The Grey Friars in Cambridge: 1225–1538 (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY COLLECTION Books of enduring scholarly value Cambridge The city of Cambridge received its royal char...

Author: John Richard Humpidge Moorman

184 downloads 514 Views 10MB 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

CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY COLLECTION Books of enduring scholarly value

Cambridge The city of Cambridge received its royal charter in 1201, having already been home to Britons, Romans and Anglo-Saxons for many centuries. Cambridge University was founded soon afterwards and celebrates its octocentenary in 2009. This series explores the history and influence of Cambridge as a centre of science, learning, and discovery, its contributions to national and global politics and culture, and its inevitable controversies and scandals.

The Grey Friars in Cambridge This is the story of the Franciscan friary in Cambridge, founded in 1225. It describes the new alliance between poverty and learning that was to give fresh vigour to the Order, deeply influencing the life of England as a whole. It provides biographical notes on many Cambridge Franciscans, including the Custodcs, Wardens, Vice-Wardens and Lectors, and on the dispute of 1303-6 between the friars and the university. It ends with the dissolution of the Cambridge house in 1538, and the driving out of the friars. The book is an extended version of John R. H. Moorman's Birkbeck Lectures of 1948-9.

Cambridge University Press has long been a pioneer in the reissuing ol out-of-print titles from its own backlist, producing digital reprints of books that are still sought after by scholars and students but could not be reprinted economically using traditional technology. The Cambridge Library Collection extends this activity to a wider range of books which are still ol importance to researchers and professionals, either for the source material they contain, or as landmarks in the history of their academic discipline. Drawing from the world-renowned collections in the Cambridge University Library, and guided by the advice of experts in each subject area, Cambridge University Press is using state-of-the-art scanning machines in its own Printing House to capture the content ol each book selected for inclusion. The files are processed to give a consistently clear, crisp image, and the books finished to the high quality standard for which the Press is recognised around the world. The latest print-on-demand technology ensures that the books will remain available indefinitely, and that orders lor single or multiple copies can quickly be supplied. The Cambridge Library Collection will bring back to life books ol enduring scholarly value across a wide range of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences and in science and technology.

The Grey Friars in Cambridge 1225-1538 JOHN RICHARD HUMPIDGE MOORMAN

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge New York Melbourne Madrid Cape Town Singapore Sao Paolo Delhi Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: wwwcambridge.org/9781108002837 © in this compilation Cambridge University Press 2009 This edition first published 1952 This digitally printed version 2009 ISBN 978-1-108-00283-7 This book reproduces the text of the original edition. The content and language reflect the beliefs, practices and terminology of their time, and have not been updated.

THE

GREY FRIARS IN CAMBRIDGE 1225-1538

THE

GREY FRIARS IN CAMBRIDGE 1225-1538

The Birkbeck Lectures 1948-9 BY THE

REVEREND

JOHN R. H. MOORMAN M.A., D.D., Emmanuel College

CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1952

PUBLISHED BY THE SYNDICS OF THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY London Office: Bentley House, N.W.I American Branch: New York Agents for Canada, India, and Pakistan: Macmillan

PRESS

Printed in Great Britain by The Carlyle Press, Birmingham, 6

CONTENTS Preface

page vii

Chapter I II III IV V VI

The House of Benjamin the Jew: 1225-1267 The Friars and the University: 1225-1306 The New House Domestic Affairs Some Activities of the Friars The Franciscan School at Cambridge in the Fourteenth Century VII The Latter Years VIII The Dissolution and After

Appendix A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Index

Custodes, Wardens, Vice-wardens and Lectors Biographical Notes on Cambridge Franciscans The Dispute between the Friars and the University of Cambridge, 1303-6 James Essex's Observations on the Old Chapel of Sidney College in Cambridge Fragment of an Account-book belonging to the Cambridge Franciscans Legacies Documents connected with the Dissolution Seals of the Cambridge Franciscans

1 19 39 62 76 93 114 127 143 146 227 239 242 246 259 261 263

PLATES I

Account Sheets of 1363-6

facing page 70

(From J. R. Harris, Origin of the Leicester Codex)

II

List of Cambridge Masters

144

(From A. G. Little, Franciscan Lists, Papers and Documents)

III

Brass of Friar William Gernemuth

page 179

(From Norfolk Archaeology)

IV

Old Drawing of the Refectory

facing page 240

(From A. R. Martin, Franciscan Architecture in England)

MAPS AND P L A N S 1.

Part of J. Essex's plan of Old Cambridge

40

2.

Part of Lyne's map of Cambridge (1574)

43

3.

Part of Hamond's map of Cambridge (1592)

47

4.

Suggested reconstruction of the site

50

5. Leases granted at the Dissolution

VI

138

PREFACE ' F I F T Y YEARS AGO', wrote Dr A. G. Little in 1942, 'I wrote a book about the Grey Friars in Oxford. Since then I have often urged Cambridge friends to write the history of the Grey Friars in Cambridge. My efforts have not been successful.' As a matter of fact the present volume was planned and even begun no less than twenty-three years ago when the author was an undergraduate at Cambridge. Various things combined to prevent any progress being made, and it was not until quite recently that the work could be undertaken in earnest. When things were well under way the Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, did me the honour of inviting me to deliver the Birkbeck Lectures in Ecclesiastical History, and the most important part of the material collected in this book was given as a course of six lectures in Cambridge in the autumn of 1948. Many people have helped from time to time in the production of this book. I should like to express my gratitude to Professor G. R. Potter of Sheffield for kindly looking through the manuscript and giving me the advantage of his experience and knowledge. I am also grateful to the Bishops of Ely, Norwich, Lincoln and several other sees for permission to consult the medieval episcopal registers of their dioceses, the Dean and Chapter of Durham for permission to consult and to print the roll which forms Appendix C. of this book, and the Librarian of Caius College for similar permission to examine the fragments of a Franciscan accountbook now in the possession of the College. All students of English Franciscan history owe a debt of gratitude and respect to the late Dr Little, who has helped and inspired us in many ways to explore the history of the mendicant

vii

PREFACE

orders, and especially the Order of Saint Francis. I am only sorry that he did not live to know that one of his 'Cambridge friends' had in fact written 'the history of the Grey Friars in Cambridge'. JOHN R. H. MOORMAN CHICHESTER 1950

Vlll

CHAPTER I

THE HOUSE OF BENJAMIN THE JEW: i225-1267

IN the year 1209 two events took place, neither of which was in itself of very great importance though both, in the end, proved to have far-reaching results. One of these events took place at Oxford, where three clerks were hanged for a murder in which they probably had no part, and the rest of the University, as an act of protest, left Oxford and betook themselves some to Cambridge and some to Reading.1 The other event took place a thousand miles away at Rome, where a young man called Francis Bernardone, with eleven companions, obtained access to Pope Innocent III and, kneeling before him, asked for permission to live according to the poverty and humility of the Gospels.2 Neither incident in itself would have appeared of much significance at the time. Migrations of masters and students were quite common occurrences in the early days of the Universities and often left no trace behind them, while young men who are dissatisfied with the state of the Church and think that they have found a better way of following Christ have appeared in all ages. But the two events of 1209 left a far more permanent mark on the history of the world than contemporaries might have anticipated, for the one was an important factor in the foundation of the University of Cambridge while the other marked the birth of the Order of Friars Minor. 1 Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, ii, pp. 525-6. The University of Oxford, in its turn, appears to have owed its origin to a similar migration from Paris in 1167 (Rashdall, Universities of Europe, new edition, iii, pp. 12-16). 2 See the account in Bonaventura, Legenda S. Francisci, iii, 8-10 which is largely based on 1 Celano, §§ 32-3 and 2 Celano §§ 16-17, but Bonaventura has added, from some unknown source, the account of the intervention of John of S. Paul. For the date of this incident see Paschal Robinson, 'Quo anno ordo Fratrum Minorum inceperit' in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, 1909, p. 194.

THE HOUSE OF BENJAMIN THE JEW: I225-I267

Both were signs of a movement of the Spirit which was affecting the life of man in various ways. Intellectually, this showed itself in a revival of learning and the founding of the earliest Universities, thus preparing the wayforthe full flowering of scholasticism in the thirteenth century. Spiritually, signs of growth and progress are to be found in the general desireforreform andforthe clearing away of abuses which hindered the work of the Church in the parishes, in the religious houses, and in the higher spheres of ecclesiastical authority. All of those who had the spiritual welfare of mankind at heart welcomed this movement, hoping that it would lead to real reform. There was much ignorance and superstition in the world, and now heresy had raised its head and begun to capture the minds of men whom the Church had too long neglected. The danger was great, but so was the opportunity; and men were beginning to wonder how this challenge could be met. Clearly there must be a greater and profounder study of the truth about God, but also there must be a more determined effort to bring the truth to the people. The need, therefore, was not only for scholars and students but for teachers and preachers. Reform was in the air, but not on merely negative lines such as the prevention of simony or of clerical incontinence, but in the positive fields of a more carefully trained clergy and a better instructed laity. In spite of the vast number of clergy the people were too often 'as sheep having no shepherd' and therefore a prey to heresy and false teaching. Now the time had come for the Church to go out, as Christ had gone, with a message of hope for a sinful and suffering world. Men's hearts were aching for the Good News of redemption and forgiveness and of the eternal presence of Christ in His Church. Typical of those whose hearts were aflame with this Spirit was S. Dominic, who created his Order of Preachers to meet this very need. He and his followers were determined to make full use of the new Universities and of every opportunity of preparing themselves to preach the Gospel, and were then to go out, unencumbered by possessions or worldly ties, to be used as and where they were most needed. But meanwhile a greater than Dominic was laying his plans for capturing the world for Christ. Francis of Assisi


shared to the full in the desire for reform and for a new proclamation of the Gospel. But he was, at the same time, highly suspicious of the passion for learning which had taken hold of so many of his contemporaries. To the mind of S. Francis the task was quite simple. All that they had to do was to imitate the humility and poverty of Christ and trust that the example which they set would touch the hearts of men. What need had they of learning so long as they knew Christ? But Francis went even further than this. Unlike most of those who were in the forefront of reform he had a positive dislike and suspicion of learning. He saw that scholarship was incompatible with absolute poverty, for the student must have books and somewhere to read them, while a Friar Minor was to be without possessions of any kind. Thus, when he was consulted by one of his leading men after his return from the East in 1220 about the question of books, he cried: 'I ought not, and I cannot go against my conscience and the observance of the Holy Gospel which we have professed',1 while to a novice who asked permission to have his own psalter the Saint replied: 'Don't you worry about books and knowledge but about godly works, for knowledge puffs a man up but charity is edifying',2 and in the Rule of 1221 he states clearly that the friars must not handle any money even for the buying of books.3 But if the rule of absolute poverty proved inimical to the pursuit of knowledge, even more so did the demand for absolute humility. S. Francis was convinced that scholarship led almost inevitably to pride. This was partly due to the scholastic method of disputation whereby success tended to be measured not always by weight of learning, but by the power of scoring off an opponent. But it was also due to the fact that learning gives a man something which others have not got, and therefore, to some extent, puts them in his power or at least in an inferior position. This would grossly interfere with S. Francis' ideal of the Friar Minor, idiota et subditus omnibus, who was to regard himself as beneath the contempt of even the most ignorant and depraved of 1

Intentio Regulae, § 5 in Documenta Antiqua Franciscana, ii, p . 87. Speculum Perfectionis, § 4. 3 Regula Prlma, cap. viii, in Opuscula S. Franclsci, ed. Lemmens, p. 35. 2


his fellow men, and it explains the Saint's remark that when a great clerk joined the Order he ought, in some way, to resign even his learning, so that, having stript himself of the last of his possessions, he might offer himself naked to Christ.1 Such was the ideal of S. Francis, but it was not one which was shared by all the brethren. Some years before the death of the Saint in 1226 a party had grown up in the Order, led from within by Brother Elias and supported from without by Cardinal Ugolino, which was not altogether satisfied with the methods of S. Francis and was anxious, among other things, to modify the standards of absolute poverty and humility in order to make the friars of more use to the Church. That Francis bitterly opposed this tampering with his ideals is well known. But though the force of his personality was enough to keep any such movement strictly in check during his lifetime, it was almost inevitable that big changes should take place after his death. And one of these inevitable changes was the lifting of the ban against study. The Order of Friars Minor was attracting some of the best and keenest minds of the rising generation; and, great though their reverence for S. Francis was, they were not going to throw up all activity of the mind in order to wander about the countryside as ignorant tramps. S. Francis died on October 3rd, 1226, and so great had been his personal influence that there is by that time little evidence of any of the friars demanding greater opportunities for study. Friaries had in fact been set up in the university towns of Bologna, Paris, Oxford and Cambridge, but not, apparently, with any idea that the friars should associate themselves with the schools. But within a few years great changes took place. In 1228 a friar was appointed by John Parenti to lecture in theology to the friars of Germany,2 in 1229 Agnellus of Pisa invited Robert Grosseteste, one of the leading scholars of the day, to become 'lector' to the friars at Oxford,3 and by 1230 the friars in Paris had begun to interest themselves in the affairs of the University there.4 Thirty 1

2 2 Celano, § 194. Chronica Jordani, ed. Boehmer, p. 47. Eccleston, de Adventu Fratrum Minorum in Angliam, ed. Little (1908), p. 60. 4 Rashdall, Universities of Europe, new ed., i, p. 348 and n.

3


years later the schools of the Franciscans had become the most famous in Europe and the leaders of the Order were almost exclusively drawn from men who had risen to prominence in the Universities. It was in view of this situation that Brother Giles is said to have remarked: 'Paris, Paris, thou hast destroyed AssisiI'1 S. Francis was still alive when, on September ioth, 1224, a party of nine of his disciples landed at Dover and set out to establish the Order in England. They appear to have been men after S. Francis' own heart, simple friars devoted to poverty, simplicity and humility and untouched by the desire to modify the intentions of their founder and turn the Order into something which it was never intended to be. Agnellus of Pisa, their leader, had been 'custos' of Paris and was a man 'specially endowed with natural prudence and foresight, and conspicuous for every virtue,'2 but he was not a scholar. Richard of Ingworth, the only priest in the party, was known as a good preacher,3 but the other two ordained men were both young and one was only a novice. Five were lay brothers, one of whom had been some kind of artisan.4 The choice of this group of quite undistinguished men shows that the Order did not intend that they should attempt to capture the Universities or take any part in the intellectual life of the country. They came, as the early friars had gone out, to seek for the poor and the neglected and the depressed and to bring them joy and peace in the power of the Holy Spirit. After their arrival at Dover the friars made their way to Canterbury. Here the party divided into two, five remaining to begin their apostolate while the other four went on to London. Here again it was decided to form a centre of activity, and two of the brethren stayed there while Richard of Ingworth and Richard of Devon pressed on to Oxford. But it is unlikely that they were attracted to Oxford through any desire to enter into the activities of the University. It is much more likely that their immediate concern was to increase their numbers, and a University town 1

Cf. Moorman, Sources for the Life ofS. Francis, p. 141. Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 94. 3 Ibid., p. 4. 4 Ibid., pp. 5-7. Laurence of Beauvais is said to have worked 'in opere mechanico' for some time after joining the Order. 2


was a likely place in which to find suitable young men. As Dr Little said, they regarded the University 'not as a place of study but as a place where young men of impressionable age congregated—a place where there was hope of a "good catch" of souls'.1 Strange to say, Thomas of Eccleston, who is our prime authority for the early history of the Franciscans in England, does not record the coming of the friars to Cambridge. Having told of their arrival at Oxford and of their first settlement at Northampton he goes on to give the names of the first Wardens: Peter Hispanus at Northampton, William de Esseby at Oxford, Thomas de Hispania at Cambridge and Henry Misericorde at Lincoln.2 This, though it gives us no actual date for the foundation of the Cambridge house, suggests that it followed soon after those of Oxford and Northampton, probably some time during the year 1225. And we have a further piece of evidence in support of that date. According to Bartholomew of Cotton, who was a monk of Norwich and had access to certain local histories, the Franciscan house at Norwich was founded in 1226.3 If it had been founded earlier than the house at Cambridge it would almost certainly have been chosen as the head of the Eastern custody when the province was divided up. But when this was done, in spite of the claims of Norwich as the most important city in East Anglia, Cambridge was made the head of the custody. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the friary at Cambridge was founded before that of Norwich, and probably in the year 1225.* 1 A. G. Little, 'The Friars and the Faculty of Theology at Cambridge' in Melanges Mandonnet, ii, p. 396. 2 Eccleston, de Adventu, pp. 12-13. 3 Bartholomew of Cotton, Historia Anglicana, p. 113. 4 Eccleston (de Adventu, pp. 42-5) records the division of the province of England into six custodies but does not give a date when this was carried out. Obviously it was shortly after the coming of the friars, and the fact that Richard of Ingworth was 'custos' of the Cambridge custody for some time before his going to Ireland in 1230-1 proves that the custody must have been set up at an early date. Rashdall gives the date of the Cambridge friary as '1224 or 1225' (Universities of Europe, new ed. iii, p. 294), probably taking the date from Cooper (Annals of Cambridge, i, p. 39). Little gives 'c. 1226' as the date (Franciscan Papers, Lists and Documents, p. 219). Dr Gray puts it as early as 1224 (The Town of Cambridge, p. 53).

THE HOUSE OF BENJAMIN THE JEW: I225-1267

In the year 1225 the University of Cambridge (if such it could be called) was only in its infancy. In 1209 a large number of the masters and students from Oxford had migrated here1 and for a time enormously swelled the schools which already existed in the town. These were probably little more than the type of grammar school which then existed in most towns of the size and importance of Cambridge, for there is no real evidence of a studium there at that date. Dr Rouse Ball, one of the warmest champions of Cambridge in recent years, wrote of schools at Cambridge near the end of the twelfth century . . . when men of scholarly tastes, especially those resident in religious houses, were conscious of their ignorance of recent developments in theology as set out by Peter Lombard and in Canon Law, and were keen to study these subjects and scholastic logic.2 But this is to give a false picture of Cambridge at that date. Whatever else there may have been, there was certainly no faculty of theology, nor is there any evidence of monks leaving their monasteries to go to the schools until the end of the thirteenth century. All we can safely suppose is that Cambridge had some kind of schools in the twelfth century and that their reputation was good enough to attract the Oxford migrants there in 1209. They stayed for only five years, but during that time the foundations of the University were laid. It is not unlikely that some of the masters who had come to Cambridge in 1209 stayed on there when their fellows returned to Oxford in 1214; at any rate the migration taught the Cambridge scholars how to organise themselves on the lines of a studium generate. The next few years, however, were so unsettled that little progress could be made. Thomas Fuller, in describing this period, says 'the scholars there had steady heads and strong brains if able to study in these distempers, when loud drums and trumpets silenced the sweet 1

Matthew Paris says that up to 3,000 masters and students left Oxford in this migration, not a single man remaining (Chronica Maiora, ii, p. 526). The Lanercost Chronicle (ed. Stevenson, p. 4) suggests that a few stayed behind, which, in fact, is true (cf. Munimenta Academica, i, p. 3). But even if 2,000 migrated and the majority went to Reading, it would still leave several hundreds to settle at Cambridge. 2 Cambridge Papers, pp. 180-1.

7

THE HOUSE OF BENJAMIN THE JEW: 1225-1267

but low harp of Apollo.'1 Consequently, when the Friars Minor arrived in Cambridge in 1225 they found the University still in a very rudimentary stage. But there were probably a few hostels already established, and some magistri regularly lecturing, while by 1226 there is evidence that the University had progressed far enough to have a Chancellor.2 According to Eccleston the friars' first house in Cambridge was in a dwelling known as 'the house of Benjamin the Jew' but it is not known for certain where this stood. The part of Cambridge which came to be known as the Jewry was near to the Round Church, but this was probably not where the Jews lived, deriving its name rather from the fact that the full title of the church was 'the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Judaea or the Jewry'. According to William Cole, the antiquary, the land allotted to the Jews in Cambridge was 'all that piece of ground now occupied by a range of houses situate on the east side of the Butcher Row and extending eastward as far as the Guildhall'.3 This is supported by the fact that when the foundations of the Guildhall were being dug in 1782 remains of an old Jewish cemetery were discovered, one tombstone bearing traces of a Hebrew inscription.4 It seems, therefore, probable that the first settlement of the friars was in this quarter of the town. The house of Benjamin the Jew was divided into two parts, one half serving as a dwelling-house and the other as a synagogue. In 1224 it stood empty and was sold by the King to the bailiffs of Cambridge for the sum of forty marks in order that they might convert it into a jail.5 Only one half of the building was used for this purpose, the other remaining unoccupied. A few months later the first party of Friars Minor arrived in Cambridge and immediately applied to the townsfolk for assistance. They seem to have been sympathetically received by the burgesses, who, no doubt, had heard something of their good work in other cities, and they were given the empty part of the house of Benjamin the 1

Fuller, History of the University of Cambridge, ed. Nichols, p. 17. See note by H. E. Salter in Eng. Hist. Rev. xxxvi, pp. 419-20. 3 B. M. Add. MSS 5810, ff. 235-7. 4 Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, i, p. 40 n. 5 Ibid., pp. 39-40. 2


Jew for their settlement.1 Here the friars made their home for over forty years until they were able to build their own more spacious quarters on the land where Sidney Sussex College now stands. Conditions cannot have been very satisfactory for a religious community, but these were the early days of the Order when the friars rejoiced in their hardships and glorified in squalor and privation. At Canterbury they had to be content with a cellar under a school, from which they emerged in the evenings after the boys had gone home.2 In London they were living in some home-made huts in Cornhill, so draughty that they had to plug the holes with grass.3 The old synagogue at Cambridge cannot have been less comfortable than these and may well have been more so. But, none the less, the position was unsatisfactory. The single entrance to the building meant that the friars and the turnkeys had to come in and out by the same route, and it was difficult, in such circumstances, to create and maintain the right atmosphere for a religious community. It is not to be wondered at that Eccleston speaks of the vicinity of the jail as being 'intolerable'4 nor that the citizens should have realised how unsatisfactory the arrangement was and, in 1230, have offered the King the sum of five marks for a vacant place in the town where the friars might build themselves more comfortable lodgings.5 This attempt to benefit the friars proved, however, unsuccessful, and they were obliged to make the best of their old synagogue and the company of the jailers for several more years. The Franciscan community at Cambridge was at first very small. Eccleston informs us that there were only three clerks— William de Esseby, who was one of the original contingent of nine friars who came over in 1224, Hugh de Bugeton and a lame novice called Elias.6 But in addition there were some lay brothers, 1

Eccleston, de Adventu, p . 28. Ibid., p. 8. 3 Ibid., p . 11; Kingsford, Grey Friars of London, p . 16. 4 Op. dt., p . 28. 'Intolerabilis (erat) vicinia carceris fratribus, quia eundem ingressum habebant carcerarii et fratres'. 5 Memoranda Roll of the Kings Remembrancer, 1230-1, p. 8. c Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 28. 2

THE HOUSE OF BENJAMIN THE JEW: 1225-I267

including Thomas de Hispania, the first Warden.1 Yet though the community at Cambridge was small it was renowned for its devotion, the chronicler singling it out for special praise and recording that the friars there 'sang the office devoutly with notation'.2 Equally was it renowned for its poverty, since up to the time when Albert of Pisa, the successor of Agnellus as Provincial Minister, visited the province in 1236-7 the friars of the Cambridge custody, though living in one of the coldest and dampest parts of England, are described as having no cloaks.3 Thus it seems that, in these early days, the Cambridge friars were well living up to the Franciscan ideal. They were poor, they were living in considerable discomfort, they must often have suffered bitterly from the cold; but their zeal was unquestioned, and their devotion an example to the whole province. It was thus, in a very quiet way, that the Friars Minor made their first appearance in Cambridge, and it is unlikely that the activities which went on in the house of Benjamin the Jew aroused much interest in the town or in the University. For Cambridge at this time was full of life and growth and development. In 1229, in view of the disturbed conditions in the University of Paris, Henry III invited to this country any students who cared to come, and there is little doubt that a good many of these found their way to Cambridge,4 so filling the town that the University authorities were hard put to it to maintain order, while the landlords of the hostels seized the opportunity of putting up their rents to an exorbitant figure. The organisation of the University found itself unable to keep pace with the growth in numbers, and the inevitable consequence was that there were disputes and quarrels among 1 Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 13. He is probably to be identified with the Thomas Hispanus Knight, who was one of the distinguished laymen who joined the Order soon after its establishment in England. Little considered this identification unlikely, but does not say why {Ibid., p. 24 n.). 3 Ibid., p. 28. 'Cantaverunt officium solemniter cum nota.' 2 Ibid., p. 44. The word used is mantellum. According to the Rule the friars were allowed 'unam tunicam cum caputio et aliam sine caputio qui voluerint habere' (Opuscula S. Francisci, ed. Lemmens, p. 65). The mantellum probably represents the tunica sine caputio which was allowed to the weaker brethren. But then the Rule was written with the climate of Italy in mind, not that of the 4 Fens! Cooper, Annals, i, p. 40.

10


the students themselves, between students and masters, and between students and the keepers of the hostels. In this difficulty the King was obliged to interfere and issue a number of writs in May 1231, empowering the Bishop of Ely and the Sheriff of Cambridgeshire to punish clerks who refused to submit to discipline, to see that every student was under the authority of some master, and to fix the rents which the keepers of the hostels might charge their lodgers.1 Thus a big effort towards the control of the students was made which was, no doubt, conducive to better teaching and to more efficient organisation of the University. In all this the friars took little or no part. They had not come to Cambridge for purposes of study, but to work among the poor and in the hopes of finding, among the young men and boys, recruits for their Order. But within a year or two of their arrival in Cambridge big changes were taking place in the Order which were destined to alter the whole purpose of the Cambridge house and to convert it from a centre of spiritual and evangelistic work into a most important part of the teaching function of a great university. Reference has already been made to the modifications which took place shortly after the death of S. Francis when the original ban on learning was lifted and the friars began to appoint lecturers and to organise an educational system for their own members.2 In 1229 the first move was made in England when Robert Grosseteste, at the invitation of the Provincial Minister, took the Friars Minor of Oxford under his special care and became their lecturer for six years until his election as Bishop of Lincoln in 1235. Immediately the whole character of the Oxford house was changed. Grosseteste was not only Chancellor of the University at the time but also the foremost scholar and teacher in theology, so that the friars' school instantly acquired a great reputation and was resorted to by all who were anxious to avail themselves of the lectures of so great a scholar. If this was happening at Oxford it is natural that the Cambridge friars, who found themselves in the midst of a younger but no less flourishing University, should want to do the same. But there was this difference. At Oxford in 1229 there was already a faculty of 1

2

Cooper, Annals, i, pp. 41-2. II

See above, p. 4.


theology and a number of learned, secular teachers, of whom Grosseteste was one. At Cambridge there appears to have been as yet no sign of such a faculty, such teaching as there was being confined to the ordinary 'arts' course. The friars, therefore, were unable to draw on the University for their teaching and were obliged to find their own lecturers from among their own order. The man whom they chose to be their first teacher was Vincent de Coventry. According to Eccleston, Vincent was already magister, though he does not say of what University, when he joined the Order of Friars Minor on January 25th, 1225; and he was a man of considerable reputation as a scholar.1 He must have begun his teaching at Cambridge soon after Grosseteste began at Oxford,2 and he was the first of a long series of lecturers, many of whom were men of international reputation, who brought the Cambridge friars' school to a position of considerable eminence. Thus by the early 1230's the house of Friars Minor at Cambridge had become far more important than its original members had expected; and when the Provincial Minister of the Order decided, about this time, to divide the province into 'custodies'3 it was natural that Cambridge should have been chosen as the head of the East Anglian district. The first man to be chosen as 'custos' of this area was Richard of Ingworth, one of the original party of nine friars who had come over to England in 1224.1 But he cannot have held office for more than a few months, as in 1231-2 he was sent to Ireland to become Minister of the new province founded there—an indication that he was a man of considerable 1

Eccleston, de Adventu, pp. 21, 71. It is impossible to say exactly when Vincent began his teaching at Cambridge. At Oxford we are told that the school was founded shortly after the acquisition of the house of William de Wileford, which occurred in 1229. Vincent de Coventry must have inaugurated his lectures at Cambridge shortly after this, for in 1236-7 he was appointed lector at London (Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 62), being succeeded at Cambridge by John de Weston (ibid., p. 63). But we know that John de Weston was fourth lector at Cambridge (ibid., p. 71), so that even if each man held office for only one year it would put Vincent's tenure back to about 1232 at the latest. 3 See Little's essay: 'List of Custodies and Houses in the Franciscan Province of England' in Franciscan Papers, Lists and Documents, pp. 217-29. 4 Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 44. 2

12


ability.1 He was followed by Robert de Thornham, who had been the first Warden of the new convent at Lynn (c. 1230-2) and was then 'for many years' custos of Cambridge.2 The multi anni of which Eccleston speaks probably lasted from his appointment in 1232 to the time of his departure from England in 1250 on a mission to the Holy Land in search of martyrdom.3 During his years of office as custos three new houses were founded in his area (in addition to the existing friaries of Cambridge, Norwich and Lynn)—at Bab well, near Bury S. Edmunds in 1233, at Ipswich some time before 1236 and at Colchester about the same time.4 Meanwhile the friars were rising to fame and the Cambridge house was already being talked about in East Anglia. As early as 1230 this friary was well enough known to be mentioned in the Mortuary Roll of Lucy, foundress and first prioress of the Benedictine nunnery of the Holy Cross and S. Mary at Hedingham in Essex,5 whilefifteenyears later we find, among a list of churches which offered prayers for the soul of Lucy, Countess of Oxford, who died on February 3rd, 1245, mention of the Church of the Friars Minor at Cambridge.6 Thus the friars at Cambridge were beginning to play a part in the general life of the community besides the work which they were doing, both evangelistic and academic, in Cambridge. And 1 Ibid., p. 4; Fitzmaurice and Little, Materials for the History of the Franciscan 3 Province of Ireland, pp. xi and I. Eccleston, de Adventu, p. n o . 3 'Non sine fervore triumphalis martyrii' says Adam Marsh in a letter to William of Nottingham; Monumenta Franclscana, i, p. 313. 4 Little, Franciscan Papers, Lists and Documents, pp. 219-20. For an account of the troubles experienced by the friars at Bury S. Edmund's, see 'Processus contra Fratres Minorcs qualiter expulsi erant de villa S. Edmundi' in Arnold's Memorials oj S. Edmund's Abbey, ii, pp. 263-85. 5 Little, op. clt., p. 128, from Brit. Mus. MS Egerton 2849, and see New Palaeographical Society, vol. i, Pt. i, plate 21. The entry reads: 'Titulus fratrum minorum commorantium apud Kantebr'. Anima Dotnine Lucie priorisse de Hengham et anime omnium fidelium defunctorum per misericordiam dei requiescant in pace. Amen. Concedimus ei commune beneficium ecclesie nostre. Oravimus pro vestris. Orate pro nostris.' 6 Hist. MSS Commission, 5th Report, p. 322. Nearly a century later we find the house mentioned in a Mortuary Roll sent out by the Prior and Convent of Ely on the death of John de Hotham, Bishop of Ely, in 1337: 'Titulus ecclesie fratrum minorum Cantabriggie'; Cambridge Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, i, p. 139.


yet they were still uncomfortably housed in the old synagogue, living cheek by jowl with jailors and criminals. If, as appears probable, they had but the use of a single large room, it must have served them as chapel, refectory, kitchen, dormitory, chapterhouse and lecture room. This might have been tolerable in the early days when there were only five or six friars, but it must have proved most inconvenient when the numbers started to grow, and when students other than the friars began to attend lectures in the friary. It was clear, then, that some enlargement of the quarters was essential. The first step was to build a chapel; and so, on some piece of land adjoining the house, the friars put up their first place of worship. It was small and simple enough, for Eccleston describes it as 'so very poor that a carpenter in one day made and set up fifteen pairs of beams'.1 Presumably he means that these beams were enough to support the whole roof of the chapel, and the fact that the work was done by a man single-handed implies that the beams were small and light. At any rate the suggestion is of a very humble building such as would have delighted S. Francis, who, in his Testament, appealed to the brethren to see that all their churches and other buildings were poor and insignificant.2 But the erection of a chapel, admirable enough in itself, did little to relieve the pressure on the rest of the house. Nor could this pressure become anything but greater as the work and numbers of the friars grew. The earliest date for which we can give an exact figure for the Cambridge house is 1277, when there were thirty friars there.3 But as early as 1239 there were thirteen friars 1 Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 28: 'ut carpentarius una die faceret et erigeret xv coplas tignorum'. What precisely this means is a little obscure; see Little, Franciscan Papers, Lists and Documents, p. 129 n. for a discussion of the correct translation of the phrase 'coplas tignorum'. Eccleston's subsequent statement that, at the time of the building of the chapel, there were only three 'fratres clerici' shows that it must have been in the early days of the foundation. 2 Testamentum S. Francisci in Opuscula, ed. Lemmens, p. 80; cf. Documenta Antiqua Franciscana, ii, pp. 97-8, for other indications of S. Francis' views about building. 3 P.R.O., E101/350/23: 'Item in pascendis fratribus minoribus Cant' per duos dies per elemosinarium regis, xxs'. This, at the rate of A,d. each per diem would allow for 30 friars.

14


at Reading1; and four years later there were fifteen at Chichester and Winchelsea, sixteen at Lewes and twenty at Salisbury and Southampton.2 There can be very little doubt that the Cambridge house was at least as big as Salisbury and Southampton if not bigger, so that it is probable that by 1240 there were at least twenty to twenty-five friars there. It was clear, then, that the single room of their lodgings, even with the addition of the tiny chapel, was becoming hopelessly inadequate for their purposes. It was no wonder, then, that in 1230 the townsfolk tried to acquire a better site for them, or that, when that attempt failed, they sought about obtaining the other part of the house of Benjamin the Jew. Eccleston writes as follows: When the vicinity of the jail proved intolerable to the friars, since there was but one entrance for jailers and friars, the lord King gave ten marks to buy the rent, whereby satisfaction should be made to his exchequer for the rent of the area.3 This transaction actually took place in 1238, for the Close Rolls record that in June of that year Henry III wrote to the burgesses of Cambridge to inform them that he has granted to the Friars Minor of Cambridge, for the extension of their quarters, the house and buildings which had formerly belonged to Benjamin the Jew and had been used as a jail, while he also cancelled the rent due to him and gave the bailiffs ten marks towards building a new jail.4 This was of great advantage to the friars, making it possible for them to spread themselves over the whole house and relieving them of the embarrassment of having to share their entrance with the jailers. The increased accommodation made it possible for the next Provincial Chapter to be held at Cambridge. It was held some time during the summer of 12405 and probably lasted three days, 1

Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 174. Roles Gascons, ed. F. Michel, i, p. 252. In this year the number at Reading had increased to seventeen (ibid., p. 254). 3 Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 28. The chronicler then goes on to describe the building of the chapel, but, in so doing, he appears to fall into some confusion. It is pretty clear that the building of the chapel took place some years before the attempt to buy the other part of the house in which the friars lived. 4 Cal. of Close Rolls, Henry III, 1237-42, p. 61. 6 Little, Franciscan Papers, Lists and Documents, p. 209. 2

15

THE HOUSE OF BENJAMIN THE JEW: H25-I267

being presided over by William of Nottingham, then vicar of the Provincial Minister, Haymo of Faversham. The King gave ten marks (£6 13s. 4^.) towards the expenses of the Chapter, and a further gift of ten marks was sent by the Queen.1 If we assume that the King's gift was reckoned on the usual basis of fourpence a day for each friar it would appear that the Chapter was attended by about 130 friars. It is, of course, impossible to say where they all slept or where their meetings were held. Since it can hardly be supposed that the house of Benjamin the Jew would have been large enough to accommodate them all, many must have slept out, and it is probable that one of the local churches was borrowed for their corporate worship and discussion.2 But it was not only at times such as these that the old house was proving itself inadequate. The number of friars at any time resident at Cambridge was undoubtedly growing, and their school was attracting students not all of whom were members of the Order. It was clear that preparations would have to be made for a new building where the friars could be more comfortably housed. In making this decision the Cambridge friars came into line with most of the other Franciscan communities in England. The days of damp cellars and draughty huts were passing away. Gradually and perhaps inevitably the friars were settling down to a more static kind of life than that envisaged by S. Francis, who would have nowhere to lay his head and was not above destroying with his own hands the modest houses which the friars were beginning to build.3 For forty years the Cambridge friars had been content with the Jew's house and the tiny chapel which they had built; but it clearly could not be their permanent home. Their numbers were rising, their congregations were increasing, their influence in 1 Cal. Liberate Rolls, Henry III, i, p. 501; Cal. CloseRolls, Henry III, 1237-42, p. 208. The Queen orders that, notwithstanding a previous command of the King to give 100s. to the Friars Minor of Cambridge, if not already given to them, ten marks are to be sent for their Chapter. This is dated July 20th, 1240. 2 Another Chapter was held at Cambridge in August 1246, but no more, so far as is known, until 1279. After that they were held there in 1285, 1292, possibly 1316, and 1334 (Little, Franciscan Papers, &c, pp. 209-11). 3 See the story of the destruction of the house at S. Mary of the Angels in

2 Celano, § 57, Speculum Perfectionis, § 7.

16


the town was growing rapidly. Expansion, therefore, was essential. They must have a place where they could carry on their evangelistic and teaching work in comfort. As early as 1238 the Dominicans had been busy building their friary on the site where Emmanuel College now stands,1 and in 1249 the Carmelites, after a short sojourn at Chesterton, moved to Newnham, 'where they built', says Cooper, 'a handsome church, cloister, dormitory and all necessary apartments, occupying altogether three acres of land or more'.2 Hitherto the Franciscans had been the guests of the citizens and it was, therefore, to them that the friars appealed for help in acquiring a better house. The townsfolk seem to have recognised the reasonableness of their plea and enquiries were made as to a suitable site. The position finally chosen was an area, reckoned as six acres or more,3 on the corner of what are now Sidney Street and Jesus Lane.4 The land appears to have been already built on, but all existing tenements were destroyed in order that the friars might build their convent there. The text of the Hundred Rolls suggests that the new friary was built by public subscription. With the building of the new house we reach the end of the first chapter in the history of the Cambridge Franciscans. For over forty years they had endured the inconvenience of a most inadequate house which, for part of the time, they had had to share with the town jail. Yet those forty years had been a time of real progress. The repeated efforts made by the townsfolk to 1

Cal. Close Rolls, Henry III, 1233-42, p. 61, and cf. W. Gumbley, The Cambridge Dominicans, p. 7. 2 Cooper, Annals, i, p. 45. The Austin Friars did not come to Cambridge until nearly the end of the century. 3 It was more likely three acres; see below, p. 40, n. 1. 4 Rotuli Hundredorum, ii, p. 360. The date is 1274 and the text is as follows: 'Item fratres minores in villa Cantabrigiensi commorantes similiter habent quendam locum ubi manent et ubi ecclesia eorum fundata est, qui quidem locus continet in se sex acras terrae et amplius in longitudine et latitudine, in quo loco diversae solebant esse mansiones in quibus multi inhabitabant qui solebant esse geldabiles et ausiliant ad villam predictam. Hunc vero locum habent et tenent dicti fratres in perpetua eleemosina de perquisitis et de dono plurimorum. De quibus vero habent locum predictum, et utrum habeant confirmacionem antecessorum domini regis vel non, ignorant'. c

17


assist the friars show that the work of the community was appreciated, and it is natural to suppose that the friars were giving good service to the town in preaching and in works of mercy. Nor was it only in the town that the friars had made their mark. They had come to Cambridge as evangelists but they soon began to acquire a reputation as scholars, and the theological school of the friars played an important part in the growth of the University.

18

CHAPTER II

THE FRIARS AND THE UNIVERSITY: 1225-1306

once the Friars Minor had decided that it was both unreasonable and impracticable to forbid the brothers to take any interest in scholarship it was not long before plans were made and the foundations laid of an educational system which should embrace all members of the Order. Mention has already been made of the changes which took place about the year 1230 when the friars' schools at Paris, Oxford and Cambridge all came into existence. By the time of the General Chapter of Narbonne, which was held in 1260, we find an educational system well established with provision for the proper training of teachers to lecture to the friars in each convent.1 It had now become obligatory on all friars, except the illiterate, to devote part of their time to reading and writing, while the Order gave permission for each province to send two friars to study at Paris. The general scheme for the education of the friars was as follows. Each convent was to have its own lecturer, partly to give the necessary groundwork to novices and young friars, but also to deliver lectures to the whole community in order to help them in their preaching. Then, in each custody, there was to be set up a school for more advanced work, so that younger men who showed promise might go ahead with their studies without having to go too far afield. Finally, there were to be the schools in the Universities to which the most apt pupils could be sent in order that they might graduate in theology and themselves become lecturers in the other convents. It was thought desirable that each WHEN

1 The Chapter of Narbonne is the first of which the full decrees arc knownThey are printed in Archiv fiir litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte, vi, pp. 33-5 and 87-138. They have been re-edited by Fr. Bihl in Arch. Franc. Hist. vol. xxxiv (1941), pp. 13-94.

19

THE FRIARS AND THE UNIVERSITY: I225-I306

community should have always one friar as a lecturer, and one in training to take his place when the time came. The choice of those who were to be trained at the Universities was in the hands of the Provincial Chapters, while the friars thus selected were known as studentes de debito. This, however, was not intended to prevent any individual convent from sending one or more of its men to the University if it could afford to do so. Such students were known as studentes de gracia.

Various regulations were laid down from time to time as to the conduct of these students. In the first place, they must have devoted at least three or four years to scholastic training before going to the University, and they were to go only on the authority of the Provincial Chapter and Minister. They must be intelligent, healthy, eloquent, peaceable and of good report, and they must continue with their studies for four years. On their return to their own convents they must bring with them satisfactory reports on their work and their behaviour.1 Later Chapters added to these regulations. In 1282, student friars were ordered to take their share in begging and to go out boldly (confidenter).2 In 1310 they were forbidden to have more books than were necessary for their work or such as were outside their immediate subject.3 In 1316 they were expressly forbidden to dabble in alchemy.4 In 1331 they were ordered to keep to their studies for a whole year at a time, except during those periods when it was their duty to go out and preach or beg.5 These all show that student friars were expected to take their part in the general life of the community, and were not to regard themselves as superior people or as exempt from the more disagreeable duties which fell to a mendicant. So far as England is concerned the prime mover in the development of the educational organisation was the second Provincial Minister, Albert of Pisa. He succeeded to this office in 1236, on the death of Agnellus, and held it for two and a half years until he was elected to succeed Brother Elias as Minister General. During the time in which he held office in England he appointed lecturers 1 3

Archiv fur Lit. and Kirch, vi, pp. 54, 108-10. 4 Ibid., p. 69. Arch. Franc. Hist, iv, p. 293. 2O

2 5

Ibid., vi, p . 50. Ibid., ii, p. 413.


at seven convents—London, Canterbury, Hereford, Leicester, Bristol, Cambridge and Oxford.1 His work was continued by William of Nottingham and the appointment of lectors went ahead, for Eccleston tells us that by 1254 the friars in England maintained thirty lecturers who solemnly disputed and a further three or four who lectured without disputation.2 At this time there are known to have been about forty houses in England, so that if Eccleston's statement is correct it means that the ideal of each convent having its own teacher had been practically achieved. And indeed there is little doubt that this was so. To the places which are mentioned in the Chronicle it is possible to add Gloucester, where schools of theology were in existence in 1246,3 Norwich, which was applying for a teacher in 1250 or 1251,4 and Northampton, where a school was being built in 1258.5 And we know that in later years even the remoter convents had their lector. For example, among those licensed to hear confessions in the diocese of Carlisle in 1355 was a friar called William de Dacre who was then lector to the Franciscans of Carlisle.6 1

Eccleston, de Adventu, pp. 62-3. * Ibid., p. 63. 3 Cal. Close Rolls, Henry III, 1242-y, p. 447. 4 Monumenta Franciscana, i, pp. 319, 321. 5 Cal. Close Rolls, Henry III, i256-c>, p. 241. 6 Carlisle Registers: Welton, f. 118. In addition to the list of lectors at Oxford and Cambridge the following are known to have held such office in the friaries: BODMIN, Alfred, c. 1350 (Regist. T. Grandisson, i, pp. 420-1); BOSTON, Simon Jorz, 1300 (Little, Franciscan Papers, etc., p. 237), John de Moreton, 1318 (Lincoln Registers: Dalderby, iii, ff. 411-2); BRIDGWATER, Aaron, 1318 (Regist. J. Drokensford, p. 11), Geoffrey Pollard described as legista, c. 1450 (V. C. H, Somerset, ii, p. 152); BRISTOL, Gilbert de Cranfort, c. 1235 (Eccleston, p. 63). John Fraunceys, 1382 (Regist. R. Salopia, p. 95); CANTERBURY, Henry de Coventry, c. 1235 (Eccleston, p. 62); CARLISLE, (See above); CHICHESTER, Thomas Hatton, 1373 (Canterbury Registers: Wittlesey, f. 62b); COVENTRY, John Bredon, 1421 (Coventry LeetBook, pp. 35-6), William Wall, 1532 (Martin, Franciscan Architecture, p. 66); HEREFORD, William de Leicestria, c. 1235 (Eccleston, pp. 62-3), Walter de Raveningham, c. 1260 (Ibid., p. 72n.), Walter, 1293 (Ann. Monast., iv, pp. 513-4); LEICESTER, Gregory de Bosellis, c. 1235 (Eccleston, p. 63), Simondez Harmer, 1538 (Eighth Report of the Deputy Keeper, Ap. ii, p. 27); LEWES, John Cavendish, 1373 (Canterbury Registers: Wittlesey, f. 62b); LONDON, Vincent de Coventry, c. 1236 (Eccleston, p. 62), John Attewille, 1368 (Little and Easterling, Franciscans and Dominicans of Exeter, pp. 23-4), William Thorpe, 1468, John Furner, 1483, Henry Sedbar, 1489, Ambrose Kell, 21


The English friars were therefore successfully carrying out the plan of providing a teacher for each convent. They seem also to have been equally successful in setting up a more advanced school in each custody, though there is no real evidence of this from the thirteenth century. The first definite piece of evidence that such studia were in existence is in the papal constitutions of Benedict XII in 1336, where it is provided that No friar shall be chosen to lecture on the Sentences (i.e. to qualify for the degree of B.D.) in the Universities of Paris, Oxford or Cambridge unless he has previously lectured on the four books of the Sentences, together with the writings of the approved doctors, in other places of study which are reckoned as studia generalia in the Order, or in the following convents, viz. Rouen, Reims, Metz, Bruges, London, York, Norwich, Newcastle, Stamford, Coventry, Exeter, Bordeaux, Narbonne, Marseilles, Asti, Nagy-Varad (Hungary), Prague, Pisa, Erfurt, Rimini and Todi. 1

The seven English houses here mentioned represent the seven custodies into which the province was then divided. Thus, in addition to the ordinary lecturer assigned to each convent, these seven houses were providing a more advanced course in theology exactly in conformity with the plan which the Order had intended to put into action. Lastly we come to the highest stage in the educational scheme —the schools at Oxford and Cambridge. They were probably the earliest to be established and were making rapid progress during the thirteenth century. To them would come students who had first performed the necessary exercises in the schools of the 1514, and John Pereson, 1527, all called cursor theologiae (Kingsford, Grey Friars of London, pp. 65-8), Gilbert Mylbourne, custos pkilosophiae, 1523 (London Registers: Tunstall); NEWCASTLE, Robert de Brun, cursor summariorum, 1350 (York Registers: Zouche, f. 279b); NORWICH, Dr Vergraunt (?), 15th c. (See below, p. 338); RICHMOND (Yorks), Robert Lexham, 1350 (York Registers: Zouche, f. 280); SOUTHAMPTON, John de Pageham, 1326 (Winchester Registers: Stratford, f. 15); WINCHESTER, William Chitterne, before 1326, and William de S. Albano, 1326 {Ibid., f. 15); WORCESTER, Robert de Crull, 1285 {V. C. H. Worcs., ii, p. 169), Robert de Foston, n.d. (Worcester Cathedral Library, MS Q. 89). YORK, William Softlaw, 1398 (York Registers: Scrope, f. 226b.). 1 Sbaralea, Bullarium Franciscanum, vi, p. 30; quoted by Little, Studies in English Franciscan History, pp. 166-7. These constitutions are also printed in Arch. Franc. Hist, xxx (1938), pp. 309-90. 22


custodies. This meant that the convents in the University towns were unlike the ordinary convents anywhere else. No doubt eacli contained a group of friars who carried on the ordinary business of the community, but probably the majority of those who lived and worked there were students sent thither for purposes of study. Most of these came from other parts of England, but there is evidence that both the English University schools attracted a large number of students from abroad.1 The first mention of Cambridge in the official documents of the Order is in the constitutions of the Chapter of Paris in 1292, when a letter was sent to the Provincial Minister in England to say that if there were found to be too many foreign students in the house of the Friars Minor at Oxford, especially during the vacations, some might be sent to either Cambridge or London.2 This does not tell us very much, but it shows that Cambridge was by then known as a suitable place to which scholars might be sent. The next reference to Cambridge in the official documents of the Order is in 1336, in the Constitutions drawn up by Benedict XII, where we find Paris, Oxford and Cambridge repeatedly mentioned as the three most important schools in Europe.3 More than a century later, in 1457, the General Chapter at Florence declared that 'all provinces of the Order may send students to the province of England, namely to Oxford and Cambridge and other studia of the same province'.4 It is clear, then, that in the educational system of the Franciscans —not only in England but overseas as well—the two schools at Oxford and Cambridge held a most important place. If they did their work well and turned out, year by year, a steady stream of well-trained and fully-qualified teachers to lecture in the convents, then there was hope that the whole system would work well and smoothly. But if they failed, the system would break down. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance that these two 1 This applied to many of the other Franciscan Schools in England; see my article 'The Foreign Element among the English Franciscans' in English Hist. Review, 1947, pp. 289-303. 3 Arch. Franc. Hist. 1926, p. 817; Arch.fiir Lit. undKirch, vi, p. 63. 3 Sbaralea, Bullarium Franciscanum, vi, pp. 25-40. See below, p. 94. 1 Quoted by A. G. Little in Arch. Franc. Hist., 1926, pp. 818-9.

23


schools, together with the school at Paris, should be well organised, and that the quality of their teaching should be of the highest. When the Franciscans came to Cambridge in or about the year 1225 the University was still in a very rudimentary state. If we date its real beginnings as a studium generale from the Oxford migration in 1209 it had still had but little time to develop, and much of that time had been most disturbed. The Interdict which largely paralysed all Church activity from 1208 to 1213, and the civil disturbances (especially in East Anglia) which followed it, were not conducive to steady growth and progress. Yet the University had gone ahead and was busy organising itself more or less on the same lines as Oxford, with a Chancellor and a body of regent masters to determine the policy of the society and to exercise authority. As yet, however, there was no sign of a faculty of theology. This is not surprising, for such a faculty was by no means common in medieval Universities. Indeed, during the thirteenth century there were only three Universities in Europe which had a fully developed theological faculty—Paris, Oxford and Cambridge.1 The normal University course was the 'arts course', which lasted seven years and was based upon the Trivium (Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric) and the Quadrivium (Music, Geometry, Arithmetic and Astronomy). Theology, like Law, was what we should call a post-graduate course which was taken by comparatively few students, only those, in fact, who were likely to become themselves teachers of divinity. The course of study for a degree in theology was a formidable affair lasting some sixteen or seventeen years and demanding lecturing as well as merely learning and taking part in disputations.2 The student began with a study of the Bible and the 'Sentences' of Peter Lombard and continued with this for eight or nine years. At the end of this he 'responded', that is to say, he 1

Little, Franciscan Papers, &c, p. 122; but see below, p. 36, n. 3. There is a good account of the theological course at Oxford by Little in Arch. Franc. Hist., 1926, pp. 825-31, to which further details were added by Fr. Pelster in Oxford Theology and Theologians, pp. 25-6. The Cambridge course was, no doubt, similar. 2

24


took part in a public disputation with one of the masters of theology, after which he was required to lecture on the 'Sentences'. This he was obliged to do for one whole year and then to reside for another two years, during which he lectured on the Bible. He was also required to preach three sermons, and both to oppose and respond publicly in all the schools of theology. This brought him to the time of his 'inception'. After the necessary graces had been passed, and testimonies as to his character and ability delivered, the candidate knelt before the Chancellor and proctors and swore to observe the statutes and customs of the University. The Chancellor then gave him leave to incept. Lastly came the 'vesperies' orfinaldisputation (which, in the case of a friar, would normally be held in his own church), immediately after which the candidate was formally admitted into the gild of masters in the presence of his friends and companions. As a sign of his indebtedness to the society which had thus received him into its fold he was expected to feast the regent masters. The degree in theology was thus a prize for which a man must work hard and long, and the University authorities were, naturally, jealous of their rights both in conferring this degree and in organising and controlling the schools in which the candidate served his apprenticeship. No one could expect to come and set up as a teacher in a University town without the permission of the regent masters, and no school of theology could be established that was not acceptable to the University authorities. Consequently the arrival, first at Paris, then at Oxford and Cambridge, of the Dominicans and Franciscans, and the establishment of schools which owed no allegiance to the recognised officers of the University, created a very serious problem. The University authorities could not but regard the friars with a certain degree of suspicion, while the friars naturally resented any attempt on the part of the University to put limits upon their activity or to discriminate against them. The problem was inevitable, and the tension was particularly acute in the earlier years before the Universities had really found their feet. As Thomas Fuller puts it in his quaint way: These Friars living in these convents were capable of degrees, and 25


kept their Acts, as other University-men. Yet were they gremials and not-gremials, who sometimes would so stand on the tiptoes of their privileges, that they endeavoured to be higher than other students: so that oftentimes they and the scholars could not set their horses in one stable, or rather their books on one shelf.1 Each of the three Universities which had theological faculties and which were also embarrassed by the presence of the mendicants had to face this problem; and in order to understand the issue at Cambridge it is necessary to see what was happening at Paris and at Oxford. At Paris the friars first came into prominence in 1229. In this year there occurred the great dispersion of the University and the schools were left more or less desolate.2 A number of students, however, remained, as did also the mendicants who were not concerned in the quarrel and were no part of the University. The regent masters stayed away for about two years, during which the school of the Dominicans continued its work. At the same time it opened its doors to such secular students as had remained behind when the others left. When the masters and students returned to Paris in 1231 they did not immediately see the significance of this, nor did they show any resentment at this development. But shortly afterwards an unexpected event took place. A secular master, John of S. Giles, in the course of a sermon on voluntary poverty, stepped down from the pulpit, was invested with the habit of a Preaching Friar, and then continued his discourse. This immediately created a new problem. That the Dominicans should have their own school of theology with their own teacher was serious enough, but that doctors holding a recognised position in the University should become friars and so, as it were, remove both themselves and their schools from the jurisdiction of the University was another matter altogether. The University authorities at Paris realised that a crisis had occurred. The Dominicans now had two schools and two masters: was there anything to prevent the whole body of secular masters from going over to the ranks of the mendicants if they chose to do so? Meanwhile the 1 2

T. Fuller, The History of the University of Cambridge, ed. Nichols, p. 47. Rashdall, Universities of Europe, new ed. i, pp. 334-43. 26


Franciscan school was rapidly rising into prominence under the leadership of the Englishman, Alexander of Hales, who, after having lectured for some time as a secular, joined the Order of Friars Minor about the same time that John of S. Giles startled the University by becoming a Dominican.1 The University was thus faced with a difficult problem, though no immediate steps were taken against the friars. But the tension was growing and was not eased by papal intervention in favour of the friars. The first 'attack' on the schools of the mendicants came in 1251-2, when a formal statute was passed by the members of the theological faculty with the intention of limiting the rights and powers of the friars. According to this statute each 'college of religious' was to be content with one master and one school, and no bachelor was to be admitted doctor unless he had lectured in the school of one of the masters recognised by the faculty.2 The friars naturally protested against this attempt to interfere with their work and their liberties, and showed their independence in the following year by refusing to obey an order, put out by the University, that all lectures should cease while a certain 'town and gown' dispute was being investigated.3 This incident, as Rashdall says, brought out more clearly than ever the fact that the friars were claiming to enjoy the privileges of membership of the masters' college while they refused to submit to its authority.. . . No one denied the right of a friar duly licensed by the chancellor to teach theology to members of his own order or to others. What the masters asserted was the hitherto unquestioned right of the university to impose its own regulations upon its own members, to refuse professional association to masters who did not choose to comply with them, and to exclude from their society the pupils of such unrecognised extra-university masters. The question which was thus really at stake was the autonomy of the society.4 1 The Dictionary of National Biography gives the date of Alexander's joining the Franciscans as 1225. This is almost certainly too early. It is unlikely that this took place before 1228: Felder, Geschichte der Wissenschaftlichen Studien im Fran^iskanerorden, p . 178. 2 Denifle et Chatelain, Chart. Universitatis Parisiensis, i, No. 200. 3 Rashdall, Universities of Europe, new. ed. i, pp. 377-8. 4 Hid., pp. 378-9. I say nothing here of the secondary dispute which arose over the controversy between Gerard of S. Donnino and William of S. Amour,

27


The dispute continued for some time, but the friars were in a strong position. They had most of the best teachers and were attracting such large numbers of pupils that some of the other schools found themselves very thinly attended. But the secular masters continued to fight for their right, and by 1251 had managed to impose limitations and restrictions upon the friars in various ways. One was that the faculties of arts and medicine refused in future to admit regulars as their pupils, another that no religious house (with the exception of the Dominicans) should have more than one doctor as regent. A further result of all this was that secular students now more or less ceased to attend the friars' schools, which were thus left very much to themselves. So much for Paris. At Oxford the same problem as to the status of the friars in the University was bound to arise sooner or later. But there was here this great difference that, so far as the Franciscans were concerned, the first four lecturers in their school had not been friars but seculars—Grosseteste, Master Peter, Roger de Weshem and Thomas of Wales.1 The initiative in starting a school at Oxford had certainly come from Agnellus of Pisa, the Provincial Minister, but the fact that he was able to prevail upon Grosseteste to accept the position of first lector to the friars forged a link between them and the secular body of the University which created a situation very different from that at Paris. Nevertheless the same tension between regulars and seculars was bound to arise in time. It came to a head in 1253, the year of Grosseteste's death. In this year a Franciscan, Thomas of York, a man of great reputation as a scholar, made his application to become a regent master in theology. Immediately a problem arose, for Thomas of York, like most other friars, had not graduated in arts, while the rule of the University was that no one should proceed to lecture in theology who had not previously ruled in arts. The matter was discussed for some time, and the regent body finally agreed that an exception should be made on this occasion in favour of Thomas which only served to exacerbate the hostility between the seculars and the mendicants. 1

Little, Grey Friars In Oxford, p. 30.

28


of York but that in future no one should incept in theology unless he had first graduated in arts, as well as delivering the customary lectures and sermons which a degree in divinity demanded.1 The matter seems to have been settled quite amicably, this being largely due to the high reputation of the friars' schools at Oxford, the reasonable and friendly attitude adopted both by Adam Marsh, the leader of the Franciscans at the time, and his opponents, and the fact that until six years previously the Franciscan school at Oxford had been presided over by a secular master. But though the particular problem of Thomas of York's graduation was solved, the more general problem of the relation of the friars to the University remained, and sooner or later difficulties were bound to arise. There is no record of any dispute at Cambridge at this time when both Paris and Oxford w7ere disturbed by the problem of the friars. This is no doubt due to the fact that the University of Cambridge was of later growth and that the faculty of theology was still in its infancy. The Franciscan school had been in existence since 1230 or thereabouts, and the Dominicans must have founded their school soon after their arrival in 123 8, but we have no direct evidence of a theological faculty until about the year 1250. The first evidence of such a faculty is contained in a letter written by R. de Gedeneye, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and the other regent masters to Henry III.2 The letter is not dated but was probably written about 1260. It refers to an elderly scholar, John Auvere, who, after the death of his wife, had 'turned to the fruit of a better life' and for the last eight years had been attending lectures in the faculty of theology at Cambridge.3 About the same time we have further evidence of the school of theology in a bequest made by William of Kilkenny, 1 Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, p. 38; Arch. Franc. Hist. 1926, pp. 823-5. The account which Little gives is based on a series of letters written by Adam Marsh to the Provincial Minister: Monumenta Franciscana, i, pp. 338, 346-9. 2 Public Record Office, Ancient Correspondence, vol. iii, No. 2, printed in Shirley, Royal Letters, ii, pp. 165-6. 3 The letter states that John Auvere had formerly been a merchant, upon which Dr Little's comment is: 'It is noteworthy that the first secular student of theology at Cambridge whose name is preserved was a retired tradesman', Franciscan Papers, &c, p. 125.

29


Bishop of Ely, who died on September 22nd, 1256. In his will he left 200 marks to the Prior and Convent of Barnwell to find two chaplains 'students of theology in the University of Cambridge' to say Mass for his soul.1 But though the actual date of the foundation of the faculty of theology at Cambridge is uncertain, there is no doubt of its rapid growth and success. And this was undoubtedly due more than anything else to the presence of the Franciscan school, which was attracting good teachers and was proving a popular and important element in the life of the University. The first lector to the Franciscans in Cambridge was Vincent de Coventry, who laid the foundations of the school and probably taught in it for some years. He was followed by William of Poitou (Pictavensis), who appears to have held office for a good many years until he was succeeded, about 1253, by Eustace de Normanville. According to Eccleston, the latter had been a rich nobleman and a master of arts and Chancellor of Oxford before he joined the Franciscans, probably at Oxford about 1250.2 About this time the friars of Norwich were founding their school of theology3 and they invited Eustace to be their lector. No doubt they thought that his academic distinction and obvious ability would give them a good start. But Eustace declined the invitation on grounds of ill-health and 'unprepared aptitude of mind' and remained at Oxford, where he became the third in the succession of Franciscan lecturers. A year or two later he was invited to come to Cambridge in a similar capacity and accepted. It is thus possible to date his tenure of the Cambridge lectureship as about 1

J. W. Clark, Ecclesie de Bernewelle Liber Memorandorum, pp. 71, 94-5. Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 64. It is, however, very doubtful whether Eustace de Normanville were ever Chancellor of Oxford; cf. Snappe's Formulary (Oxf. Hist. Soc), p. 323. 3 It is not mentioned by Eccleston in his account of the lectors appointed by Albert of Pisa in 1236: Eccleston, de Adventu, pp. 62-3. But the school existed by 1250, as the letter of Adam Marsh (Monumenta Franciscana, i, p. 319) shows. For the date of this letter see Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, p. 139, n. 8. The school at Norwich afterwards became quite famous and is mentioned in the constitutions of Benedict XII in 1336: Bullarium Franciscanum, vi, pp. 30-1. It has the distinction of having trained a future pope, Peter Philargi de Candia who became Pope Alexander V: Little, op. cit., p. 249. 2

30


1253-4.1 Eustace was the first of a number of Oxford Franciscans who were sent to Cambridge, no doubt to strengthen the school in its early days. The fourth Cambridge lector was John de Weston, who appears to have had no previous connection with any other University. He was a good scholar and is mentioned by the Franciscan chronicler, Luke Wadding, under the year 1256 together with Vincent de Coventry and William of Poitou.2 His successor, W. de Milton, is probably to be identified with Melitone (or de Mideltoun) who was a scholar at Paris in 1248 and who was later entrusted with the task of completing the summa of Alexander of Hales.3 This offer was made to him in 1256, so that, if the identification is correct, he cannot have remained much longer in Paris, for he must have been at Cambridge about 1257.4 He, in turn, was succeeded by Thomas of York, who, like Eustace de Normanville, came on here from Oxford, where he had been lecturing since 1253. This first group of names shows that the Cambridge Franciscans were obviously anxious to get good men as their lecturers and were attracting some of the most prominent scholars of the day. Of the next five lectors—Humphry de Hautboys, W. de Wynbourne, Robert de Roston, Walter de Ravingham and W. de Assewelle—little is known.5 They must have lectured between 1260 and 1275, possibly each holding office for three years. None of them seems to have come from Oxford or Paris, so that it is possible that by now the Cambridge friars were hoping to stand on their own feet. If that is so, then the attempt seems to have failed, for about 1275 they applied again for a distinguished theologian, this time probably from Paris, and were sent Roger Marston.6 Marston appears to have held the chair at Cambridge 1 Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, pp. 139-40. He was succeeded at Oxford by Thomas of York, who appears to have taken office there in 1253 (ibid., pp. 140-1). 2 Wadding, Annales Minorum, iv, p. 57. 3 Eccleston, de Advcntu, p. 71; Glorieux, 'Repertoire des Maitres en Theologie de Paris', in Etudes de Philosophie Medievale, xviii, pp. 34-6. 4 He died before the Chapter of Narbonne in 1260; Arch. Franc. Hist., iii, p. 504. 5 Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 72, and see Biographical Notes below, pp. 146-226. 6 There is considerable doubt about the chronology of the life of Roger


from about 1275 to 1279 and was followed by an Oxford friar, Henry de Brisingham, who had been eighth lector there. He does not appear to have stayed very long at Cambridge as in 1280 we find him at Salisbury.1 His place at Cambridge was taken by J. de Lereringfot (or Letheringsett), who was succeeded a few years later by one of the most distinguished men in the Order, Thomas de Bungay, who had been tenth lector at Oxford and Provincial Minister, c. 1272-5. He must have come to Cambridge about 1282 as fifteenth in the series of masters. He has been traditionally associated with Roger Bacon2 though no evidence has yet come to light to show any connection between the two friars. The only reasons for thinking that they may have known one another are that they were more or less contemporaries and were both interested in mathematics and natural science.3 Bungay was lector at Cambridge about 1282-3 and was followed by a series of seven men of whom very little is known—Robert de Worstede, Henry de Apeltre, Bartholomew de Stalham, Richard de Southwark, Richard de Burton, Geoffrey de Tudington and John Russell.4 These seven probably held office from about 1283 to 1293, when once again the Cambridge friars were sent a Marston. In 1891 Little assumed that Marston had lectured at Oxford before going to Cambridge {Grey Friars in Oxford, p. 157). But in 1926 he was not satisfied with this and suggested that the words in Eccleston, incepit Oxonie, after Marston's name were a mistake for incepit Cantabrigie {Arch. Franc. Hist. 1926, p. 856). This was disputed by Father Pelster in 1928 (Scholastik, iii, pp. 542-3). In 1933 Little returned to the problem and pointed out that whereas Eccleston normally says of those who came to Cambridge from Oxford sed incepit Oxonie, in the case of Marston he says simply incepit Oxonie without the sed, suggesting that he may have incepted at Oxford after his regency at Cambridge. Little would therefore give the dates of Marston's career as follows: at Paris c. 1270-4; at Cambridge c. 1275-80; at Oxford 1280-82; Provincial Minister of England 1292-98; died at Norwich 1303 (Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, pp. 93-5). 1 See below, p. 156. 2 E.g. in Robert Greene's play The Honourable History of Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, c. 1590. 3 Bungay's only extant work is a treatise De celo et mundo in a MS at Caius College, Cambridge, No. 509,ff.209-252^ see Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, pp. 153-4. But he is also known to have written on the Sentences: Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, p. 7;. 4 For what is known of these friars see Biographical Notes below, pp. 146-226.


lecturer from Oxford. This was Walter de Knolle, who incepted at Oxford probably about 1287.1 For a time after this he was in the West with Richard Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford,2 but he appears to have come to Cambridge about 1293. He, again, was followed by a group of five men of whom very little is known— J. de Kymberley, W. de Fingringho, J. de Limpenho, Richard de Temple and Geoffrey Heyroun.3 It is probably safe to say that these men held office from about 1293 to 1303. During this time the Cambridge friary was for a time the home of one of the wandering stars of the scholastic firmament, John Duns Scotus. He was never lector to the Cambridge friars but he seems to have studied with them for a few years, c. 1297 to 1300.4 In the year 1303 we reach a fixed date and the arrival of another Oxford man, Adam de Hoveden, who was certainly regent master in this year. We have, then, here a list of twenty-nine friars who in turn presided over the Franciscan school at Cambridge. Of them, six came to Cambridge after having lectured at Oxford, while two came from Paris; and there can be little doubt that these were sent in order to strengthen the school and, with it, the faculty of theology. As A. G. Little says: It looks as if the position of the Faculty of Theology at Cambridge were not firmly established, and the rulers of the Franciscan Province of England were strengthening it by sending a succession of their most experienced and distinguished members, who already had they're ubique docendi, as teachers. The practice continued down to about 1300; to that time about one-third of the Cambridge Masters of the Friars Minor were already graduates in theology of other universities. From about 1300 the practice entirely ceases.5 If this was the policy of the authorities in the Order there seems no doubt that it was successful, for at the close of the thirteenth century the faculty of theology at Cambridge seems to have 1 Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, pp. 76-7. He appears in the Assisi MS as 'Cnol'. 2 Regist. R. Swinfield, p. 249. 3 Eccleston, de Adventu, pp. 72-3, and cf. Biographical Notes below, pp. 146 ff. Limpenho is the only one who has left any record behind him. 4 Arch. Franc. Hist. 1928, pp. 608-11, and cf. Little, 'Chronological Notes on the Life of Duns Scotus' in Eng. Hist. Review, 1932, pp. 568-82. 6 Little, Franciscan Papers, &c, p. 135; cf. Melanges Mandonnet, ii, p. 400.

D

33


been in a flourishing condition. This has recently been revealed by a study of a manuscript in the municipal library at Assisi (No. 158) which contains, among other things, a list of the questions disputed at Cambridge and Oxford in the latter part of the thirteenth century with the names of the disputants and responders.1 The earliest quire (ff. 76-83) contains fourteen questions disputed at Cambridge in the customary fashion by a group of men including the Franciscan J. Letheringsett, the Dominican John Trussebut, the then Archdeacon of Ely (Ralph de Walpole, afterwards Bishop of Norwich) and several others. The questions are of the usual sort: 'Whether angels can read the thoughts of men', 'Whether the resurrection body can be so sublimated that it can fit into a smaller space than its natural bulk would demand' and so on.2 There is also a later Cambridge period of two years in length, falling at least a year later than the earlier period. For the first year of this second period no name is mentioned but that of Thomas de Bungay, fourteen of whose quaestiones are given.3 Several of these are also concerned with the activities of the angels but some deal with questions concerning the Incarnation: e.g. 'Whether the separation of the flesh of Christ from the flesh of the blessed Virgin came about instantaneously'.4 In the second year of this period (probably 1283) four names appear: the Franciscans Thomas de Bungay and Robert de Worsted, a man called Grenesby who has not been identified, and one called 'So' who may have been the Franciscan Richard de Southwark.5 The questions here show more variety. One, for example, is concerned with the Sacrament ('Whether in the sacrament of the altar the Body of Christ is truly and substantially present'), another with a moral problem: 'Whether 1 Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, c. 1282-1302, Oxford Historical Society, vol. xcvi. The title is misleading, as a good deal of the book is concerned with the theology and theologians of Cambridge. "-Ibid., pp. 65, 113-4. 3 If Bungay came to Cambridge in 1282 this would probably be the year in which these questions were disputed. His name does not occur in thefirstperiod, which probably fell in 1281 when John Letheringsett was regent master. 4 Ibid., pp. 105-6. 5 Ibid., pp. 106-9, 112-3. Worstede succeeded Bungay as lector, probably in this year, 12S3, and Southwark became lector about 1288.

34


every sin however trivial, such as a lie spoken in fun, a humorous remark and so forth, committed with full deliberation, is a mortal sin', another with a theological question: 'Whether the Holy Spirit is love proceeding from the Father and the Son'. The picture which all this gives is of a very vigorous society, conducting itself according to the customary methods of the schools; and it shows that by the latter part of the thirteenth century the faculty of theology at Cambridge was fully alive. Moreover, according to the evidence of these disputations, Franciscans, Dominicans and seculars seem to have been working quite amicably together. There is here no sign of tension, still less of the open hostility such as existed at Paris. Yet the constitutional question of the place of the mendicants in the University was bound, sooner or later, to arise. It had arisen at Paris with unhappy results; it had arisen at Oxford and had been peacefully shelved; the time was coming when it would have to be faced at Cambridge. The trouble began in 1303. In this year the University, under the leadership of its Chancellor, Stephen de Haslingfield, passed certain statutes or amendments to existing statutes to which the friars took exception. Part of their complaint was that the University authorities had taken advantage of the absence from the country of the Provincial Minister of the Franciscans1 and the Provincial Prior of the Dominicans to attack the liberties and rights of the mendicants. The offending statutes were as follows. The first was that 'in matters touching the common utility of the University only that shall be held as statute which is ordained by the greater and saner part of the regent and non-regent masters, the carrying out of the statutes and dispensations being reserved to the regent masters'.2 The effect of this decree was to put all legislative power into the hands of the masters, thus taking it away from the faculties. This seriously affected the mendicants, who had hitherto exercised considerable power in the faculty of 1

The Provincial Minister of the Franciscans in this year was Adam of Lincoln, who had left England to attend the Chapter General held at Assisi in 1304. 2 Little, 'The Friars v. the University of Cambridge' in English Hist. Review, 1935, p. 687.

35

THE FRIARS AND THE UNIVERSITY: 1225-I306

theology owing to their numbers. The second statute laid it down that three times a year, on Advent Sunday, Septuagesima and Ash Wednesday, sermons were to be preached in Great S. Mary's by the Chancellor or by regent masters appointed by the Chancellor, while the third declared that every Bachelor of Divinity before his inception as doctor must preach publicly in S. Mary's on a day assigned by the Chancellor, and shall not preach elsewhere. To this the friars took great exception, and it was mainly on this issue that the struggle took place. The statutes were agreed to in November 1303, and the leaders of the friars, Nicholas de Dale the Dominican and Adam de Hoveden the Franciscan, first protested and then appealed to Rome. Early in March 1304 two friars, one of each Order, were dispatched to Rome as proctors of their respective convents.1 On April 25 th they laid their case before the Curia and a week later a congregation was held at Cambridge to which Dale and Hoveden were cited to explain their behaviour. They refused to withdraw their appeal and were both excluded from the society of the masters and deprived of all position in the University.2 Meanwhile the proctors at Rome were pressing their claims, and on July 1 st they appealed against the Chancellor, the regent masters and a certain Augustinian friar, John de Clare, who was particularly obnoxious to the mendicants in that he had taken the side of the University and had been awarded special privileges as a result. In their appeal the friars plead among other things that they are now required to preach their examinatory sermons outside their own churches, which has never been done elsewhere,3 1 Both were called John, but no surname is given. The Franciscan was probably either John of Ipswich (de Gypeswico) or John de Ringstede, both of whom were concerned with the appeal. See Cambridge University Registry, Hare MSS, Liber Privilegiorum et Libertatum Univ. Cantab, ff. 28b, 29a. 2 The whole dispute is described at length in a roll now in the library of the Dean and Chapter of Durham (Locellus 1, No. 20); see below, pp. 227-38. 3 'Quod nunquam fuit factum nee auditum, nee Parisius nee Bononie, ubi sunt sollempniora studia, nee alibi.' This is interesting partly in that it does not mention Oxford, and partly in the suggestion of a theological faculty at Bologna since it has generally been held that no such faculty existed there before 1360 (Rashdall, Universities of Europe, new ed. i, pp. 252-3; Arch. Franc. Hist, xxvii, p. 3). There is, however, some evidence for such a faculty at Bologna in the twelfth

36


and ask what was to happen if the rector of S. Mary's refused to have a friar preaching in his church, as some of the masters who were beneficed had done. Such was the appeal laid before the Curia on July ist, but on July 7th the Dominican Pope Benedict XI died; and the whole matter had to be postponed until a new pope was elected. During this interregnum a more conciliatory spirit seems to have arisen, and by the time the question could be taken up again the parties had agreed to a compromise. The final award was made at Bordeaux on July 17th, 1306. There were present at this meeting John de Westerfield and Peter de Ruda, proctors for the Cambridge Dominicans, Richard de Insula and John de Ipswich, proctors for the Franciscans, together with Stephen Segrave, Chancellor of the University, and Thomas de Kyningham. The University authorities refused to withdraw the three offending statutes but 'riders and explanations were added by which the rights and privileges of the friars were maintained'.1 So far as preaching in Great S. Mary's was concerned, the University agreed that mendicants might preach their examinatory sermons in their own churches.2 The expulsion of Dale and Hoveden was now withdrawn, and peace seems to have been restored. Thus ended the first brush between the friars and the University at Cambridge. Compared with the dispute and bitterness at Paris it was a trivial affair, and one which could probably have been settled more quickly had each side shown a little more patience. But it was a symptom of a real malaise, the malaise which each of the three Universities with theological faculties was having to face and which was brought about by the presence, in the midst of a secular University, of a number of theological schools which appeared to claim all the advantages of membership in the society and early thirteenth centuries which died out and was reconstituted in 1360 (A. Sorbelli, Storia delta Universitd di Bologna, cap. v). 1 Little in English Hist. Review, 1935, p. 688. 2 'Concordatum est per istud statutum quod non intendebat universitas nee intendit impedire nee inperpetuum impediet fratres predicatores vel minores quin possint eisdem diebus et horis in lods suis libere predicare' (Hare MS). Cf. Eng. Hist. Rev. 1935, p. 693; Documents relating to University and Colleges of Cambridge, i, p. 397.

37


without accepting the authority of the regents. In the following century, as the University became more sure of itself, the strain became greater; but the mendicants were still in a strong enough position to maintain their rights, and the problem was never finally se ttled until the dissolution of the religious houses in the sixteenth century.1

1 There is a brief account of the dispute of 1303-6 in Fuller, History of the University of Cambridge, ed. Nichols, pp. 53-4, which is more or less copied by Cooper {Annals of Cambridge, i, pp. 70-1) without adding anything to it. Fr. Gumbley gives a short sketch of it in The Cambridge Dominicans, pp. 12-14; but the best account is by Dr Little in Eng. Hist. Review, 1935, pp. 688ff, 'The Friars v. the University of Cambridge'. It is not mentioned at all by Mullinger in The University of Cambridge from the Earliest Times to the Royal Injunctions of i5j5. So far as I know, the Durham MS, which describes the earlier stages of the dispute, has not been noticed.

38

CHAPTER III

THE NEW HOUSE F O R about forty years the friars had been but poorly accommodated in the old house of Benjamin the Jew; but about 1265 plans were set on foot for a new building, and by 1267 operations seem to have been well advanced. In making this move to more commodious surroundings the Cambridge friars were doing what most of their colleagues in other houses were doing. By 1260 the policy of the order as a whole was towards larger and better friaries, though simplicity was still urged.1 But the days of mudand-daub huts had gone. In future the friars were to be housed much like the older religious orders in monastic buildings designed very much on the same plan as the existing abbeys and priories, though generally on a smaller scale. By 1270 there was much new building going on among the English Franciscans. Three explanations of this have been suggested. One is the generosity of devout citizens among whom the friars were popular and who wanted to give them decent buildings. Secondly, open-air preaching being more or less impracticable in the climate of England, the friars needed spacious churches in which to bring together their congregations, the existing parish churches being often too small. Thirdly, the custom of people desiring to be buried in the friars' churches was growing.2 Whatever the reasons, practically all the earlier foundations were engaged in some form of expansion or rebuilding in the latter part of the thirteenth century. Dr Little says: 'I have noted evidence of enlargement or rebuilding of churches or houses in 34 of the English friaries between 1270 and 1320'.3 As there were, 1 Decrees of the Chapter of Narbonne, 1260, in Archiv fur Litt. und Kirch., vi, pp. 94-5. Bonaventura was in favour of large and well-built houses which he defended at some length; Opera Omnia, ed. Quaracchi, viii, pp. 341, 367. 2 A. R. Martin, Franciscan Architecture in England, pp. 11-12. 3 Little, Studies in English Franc. History, p. 73.

39

THE NEW HOUSE

in 1270, probably 49 Franciscan houses in England this means that nearly all of them were active in this way. Cambridge was, therefore, very much in line with other houses. The site chosen for the new house contained, according to the Hundred Rolls, rather more than six acres.1 This was rather larger

Part of J. Essex's plan of Old Cambridge than London, which had four acres, and rather less than Oxford, which had eight or nine.2 It was bounded on the north by what is now Jesus Lane but which was previously known as Nuns' Lane since it led to the Nunnery of S. Radegund. On the west side the friary was bounded by the main road leading to the bridge,3 on the south by what is now Sussex Street, and on the 1 It is difficult to account for this according to our reckoning as the site actually measures not much more than half of this. But one cannot be sure of medieval methods of mensuration. In an Act of Parliament of 1592-3 'for the late scite of the dissolved House of the Gray Friars in or nere Cambridge' the space is described as 'one parcell of lande conteyninge by estymacion thre acres be it more or lesse': see Enactments in Parliament specially concerning the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Oxford Hist. Soc), i, pp. 212-4. 2 Martin, Franciscan Architecture in England, p. 9. 3 It was later known as Conduit Street and is now Bridge Street,

4O

THE NEW HOUSE

east by a wall which ran behind the houses which now stand in Malcolm Street. Through the middle of this plot of land ran the King's Ditch, an open gutter which was probably first made about 1200 or earlier, but which was enlarged and deepened by Henry III in 1268.1 To this original plot a few small additions were made by the friars in later years. In 1328 they obtained a licence in mortmain to extend their boundary to the east by the acquisition of a narrow strip of land for which they paid sixpence a year to the commonalty of Cambridge.2 Four years later they bought a small parcel of land from John Pittok 'for the enlargement of their house'. This piece of land had previously been held of the Prioress of S. Radegund's, to whom John Pittok had paid a yearly rent of eight shillings. This rent was now cancelled. The jurors, however, who investigated the matter said that the land was worth no more than two shillings a year since it was not built on.3 In 1353 the 1

A. Gray, The Town of Cambridge, p. 51. Cal. Patent Rolls, Edward III, 132J-30, p. 260. The deed is in the Public Record Office, Inquisitions ad Quod Damnum, C. 143, File 202, No. 20. The jurors say that the King may, without loss or prejudice to himself or to anyone else, concede 'dilectis sibi in Christo Gardiano et Fratribus Ordinis Minorum de Cantebr' quandam venellam in Cantebr' aree ipsorum Gardiani et Fratrum in eadem villa ex parte orientali contiguam, continentem in se viginti et sex perticas in longitudine, et unam perticam et sex pedes ad utrumque caput, et quindecim pedes et dimidium in medio eiusdem venelle in latitudine, habendam et tenendam sibi et successoribus suis ad elargacionem aree supradicte imperpetuum. Item dicunt quod non est ad nocumentum communitatis ville Cantebr' eo quod eadem communitas percipiet annuatim de eisdem Gardiano et Fratribus pro predicta venella includenda sex denarios, et quod dicta venella nichil valet per annum ultra predictos sex denarios in forma predicta solvendos.' A perch is now 5£ yards but varied considerably in the Middle Ages. If, however, we take it as j£ yards the plot of land would be 143 yards long and 7J yards wide at each end, and 5 yards wide in the middle. In 1500-1 the friars were still paying their sixpence to the town 'for a lane enclosed near their orchard' (Cambridge Borough Documents, i, p. 39) and the payment seems to have gone on for some years. From 1515 onwards the accounts of the treasurers of the town of Cambridge record a regular annual receipt: 'Item of the Wardeyn and Covent of the Grey Fryers for a common lane enclosed byhynde theire place next unto theire Garden called the orcheyerd . . . vi^'. This continues for some years. (Treasurer's Accounts, Town of Cambridge, Bowtell MSS, Downing College). 2

3 Cal. Patent Rolls, Edward III, 1330-34, p. 261. P.R.O. Inquis. ad Quod Damnum, C. 143, File 218, No. 14. The deed does not anywhere state the area of this land nor where it stood. Since it had belonged to the Prioress of S,

41

THE NEW HOUSE

friars again enlarged their property by the acquisition of two messuages in Cambridge given to them by William Horewode and John de Berneye. One of these had been held of the Prioress of S. Radegund's for a yearly rent of four shillings and the other of the borough authorities for two pence. The jurors swear that the annual value of these two plots of ground was no more than sixpence, which, together with the previous document, makes it look as if the Prioress had been doing very well with her property.1 From this date onwards for 150 years there is no evidence of any attempt on the part of the friars to add to their property, nor do we know of any gifts of land made to them. But by the end of the fifteenth century they appear to have possessed a house near Parker's Piece, called Chadenhall, for which, in 1491, they paid two pence in hagable rent to the King.2 The house was presumably let to a tenant, the rent being paid into the common fund of the friary. But how this house came into the possession of the friars is not known. Of the general lay-out of the buildings which the friars erected at the close of the thirteenth century we know very little. After the Dissolution in 1538 the buildings passed into the hands of Trinity College and everything was pulled down except the refectory, which, in due course, became the chapel of Sidney Sussex College, until this also was destroyed in the eighteenth century. Consequently Lyne's plan of Cambridge drawn up in 1574 and Hamond's map of 1592 give us little help. Both show the frater (though Lyne puts it too near the wall) and Hamond includes a number of buildings some of which had no doubt been put up since the departure of the friars, though one appears to be the north walk of the cloister.3 There is an earlier plan of part of the town of Cambridge, known as Essex's plan, which is supposed Radegund's it is probable that it lay to the east of the friars' land, though there can be no certainty about this. 1 Cal. Patent Rolls, Edward III, zjSo-55, p. 436. P.R.O. Inquis. ad Quod Damnum, C. 143, File 311, No. 5. The deed gives no indication of the size or position of these two messuages. 2 Cambridge Borough Documents, i, pp. 62, 135. 3 See below, p. 47.

42

THE NEW HOUSE

to represent what Cambridge was in the time of Henry III. 1 This shows the frater in its right position with a larger building to the north which clearly represents the church. There is also a smaller building against the south wall which may possibly have been the schoolhouse.

Part of Lyne's map of Cambridge (1574) The Church Although there is no trace of the church now existing there is no doubt that it stood on the northern part of the site not far from what is now Jesus Lane. Until the building of the new wing at Sidney Sussex this part of the land was the Fellows' Garden. Thomas Fuller, writing in 1655, says: The area of this church is easily visible in Sidney College garden, where the depression and subsidency of their bowling-green east and west present the dimensions thereof, and I have oft found dead men's bones thereabouts.2 With the exception of London, the Franciscan churches in England were not very large when compared with the average building of the older monastic orders. The church of the Grey 1 The plan appears in the MSS of William Cole and is reproduced in Stokes, Medieval Hostels in the Univ. of Cambridge, facing p. 58. See above, p. 40. 2 Fuller, History of the University of Cambridge, ed. Nichols, p. 46,

43

THE NEW HOUSE

Friars at Coventry was 236 feet long and 30 feet wide, that at Lichfield 181 feet by 58 feet in the nave and 25 feet in the choir. The church at London was about 300 feet in length and 85 feet wide.1 The Cambridge friars would probably have liked to build a fairly large church since theirs was an important house and always had a large number of friars. But the presence of the King's Ditch cutting their land into two parts limited the space available, and the church cannot have been more than about 180-200 feet in length. Yet it was a spacious building, so spacious that it was regularly borrowed by the University early in the sixteenth century for the ceremonies of 'Commencement'.2 The first time when the friars' church was used in this way seems to have been in 1507-8, when the University paid a considerable sum of money for putting up platforms in the church. Three carpenters appear to have been employed, and a labourer; and the proctors also spent 40s. in repairing the windows of the church.3 In the following year the Franciscan church was used again, and on another occasion the pulpit was borrowed for use in the church of S. Mary.4 From this time onwards it looks as if the church of the friars were used regularly for University functions,5 and a 1

Martin, Franciscan Architecture in England, pp. 77, 168, 192. A similar arrangement seems to have obtained at Caen in the latter part of the fifteenth century, where the University took the Franciscan convent under its protection and guardianship: Rashdall, Universities of Europe, new ed. ii, pp. 198-9. 3 The Proctors' Accounts for this year include the following: 'Item M. bedforth pro Roberto carpentario componente fabricam commensationis in ecclesia Minorum cum servitore suo per quinque dies . . . iiijs ij d . 'Item eidem Roberto pro signatione partium stagiorum quomodo coniungerentur . . . iiijd. 'Item alteri carpentario laboranti per quatuor dies et medium cum predicto Roberto . . . ij s iij d . 'Bruno Cornelio pro reparatione vitri fenestrarum in ecclesia Minorum per M. vicecancellarium doctorem Robson . . . xls. 'Thome Robynson carpentario operanti per quinque dies apud Minores in componendis stagiis erga commensationem . . . ij s .' Grace Book B, i, p. 231. 4 Grace Book B, i, p. 237. 5 In 1509-10 the Proctors' Accounts record the payment of iSs. 'pro vectione et revectione stagiorum erga commensationem' without saying where they were 2

44

THE NEW HOUSE

payment by the University to the Warden of forty shillings in 1518 suggests that some damage had been done to the structure or to the windows either by the crowds attending the ceremony or by the workmen putting up the platforms.1 A few years after this, in 1523, the University was finding the friars' church so convenient that a grace was passed that in future the ceremony of Commencement should always be held in the church of the Friars Minor and that the Warden and convent should be paid an annual fee of ten shillings for looking after the wood which was sent across for the necessary structures.2 The church was certainly so used up to the academic year 1536-7, but after that time there is a short break. By the year 1540 the place was, of course, deserted, for the friars had all been turned out in 1538. But the church was still standing, and the University authorities saw no reason why it should not still be used for their functions. So once again the planks and timbers were carted there, the church was cleaned down, and the congregation assembled for the ceremony of Commencement.3 The church was probably built on the model of most Franciscan churches, without transepts but with a long and spacious choir and nave. The nave had at least one aisle and almost certainly had two. There is no record of when it was built, but in 1267 an incident took place which makes it appear that the church, or at any rate a part of it, was then in use. In that year a chaplain of Barnwell had been expelled and excommunicated by the Prior. taken, and the same applies to the following year (Grace Book B, i, pp. 244, 250). In 1511-12 the setting up of the pltaforms was 'in domo fratrum' {ibid., ii, p. 2), but for the next three years there is no indication as to where the Commencement ceremonies were held. In 1515-16 four shillings was spent in the carriage of stuff 'ad fratres minores' (ibid., p. 47) and in the two following years masses were said 'apud fratres' (ibid., pp. 53, 62). 1 Ibid., p. 69. In 1527 the University paid 3-r. Ibid. Ibid., f. 89. « Ibid., f. 88. 6 In the diocese of York there were 17 friars of all orders licensed in 1347, 13 in 1348, 16 in 1349 and 68 in 1350. 6 Ely Registers: Lisle, f. 19b. ' Ibid., ff. 89-90.

85

SOME ACTIVITIES OF THE FRIARS

diocese of Lincoln. Bishop Dalderby appears to have been at first unwilling to admit him, but gave way when it was pointed out that the man was a distinguished scholar and a D.D. 1 Later in the year John Russell was licensed for the diocese of Lincoln and in 1305 for the archdeaconry of Leicester only.2 In 1318 the name of Geoffrey Heyroun, who had been lector at Cambridge about 1301-3, appears among those who were licensed in the diocese of Winchester,3 and in 1326 Simon de Hussebourne was admitted as confessor in the diocese of Canterbury by Archbishop Reynolds.4 In the years before the plague several friars who had held office at Cambridge as lector were appointed as confessors in various parts of the country—W. de Lilleford at Durham in 1340,5 William Stanton at Lincoln in 1347,6 and Robert Alifax at York in 1349.7 In the years after the Black Death we find Gilbert Peckham licensed at Canterbury in 1355 and three other Cambridge friars in 1358.8 This system of licences was intended to protect the parochial clergy from the intrusion of unauthorised mendicants into their churches. Hitherto any wandering friar could claim the right to hear confessions, and most parish clergy resented this as an infringement of their rights. The bull Super Cathedram did at least limit the number of authorised confessors, and an incumbent could now demand to see a friar's warrant before giving him the use of his church. Yet the coming of the friars was still bitterly resented by the parochial clergy, who complained that the friars abused their privileges and deluded the people. Early in the fourteenth century a group of London rectors drew up a manifesto in which they complain that 1

Lincoln Registers: Dalderby, iii, f. 13; Little, Franciscan Papers, etc., p. 235. Lincoln Registers: Dalderby, iii,ff.15, 87b. 3 RegistJ. Sandale, pp. 84-5. 4 Canterbury Registers: Reynolds, f. 249b. In 1331 he was confessor to Queen Philippa: Rylands Library, MS No. 235, f. 10b. 5 6 Regist. Palat. Dunelm., iii, p. 281. Lincoln Registers: Bek, f. 100. 7 York Registers: Zouche, f. 278b. His licence was renewed in 1350 (ibid. f. 279b). 8 Canterbury Registers: Islip, ff. 103b, 144b; cf. Cotton, Grey Friars of Canterbury, p. 38. They were Roger de Snoring, Robert Sutton and John de Walsham, the 72nd master. 2

86


the said friars in their public preachings maliciously slander the rectors of the churches in the aforesaid city with evil reports of their vice and folly; and frequently in hateful manner they preach foul and scandalous things about them, to their prejudice, no little hurt and annoyance. They complain also that the friars are in the habit of giving general absolutions, which they are not entitled to do, and of failing to warn the people that it is their duty to confess at least once a year to their own parish priest.1 It is clear from this that the friars were doing a considerable amount of preaching besides hearing confessions. The bull Super Cathedram made no demand that a friar should hold a licence to preach as well as to hear confessions, but from about 1318 onwards some bishops tried to control the activity of the friars by giving some of them permission to preach as well as to hear confessions.2 The only Cambridge Franciscan who is known to have had such a licence was of a much later date, a certain William DufReld, D.D., who was licensed to preach in the diocese of Hereford in 1525, while an indulgence of forty days was promised to those who attended his sermons.3 In addition to the general licences the bishops were in the habit of granting penitentiary commissions to certain friars to act as confessors to certain individuals, families or communities. Three Franciscans of Cambridge are known to have served in this capacity—J. de Wately, who was commissioned to act as confessor to the nuns of Polsloe in 1320,4 William de Folvil, who was confessor to Blanche de Wake in 1366 and 1373,5 and William Tythemarsh, who was confessor to Sir William Maunay.6 By this licensing scheme the activity of the friars was considerably limited; but even so they continued to be unpopular with 1

Owst, Preaching in Medieval England, p. 76. The MS is in the Cambridge University Library (Gg. iv. 32). Cf. the letter of the clergy of Carlisle to Bishop Wei ton in 1352 complaining that the friars appeared in their churches during services and were accustomed to offer excessive indulgences (Carlisle Registers: Welton, f. 22b; cf. Hist. MSS Commission, IXth Report, App. p. 190a). 3 Little, Franciscan Papers, etc., p. 241. 3 Regist. C. Bothe, p. 175. 1 Regist. W. Stapeldon, p. 317. 5 Lincoln Registers: Buckingham, ff. 28, 115. 6 Regist. S. Sudbury, i, p. 3. 87


the secular clergy. Where a quarrel arose it was usually confined to an individual incumbent and a friar who might appear to be going beyond his rights and violating the privileges of the parish priest. But occasionally we find traces of a more general dispute in which a whole convent or a whole group of parishes was involved. One of these concerns the Cambridge Franciscans and occurred in 1322 or thereabouts. In 1317 Thomas de Cobham, Bishop of Worcester, had become one of the 'conservators' of the Friars Minor in England,1 and in the following year he visited Cambridge, where, no doubt, he made himself familiar with the affairs of the friars.2 In 1322 news reached him that the Franciscans of Cambridge were suffering from a grievance against certain local clergy, and Cobham immediately summoned John of Norwich, Vicar of Ickleton, Henry of Cambridge, Vicar of Bottisham, and William of Brinkley, chaplain of Ickleton, to appear before him at Worcester 'for certain notable and proved injuries committed against the Friars Minor of Cambridge'.3 Nothing further is said, so that the nature of the injury is not known; but it was not the kind of incident which was likely to promote amicable relations between the friars and the parochial clergy. The Franciscan community at Cambridge was thus implicated in the various problems of the day much like any other mendicant community. In addition, the Cambridge house had a part to play both as the head of a custody and also as a place of learning to which friars from all over the world came as students. According to Eccleston the first division of the province into custodies took place at the first Provincial Chapter held at London about 1228.4 The eastern part of the country was put into the custody of Cambridge although at this time there were probably only two convents in this area, Cambridge and Norwich. Gradually, however, new foundations appeared, so that by the end of 1 Apparently he became this ex officio as Bishop of Worcester, for a bull of Benedict XI in 1304 appointed the Bishops of Winchester, London and Worcester guardians of the privileges of the Friars Minor and Friars Preacher in England;

Pearce,T/iomas de Cobham, p. 242. 2 s Regist. T. Cobham, pp. 7, 13-4. Ibid., pp. 131-2. 4 Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 42, and cf. Little, Franciscan Papers, etc., p . 209.

88


the thirteenth century there were eight houses, with Walsingham added in 1347. Lynn was founded about 1230 and three years later the friars attempted to establish themselves at Bury St Edmunds. Their coming, however, was much resented by the monks, and it was only after the friars had appealed to the King that an agreement was made and a friary built at Babwell, a few miles out of the town.1 Ipswich was founded soon after 1230,2 and Colchester before 1237. After this, there appears to have been a gap, for Yarmouth cannot be traced back earlier than 1271 and Dunwich to 1277.3 Over these seven or eight houses Cambridge presided, though it is difficult to know exactly what part the head of the custody played in the management of the affairs of the friars.4 The 'custody school', to which friars could be sent for their intermediate course of study, appears to have been at Norwich,5 but, apart from the fact that John of Walsham, after lecturing at Cambridge about 1353, went on to continue his lectures at Norwich,6 nothing is known of any connection between the two schools. There is, however, some evidence that the custos did in fact have some power in assigning friars to particular houses within his custody. In 1415 the Warden of Norwich sent a petition to the Pope claiming the right every year of choosing from among their 'nativi, sons and brethren' (that is, those born within their bounds 1 See the full account of the struggle in 'Processus contra Fratres Minores qualiter expulsi erant de villa S. Edmundi' in Arnold's Memorials ofSt Edmund's Abbey, ii, pp. 263-85. 2 In an undated deed of this period Richard, Dean of Cottenham, gave to the Prior and Convent of S. Peter at Ipswich certain land on trust for the enlargement of the house of the Friars Minor there: Martin, Franciscan Architecture in England, p. 239. This suggests that the friars had established themselves in the town before this date since the deed speaks of an 'enlargement' of their property. 3 Little, Franciscan Papers, etc., p. 220. 4 It would be interesting, for example, to know whether the head of the custody was consulted about the foundation of the friary at Walsingham in 1347. All we know is that when, in spite of the strong opposition of the Augustinian canons there, the Pope finally gave a licence for the foundation of a house of 12 Friars Minor, the letter is addressed to the Provincial Minister, not to the custos.

{Cal. Papal Registers, iii, p. 252). 6 Sbaralea, Bullarium Franciscanum, vi, p. 30. 6 See Eng. Hist. Review, 1940, pp. 624-30.

89


or clothed with their habit) those whom he may wish to dwell among them. The Pope appears to have granted their petition, adding that the custos of the custody of Cambridge shall in future, upon the choice of such brethren being made known to him, send them to Norwich without delay.1 In addition to the nine houses of friars in the custody of Cambridge there were two houses of Minoresses, both within a few miles of Cambridge itself. The house at Waterbeach was founded in 1294,2 and in 1336 the nuns acquired, from Marie de S. Pol, the manor of Denny. By 1342 the Abbess and most of the sisters had moved to Denny, and Waterbeach was closed down.3 It was shortly after this that the Minoresses acquired the privilege of having a Franciscan as their confessor,4 and it is natural that the nuns of Denny should have applied to Cambridge for their chaplain. The first friar whom we know to have been connected with the sisters was Thomas de Trumpington, who served them faithfully for at least fourteen years from 1466 to 1480. He held the title of'President of the Poor Clares of Denny'5 and appears to have acted in various capacities besides that of confessor, for in 1480 he was fined 3s. 4J. when, acting on behalf of the sisters, he caused a wall to be put up to the detriment of the tenants of the manor.6 Some years later the presidency was held by another Cambridge friar, Richard Brinkley, who acted as proctor for the nuns in 1512 in the complicated negotiations connected with the appropriation of the churches of Eltisley and Bydeham.7 1

Cal. Papal Registers, vi, pp. 484-5. I have taken the liberty here of printing 'custos' and 'custody' where the calendar prints 'warden' and 'wardenship'. It seems to me that only thus does the Pope's letter make sense. It may be noted that the editor speaks of the 'guardian' of Norwich and the 'warden' of Cambridge, which suggests that he may be translating two different words, probably gardianus and custos. 2 J. W. Clark, Liber Memorandorum, p. 214. 3 The whole story is told in A. F. C. Bourdillon, The Order of Minoresses in England, pp. 19-20. See also below, p. 104. 4 Ibid., pp. 56-7. 5 Ely Registers: Gray, f. 56. 6 Clay, History of Waterbeach, p. 114. 7 Ibid., p. 108. There is no evidence of any connection between the Cambridge friars and the house of Minoresses at Bruisyard in Suffolk.

9O


In the educational organisation of the friars the schools at Oxford and Cambridge were regarded as places where men could be trained to act as lecturers in other convents, and we should therefore expect to find evidence of friars who had been at Cambridge going on in later years to work elsewhere. In the thirteenth century there is some record of men going off in this way. The first was Vincent de Coventry, the founder of the Franciscan school at Cambridge. Having lectured here for about five years (1230-5) he went to London as lector.1 The next was Roger de Marston, who taught at Paris c. 1270-4 and then spent some five years at Cambridge before going to Oxford as regent master in 1280.2 Henry de Brisingham, having lectured at Cambridge about 1278, went to Salisbury, probably as lector,3 and Robert de Alifax went to Doncaster, where he almost certainly was acting as lector in 1349.4 In the fourteenth century, however, there is some indication that the Cambridge school was not altogether fulfilling its function of providing teachers for other schools, and that some of its members were showing a certain reluctance to leave the University. In 1377 Gregory XI wrote to the Provincial Minister in England reminding him that the school at Cambridge had been designed to provide men 'suitable, apt and sufficient in uprightness of life and manners, in religion, knowledge and doctrine, to study and to lecture elsewhere', and drawing attention to the fact that men were not being sent out from Cambridge as they ought to have been, and as, in fact, was done at Oxford. The Pope therefore orders the Provincial Minister to choose the most suitable men from the Cambridge school and to send them off to lecture 'in philosophy, theology and the Sentences' not only in other Franciscan schools but also in 'cathedral churches'.5 1

Eccleston, de Adventu, p. 62. Arch. Franc. Hist. 1926, pp. 855-7. 3 Eng. Hist. Review, 1934, pp. 673-6. 4 York Registers: Zouche, ff. 278b, 279b. 5 Vatican Library, Registrum Avinion, vol. 201, f. 263. It appears that the request for this came partly from the proctor of the University, and it may, therefore, have been part of the official policy of the University to keep down the numbers in the friars' school. 2

91


What effect this letter had on the Franciscans of Cambridge it is impossible to say. John Mardisley was Provincial Minister at the time, but there is no evidence of his having taken any action. The only Cambridge Franciscan during the next hundred years who is known to have gone as lector to another convent is John David, who in 1416 became lecturer to the friars of Hereford.1 Our records, however, are very scanty, and there must have been others who served in this way. Otherwise the whole system would have broken down, whereas, in fact, the schools of the English Franciscans had a high reputation all over Europe in the fifteenth century. In the last fifty years or so of the friars' life and work at Cambridge a number of men left the convent to lecture in other schools. Among them were William Toly, who was teaching at London in 1500, Robert Burton, D.D. of both Universities, who also became regent master at London, and John Pereson, who was cursor theologiae to the London friars in 1527.2 No doubt there were many others whose names have not been preserved, but the above will show that the school at Cambridge was, in its later years, to some extent fulfilling its responsibility of sending out men to act as theologians in other convents of the province.

1 2

Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, pp. 313-4. Kingsford, Grey Friars of London, p. 22.

92

CHAPTER VI

T H E F R A N C I S C A N S C H O O L AT CAMBRIDGE IN T H E F O U R T E E N T H C E N T U R Y I N the quarrel between the University and the friars in 1303-6 the friars were in a strong enough position to defend themselves against the attacks of a body which not unnaturally resented the presence of theological schools which owed no allegiance to the Chancellor of the University and the corporation of regent masters. But though that dispute was settled, there remained material for further disagreements, for the fundamental question of the status of the friars in the University was left unanswered, and it was clear that there would be trials and troubles until this matter was cleared up. The fourteenth century saw this struggle, and in its latter half there was considerable tension between the two bodies, but in the century or so before the Reformation the University was making such strides forward, and increasing so greatly in power and prestige, that it was able more and more to enforce its will on the friars. But it was not until the Dissolution of the religious houses in 1536-9 that the problem was finally solved. The settlement reached at Bordeaux on July 17th, 1306, seems to have been regarded by both sides as a reasonable compromise, for there is no sign of any further dispute for about fifty years, although Oxford was shaken by the bitter dispute between the University and the Dominicans which lasted from 1311 to 1320.1 During this period the Franciscan school at Cambridge seems to have made considerable progress. The policy in the Order of sending a number of distinguished scholars from the convent at Oxford seems to have had the desired effect of putting the Cambridge school well on its feet. Between the coming of Thomas of 1

See Rashdall's essay 'The Friars Preachers v. the University' in Oxford Hist. Soc. Collectanea, ii, pp. 193-273, and 'Liber Epistolaris R. de Bury' in Formularies which bear on the History of Oxford, Oxf. Hist. Soc. New Series, i, pp. 1-79.

93

THE FRANCISCAN SCHOOL AT CAMBRIDGE

York about 1259 and the arrival of Richard de Conington some fifty years later seven friars were sent from Oxford to Cambridge, among them some of the most distinguished theologians of their day. But from the time of Conington onwards this practice seems to have been discontinued.1 The Cambridge school was now able to look after itself. Meanwhile the University was also making considerable progress. In 1318 it received formal recognition as a studium generate in a bull issued by John XXII, 2 though even Rashdall, who writes of the 'insignificance' of Cambridge as a 'third-rate university' up to the end of the fourteenth century, admits that before the granting of this bull the University 'possessed all the characteristics which were included in the vague conception of a studium generate then prevalent—a considerable number of masters both in arts and in at least one of the superior faculties, students from distant regions, regular licences and inceptions, royal recognition and privilege'.3 But from 1318 onwards Cambridge took its place among the recognised centres of higher education, while its faculty of theology made it of especial interest to all students of divinity. It is this which raises Cambridge to the same rank as Paris and Oxford in the Constitutions which Benedict XII issued for the Franciscan Order in 1336.4 In all matters concerned with the study of theology Benedict is careful to mention these three Universities, presumably because they and they alone had faculties of theology. The same is true of the decrees passed by the General Chapter of Venice in 1346,5 and those of the Chapter of Assisi in 1 Dr Little says {Franciscan Papers, etc., p. 135) that 'from about 1300 the practice entirely ceases', but Robert Alifax, the 56th master at Cambridge, had probably taught at Oxford previously (Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, p. 238). 2 Fuller, Hist, of Univ. of Cambridge, pp. 54-5; Denifle, Die Entstehung der Universitaten des Mittelalters, p. 375. 3 Rashdall, Universities of Europe, new ed., iii, pp. 283-4. 4 Sbaralea, Bullarium Franciscanum, vi, pp. 25-40. 5 Arch. Franc. Hist., v, pp. 698-709; e.g. 'ordinat generalis minister, cum generali capitulo universo, quod fratres qui ad generalia studia theologie transmittuntur de debito, eligantur per viam scrutinii, sicut de bachalariis lecturis Sententias Parisius, Oxonie et Cantabrigie in generali capitulo observatur' (p. 703).

94

IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY 1

1354. Cambridge was now recognised by the authorities in the Order as one of the three most important places of study in the world. Of the friars who were chosen to be lectors at Cambridge in the early years of the fourteenth century the most interesting is Richard de Conington, who succeeded Adam de Hoveden about the year 1308. The known facts of his life are soon told. One of a group of distinguished men at Oxford in 1300, he was in due course chosen as lector there about 1305. A few years later he came to Cambridge as lector, but left in 1310 to become Provincial Minister, an office which he held for six years. After this he seems to have retired to Cambridge, where he died and was buried in 1330.2

Conington was a man who played a considerable part in the controversies which disturbed the Church in his day. In the early part of the fourteenth century there was something in the nature of a pamphlet war being waged over the question of Franciscan poverty, and Conington contributed two essays—the first a long treatise defending the Franciscan ideal, and the second a shorter work composed mainly of a restatement of the conclusions reached in his former work.3 These pamphlets were probably written either while he was at Oxford or Cambridge or during his years of office as Provincial Minister. After his resignation in 1316 he retired to Cambridge and it was during these latter years of his life that controversy broke out afresh—not, this time, between the various parties in the Order, but between the Order and the Church as a whole.4 Towards the end of 13 21 a sermon was preached by a certain Beguin in France in which the preacher declared that Christ and His apostles had 1

Sbaralca, Bull. Franc, vi, pp. 639-55. Cf. the decree of the General Chapter of Florence in 1467: 'Ad provinciam Anglie possunt mittere omnes provincie Ordinis, scilicet ad studium Oxoniarum, Cantabrigie, et ad alia studia eiusdem provincie (Wadding, Supplementum ad Scrlptores, p. 717). 2 See Biographical Note, below, p. 165. 3 These are transcribed and edited by Miss Decima Douie in Arch. Franc. Hist., xxiii, pp. 57-105, 340-60. 4 There is a good account of the dispute in Miss Douie's Nature and Effect of the Heresy of the Fraticelli, pp. 153-208.

95


been entirely without possessions either individual or corporate. For this statement the preacher was brought before the Inquisition at Narbonne and charged as a heretic. Immediately a group of scholars and ecclesiastics rushed to the defence of the man so charged, the Franciscans among them claiming that to condemn such a doctrine as heretical would be to cut at the root of the ideals on which the Order of S. Francis had been founded. Appeal was made to the Pope, John XXII, who, after some time for deliberation, issued the bull Ad conditorem canonum in December 1322. This bull1 was, in effect, an attack upon the Friars Minor, for not only did it declare their principles to be theologically untenable but it also accused them of being worldly-minded. The Franciscans, led by Bonagrazia of Bergamo, protested against this, but the Pope followed up his previous attack with the decretal Cum inter nonnullos in November 1323,2 in which he declared it to be heretical to hold that Christ and His apostles were without possessions. Into the later history of the controversy we need not enter, but there is no doubt that the problem was earnestly discussed by the Franciscans of Cambridge. Richard de Conington, who had now retired from active life and was able to devote himself to scholarship, set himself to compose a reply to the bull Ad conditorem canonum? There is nothing very original in this essay, but the case for the ideal of poverty is ably set forth, without bitterness and with deep respect for authority.4 But though Conington was a peaceable and loyal churchman he appears to have stirred up some of the younger members of the Cambridge convent to less guarded statements. 1

It is printed in Bull. Franc., v, pp. 233-6. Ibid., v, p. 256. 3 This work of Conington's has been published by Miss Douie from a MS in Bishop Cosin's Library at Durham (MS V. iii, 8) in Arch. Franc. Hist., xxiv. 4 For example, he begins his tract with the words: 'Flecto genua mea ad dominum patrem meum, pontificem summum et vicarium domini Iesu Christi': quoted by D. Douie, The Heresy of the Fraticelli, p. 2O4n. At the very end of his life Conington was much distressed at the attitude of William of Ockham towards John XXII and actually wrote a defence of the Pope. Cf. Wadding, Annales Minorum, vii, pp. 168-9: 'Acriter contra Occhamum Johanni XXII refragantem scripsit'. 2

96

IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

Probably under the influence of Conington, though presumably without his approval, a small group of Cambridge friars began preaching openly against the policy of the Pope. Tidings of this eventually reached the Curia, and the Pope wrote on August 24th, 1329, to Itherio de Concoreto, the papal nuncio in England, congratulating him upon having arrested certain friars and telling him to send them to Avignon. At the same time he wrote a letter to Edward III giving the names of two of the friars—Peter of Saxlingham and John of Aquinton—and informing him that these two men had 'burst forth into such madness as to have publicly preached certain damnable and wicked errors and heresies' but that they were now under arrest in the convent of the Friars Minor at Cambridge. He informs the King that he has summoned these two friars to Avignon and expresses a hope that the King will assist him in seeing that the summons was executed.1 Twelve days later the Pope wrote again to the nuncio. This time two other friars were involved—Henry of Costesy and Thomas of Elmeden —though their offence seems to have been less grievous than that of Saxlingham and Aquinton. The nuncio is now instructed to make further enquiry.2 Itherio probably interviewed Costesy and Elmeden and decided that the charge against them was serious enough to demand their being sent to France for trial, for on March 22nd, 1330, the Pope wrote to the Provincial Minister, William of Nottingham, mentioning the four friars as preachers of heretical opinions and demanding that they be sent to stand their trial at Avignon. He mentions the fact that the four friars are now under some kind of confinement at Cambridge in the charge of Richard de Fakaham, the Vice-warden, and Brother Thomas Canynges.3 Whether or not they actually went to Avignon and, if so, what befel them there is not recorded. Both Thomas de Elmeden and Henry de Costesy had held office as lector when this trouble arose. Elmeden had come to 1

The letter is in Bull. Franc, v, pp. 401-2, and an abstract will be found in

Cal. Papal Registers, ii, p. 492. 1 Bull. Franc., v, p. 402. 3 Ibid., v, pp. 464-5; Cal. Papal Registers, ii, p. 493. The Pope also wrote to the Bishop of Lincoln instructing him to see that his orders were carried out.

H

97


Cambridge from Carlisle and it is possible that he was attracted to what were regarded as somewhat heretical views through his friendship in the North with Walter de Chatton.1 Chatton proceeded from Carlisle to Oxford, where in due course he became lector at about the same time as his friend Elmeden held the same position at Cambridge. About the year 1322 he composed a very able defence of the Franciscan position in reply to the bull Ad conditorem canonum.2 Elmeden and Chatton had, therefore, a good deal in common, and it is likely enough that they had discussed these problems in the early days when they were both members of the same cloister at Carlisle.3 Henry de Costesy had succeeded Elmeden as lector about 1326. Of the four friars who were arrested in 1329 he was the ablest and the most original. Dr Little described him as 'a biblical commentator of remarkable learning and independence' and spoke of his knowledge of Hebrew and of his interest in the literal and historical meaning of the Scriptures rather than in the allegorical interpretation so beloved of the schoolmen.4 On this subject he had probably learned something from Nicholas de Lyra, the Franciscan at Paris who has been called 'the greatest exponent of the literal sense of Scripture whom the medieval world can show'.5 Costesy, it is true, frequently expresses his disagreement with the conclusions of de Lyra; but in their attitude towards the Bible they were in agreement. At that time knowledge of Hebrew was comparatively rare and was sometimes regarded with suspicion,6 but Costesy boldly set himself to master the language in order the better to understand the thought and intentions of the writers of the Old Testament. He possessed a Hebrew Psalter with the Superscriptio Lincolniensis which had certainly been the property, 1 Elmeden was ordained deacon and Chatton subdeacon at an ordination held in Dalston Parish Church on May 20th, 1307 (Regist.J. Hakon, i, pp. 279-80). 2 On this see Douie, Heresy of the Fraticelli, pp. 204-6. The MS is bound up with that of Conington at Durham. 3 Moorman, 'Some Franciscans of Carlisle' in Transactions of the Cumb. and Westtn. Arch. Soc. 1950, pp. 81-4. 1 Franciscan Papers, etc., p. 140. 5 M. R. James, in Camb. Mod. Hist., i, p. 591. 6 Cf. Stevenson, Robert Grosseteste, pp. 22-3.

98


if not the actual work, of Grosseteste; and he himself wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse1 and another on the Psalms, a copy of which was found by Leland in the library of the Franciscans at London,2 while another copy is now at Christ's College, Cambridge.3 Apart from Conington, Elmeden and Costesy, little is known of the lectors at Cambridge in the earlier part of the fourteenth century. Edmund Marchal, who taught at Cambridge about 1323, was probably the most distinguished of them. He left England a few years after this, and was at the papal court at Avignon in 1333, when he served on a commission of theologians to investigate the question of the Beatific Vision.4 In 1336, or thereabouts, the chair was held by Robert Alifax, a friar who had already made a considerable reputation at Paris and Oxford, and was one of the few Englishmen mentioned by Bartholomew of Pisa in his Liber de Conformitate in 1399.5

Shortly after this, probably in the year 1340, came the first of the foreign lecturers appointed by the Chapter General in accordance with the Constitutions which Benedict XII had issued for the Order of Friars Minor in 1336.6 The plan which Benedict wished to see carried out was that once in every three years a friar either from Italy or from some other part of the continent should be sent to Cambridge to lecture for twelve months on the Sentences. The list of the Cambridge lectors in Eccleston's Chronicle shows that considerable trouble was taken to see that this decree was carried out. In the Cottonian version the list ends with the following names: 1

Now in the Bodleian, Laud Misc. 85. Leland, Collectanea, iv, p. 50. There was also another copy at the Norwich Dominicans (ibid., p. 28). 3 M. R. James, Descriptive Catalogue of the Western MSS in the Library of Christ's College, Cambridge, pp. 28-36. There is also a fragment in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, MS lat. 20, entitled 'De utilitate psalmorum daviticorum'. 4 Denifle et Chatelain, Chart. Univ. Paris, ii, pp. 421, 425, 453. Marchal died at Avignon, c. 1334 (Collect. Franc, i, pp. 143, 151). 6 Anal. Franc, iv, p. 339; cf. Wadding, Annales, vii, p. 170. 6 See above, p. 81. 2

99


Fr. Johannes de Casale de prouincia Ianue. Fr. Willelmus Tithemers de custodia Oxon'. Fr. Willelmus Dermyntone de custodia BristolP. Fr. Ricardus de Haltone. Fr. Johannes Kellaw. Fr. Jacobus de Pennis postea episcopus. Fr. Adam de Hely. Fr. Petrus de Arragonia. Fr. Walterus de Bykertone. Fr. Johannes de Antingham. Fr. Walterus de Stowe. Fr. Rogerius de Cicilia. Fr. Willelmus de Harlestone. Fr. Johannes de Walsham. Fr. Willelmus Foleuile. Of these fifteen lectors four were certainly visitors from overseas—John de Casale, James de Pennis, Peter de Arragonia and Roger de Cicilia. The first of these, John de Casale, was a learned friar of the province of Genoa who is described by Bartholomew of Pisa as 'a master of theology, an able man who produced several Questwnes in philosophy and theology'.1 The Chapter General seems to have lost no time in carrying out the papal decrees, for Casale was certainly at Cambridge in the early part of 1341, since on June 6th of that year he was licensed to hear confessions in the diocese of Ely.2 After his year of office at Cambridge he returned to Italy and was later used by the Pope as one of his emissaries in Sicily in 1375.3 Of James de Pennis very little is known. He probably came to Cambridge as a fairly young man about the year 1346 and it has been suggested4 that he is to be identified with James de Tolemeis who was appointed Bishop of Narni in 1378. A few years later came Peter de Arragonia, who must have been at Cambridge soon after 1350. In 1366 we find him deputed by the Pope to be the bearer of a relic of the Franciscan, S. Louis of Toulouse, to Montpellier, and in later years he is known to have been in Cyprus.5 1

Liber de Conformitate, in Anal. Franc, iv, p. 527. Ely Registers: Montacute, f. 95. 3 Wadding, Annales, viii, pp. 323-4. 4 Little in Arch. Franc. Hist., 1926, p. 822 n. 5 Bull. Franc, vi, pp. 398, 456, 469, 498, 558-9. 2

ICC


Of Roger de Cicilia, the last of the foreign lectors mentioned in Eccleston's list, nothing further is known. So far there seems to have been a more or less regular succession of these foreign lectors at Cambridge. The intention of sending one every three years does not seem to have been strictly observed but at least an attempt was made, from 1340 onwards, to see that Benedict's plan was put into operation. The last name in Eccleston's list of lectors is that of William de Folvil, who was certainly at Cambridge in 1358 and was probably lector about that time. If the three-year plan was not to break down completely it was time for another visiting lector to be sent by the Chapter General, and there is some evidence that this was done some time between 1360 and 1370. In 1373 there was elected as Minister General of the Order Brother Leonardo Rossi de Giffono of the province of Terra di Lavoro. He is described in one list of the Ministers as 'magister chantabriggiensis'.1 This does not state definitely that he had been lector at Cambridge, but there can be little doubt that he came to the University in that capacity in accordance with the Benedictine decrees. After Giffono the Chapter General had some difficulty in finding a suitable man for the post. Meeting at Strasburg in 1332 they chose a friar called Gabriel de Volterra who had lectured on the Sentences in the friars' schools at Florence, Siena, Bologna and Milan; but his health was not good and the doctors thought that it would be unwise to send him to England.2 As the Chapter had now dispersed, the Minister General, Mark of Viterbo, tried to find a suitable friar to send in his stead, and his choice fell upon Antonius de Foxano, who had lectured in many places of the Order. Antonious, however, had just been elected Minister of the Province of Genoa and was unable to accept the invitation.3 After this the attempt to find a friar who could be sent to Cambridge seems to have been abandoned for some years. It was not until 1371 that the matter was taken up again, and this time a Portugese friar was elected. Writing of certain friars appointed to various offices in that year Wadding says: I II

Arch. Franc. Hist., 1922, p. 346. Bull. Franc, vi, p. 375.

3

IOI

Ibid., p. 396.


Brother Thomas of Portugal, who had studied at Oxford and Paris and had lectured in Portugal and at Salamanca, was chosen by the Chapter General of the Order to expound the books of the Sentences at Cambridge.1 Two years later, in 1373, the Chapter General elected an Italian friar, Bartholomew da Rinonico da Pisa, the celebrated author of that strange book the Liber de Conformitate Vitae Bead Francisci ad Vitam Domini lesu, but owing to the wars he was never able to come to England.2 His place, however, was taken a few years later by Nicholas da Costa, who spent two years at Cambridge as lector about 1376-8, and then returned to Paris, where he took his doctorate in 1380 and later became Provincial Minister of the province of Aragon and confessor to Queen Iolanda.3 Finally, in 1383, the Chapter General sent to Cambridge another friar of Aragon, Ludovicus de Fontibus, 'ad legendum Sententias'.4 It is clear, therefore, that up to the end of the fourteenth century the Franciscan school at Cambridge was ruled, at more or less regular intervals, by distinguished friars from abroad. Eleven friars are known to have been elected to this office, and eight of these certainly came to Cambridge and served their time there. There may, of course, have been others whose names are not known to us, and the practice may have been continued into the fifteenth century though we have no evidence of this. But that the Cambridge school gained from such contacts with the Order overseas can hardly be doubted, while the fact that it was included with Oxford in this plan, and that so much trouble was taken to put the scheme into operation, shows that the Franciscan school of theology at Cambridge was regarded as one of the leading places of study in the world. 1 'Frater Thomas Portugallen. qui Oxoniae et Parisiis studuit, Portugalliae et Salamanticae legit, et in comitiis generalibus Ordinis electus est ut Cantabrigiae libros Sententiarum interpretaretur' (Annales, viii, pp. 239, 249). 8 Cf. Anal. Franc, iv, Intro., p. xi. 3 Denifle et Chatelain, Chart. Univ. Paris., iii, pp. 286-7. This is a letter from the Pope to the Chancellor of Paris written on December 27th, 1379, about Nicholas Coste, B.D., formerly of Cambridge, where he had been sent by the Chapter General to read the Sentences. He had been there about two years. He was now to go to Paris to lecture on the Sentences there, and, if he passed his examinations, was to receive the 'licentiam docendi' and be made D.D. Cf. Arch. Franc. Hist., 1924, pp. 153-4. * Arch. Franc. Hist., 1924, p. 16;.

102


All our evidence, therefore, points to the fact that the Cambridge house of Friars Minor in the fourteenth century was a very flourishing institution. Through the munificence of the citizens the friars were provided with fine buildings, they had produced or attracted some of the leading theologians of the day, they had grown rapidly in numbers, and they had built up for themselves a fine reputation. The fourteenth century also saw a great advance in the life of the University. After the foundation of Peterhouse in 1284 there was a long gap of forty years before any other colleges were founded; but in the next twenty years new foundations appeared with great rapidity. Michaelhouse was founded in 1324, King's Hall in 1337, Clare in 1338, Pembroke in 1347, Gonville Hall in 1348, Trinity Hall in 1350 and Corpus Christi in 1352. Thus by the middle of the century the whole appearance of the University of Cambridge had fundamentally changed. Hitherto, except for Bishop Balsham's foundation of Peterhouse there had been little in the way of buildings. Most of the masters and their pupils lived in hostels and lodgings; lectures were given either in the hostels or in churches; there was no library, no building where University functions could be held, no place where University treasures could be kept.1 Gradually, however, the University was becoming more self-conscious, more aware of its needs and of its future, and consequently more doubtful of the desirability of having in its midst independent and flourishing bodies such as the Friars Minor with their attractive and successful theological school.2 1

The churches of either the Austin or the Franciscan friars were used for the ceremony of 'Commencement'. In 1348 one of the common chests was kept at the Carmelites (Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, i, p. ioo) and in 1381 another was at S. Mary's church (A. Gray, Cambridge University, an episodic history, PP- 54-5)2 W. W. Rouse Ball {Cambridge Papers, p. 185) writes of the friars: 'I believe that the presence in Cambridge of these great establishments, always having a certain number of students, gave stability to the nascent University, and tended to prevent its dissipation in times of stress: this is a point in our early history which is sometimes overlooked'. This may be true of the very early days, but there came a time when, in the eyes of the University, the friars represented not a stabilising influence but an obstacle to progress. IO3


But not only were the friars well and firmly established in Cambridge; they even had some influence on at least one of the colleges. The foundress of Pembroke, Marie de S. Pol, had long taken an interest in the Franciscan Order. She had chosen a Friar Minor, John Peverel, as her confessor, had given land in 1336 to the Minoresses of Waterbeach and in 1339 had founded the Abbey of Denny,1 and was finally buried in the Franciscan habit.2 When she decided to found a college at Cambridge she was anxious to forge some kind of link between it and the Franciscan Order. So in the first statutes which were drawn up for the college it was made part of the constitution that there should be elected each year two Rectors, one a secular and the other a Franciscan. They were to be graduates of the University, and their functions included the admission of men elected to fellowships and certain visitorial jurisdiction.3 When the statutes were put into operation it was soon discovered that this proposal would not do. The feeling in the University between the seculars and the friars was too tense to make any such arrangement workable. The idea of a friar exercising 'visitorial jurisdiction' over a college of seculars was scarcely feasible, and, within a few years, the scheme had to be abandoned. In the revision of the statutes which was made in 1366 the 'Rectors' are not mentioned at all, and the rights and duties which had been assigned to them were transferred either to the Master alone or to the Master acting in conjunction with two or more of the fellows.4 So ended the experiment of linking up a new and secular foundation with one of the old and regular houses. It was bound to fail; the friars were by this time becoming too unpopular in the University for such a proposal to work, and it is not surprising that it was so soon abandoned. For there can be no doubt that the relations between the friars and the University were very much strained throughout the four1 A. L. Attwater, Pembroke College, Cambridge, pp. 6-7; A. F. C. Bourdillon, The Order of Minoresses in England, pp. 18-22. 2 Cal. of Wills in Court of Hustings, ii, p. 194. 3 Mullinger, Hist, of the University of Cambridge, i, p. 23711. Attwater (pp. cit., p. 9) gives the names of two friars, Rayner d'Ambonnay and Robert de Stanton, as possibly the first Franciscan Rectors of the college. 4 Mullinger, op. cit., i, p. 237n.

IO4


teenth century, and as the University grew in power and prestige it was inevitable that it should view the schools of the mendicants with some misgiving. In the thirteenth century the quarrel between the friars and the University had been mainly on a purely academic question: What was to be the position of the friar lectors? Were they to submit to University statutes or not? In the following century the attack on the friars was more general. The University authorities were jealous of the prosperity of the friars' schools and alarmed at the increase in the number of the friars. Moreover, by this time there was a more general criticism of the mendicants going on, and the regent masters of the University found it easy to ally themselves with the reformers and satirists who were aiming their shafts at the friars. In order to understand the hostility of the University authorities to the friars in the fourteenth century it is necessary to remember the conditions under which life was lived at a medieval University. It was normal for boys to come up to the University at the age of fourteen or thereabouts, but they were left very largely to fend for themselves. The number of colleges was small and most of them catered only for graduates, so that the undergraduate either found accommodation in a hostel or had to find his own lodgings in the town. In either case he was subject to very little discipline and was liable to run wild. Chaucer's tale of the two boys from their home 'fer in the north, I can nat telle where' who spent so catastrophic a night at Trumpington is probably typical; and when one remembers that Alan and John in the story were probably no more than fifteen or sixteen years of age it is easy to understand that cautious and respectable parents were a little nervous of sending their sons into a community where there was so little discipline and so many temptations. Moreover, studious youths who wanted to pursue their studies in peace and quiet must have found the turmoil of University life most uncongenial. In face of these problems the friaries seemed, in some ways, to supply the answer. Here were places where boys could be looked after, where their studies could be directed by older scholars, and where they would find all the necessities for a studious life. The difficulty was that the friaries could not be run as hostels for 105


seculars; any who wished to live and work there must first become friars. In the eyes of the parents this was the great disadvantage. The friars were not always popular with the laity and a good many parents had no wish that their sons should join one of the mendicant orders. On the other hand the boys were far from home and therefore far also from parental influence, the friars often went out of their way to make themselves attractive to the boys, with the result that a good many joined the Orders and so were lost to the University. The Order of Friars Minor had always had a number of very young members. Thomas of Chantimpre, the Dominican, tells of a boy in Flanders who joined the Franciscans at the age of five and died two years later;1 Jean Pierre Olivi, the leader of the Spirituals, became a friar at the age of twelve,2 and Salimbene mentions an English friar called Stephen who had joined the Order while a little boy.3 These, however, must be regarded as exceptions, for the Order as a whole was anxious to discourage the profession of boys before they had reached years of discretion. Thus the Chapter of Narbonne in 1260 passed a decree that none should be admitted under the age of eighteen except those of particular merit who might join at any time after the age of fifteen.4 This was undoubtedly putting the age-limit rather high, especially in view of the growing schools at the Universities. Had the minimum age remained at eighteen it would have made recruitment among young students at the Universities impossible. It is not, therefore, surprising that at the General Chapter of Assisi in 1316 the age was lowered to fourteen.5 Nine years later, at Lyons, a rider was added to the effect that oblates might be received at an earlier age but were not to be professed under the age of fifteen.6 From early in the fourteenth century, therefore, it was permissible, according to the statutes of the Order, for boys to be 1

Arch. Franc. Hist., viii, pp. 396-7. Arch, fiir Liu. undKirch., iii, p. 411. He was born in 1248 or 1249 and joined the Order in 1260. 3 Chronica, ed. Holder-Egger, p. 296. 'Puerulus intraverat ordinem'. 4 Arch, fiir Litt. und Kirch., vi, p. 88. 6 Arch. Franc. Hist., iv, p. 277. 6 Ibid., p. 527. 2

IO6


received from the age of fourteen upwards. This exactly suited the friars at Cambridge, for it was at about this age that boys usually came up to the University, and the friars were able at once to begin their proselytising. Undoubtedly they had considerable success, and at the expense of the University, for the main burden of the complaint of the academic world against the friars was that they were enticing young boys into their Orders and so taking them away from the schools. With summer fruits [writes Richard de Bury in the Philobiblori\, ye attract boys to religion, whom, when they have taken the vows, ye do not instruct by fear or force, as their age requires, but allow them to devote themselves to begging expeditions, and suffer them to spend the time, in which they might be learning, in procuring the favour of friends, to the annoyance of their parents, the danger of the boys, and the detriment of the Order.1 This was written in 1344 before the ravages of the Black Death, which certainly reduced the number of the friars and necessitated a more vigorous recruiting campaign. In the years which followed the plague the friars had to deal with a much more formidable opponent than the benign Bishop of Durham. This was Richard Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh, who attacked the friars on many points including that of their method of getting hold of young boys especially in the University towns. Enticed by the wiles of the friars [he declared] and by little presents, these boys (for the friars cannot circumvent men of mature age) enter the Orders, nor are they afterwards allowed, according to report, to get their liberty by leaving the Order, but they are kept with them against their will until they make profession; further, they are not permitted, as it is said, to speak with their father or mother, except under the supervision and fear of a friar. An instance came to my notice only this morning.2 As I came out of my inn an honest man from England, who has come to this court to obtain a remedy, told me that immediately after last Easter the friars at the University of Oxford abducted in this manner his son who was not yet thirteen 1 Philobiblon, ed. E. C. Thomas, pp. 188-9. Richard de Bury had his own special grievance against the friars, namely that they bought up all the best books and so prevented him from getting them for his own library. 2 This is part of a speech delivered before the Pope at Avignon.

107


years old, and when he went there he could not speak with him except under the supervision of a friar.1 This attack on the mendicants was made on November 8th, 1357, and there is no doubt that Fitzralph was giving expression to a very general feeling of hostility at the Universities towards the methods adopted by the friars to make up their numbers after the plague. At a time when the Universities themselves were feeling very much the shortage of students they could only regard with dismay the large number of boys who were enticed into the religious orders. It was clear that action must be taken, and in 1358 the University of Oxford passed a statute forbidding the admission of boys under eighteen into any of the religious orders. The preamble states that nobles of this realm, those of good birth, and very many of the common people are afraid, and therefore cease, to send their sons and relatives and others dear to them in tender youth, when they would make most advance in primitive sciences, to the University to be instructed lest any friars of the order of mendicants should entice or induce such children, before they have reached years of discretion, to enter the order of the same mendicants.2 Subsequent events leave no room for doubt that the University of Cambridge passed a similar statute at the same time, though no record of it has been preserved. Meanwhile the regent masters at Cambridge made a further effort to limit the number of the friars by passing a statute to say that in future it shall be unlawful for two friars of the same cloister to incept in the same year,3 and followed this up by a further decree that there shall never be two doctors or bachelors of the same religious house lecturing concurrently.4 1 From E. Brown, Fasc. Rerum Expetendarum, quoted by Little in Grey Friars in Oxford, p. 79. See also Gwynn, The English Austin Friars in the Time of Wyclif, pp. 80-9, for a further account of Fitzralph and the friars. 2 Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, p. 80; Strickland Gibson, Statuta, pp. 164-5. 3 'Statutum est quod duo de eodem claustro mendicantium non incipiant uno anno'': Documents relating to the University and Colleges of Cambridge, i, pp. 395-6. The date is July 4th, 1359. 4 'De nullo ordine mendicantium possunt duo magistri vel duo baccalaurei in lectura ordinaria vel Sententiarum in eadem universitate concurrere'. ibid., p. 396.

IO8


Such decrees were undoubtedly meant to act as a check on the growing numbers of the mendicants, and it was therefore only to be expected that the friars should make some protest. After the passing of these new statutes the friars appealed to Rome, and in November 1364 the Pope sent a mandate to the Archbishop of Canterbury to summon the Chancellor of Cambridge and others concerned, and, if the facts are as stated, to compel them to annul the statutes and penalties made against the admission into the mendicant orders of scholars under the age of eighteen.1 Whether Archbishop Islip ever held this meeting is not known,2 but in the following July Urban V sent a further mandate to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of Llandaff and Bangor to cite the Chancellors, Masters, regents and others concerned of both Universities, to appear and give their reasons why certain statutes recently passed by the Universities should not be perpetually revoked. The statutes concerned were all aimed at the mendicants, and included the following: that no one should proceed to a doctorate in divinity unless he had previously graduated in arts; that there shall never be two regent masters lecturing concurrently in any one cloister; that at Cambridge no one shall be admitted to lecture on the Sentences until he has offered to answer publicly in the schools all the regents in the faculty of theology, or that at Cambridge if any prelate or prince ask for a grace for a member of any mendicant order, and the grace be refused, and the University be put to expense by reason thereof, no member of that order shall be promoted to any degree until the said expense be refunded or guaranteed by the said order or by the person promoted.3 Much was here at stake. If the University were compelled to annul all these statutes, then the battle which it was fighting against the mendicants would be lost. On the other hand, if the University were able to uphold its claim to restrict the number of regent masters in the mendicant orders and to prevent the orders from admitting boys under the age of eighteen, then the friars themselves would be put in a most difficult position and their hope of 1 2 3

Cal. Papal Registers, iv, p. 91. There is no mention of it in his Register. Cal. Papal Registers, iv, pp. 52-3. IO9


getting hold of the boys when they first came up to Cambridge would be taken from them. If the meeting demanded by Urban V were held it seems to have reached no conclusion, for in 1366 the matter came up before the King in Parliament. Cooper gives the following account of the proceedings: In the Parliament at Westminster on Tuesday after the Invention of the Holy Cross in this year (May 5 th) the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the four orders of Friars Mendicant complained by their petitions of divers outrages, disputes, damages and mischiefs done and attempted on the one part by the other. The Chancellor and Proctors of the Universities and the Provincials and Ministers of the four orders were present and submitted themselves altogether to the ordinance of the King, who thereupon, with the assent of the Prelates, Dukes, Earls and Barons, ordained to the following effect: (i) that the Chancellors, Masters regent and non-regent of the Universities and the Friars of the four orders dwelling therein should in all graces and school-exercises use each other in a courteous and friendly manner; (ii) that the statutes lately made by the Universities that the Friars should not receive into their orders scholars under the age of eighteen years should be repealed and held for nought; (iii) that the Universities should not make any new statute of the like nature nor any ordinance which should be prejudicial to the Friars, without good and mature deliberation; (iv) that the Friars should suspend the execution of all bulls and processes from the court of Rome in their favour against the Universities and should renounce all advantages therefrom; and (v) that the King should have power to redress all future controversies between the parties, and that he and his Council might punish at their pleasure all offenders against the present ordinance.1 Of the statutes directed against the friars the only one which is here specifically mentioned is that which concerned the minimum age for the admission of boys into the Order. O n this fundamental issue Parliament came down on the side of the friars, no doubt to their satisfaction and the disgust of the University authorities. But that the public as a whole was not satisfied with this decision is shown by the fact that the question was brought up again in Parliament in 1402, when the Commons petitioned that no one should be allowed to enter any of the four orders of friars under the age of twenty-one. Again the King refused to agree to any 1

Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, i, pp. 108-9. IIO


such suggestion, contenting himself with issuing an order that no friar should admit to an Order a child under fourteen years of age without the consent of his father, mother or guardians.1 Thus the battle was won by the friars, and the admission of quite young children continued. For example, early in the fifteenth century we hear of a boy called Henry Wytbery who 'when a child under eleven years was handed over against his will to the Friars Minor of Exeter by his father, in order (as was supposed) to exclude him from succeeding to his inheritance',2 and on the eve of the Dissolution there was a novice at Grantham who was only thirteen years of age.3 Shortly after this Reginald Pole is said to have remarked: 'You shall see some friars whom you would judge to be born in the habit, they are so little and young admitted thereto'.4 The question of the age at which boys might be admitted to the Order affected the Cambridge Franciscans very closely. If they lost the battle against the University and were forced to desist from the admission of lads under the age of eighteen one of their main functions at Cambridge would have gone. Originally they had come there knowing that a University town gave a promise of 'a good catch of men', and hitherto they had undoubtedly been successful. Boys coming up to the University at the age of fourteen or fifteen had been attracted into the Order, and were there for life. The Cambridge Franciscans therefore exerted themselves to the utmost to see that their rights and customs were not interfered with. Fuller describes the contest thus: The University now began to be sensible of a great grievance, caused by the Minors or Franciscan Friars. For they surprised many when children into their order, before they could well distinguish between a cap and a cowl, whose time in the University ran on from their admission therein, and so they became Masters of Arts before they were masters of themselves.6 The University boys (for men they were not) wanting wit to manage their degrees, insolently domineered over 1

Rotuli Parliamentorum, iii, p. 502. Little and Easterling, Franciscans and Dominicans of Exeter, p. 24. 3 V. C. H. Lines., ii, p. 217. 4 Quoted in Maynard Smith, Pre-Reformation England, p. 40. 5 A good epigram, but inaccurate. Friars did not become Masters of Arts. 2

Ill


such who were their juniors, yet their elders. To prevent future inconveniences of this kind, the Chancellor and the University made an order that hereafter none should be admitted gremials under eighteen years of age. The Minors or Franciscans were much nettled thereat, who traded much in tender youth (minors and children agree well together); and William Folvil a Franciscan wrote an invective against the act of the University as injurious to the privileges of this order, it being against monastical liberty to be stinted to any age for the entrance therein.1 The William Folvil whom Fuller mentions in this passage was a native of Lincoln and a D.D. of Cambridge, where he became 73rd lector to the friars about 1354.3 He appears to have been closely concerned with the controversy over the age of admission of friars, and wrote a tract, Pro pueris induendis, defending the practice of his Order.3 Meanwhile a more formidable opponent of the friars was rising to fame. The story of the relations between John Wyclif and the friars, which began with mutual respect and ended in bitter hostility, belongs to general history rather than to that of Cambridge. But the Wyclifite controversy did, in fact, have one indirect effect upon the University of Cambridge and therefore also upon the Franciscan school there. Wyclif spent much of his life at Oxford and attracted a number of disciples there. The result of this was that, in the eyes of the orthodox, Oxford was suspected of becoming a home of heresy, and Cambridge began to prosper at Oxford's expense. Tt was not until Oxford had become impregnated with the Wyclifite heresy', said Rashdall, 'that Cambridge came into fashion with cautious parents and attracted the patronage of royal champions of orthodoxy and their ecclesiastical advisers. The numbers grew rapidly during the latter half of the 1

Fuller, Hist, of the Univ. of Cambridge, p. 118. He gives the date as 1384. See Biographical Notes, below, pp. 176-7. 3 Tanner describes him as 'Minorita, patria Lincolniensis et S. theol. doctor Cantabrigiensis. Cantabrigienses statutum edidere ne fratres minores infra academiae limites pueros ante annum aetatis 18 in suum ordinem acciperent. Hoc aegre tulerunt Franciscani quasi contra privilegia sua factum. Igitur Gul. Folvile contra dictum statutum scripsit, Pro pueris induendis, lib. i 'Haec est sententia fratrum Minorum' (Bibliotheca, p. 292). I have not been able to trace any copy of this work. 2

112


fifteenth century and towards the close must have nearly equalled the much diminished population of Oxford'.1 So, as we enter the fifteenth century, we find the University of Cambridge entering upon a period of progress and expansion; while the Franciscans, with nearly two centuries of useful and distinguished work behind them, were still holding their own and playing, in the life of the University, a part which was by no means negligible.

1

Rashdall, Universities of Europe, new ed., iii, p. 285. 113

CHAPTER VII

THE LATTER YEARS was perhaps the chief problem with which the Church in England had to deal in the fifteenth century. Up till then England had been practically free from heresy. When the returning Crusaders brought back with them from the East ideas which were not in line with the orthodox teaching of the Church, or when social unrest gave birth to bitter criticism of the clergy and the demand for a religion without priest or sacrament, England seems to have been strangely unaffected. Consequently the movement initiated by John Wyclif towards the end of the fourteenth century put both Church and State very much on their guard. In 1401 Parliament passed the savage statute De haeretico comburendo, and in the same year that 'malleus haereticorum', Archbishop Arundel, visited the University of Cambridge and demanded 'whether any were suspected of Lollardism or any other heretical pravity'.1 The answer must have been a negative one, for Cambridge at this time appears to have preserved a blameless orthodoxy, so that in later years the poet Lydgate could write: 'By recorde all clarkes seyne the same Of heresie Cambridge bare never blame.'2 In this 'blameless' atmosphere the school of the Franciscans at Cambridge continued to produce able men who could take their part in the religious controversies of the time. It was natural that the mendicants, being so closely in touch with the Apostolic See, should have been regarded as the champions of orthodoxy, and it was no doubt this which made them more than ever unpopular at Oxford, where a number of the secular masters had taken the side of Wyclif. In 1382 there was a move at Oxford to drive the friars out of the University altogether, and one Nicholas Hereford LOLLARDY

1 2

Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, i, p. 147. Mullinger, The University of Cambridge, i, p. 637. 114

THE LATTER YEARS

preached a fighting sermon in which he argued that in future no member of any religious order should be allowed to proceed to any degree in the University.1 With feelings running high, it was only natural that the friars should become partisans, and we are not surprised to find them putting up a stiff resistance to the Wyclifite movement. At the 'Council of the Earthquake', which met at Blackfriars in London in May 1382, ten of Wyclif's conclusions were judged to be heretical and fourteen erroneous, and among the doctors of divinity who took part were four Franciscans, two from each University. Cambridge was represented by two interesting men—William Folvil, champion of the friars in their dispute with the University over the admission of young boys, and Roger Frisby, who ended his life on the gallows.2 At the fifth session a further Cambridge Franciscan was added to the tribunal, John Ryddene.3 The opposition of the friars to Wyclif led some of them to attack John of Gaunt for his interest in the Wyclifite cause. Among the 'Ancient Correspondence' in the Public Record Office is a letter written to the Duke by Maud, formerly nurse to his daughter, Lady Philippa. In her letter she begins by asking after his health, and then goes on to refer to two Grey Friars of Cambridge, Hugh Bandon and John Drynkestor, and three Black Friars 'qu'ont malveisement et traitouresement parle de vouz, mon tres redoubte, come je le oiay a grand deshertement de mon cuer'. She ends with a wish that God will defend her lord from all his enemies: 'Tres redoubte et tres puissant siegnur la Beneite Trinyte maynteyngne longement vostre tres haut seignurie et vouz doigne victorie de touz voz enemvs'.1 The letter gives no details of the 'treacherous' language of the Cambridge friars, but it may well have been concerned with the spread of Lollardism. But the friars did not confine themselves to religious issues. In the political troubles which attended the deposition of Richard II and the accession of Henry IV a number of the Franciscans played 1

Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, p. 84. Fasciculus Ziianiorum, pp. 287, 499. For Roger Frisby see below, pp. 177-8. 3 Ibid., p. 291. 4 John ofGaunt's Registers, 13J2-6, ii, p. 355.

2

"5

THE LATTER YEARS

a prominent part, among them some of those connected with the Cambridge house. In 1401, two years after the death of Richard II in Pontefract Castle., a rumour went round that he was not really dead but was living in Scotland, whence he would in due course march south and depose the usurper, Henry IV. One Cambridge Franciscan, whose name is not known, appears to have supported this tale, for we read that a woman acusid a grey frere of Cambrigge, an old man, of certayn wordes that he sholde haue said ayens the kyng, and his iugement was that he sholde fizte with the womman, and his on hand bounde behynde him: but the Archebisshop of Cantirbury was the freris frend and cesid the mater.1 The judgment here delivered cannot have been much more than an example of rough medieval justice, and the King may have thought that there was little to be feared from these friars. But soon afterwards he became conscious of real danger, and the next group of friars was handled with much greater severity. The Chronicler speaks first of a 'frere menour of the couent of Aylesbury' who accused a priest friar of his house of having said that he was glad that King Richard was still alive. The friar was summoned before the King, interrogated, and finally hanged. Further reports of disaffection among the Franciscans continued to reach the court, and although a number of friars escaped, some were caught and brought to London. The centres of resistance to Henry seem to have been a group of friaries in the Midlands—Leicester, Stamford, Nottingham and Northampton—and the leader Roger Frisby, a D.D. of Cambridge and now Warden of the convent at Leicester. Frisby and some other friars were brought before the King in Council at Westminster on June 29th,2 where thair acuser stood by and stedfastly acusid thayme, and thay ansuerde vnwarly. Thanne saide the king to the maister Roger Frisby. 'Thise 1

An English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI, Camden Soc, p. 23. 2 On May 27th, 1402, four friars had been committed to the Tower, and another seven, including Frisby, on June 1st. On June 29th Frisby and five other friars were summoned before the King, and the incidents here recorded took place that day. See P.R.O. Controlment Roll, 3 Henry IV, No. 43, m. 32.

THE LATTER YEARS

bith lewde men, and not vnderstondyng; thou sholdist be a wise man, saist thou that King Richard livith?' The maister ansuered, 'I say not that he livith, but I say yf he live, he is veray King of Engelonde'. The King saide, 'He resigned'. The maister ansurede, 'He resigned ayens his wil in prison, the whiche is nought in the lawe'. The kyng ansuerde, 'He resigned with his good wille'. 'He wolde not haue resigned' saide the maister, 'yf he hadde be at his fredoum; and a resignacion maad in prison is not fre'. Thanne saide the kyng, 'He was deposid'. The maister ansuerede, 'Whanne he was kyng he was take be force, and put into prisoun, and spoyled of his reme, and ye haue vsurpid the croune'. The kyng saide, 'I haue not vsurpid the croune, but I was chosen therto be elecioun'. The maister ansuerde, 'The eleccion is noughte, livyng the trewe and lawful possessour; and yf he be ded, he is ded by you, and yf he be ded be you, ye haue loste alle the righte and title that ye myzte haue to the croune'. Thanne saide the kyng to him, 'Be myn hed thou shall lese thyne hed'. The maister saide to the king, 'Ye loued nevir the chirche, but alwey desclaundrid it er ye were kyng, and now ye shall destroie it'. 'Thou liest' saide the king; and bad him voide, and he and his felowes were lad ayen vnto the tour. Thanne axed the kyng counsel what he sholde do with thaym; and a knyzt that loued nevir the chirche saide, 'We shal nevir cece this clamour of Kyng Richard til thise freris be destroid'. So they were brought again before the justices at Westminster and the justice saide unto thaym, 'Ye bith enditid that ye in ipocrisie and flateryng and fals lif, haue prechid fals sermons; wherynne ye saide falsli that King Richard livith and haue excited the peple to sech him in Scotland—Also, ye in your ypocrisie and fals lif, haue herd false confessions, wherynne ye haue enioyned to the peple in wey of penaunce, to seche King Richard in Walis—Also ye with your fals flateryng and ypocrisie haue gadrid a gret summe of money with begging, and sent it to oweyne of Glendore, a traitour, that he sholde come and destroy Englond—Also, ye haue sent in to Scotland for vc men to be redy upon the playn of Oxenford on midsomer eve to seche kyng Richard'. In answer to this the friars threw themselves upon the country, but neither men of London ne of Holborne wolde dampne thaym; and thanne thay hadd an enquest of Yseldon, and thay saide 'Gilti'. Thanne the justice yaf jugement and saide, 'Ye shul be drawe fro the tour of Londoun vnto Tiburne, and there ye shalle be hanged, and hange an hool day, and aftirward be take doun, and your heddis smyte of and set on London brigge.' And so it was don. 117

THE LATTER YEARS

Frisby preached, on behalf of his fellows, on the text In mantis tuas, Domine, and swore that he had never wished evil to King Henry. Then the execution took place, and on the morou aboute evesong tyme, on cam to the wardeyn of the freris1 and saide that he myzte fette away the bodiez and burye thaym; and whanne thay came thay founden thaym caste in to dichis and heggis, and the heddis smyten of, and thay baar thaym hoom to thair couent with gret lamentacioun.2 The fifteenth century was, for the University of Cambridge, a time of steady advance. The erection of the Divinity Schools had been completed by 1398, and the building of the rest of the quadrangle (which subsequently became the University Library) went on during the following years.3 Then in 1430 the settlement was reached, known as the 'Barnwell Process', in which the University substantiated its claim to independence from episcopal control.4 This was followed by the foundation of two new colleges, King's in 1440 and Queens' in 1448. The result of all this was to make the University much more self-conscious. The lack of proper lecture-rooms had, from the first, been a grave handicap to the authorities as well as a cause of estrangement between them and the mendicants, who all had their own schools to which students were attracted. Now 'with the building of the new schools the tendency was to drift away from the houses of the mendicants and leave them to their own devices'.5 In the thirteenth century the friars had played a very important part in the building up of the University. Dr Little's remark that it was the Franciscans who gave the University its faculty of 1 Presumably this means the Warden of the Grey Friars of London, at that time probably Robert Chamberlain (Kingsford, Grey Friars of London, p. 57). 2 An English Chronicle . . . Camden Soc, pp. 24-6. The Chronicle of Adam of Usk (ed. E. M. Thompson, pp. 84, 255) mentions the hanging of the friars, who are described as 'undecim de ordine fratrum minorum, doctores in theologia', but there is no other evidence of any doctor of divinity apart from Frisby. Cf. also Euloglum Historlarum, iii, pp. 391-3. 3 Willis and Clark, Architectural Hist, of the Univ. of Cambridge, iii, pp. 9-11. 4 Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, i, pp. 182-3. 5 Mullinger, Hist, of the Univ. of Cambridge, i, pp. 300-1; cf. also A. Gray, Cambridge University: an Episodical History, pp. 54-5.

THE LATTER YEARS

theology is no overstatement,1 for not only did their school reach a high standard of work, but the Order was able to send to it some of the most distinguished scholars in the world. This high standard was maintained well into the fourteenth century, though at the cost of considerable friction between the University and the friars. As time went on, this friction became more serious, though at first the friars were in a strong enough position to fight for their claims. But in the fifteenth century the battle had really been won by the University. The Franciscan school was becoming a far less important element in the life of Cambridge, and the University was discovering that, with its increased prestige and its grand new buildings, it could outbid the friars. The impression, therefore, which we get of this period is of the University going its own way and either leaving the friars to go theirs or allowing them to be absorbed into the general life of the schools. So sharp had been the dispute between the friars and the University in the fourteenth century that various steps were taken to try to limit the number of the friars. In the lean years after the Black Death the academic authorities had taken alarm at the successful recruiting methods of the friars and had done their best to prevent them from making good the ravages of the plague. Statutes had been passed to keep down the number of the friars and to prevent two bachelors or doctors of the same convent from lecturing concurrently. Such statutes were, no doubt, meant to be kept. The University was struggling for its independence and could give no quarter. But in the fifteenth century we find ourselves in an atmosphere of greater toleration. The University has little need now to fear the rivalry of the friars and can afford to be more gracious. Thus we find concessions made to the friars which would have been almost unthinkable in earlier days. For example, in 1471 a grace was passed in the following terms: 'Grace is given to Master Peter, a Friar Minor, that he may lecture concurrently, and that he shall not be obliged to act as regent or to lecture unless he wishes to do so.2 Moreover, in spite of the statutes, we find 1

Franciscan Papers, etc., p. 143. Such was also claimed by the friars themselves, see below, p. 235. 2 Grace Book A, p. 88; cf. pp. 16, 96, 101. 119

THE LATTER YEARS

several instances of two friars of the same Order taking their degrees in the same year—such as Dr Talbot and Dr Brigote, both Franciscans, who incepted in theology in 1502, and two Dominicans, Dr Dudyngton and Dr Codnam, who did the same twelve years later.1 Another concession often made to the friars was their exemption from the payment of'commons' (a charge made on all students at certain points in their career), though this concession was afterwards withdrawn.2 Another was that they were absolved from the very expensive business of having to feast the regent masters at the time of their inception, being allowed instead to pay a fixed fee of 8 marks.3 Among other concessions made to the friars we find Friar Bedford being granted the privilege of counting his time in the cloister of some other convent as part of his 'residence' at Cambridge.4 Cambridge in the fifteenth century included a large number of regulars among its students. In the thirty-three years covered by Grace Book A from 145 5 to 1488 not only are there over a hundred friars recorded, but also just over eighty monks and canons, including twelve abbots and eleven priors.5 The regulars, therefore, were still playing an important part in the life of the University. Every year their names appear in the lists of those admitted to degrees and they seem to have constituted about five per cent, of the whole University. But, unlike the earlier days, they were now accepted as part of the ordinary life of the schools. The old days of rivalry between the regulars and seculars seem to have passed away, both monks and friars now fulfilling their acts like 1

Grace Book B, i, p . 182; ii, p. 36. Grace Book A, p. xxxi; B, i, pp. xix-xx, 83, 145, 238, etc. In the early years of the sixteenth century the friars seem always to have paid their communa like other students. 3 Grace Book A, pp. viii-ix. Monks paid 10 marks (£6 13*. 4J.); cf. Documents relating to the Univ. and Colls, oj Cambridge, i, p. 434. 4 Grace Book A, pp. xxxi, 97. s The Abbots of Shrewsbury, S. Benet-at-Holme, Colchester, Walden, Westminster, Ramsey, Faversham, Bury, Peterborough, S. Osyth, Waltham and Croxton, and the Priors of Norwich, York (S. Mary's), S. Albans, Coventry, Walsingham, Stonely, Gloucester (S. Oswald's), Lewes, Lenton, Watton and Canterbury College, Oxford. 2

I2O

THE LATTER YEARS

other students. They hand over their 'cautions'; many of them pay their commons; they pay their fees 'de non convivando'. The fifteenth century also saw changes in the methods of study at the University. The course in theology was still based upon the old syllabus,1 but the approach to the subject was undergoing certain modifications. The old scholastic method of disputation was being slowly abandoned by the more progressive spirits in favour of more modern methods of study. Men were becoming more interested in facts and less in authority, and the two inventions of paper-making and printing, which put much cheaper books on the market, gave the death-blow to the old scholastic system.2 Perhaps there was no way in which the new learning showed itself more clearly than in the study of the Bible. One of the pioneers in the scientific approach to the text of the Bible had been Robert Grosseteste. After his death, and as a result of his lectures to the Franciscans at Oxford, his work had been taken up by the friars in England, both Roger Bacon at Oxford and Henry Costesy at Cambridge having made important contributions. In this matter the Order was divided, for, at a time when it was producing some of the leaders in the new learning, it was also producing some of the most prominent schoolmen who were more or less committed to the old allegorical approach. In Cambridge in the fifteenth century there were, no doubt, in the Franciscan convent friars of conservative instincts who viewed with dismay the growth of a critical attitude towards the sacred text, but there were certainly some who turned eagerly to the study of Hebrew and Greek in order that they might understand more clearly the literal meaning of the Bible. Prominent among these was Richard Brinkley, who came to Cambridge about 1480 and took his doctorate in 1492.3 He is not known to have written anything, but he had a habit of making notes in the books which he read (including some which were not his!), and from these notes we can learn something of his tastes 1 a 3

Grace Book A, pp. xxvi-xxvii. See Peacock, Observations on the Statutes, p. 31. Grace Book B, i, pp. 21, 48, 49. 121

THE LATTER YEARS

and interests. He was certainly a student of Greek, for a Greek Psalter and a Greek New Testament, now both in the library of Caius College, bear his name. The former1 has his name—'ffr. Ric. Brynkley'—on f. 113,2 and in the latter, which he borrowed from the Grey Friars of Oxford, he wrote his name three times, the last time in Greek characters—p |3pr|VKEAei SIBCCCTKOACOS.3 These two books, which may represent only a small part of his library, show that this friar was studying both the Old and New Testaments in Greek. Another manuscript, now in the Bodleian,4 shows that Brinkley was also a student of Hebrew, for this is a Hebrew Psalter which he borrowed from the monks of Bury St Edmunds.5 Brinkley was at Cambridge in 1492, when he took his degree, and there is every reason to suppose that he remained in Cambridge until 1518, when he became Provincial Minister, a position which he held until shortly before his death in 1526.6 If this is so, then he must have made friends with Erasmus, who was in Cambridge in 1506 and again from 1511 to 1514. Erasmus may have disliked the physical climate of Cambridge, but the intellectual climate suited him well. Comparing Cambridge with Paris he wrote: 'These two universities are adapting themselves to the tendencies of the age, and receive the new learning—which is ready, if need be, to storm an entrance—not as an enemy but courteously as a guest.'7 Erasmus almost certainly paid one or two visits to the house of the Grey Friars, where he would find a number of kindred spirits, especially Richard Brinkley. He would also find there, either in the possession of the convent or in the private libraries of the friars, a number of Greek manuscripts which he would be glad to consult in connection with his work 1

MS 348, which contains the Franciscan account-sheets of 1363-6. Unfortunately in the recent rebinding of this MS this note was cut off, but it is reproduced in facsimile in J. R. Harris, The Origin of the Leicester Codex, plate 2. 3 J. R. Harris, Origin of the Leicester Codex, p. 19. 4 Bodl. Laud, Orient. 174. 5 M. R. James, The Abbey ofS. Edmund at Bury, Camb. Ant. Soc, vol. xxviii, pp. 87-8. 6 Little, Franciscan Papers, etc., pp. 205-6. 7 Mullinger, A Hist, of the Univ. of Cambridge, i, p. 507. 2

122

THE LATTER YEARS

on the text of the New Testament. Among these was the manuscript now known as the 'Leicester Codex', which appears to have been written by Emmanuel of Constantinople about 1470.1 This was either in the possession of Richard Brinkley or it belonged to the Cambridge Franciscans, and there is no doubt that Erasmus was familiar with it. Brinkley left Cambridge in 1518. By this year a small group of 'reformers' was beginning to form itself in Cambridge. Thomas Bilney became a Bachelor of Canon Law in 1521, and Robert Barnes, the Austin friar, proceeded D.D. in 1523.2 Both must have been at Cambridge for some years, eagerly absorbing the new ideas which were beginning to come from Germany. The first meetings at the White Horse Tavern appear to have been held early in the 1520s,3 and although no Franciscan is known to have attended them there were friars in the convent whose minds were beginning to be affected by the new ideas. At this time the University as a body remained strictly orthodox. In 1520 Luther's works had been introduced into England and an examination of them was immediately held in London, to which Cambridge sent four of its theologians.4 The works were adjudged heretical, and public burnings of them took place in various parts of the country. One was held in Cambridge, for the proctors' accounts for the year 1520-1 include, among payments: 'For drink and other expenses connected with the burning of the books of Martin Luther, 2s.'5 But while the University thus publicly advertised its orthodoxy a party was being formed among some of its more ardent spirits which was destined to change the whole face of the country. The Franciscans appear to have been divided. The Order as a 1

Allen, The Age ofErasmus, pp. 121-2, 144. It derives its modern name from the fact that it is now in the Old Town Hall Library at Leicester. 2 Grace Book B, ii, pp. 94, 104. Cranmer took his B.D. in 1521 and his D.D. in 1526 {ibid., pp. 95, 130), Latimer his B.D. in 1524 (p. 114) and Ridley his B.D. in 1537 and his D.D. in 1541 (pp. 203, 230). 3 E. G. Rupp, The English Protestant Tradition, pp. 15-46. 4 These were Henry Bullock of Queens', Dr Humphrey, John Watson of Christ's and Robert Ridley, uncle of Nicholas (Grace Book B, ii, p. 92). 5 'Pro potu et aliis expensis circa combustionem librorum Martini lutheri . . . s> ij ; Grace Book B, ii, p. 93. 123

THE LATTER YEARS

whole would instinctively tend towards orthodoxy. The friars were the special agents of the Pope, they were closely associated with the schoolmen, they belonged essentially to the past, and they were among those who had most to lose. We shall not, therefore, be surprised to find, among those who lived at the house of the Grey Friars at Cambridge in the early part of the sixteenth century, a group of men who set their faces firmly against the disruptive forces which were stirring in Europe. Henry Standish is typical of this school. He came to Cambridge from Hereford in the latter years of the fifteenth century, and became, in due course, Warden of the London house and Provincial Minister (1505-18) before being made Bishop of S. Asaph in 1518. There was never any doubt where his sympathies lay, for in 1525 he was made one of Wolsey's examiners of heretics and was among those who tried 'little Bilney' in 1527.1 The same might be said of Stephen Baron, who became an Observant and confessor to Henry VIII.2 William Call, who was related to the Pastons, came to Cambridge from Norfolk and took his D.D. in 1510.3 There seems no doubt that he remained orthodox in his opinions; but he was a man of wide sympathy and his friendship with Thomas Bilney, whom he visited in prison in 1531, had some influence upon him, so that, in Foxe's words, 'through the means of Bilney's doctrine and good life, whereof he had good experience, he was somewhat reclaimed to the gospel's side'.4 What Foxe means by this is not altogether clear, for William Call certainly remained orthodox, holding office as Provincial Minister from 1526 to 1538, the last to hold this position.5 Another friar who was, for a time, attracted by the new ideas was Gregory Bassett, who came to Cambridge in 1523 and took his B.D. ten years later.6 Soon after graduating he went to Bristol, where he was arrested and thrown into prison for having been in possession of a book by Martin Luther and for having taught the children a catechism which was heretical. While in prison Bassett 1 3 5

2 Foxe, Acts and Monuments, iv, p. 621. See below, p. 151. 4 Grace Book B, i, p. 247. Foxe, Acts and Monuments, iv, p. 642. 6 Little, Franciscan Papers, etc., p. 206. Grace Book B, ii, p. 178.

124

THE LATTER YEARS

was threatened with having both his hands burned off, upon which he recanted and became afterwards a bitter opponent of the new thought. He was charged with the examination of Thomas Benet, who was condemned to death at Exeter in 1533, and is described by Foxe in the following terms: 'There was one bachelor of divinity, a grey friar named Gregory Bassett, more learned indeed than they all, but as blind and superstitious as he which was most'.1 Bassett certainly had an adventurous career, for, having held a living in Devon in Mary's reign, he was deprived of it on the accession of Elizabeth and had to flee for his life. The last we hear of him is as a fugitive in Herefordshire while once again a warrant was out for his arrest, this time not as a reformer but as a recusant.2 If the house of Franciscan friars at Cambridge produced some who were orthodox and some who were waverers, it also produced some who threw themselves heart and soul into the Reform movement. Perhaps the most distinguished of these was Bartholomew Traheron, who came to Cambridge from Oxford in 1527 and took his B.D. in 1533. He must have been a disturbing element in the convent, for he was already a convinced reformer. Left an orphan at an early age he had been brought up by Richard Tracy, a member of a Gloucestershire family which had thrown in its lot with the reformers. Traheron wrote to his guardian: Whan I was destitute of father and mother, you conceaued a very fatherly affection towarde me and not onely brought me up in the universities of this and forayne realmes with your great costes and charges, but also most earnestly exhorted me to forsake the puddels of sophisters.3 At Oxford Traheron had suffered some persecution for his beliefs, being already regarded as 'an olde disciple' in the reformers' party,4 and it was probably this which led to his transference to Cambridge. At what stage in his career he became a Friar Minor, and for what reasons, is most obscure. Having been brought up 1

Foxe, Acts and Monuments, v, pp. 20-24. See below, pp. 151-2. 8 See D. N. B., vol. xix, pp. 1067-8, 1075. 4 Nichols, Narratives of the Reformation, p. 32. 2

125

THE LATTER YEARS

from an early age by a convinced Protestant it seems strange that he should have entered one of the religious orders. Possibly he had some idea that the friars might become the 'shock troops' of the Reformation. At any rate, it was as a Friar Minor that he came to Cambridge, finding himself in the same house with a number of men who were becoming interested in the ideas which were being so eagerly discussed in the country. If any member of the Franciscan convent attended the meetings at the White Horse Tavern, one would have expected to find Traheron among them, for all his life had been spent among reformers, and some of those who met there may have been his personal friends. William Roy was a friar who took an interest in the study of the text of the Bible while he was at Cambridge, and was the scribe of the Montfort Codex of the Greek New Testament. He then became interested in the translation of the Scriptures into English and in 1524 joined Tyndale at Hamburg and worked with him for a few years. But Tyndale found him far from satisfactory, and they never got on very well together. Tyndale described Roy as a man somewhat craftye. . . As long as he had no money, somewhat I could rule hym; but as soon as he had gotten hym money he became lyke himselfe agayne... His tunge is able not only to make fools sterke mad but also to deceyve the wisest that is, at the first acquayntance.1 With men like this in the house living side by side with staid, orthodox friars of the old school, life at the Grey Friars at Cambridge in the early years of the sixteenth century must have been stimulating if, perhaps, sometimes stormy. But the days of the community were numbered. In spite of the fact that the friars were still making some contribution to scholarship,2 and in spite of the fact that, unlike the older religious houses, they had no great estates or rich treasures to spoil, nevertheless the King thought that they had outlived their day; and when the blow fell upon the smaller monasteries in 1536 the friars knew that it would not be long before they too were sent about their business. 1

Cooper, Athenae Cantabr., i, p. 44; and see below, p. 205. Cranmer bore witness that the friars still had a large number of learned men at Cambridge: Baskerville, English Monks and the Suppression, p. 229. 2

126

CHAPTER VIII

THE DISSOLUTION AND AFTER few of the Franciscan houses in 1536 could have boasted of an income of more than £200 a year, they were not affected by the first act for the suppression of the monasteries, which was designed to close down all religious houses whose incomes were less than this figure. There are probably two reasons why the friars were excluded in 1536. One is that the first act was not designed to destroy the religious life, but to reduce the number of religious houses. There were at the time several hundred small monastic communities, often comprising only a handful of men or women, and it was thought advisable to close these houses and to give their inmates the choice between 'taking their capacities' (which meant seeking secular occupation) or going to swell the depleted numbers in the larger monasteries.1 As the numbers in the friaries were much more even than in the older monasteries, there was no clear distinction to be drawn between the 'greater' and the 'lesser' houses, nor was the number of friaries great enough to demand a reduction. Moreover, although the act of 1536 laid stress on the decay of the smaller houses and on their redundancy, there is no doubt that the King had an eye on their estates, which were often out of proportion to the number of men whom they were intended to support. This also would not apply to the friars, whose estates were negligible. In the first attack on the monasteries, therefore, the friars were left alone. It is always difficult to assess popular opinion, but on the whole the friars seem to have been accepted as a part of the religious life of the country.2 If the evidence of wills is a good guide to the feelings and tastes of the more prosperous sections of the community, then the friars were by no means out of favour, ALTHOUGH

1 2

Gee and Hardy, Documents of English Church History, p. 258. Baskerville, English Monks and the Suppression, pp. 227-9. 127

THE DISSOLUTION AND AFTER

for every friary was in receipt of legacies right up to the eve of the Dissolution. This was so at Cambridge, where many legacies were left to the Grey Friars during the early years of the sixteenth century, many of the testators being local tradesmen. Such gifts were normally made not to support the work of the friars as scholars or as preachers, but to gain their prayers, for men still believed that the prayers of the 'poor religious' would be of value to them in the next world.1 But if the religious who were spared in the attack on the monasteries in 1536 thought that they were going to be left in peace, it was not long before they discovered their mistake. If in the first act the King had really intended merely to reduce the number of religious houses rather than to abolish the monastic life, his mind soon changed; and by 1538 it was clear that a total dissolution was intended. In this the friars were to suffer like all other regulars. Early in 1538 Richard of Ingworth, an ex-Dominican (who, curiously enough, had the same name as one of the first Franciscans at Cambridge), visited a number of friaries up and down the country. There is no evidence of his having visited Cambridge— a task which he may have delegated to one of his assistants—but on March 10th he wrote from Lincoln to Thomas Cromwell saying that he had visited Boston and Huntingdon, and it is probable that the friaries at Cambridge were visited about this time. Ingworth has often been severely criticised, but he was not altogether unsympathetic towards the friars. In this letter to Cromwell he asks for consideration to be paid to the friars on the grounds that they were not very popular with the secular clergy and might find it hard to obtain livings when their livelihood was taken away from them. He writes, therefore, to Cromwell 'besecheyng yower lordschyp to be good lorde for the pore ffreyrs capacytes. The byschoyppys and curettes be very hard to them withowtt they have ther capacytes'.2 Some time in 1538 the visitors arrived at the gates of the Franciscan friary at Cambridge to inspect the place and make their 1 2

See Appendix F below. Wright, Suppression of the Monasteries, p. 193. 128


report to Cromwell. They would find, first of all, about twentyfive or thirty friars living there. The deed of surrender gives the names of twenty-four friars, but there is some evidence that these lists are not always complete. We know, for example, from the episcopal registers, of fourteen friars from Cambridge ordained between 1520 and 1538. Of these only one occurs among those who surrendered, four had moved to other houses—Bedford, Lynn, Beverley and Newcastle, leaving nine unaccounted for. Even if some of these had gone elsewhere (for not all the Dissolution lists have survived) it would still leave more than twenty-four at Cambridge.1 Of the twenty-four who signed the deed of surrender the Warden, William White, was probably about fifty years of age and had spent most of his life at Cambridge, for he was there when ordained deacon in 1510.2 The Vice-warden, John Fakum, aged about forty, a B.D. and a student of poetry, had been at Cambridge for about twenty years.3 Thomas Diss, ordained deacon in 1515 and priest in 1517, was also in middle life. He had started serious study at Cambridge about 1521 and had taken his B.D. in 1533. In 1534 he was Warden of the friary and appears to have found his duties so overwhelming as almost to cause a nervous breakdown. The morow after the Saturday in clensynge weeke [writes a contemporary diarist] the warden of the grey fryars, bachelar dysse, preched & after the prayers he was so abasshed & astouned that he cowde nether say hyt by harte nor rede hytt on hys paper & so he was fayne to cum downe ye pulpett with thys protestatyon, that he was neuer yn that takynge before but as now he was yntangled with worldly busynes concernynge ye howse & for that he gave not so great dylygens as became hym for to doo.4 Robert Whight had studied both at Oxford and Cambridge, mainly on the income of an exhibition provided by his benefactor, 1

At Stamford 17 were ordained in 1520-38. Of these 2 occur in the list of friars there at the Dissolution, 4 are known to have gone elsewhere, leaving 11 unaccounted for. On this point cf. also W. Gumbley, The Cambridge Dominicans, p. 39. Baskerville's estimate of 550 Franciscans in 1538 {English Monks and the Suppression, p. 227 n.) should probably be increased by about 20 per cent. a 3 4 Below, pp. 222-3. Below, pp. 175-6. Grace Book A, p. 229. K

129


Thomas Fyneham. He had taken his D.D. in 1522, so was now a man in middle life.1 William Cateryke was the only other graduate, having taken his B.D. in the actual year of the Dissolution.2 Two other middle-aged men were John Yonge and John Arnold, who had been ordained subdeacon in 1515 and 1520 respectively. Thomas Scott and John Vincent had come to Cambridge from Norwich, where they had both been recently ordained.3 Of the previous history of the other fifteen friars who signed the deed of surrender nothing is known. As far as the buildings were concerned, the church was in fairly good repair, partly through the help which the University had provided.4 It was now being used regularly once or twice a year for academic functions, and had been so used for the last thirty years. Dr Caius described the ceremony in the Franciscan church as follows: A temporary wooden stage was erected on which were various tiers so that strangers could observe by themselves. The doctors disputed among themselves while the rest of the University sat quietly in the midst as in an arena or lower portion. In these assemblies the bachelors wore triumphal garlands made of laurel in winter, as a sign that they had conquered and surmounted the hardships and difficulties of their profession: and that is why they are called 'bachelors' (bacchalaurei.') For the rest, some, in summer time, wore on their heads roses, others crowns made of variousflowers.This used to be the custom when we were young, and it was not thought proper (nor is it today) to uncover the head or to take off and lay aside either the garland or cap for salutations and making of reverences even of the most honourable men. Then he complains that nowadays (i.e. in 1574) laurel, roses and other flowers are despised and men insist on wearing on their heads the most ostentatious things—gold chains and coronets and the like.5 It was to the advantage of the University that the Franciscan church should be kept in good repair, but the remainder of the conventual buildings had undoubtedly fallen into decay. In the report of the commissioners 'the grey freres in Cambrige' is 1 2 3 5

Below, p. 222. See below, p. 162. 4 See below, pp. 148, 208-9, 22O> 2 2 5 See above, pp. 44-5. Caius, Historia Cantabrigiensis Academiae (1574), pp. 122-3. 130


mentioned among 'the howses of freres that have no substance of leade, save only som of them have smale gutters'.1 The library had been recently visited by the antiquarian, John Leland, but he found little worthy of note. He does not describe any such state of affairs as he found at Oxford, where the books were covered with cobwebs, moths and bookworms;2 but he mentions only five books as being of significance: In bibliotheca Franciscanorum. Epistolae Roberti Grostest numero 127. Ex quibus apparet ilium fuisse archidiaconum Leycestrensem. Novit sanctitas. Epistola fratris Gulielmi Notingham de obedientia. Epistola Lincolniensis, instar libelluli, ad Adamam Rufum, quod deus prima forma & forma omnium. Duo sermones Lincolniensis habiti coram Papa. Ambrosius Ausbertus.3 There must have been other books which Leland did not think worthy of note, but it is probable that the library had already been to some extent dispersed, and some of the books may well have found their way into other libraries either at home or overseas.4 Although we have no report from those who visited the friary before the Dissolution, the evidence which we have from other sources suggests that the house had lost a good deal of its former glory. Its great days were, in fact, done; and in the new spirit which was at work in the land the house of the friars must have appeared as a relic of the past, which, as such, could hardly hope to survive the pending destruction of all the religious houses. The exact date of the surrender of the house of Friars Minor at Cambridge is not known, though it probably took place in September 1538. Officially the friaries were not legally suppressed, for no Act of Parliament had as yet been passed to order their destruction; but in each case the friars were told that it was idle to suppose that they would be spared and were asked to surrender 1

P.R.O. Court of Augmentations, Misc. Henry VIII, E. 36/153, f. 9. Cf. Letters and Papers, Henry VIII, xiii, pt. 2, p. 191. But cf. the Certificate of the King's officers in November 1538, below, p. 259. 2 Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, p. 62. 3 Leland, Collectanea, iv, p. 16. 4 See above, pp. 57-8. 131


voluntarily into the King's hands. A common form of surrender was used in which the friars were obliged to acknowledge that many of their religious practices were based upon superstition and that their customs were meaningless. We doo profoundly consider [ran the document] that the perfeccion of Christian liuyng dothe not conciste in dome ceremonies, weryng of a grey cootte, disgeasing our selffe aftyr straunge fassions, dokynge, nodyngs and bekynge, in gurdyng our selffes wythe a gurdle full of knots, and other like Papisticall ceremonies, wherin we haue byn moost pryncipally practysed and misselyd in tymes past: but the very tru waye to please God, and to Hue a tru Christian man, wythe oute all ypocrasie and fayned dissimulacion, is sincerly declaryd vnto vs by oure Master Christe, his Euangelists and Apostles.1 There was something intentionally undignified in this, and some of the friars must have felt the insult to their habit; but what could they do? The spirit of the age was against them; they must accept their fate and turn their thoughts to the future. Men who had been twenty or thirty years in the cloister had now to find some means of livelihood: would 'the byschoyppys and curettes be very hard to them' now that they were cast out into the world? On the whole the answer seems to be a negative one. The friars, because their surrenders preceded by some months the surrenders of the older religious houses, were first in the field in the scramble for livings, and seem to have done reasonably well. Of those who were at Cambridge at the time of the surrender at least four obtained work as secular clergy in the district—Laurence Draper as Vicar of Hatley (Cambs), Luke Taylor first as stipendiary priest and later as Rector of Castle Camps, Thomas Scott as Vicar of Mildenhall, and Damascene Daly as stipendiary priest of S. Giles', Cambridge.2 Thomas Diss, the ex-Warden, held various livings in East Anglia until his death in 1559, while William Thurbane became Rector of Wrotham in Kent, William Caterick Rector of S. Alban's, Wood Street, in London, and John Brack Rector of Hawkeden in Suffolk.3 John Baker, who came to Cambridge from Canterbury and went afterwards to London, survived well into the reign of Queen 1 2

See the form in Kingsford, Grey Friars of London, pp. 217-18. 3 See below, pp. 168, 171, 208-9, 215. See below, pp. 154, 162, 170, 215.

132


Elizabeth and turns up finally as an old priest living in the parish of S. Bartholomew, where he died in 1572. In his will he asks to be buried 'in the Gray ffreres Cloyster in the parishe of Christ Churche over against the Scholehouse dore ther', which shows that after thirty-four years his heart was still with the friars, and, in spite of all that had happened, one would like to think that his will was carried out and that he slept with his brethren in the end.1 Thomas Wood, who had graduated B.D. only two years before the Dissolution, lived until 1579. He was loyal to the old faith and held the living of Harlington for a year in Queen Mary's reign, but was deprived by Elizabeth and died a prisoner in the Marshalsea.2 On the other hand, John Crayford, who left Cambridge for Newcastle shortly before the Dissolution, was presented by Henry VIII to a canonry at Durham which he held until 1561.3 Many of the friars were thus quite well provided for, though there must have been others who fell by the wayside and were hard put to it to make a living. None appears to have received any pension, not even William White, the Warden.4 The friars left their old home in or about the month of September 1538, and the dust soon began to settle in church and cloister and refectory. But no attempt was made at first to demolish the buildings, which continued to stand for some years. The large and open church which had been used so often for academic functions was now all shut up, but the University authorities soon began to realise that it might still be used again for their ceremonies. So, perhaps in the autumn of 1540 and certainly in the spring of 1541, the old church was cleaned out and once more the staging was erected and the disputations held.5 But this was the last time. 1

2 See below, p. 150. See below, p. 224. See below, p. 167. The future career of some other friars has already been mentioned; see above, pp. 124-6. 4 In fact, very few of the friars received pensions; cf. Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, p. 119. 6 The proctors' accounts, 1539-40, record: 'Pro purgationely formes in templo franciscanorum, iiijd. Pro vectura eorundem a predicto templo ad ecclesiam beate marie, viijd' (Grace Book B, ii, p. 231). In the Easter term of 1541 wefind:'Pro mundatione templi franciscanorum tribus vicibus, iis viijd. For carying and 3

133


Whether through the gradual decay of the building or because of some prohibition from outside, the friars' church was not used again and the University was obliged in future to hold its ceremonies in the schools. Yet so suitable had the Franciscan church proved for these functions that attempts were made by the University to acquire this building as a permanent hall for its own use. In 1540 the Vice-Chancellor, Mr Ainsworth of Peterhouse, was directed by the Senate to intercede with the King and Cromwell, who was then Chancellor of Cambridge, and a draft petition was drawn up asking for possession not only of the church but of the whole site including church, conventual buildings, out-houses, orchards, gardens, dovecotes and watercourses.1 But though application was made on various occasions it met with no success, and a note has been added to the petition in a later hand: 'This graunt dyverse tymes sued for but cold never be opteyned'. Shortly afterwards Roger Ascham approached the Bishop of Westminster, Thomas Thirlby, with a similar request, asking him to use his influence towards the acquisition of the site. 'Our great toil' he writes 'makes little progress. Their house [i.e. the house of the Friars Minor] is not only a grace and ornament to the University, but presents great convenience for holding congregation and transacting all kinds of university business.'2 But the King was still undecided as to what the future of the University was to be, and these appeals were of no avail. Almost as soon as the friars had gone, the place was inspected by the King's officers of the Court of Augmentations. They report that the house was held by the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Buckmaster, for the King's use, that there is a quantity of lead amounting to 180 'fodders' on the roofs, that there are three bells, but that all the moveable goods have already been taken away by the King's visitors, presumably on the day of the surrender. All debts Recarying of ii lodys of hordes from saynt mares to freers, xvid. For carying of a layd of bord from freers to scoles, iiijd> (ibid., p. 233). 1 Letters and Papers, Henry VIII, xiii, pt. 2, pp. 194, 294. The draft petition is printed in Willis and Clark, Architectural History of the Univ. of Cambridge, ii, p. 752. 2 R, Ascham Epist. Lib. 7/^(1703), p. 332. Willis and Clark, op.cit., pp. 724-5.


had already been paid, and the church and other buildings are as yet undefaced.1 A month or two later John Erlech made a further examination of the house and reported as follows: as to the site, the garden was now let for 40s. to William Buckmaster, Vice-Chancellor of the University; the brewhouse had been let to Henry Heyne for 26s. Sd.; the other buildings remained in the custody of the ViceChancellor for the use of the King.2 In 1545-6 the officers reported that a further room had been let for the sum of yd. a year.3 Meanwhile the King had been trying to make up his mind what to do with the site and buildings which had fallen into his hands in 1538. No doubt it would have been a princely gesture to present them to the University to be turned into schools and halls, but Henry was very doubtful whether he wished the Universities to continue at all. The Dissolution of the monasteries had passed off so quietly, and had brought such material gain to the royal exchequer, that Henry was contemplating a similar step with the Universities and colleges, which were also in possession of considerable wealth. But Katherine Parr knew how to handle her lord and dissuaded him from his purpose. The result was that the King decided not only to spare the Universities but to found, at Cambridge, a 'royal college of unprecedented size and magnificence'.4 But this would need large quantities of stone and timber, and the King turned naturally towards the deserted buildings of the Grey Friars as a convenient quarry. In May 1546 a survey was made of the site and buildings which shows that already considerable dismantling had taken place. The text is as follows: The University of Cambridge. A particular Survaye made the 20th of May, Anno Regni Regis Henrici Octavi 350 of the late dissolved House of the Grey Freers, within the University of Cambridge, as hereafter followeth, that is to saye: 1

P.R.O. Exch. Accts., K.R. Church Goods 12, No. 37. See below, p. 259. P.R.O. Ministers' Accounts, Henry VIII, 7286. See below, pp. 259-60. 3 Hid., 7292, m. 16. See below, p. 260. 4 G. M. Trevelyan, Trinity College, p. 10. 2


The site of the said Howse of Freers with the Precincts of the same.

The Church and Cloysters with all other the Houses thereupon bilded, bine defaced and taken towards the bilding nothing of the King's Majesties New College, < in Cambridge, and therefore valued The Soyle wherof, with the Orchard, Brewhouse, Malthouse, Millhouse and Garner, within the Wallis thereof bine [ 4. 176-7 Fontibus, Br. Ludovicus de, 102, 145, 177 Fordham, John, Bishop of Ely, 248 Foxano, Br. Antonius de, 101 Foxe, John, 124-5 Francis, S., 1-5, 11, 14, 16, 54, 62-3, 6 7, 75> 77, 83, '4O

268

INDEX Fransonus, Br., 177 Fraunceys, Anthony, 190 , Br. Robert, 143, 177 Frauncys, Br. William, 177 Frederick, King of Sicily, 162 Freywill, Br. William, 177 Frisby, Br. Roger, 115-18, 177-8 Frost, John, son of Richard, 218 Frysell, Br. William, 178 Fuller, Thomas, 53, m-12, 240 , Thomas (of Shelford), 252 Fyllyngham, Br. William, 178 Fyneham, Thomas, 66, 68, 130, 222, 251-2 Fyssher, Thomas, 248 Gaddlesmere, Sir Giles de, 65, 246 Gamlingay, 171 Garmyndelyn, Br. Thomas, 178 Gaunt, John of, 115, 150, 172 Gedeneye, R. de, 29 Genoa, province of, 100, 101, 162, 207 Germany, 82, 217; friars in, 4 Gernemuth, Br. William, 178-9 Ghent, Henry of, 165 Giffono, Br. Leonardo Rossi de, 101, 145, 178, 180 Giles, Br., 5 , Br. William, 180 Glastonbury, Abbot of, 166 Gloucester, Grey Friars at, 21; prior of S. Oswald's, I2on. Godewyk, John, 242 Goldsmith, William, 254 Goldyng, Br. James, 180 Gomez, Velasco, 219 Goodwyne, Richard, 257 Gorge, Br. Richard, 180 Gospeller, Laurence, 249 Gotte, Br. William, 180 Grantham, Grey Friars at, i n , 167, I75> 177, I9 8 Grathe, Br. Richard, 180 Greenwich, Grey Friars at, 200, 205 Gregory IX, 4 XI, 91, 162 Grenelane, John, 248 Grenesby, 34

Grenton, Br. Ralph de, 144, 180 Grethenham, Br. John de, 180 Grosseteste, Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, lectures at Oxford, 4, n , 12, 28; writings of, 57, 98-9, 131 Grymston, Br. Richard de, 144, 180 , Br. Thomas, 181 Gudfeld, Br. Walter, 181 Gudman, Br. Ralph, 181 Guldyn, Br. John, 181 Gyldart, Br. Thomas, 181 Gyne, William, 250 Hadisco, Br. Geoffrey de, 181 Hale, John, 248 Hales, Br. Alexander of, 27, 31, 178, 195 Halesworth, Br. Thomas, 181 Halstede, Br. John de, 181-2 Halton, Br. Richard de, 85, 100, 145, 182

Halvergate, 178 Halvesnahen, Br. Hubert de, 182 Hamburg, 126, 205 Hamond, John, 42, 47, 48, 51 Hampton, Br. Robert, 182 Hardeselle, Br. Thomas de, 71-4, 77, 182, 242-5 Hardwick, 155 Harington, Br. Thomas, 182 Harleston, Br. William de, 100, 145, 182 Harlington, 133, 224 Harryes, John, 247 Hartlepool, Grey Friars at, 80,172,188 Haslingfield, Stephen de, 35, 227-38 Hastings, Hugh de, 67, 161 Haswell, Warin de, 149 Hatley, 132, 171 Hautboys, Br. Humphrey de, 31, 144, 182-3 Hauxton, 159 Hawkeden, 132, 154 Hawkyn, William, 258 Heacham, Rector of, 56 Hebrew, study of, 98, 121, 156 Hedley, William, 51, 137-8 Heidonus, John, Carmelite, 190

269

INDEX Heinrici, Br. Nicholas, 82, 183 Hekeworth; see: Ickworth Helisaun, Br., 183, 244 Hemyngton, Br. Simon, 183, 198 Hengham, Br. John de (senior), 183 Br. John de (junior), 183 Henry III, 8-10, 15, 16, 29, 41, 43, 64, 6jn. 219 —— IV, 115-18, 178 VII, 151 VIII, 64, 124, 133, 134, 135, 151, 155, 200

Herbert, Br. William, 183-4 Hereford, cathedral of, 189; diocese of, 81, 87, 172, 20t; Grey Friars at, 124, 149, 169, 189, 210, lectors to 21 and n., 92, 169, 203; Warden of, 203 , Nicholas, 114-15 Herefordshire, 125, 152, 188 Herraer, John, 46, 65, 66, 249 Hervy, Br. Robert, 184 Hethe, Haymo of, Bishop of Rochester, 71 Heydon, 160 Heyne, Henry, 135, 260 Heynes, Thomas, 252 Heyroun, Br. Geoffrey, 33, 86, 144, 184 Hispania, Br. Thomas de, 6, 10, 143, 184 Hispanus, Br. Peter, 6 Holderness, 68 Holy Land, 186, 215 Horewode, William, 42 Hoveden, Br. Adam de, 33, 36-8, 8;, 95, 144, 184, 23° Howlyn, Thomas, 252 Huffington, Br., 184 Hugh, Br., 184-5, 219 Humphrey, Dr, i23n. Hunstanton, Br. Thomas de, 185 Huntingdon, 128; prior and convent of, 53n. Huntingdonshire, 260 Hurde, Br. Richard, 185 Hussebourne, Br. Simon de, 81, 86, 144, 185 Hychinton, Br. Henry de, 81, 145, 185

Hyndringham, Br. Thomas de, 144 185 Ickleton, 88 Ickworth, Br. Richard, 56, 60, 186 Imola, Bishop of, 83n. Ingoldsthorpe, Sir John, 65, 247 Ingworth, Br. Richard de, 5, 6n., 12, 143, 186 , Richard of, Bishop of Dover, 128 Innocent III, Pope, 1 IV, Pope, 84n. Insula, Richard de; see: Lisle Iolanda, Queen, 102 Ipswich, Prior and Convent of S. Peter at, 89n.; Grey Friars at, 13, 60, 76, 89, 186, 246; library of, 59, 212; Carmelites at, 55n. Br. John de (senior), 36n., 37, 186 , Br. John de (junior), 186 , Br. Robert de, 187 Ireland, Province of, 12, 175, 186 Irith, Br. Thomas, 187 Isgrym, Br. John, 187 Isleham, 177 Italy, 217

270

Jakeley, Br. Robert, 187 James II, King of Aragon, 148 John XXII, Pope, 94, 96 and n., 165 , Br., 143, 187 , a Spanish friar, 201 Josphef, lord John, 73, 243 Katerbagg, Roger Madekok, 243 Kell, Br. Ambrose, 187 Kellaw, Br. John, 80, 85, 100, 145, 187-8 , Br. Richard, 80, 85, 143,145,188 Kempe, Br. Roger, 188 Kent, Earl of, 139 Kersey, Thomas, 250 Keryche, William, 248 Kilkenny, William of, Bishop of Ely, 29-30 Knolle, Br. Walter de, 33, 81, 144, 188-9

INDEX Knollys, Br. Robert, 189 Kylburn, Br. Peter, 189 Kymberley, Br. J. de, 33, 144, 189 Kyng, William, 258 Kyningham, Thomas de, 37 Lackett, William, 255 Laing, William, 51, 137-8 Lainson, Br. Matthew, 189 Lake, Br. John, 76 Lakyngsham, Br. Robert, 189 Lambe, Br. John, 189 -, Richard, 257 Lamme, Br. John, 189, 242 Lammes, Br. Nicholas, 189-90 Lancaster, Duke of, 177 , Edmund Earl of, 52 Lane, Edward, 257

, J o n n . 2 5°

, Thomas, 252 Langham, Br., 190 , Br. Reginald, 190 Latimer, Hugh, I23n. Laund, Br. John, 190 Lavene, Br. John, 190 Lavenham, rector of, 56 Lavoro, Terra di, 101, 178 Legacies, friars and, 64-8,127-8, 246-58 Legar, Br. Walter, 191 Legat, Br. Robert, 191 Leicester, archdeaconry of, 86, 205; Grey Friars at, 116, 205, 213; Warden of, 116, 178, 180; lectors to, 21 and n. Codex, 58, 123, 242-; Leigh, William, 260 Leland, John, 57-8, 99, 131, 166 Lent, Br. John, 143, 191 Lenton, prior of, I2on. , William, 253 Lereringfot, Br. J.de,32,34,8o, 144,191 Letheringsett; see Lereringfot Leverington, Br. Martin, 71, 191, 242 Lewes, Grey Friars at, 15; church of, 46n.; lector to, 2in. , Prior of, I2on. Lichfield, Grey Friars at, 199; church of 44; cloister of, 48

Lilleford, Br. W. de, 86, 145, 191 Limitors, 68-70 Limpenho, Br. J. de, 33, 80, 144, 192 Lincoln, diocese of, 72, 86, 171, 184, 193, 205, 213, 216, 226; Bishop of, 84, 159, 162 , Grey Friars at, 6, 167 , Br. Adam of, 35n. Lisbon, friars at, 202 Lisle, Br. Richard, 37, 192 , Thomas de, Bishop of Ely, 46 Llandaff, Bishop of, 109 Loggan, David, 48 Lollards, 114-15 Lombard, Peter, 24 London, Bishop of, 88n.; diocese of, 200,204; rectors of, 86-7; churches of: Christ Church, 133, 150; S. Alban's, Wood St., 132, 162; S. Bartholomew's, 133, 150, S. Bride's, Fleet St., 161; S. Ethelburga's, 164; S. George, Botolph Lane, 214; S. Paul's Cross, 161; The Marshalsea, 133, 224; the Tower, 178 , Grey Friars at, 5, 22, 23, 40, 79, 132, 150, 153-4, 157, 161-2, 164, 168-9, 170, 173, 175-7, 181, 186, 191, 196, 199, 201, 207, 215, 221, 223; poverty of, 9; church of, 44; cloister of, 48; aqueduct of, 52; library of, 99, 152, 166; Warden of, 72, 48n., 124, 147, 152, 163, 181, 185, 193, 211; lector of, i2n., 21 and n., 91, 92, 159, 166, 200, 216 Lorkyn, Joan, 253 Lucas, Br, Nicholas, 192 Lucy, Countess of Oxford, 13 , Prioress of Hedingham, 13 Ludgershall, 216 Ludovicus, Br., 192 Lusitanus, Br. Antonius, 192 Luther, Martin, writings of, 123 and n., 124 Lydgate, John, 114 Lyndesey, Br. Richard, 192 Lyne, Richard, 42, 43, 48

271

INDEX Lyng, :6i Lynn, King's, citizens of, 73, 243; Grey Friars at, 13, 89, 129, 149, 172, 216, 248; church of, 47n.; Warden of, 154-5, 215 , Br. Eustace de, 193 -, Br. Reginald de, 193 -, Br. William de, 193 Lyons, General Chapter of, 106 Lyra, Nicholas de, 98, 197 Lywins, John, 71, 242 Maastricht, 217 Mablethorpe, Br. John, 67, 72, 80, 193, 2 43 Mackerell, Agnes, 46n. Maddele, Br. William de, 222 Madingley, 53 Manchester, John Rylands Library at, 99n., 166 Marcellus II, Pope, 57 March, Br. John de, 193 Marchal, Br. Edmund, 99, 144, 193 Mardisley, Br. John, 92 Markwell, Br., 194 Marseilles, friars at, 22 Marsh, Br. Adam, I3n., 29 and n., 147, M9. '97, 2°3. 2 2 2 , 22 5 Marshe, William, 254 Marston, 194 , Br. Roger de, 31-2, 91, 144, 194 Martin IV, Pope, 84n. , Nicholas, 243 Mary, Queen, 125, 133, 152, 200-1, 217 Mason, Roger, 65, 247 Massingham, Br. Geoffrey de, 72, 194, 243 , Br. Gilbert de, 194 , Br. William de (senior), 194 , Br. William de (junior), 194 Mathew, Br. William, 194-5 Maud, a nurse, 115, 150 Maunay, Sir William, 67-8, 87, 219 Mayler, Agnes, 255 , John, 256 Maynelin; see: Tinmouth, Br. John Mendham, Br. John, 58, 195 Mene, Br. William, 195

Menville, William, 67 Merker, Br. Peter, 76 Mersey, Br. John, 195 Merye, Br. James, 195 Meter, Br. Apollus, 195 Metz, friars at, 22 Milan, Franciscan school at, 101 Mildenhall, 132, 209 Milton, Br. W. de, 31, 144, 195 Minoresses; see: Clare, S., Order of Misericorde, Br. Henry, 6 Mitford, 167 Monk, Richard, 163 Montacute, Simon, Bishop of Ely, 85 Monte, Br. Sefrid de, 195 Montfort Codex, 126, 205 Montpellier, 100, 148 More, Br. J. de la, 196 Morgan, William, 177 Morle, John, 243 Morris, Br. William, 58, 196 Moulton, Great, 155 Mowte, Br. John, 196 Mungyer, Ralph, 163 Mylbourne, Br. Gilbert, 196 Myston, Br. John, 197 Nagy-Varad, friars at, 22 Nailleston, Br. Stephen de, 197 Narbonne, 96; friars at, 22; General Chapter at, 19 and n., 46, 54, 60, 70, 106 Narni, Bishop of, 100, 199 Necotone, Br. Geoffrey de, 56 Necton, 170 Netherlands, 82 Neville, Dr., Master of Trinity, 139 , Hugh de, 180 Newcastle-on-Tyne, Grey Friars at, 22, 129, 133,165,172; Custos of, 188, 192; Warden of, 167; lector to, 22n. Newnham, 17 Nicholas IV, Pope, 219 Normanville, Br. Eustace de, 30 and n., 3J> J 43. J 97 Northampton, Grey Friars at, 6, 21, 116, 158, 159, 186

272

INDEX North Creek, 219 Norton, Br. William, 67, 197 Norwich, 215; cathedral of, 219; Prior of, I2on.; S. Andrew's church at, 161; S. James' church at, 161; Dominican Friars at, 99m —. Grey Friars at, 6, 13, 21, 22, 88, 90, 130, 155, 157, 161, 191, 203, 208-9, 2I0 > 2 2 ° , 223> 24> 248; Warden of,8 9, 153, 160, 164, 196, 197; school of, 80, 89, 187; lectors at, 22n., 30 and n., 220 , John of, 88 , Br. Thomas de, 197 Nottingham, Grey Friars at, 116 , Br. John (senior), 197 ——, Br. John (junior), 198 , Br. William (senior), i3n., 16,

221-4, 24 l 8 9 Switzerland, 217 Swynborne, Br. William, 143, 214 Symond, Nicholas, 46, 66, 258

218

Tailour, Thomas, 255 Talbot, Br., 120, 215 Taylor, Br. John; see: Cardmaker , Br. Luke, 132, 215 , William, 169, 205 Templars, 185 Temple, Br. Richard de, 33, 144, 215 Thirlby, Thomas, Bishop of Westminster, 134 Thirlowe, Nicholas, 252 Thixtill, Joan, 215 Thorney, Sir John, 25 5 Thornham, Br. Robert de, 13, 143, 215 Thorpe, 161 Thresher, Agnes, 255 , Robert, 257 Throckmorton, Elizabeth, 6jn. , Sir Robert, 65 and n., 66, 250 Throgmorton, Br. Nicholas de, 65 n. Thurbane, Br. William, 132, 215 Thyxtill, Br., 215 Tinmouth, Br. John, 216 Tivetshall, rector of, 56 Todi, friars at, 22 Tolomeis, James de, 100, 199 Toly, Br. William, 92, 216 Tomson, Br. Thomas, 216 Torrington, Br. John, 216 Toryton, Br. Philip, 182, 217 Totyngam, Br. Thomas de, 224 Toulouse, 233 Tracy, Richard, 125 Traheron Br. Bartholomew, 125-6, 217

Tulkyngton, Br. Thomas de, 218-9 Turin, 162 Turtyll, John, 252 Tyburn, 117 Tyndale, William, 126, 205 Tythemarsh, Br. William, 68, 87, 100, 145, 219 Ufford, Br. Thomas, 219 Ugolino; see: Gregory IX Underwood, Br. John, 219 , William, 219 Universities; see: Bologna, Cambridge, Oxford, Paris Urban V, Pope, 109-10 Utrecht, 217 Vatican Library, 57-8, 195, 196 Veesey, Henry, 65, 249 Velascus, Br., 219 Venice, 200; Chapter General of, 94 Vergraunt, Br., 143, 220 Via, Br. Otto de, 220 Vincent, Br. John, 130, 220 Viterbo, Mark of, 101 Volterra, Gabriel de, 101 Wagas, Br. Radulphus, 82, 220 Wake, Blanche de, 87, 177 , Thomas de, 212 Walden, Abbot of, I2on. Wales, Thomas of, 28 Walpole, Ralph de, 34 , rector of, 171

276

INDEX Walsham, Br. Geoffrey, 220 ——, Br. John de, 86n., 89, 100 145, 220

, Br. Roger, 71, 221, 242, 244 Walsingham, Prior of, I2on.; Austin Canons of, 8

The Grey Friars in Cambridge: 1225–1538 (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Early Victorian Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Cambridge Retrospect (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Later Victorian Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

The Cambridge Portfolio, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

The Cambridge Portfolio, Volume 2 (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Early Collegiate Life (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge) (Volume 2)

By-Ways of Cambridge History (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge) (Volume 1)

Cambridge Compositions: Greek and Latin (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

A Catalogue of the Egyptian Collection in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Dynamics (Cambridge Library Collection - Mathematics)

Pella (Cambridge Library Collection - Archaeology)

Epicurea (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Schumann (Cambridge Library Collection - Music)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 9)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 2)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 4)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 7)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 3)

The Story of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 6)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 8)

Endowments of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 5)

Life in Nature (Cambridge Library Collection - Religion)

Athenae Cantabrigienses, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection) (Volume 3)

Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection) (Volume 4)

The Central Arawaks (Cambridge Library Collection - Linguistics)

The Grey Friars in Cambridge: 1225&ndash;1538 (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Early Victorian Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Cambridge Retrospect (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Later Victorian Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

The Cambridge Portfolio, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

The Cambridge Portfolio, Volume 2 (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Early Collegiate Life (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge) (Volume 2)

By-Ways of Cambridge History (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge) (Volume 1)

Cambridge Compositions: Greek and Latin (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

A Catalogue of the Egyptian Collection in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Dynamics (Cambridge Library Collection - Mathematics)

Pella (Cambridge Library Collection - Archaeology)

Epicurea (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Schumann (Cambridge Library Collection - Music)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 9)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 2)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 4)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 7)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 3)

The Story of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 6)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 8)

Endowments of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection)

The Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies) (Volume 5)

Life in Nature (Cambridge Library Collection - Religion)

Athenae Cantabrigienses, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection) (Volume 3)

Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection) (Volume 4)

The Central Arawaks (Cambridge Library Collection - Linguistics)

Recommend Documents

The Grey Friars in Cambridge: 1225–1538 (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)