatural in Medieval England (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series)

History and the Supernatural in Medieval England (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series)

Women Pilgrims in Late Medieval England (Routledge Research in Medieval Studies)

Parks in Medieval England (Medieval History and Archaeology)

Transforming Talk: The Problem With Gossip in Late Medieval England

Legends, Tradition and History in Medieval England

The Foundations of Medieval English Ecclesiastical History: Studies Presented to David Smith (Studies in the History of Medieval Religion)

Marriage Litigation in Medieval England

The Knight in Medieval England, 1000-1400 (Medieval Military Library)

Generation of Identity in Late Medieval Hagiography: Speaking the Saint (Routledge Research in Medieval Studies, 1)

Everyday Life in Medieval England

Medieval Single Women: The Politics of Social Classification in Late Medieval England

History and supernatural medieval england

The Creation of Lancastrian Kingship: Literature, Language and Politics in Late Medieval England (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature)

The Ages of Faith: Popular Religion in Late Medieval England and Western Europe

Medieval Households (Studies in Cultural History)

Telling Tales: Sources and Narration in Late Medieval England

Recommend Documents