Bishop and Chapter in Twelfth-Century England: A Study of the 'Mensa Episcopalis' (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series)

This book is the first detailed examination on a comparative basis of the economic and political relations between the bishops and their cathedral clergy in England during the century and a half after the Conquest. In particular, it is a study of the structure and historical development of the mensal endowments and the redistribution of wealth which led, in the course of time, to the establishment of the chapter as a largely independent body with substantial political power. A description of the constitutional importance of the tnensa and its treatment in recent scholarly writing in the first chapter is followed by a discussion of property rights and liberties in the church and the role of the bishop in ecclesiastical and civil government. The core of the book consists of an analysis based on contemporary sources of the episcopal and capitular organization in each of the ten monastic and seven secular sees. Significant aspects of the history, such as sede vacante administration, feudal military service, methods of election, and the application of canon law are considered to illustrate the various stages of this transformation which occurred during a key period of legal innovation and definition in Europe.

Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought

BISHOP AND CHAPTER IN TWELFTHCENTURY ENGLAND

Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought Fourth series General Editor: D. E. LUSCOMBE Professor of Medieval History, University of Sheffield Advisory

Editors:

R. B. DOBSON Professor of Medieval History, University of Cambridge, and Fellow of Christ's College ROSAMOND MCKITTERICK Reader in Early European History, University of Cambridge, and Fellow of Newnham College

The series Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought was inaugurated by G. G. Coulton in 1921. Professor D. E. Luscombe now acts as General Editor of the Fourth Series, with Professor R. B. Dobson and Dr Rosamond McKitterick as Advisory Editors. The series brings together outstanding work by medieval scholars over a wide range of human endeavor extending from political economy to the history of ideas. For a list of titles in the series, see end of book.

BISHOP AND CHAPTER IN TWELFTH-CENTURY ENGLAND A Study of the Mensa Episcopalis EVERETT U. CROSBY Professor of History, University of Virginia

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon 13,28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org © Cambridge University Press 1994 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1994 First paperback edition 2002 A catalogue recordfor this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Crosby, Everett U , 1932Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England: a study of the mensa episcopalis / Everett U. Crosby. p. cm. - (Cambridge studies in medieval life and thought; 4th ser., 23) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0 52144507 8 1. Catholic Church - England - Bishops - History. 2. Canons, Cathedral, collegiate, etc. - England - History. 3. Church property - England - History. 4. Land tenure England - History. 5. England - Church history -1066-1485. 6. England - Social conditions - 1066-1485. 7. England - Economic conditions -1066-1485. I. Title. II. Title: Bishop and chapter in 12th-century England. III. Series. BR750.C76 1993 262'.0242'09021-dc20 93-9580 CIP ISBN 0 521 44507 8 hardback ISBN 0 521 52184 X paperback

To Candace

CONTENTS

Preface List of abbreviations

xi xiii

Introduction

I

1

The place of the mensa

10

2

The episcopal church in the kingdom

30

3

The Cathedral Priories Bath and Wells Canterbury Carlisle Coventry Durham Ely Norwich Rochester Winchester Worcester

48 48 66 105 113 132 151 174 195 216 234

4

The Secular Cathedrals Chichester Exeter Hereford Lincoln London Salisbury York

257 257 269 278 290 313 332 345

5

The chapter as community

362

Bibliography Index

396 432 IX

PREFACE

By the sub-title I wish to indicate that this book is a study of the institutional development, rather than an account of the doctrinal or liturgical life, in the medieval English cathedral churches. The questions connected with understanding the economic and political foundation of religious communities have always seemed to me to be particularly interesting, and no less important than those dealing with the spiritual vocation, or the intellectual achievement, or the building style. In twelfth-century Latin Europe the bishop and his chapter comprised the most significant constitutional body in the Roman church. But if no bishop could govern without his canons, it was also true that no king could rule without his bishops. In England, especially, where so much of the accomplishment at the national level was bound up with the history of the episcopate, a comparative study of this kind touches on broader issues of wider interest than simply those of local diocesan concerns. It will be apparent in the pages which follow that a satisfactory explanation of the bishop's role in capitular affairs is in many cases a commentary on the larger world of royal and papal politics. As so often happens in the course of research, various questions, related in some way to the work in hand, have come up, but because of limits on time and space they have not been dealt with in an adequate way. Topics such as the family relations and the social background of the clergy, or the geographical distribution of their landed estates, or the operation of sede vacante administration, or the relationship of the chapter to urban government, or the importance of capitular structure to the development of representative assemblies, or capitular self-sufficiency as expressed in architectural design, are all worth more study and analysis than I have been able to give them. I would be glad to see them as chapters in a future monograph. Throughout the writing of this book I have been grateful for xi

Preface the good advice and wise counsel from many friends and colleagues in this country and abroad. In particular, I would like to record my debt to Martin J. Havran, Marvin L. Colker, and David E. Luscombe; to Antonia Gransden, Susan Reynolds, Judith A. Green, Howard M. Colvin, Pamela Tudor-Craig, H. E. J. Cowdrey, Michael T. Clanchy, Linda M. Grant, and Robert S. Hoyt; to the librarians of the British Library, the Bodleian Library, the Library of the Society of Antiquaries, and Alderman Library; and to the secretaries of the Department of History in the University of Virginia, Lottie McCauley, Kathleen Miller, Ella Wood and Elizabeth Stovall. But the greatest debt, and the happiest to acknowledge, is to my wife, Candace Carter Crosby, to whom this book is dedicated.

xn

ABBREVIATIONS

ASC Anglo-Saxon Chronicle AS Charters Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. P. H. Sawyer AS Writs Anglo-Saxon Writs, ed. F. E. Harmer BEC Bibliotheque de VEcole des Chartes BIHR The Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research BJRL The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library CIC Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. E. Friedberg CMH Cambridge Medieval History COD Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, ed. J. Alberigo, J. Dossetti, P. Joannou, C. Leonardi, and P. Prodi CPL Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers, ed. W. H. Bliss and J. A. Tremlow CSB Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. W. de Gray Birch DB Domesday Book, ed. A. Farley and H. Ellis DB-Phil Domesday Book, Phillimore edition DM The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury, ed. D . C. Douglas EEA English Episcopal Ada EETS Early English Text Society EHD English Historical Documents, ed. D. C. Douglas EHR The English Historical Review EYC Early Yorkshire Charters, ed. W. Farrer and C. T. Clay GFL The Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot, ed. A. Morey and C. N . L. Brooke GP Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis pontificum Anglorum, ed. N . E. S. A. Hamilton GR Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis regum Anglorum, ed. W . Stubbs HBC Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd edn. HMCR Reports of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (London 1870—)

xiii

List of abbreviations HE HN HRH JEH JSL LE LRS-DB LRS-LS LRS-RA MO MPL MRH OV PR PRS PUE RBE Regesta RHS RS SC SMRH TRE TRHS VCH

Bede, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. B. Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors Eadmeri historia novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule The Heads of Religious Houses. England and Wales, ed. D. Knowles The Journal of Ecclesiastical History The Letters of John of Salisbury, ed. W. E. Millor, H. E. Butler, and C. N . L. Brooke Liber Eliensis Lincoln Record Society. Lincolnshire Domesday Lincoln Record Society. Lindsey Survey Lincoln Record Society. Registrum Antiquissimum D. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series latina, ed. J. P. Migne Medieval Religious Houses. England and Wales, ed. D. Knowles and R. N . Hadcock Orderic Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. M. Chibnall Pipe Roll Pipe Roll Society Papsturkunden in England, ed. W. Holtzmann The Red Book of the Exchequer Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum The Royal Historical Society Rolls Series (Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores) Select Charters, ed. W . Stubbs Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History Tempore regis Eadwardi Transactions of the Royal Historical Society The Victoria History of the Counties of England

xiv

INTRODUCTION

This book has as its purpose the study of the political and economic relations between the bishop and the chapter in the cathedral churches of twelfth-century England. In particular it is an essay on the historical development of the mensa episcopalis and the mensa capitularis which resulted in the gradual separation of the two endowments and the emergence of the chapter as a largely independent community of clergy. The word mensa, although difficult to define precisely in a single sentence, is used here to refer to the entirety of property and goods which, as capital and income, served to support the members of an ecclesiastical body. The chronological limits of the title should be taken as approximate and suggestive, rather than as absolute and determinate. Precisely dated years of change, and especially the tyranny of the century, rarely work out as well as they appear to do, or as those who use them intend that they should. Although its origins are to be found in the Anglo-Saxon period, the most important changes which affected the cathedral mensa occurred in the first hundred years after the Conquest. By the 1150s, in most of the sees, a permanent division of property had been made. Thus, in this case at least, there is justification for the suggestion of J. A. Sharpe, that" significant historical watersheds" tend to come in mid-century. 1 Nevertheless, the momentum of change reached by that point was such that many of the problems which arose, and needed to be solved, were in fact thrust forward into the next century, so that a satisfactory conclusion to the dispute over the mensa in many of the churches was not reached until well into the reign of Henry III, or even later. The history of the mensa is of interest because of the light it throws on the internal structure and development of the episcopal church in this period of growing literacy and legal competence when the status, the obligations, and the rights of individuals and 1

J. A. Sharpe, Early Modern England. A Social History (London 1986), preface, p. x. I

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England institutions were being subjected to increasingly precise definition. Greater attention in this regard often led to controversy and, on occasion, to violent quarrels. When the dispute grew heated and compromise seemed, for the moment, lost, nowhere were the battle lines more firmly drawn than in the cathedral churches. The story is one of church doctrine and canon law, of jurisdictional tradition and innovation, of royal and papal interests and intervention, but, above all, of strong-minded personalities. It reveals the tendency in the twelfth century of different groups of men to form communities to protect and to advance their own interests, and it marks the separation of the bishop from the chapter in a more decisive way than ever before. In extreme cases the prelate was turned into a mere visitor, a distant official who was a stranger even to his own cathedral church. The story also illustrates the importance of the practical side of the daily life of the clergy to whom the questions of knight service, agricultural productivity, estate management, record-keeping and legal rights were of no less importance than the familiar sentiments of piety and devotion. The circumstances of the twelfth century development are full of interest and suggestion, not only in that they constitute an important political and economic record of the relationship between bishop and chapter and the growth of communal conflict in an age of increasing self-consciousness and self-concern, but also in that they form a human chronicle in which some of the leading ecclesiastical figures of the day played a part. The clergy, by the very nature of the life to which they have committed themselves, cannot fail to be dull. The dutiful sensibility, the self-effacement before a higher being, the rejection of the material world, the naive self-confidence, and the studied promises of the faith bind them to a small circle of predictable thought and action. It is only when they leave the hermitage, as it were, for the greater world outside, when they are drawn into the governmental, social and economic issues of the day, or when they are brought into conflict with secular claims, that they reveal the more interesting side of their characters. In the long controversy over the mensa there is ample opportunity to see a number of gifted and intelligent churchmen at work. As the chapter took on more of the attributes of a closed community, as it sought to define its functions and capacities, as it struggled not only to protect itself from a loss in revenues, but often aggressively to acquire new wealth, the consolidation of its

Introduction

patrimony on a legal basis was one of the more important tasks its members faced. The division of the mensa both resulted from and contributed to the growing independence of the cathedral clergy. The greater number of monks and canons who made up the cathedral chapters meant that increased revenues were necessary to support them, and a long rise in prices undoubtedly convinced them that the most beneficial administration was one in which they had a permanent stake. As for the bishop, a certain level of wealth was needed to maintain him, his household and expanding diocesan business. His chief sources of income were the lands of the church, and his own estates and churches. To these were added payments from judicial profits, feudal incidents, rights of hospitality, dues from parochial vacancies and the customary fees such as those for synods, chrism oil, and burials, the consecration of churches and the transfer of relics. At the same time his expenses, including outlays for repair of the fabric, new building costs, payments to the king and annuities to his friends and relatives, could be quite heavy. Thus it was that a recognized division of wealth grew from a convenience to a necessity, and sooner or later in every chapter, whether monastic or secular, an agreement of some kind was reached and a permanent separate endowment was made. It is with this aspect of the internal relations of the episcopal church that this study is concerned. It should not, of course, be thought that dramatic conflict was the rule in the cathedral churches. As in the relations between the king and his barons, the periods of harmony and cooperation between bishop and chapter were probably greater over the long run than the fractious episodes which attracted most of the attention. On the other hand, it is evident that there was no single outlook shared by all the members of the community. While the monks or canons who served the church could, at times, act in unity toward the bishop, or the king, the idea that the cathedral clergy formed a cohesive and monolithic group is a myth that veils an often deeply rutted road of internal strife and faction. Modern interest in the history of the mensa was opened up by Arnold Poschl in a two-volume work on the Carolingian period published in 1908-1909, and by Emile Lesne whose doctoral thesis dealing with church property down to the Merovingians, and a supplementary thesis on the mensa, appeared in 1910.2 Since then 2

Arnold Poschl, Bischofsgut und Mensa episcopate. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des kirchlichen Vermogensrechtes (Bonn 1908—1909), vol. 1: Die Grundlagen zugleich eine Untersuchung

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England the subject has attracted the attention of a number of scholars working on the history of the medieval church in general, or on the history of individual bishoprics and prelates in particular. On the continent a detailed examination of papal texts has been made by Dietrich Lohrmann for the evidence which they provide for the allocation of church property in the northern French provinces of Rouen, Sens, and Reims.3 The division of the mensa has been discussed by Joseph Avril in a monograph on the twelfth-century diocese of Angers and by Tomas Villacorta Rodriguez in an account of the chapter at Leon ;4 the history in the German lands has been considered by Rudolf Schieffer;5 the way in which the bishop of Florence, Pietro Mezzabarba, rented out the property of the chapter to his friends and clients, and consequently reduced the control of the chapter over its own mensa, was recently analyzed by George Dameron; 6 and the loss of independent jurisdiction by the chapter which then had to be regained from the bishop in the course of the twelfth century can be illustrated from the massive collection of documents dealing with the legal history of the see of Lausanne.7 In England, the great number of studies devoted to the medieval church which have appeared over the past half-century has

3

4

5

6

7

zum Lehensproblem; vol. n : Die Guterteilungen zwischen Prdlaten und Kapiteln in Karolingischer Zeit\ Emile Lesne, Histoire de la propriete ecclesiastique en France, 6 vols. (Paris 1910-1943), vol. 1: Epoques romaine et merovingienne (1910); VOrigine des menses dans le temporel des eglises et des monasteres de France au ixe siecle (Paris 1910). Dietrich Lohrmann, Kirchengut im nordlichen Frankreich. Besitz, Verfassung und Wirtschaft im Spiegel der Papstprivilegien des 11—12. Jahrhunderts, Pariser historische Studien, Bd. 20. (Bonn 1983). The inventories of property in the papal privileges have to be used with care. They were often made up for a purpose and do not necessarily include all the possessions which belonged to the church in question. "The initiative in petitioning the papal curia," C. R. Cheney remarked, " rested with the local chapter which supplied the inventory of possessions," Pope Innocent and England, Papst und Papsttum 9 (Stuttgart 1976), p. 181. Often it was the case that some estates were not mentioned, or, if they were listed, the right to them may still have been in dispute, difficulties of which Lohrmann is well aware in his interpretation. Joseph Avril, Le Gouvernement des eveques et la vie religieuse dans le diocese a"Angers: 1148—1240 (Lille 1984). See also G. Robin, " Le Probleme de la vie commune au chapitre de la cathedrale de Saint-Maurice d'Angers du IX e au XII e siecle," Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale 13, 4 (1970), 305-322; Tomas Villacorta Rodriguez, El Cabildo catedral de Leon. Estudio historico-juridico, siglo xii-xix (Leon 1974), pp. 351—358. Rudolf Schieffer, Die Entstehung von Domkapiteln in Deutschland, Bonner historische Studien, Bd. 43 (Bonn 1976). George W . Dameron, Episcopal Power and Florentine Society: 1000—1320 (Cambridge, Mass. 1991), p. 52. Sammlung schweizerischer Rechtsquellen, XIX. Les Sources du droit du Canton de Vaud, Xe—XVI e siecle. B. Droits seigneuriaux et franchises municipales. 1. Lausanne et les terres episcopates, ed. Danielle Anex-Cabanis and Jean-Francois Poudret (Aarau 1977).

Introduction

provided a much clearer picture than ever before of the role of the bishop as ecclesiastical officer in his relations with the chapter, and as tenant-in-chief in his relations with the king. One thinks immediately of the work of David Knowles, Sir Richard Southern, Frank Barlow, C. R. Cheney, Christopher Brooke, M. Brett, and Raymonde Foreville, of the new series of episcopal acta, and of the studies of individual sees by G. Scammell, Mary Cheney, R. A. L. Smith, Donald Nichol, Avrom Saltman, Edward Kealey, F. Du Boulay, and others. With new approaches and revisionist criticism there have inevitably been divergent views, not least in regard to the formation of the cathedral endowments. As a case in point, it has been held for many years that the division of the mensa in English cathedral churches occurred soon after the Conquest and that it was due to an effort to preserve the chapter lands from appropriation by William II during a vacancy in the see. In his valuable work on the history of Ely, published in the early nineteenth century, James Bentham described the division as a custom introduced by the Normans, and he was followed by a number of other scholars including J. A. Robinson and E. W. Watson in the early twentieth century. 8 More recently, David Knowles, in discussing the monastic history of the period, argued that " until the end of the eleventh century it is clear that no essential separation of abbot from community had taken place. The vital change was made in the reign of Henry I. The primary cause was the feudalization of the abbot's position and, above all, the claim of the king, asserted brutally and unjustly by Rufus, to hold and enjoy the revenues of a vacant abbey. " 9 A similar position was taken by Gabrielle Lambrick in her study of Abingdon abbey: "the strict division of revenues between abbot and convent was fundamentally the result of the feudalisation of the abbot's position in the late eleventh century and, at first, the chief problem was to establish the principle firmly as against the crown. " 10 The thesis thus provides both the time and the motive for the separation of property, and it has been widely assumed to be valid. In a study of Herbert Losinga, bishop of 8

10

James Bentham, The History and Antiquities of the Conventual and Cathedral Church of Ely (Norwich 1812-1817), vol. 1, p. 133 ;J. A. Robinson, Somerset Historical Essays (London 1921), p. 54; E. W. Watson, "The development of ecclesiastical organisation and its financial basis," in CMH, vol. vi, ch. xvi, p. 549. See also W. Stubbs, The Constitutional History ofEngland, vol. 1 (Oxford 1874), p. 312, andE. A. Freeman, The Reign of William 9 MO, p. 405. Rufus and the Accession of Henry I (Oxford 1882), vol. 1, p. 348. G. Lambrick, "Abingdon abbey adminstration,"JEH 17 (1966), 173.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Norwich during the reigns of William II and Henry I, James Alexander dismissed the idea in the Norwich cartulary that the division was made to avoid future quarrels between the bishop and his monks, although the suggestion has much to recommend it, and maintained, rather, that " the real reason was probably to keep as much property as possible out of the royal hands during vacancies in the bishopric. " n Yet Knowles himself recognized that the issue was more complicated than it appeared, and that the development in the monasteries and in the cathedral churches may have moved at a different pace: "as the bishop after the Conquest held by military service and had a household and many official expenses to provide for, the separation of episcopal lands and revenues from those of the monks was accomplished earlier than the equivalent division in the autonomous abbeys. Already before the Conquest, as is made clear by Domesday, some division, or at least a permanent allocation had been made. " 12 Still, all is not as clear as one might wish and a number of questions remain to be answered. What was an "essential separation," and what was a "vital change"? How did "some division" differ from a " permanent allocation " ? What was the time lag between division in the independent monasteries and the bishop's abbeys, and how much weight should be given to the theory based on the exercise of regalian right? Some answers have been suggested by a number of scholars, but with far from universal agreement. Eric John, in a controversial article published in 1955, moved the date of separation in both the monasteries and cathedral abbeys back into the Old English period and denied the importance, as far as the monks were concerned, of intervention by the king. 13 In a later study, Margaret Howell also played down the motive of regalian right and, while willing to admit a tendency toward a late eleventh-century mensal division, she showed that the process was carried along well into the twelfth.14 Edmund King went even 11

J. W. Alexander, " Herbert Losinga, bishop of Norwich, 1091-1119," SMRH6 (1969), 134. See also M. M. Sheehan, The Will in Medieval England from the Conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to the End of the Thirteenth Century, Studies and Texts, 6 (Toronto 1963),

12 13

14

p. 251, and A. Gransden, " A democratic movement in the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries," JEH 26 (1975), 26. MOy p. 625. Eric John, "The division of the mensa in early English monasteries," JEH 6 (1955), H3-I55. Margaret Howell, "Abbatial vacancies and the divided mensa in medieval England," JEH 33 (1982), 173-192, and the same author's Regalian Right in Medieval England (London 1962), pp. 14—15.

Introduction

further and argued that the whole development of a separate endowment and separate jurisdiction was too intricate and too farreaching a change to be ascribed to a single cause. In the case of Peterborough abbey, he found that a divided mensa offered no protection to the monks sede vacante.15 Frank Barlow, while he was willing to see a pre-Conquest division, at least in the secular cathedrals, was at some pains to exonerate William Rufus from the charge of maliciously assaulting vacant sees and, therefore, by implication, from the responsibility for the separation.16 In a study of the Westminster abbey endowment, Barbara Harvey concluded that a permanent division occurred only in the thirteenth century and considered regalian right to be a secondary issue.17 Clearly there is sufficient disagreement on when and why and how the mensa was divided and separate endowments constituted to warrant another, closer look. It was obvious that this could not be done successfully by confining the study to a single see which might then serve as a model for the others.18 The distinctions between the monastic and secular cathedrals, the peculiarities of individual chapter histories, and the fundamental importance of key personalities precluded such an approach. This book, therefore, is the first attempt at a detailed comparison of all the English bishoprics in the twelfth century in order to expose the main lines of the mensal development. Of fundamental importance is the question of whether a division of property meant independent control of that property. It has generally been assumed that the assignment of assets to the chapter carried with it the right to 15 16 17 18

Edmund King, Peterborough Abbey: 1086-1310. A Study in the Land Market (Cambridge 1973), p. 88. Frank Barlow, The English Church I (1000—1066) (2nd edn., London 1979), pp. 239-240, and his William Rufus (London 1983), pp. 181—182. Barbara F. Harvey, Westminster Abbey and its Estates in the Middle Ages (Oxford 1977), p. 87. As a case in point, in a recent discussion of the early Anglo-Norman episcopate in the time of William II, Walter Frohlich concludes that "the possessions of the church and those of the cathedral chapters were separated from each other, thus enabling the cathedral chapters to be more independent and less likely to suffer arbitrary changes by future bishops and to enjoy legal protection against royal exactions." Aside from a good deal of uncertainty in terminology (what were the possessions of the church ? What was the difference between the church and the chapter ? What did it mean to be more independent ? What were the arbitrary changes that one might expect ? What sort of legal protection was available?), the only reference given for this statement is to the Life ofGundulf This ties the whole development to examples from Rochester and excludes important differences found in other churches. Walter Frohlich, "Anselm and the bishops of the province of Canterbury," in Les Mutations socio-culturelles au tournant des XIe-XIIe siecles, Etudes Anselmiennes 4, CNRS (Paris 1984), p. 127.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England administer principal and income apart from the bishop. But as this study will show, there is a distinction to be made between allocation and jurisdiction, and that the history of the mensa in the formative period of the twelfth century was one in which the chapter only gradually came to the point of being able to treat its property as its own. A second point of interest is that it is perfectly true that in many instances the bishop himself was more of a threat to the independence of the chapter than the king. On a number of occasions the issue of regalian right sede vacante was of less concern than the aggressive attitude adopted by the prelate when he was in office. Finally, there is the question of how the chapter developed from a loosely organized community into a separate and independentminded corporate entity largely in the course of the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This change can be followed in most of the cathedral churches using as key elements the extent of the lands set aside for the use of the members of the chapter; the administrative control which they were able to exercise over their property exclusive of the bishop; their right to elect the bishop, and the dean or prior; charters or writs addressed to them rather than to them jointly with the bishop, or merely to the bishop; their right to alienate property; their ability to exclude the bishop from choir and church; the use of a separate chapter seal; and the construction of a separate chapter house as part of the cathedral architectural ensemble. The division of revenues, for instance, was tied closely to the accumulation of wealth, as well as to the separation of the functions of bishop and chapter and to the specialization of operations which, in the abbeys, developed into the obedientiary system. In every case, there is an equally close tie to the idea of a separate community. In the long run, the growth of the independent chapter based on a mensal division in the twelfth century was the fundamental development which allowed the efficient organization and exploitation of ecclesiastical property in the thirteenth. The system of centralized estate management instituted under the prior, Henry Eastry, at Christ Church, Canterbury, for example, which not only reduced the convent's debt, but increased its profits, would not have been possible without the earlier struggle to define a separate endowment. 19 19

R. A. L. Smith, Canterbury Cathedral Priory. A Study in Monastic Administration (Cambridge 1943), pp. 53—54; Knowles, MO, p. 304 and The Religious Orders in England, vol. 1 (Cambridge i960), pp. 42—63.

8

Introduction

A wide variety of sources has been drawn upon in the course of this investigation, including chronicles, narrative histories, letters, papal privileges, doctrinal tracts, and contemporary surveys, but the basic material has been found in the large number of extant charters. They comprise a type of evidence which is not without its problems, particularly in view of the high incidence of forgeries, the fact that many of the documents were drawn up by the beneficiaries, or their scribes, and that they invariably post-date the grant which they serve to confirm. Nevertheless, in the absence in medieval England of bishop's registers before 1200, and of chapter books before 1300, and with very few documentary sources for the careers of the twelfth-century prelates or their realestate transactions, the charter evidence forms the bed-rock upon which any institutional study of this kind must rest.

Chapter 1

THE PLACE OF THE MENSA

If, in the early Christian period, there was an emphasis on the communal nature of the goods which belonged to the church and which served to support both the bishop and the chapter, the idea was soon modified, not only by the canonical division of the assets into the traditional, and probably theoretical, four portions marked for the bishop, the clergy, the fabric, and the poor, but also by the practical necessity of providing for an administrative apparatus, however rudimentary, to insure that the income was allocated in a satisfactory way. 1 Inherent, therefore, in the conception of the ecclesiastical endowment was the notion that a dichotomy of goods and services existed. Gregory I, while he emphasized a common way of life for bishops and clergy, had suggested a division of property and revenues in his answers to the questions of Augustine. Likewise, St. Benedict assumed in the Rule that the abbot would eat apart from his monks in a different room with a separate kitchen.2 Yet over all there prevailed the assumption that the primary position of power was held by the bishop as the chief administrator of his church.3 Chrodegang's 1

The patrimony in the early church (fourth century) was the property of the community of bishops and clergy together: "et quoniam idem christiani nos [in] ea loca tantum ad quae convenire consuerunt, sed alia etiam habuisse noscuntur ad ius corporis eorum, id est, ecclesiarum, non hominum singulorum, pertinentia," Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. xxvn, pp. 232—233. The practice if not the idea of a four-way division had fallen into abeyance by the twelfth century. Tierney estimated that only 3—5 percent, not 25 percent, of incofne was used for the poor in the thirteenth century. B. Tierney, Medieval Poor Law, A Sketch of Canonical Theory and its Application to

2

England (Berkeley 1959), pp. 80-81. Bede, "De episcopis, qualiter cum suis clericis conversentur...," HE, I, 27; Regula

3

discussion of the ideal of common property among monks and canons in Glenn Olsen, "The idea of the ecclesia primitiva in the writings of the twelfth-century canonists," Traditio 25 (1969), 61-86. Speaking of the Gallo-Roman churches, E. Lesne wrote, " L'eveque est Tadministrateur du temporel et le dispensateur de toutes les resources de son eglise. Les clercs n'ont point a s'ingerer dans la gestion du patrimonie ecclesiastique," Histoire de la propriete

Sancti Benedicti, cl. 56, de mensa abbatis, and cl. 53, de hospitibus suscipiendis. But see the

ecclesiastique en France, vol. 1, p. 33. 10

The place of the mensa Decretulum of c. 755 emphasized the prelate's importance in the affairs of the canons, and Hincmar stressed that the management of the ecclesiastical property was in his hands.4 It was a view which appealed to many of the bishops themselves who had occasion to deal with a recalcitrant chapter; it sat well with kings who saw the episcopate as an agency of royal domination over the church and its lands; and it found favor with certain of the popes who wished to reinforce their hold on the developing national churches by strengthening local episcopal authority. 5 Nevertheless, in a practical way the centrifugal tendency in the make-up of the cathedral familia began to have an effect and in many churches, by the ninth century, the mensa had come to be divided between bishop and chapter, or a separate endowment had been established for the canons' income.6 This development can be linked to the reform movement in the Carolingian church and was introduced certainly in part to meet the needs of the prelate who often lived away from his church. It was also prompted by the fact that a portion of the lands was usually assigned to soldiers in return for military service and by the tenth century the bishop's share was heavily leased to feudal tenants.7 The political aspect which endured for several centuries was emphasized by Guerard in his edition of the cartulary of Notre Dame in Paris where the dean of the chapter was described, in fact, as the liege man of the bishop.8 But rarely was the division of 4

5 6 7

8

In Chrodegang's rule mensa is used specifically to refer to the table where the members of the church took their meals at the common charge: "Prima mensa episcopii cum hospitibus et cum peregrinis sit et ibidem archiediaconus, vel quibus episcopus jusserit, sedeant. Secunda mensa cum presbyteris; tertia cum diaconibus... [etc.]." Mansi, Concilia, vol. xiv, cl. 323. Hincmar: " Quia sicut res et facultates ecclesiae sunt episcopo ad disponendum ac dispensandum commissae, ita regiae potestati commissae sunt ad defendendum atque tuendum," cited by W. Ullmann in another context in The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship (London 1969), p. 123. A. Dumas, "La Notion de la propriete ecclesiastique du IXe au XIe siecle," Revue d'histoire de Veglise de France 26 (1940), 14—34. Lesne, VOrigine des menses, pp. 54—56; Schieffer, Entstehung, pp. 262—278. H. E. A. Feine, Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte. Die Katholische Kirche (Weimar 1950, 4th edn., Cologne 1964), pp. 376-377; Gabriel Le Bras, "Depuis les temps carolingiens, ce patrimoine (de l'eveche) s'est divise en mense de l'eveque et biens du chapitre qui ont constitue des masses autonomes," Institutions ecclesiastiques de la chretiente medievale, Histoire de Feglise 12, vol. n, p. 368, note 22. "Decanus Parisiensis ecclesiae est homo ligius episcopi salva fidelitate capituli," Cartulaire de Notre Dame de Paris, ed. B. E. C. Guerard, Collection des documents inedits (Paris 1850), vol. 1, p. 10. Guerard summarized the widely held view on the mensal division: "Pendant les huit premiers siecles du christianisme les biens d'une eglise, divises, comme on l'a vu, en quatre parts, etaient tous administres par Teveque aide de quelques membres de son clerge...La discipline concernant l'administration II

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England goods as simple as it seems. There was, first of all, confusion between the personal property of the bishop, the assets which he had brought to the see upon his appointment, or which had been given to him during his term in office, and the property which supposedly belonged to the church itself. The law of Justinian's Codex had recognized the problem and had allowed the bishop to bequeath any personal property at his death.9 But the margin for error was obviously very wide, and it is reasonable to suppose that episcopal wills were not infrequently contested by the permanent body of cathedral clergy.10 When the separation was made, in whatever fashion, there was always the question of which portion was more closely indentified with the property of the church itself. Did the bishop, as lord and administrator, allocate some lands and keep the rest, or did he generally depend on his own wealth which was counted apart? Without knowing exactly which properties were involved in each case, it is impossible to say how they were considered. In view of later complaints, however, largely from the members of the chapter, that the bishop had appropriated what had once belonged to them, and of counter-claims by the bishop that he had the right to fix the apportionment in the first place, it is obvious that the problem had lost none of its force and was resolutely resistant to an easy solution. Because the chapter was stable and permanent, while the bishop was itinerant and transient, there was a tendency to associate the chapter with the church. In England, for example, it has been suggested that because in Domesday Book the chapter lands were often described as "belonging to the church, minster or patron saint... in ordinary thought the episcopal estate was less integrally within the church than the chapter's. " n But the truth of this view is difficult to demonstrate until much later when the members of the chapter looked back to the period of the Conquest to claim, rightly or

9

10 11

exterieure de l'eglise ayant ete fortement ebranlee par la chute de l'autorite centrale fut bientot corrompue par Pinvasion et le melange des principes et des institutions de la feodalite. L'eveque, devenu grand seigneur terrien, n'eut sur ses chanoines pour les choses temporelles qu'un pouvoir purement feodal et ceux-ci possederent, pour ainsi dire, leurs biens feodalement... ils se saisirent des fonds ecclesiastiques dont les revenues servaient a leur entretien et les ayant affranchis de la jurisdiction episcopale, rompirent facilement les liens de la vie commune," ibid., pp. lvii—Ix. E. Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 (Cambridge, Mass. 1939), vol. 1, p. 506; F. Lot and R. Fawtier (eds.), Histoire des institutions francaises au Moyen Age, vol. HI, Institutions ecclesiastiques (Paris, 1962), p. 183. Sheehan, The Will in Medieval England, p. 72 and pp. 24iff. Barlow, The English Church, vol. 1, pp. 97-98. 12

The place of the mensa wrongly, rights in lands that by the mid-twelfth century had for a long time been assigned to the church. Connected with the problem of allocation, therefore, is the meaning of the word "church," which as "ecclesia'9 possessed a certain ambiguity among contemporary writers. In the medieval period, the "church" meant, on the one hand, the whole body of baptized Christians, the corpus Jidelium, or almost all of the inhabitants of the established western kingdoms. In practical terms this was the assembly of the faithful who came together for worship in the local house of god or of the dedicatory saint. On the other hand, in a more restrictive sense, it was often used to refer to the organized clergy, the professional ecclesiastical governing order. In the eleventh century, the modest success of the papal reform movement in extending the authority of Rome to local churches served to define more closely in law and in practice the functions of the clerical hierarchy and, consequently, to enforce a much greater distinction than before between clerks and laymen. 12 In regard to the cathedral church, ecclesia came to be used in different contexts to refer to the bishop and his clergy together, or to the chapter alone, or sometimes to the bishop in distinction to the chapter, or to the church building which housed them all, but generally not to the people of the diocese. In the eleventh-century formula for investiture the king said to the bishop-elect, accipe ecclesiam, that is, receive the church, which in this instance meant the whole bishopric without an attempt to specify which property was traditionally episcopal and which traditionally capitular. In the Decretum, Gratian, in the style of the early fathers, makes the bishop one with the church.13 Domesday Book has a variety of explanations to describe ecclesiastical land-holding: the church may hold it, the saint may hold it, it may be in the church, it may 12

13

VEcclesia vers Tan mil comme l'assemblee universelle des fideles sans qu'on cherche a distinguer 1'homme d'eglise (notion alors inconnue) du simple chretien. Et c'est precisement dans le cours du XI e siecle qu'on voit lentement se developper une conception plus restrictive de l'eglise comme corps sacerdotal," Bernard Bligny, Cahiers de civilisation medievale 27 (1984), 157. Gillet, La Personality juridique en droit ecclesiastique specialement chez les decretistes et les decretalistes et dans le code de droit canonique, Universitas catholica Lovaniensis,

dissertations, series 2, t. 18 (Malines 1927), p. 100. For an interesting comparison with pertinent remarks see Peter Biller, " Words and the medieval notion of' religion'," JEH 36 (1985), 351-369. For the accipe ecclesiam see R. L. Benson, The Bishop-Elect. A Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office (Princeton 1968), p. 239. Decretum, C. VII, q.i, c.

7: "Scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse, et ecclesiam in episcopo, et si quis cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse..." 13

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England be the bishop's land, or the bishop's land of the church or saint, or the canons or monks may hold it. 14 Terra ecclesie, instead of terra episcopi, was used at Hereford and Worcester. In the Gesta Stephani it was argued by the bishop of Hereford that the property (res) of the church had been given to god and that no secular person could claim any interests (dominium) in it. The bishop, however, could, and did. 15 At times, the bishop's interest was merged with that of the chapter, as illustrated by Roger of Howden's reference to Alexander III who asked Henry II "to restore to Thomas Becket, and his clergy, their churches and the other goods which had been taken away from them," or by Innocent III in a letter to Archbishop Hubert Walter in which the pope urged him "to restore to the archiepiscopal mensa the possessions of the church of Canterbury which had been illegally alienated." 16 On the other hand, some writers made a definite effort to keep the two jurisdictions separate. As Saltman pointed out, for Gervase, who was writing toward the end of the twelfth century of events which took place somewhat earlier, the ecclesia of Canterbury " meant the monks, just as today, for many people, * Parliament' means the Commons." 17 Likewise, at Worcester, Hemming used monasterium and ecclesia to refer to the proprietorship of lands which had been set aside ad victum monachorum.18 But later in the thirteenth century it was argued at Winchester, from the episcopal viewpoint, that both bishop and chapter were contained in the notion of the ecclesia and that they formed one corpus together.19 14 15 16

17 18

19

F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I (Cambridge 1968), vol. 1, p. 501. Gesta Stephani, ed. K. R. Potter, Nelson Medieval Texts (London 1955), pp. 105-106. "... et sibi ac suis ecclesias cum caeteris ablatis restituere," Roger of Howden, RS—51,1, 256. "Ecclesiae et mensam archiepiscopalem in grave damnum et jacturam ecclesiae illicite alienata repereris, appellatione remota, per censuram ecclesiasticam mediante justitia revoces et debitis usibus non differas applicare. Revocationes vero illorum quae per praedecessores tuos circa mensam archiepiscopalem, possessiones, ecclesias et ecclesiarum concessiones auctoritate apostolica legitime revocata sunt ratas et firmas esse jubemus," F. R. H. du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury. An Essay on Medieval Society (London 1966), p. 205; MPL ccxiv, col. 352; Letters of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) Concerning England and Wales, ed. C. R. Cheney and M. G. Cheney (Oxford 1967), no. 52. A. Saltman, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, University of London Historical Studies 2 (London 1956), p. 104. N. R. Ker, "Hemming's cartulary. A description of two Worcester cartularies in Cotton Tiberius A. xiii," in Studies in Medieval History presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke (Oxford 1948), p. 63. Registrum Johannis de Pontissara, Episcopi Wyntoniensis, ed. Cecil Deedes, Canterbury and York Society (1915—1924), vol. 11, p. 679. 14

The place of the mensa The chief difficulty in the twelfth century which led to the confused and ambiguous use of the terms was that the legal position of bishop and chapter, and their relationship to each other, had not yet been sufficiently defined. Nor could it be defined satisfactorily until each side had achieved the requisite status which would allow it to be recognized in law. This would have to wait some time, since an important debate among the decretists in the thirteenth century centered on the exact position and jurisdiction of the bishop in his church; whether, for instance, he sat in chapter ut prelatus or ut canonicus.20 In the long run, in many of the secular cathedrals at least, the organized chapter came to have more weight than the bishop, and in the fourteenth century the prelate was often no more than a visitor to his church and barely tolerated even on his official rounds. If he possessed a prebend he might sit in chapter, but merely as another canon under the jurisdiction of the dean. 21 In the century after the Conquest, therefore, it was no easy task to separate episcopal property from church property, or to distinguish what was rightfully the bishop's from that claimed by the chapter. 22 The bishops, themselves, especially those in office after a long and successful tenure, might have thought it unnatural to do so. It will be recalled that the Abbot Suger had a problem in sorting out the "I" and the " w e " in referring to himself and his community. Indeed, the word "capitulum," to describe the cathedral clergy, appears to have had no precise meaning before it was used in legal texts in the time of Alexander III late in the twelfth century. 23 In the minds of the eleventh-century reformers, the integrity of church property was uppermost, not only in that it should be withdrawn from secular control, but that it must not be diminished by the action of either laymen or clergy. 24 The practical result of this consideration was a strengthening of the bishop's position vis a vis the chapter. Neither one side nor the other was inclined to push reform to the extent of giving up its landed wealth entirely, 20

21

22 23

B. Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory. The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism ( C a m b r i d g e 1955, repr. 1968), p p . 112—117. A t Salisbury, the bishop was careful t o keep a p r e b e n d for this p u r p o s e ; b u t at Y o r k h e had n o n e . Cf. L o t a n d Fawtier, eds., Histoire des institutions francaises, vol. in, p . 183. Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St. Denis, ed. E. Panofsky (Princeton 1946), p. 34.

For "capitulum" see P. Michaud-Quantin, Universitas. Expressions du mouvement 24

communautaire dans le moyen age latin (Paris 1970), p. 82. G. Schreiber, Kurie und Kloster im 12. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart 1910), vol. 11, p . 17.

15

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England as suggested by Paschal II, advocated by Arnold of Brescia and argued by Gerhoh of Reichersberg.25 The rules set down in Cardinal Deusdedit's Collectio canonum, a rather extreme statement of Gregorian principles, allowed the bishop, as trustee, the administration of ecclesiastical lands. He was to have the right to his own property, but if it had been acquired after his consecration it was to remain with the church. No property was to be diverted to private use.26 Aside from the proprietary element, there were other aspects of the relationship between bishop and chapter which prevented them from becoming independent of each other at an early date. It is clear from the charter subscriptions that bishops were in the habit of using their clergy, whether monks or canons, to serve in their households and to carry out their business. Throughout the twelfth century the personnel of the two establishments constantly overlapped and made it more difficult, therefore, to define separate jurisdictional powers. The archbishop of Canterbury, indeed, claimed to be able to use the clergy of any cathedral church in England ad nututn, excluding undue hardship on the individual concerned.27 Then, too, at Canterbury, as elsewhere, there was as yet no important distinction made between archiepiscopal and conventual archives. Their documents appear to have been kept together in the same place and no successful move to house them separately seems to have been made before the thirteenth century.28 Moreover, in a tenacious cycle of assumed rights, because neither politically, socially nor economically had there developed sufficient distance between the prelate and his clergy, episcopal obligations, including the royal servitia debita, were often met by using estates reassigned from the chapter, while the ease 25

C . S e r v a t i u s , Paschalis

II (1099-1118).

Studien

zu seiner Person und seiner Politik,

Papste

und Papsttum 14 (Stuttgart 1979), p. 223; Otto of Freising, Deeds of Frederick

26

27 28

Barbarossa in Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I Imperatoris, ed. G. Waitz, M . G. H. Scriptores r e r u m G e r m a n i c a r u m in u s u m scholarum 46 (Hanover 1912), vol. 11, xxviii; P . Classen, Gerhoh von Reichersberg'(Wiesbaden i960), p . 314. See also G. Constable, " M o n a s t i c possession of churches and spiritualia in the age of r e f o r m , " // Monacheismo e la riforma ecclesiastical 1040—1122, Miscellanea del C e n t r o di Studi Medioevali 6 (Milan 1971), p- 324. D . B . Z e m a , " Reform legislation in the eleventh century and its economic i m p a c t , " Catholic Historical Review 27 (1942), 29—31. C . R. C h e n e y , Hubert Walter (London 1967), p . 158. " Quadrupliciter q u a r u m archiepiscopus habet tres in thesaurario et capitulum u n u m , " R. G. Barnes, " L a m b e t h M S . 1212 and the W h i t e B o o k of C a n t e r b u r y , " BIHR 32 (1959), 58-

16

The place of the mensa with which this was done served to enhance the bishop's position and to blur the line between their respective holdings. During this period of confused references it is no surprise that a certain ambiguity was also attached to the term mensa. Originally it was the table at which the bishop, or the abbot, dined together with his clergy, or, as was noted earlier in regard to Benedict's Rule, where each dined separately. As an extension of this sense, it came to be used to designate the principal and income used to support bishop and clergy collectively (mensa ecclesie), or individually (mensa episcopalis or mensa capitularis). The suggestion

by Lormeau that mensa, in the medieval ecclesiastical sense, was derived not from the Latin mensa, but from mansus, which in the Frankish period denoted the amount of land necessary to support a single family, can, I think, be dismissed as unnecessarily eccentric.29 For twelfth-century England there was a variety of texts which can be used to show the different ways in which the word was used. It appeared in a letter of Everard, bishop of Norwich, to Eugenius III c. 1145 where it referred to the episcopal endowment: " seriously threatened by the dangers of the wars in England, I gave the two villages of Blickling and Cressingham from the episcopal mensa to a pair of powerful knights of the district."30 In a similar sense it was used c. 1162 by Richard Belmeis II, bishop of London, in an actum which recited the problems connected with the establishment of the office of treasurer based on an earlier grant to the canon, Godfrey: "Inasmuch as our beloved son and fellow canon, Godfrey, held certain churches by the gift of our predecessor, Robert, bishop of London, which were said to belong to the episcopal mensa. " 3 1 29

30

31

" Certains auteurs veulent faire deliver le m o t ' mense' du latin ' mensa,' table... Cette etymologie ne se justifie guere par les textes. Nous preferons faire venir ' mense,' qu'on ecrit aussi * mense,' du mot ' mansus,' terme de l'epoque franque," E. Lormeau, Des Menses episcopates en France. Etude historique etjuridique (Alencon 1905). Why not, then, equally well from metior, metiri, mensus sum, as the portion allocated, or from mensis as the m o n t h l y provender ? " N i m i s q u e r r a r u m [sic] Anglie discriminibus graviter coartatus episcopalis mense villas duas, scilicet Blicling et Cressingeheham, duobus militibus eius terre potentibus donavi," The Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, ed. B. Dodwell, PRS 78, 84 (1974—1985), vol. 1, no. 118. "Dilectus siquidem films et concanonicus noster Godefridus ecclesias quasdam ex donatione bone memorie Roberti Londoniensis episcopi decessoris nostri possidebat que dicebantur ad mensam episcopalem pertinere." Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London, ed. M. Gibbs, Camden Society, 3rd ser. 58 (1939), no. 192.

17

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England In the return of the archbishop of York in n 66, the military service said to have been owed by his knights, and imposed on him rather than the chapter, belonged to his own mensa: "There are certain of these men from whom I demand more service than they now provide, and there are others who withhold service which is said to belong to the archiepiscopal mensa and demesne, and not to themselves. " 32 A confirmation by Archbishop Theobald to the priory of the church at Crundale in Kent c. 1150 in reference to the monastic endowment, specified that it was to be given to god and the church for the use of the monks: "Accordingly we grant the said church to the cathedral priory at Canterbury and the monks as part of their own mensa for the food of the convent, and we confirm this to them forever, saving our honor. " 33 And in what is probably a fifteenth-century account of the church of Wells, the advantage gained by merging the cathedral mensa with that of Bath abbey was cited by the author as the reason for the earlier transfer of the see by Bishop John de Villula: "Ignoring the wishes of the canons of the church of Wells, he moved the see of Wells to Bath abbey, and added the rents which belonged to the abbatial mensa at Bath to his episcopal mensa."M Mensa can also be found to refer to the king's property. Ralph de Diceto used it thus to describe lands which Henry II claimed as his own, or from which he wished to enjoy the income, but which were in the hands of his barons: "He steadily maintained that those who held possessions which were known to belong to his mensa, just as to his treasury, from times long past, ought to be satisfied with their own estates, and furthermore he forced them to be." 35 32

33

34

35

" . . . ex hiis sunt quidatn, a quibus plus servitii exigo, quam ipsi m o d o faciant, alii vero detinent quaedam quae ad mensam archiepiscopi et dominium et non ad ipsos pertinere dicuntur," RBE 1, p. 415. "Et nos c o n s e q u e n t s eandem ecclesiam ecclesie Cantuariensis et monachis in cibum conventus ad propriam mensam eorum concedimus et eis in perpetuam confirmamus possessionem salva dignitate archiepiscopali," Saltman, Theobald, no. 36. " Iste inconsultis canonicis Wellensibus et preter eorum consensum transtulit sedem episcopalem Wellensem in abbatiam Bathonie ac redditus pertinentes ad mensam abbatialem monasterii Bathoniensis mense sue episcopali univit," Historia major from the Wells Liber Albus II, ed. J. A. Robinson, Somerset Record Society 39, Collectanea, vol. 1 (1924), 61. " . . . b o n o r u m occupatores quae suam ad mensam quasi ad fiscum ab antiquo pertinere noscuntur, patrimonio proprio contentos esse debere constanter assereret et etiam cogeret,' Ralph de Diceto, Radulfi de Diceto Decani Lundoniensis Opera Historica, ed. W. Stubbs, RS-6S, 1, 371, cited and discussed by W. L. Warren, Henry II (London

18

The place of the mensa Neither the meaning nor the sense, however, of suam ad mensam

quasi adjiscum ...pertinere is clear. 36 Perhaps mensa came easily to

Ralph, who was dean of St. Paul's, as a word to describe property used for the king's income in the same way that it was used to refer to the income of the bishop. Whether he intended to contrast it, or to identify it, with royal funds of a general and public nature, one cannot say. In its frequent appearances, mensa appears to be a general term used throughout the period to describe the basis of support for individuals or groups, but without conferring a legal title. Alternately, a number of other terms are encountered in the texts, such as res, stipendia, bona, possessiones, redditus, portio, and

terrae, which seem to have been just as suitable.37 The meaning of the word itself, while obviously important to our subject, is less significant than the fact that there was recognized a separation of ecclesiastical property in the cathedral churches to which it was occasionally applied. That the origins of such a division go back to ancient times is in no way remarkable. Both the bishop and the community had to be fed and clothed, and their houses built and repaired, and the chief portion of their income was directed to those uses. Whether the bishop divided a common fund into shares as the need arose, or whether he at some point set aside principal on a permanent basis is of no great significance, except that the latter decision, in most cases, would have provided more substantial grounds upon which the chapter could have later claimed their possessions as their own. It is important to remember that separate mensae, whatever their 36 37

1973). P- 368. The term in the same sense occurs in a charter (spurious) o f William I: " . . . d e propria mea mensa," Regesta, 1, no. 178. Warren calls them "dark phrases" and translates thus: "which were known from old to pertain to his table as to his treasury," Henry II, p. 368. There are instances in the Literae Cantuarienses, ed. J. B. Sheppard, RS-8$, 1, p. 356, and in Jocelin de Brakelond's Chronicle, p. 81. O n the continent, the term mensa was used similarly in a general way. When the goods o f the church at Auxerre were to be distributed through the provisions made in the will o f Bishop Hugh o f Macon, St. Bernard wrote to Eugenius HI to complain that not only had Hugh given little or nothing to the poor or to the church, but that he had left almost everything which he had acquired in the episcopal mensa to his nephew, a pleasure-loving and worldly young man. ("Cum enim pauperibus et ecclesiis aut nihil aut parum daret, nepoti suo carnali adolescentulo, saeculari inutili, totum pene quod acquisierat mensae episcopali, Stephano suggerente et sollicitante, dimisit," MPL 182, col. 481, no. 276.) Cited in B. Jacqueline, Episcopat et papaute chez saint Bernard de Clairvaux (Saint-L6 1975), p. n o . The mensa was also referred to in the caution against episcopal debt formulated in the canons o f the council o f Lyon in 1245. Cited in L. Duggan, Bishop and Chapter. The Governance of the Bishopric ofSpeyer to 1552 ( N e w Brunswick 1978), p. 31, from COD, p. 294-

19

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England structure, did not necessarily mean equal mensae, nor did they confer upon either bishop or chapter independent status. On the other hand, it was true that landed wealth under their control was essential if the cathedral canons were to exercise their own authority and that sooner or later estates allocated for their support came to be regarded as their own property. Too often, however, it has been assumed that as soon as evidence can be found for a divided endowment, it meant that the chapter had become an independent body. To the familiar sequence in which there is a first stage of property held in common, leading to a second stage of divided property, there should be added a third stage whereby the cathedral clergy not only possessed assets apart from those of the bishop, but enjoyed separate jurisdiction over them. At that point the chapter can be seen as an incipient corporation with rights and privileges of its own. It is with the development of this last phase that this book is primarily concerned. As will be shown in the discussion of the different English sees,v there were often mixed motives behind the division of ecclesiastical goods. What the bishop wished to do, of course, did not always coincide with the desires of the chapter. Some of the bishops with monastic churches saw themselves in the tradition of the Benedictine abbas-father by assigning property for the benefit of the community. Others, with heavy servitia debita, or with relatives to support and household officers to maintain, hesitated to give up lands to what was likely to be a permanent allocation.38 It was probably also the case that without an accurate inventory of their holdings and, therefore, with only a rough idea of their income, many bishops were reluctant to convey large portions of property out of their control. According to Eadmer, a survey of the real estate was made whenever a bishop died. William Rufus had an inventory made of the church goods after Lanfranc's death and, after setting aside an allowance for the monks, he took the rest as part of his demesne. There was also an early survey done of the monks' lands at Worcester, dating from the 1090s, and another at Ely. The most useful documents, however, cannot be dated much before the middle of the twelfth century. In the time of Bishop Roger, in the 1160s, a survey was made at Worcester. Boldon Book at Durham dates from about the same time. A survey by Henry of Blois at Winchester was made c. 1148. There is one for 38

See, for example, the large number of episcopal clerks and chaplains on the bishop's estates in the Hereford Domesday, DB i, fos. 181c— i82d. 2O

The place of the mensa London c. 1181, and a series for Canterbury from c. 1153 to c. 1200.39 Nevertheless, some bishops may have accepted the idea of a division of property either to prevent their accumulated assets, which they might have bequeathed, from being attached by the chapter on their death, or to relieve them of the burden of supplying the material needs of their cathedral clergy on a regular basis. From the chapter's point of view, the problem of the " feudalization " of the bishop's position and its effect on their lives, which was cited by Knowles as the primary cause of the mensal division, undoubtedly was a concern. The large expenses of the episcopal household, the outlays for clothes and vestments, church ornaments, entertainment, gifts, travel, hospitality, food, and general maintenance, certainly increased pressure on the chapter to establish a separate administration. The growing number of monks and canons in the cathedral churches also contributed to the problem. At Rochester, for example, there were five canons when Bishop Gundulf arrived in 1077, but such was the success of his efforts that there were sixty monks there when he died in 1108.40 A twelve-fold increase provided not only the incentive to manage their own affairs, but also the manpower to do it. In a word, the chapter, in whatever cathedral, found the arrangement of a single mensa and administration "inconvenient." 41 "Inconvenient" did not mean "impossible," nor did it necessarily mean "incompetent." But control of the capitular share was paramount in long-range plans for home management. It should, however, be realized that initially a divided mensa probably meant a drop in the level of efficiency with which the estates were administered, as well as an increase in cost.42 In 39

HN, p p . 25—27, a n d see O K i v , 172; B a r l o w , William Rufus, p . 2 3 4 ; LE, p p . 219—220. M . G. C h e n e y , Roger, Bishop of Worcester: 1164-1179 ( O x f o r d 1980), p p . 1 0 7 - 1 0 9 ; VCH Durham 1, p p . 327 ff.; Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, ed. M a r t i n Biddle, Winchester Studies 1 (Oxford 1976), pp. 3-4; F. R. H. Du Boulay, The Lordship of

Canterbury- An Essay on Medieval Society (London 1966), chap. 1. See also W. L. 40

41

42

Warren, "The myth of Norman administrative efficiency," TRHS 5th ser. 34 (1984), 119. R. Lennard, Rural England: 1086-1135. A Study of Social and Agrarian Conditions (Oxford 1959), p. 133, note 2. See also R. A. L. Smith, "The place of Gundulf in the Anglo-Norman church," EHR 58 (1943), 257—272. See D . O w e n , Church and Society in Medieval Lincolnshire, H i s t o r y o f Lincolnshire 5 (Lincoln 1971), p . 42. " L a base d e la puissance d u chapitre, c'est la fortune patrimoniale q u i , a u X I I I e siecle, atteignit e n la p l u p a r t des dioceses, son a p o g e e , " Le Bras, Institutions ecclesiastiques, vol. iv, p . 378. 21

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England prosperous chapters where the basic organization was adequate this might have been only a temporary lapse. In others, it could mean a long period of hardship which might lead, as will be seen, to the culminating embarrassment of the clergy who were ultimately obliged to beg the bishop to supervise the conduct of their affairs. In the general ecclesiastical institutional development of the twelfth century, the division of the mensa was but one aspect of the gradual withdrawal of the chapter from episcopal authority. The right to elect the dean and bishop, custody during vacancies, court jurisdiction and the acceptance of new members into the community were other points of contention and, when they were resolved in favor of the clergy, signs of progress. Yet all of these claims derived what force they had from their basis in an independent administration which, in turn, rested on divided property holdings. The way in which the separation of estates was made differed to a certain extent in each church. From a commonsense point of view, after considering the number of monks or canons, the first question to be asked, and answered, was how much income did they need to support themselves on a regular basis? The next question was which estates were able to supply it, and, finally, how was it to be allocated and administered ? Because in the late eleventh and early twelfth century there was uncertainty about the value of the principal, in the beginning the division of property was made not by splitting real estate but by assigning income. When this was done it is, however, seldom apparent what proportion went to the chapter. In the independent abbeys Knowles estimated the abbot's share at 25 percent and the monks' at 75 percent.43 There was current in the period the theory that the division should be into equal parts, but this principle seems to have been rarely followed. In any case, merely knowing what part the bishop kept and what part he allowed the chapter, says nothing about the value; of the shares. He might have kept one quarter of the better estates and assigned the other three quarters composed of the poorer estates and he would still have come out ahead. To appreciate the significance of the division, the property must be rated by a quality factor which in almost all cases is very difficult to do. 43

MO, p. 436, note. At Westminster abbey in the thirteenth century the abbot's fraction amounted to about 32 percent of all monastic income. B. F. Harvey, Westminster Abbey, p. 88. 22

The place of the mensa The geographical pattern of the mensae also varied a good deal from diocese to diocese, although more often than not the cathedral clergy, as the resident body, drew income from manors which lay near the church, while the bishop kept those which lay further away. Gundulf at Rochester, for example, gave the monks one of his manors adjacent to the cathedral in exchange for one of theirs in Cambridgeshire, since he could reach it more easily than they could. 44 The clergy depended on substantial renders in kind, and in the course of the century, while the bishop's mensa may have been supported more and more by rents, the capitular mensa was still, in large part, a food farm.45 While the legal structure of the allocated property is hard to define, it is doubtful whether this was a major concern of either bishop or chapter in the early twelfth century. It became important later when members of the chapter were more aware of the possibilities which the law allowed them and interpreted the phrases such as ad victum monachorum or ad usus canonicorum as ones

which conferred a possessory title. Certainly it can be assumed that properties described in this way could be more easily defended as belonging to the chapter, should a dispute arise, than those lacking the designation. But even at Ramsey abbey, where this process has been analyzed in detail, "all the properties continued to be held in capite by the abbot. " 46 There are numerous examples to be found in charters of the Anglo-Saxon period of grants to cathedral chapters which contain phrases that define the beneficiary. They may be quite general, as in the gift by Wiferd and his wife, Aeta, to St. Peter, Worcester (781 x 796), or in the grant by Egbert to Rochester (828), ad ecclesiam}1 In other cases, they may be more specific, as in the confirmation of Edgar to Abingdon abbey (961) ad usum monachorum, or again to Winchester (963 x 975) ad usum praesulis, or to Worcester (962) ad usum pontificis.*8 Estates might also be conferred to the bishop for the use of the chapter, as was the 44 45

46

47

48

Textus Rqffensis, ed. T . H e a r n e ( O x f o r d 1720), chap, lxxxvi. E. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, C a m b r i d g e Studies in Medieval Life and T h o u g h t , n.s. 1 ( C a m b r i d g e 1951), p p . 40, 284. J. A. Raftis, The Estates of Ramsey Abbey. A Study in Economic Growth and Organization ( T o r o n t o 1957). PP- 35—38. See also Saltman, Theobald, n o . 207, and the c o m m e n t s b y E. King, Peterborough Abbey, p . 9 1 , n o t e 7. O n the question o f usufruct see DM, p . 17, note 9. CSB in, 1007; AS Charters, 1185. T h e fact that these charters, as well as others cited below, are suspect does n o t i m p u g n their value for purposes of illustrating the phrasing. CSB in, 1067, 1146, 1147, 1091, and in AS Charters, 688, 817, 821, 1298.

23

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England case at Canterbury c. 823 in an alleged grant by Beornwulf, king of Mercia: "King Beornwulf gave the village of Godmeresham to Christ church and to Wulfred, the archbishop, for the support of the monks there serving god. " 49 Here the phrase ad opus seems to be hardly distinguishable from that of ad usum.50 The formula B tenet ad opus C, which was to be familiar in the thirteenth century as the basis of the law of uses whereby A gave land to B, the feofee, to hold for the benefit of C (cestui que use), so that B had the title, seisin and dominium, but C had the profits, does not yet possess this meaning.51 Although the doctrine of uses will be derived from the conception of a grant ad opus, neither in the pre-Conquest period, nor in the developing common law of the twelfth century was there provision for allowing B the title but not the profits. The development of property rights in the twelfth century, however, defined by common law writs, made clearer the distinction between lord and tenant and contributed to their growing independence of each other. This can be seen in the rights of the tenant's heir to inherit an interest in the land, as well as in the shift from possessory rights to proprietary rights or, as Simpson prefers, from seisin that conferred a good title to seisin that conferred a better, older title. As the cathedral chapter drew away from domination by the bishop, the division of the mensa was a key factor in the realization of individual rights in property.52 When we come to Domesday Book, there are many entries for the ecclesiastical tenants which narrow the holdings to specified purposes by using a stock phrase. In Kent: tenet archiepiscopus et est de vestitu monachorum; in Suffolk: terra Lanfranci archiepiscopi ad victum monachorum; in Worcestershire: hanc terram tenuit Alricus de

dominico victu monachorum; or, of three hides in Grimley (Knightwick):

...est

de dominico victu monachorum.^

In these cases

dominicum, which generally refers to land in lordship, approaches 49

51

52

53

" Beornulfus rex dedit ecclesie christi et Wulfredo archiepiscopo ad opus monachorum in eadem ecclesia deo servientibus villa-m Godmeresham," CSB I, 374, and AS Charters, 50 1620. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, vol. n, p. 228. Ibid., pp. 228—233. See S. Milsom, Historical Foundations of the Common Law (London 1969), p p . 88-136, 169-192. A . W . B . Simpson, A History of the Land Law ( O x f o r d 1961, 2 n d . e d n . 1986), p p . 173—174, a n d 37—40. F o r t h e phrase in proprios usus w h i c h implies t h e right t o appropriate revenues o f churches, o r other assets, for a given t e r m o r in perpetuum, see EYC vi, n o . 1 1 ; Saltman, Theobald, a p p x . n o . 106; EEA v i , p . l v ; a n d M . G. C h e n e y , Roger of Worcester, p p . 78—82, 173—174. DB 1, fo. 3a; DB 11, fo. 3 7 2 b ; DB 1, fo. 173d.

24

The place of the mensa ever more closely the notion of ownership as opposed to mere tenancy.54 The same can be said of the actum of Archbishop Theobald (1147 x 1148) notifying the bishops of Ely and Lincoln of a decision made in his court to restore to the monks of Ramsey abbey the manor of Graveley in Cambridgeshire sicut dominium mense monachorum.55 In the papal documents of the period there is also the confirmation couched in general terms and the more specific instructions in which there is a glimpse of a move toward a legal definition and title. In a letter to Archbishop Baldwin, whom the monks of Christ Church had accused of taking tithes from their estates and diverting them to his own use, Urban III ordered the income restored. The property was referred to as part of the monastic demesne and it seems probable that the convent's case, which was to demonstrate the illegality of Baldwin's action, was strengthened by their being able to identify the revenues as paid ad opus pauperum over a definite period of time.56 In general, one may say that the establishment of a separate mensa did not, as a consequence, bring about an immediate change in the legal status of the community or of their property. By the thirteenth century, however, each side possessed a tradition of rights which, depending on the circumstances and the issues, allowed it to act far more effectively either in consort or in opposition. The division of endowments between bishop and chapter was invariably accompanied or followed by a second division between prior and convent in the monastic cathedrals by which funds, often disproportionately large, were assigned to the obedientiaries, and between dean and canons in the secular cathedrals with the establishment of prebends. In theory, this arrangement, as in the case of the bishop's mensa, allowed the prior's possessions to be seized in a vacancy while the bulk of the capitular property remained intact. But it probably worked no better at the secondary level than it did at the primary. In the early thirteenth century, when the priorate and episcopate at Ely were vacant at the same time, they both lost to the king's commissioners.57 It might be useful at this point to illustrate certain aspects of contemporary thinking about how ecclesiastical property should be allocated, by reference to the difficulties in three twelfth54 56 57

The translation in DB-Phil, fo. 173d, as "for the household supplies o f the monks" 55 surely misses the legal implications. Saltman, Theobald, no. 207. PUE n, no 237. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, vol. 1, pp. 433-438.

25

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England century abbeys. While they were not bishop's abbeys, they shared the same problems that affected the cathedral churches, both monastic and secular. Upon the election of Samson at Bury St. Edmunds in 1182, the monks found that they had more to fear from their new abbot than from anyone else. Within a short time he took two of their manors into his own hands in the hope of increasing their productivity. Although he made up the loss in income and, eventually, returned the estates, it was the occasion for a serious dispute.58 A little later the abbot assumed greater responsibility for the cellarer's office by appointing a secular clerk from his own mensa to supervise the work of the incumbent.59 Finding no improvement, he later deposed the cellarer and replaced him with another of his clerks. Some of the monks objected, not on the grounds that the abbot had no right to regulate their affairs, but that he had set a bad precedent. During a vacancy, they argued, the king, instead of being content with the abbot's mensa, would begin to appoint to offices, including that of the cellarer, and thus the property of the abbey, which had once been separated, would be mixed together and confused.60 Some people wondered why the monks allowed the two mensae to be confounded; others said that there was no one in the convent skilled enough to undertake the administration successfully; still another maintained that it was the abbot's duty to rule the community and that for the good of all the mensa should be kept intact.61 The divided mensa at Bury can be traced back for some time.62 In a well-known writ of the early twelfth century, Henry I apparently confirmed the separation so that the convent would 58

59

61

Jocelin o f B r a k e l o n d , Cronica Jocelini de Brakelonda de Rebus Gestis Samsonis, ed. H . E. Butler, N e l s o n Medieval Classics ( L o n d o n 1949), p . 28. " V o l e n s e r g o abbas i n d e m n i t a t i et utilitati tarn sue q u a m nostre p r o v i d e r e , sciens in

omni defectu nostro ad eum, tanquam ad patrem monasterii, esse recurrendum, quendam clericum de mensa sua, magistrum Ranulfum nomine, celerario nostro associavit, ut ei tanquam testis et socius assisteret et in expensis et in receptis," ibid., pp. 79-80. Ranulf was, perhaps, the same person as Ranulf the priest, a tenant in Westley in Thingoe hundred, Suffolk, to whom Samson referred as "our loyal clerk," The Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds, ed. R. H. C. Davis, Camden Society, 3rd 60 ser. 84 (1954), no. 67. Ibid., p. 88. " ...et ita poterunt commisceri et confundi abbatis res et redditus et conventus, quos abbas Robertus bone memorie requisito consilio distinxit et ab invicem separavit," ibid., p. 81. In regard to the dispute with Abbot Samson, there is evidence for some kind of agreement between him and the monks which is discussed by Antonia Gransden in " A democratic movement in the abbey of Bury St. Edmund's," pp. 3off. and to whom 82 I owe this reference. Ibid., pp. 89-90.

26

The place of the mensa be protected during a vacancy.63 The text, however, is not without suspicious features, including a confirmation, at too early a date, of the right to elect the abbot. The abbey was in the king's hands between the death of Robert II in 1107 and the appointment of Alebold in 1114, but a royal writ of protection recording the custody made no mention of a division of property.64 The actual separation may have been made later, perhaps in the time of Abbot Hugh I (1157-1180). During his office the abbey's lands were badly managed and incurred a heavy debt. There was the threat, moreover, that the abbot might appropriate the convent's possessions for his own purposes. When Hugh died the monks solicited the consent of Henry II "to the effect that the property and revenue of the convent which were separate from the abbot's portion should be wholly in the hands of the prior and community, while the rest of the possessions were to be held by the king." 65 But worse was to come at the death of Abbot Samson in 1211. The sacrist and chamberlain, on behalf of the prior, bought the custody sede vacante from King John for 400 marks. Other members of the convent were evidently not consulted and they complained again of the danger of confounding the abbot's mensa with that of the monks.66 In fact what had happened was that the king had seized the abbot's share, as was customary, and then had sold it back to the prior, so that the latter then held the administration of both parts. Within three years, however, John had taken possession of the whole abbey with all the property of the monks, leaving them only a small allowance to live on.67 By combining the separate mensae under his own hand, the prior undoubtedly sought to increase the abbey's income or, at least, to improve the lot of his own supporters. This reorganization might have furnished an argument for the king when he decided to take over the assets on the grounds that since there was but a single mensa he had no choice but to exploit it.68 Actually, it probably made little difference to John whether there was one mensa or two. Such 63

65 66

67 68

Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds, ed. D. C. Douglas, British Academy Records of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales 8 (London 1932), no. 35; Regesta 11,1079; see also H. W. C. Davis, "The liberties of Bury 64 Feudal Documents, n o . 28. St. Edmunds," EHR, 24 (1909), 422. Ibid., p . 8. The Chronicle of the Election of Hugh, Abbot of Bury St. Edmunds and later Bishop of Ely, ed. R. M . T h o m s o n , O x f o r d Medieval Texts ( O x f o r d 1974), p . 4. Ibid., p p . 80-82. T h e a r g u m e n t that the m o n k was a person legally dead and, therefore, h a d n o rights in a conventual mensa led t o t h e same conclusion.

27

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England seizures were a widespread occurrence at the time, and he would have taken the abbey into his hands in the same way. As it turned out, the abbey's property was restored in 1215, but the final separation of the mensae was not made until late in the century. 69 Similarly, at Westminister abbey, although the usual allocation by the abbot in favor of the monks can be dated to the early twelfth century, there was no formal separation of the mensa until the time of Abbot Richard de Berking about 1225.70 In that case it seems that the division was made, not with the idea of protecting the convent's assets from the king during a vacancy, but to enhance the growing power and independent position of the corporate body of monks. Nevertheless, at the death of the abbot in 1246 the whole estate was seized by the royal commissioners, just as it had been at Bury, without regard for a separate mensa.11 Finally, it can be shown that at Reading abbey, which had been founded by Henry I c. 1122, it was assumed that the monastic house should be free of feudal obligations, that the abbots should not be barons, and, therefore, that the mensa should not be divided.72 Thus the case was argued for an integrated administration which was closer to the ideal of the eleventh-century reform program than the development which took place in most of the religious houses. These examples, drawn from the monastic history of the period, can, without difficulty, be applied to the cathedral churches since in a number of ways, as will be shown, they exhibited the same characteristics. They point up the fact that encroachment by the abbot (or the bishop) was often a greater problem that the threat of seizure by the king, and that a divided mensa was not indispensable to an efficiently run administration. They also make clear that the separation of property did not consist in a single act in the years immediately following the Conquest, but that it was rather a gradual development with a longer and more complicated history. Under intense political and 69

70 71 72

" Impetrata est a domino rege de novo separatio inter bona abbatis et conventus sancti Edmundi ita quod de caetero nullo casu confundantur, appensis domino regi mille libris excepto auro regine ad tantam pecunie summam pertinente...," The Chronicle of Bury St. Edmunds. 1212—1301, ed. A. Gransden, Nelson Medieval Texts (London 1964), p. 73; Calendar of Charter Rolls, H.M.S.O. (London 1903—1927), vol. 11, p. 259. J. Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster. A Study of the Abbey under Norman Rule (Cambridge 1911), p. 4 1 ; B. F. Harvey, Westminister Abbey, pp. 86-87. Ibid., p. 87. " Hoc autem ideo statuimus statutumque perpetuo servandum firmavimus, quia abbas Radingensis non habet proprios redditus sed communes cum fratribus," Reading Abbey Cartularies, vol. 1, ed. B. R. Kemp, Camden Society, 4th ser. 31 (London 1986), p. 34.

28

The place of the mensa economic pressure, the practical course in the twelfth century was not to imitate the model of Reading abbey, but to move in the opposite direction of a double endowment and defined capitular liberties. How this came about can best be seen by first putting the position of the episcopal church and the status of the bishop into historical perspective.

29

Chapter 2

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE KINGDOM The development of the Anglo-Norman church was shaped by three fundamental changes which occurred in the course of the tenth and eleventh centuries and which had far-reaching effects on both the clerical and the lay society of the time. In the first place, the underlying economic revolution, based on a rising population and improvements in agriculture, accompanied by a surplus in production, a revived money economy, and a growing intensity in commercial ventures, led to a redistribution of wealth which affected almost all of the cathedral churches. Greater wealth meant more donations from the lay sector, but more competition for their control, and this in turn, required more care in handling them. Enriched endowments usually led to increased expenses and often to greater debts as a result. The growth of towns, moreover, had a further effect in that all of the cathedral churches developed in an urban environment. Although monastic Christianity was a rural phenomenon which marked its greatest success in the period before the twelfth century, in England, where half the sees possessed convents of monks, the cathedral priories, like the secular chapters, came to be closely tied to town life, town regulations, and town wealth. As a consequence, the economic changes had a direct impact on the structure of the mensa, as well as on the wider relationship between regular and secular clergy. In the second place, the cluster of changes brought about by the reform movement within the church had profound consequences for every level of society throughout the Latin West. Although the executive force was papal, the roots of the reformation were in the regular clergy. Its practical results in regard to the English sees were seen in the establishment of monastic chapters in the place of secular colleges of canons in many of the cathedrals, in the transfer of several sees from one town to another, accompanied by a more aggressive attitude on the part of the bishops in defense of their prescriptive rights, and in the demand for new church buildings, 30

The episcopal church in the kingdom more expensive ornaments and costly decoration. No less important were the views of the reformers on the issues generally referred to as clerical marriage, simony, and lay investiture. Although the enforcement of decrees bearing on these malversations was regularly resisted by both the clergy and the lay rulers, the widespread controversy which was generated by their discussion had the effect of increasing the level of professionalism among the ecclesiastical orders, of creating a hierarchy of power within the church, of moving both monks and priests to a greater reliance on arguments drawn from the collections of canon law to establish their legal position, and of provoking the startling emergence of the bishop of Rome in the role of superior judge whose decision was final. Nevertheless, it was ironic that while the reformers, in their efforts to limit lay control over ecclesiastical affairs, viewed the bishop as the centerpiece and moving force, a very large number of the prelates in England in the twelfth century were promoted from a position in the royal court and often remained in their outlook more attuned to secular than to spiritual concerns. This was a point of vital significance because in the twelfth century the bishop dominated the chapter. In the thirteenth, in spite of an episcopal renaissance led conspicuously by Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, episcopal power was tempered by the greater intrusion into diocesan affairs by a succession of able popes and by the internal growth of the chapter to a position of strength based on administrative and financial independence. In the third place, the whole complexion of the English church was altered by the Norman invasion, the conquest of the following years, and the establishment of a monarchy of great power and ability. In 1066 the English episcopal church comprised fifteen bishoprics which varied enormously in size and wealth and whose incumbents were all Edwardian appointments. Although they had all been founded and formed along the lines of the Old English tribal and political organization, in the mid-eleventh century only Selsey in Sussex and Wells in Somerset coincided with the boundaries of a single county. By that time Canterbury and Rochester shared Kent; Winchester extended to Hampshire and Surrey; Ramsbury-Sherborne to Wiltshire, Berkshire and Dorset; Exeter to Devon and Cornwall; Hereford to Herefordshire and part of Shropshire; Worcester to Worcestershire, Gloucestershire

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England and part of Warwickshire; Lichfield to Staffordshire, Chester, Derbyshire, part of Shropshire, and part of Warwickshire; Elmham to Norfolk and Suffolk; London to Middlesex, Essex, and part of Hertfordshire; Durham to Durham and Northumberland; York to Yorkshire and part of Nottinghamshire; and Dorchester, the largest of all, to Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Rutland (although not yet a county), Northamptonshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire, part of Hertfordshire, and apparently a part of Nottinghamshire. As to their property, they ranged in affluence from a high level of episcopal income at Canterbury and Winchester, to relatively small sums at Rochester, Wells, Selsey, and Lichfield. Some of them also differed from the usual continental churches in that, peculiar to the Old English ecclesiastical structure, a monastic chapter was attached to several of the cathedrals. At the time of the Conquest the four sees at Canterbury, Sherborne, Winchester, and Worcester had this form of organization, while the other eleven possessed chapters of secular canons. The movement of certain of the sees from one place to another appears to have been due chiefly to economic and safety reasons. Crediton was transferred to Exeter in 1050, Ramsbury to Sherborne in 1056 x 1058, and Dorchester in the south of the diocese to Lincoln in the north around 1072. * There followed the shift of Elmham to Thetford probably later in 1072, of Lichfield to Chester and Selsey to Chichester in 1075, of Sherborne to Old Sarum about 1078, of Wells to Bath 1088 x 1090, of Thetford to Norwich in 1094 x IO95» a n d of Chester to Coventry by 1102.2 In 1

2

For Exeter see F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford 1943; 3rd edn. Oxford 1971), p. 658; Barlow, English Church I, p. 212. For Sherborne see Barlow, English Church I, p. 82. For Lincoln, the dating of which is still in dispute, see LRS-RA 1, pp. xvi-xvii; EEA1, p. xxxii and p. 2, note; Owen, Church and Society, p. 37, suggests 1072, but on p. 1 says that in 1087 the cathedral had not yet been transferred. Barlow, English Church II, p. 48, has "by 1086." Bishop Remigius, himself, was said to have wished to move to Loncoln and bought land on the hill near the castle. Henry of Huntingdon, Henrici Archidiaconi Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, ed. T. Arnold, RS-74 (London 1879), s.a. 1087. For Thetford see Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 658, and EEA vi, p. xxvii which states "before 1075." For Chester see Barlow, English Church II, p. 48. For Chichester see The Ada of the Bishops of Chichester: 1075-1207, ed. H. Mayr-Harting, Canterbury and York Society 130 (1964), p. 5. For Old Sarum see VCH Wiltshire, in, pp. 12, 156. For Bath see Regesta 1, nos. 314—315. For Norwich see Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae: 1066-1300, ed. J. Le Neve, in Monastic Cathedrals, ed. D. Greenway (London 1971), (hereafter Le Neve, Fasti) p. 55 ; B. Dodwell, " The foundation of Norwich cathedral," TRHS, 5th ser. 7 (1957), 1; EEA vi, p. xxx. For Coventry see VCH Staffordshire, in, pp. 7-8, which finds 1102 uncertain but reasonable, whereas Barlow, English Church II,

32

The episcopal church in the kingdom

the case of Bath, Coventry and Norwich, prosperous places were appropriated by the bishops of poorer sees almost certainly because they needed to find a way to augment their income. The bishop of Thetford had tried to encroach in the same way at Bury St. Edmunds, and the bishop of Ramsbury had threatened Malmesbury, neither, however, with any success. There was in several churches a marked discrepancy between the wealth of the community and that of the bishop. Both the differences in wealth and in the make-up of the cathedral clergy would influence the direction and development, as well as the pace, of the mensal division in the following years. The possibility of having either a secular or a monastic chapter allowed one of four different combinations: a bishop who was himself a monk and who ruled a community of monks, a bishop who was a monk but who possessed a chapter of canons, a secular bishop with a community of monks, or a secular bishop who had a chapter of canons. In general, it can be said that a monastic bishop in a cathedral priory could be expected to have the most harmonious relations with the clergy, while a secular bishop in a cathedral priory was likely to have the most difficulty. Placing a secular bishop over a group of monks was a practice which, predictably, drew the heaviest fire from twelfth-century monastic historians. It was condemned on general principles, although in some instances the relationship turned out to be far from hostile. It was true, nevertheless, that the major disputes of the time involving bishops and their clergy took place in the bishops' abbeys, whatever the status of the prelate. It was also the case that the great quarrels of a similar kind in the thirteenth century arose at Canterbury, Durham and Winchester, among the bishops and their monks.3 The appointment of monks to bishoprics, whether or not they possessed monastic chapters, was a current topic of debate. The writers of the time were divided on the question of whether a man could be moved from the cloister to the cathedral without irreparable harm to himself.4 Abelard, on one occasion at

3

4

p. 48, suggests 1087. The dates in the account by William of Malmesbury appear to be confused and reliance on them has been the cause of many of the above discrepancies. For the twelfth century see A. Morey and C. N. L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his Letters, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, n.s. 11 (Cambridge 1965), p. 194; and for the thirteenth see Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, vol. 1, pp. 260-262. Certain clauses in the Anglo-Norman versions of the decrees of the Council of Clermont in 1095: "Quod aliquis episcopus simul abbas esse non possit" (GR 11, p. 392); "Nemo episcopus abbas simul sit" (OV ix, p. 12), appear at first sight to rule

33

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England least, thought it a mistake to try it.5 St. Bernard, on the other hand, faced with a growing number of Cistercian bishops, considered it possible.6 So did Peter the Venerable.7 But Stephen Langton, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, when Benedictine monasticism was in full decline, declared that monastic chapters should not elect monks as bishops, not because of an inherent incompatibility between secular and regular life, but because so few monks, he thought, were qualified for the job. 8 It is an interesting comment, not only because it points up the shift by his time to a consideration of the important financial responsibilities of the job, but also because it reveals the need for skill in practical affairs by a prelate who had now to run what had become an important business establishment. But in spite of the arguments against the dual role, monks did become bishops in the twelfth century and certain of them proved to be quite successful. The view of the canonists was that a monk made bishop was free of his former obligations to his community, although he was still obliged to keep his oath of celibacy and poverty. The emancipation from the cloister was emphasized by the provision that, in the case of the abbot who became a bishop, the goods he had acquired before his appointment to the see remained with his monastery, while those acquired as bishop belonged to the cathedral clergy.9 In a practical sense, the administrative responsibility of a monk-bishop was not so very different from that of an abbot in a large house like Evesham, Glastonbury, or Bury St. Edmunds.10 In each case the superior began to live apart from the community, an arrangement already allowed for the abbot in Benedict's Rule. But instead of sharing a single endowment, the bishop accepted a division of property which tended to widen the gap even further.11 Now and again the critics warned

5 7 8 9

10

against a double career. In view of other injunctions in related texts, however, the concern was probably more in regard to the sin of ecclesiastical pluralism than the status of monastic bishops. For a discussion of the manuscripts see Robert Somerville, The Councils of Urban II (Amsterdam 1972), pp. 836°., and especially p. 91 andp. 148, no. 39. The regime of monk-popes, so dominant in the late eleventh and early twelfth century, came largely to an end after 1130. Cf. Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy. The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford 1989), p. 221. 6 Jacqueline, Episcopat et papaute, pp. 149-150. Ibid. G. Constable, "The disputed election at Langres in 1138," Traditio 13 (1957), 126. F. M. Powicke, Stephen Langton (Oxford 1928), p. 12. P. R. Oliger, Les Eveques reguliers. Recherche sur leur condition juridique depuis les origines du monachisme jusqua la fin du moyen age (Paris 1958), pp. 97-98, 106—107. u Gransden, " A democratic movement," pp. 28—32. MO, p. 406.

34

The episcopal church in the kingdom

against the dangers in the changes which allowed the convent to regard the bishop as more and more a distant figure. John of Salisbury scolded the monks of Christ Church for abandoning the Rule and trying to appoint the prior themselves.12 Innocent HI forbade the monks at Durham to alienate property without the consent of the bishop who stood in place of the abbot. 13 Somewhat later Innocent IV maintained that the abbot-bishop had a legal interest even in revenues which were destined solely for the convent; and in the reform schedule proposed by Cardinal Otto in 1238, as reported by Matthew Paris, the abbot was reinvested with his traditional authority and encouraged to live with his monks. 14 The damage to the principle of communal living as a consequence of the divided mensa, however, had already been done. Folio wing the removal of certain of the sees in England, Bath, Coventry, and Norwich were shortly added to the group of four monastic cathedral churches of Canterbury, Sherborne, Winchester, and Worcester. Monks replaced canons at Durham in 1082 and at Rochester a year later. The only change in the opposite direction occurred when Sherborne was transferred to Old Sarum in 1078 and the new church was founded with a chapter of canons. By the end of the eleventh century, therefore, the fifteen English bishoprics were divided almost equally between eight with monastic chapters and seven with secular ones.15 In the course of the twelfth century, the foundation of a cathedral church at Ely abbey in 1109 and at the Augustinian priory of Carlisle in 1133 tipped the balance in favor of the regulars. The configuration of seventeen sees of which ten were monastic and seven secular was to remain without major change until the Henrician revolution of the sixteenth century. As to the prelates themselves, the episcopate which William I inherited in 1066 was composed of fourteen bishops in fifteen sees, since Archbishop Stigand held not only Canterbury, but Winchester as well. Of the fourteen, six were monks, and eight were seculars who had previously been royal or episcopal clerks. At the time of the Conqueror's death in 1087 the total of monastic 12 14

15

13 JSL 11, p. 485. CPL 1, p. 4. Tierney, Foundations, p. n o , note 3; Matthew Paris, Matthaei Parisiensis Monachi Sancti Albani Chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard, 7 vols. (1872-1883), RS-S7, in, pp. 499-503. See also the Worcester Cartulary, no. 475. The monastic cathedral chapters were those at Canterbury, Bath, Coventry, Durham, Norwich, Rochester, Winchester, and Worcester. The secular chapters were found at Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lincoln, London, Salisbury, and York.

35

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Table i. The distribution of monastic and secular bishops and chapters in 1066, 1087, lioo, 1135, and 1134 (M = monastic, S = secular) 1066 See

Canterbury Dorchester Durham Elmham Exeter Hereford Lichfield London Rochester Selsey Sherborne Wells Winchester Worcester York

1087

Chapter

Bishop

M S S S S S S S S S M S

S S M S S S M S M M S S

M

s

M S

See

Canterbury Chester Chichester Durham Exeter Hereford Lincoln London Rochester Salisbury Thetford Wells Winchester Worcester York

M M

1100 See

Canterbury Bath Chester Chichester Durham Exeter Hereford Lincoln London Norwich Rochester Salisbury Winchester Worcester York

Chapter

Bishop

M M S S M S S

M S S S S S S S S M M — — S

S S M M

S M M S

Chapter Bishop

See

Canterbury Bath Carlisle Chichester Coventry Durham Ely

Exeter Hereford Lincoln London Norwich Rochester Salisbury Winchester Worcester York

s

36

M S S M S

S

s s

M S M S M M S

M S S M S S M S M S S

s s

M S

"35

Chapter Bishop M M M S M M M S S

s s

M M S M M S

M S M M S

S

s s

M S —

s s s

M S S

The episcopal church in the kingdom Table i (Cont.) See

"54 Chapter

Canterbury Bath Carlisle Chichester Coventry Durham Ely Exeter Hereford Lincoln London Norwich Rochester Salisbury Winchester Worcester York

M M M S M M M S S S S M M S M M S

Bishop M M M S M S S S M S S M S S M S S

bishops had dropped to five and the seculars had increased to ten in spite of the fact that there were then six cathedral priories instead of four. In i ioo, when Henry I came to the throne, there were ten secular bishops, three monastic, and two vacant sees. When he died in 1135 the seculars had increased to twelve, the number of monastic bishops was four, and there was a single vacant see. It may have been the case, for instance, that Henry I grew less keen to appoint monastic bishops after the struggle with Anselm during which the monks became more closely identified with the defense of papal interests. By n 54 seven out of the seventeen bishops in office were monks, or about 41 percent. Thereafter, the percentage fell off, and by the end of the century the monastic group was far outnumbered by the seculars. Table 1 shows at a glance the proportion of monks to seculars in all the cathedrals for the years 1066, 1087, 1100, 1135, and 1154. Another way to see the changes is by a comparison of the number of monastic bishops appointed during the twelfth century compared with the number of seculars. As is clear from table 2, there was a surge in regulars under Henry 37

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Table 2. The distribution of monastic and secular episcopal appointments: 1066-1216

Reign

Number of bishops appointed

In office in 1066 William I (1066-1087) William II (1087-1100) Henry I (1100—113 5) Stephen (113 5-1154) Henry II (1154-1189) Richard (1189—1199) John (1199-1216)

H

Secular

18

5 5

9

2

7

30

8 7 5

22

20

30

Total

Monastic

9 13

13 25

15

1

H

21

0

21

157

33

124

I late in his reign and under Stephen due chiefly to the influence of Bishop Henry of Blois and Archbishop Theobald, and then a retrenchment with the advent of the Angevins. At the same time the great number of curial bishops brought in by Henry I was reduced in favor of bishops drawn from the episcopal households.16 The place of the bishop in the church and the kingdom was defined by his position as an ecclesiastical official and as a tenantin-chief of the king. Although the eleventh-century reformation had made an attempt to restore episcopal rights which had been usurped by laymen and by religious houses, there was no agreement on the definition of the episcopate as a collective body. Was it an ordo apart, a concept which would be argued by later 16

There is some disagreement with the table drawn up by Thomas Callahan ("The renaissance of monastic bishops in England: 1135—1154," Studia Monastica 16 (1974), 55), but not enough to damage the significance of the relative proportions. There were several uncertain appointments such as the one at Hereford in 1137, or at Canterbury in 1191, and I have included in the count bishops who were appointed to more than one see, such as Gilbert Foliot to Hereford and then to London, Ralph d'Escures to Rochester and Canterbury, Baldwin to Worcester and Canterbury, Reginald FitzJocelin to Bath and Canterbury, Hubert Walter to Salisbury and Canterbury, Walter de Grey to Worcester and York, and Gerard to Hereford and York. On the other hand, I have omitted the following as questionable: Reginald, the prior, to Canterbury (1205—1206), John de Grey to Canterbury (1205—1206), Anselm to London (1136?), and Simon Langton to York (1215). For criticism of the notion of a monastic crisis in the early twelfth century see D. L. Bethell, "English black monks and episcopal elections in the 1120s," EHR 84 (1969), 673-698.

38

The episcopal church in the kingdom

canonists like Huguccio, or was it simply a dignitas within the priestly ordo, a position which appealed to theologians like Peter Lombard? Gratian's citation of the appropriate texts left the matter unsettled.17 Amid the strong crosscurrents of the investiture dispute it was once suggested that the bishop took on a royal dignity and was to be viewed as a king.18 But no less forceful was the argument that kings made bishops, were different from them, and conferred upon them lordship over their churches.19 The views of the lawyers and apologists, however, were of less concern to the men who governed England in the twelfth century than the actual position of the bishop as diocesan and royal vassal. On the one hand, under his jurisdictional powers the bishop exercised authority to hold synods, to dispense justice, to visit churches and to administer property and revenues. On the other hand, the fact that Domesday Book records the church as holding more than a quarter of all the land, of which the bishops possessed a substantial portion, meant that the episcopate formed a key group of magnates. Bishops were barons, and the point was made by Lanfranc at the trial of William de St. Calais, the bishop of Durham, in 1088, and by Henry II in clause eleven of the Constitutions of Clarendon in 1164.20 At the Council of Northampton shortly afterwards the bishops sat not as bishops but as barons.21 The Dialogue of the Exchequer referred to bishoprics as baronies, and when William Longchamp, bishop of Ely, seized Hugh de Puiset, the bishop of Durham, in 1190, he did so "as a 17 18

19

20

21

See R. L. Benson, The Bishop-Elect, pp. 70-71. "Nam et regalem dignitatem habere videtur episcopus," Hugh of Fleury, for which see E. H. Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies. A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton 1957), pp. 55—57, and R. L. Benson, The Bishop-Elect, p. 300. "The Norman Anonymous," in The Crisis of Church and State: 1050—1300, ed. B. Tierney (Englewood Cliffs, N J . 1964), p . 78, and Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England, ed. S. T h o r n e ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass. 1968—1977), vol. iv, p . 373. S i m e o n o f D u r h a m , Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, ed. T . A r n o l d , .RS-75, 1, p p . 171-194; The Constitutions of Clarendon, cl. 11, SC, 163. See also OV v n , p . 42. T h e difference, h o w e v e r , was n o t always so clear. T h e 1125 confirmation o f liberties to Reading abbey b y H e n r y I, and the similar text b y H o n o r i u s II, blurred the distinction b e t w e e n abbot and baron b y insisting that the mensa should remain undivided, and that u p o n the death o f the abbot it should n o t revert t o the king b u t b e administered b y the prior a n d m o n k s . A l t h o u g h at Reading, t h e abbey's possessions w e r e n o t taken into royal custody sede vacante, for the episcopal foundations this was a counsel of perfection. Reading Abbey Cartularies, ed. B . K e m p , C a m d e n Society, 4th ser. 31 (London 1986), vol. 1, p . 3 4 ; PUE in, p . 137. " N o n sedemus hie episcopi sed bar ones. N o s barones et vos barones pares hie s u m u s , " Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. J. C. Robertson and J. B. Sheppard, 7 vols.
39

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England chancellor seizing a castellan, not as a bishop seizing a bishop. " 22 Thus the baron could be separated from the ecclesiastic, the barony from the bishopric, the individual from the office, and his personal property from that of the church.23 To be a baron meant that the bishop owed feudal service.24 To prove the point by an exception, in the thirteenth century, the bishop of Rochester, who held of the archbishop of Canterbury rather than of the king, claimed that he owed no such service and was, therefore, not a baron. 25 Because a bishop had no heirs, as a royal vassal his barony reverted to the king upon his death to be redeemed by his successor. That such a transaction could not easily be distinguished from simony caused considerable concern among the reformist clergy, although somewhat less among the English bishops. Herbert Losinga, it will be remembered, paid 1,000 marks to William II in 1090 for the see of Thetford for himself, and for Newminster at Winchester for his father. Although he made a journey to Rome, presumably to offer a bribe to set things straight, he nevertheless kept his see after a temporary deposition.26 Archbishop Anselm offered £500 in 1093 for Canterbury but was refused, and Ranulf Flambard paid .£1,000 for Durham six years later.27 Robert of Lincoln gave £3,000 to William II for the see of Lincoln in order to be ordained by Anselm without inviting the archbishop of York's objection that Lincoln was in the northern province.28 In the century and a half after the Conquest, the dual role of the bishop consequently led to a good deal of confusion, some of it probably manufactured for the purpose. The charges and countercharges reported by the chronicler of the trial of the bishop of Durham at the court of William II provide a good illustration of this kind of word play. William II, it was said, had disseised the 22

23

24 25

26

27

28

Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. C . J o h n s o n , N e l s o n Medieval Classics ( L o n d o n 1950), p.96. See Richard of Devizes, The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes, ed. J. T . A p p l e b y , O x f o r d Medieval Texts ( L o n d o n 1968), p p . 10-12. " B i s h o p s could b u y , inherit or receive lands, like other m e n , in their private, apart from their official c a p a c i t y , " J. H . R o u n d , VCH Hertfordshire, 1, p . 279. Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law, vol. 1, p p . 246, 250. H . M . C h e w , The English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief and Knight Service especially in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries ( O x f o r d 1932), p p . 184—185. W . Frohlich, " D i e bischoflichen Kollegen Erzbischof Anselms v o n C a n t e r b u r y , " P h . D . dissertation, L u d w i g - M a x i m i l i a n s Universitat zu M i i n c h e n (1971), p . 83. Eadmer, HN, p . 43, and see R. W . Southern, Saint Anselm and his Biographer. A Story of Monastic Life and Thought, 1059-c. 1130 ( C a m b r i d g e 1963), p . 157; GP, p . 274, note 3Hugh the Chantor. The History of the Church of York, ed. C . J o h n s o n , Nelson Medieval Classics (London 1961), p . 9.

4O

The episcopal church in the kingdom bishop of his lands and of those of his church. Thus a distinction was made between the mensae, although it was not recognized by the king.29 The bishop then asked William to restore to him his men and estates with their livestock since, he added disdainfully, it was not the royal position to judge bishops.30 The king, we are told, thereupon gave the episcopal property to his barons, and laid waste the bishop's (other) lands for two months. Although the reference is simply to terrae episcopi, in the first instance the lands granted to the barons must have been those which formed his own baronial estate, and, in the second instance, the lands must have been those which provided income to support the monks. This would seem to have been the case, since later the possessions which were invaded are referred to as those of the church, and those distributed to the king's men were to be restored to the bishop as baron.31 As the course of the argument developed, the bishop apparently decided that his best defense was to present himself in his ecclesiastical, rather than his lay. capacity, so that he might be judged according to his order by canon law.32 He would appear as a baron, but he would appeal as a bishop. Archbishop Lanfranc, as chief spokesman for the prosecution and in order to advance the king's purpose, declared that the bishop was being judged not in regard to his bishopric but in regard to hisfief,although at no time did he feel compelled to distinguish between them. The archbishop of York ruled that William must be tried before being reinstated in hisfief,but the bishop persisted in referring to his claim that he had been deprived of his bishopric. There are some difficulties in accepting the account as it stands. The author is unknown, reported conversations are always suspect, and even the date of 1088 for the text has been questioned as being too early.33 In spite of these problems, however, what it does show is the strong proprietary sense on the part of the bishop which allowed him to consider all the lands of the church as his own, and the lack of an acceptable definition of either possessions or personal 29 30 31 32

33

S i m e o n o f D u r h a m , JRS-75 1, p . 171. " N o n est e n i m o m n i u m h o m i n u m episcopos i u d i c a r e , " ibid., p . 172. " . . . s i c u t vestro h o m i n i et fideli," ibid., p p . 173, 180. H e seems, nevertheless, t o h a v e confused his status b y referring t o himself in b o t h capacities: " m a n d o vobis et d o m i n o et regi m e o quatenus intra securitatem pacis vestrae rectitudinem de m e ut de h o m i n e et episcopo vestro secundum rectum mei ordinis j u d i c i u m r e c i p i a t i s . . . , " ibid., p p . 175—176. See the arguments b y H . S. Offler, " T h e Tractate D e Iniusta Vexacione Willelmi Episcopi P r i m i , " EHR 66 (1951), 321-341, and b y B a r l o w , English Church II, p . 281, n o t e 46.

41

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England status. The difficulty was recognized at the time and in the Decretum, for instance, a distinction would be made between property held by the bishop personally, which he might alienate as he wished, and property which belonged to the church, which was to remain inviolate. But a precise legal concept to provide the basis for a permanent mensal division was still wanting. 34 It was to be a long time, however, before this was worked out in a satisfactory way. Even in the thirteenth century, while a stricter view of the mensa tended to give the chapter a greater measure of security sede vacante, the bishops were still able to use the assets of their churches for their personal needs, and bishoprics and abbeys were still subject to the loss, or at least the impoundment, of their property at the hands of the royal commissioners.35 Be that as it may, the tradition of episcopal jurisdiction was tempered to a certain extent to the advantage of the chapter by current theories on episcopal poverty and trusteeship. It was thought by some that bishops should not be possessed of great wealth when they died. The gift by Ralph Luffa, bishop of Chichester, of all his goods to the poor was noted with approval by William of Malmesbury.36 But William of Corbeil, the archbishop of Canterbury, gave away none of his property and was censured for his greed.37 A bishop who wished to insure the affection of his biographers might be careful to act in a spirit of pious generosity during his lifetime so that at the moment of his death he had no more possessions to grant away and died in holy poverty, but few of them were fortunate enough, or virtuous enough, to be able to do it. By the terms of his coronation charter King Stephen allowed his bishops to make a reasonable disposal of their property through their wills, and there were many in the course of the twelfth century who did so.38 The advantages can be illustrated by a story about Hugh, the saintly bishop of Lincoln, who once insisted that none of the property he held was his and that, therefore, according to canonical decrees, it all should pass intact to his successor.39 Strictly speaking he was correct, since members of the monastic orders possessed nothing and, therefore, 34 35

36 39

Decretum, n, C . xii, q.v. J. R. H. Moorman, Church Life in England in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge 1945), p p . 172—173. See also t h e case at E l y cited b y S. W o o d , English Monasteries and their Patrons in the Thirteenth Century, O x f o r d Historical Series ( O x f o r d 1955), p . 78. 37 38 GP, p p . 265-267. Gesta Stephani, p. 6. SC, pp. 143-144. Magna Vita Sancti Hugonis, ed. D. L. Douie and H. Farmer, Oxford Medieval Texts (London 1961-1962), vol. 11, p. 187.

42

The episcopal church in the kingdom

could not and should not make a will.40 Hugh, however, realized that without a will all his possessions were likely to go, not to the poor, or to the church, but to the king, and reflecting on this sad state of affairs he drew up a schedule of his dispositions.41 On the other hand, in spite of the ease with which Hugh de Puiset, the bishop of Durham, put his intentions in writing, all of his property was taken by the royal agents. But, of course, not every bishop wished to risk his own impoverishment by an act of premature piety. Archbishop Theobald found that because of his long illness and domestic expenses he was obliged to keep most of his wealth in his own hands until the last few days of his life. In the will which he dictated about 1158 he specified that the monastic mensa at Canterbury should remain intact, that the lands of the see should not be alienated or wasted, and that whatever remained of his own possessions should be doled out to the poor.42 There was thus proposed a three-way division which was based on the previous separation of assets into those belonging to the archbishopric, to the convent, and to the archbishop personally.43 The chief difficulty with such an arrangement was that it was often beyond the power or wishes of the prelate to make a satisfactory distinction between the three types. In an interesting case at Abingdon abbey, the abbot held seven manors himself for the use of the monks. From his point of view he may have considered them primarily for his own use, but from the monks' point of view he was merely the trustee.44 Not only were estates easily mixed so that what was personal and what was official became confounded together, but often the way the property was described depended on which side advanced claims to it. By way of an example, once again from Lincoln, Hugh, a bishop who habitually lived beyond his income, found himself in debt to the king to the sum of 3,000 marks. Obliged to raise the money to meet the liability, his view seems to have been that since the bishop 40 41

43 44

Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, vol. I, pp. 433—435; Sheehan, The Will in Medieval England, pp. 250-251. Henry I had taken all the money left by Ranulf Flambard in 1129 and by Gilbert, bishop of London, in 1134 (Simeon of Durham, Historia, RS-JS 1, p. 141; OVvi, pp. 336-340.) In spite of Stephen's coronation promise to allow the church to dispose of the goods of a bishop w h o died intestate, he apparently seized all of Roger o f Salisbury's wealth in 1139. E. J. Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, Viceroy of England (Berkeley 1972), pp. 204—205. When Geoffrey Ridel, bishop of Ely, died intestate in 1189, Richard took his property 42 as well. Ralph de Diceto, RS-68 n, p. 68. Saltman, Theobald, no. 28. Sheehan, The Will in Medieval England, pp. 142-143. G. Lambrick, "Abingdon abbey administration,"JEH 17 (1966), 173-174.

43

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England received the revenues of the church in its name, it was the church which should assume responsibility for repayment. Hugh's proposal was to return to Witham to live as a hermit and to put the revenue (proventus) of the see toward the debt. But persuaded that this course of action would be harmful to his flock, he finally agreed to arrange that the diocesan clergy should render the account while he would contribute as much as he was able from his own resources.45 Inherent in this notion was the idea that the bishop held the property of the church in trust or, as Alexander HI put it, per gratiam}* "Bishops," said Eugenius III in a letter to Robert, bishop of Exeter in 1153, "were there to build up the church, not to tear it down by allowing its possessions to disappear. " 47 The canonist theory stressed the position of the bishop as steward of his church, prelati non sunt domini sed procurators, so that the need for wealth in a society like the Christian church, which claimed poverty as a virtue, was rationalized.48 Although the twelfth century was the time when the bishop and his chapter gradually grew apart from one another, there was no point at which they became completely independent. Even after the allocation of estates and a formal division of the mensa, the bishop continued to play an important role in capitular affairs. He approved the buying and selling of valuable land, he defended the church in legal suits, it was his task to intercede with the king on the canons' behalf, he solicited donations from the wealthy, he 45 46

Magna Vita, vol. n, p p . 35—36. PUE 1, n o . 159, p . 434. T h e bishop was custos o f his church, he h a d its mund. R. L. Benson, The Bishop-Elect, p p . 1226°.; W . U l l m a n n , The Individual and Society in the.

Middle Ages (Baltimore 1966), pp. 21-22. The canons of the first Lateran council of 1123 made the point that the cure of souls and the management of ecclesiastical property abided with the bishop: (4) " Immo sicut sanctis canonibus constitutum est animarum cura et rerum ecclesiasticarum dispensatio in episcopi iudicio et potestate permaneat [51V];" (8) "...sed secundum apostolorum canones omnium negptiorum ecclesiasticorum curam episcopus habeat et ea velut deo contemplante dispenset," COD, pp. 190-191. 47

48

" E t q u o n i a m pastores ecclesie in edificationem n o n in destructionem sunt s e c u n d u m a p o s t o l u m constituti, possessiones eiusdem ecclesie inutiliter et iniuste distractas ad ius et d o m i n i u m ipsius loci revocandi liberam tibi concedimus facultatem. Statuentes ut nee tibi nee tuis successoribus liceat in easdem res vel possessiones ab ecclesia alienare vel alicui laico in feudum d a n d o ab ecclesie ditione transferee," PUE 11, n o . 78. Tierney, Foundations, pp. 242—243 ; J. T. Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages (London 1969), p. 158. See also Gerald of Wales, Giraldus Cambrensis,

Speculum duorum, or A Mirror of Two Men, ed. Yves Lefevre and R. B. C. Huygens (Cardiff 1974), " cum rebus ecclesiasticis [episcopi] tanquam commendatis non tanquam propriis uti deberent" (p. 228).

44

The episcopal church in the kingdom appointed to church offices and exercised his right of visitation.49 The bishop often had some of his supporters in the chapter, and some of the canons were usually members of the episcopal household.50 By the time of Innocent III, in the beginning of the thirteenth century, the prominent canonical view held that affairs which affected the whole church were to be treated by the bishop and chapter together, while each side was to conduct its own business separately.51 This was an approach to the ideal notion of capitular control over wealth which was that the canons should have the same rights in their lands as the bishop had in his.52 But this goal was only partly achieved and this kind of jurisdiction only partly defined in the twelfth century. Hugh of Lincoln took it for granted that the patronage lay in his hands.53 This authority gave him enormous leverage in dealing with the members of the chapter in spite of the fact that he was obliged to share it with the king and with the pope. But it was assumed that patronage and lordship went together. It was recognized in canon law and, because it involved property, it was the concern of the common law as well. For the church as beneficiary there was the act of foundation, endowments, gifts, and protection against suits at law, debt, and lay aggression. For the patron there was the use of the assets, the profits sede vacante, customary dues, hospitality, livings for his family and friends, a graveyard for his body, prayers for his soul and, perhaps, a monument to his memory. On the other hand the patron's rights might be questioned, his attentions resisted, his demands rejected and, infestus et molestus, he might be the unwelcome intruder faced with growing resentment, declining authority and expensive legal action. By the thirteenth century the ritual surrounding the appearance of the bishop in his church worked to limit his authority even more. The elaborate ceremony of receiving him made his presence an occasion and a privileged moment. The bells were tolled, the formulaic phrases were intoned, and the procession was led into the church according to the tradition of the orders. But the very pomp and display which accompanied the visit made of it an exceptional event, and so robbed it of what might have been its 49 50 51 52

C . R. C h e n e y , English Bishops' Chanceries: 1100—1250 (Manchester 1950), p p . 138-139. M o r e y a n d B r o o k e , Gilbert Foliot, p . 2 1 1 . Gillet, La Personalite juridique, p . 129. Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, n o . 6 3 ; Primum Registrum Conventus Norwicensis Ecclesie, ed. H. W. Saunders, Norfolk Record Society n (Norwich 1939), 53 fo. io v . Magna Vita, 1, pp. H2ff.

45

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England conventional authority. It was not long before the chapter considered that only on such an occasion was the bishop welcome in the church.54 There might also be a firm line drawn by the canons against the archdeacons from whose interference they wished to be exempt. But this practice was hard to control since archdeacons often claimed a position as members of the chapter by holding prebends.55 The bishop would have to choose very carefully how he wished to assert his independent authority. Archbishop Baldwin was warned not to put forward his proposal to build a new church because, "if you do it the chapter will oppose you and you will, consequently, have to appeal to the king, which will infringe on your own authority, and to the pope, which will subject you to the arrogance of Rome. " 56 Whether the bishop was in residence most of the time or not seems to have made little difference in regard to the difficulties which he experienced with his clergy. Geoffrey of York was usually absent, while Hubert Walter of Canterbury was generally present, but they both provoked violent disputes over a period of several years. What appears to have been of more significance, aside from the inflammatory circumstances of a secular bishop in a cathedral priory, was the personal character of the prelate. That so much could turn on one man proves again the basically immature institutional development of the ecclesiastical structure. While it is conventional and practical to speak of the cathedral chapter in a collective sense, it was far from being a monolithic body, speaking with one voice and acting with one will. Nor was the composition of the chapter the same in every see. In some there were important family groups which exercised control for appreciable periods of time. There were, for example, the Foliots at Hereford, the De Auco family at Exeter, the relatives of Bishop Roger at Salisbury and those of Bishop Everard at Norwich.57 In some chapters the canons, or the monks, found themselves in 54

55

56 57

K. Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages. A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century (Manchester 1948, rev. 2nd. edn. M a n c h e s t e r 1967), p . 102. G . S c a m m e l l , Hugh du Puiset, Bishop of Durham ( C a m b r i d g e 1956) p . 1 4 8 ; Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, no. 63; Worcester Cartulary, no. 52; Liber Eliensis, e d . E. O . Blake, C a m d e n Society, 3 r d ser. 92 ( L o n d o n 1962), p p . 124—125. Magna Vita, 1, p . 122. Morey and Brooke, Gilbert Foliot, chap. 3; D. W. Blake, "The development of the chapter of the diocese of Exeter: 1050-1161," Journal of Medieval History 8 (1982), 7-8; Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, p. 273; for Norwich see EEA vi, nos. 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, 50.

46

The episcopal church in the kingdom opposing factions depending on what political or social cause separated or united them. There was, moreover, quite often a marked hostility between the younger and older members of the community. At Canterbury in the late twelfth century, Archbishop Baldwin found that it was largely the former who were responsible for organizing the opposition to his plans. According to Gervase, however, in the end he did no better by choosing to listen to the older and wiser ones.58 This diversity of composition and variety of opinion make the task of sorting out the elements in the relations between bishops and chapter more difficult, but they help to explain why a definitive mensal separation in the cathedral churches was so long in coming and why the bishop was often able to turn the chapter and its resources to his own advantage. It was the time before the cathedral convents were bound to obey the instructions of the chapters of English Black monks according to the canons of Lateran IV, and before the cathedral canons had forced their bishops to take an oath to observe the conventions of their churches. Custom had not yet hardened into law, and the bishops had a relatively wide scope in which to do as they wished, supported by the papacy as the key figures in local administration, and by the king as valuable tenants-in-chief and royal counselors. Although it is probably true that in the twelfth century bishops and chapter shared more of their lives together in a relationship that by and large was one of harmony and mutual benefit, it was nevertheless the great formative period out of which the chapter emerged as a separate institutional body in the English cathedral church. The way in which this change came about, what forces drove it forward, and what elements defined its character can best be considered by looking closely at the development in each see, first in the group of churches possessed of cathedral priories and then in the group with chapters of secular canons. 58

Gervase of Canterbury, Historical Works, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. RS-73 (1879-1880), vol. 1, p. 420.

47

Chapter 3

THE CATHEDRAL PRIORIES

BATH AND WELLS

Five years before the Conquest, Giso of Lorraine, a chaplain of King Edward, succeeded Dudoc, also from Lorraine, as bishop of Wells.1 He remained in office until his death in 1088, so that the account of the possessions of the see in Domesday in large part reflects his success in maintaining and increasing the endowment. In addition to the Domesday entries, references to the early inventory can be obtained from a group of nine Anglo-Saxon charters, two charters of William I, and the narrative of the bishopric contained in the anonymous Historiola and its supplements.2 From the king, Giso obtained a writ confirming him in the see of Wells with all the lands and customs which pertained to it in the time of his predecessor. The individual estates, however, were not listed by name.3 Nor were they listed in the general privilege of Nicholas II who consecrated Giso in Rome on Easter day 1061.4 According to the Historiola, Dudoc gave the church certain property and personal possessions which had been granted to him by Cnut before he became bishop in 1033 and which included the abbey of St. Peter at Gloucester and estates at Congresbury and Banwell.5 An important part of the endowment, nevertheless, had been lost, which may be the reason for the absence of specific holdings in the papal letter. In Giso's version of the history he complained not only of the poverty in which he found the see upon his appointment, but also of the difficulty in recovering the 1

2

3 5

He thus joined a small circle of Germanic bishops in England which included Walter of Hereford, Leofric of Crediton, and Hereman of Ramsbury. AS Charters, nos. 1111-1116, 1240-1241, with references to the manuscripts and other editions. AS Writs, pp. 270-286, and pp. 486-491. Regesta 1, no. 23 and 160. Historiola de Primordiis Episcopatus Somersetensis, ed. Joseph Hunter, Camden Society 8 (1840), pp. i6ff.; Historia minor and Historia major. 4 AS Charters, no. m i . AS Writs, no. 64. PUE 11, no. 1. Historiola, pp. 15—16.

48

The cathedral priories

lands which had been unjustly seized by other ecclesiastics and laymen. One of the villains, apparently, was Earl Harold, who invaded the diocese during the period from 1057 onwards when he was campaigning in defense of the Hereford frontier, and to whom were forfeited Congresbury and Banwell.6 According to the later account, Giso continued to argue with Harold over the disputed property and even considered excommunicating him. When Edward died, however, Harold promised a restoration which he did not live long enough to fulfill.7 A writ of Harold's, as king, which confirmed the bishop's rights in his lands and men, survives and can be dated 6 January 1066 X 14 October 1066.8 Since it mentioned no particular estates and the language is very close to that of the writs issued by Edward six years before, it appears to be no more than a formal confirmation, granted without liability, by the new king. 9 Harmer, following Freeman, suggested that "either Harold was unconscious of wrong, or that if he was conscious of wrong, he was anxious to make amends. " 10 Or it could have been simply the case that Harold, conscious of wrong, had no intention of making amends at all, hence the general terms of the writ. In the event, both estates passed into the hands of the Conqueror, but parts, at least, of each were held again by Giso in 1086. Thirty hides in Banwell which Harold had confiscated were restored in 1068. n Seventeen of the hides there had been subinfeudated, and of two hides taken from Congresbury, Giso held one.12 The church at Gloucester appears also to have passed to Harold and later to have been usurped by Stigand.13 Three other writs of King Edward, and two of Queen Edith, refer to specific property: Giso's land at Chew, Litton, and Wedmore, and to estates at Milverton and Mark. 14 Chew (Magna) had been in possession of Bishop Dudoc, and so passed to Giso, although no mention of it is made in the Historiola. It was listed in 6 7 10

12 13

14

Ibid. p. 18 and Historia major, Collectanea, I, p. 60. 8 "Judicio divinae ultionis," ibid. AS Writs, no. 71. 9 Ibid., nos. 64—65. Ibid., p. 276. E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, its Causes and its

Results, 6 vols., (Oxford 1867-1879, 3rd edn. vols. 1—2, 1877), vol. 11 appendix, QQ, pp. n 674-680. Regesta 1, no. 23, which is not without suspicious features. DB 1, fos. 87-871?, 98b, 106. The king held Congresbury while Maurice, bishop of London, held the church. Regesta 1, no. 341. The story was reconstructed by Professor Barlow to show that the church in question was not St. Peter's abbey, but the collegiate church of St. Oswald which, after Stigand's downfall, was granted to the archbishop of York. Barlow, English Church I, p. 75, note 5. AS Charters, nos. 1113, 1115—n 16, 1240-1241. AS Writs, no. 66—72.

49

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Domesday Book under the terra episcopi where before the Conquest the bishop paid for thirty hides, more than half of which had been subinfeudated.15 Litton was bought from one Aired and confirmed to Giso by Edward " for his bishopric. " 16 In 1086 it was included in the bishop's land, but it was held by the canons of Wells. Since they were said to have held it themselves before the Conquest, it evidently was assigned to them ad augmentum cleri et sustentationem eius, as the Historiola has it, soon after Giso became bishop. Wedmore, on the other hand, was given to the bishop for the support of his clerks, but showed up in 1086 among his own possessions.17 It has been argued that because Wedmore was "assigned to the maintenance of the canons" in the writ and described as " for the support of the brethren " in the Historiola, but was in the bishop's hands at the time of the Domesday inquest, whereas Litton "had been intended for the purposes of the bishopric" but was designated for the canons' support, there must have been a redistribution of the estates by Bishop Giso.18 But the phrasing in the writ may simply refer to the bishop's household and not to the canons. Wedmore, moreover, is not mentioned in the historical account as having been assigned to the chapter. In each instance the estate in question had been confirmed to the bishop before the Conquest and was later listed under his holdings in Domesday Book. Although the revenue from Litton was perhaps used for the canons' benefit, it, too, remained in the bishop's hands. Since Mark and another estate at Modsley, both given by Queen Edith, were part of Wedmore, the canons may still have been deriving support from them in 1086 without holding them apart. In the Historia major both estates are described as for the support of bishop and chapter together, a point which emphasizes the integrity of the mensa at the time, rather than its division.19 Milverton, also confirmed by Edith, was an unconditional grant to the bishop before the Conquest.20 He was later deprived of it, however, and in 1086 it was in the king's hand.21 If the queen, who died in 1075, had had second thoughts about Milverton, and had taken it back, she may have granted Mark, which act can be dated slightly later, to make up for it. 15 17 19 21

16 DB 1, fo. 89c. AS Writs, p. 282. 18 DB 1, fos. 86, 89; Historiola, p. 19. AS Writs, p. 273 and no. 68. 20 Historia major, p. 60. AS Writs, no. 70. DB 1, fo. 87a, and the incomplete entry at 89d.

50

The cathedral priories The other lands acquired by Giso were at Winsham, Combe, Warminster, and Kulmeton. Winsham had been appropriated by one Elsi who retained it, in spite of being excommunicated, until William I granted it for the canons' use sometime before 1082.22 By 1086, however, Giso had appropriated it and leased it out.23 From one of the men of the diocese, the bishop bought property at Combe and Warmeston, and at Kulmeton from the abbot of Glastonbury which was soon snatched away from him. 24 Further properties which must have come into his possession, and which are listed in Domesday Book, are almost without exception under episcopal control.25 Only at Wells, at Wanstraw, and at Litton do the canons have a definite share. The Wells manor was the most important and was divided three ways: one part heavily endowed with meadow, pasture, woods, and moors, and worth £30, was for the bishop; a second part, worth £18, was held by the bishop's men; and a third part, with no extensive lands, was assigned to the canons for £12. Wanstraw, which the canons held themselves TRE, was valued at only ^ 3 . When, therefore, Giso says, or is made to say in his autobiographical history, that to avoid any uncertainty he has divided the goods of the church so that what belonged to the support of the canons may be distinguished from what belonged to the bishop, he apparently meant to draw a line between episcopal rights and capitular use, not between two sets of developed rights.26 Giso served the traditional warning to his successors not to alienate the chapter's property, but it is clear that in 1086 he himself was holding the lands he designated as part of the mensa capitularis in Edward's reign. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the Historiola for an independent chapter based on a divided mensa, and while the canons are allocated certain lands, their rights seem to have been those of the possessor rather than the owner. Overall, the value of their property is about £20 compared with something like £212 for the bishop. Giso's autobiography, moreover, is incorporated into the history of the see which was written at the end of the twelfth century or early in the thirteenth century. Although the exact relationship of Giso's account, 22 24

25

23 Regesta I, n o . 160. DB i, fo. 89c. Historiola, p p . 18—19. " W u r m e s t o n " m a y appear as " W o r m i n s t e r " in t h e spurious grant o f lands b y K i n g E d w a r d t o Wells in 1065, The Early Charters ofWessex, ed. H . P . R. Finberg, Studies in Early English H i s t o r y 3 (Leicester 1964), n o . 542. K u l m e t o n has not been identified, although it may be the " Keolfestun " in the same grant. For the translation ofparochianus as "diocesan" instead of "parishioner" see Regesta 11, no. 886. 26 DB 1, fos. 89a-89d. Historiola, p. 20.

51

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

narrated in the first person, to the larger work has never been satisfactorily explained, it may have been composed around 1175 as a text to justify the new construction at Wells cathedral. 27 As a set piece, more or less contemporary with the History, its value to explain the development in the late eleventh century is, consequently, somewhat less assured than one might at first suppose. Bishop Giso and Abbot Aelfsige of Bath died within a short time of each other in 1088. To Wells was appointed John of Tours, a court chaplain and physician to William I. John, the trusted servant who was at the Conqueror's death-bed in September 1087, was treated with respect by William Rufus and there is a record of his regular attendance upon the new king for the whole of his reign.28 Although he did some rebuilding at Wells, John soon moved the episcopal seat to the abbey of St. Peter at Bath where he was granted the church with all its possessions by the king. 29 Wells ceased to be the cathedral church and the administration there was turned over to John's steward, Hildebert. Hildebert left the estates of which he was in charge to his son, John, the archdeacon, who, in turn, left them to his brother, Reginald. Some of them were later recovered by Bishop Robert toward the middle of the century.30 There was thus established at Wells a short-lived family regime to which was appropriated income worth some £30 per annum from the church estates.31 At the new cathedral church, the bishop took over the property of the abbey which in Somerset consisted of twenty-four burgesses in the town and fourteen estates, nine of which were held by the church in demesne and the rest subinfeudated. These were at Lincombe (Lyncombe), Combe (Monkton Combe), Priston, Eversy, Stanton (Prior), Corston, Ash wick, Weston, Ford (Bathford), Wilmington, Charlcombe, Easton (Batheaston), Hampton (Bathampton), and Woodwick. 32 The abbey also held Alveston and Ashton in Gloucestershire, and probably land at Tidenham, 27

28 29

31

A . Gransden, " T h e H i s t o r y o f Wells C a t h e d r a l c. 1 0 9 0 - 1 5 4 7 " , in Wells Cathedral, a History, ed. L. S. Colchester (Shepton Mallet 1982), p . 33. B a r l o w , William Rufus, p p . 360, 372, 374, 400. Regesta i, n o . 3 1 4 - 3 1 5 . W i l l i a m ' s second charter is irregular in f o r m a n d m a y b e an interpolated version supplied later. See Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. W i l l i a m D u g d a l e , a n d J. Caley, H . Ellis, B . Bandinel, 6 vols. in 8 ( L o n d o n 1817-1850), v o l . 11, p p . 30 266—267. Historiola, p p . 20—23. T h e p o i n t that Hildebert w a s t h e bishop's b r o t h e r has been raised b u t n o t substantiated. See C . M . C h u r c h , Chapters in the Early History of the Church of Wells, A.D. 1136-1333 ( L o n d o n 1894), p . 8, a n d M . Brett, The English Church under Henry I ( O x f o r d 1975), 32 p. 178. DB 1, fo. 89d.

52

The cathedral priories although the latter is listed under the terra regis.33 John, in addition, purchased the lands of Hugh the Bearded for £60 which included part of Batheaston, Warley, Claverton, and part of Bathampton. 34 When he was given the town of Bath, with its markets, his share amounted to land assessed at well over one hundred hides which was worth about ^I7O. 35 In comparison, the land at Wells amounted to 280 hides valued at ^340, so that the two parts together made up an investment of considerable size, even allowing for disbursements to the bishop's men, to Hildebert, and to the monks and canons. The fact that Bath abbey was less well endowed than Wells, and that it probably suffered further losses during the Mowbray rebellion of 1088, makes one wonder why John thought to move his see there in the first place. Obviously, it was not solely for financial reasons. The decree of the London council of 1075, almost fifteen years earlier, which approved the removal of sees from villages to towns, would have justified the move but cannot have been the immediate cause. Bishop Giso attended the council but apparently did nothing. 36 Having begun a reform at Wells in accordance with the semi-monastic Lotharingian rule, and having built there a cloister, a dormitory, and a refectory, it is surprising that John chose not to remain in a prosperous church. The idea that the king might have wished to place a dependable servant in a disturbed district could have influenced his support of the transfer to Bath, but it is hard to see why the same aim could not have been accomplished at Wells. That John was attracted to the intellectual life at Bath and the circle of Adelard may be more to the point, and this explanation later received some support from William of Malmesbury.37 The fact^ that Bath abbey was conveniently vacant at the time provided a good reason to act quickly, although given the king's favorable 33

36 37

Weston was also held by Arnulf of Hesdin {DB fo. 98b); Bathford, Charlcombe, and Easton were held by Walter, perhaps Walter hosatus who held one hide from the abbot in Lyncombe (R. Lennard, "A neglected Domesday satellite," EHR 58 [1943] 34); another manor at Easton was also held by Hugh, the interpreter (fo. 99b); Hugh and Colgrim held Bathampton and Ranulf Flambard held Woodwick. Tidenham is listed as an abbey estate in the document De terris Bathae pertinentibus in Two Chartularies of the Priory of St. Peter at Bath, ed. William Hunt, Somerset Record Society 7 (1893), PP34 35 35-36. DB 1, fos. 89d and 99c. Regesta 11, no. 573. Gransden, "The History of Wells Cathedral," pp. 24-25. " Multa ibi nobiliter per eum incepta et consummata in ornamentis et libris, maximeque monachorum congregatione, qui sunt scientia litterarum et sedulitate ofFitiorum juxta praedicabiles... Litteratorum contubernio gaudens, ut eorum societate aliquid sibi laudis ascisceret," GP, p. 195.

53

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England response the general plan must have been under discussion for some time. It is also possible that John's first thought was to combine Wells with Bath, rather than leave the former for the latter. The royal grant of the abbey was made ad Somersetensis episcopatus augmentationem and the following grant of the city was m a d e ad augmentationem

pontificalis sedis suae...,

and there m a y

have been a short period when it was uncertain as to which town would have the cathedra. The monks of Bath, indeed, may have encouraged the plan as a way of enlarging their own endowment.38 To what extent John made a distinction between church property and his own, or between the episcopal mensa and the monastic, it is difficult to say. In view of the reallocation of the estates at Wells and the complaints of his heavy hand at Bath, it would appear that he was not inclined to make a formal separation. William of Malmesbury, always ready to rise in defense of monastic privilege, contended that the courtly bishop at first found the monks at Bath dull and uncultured. Consequently, he treated them somewhat harshly. He took away all the lands which provided their food supply, giving them instead a meagre ration administered by his own laymen.39 He later replaced the monks with more educated ones. By and by, after the new monks had settled in with the bishop's approval, he allowed the prior a small share by which he could maintain himself and the convent.40 He, nevertheless, seems to have kept most of the property in his own hands and is reported to have died unmoved and unrelenting.41 The Bath cartulary, however, includes a charter purportedly issued by the bishop in 1106 attesting to the fact that he restored to the monks lands which he had held for some time unjustly and which had belonged to the church, as well as property which he himself had bought. The latter included five hides at Weston, and land at Claverton, Dogmersfield, Batheaston, Warley, and at Arnwood in Hampshire, as well as a house in Bath and one in Winchester, and a large 38

39

41

J. Collinson, The History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset, 3 vols. (Bath 1791), says that the convent gave the bishop 500 marks to move the see, but the reference is inadequately supported. "Primoque aliquantum dure in monachos agebat, quod essent hebetes et ejus estimatione barbari, et omnes terras, victualium ministras, auferens, pauculumque 40 victum per laicos suos exiliter inferens," GP, p. 195. Ibid. " Obiit grandevus, qui nee etiam moriens emolliri potuit, ut plena manu monachorum terras redderet, successoribus suis non imitandum prebens exemplum," ibid.

54

The cathedral priories

assortment of valuable ecclesiastical ornaments.42 Almost all of this property was later confirmed to Bishop Robert of Lewes by Hadrian IV ( n 54-1159), so that it might have formed part of the endowment under John.43 The problem is to square the account in the Gesta Pontificum with the evidence provided by the charter. It is possible that the estates named in the charter constituted the small share which William of Malmesbury reported that John had granted to the priory. This leaves unresolved, however, the question of the usurped estates which he allegedly restored in 1106, but which he kept for himself according to the historical account. The answer may be that the charter with its sweeping grants to the church of Bath was interpolated into the cartulary at a later time, perhaps during the reorganization of the church by Robert of Lewes, and that William of Malmesbury was correct in saying that John died unrepentant. In any case, whether authentic in confirming a limited endowment on the monks, or spurious in granting them too much, the charter does not constitute sound evidence to argue that from 1106 the convent at Bath was largely independent of the bishop.44 Such a state of affairs, which depended on having a functioning monastic administration in place, would not be achieved until a long time after John's death. William of Malmesbury's critical appraisal of the bishop's behavior is an example of the persistent bias among so many contemporary ecclesiastical writers which inclined them to see the bishop as the wolf among the lambs where corporate privileges were concerned. There was at the time no specific authority that allowed monks or canons to claim full rights in the lands of the cathedral church, or to expect that a mensal division would be made for their benefit, or to imagine that the bishop would commit himself voluntarily to a permanent separation. Indeed, the 42

44

Two Chartularies, no. 53. Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 11, p. 268, no. xiv. " Arnwood" in the cartulary, is " Arnemuda super mare," which appears again in a papal privilege of 1156 as " salinas in nova foresta que dicuntur Hernemuda," PUE11, no. 90. The five hides at Weston had been confirmed to John by Henry I in September 1100, Regesta 11, 43 no. 492. PUE 11, no. 90. See T. Scott Holmes in VCH Somerset, 11, pp. 71—73, who curiously approves of Malmesbury's view that Bishop John died with the monks' property in his hands, but then maintains that from 1106 the convent grew more independent. R. A. L. Smith, also relying on the charter of 1106, thought that the bishop had restored all the revenues in that year, "John of Tours, bishop of Bath," Downside Review, 70 (1942). The charter, however, says that the named estates were restored "ad supplementum victus et vestitus eorum et ut augeatur conventus fratrum," so that in all it was a relatively modest acquisition by the monks.

55

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England general policy of kings and popes, of canon lawyers and lay officials, was to put the bishop first and to subordinate the privileges and authority of the chapter to his. In John's case, he may well have found the monks of Bath hostile and incompetent, and in the interests of good management, he may have made the decision to retain control over the lands and revenues of the see. This certainly seems to have been the case from 1088 to 1106. At that point, depending on how the charter is interpreted, things may have taken another turn with a more compatible group of monks. During a long episcopate of thirty-five years John was not considered ungenerous to his church, either in its building or in its adornment.45 Such achievements are in no way surprising, and they do not alter the picture of a strong-minded bishop who held tightly to the reins of his authority. That position was undoubtedly enhanced by royal favor. For most of the reign of William II, and that of Henry I, he was in regular attendance on the king. 46 At John's death in 1123, he was succeeded by Godfrey, the queen's chancellor. Nothing was done about the alienated estates at Wells since they were in the hands of a family which was supported at the time by both the king and his chief minister, Roger, bishop of Salisbury.47 The canons, nevertheless, still received an annual rent of sixty shillings from the archdeacon, so that the reassignment of their property did not constitute a dead loss.48 In 1136, with the accession of Bishop Robert of Lewes, a protege of Henry, bishop of Winchester, a more visible structure of capitular holdings began to take shape. Insofar as the lands at Wells were concerned, the bishop provided the basis for a division of episcopal property into separate endowments for the canons.49 Land at Wedmore was made into six prebends, four of which, with Mark and Modsley, the church at Wookey, and the Litton 45 46

47

49

GP, P . 195. Regesta I, nos. 318, 319, 338, 348, 378, 397, 3 9 8 ; Regesta 11, nos. 547, 6 0 1 , 626, 6 8 3 , 684, 832, 939, 945, 958, 1070, 1243, 1245, 1301, 1354. Historiola, p . 23. Kealey m e n t i o n s t h e p r o b l e m t o illustrate R o g e r ' s c h a m p i o n s h i p o f w e a k causes, b u t makes J o h n t h e bishop's son, rather than t h e bailiffs, E d w a r d Kealey, 48 Roger of Salisbury, p. 144. Historiola, p. 24.

Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 11, p. 293, no. xxvii, but printed with a curtailed witness list. See also HMCR, Wells MSS. 1, pp. 33—34 with an extended list, and A. Watkin, Dean Cosyn and Wells Cathedral, Somerset Record Society, Miscellanea 55 (1941), 53—54; Church, Chapters, p. 352; Two Chartularies, andj. Armitage Robinson, Somerset Historical Essays (London 1921), pp. 55—59. Church argued for a date of issue early in the episcopate, while Robinson doubted that the charter was drawn up before 1159. For a recent comment see Gransden, "The History of Wells Cathedral," pp. 26-27.

56

The cathedral priories prebend, were to endow the deanery. The Wedmore prebend itself was for the support of the sub-dean and the Biddesham prebend in Wedmore was assigned to the fabric of the church.50 Other prebends were established at Combe for the precentor, and at Whitechurch, Dultingcote, Chelcote, Warminster, Wanstraw, Winsham, Yatton, Huish, and Compton church.51 In addition, the bishop gave half a hide in Wotton, a virgate belonging to St. Mary's chapel, half a hide from St. Cuthbert's church, the episcopal tithe of wine, and a distribution of bread for the canons performing matins. It so happened that the lands which had been held so closely by John, the archdeacon, to the vexation of the chapter, passed at his death to his brother, Reginald, the precentor of the church. Reginald evidently surrendered them to the bishop in exchange for the estate at Combe St. Nicholas. Combe, however, was granted only as a life tenancy, which can be taken as another example of the conservative episcopal turn of mind. The bishop is also said to have improved on the sixty-shilling annual rent by granting to each of the canons an annual stipend of one hundred shillings, which if true would have represented an enormous outlay from episcopal income.52 Reginald's nephews, however, and their relations, objected to the settlement and filed a claim for their inheritance. An agreement was reached only toward the end of Bishop Robert's term when seventy marks were paid by the dean to the claimants in return for the chapter's undisputed title.53 Most of the lands of Robert's distribution were listed under the heading terra episcopi in 1086. But since Wedmore, with Mark and Modsley, had been granted to the church by King Edward ad victum canonicorum, while Litton and Wanstraw were held by the canons before the Conquest, these estates, at least, were those in which the chapter already had an interest.54 Winsham and Combe, which were episcopal lands subinfeudated in 1086, were mentioned by Giso as estates assigned to the canons. Huish (Episcopi) and Compton belonged to Banwell and were granted to the 50

52 53 54

Later, in the time of Bishop Jocelin, this arrangement was reversed so that Wedmore was appropriated to the deanery and Wookey church to the sub-deanery, HMCR, 51 Historiola, pp. 25-26. Wells MSS. 1, p. 66. " ...episcopus u n i c u i q u e c. solidos a n n u o s assignavit," Historiola, p . 24. HMCR, Wells M S S . 1, p . 3 9 ; Historiola, p p . 2 6 - 2 7 . In the thirteenth century Wedmore church, then a prebend of the deanery, was subject to divided jurisdiction between the bishop and the chapter. HMCR, Wells MSS. 1, p. 66.

57

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England church separately by the bishop. Part of Huish, however, had passed into the hands of several laymen and was not recovered for the church until late in 1159.55 Robert of Lewes and King Stephen ultimately endowed some two dozen prebends, as well as the deanship, with lands over which the bishop had exercised control. At this point another question arises in the peculiar double history of the see of Bath and Wells. Why did Bishop Robert devote the energy and money to the reconstitution of the church at Wells, and provide it with what amounted to a cathedral organization, when the bishop's abbey continued to be the only cathedral church in Somerset ? The best answer, perhaps, is the one given in Robert's own charter, which is that he was distressed at the unhappy condition of the church after it had fallen into the hands of Hildebert and his family and after its lands had been alienated. There had been, moreover, a modest investment made in Wells which the bishop probably did not wish to lose, and he undoubtedly found that a derelict church in his diocese so close to his own, which had indeed once housed the cathedra, was unacceptable. Although Robert's constitution suggests a fairly advanced organization at Wells with a dean, a sub-dean and a precentor, it is unlikely that the offices were laid out all at once. In addition to the bishop's charter, there are extant four advisory letters from the dean and chapter at Salisbury written to the canons at Wells in response to their queries in regard to several matters, including the dean's jurisdiction, the status of prebends, requirements for residence and the regulations pertaining to the goods of deceased canons.56 The letters were addressed to "I. the dean" at Wells, who was probably Ivo and who held the post during Robert's episcopate.57 The issues raised in the letters are, in large measure, incorporated into the Statuta antiqua of Wells, which makes it likely that the Statuta were written up somewhat later. Unfortunately there is no agreement on the dating of either the Salisbury letters or the Statuta.58 Since the first section of the Statuta includes excerpts from the Institutio of St. Osmund at Salisbury, in some 55

58 57 58

HMCR, Wells MSS. 1, pp. 27-28. Huish was confirmed to the canons of Wells as a prebend by Archbishop Theobald, Saltman, Theobald, charter no. 273. Watkin, Dean Cosyn, pp. 87-89 and HMCR, Wells MSS. 1, p. 31. HMCR, Wells MSS. 1, p. 27, p. 53. A . W a t k i n , " T h e precentors, chancellors a n d treasurers in Wells C a t h e d r a l , " Somerset R e c o r d Office, Collectanea 3 (1942), 51—103, especially p p . 6 0 - 6 5 , a n d a s u m m a r y in Gransden, " T h e history o f Wells C a t h e d r a l , " p p . 24—25.

58

The cathedral priories

lines verbatim, the process can be reconstructed whereby the Wells canons, uncertain as to the correct procedure, wrote to Salisbury for instruction, and perhaps received a copy of St. Osmund's directives. Until quite recently, with the date of the Institutio assigned to the late eleventh century, it was possible, as Watkin thought, to place the correspondence and the Statuta in the early part of the pontificate of Bishop Robert of Lewes. But since it has now been demonstrated that the Institutio was a forgery of the mid-twelfth century, Thompson's date of c. 1160 appears to be more plausible, at least for the letters.59 The Statuta went further than Robert's charter and not only provided for a dean, sub-dean, and precentor, but also for a chancellor, treasurer and succentor. To the internal hierarchy of dean, precentor, chancellor, and treasurer, the traditional but in no way ubiquitous fourfold arrangement in cathedral churches, was added the archdeacon, so that at Wells there were five personae. This unusual organization may have reflected the desire of the bishop to retain jurisdiction over the recently reformed collegiate church.60 The mention of these dignitaries may mean that the Statuta were not adopted at Wells much before the late twelfth century. The earliest notice found of a chancellor dates from about 1200, an outgrowth of the post of magister or, as he is referred to in the document, the master of the school.61 The earliest mention of the canons of Salisbury enjoying the status of archdeacons is 1155 x 1166, so that if the Statuta were in fact modeled on the Salisbury example, the evidence again points to a composition in the last third of the century.62 By 1203, or thereabouts, when Bishop Savaric thought it necessary to declare certain prebends exempt from archidiaconal jurisdiction, in accordance with the custom in other prebends, the privileges of the Statuta were probably in operation.63 The possessions granted to Wells church by Robert of Lewes were confirmed to the dean and canons by Hadrian IV in 1158, doubtless in response to their appeal to Rome. 64 The properties 59

Diana Greenway, " The false Institutio of St. Osmund," in Tradition and Change, Essays in Honour of Marjorie Chibnall, ed. D. Greenway, C. Holdsworth, and Jane Sayers 60 (Cambridge 1985). See Watkin, Collectanea 3 (1942), 66.

61

K. Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages. A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century (Manchester 1949, rev. 2nd. edn.

82 64

Manchester 1967), p. 186 and Watkin, Collectanea 3 (1942), 84. 63 Greenway, "The false Institutio," p. 90. HMCR, Wells MSS. 1, p. 30. PUE n, no. 101.

59

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England included several episcopal estates which dated to Domesday Book such as the land at Wedmore, Mark, Litton, Wanstraw, Winsham, and Combe. This endowment was recited at greater length with a number of additions, chiefly from the time of Bishop Reginald, in a privilege of Alexander III to the dean in 1176.65 In contrast to these lands, the bishop's estates at Wells throughout the medieval period remained based on the Domesday holdings at (Bishops) Lydeard, Chard, Chew (Magna), Compton (Bishop), Evercreech, Kingsbury (Episcopi), Wellington, Wells, (West) Buckland, Westbury, Wiveliscombe and Yatton. As noted earlier, the Bath property was also confirmed to Robert of Lewes by Hadrian IV.66 This list of 1156 comprised all the estates which appeared in Domesday, as well as some newer ones including the incremental five hides at Weston given to the monks ad augmentationem victus eorum.67 Alexander III, likewise, issued a confirmation of the privilege in 1179, and included the church of Wells and its prebends, Wookey manor, the manor at Mark, a bailiwick of Wedmore, and the church and manor at Huish.68 Thus, several properties which had been confirmed to the dean at Wells in 1176 were now placed in the hands of the bishop. The papal license also permitted Bishop Reginald, with the counsel of his monks, to depose the prior at Bath, and allowed him full authority over all religious houses and regular churches in his bishopric. Another confirmation of additional Wells estates was made in 1190 by Clement III, addressed not to the dean and chapter, but to Reginald, bishop of Bath, in whose hands the church of Wells was firmly placed.69 There was no attempt in the twelfth century to turn Wells into a cathedral church, nor was there the suggestion of a double episcopal style. There is no evidence that the canons of Wells clamored for cathedral status, nor is there any reason to think that either Bishop Robert or Bishop Reginald ever proposed it. But as part of the complicated history of the two churches there was a constant movement of property which passed in and out of the hands of the bishop and of the monks and canons of his churches. Dogmersfield, for example, along with several other estates in Somerset, had been confirmed to the bishop and the church 65 67

68

66 Ibid., n o . 159. Ibid., n o . 90. Regesta m , n o . 4 5 . S o u t h s t o k e h a d b e e n g i v e n t o t h e canons in 1135 b y t h e b i s h o p ad supplementum victus et vestitus (monachorum), Two Chartularies, pp. 58—59. 69 PUE 11, n o . 189. Ibid., n o . 256.

60

The cathedral priories

of Bath by Henry I. It was then incorporated into the episcopal demesne until it was usurped by Henry de Tilli in the reign of Henry II. The king intervened, a fine was made and Dogmersfield was restored to the priory, but to be held by Bishop Reginald.70 For the recovery and settlement the bishop paid ioo marks, and in return the king allowed him to enlarge his woods on the manor. In contrast to this transaction, there was land at North Stoke in Somerset which belonged to the monks, but which had been appropriated by Bishop John of Tours following a court case in which the convent successfully made their claim to the estate against one Modbert. The monks won the day, but the bishop gained the land.71 The more aggressive members of the convent did not let the matter rest, however, and as a consequence of another round of complaints, North Stoke, or a large part of it, was taken out of the bishop's hands and given back to the monks where it was to 79

remain. As a measure of their growing independence the monks of Bath had accumulated enough surplus cash by the mid-twelfth century to enter the real estate market at a fairly high figure. The sale of Cameley in Somerset by Alexander de Alnoio and his family to St. Peter's for seventy marks of silver was confirmed by William, earl of Gloucester, in 1153. The estate was added to the priory endowment and it was included in the list of possessions sent to Hadrian IV for approval in 1156.73 But their financial advantage was not to last, due in part to increasing economic pressures of the thirteenth century and in part to the competition offered by Wells which eventually was granted cathedral status. Bishop William of Bitton I, for example, was moved to grant the church of Batheaston to the priory in 1258 because he found that the monks had so few possessions.74 The picture of church holdings was often more complicated than a simple division of the mensa would suggest. In many instances, the bishop and the chapter had an interest in the same estate, each deriving income from a different part. An example of this was the multiple benefits accruing from the church at Mertok 70 71 73

74

HMCR, Wells MSS, 1, p. 15 and p. 54. 72 Regesta 11, no. 1201, 1302; Two Chartularies, pp. 49-51. Regesta in, no. 47. Earldom of Gloucester Charters, ed. R. B . Patterson ( O x f o r d 1973), n o . 5 ; Regesta in, n o . 49Two Chartularies, p . 36, a l t h o u g h it is possible that this is m e r e l y a formulaic phrase.

6l

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England in the time of Bishop Jocelin.75 In other cases, the bishop might have the manor and the chapter the church, so that the assignment of property nominally to the episcopal mensa, or to the capitular, would disguise the fact that both parties were drawing a return from it. The problems and uncertainties created by split jurisdiction aggravated the disputes over property rights and gave rise to a stream of claims, counter-claims, encroachments, and sequestrations in the twelfth century and the thirteenth, and for a long time afterwards. The demand of Roger of Salisbury, as bishop of Bath and Wells in the 1240s, to enjoy the revenue from all vacant churches in the diocese was rejected by the dean and chapter of Wells on the grounds that the privilege in question had been granted to them in the time of Bishop Reginald (1174-1191). But as a matter of record, Bishop Jocelin (1206—1242), and probably Bishop Reginald as well, had appropriated the income, kept two-thirds of it (ad opus nostrum), and then had given the remaining third to their archdeacons. Although Roger had, therefore, substantial grounds to support his case, what may have inspired the dean to raise an objection was the decision of Jocelin, later in his term, to direct his portion to the chapter's common fund, clearly excluding himself and his archdeacons as beneficiaries.76 The episcopal privilege was reviewed, however, early in the next century by Bishop John of Droxford, who was able to redirect the original two-thirds share from at least one church for his own use.77 This kind of dispute over property rights was not confined to Wells. Bishop Walter Reynolds of Worcester, for instance, in 1309, claimed that the revenues from vacant churches in his see belonged to him.78 The fact that such controversial claims could erupt periodically, with each side maintaining its right by reference to what it considered traditional practice, illustrates the deep-set difficulties in making a definitive mensal separation. But as a consequence of the contention between bishop and chapter, the issue was never allowed to wither away, nor were the canons forced to comply passively with the bishop's demands. Sometimes the compromise which was reached could be rather 75 76

77 78

HMCR, Wells MSS. i, p. 51. Councils

and Synods

with Other Documents

Relating

to the English Church, v o l . 11, e d . F.

M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney (Oxford 1964), 1, pp. 45-46; HMCR, Wells MSS. 1, p. 67, p. 72, p. 308; Watkin, Dean Cosyn, p. 54, p. 56; Church, Chapters, p. 79, note 1. HMCR, Wells M S S . , 1, p . 193, p . 195, p . 2 0 3 . Councils and Synods, vol. n, i, p. 45.

62

The cathedral priories

complicated. At Wells a division of revenue, drawn not from diocesan churches, but from vacant prebends, was agreed upon by Bishop Jocelin and his chapter. In the event of a voidance, the canons were to have custody, except in Wedmore. If Wedmore were vacant, otherwise than because of the death of the incumbent, the bishop and the chapter jointly were to administer it. If the cause were death, then the bishop alone was to have it, as he had the deanship, precentorship, provostship, chancellorship, treasury, and other offices sede vacante.™ Here again the bishop was relying on historical precedent. In the time of Reginald, lands and churches donated to the church at Wells to establish prebends had been given to the church of St. Andrews and to the bishop together.80 In 1227, a general confirmation by Henry III of lands and customs which had been given to Bath and Wells was addressed first to the church of St. Andrews, then to the church of St. Peter, then to Jocelin, the bishop of both sees, then to the dean and chapter of Wells, and then to the prior and monks of Bath. Both dean and prior, and their canons and monks, with their lands and fees and men, were to be subject to the bishop and his successors. The bishop was to have the power to distrain others from interference, as previously the king was able to do. 81 From the late twelfth century, and well into the thirteenth, the superiority of the bishop in his diocese was strengthened by canonical legislation and the directives of popes from Alexander III to Innocent III, as well as by traditional support from the English king whose tenant he was. While the legislation of Robert of Lewes formed an important basis for the gradual move toward capitular independence at Wells, it was a very slow process, extending well into the thirteenth century. The scheme of divided interest, which at the time seemed to be a satisfactory solution to the problem of conflicting privileges, lasted until 1321 when it was reviewed and revised so that the rights sede vacante were finally given over to the dean and chapter. When Bishop Reginald began the new church at Wells not, it should be noted, on the site of the previous Anglo-Saxon foundation, but on new ground slightly to the north, and at the same time enlarged the endowment and extended greater control to the capitular officers over their affairs, a significant step had been 79 81

80

HMCR, Wells MSS. i, p. 66. Calendar of Charter Rolls, 1, pp. 6-^7.

63

Ibid., pp. 429-430.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England taken in the direction of independent administration. Nevertheless, the fact that the cloister and the bishop's house were connected by a covered walk led John Harvey to remark that "at the time of Reginald, the separation of functions between bishop and chapter was not yet rigid or complete. " 82 While architectural evidence by itself is often of doubtful value when used to support arguments relating to political or jurisdictional development, in this case it is corroborated by the documents. One could then pursue the theme to conclude that when, in the early fourteenth century, the canons built their chapter house, " a symbol of corporate autonomy," this achievement "marked the climax of the chapter's ascent to power." 83 In this regard, it should be pointed out that in the Historiola it was mentioned that Robert of Lewes had constructed at Bath a number of important buildings including a cloister and a chapter house (capitulum).84 But a meeting hall for the monks perhaps did not have the same symbolic value as a separate chapter house for the canons. Another important way in which the growth of independence can be seen is in the history of the claims of both chapter and convent to elect the bishop. John Villula had been appointed by William II, and Godfrey, it would seem, by Henry I.85 In a charter confirming the grant of Combe to the monks, Godfrey stated that he was appointed after a canonical election.86 The passage may be interpolated, but, in any case, even if the monks went through the proper procedure, they undoubtedly chose the man approved by the king. In the same way, Robert of Lewes was elected by the convent, but he was certainly the candidate of Stephen and Henry of Blois.87 The monks also elected Reginald Fitz-Jocelin in 1173 with the king's concurrence, and the canons of Wells elected him again in turn.88 Savaric was the choice of the monks alone, an act which was in opposition to the chapter at Wells, and which served to exacerbate the long-term jurisdictional dispute between the two churches.89 Up to the time of Savaric's death in 1205, the weight in the election had rested with the bishop's abbey. To elect his successor, the monks and the canons delegated what they then considered 82 83 85 88 89

John Harvey, "The building of Wells Cathedral, I: 1175—1307," in Wells Cathedral, a History, ed. L. S. Colchester (Shepton Mallet 1982), p. 68. 84 Gransden, "The History o f Wells Cathedral," p. 37. Historiola, p. 24. 86 87 GP, pp. 194-196. Two Chartularies, p. 56. Regesta in, no. 46. Two Chartularies, p. xlviii. Ibid., p. xlix; Richard o f Devizes, Historia, p. 57.

64

The cathedral priories their authority jointly to a commission of eight proctors, four from each church. Jocelin, a canon of Wells, was chosen and confirmed by the papal legate, after a petition to Rome, in April 1206.90 Papal intervention was again evident after Jocelin's death. There ensued a two-year vacancy, from November 1242 to May 1244, during which time the monks of Bath, moving aggressively into the breach, ignored the chapter at Wells and put forward Roger, the precentor of Salisbury. There was a strong protest. Finally, in 1244, Innocent IV ordered Roger to be installed, but, by way of compromise, he directed that future elections were to be held alternately at Bath and at Wells, while the bishop would take the joint title.91 In the matter of the election of the dean at Wells, Bishop Jocelin had evidently allowed the canons this privilege in 1217, and in 1238 it was approved by the papal legate.92 In 1261 the bishop of Bath and Wells granted the monks of Bath the right to elect the prior.93 By the mid-thirteenth century, therefore, the problem of election in the unusual case of a bishop with two sees was set upon a reasonable procedural basis, not as a result of the joint efforts of the jealous chapters, but imposed upon them by higher authority from outside. While in theory the canons and the monks were recognized as the electoral body, it would be a long time before they could exploit this status fully for their own benefit. If one aim of the division of the mensa in cathedral churches was to prevent royal encroachment on the possessions of the chapter sede vacante, it is clear that this goal had not been achieved at Bath and Wells by the end of the twelfth century, or even by the early thirteenth. With the bishop in exile from 1208 to 1213, King John seized the revenues of Bath priory on the grounds that the see was vacant. While the confiscation of property was only temporary, the convent slipped into debt, and in the end, the goods and money sequestered by the royal commissioners were simply written off as a net loss.94 Although this occurred at an exceptional time when England lay under the interdict, and when the churches as well as the lay aristocracy suffered under the heavy hand of an audacious king, Bath abbey never regained the authoritative financial position which would have allowed it to serve as the rival to the ever-growing, and ever more confident chapter at Wells. 90

92

HMCR, Wells MSS. 1, p. 63, Two Chartularies, pp. li-lii. The see of Canterbury was 91 CPL i, 208, 212, 216. Church, Chapters, pp. 242-256. temporarily vacant. 93 94 Watkin, Dean Cosyn, pp. 90-91. Two Chartularies, p. 18. Ibid.

65

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Although bishops and monks and canons continued to disagree, sometimes violently, and although the election of the diocesan was habitually by royal decision, it seems reasonable to say that by the mid-thirteenth century a definite and workable separation of goods and privileges between bishop and chapter had been reached. This formed the basis, financially and administratively, of two largely, but not entirely, independent communities. From this point of view, the traditional argument that the independence of the convent at Bath was begun under John Villula and achieved under Robert of Lewes, or that the independence of the Wells chapter followed directly upon Robert's reform of that church, is one that will have to be modified by the evidence which shows how infinitely more complex the development was, and how the period of consolidation needs to be extended for at least another century. CANTERBURY

The distinctions made in Domesday Book, and in the so-called Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church (DM), between estates of the archbishop of Canterbury and estates of the monks long served as the starting point for historians who assumed that the first division of the mensa had been made by Lanfranc shortly after the Conquest.95 Until that time, it was thought, the archbishop and his monks lived together supported by common revenues. That this theory was without substantial evidence to justify it was demonstrated by B. W. Kissan in a paper published just before the Second World War.96 Since then the origins of the separate endowment have been pushed back, if not to the time of ' A sample of the now-dated theory can be had from the views of R. C. Fowler, VCH Kent, II, pp. 24, 114—115; E. Hasted, The History and Topographical Survey of the County

of Kent, vol. xn, p. 310; and R. C.Jenkins, Canterbury, S.P.C.K. Diocesan Histories (London 1880), p. 65. On the other hand, William Somner, in The Antiquities of Canterbury, published in 1640, was less precise as to what Lanfranc actually did, and W. Stubbs, in his notes to the Epistolae Cantuarienses, RS-$%, vol. n (1865), was also uncertain as to whether Lanfranc was making an initial settlement, or confirming one already made. * B. W. Kissan, "Lanfranc's alleged division of lands between archbishop and community," EHR 54 (1939), 285-293. Doubt had already been cast on the theory by J. Armitage Robinson in his article, "The early community at Christ Church, Canterbury," Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1926), 225—240. The discussion was broadened by Eric John in "The division of the mensa in early English monasteries," JEH6 (1955), H3-I55-

66

The cathedral priories Theodore, as one twelfth-century writer hoped, at least to the ninth century when certain estates were marked for the use of the convent.97 Nevertheless, while it seems probable that a distinction between the parts continued to be made by donors and beneficaries alike, there is no reason to assume that a permanent legal division had been established. Archbishops were still free to revoke lands given to the monks, or to exchange them for other property. A few manors were appropriated by laymen and lost completely; others were restored in whole or in part at a later date. 98 By the time of the Conquest, it is clear that the number of estates had been moved about and that many of them were being rearranged and redistributed as a consequence of the occupation. The uncertainty in Domesday Book as to the persons to whom specific manors belonged, and who was to profit from their revenue, is the result of the widespread dislocation which affected not only the Canterbury lands, but those of almost all major tenants, ecclesiastical and lay. Nevertheless, there was an attempt by the Domesday scribes to bring about some order by listing the property as archiepiscopal or conventual, a distinction which reflects an effort to put into realistic terms of the eleventh century an ancient notion of ownership and use from the Saxon past. This had the result of sharpening the differences between the two parties which in the next century would lead to the gradual formation of separate holdings. In the Domesday survey the Canterbury property was spread over nine counties and listed under three headings: the estates of the archbishop, the estates of his knights (milites), and the estates of the monks. Kent had the largest concentration of holdings, with the remainder in Buckinghamshire, Middlesex, Oxfordshire, Essex, Suffolk, Hertfordshire, Surrey, and Sussex. In Buckinghamshire, Essex, and Oxfordshire all the manors belonged to the monks, while in Middlesex only archiepiscopal lands were to be found. In Suffolk, Surrey and Sussex the estates were divided 97

Gervase of Canterbury, arguing at the time of the dispute between Archbishop Baldwin and the monks, naturally reached for the most ancient precedent he could find. For a more recent appraisal see Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, pp. 19-20 and William Urry, Canterbury under the Angevin Kings (London 1967), vol. 1, pp. 23-25, 40-42. N . Brooks, The Early History of the Church of Canterbury (Leicester 1984), p. 158, puts the origins of a separate endowment for the chapter in the late ninth century. Dorothy Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills (Cambridge 1930), pp. 26—28, prints a tenthcentury bequest of sixty gold coins, of which half were to go to the bishop and half to 98 Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, pp. 19-21, 27. Christ Church.

67

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England between them. It is clear that the compilers of the inquest wished not only to distinguish conventual lands from archiepiscopal, but also to show separately, as well as they could, the lands which had been subinfeudated. But why they thought that three inventories were necessary has not been satisfactorily explained. An examination of the lands will reveal that a number of the archbishop's estates were partially enfeoffed, that some of the monks' lands were also enfeoffed, while several of the manors belonging to the knights contributed to the support of the convent." It may be that the triple list reflects the concern of the inquisitors with what had become the tangled questions of rights and privileges regarding the lands of the archbishopric. In the aftermath of the Conquest a great many estates were alienated from the see, particularly by Odo of Bayeux. Once Lanfranc was installed at Canterbury, he set about to recover them.100 At the hearing on Penenden Heath about 1075, "questions were asked about the tenure of certain estates ... and Lanfranc proved his right to many lands held by men of the bishop [Odo]. " 101 Odo, of course, was not alone, since there had been considerable rearrangement of property well before 1066, but still many losses had been recently incurred and a pressing problem was the alienation of estates by subinfeudation. Since William I had convened the meeting at Penenden, and had confirmed the decision which was reached there, it is likely that in Domesday Book, itself the culmination of several earlier inquisitions, an effort was made to show that estates held in secular lordship still formed part of the archiepiscopal lands, and that what had laboriously been put together should not now fall apart by action of the centrifugal forces of feudal tenure. The distinctions made by the Domesday scribes, however, were ignored by the monks of Christ Church when they drew up another inventory of their possessions for their own use. In the DM the heading of the "Archbishop's knights" was eliminated, 99

100 101

D u Boulay, ibid., furnishes a table of the D o m e s d a y allocations and discusses the later history o f the enfeoffed estates, see p p . 4 3 - 4 6 , 55-56, and appendix A, p p . 330-392. HN, p . 16, p . 171. J. H . Le Patourel, " T h e date of the trial at P e n e n d e n H e a t h , " EHR, 61 (1946), 378-388, and " T h e reports of the trial o n P e n e n d e n H e a t h , " in Studies in Medieval History presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke ( O x f o r d 1948), p p . 15—26; W . Levison, " A report of the Penenden T r i a l , " EHR 27 (1902), 7 1 7 - 7 2 0 ; D . C . Douglas, " O d o , Lanfranc and the D o m e s d a y s u r v e y , " in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait (Manchester 1933), p p . 4 7 - 5 7 ; D . R. Bates, " T h e character and career of O d o , bishop of B a y e u x ( 1 0 4 9 / 5 0 - 1 0 9 7 ) , " Speculum, 50 (1975), 1-20; D u Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, p p . 36-42.

68

The cathedral priories and the Canterbury lands were organized under either the archbishop's jurisdiction or the convent's.102 To make this new arrangement, all the estates of the milites, save five, and three estates from the archbishop himself, were combined with those of the monks. In the Exchequer Domesday there were sixteen estates of the knights: Farningham, Eynsford, Orpington, Brasted, Ulcombe, Boughton (Malherbe), Leaveland (Court), Graveney, (East) Lenham, Sheppey, Buckland, Finglesham with Statenborough, Saltwood, Berwick, Langport, and Tilmanstone.103 Eynsford, Brasted, Ulcombe, and Sheppey were carried over to the DM and listed as archiepiscopal lands which had been subinfeudated, while the other twelve were listed in the DM as monastic. But although they were accounted for under the monks' lands, all of them were in part subinfeudated as well, and held of the archbishop. The three estates detached from the archbishop's group of 1086 and listed as monastic in the DM were Sandwich, Mersham, and Newenden. In Domesday Book there were twentyfive estates assigned to the archbishop, sixteen to the milites and twenty-two to the monks, making a total of sixty-three. In the DM twenty-six were assigned to the archbishop and thirty-seven to the monks. In spite of the increase in monastic interest in the DM, the archbishop was still the more important landholder. Indeed, only Farningham and Graveney, among the knights' estates, and Sandwich, Maidstone, and Petham among the archbishop's, were noted in 1086 as furnishing income directly to the monks.104 All the lands listed as terra monachorum archiepiscopi in Domesday Book were held principally by the archbishop. When they appear in the DM exactly half of them are subinfeudated and 102

103

104

DM, pp. 3-4. How much later the DM is than DB is a question that has not been conclusively answered. Douglas argued that while the copy of the DM was probably drawn up some years after 1086, because the tenants are often the same, the survey, as distinct from the manuscript, may have been made about the same time as Domesday. But between 1086 and 1096 or 1100 many tenants might well have remained in place. On the other hand, if the final Domesday manuscript was not written until the early years of the twelfth century, then both descriptions may be of the same later period. Whether or not there was an interval between DB and the DM, and if so how great it was, are important points in that they bear on the chronology of the recovery of monastic assets. Excluded from this list are t h e 225 burgesses o f H y t h e (under S a l t w o o d ) , a n d t h e 21 burgesses o f R o m n e y (under L a n g p o r t ) . F a r n i n g h a m , assessed at 1 sulung (the Kentish unit of assessment c o m p o s e d of four j u g a , corresponding to the hide elsewhere), was valued at £11, of which the monks had £4; Graveney, also assessed at 1 sulung, was worth £ 6 of which they had 20s. For Sandwich, Maidstone, and Petham see below, note 111.

69

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England most of them are earmarked as either de cibo (monachorum), or as de vestitu, 2L designation which is made only occasionally in DB. Preston, exceptionally, is listed with the slight variant de victu. These estates obviously still formed the core of the lands which supported the cathedral convent. The knights' estates which passed to the archbishop never were brought back under conventual control. Brasted was held in 1086 by Haimo, the sheriff of Kent. Part of the fee passed to the earl of Gloucester in the late twelfth century and part remained to the archbishop in the thirteenth.105 Eynsford descended from Ralf, son of Unspac, in 1086 to William of Eynsford and was a barony held of the archbishop in the thirteenth century.106 Godfrey, the steward, held Sheppey in 1086 and it remained an archiepiscopal fee for the next hundred years.107 Ulcombe belonged to the counts of Eu through most of the twelfth century.108 In Mersham and Sandwich, two estates which were archiepiscopal in Domesday Book, but monastic in the DM, there is strong evidence for long-standing proprietary rights on the part of the monks, which probably accounts for the change. Mersham was granted to Christ Church by Sigweard and his wife, and confirmed by King Edward, 1053 x 1061. The later Latin version of the charter specified it to be ad opus monachorum . 109 The port of Sandwich is listed as the archbishop's in Domesday Book, but it is there described as de vestitu monachorum. It was a borough which King Edward had given to the church at Canterbury and which was later acquired by Lanfranc. When the archbishop took it, the borough paid ^40 and 40,000 herrings ad victum monachorum. In 1086 it returned £5°> presumably to the archbishop, and the same number of herrings.110 In addition, the monks had 20s per annum from Maidstone manor and 8s from Petham. Both of these estates were the archbishop's in 1086 and partly subinfeudated, but the payments may reflect an earlier interest in the lands on the part of the convent.111 In the volatile real estate market of the late eleventh century it is well known that Lanfranc played an important role. Just as 105 106 108 111

D u Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, p . 334. 107 Ibid., p . 342, a n d p p . 108-113 for t h e Eynsford history. Ibid., p . 369. 109 no Ibid., p . 379. AS Writs, p . 189. D B 1, 3a and DM, p . 89. P e t h a m had been given to the m o n k s b y Anselm t o w a r d the end of the century w h e n

its value had increased from £17 6s 3d TRE to £20 in 1086, and to £30 in 1096. HN, p. 75. For Sandwich and its uncertain history see Nicholas Brooks, The Early History of the Church of Canterbury (Leicester 1984), pp. 292—294.

70

The cathedral priories

estates had been alienated through neglect, or by the intent, of his predecessors, so he himself was instrumental in advancing claims for their recovery.112 To say that he restored the lands, however, tells us nothing about their subsequent disposition. Where the history of a few of the estates can be followed in the texts, it can be seen that some were appropriated by Lanfranc for his own purposes. Others were used to support the monastic community and, in some cases, even at this early date, they may have been assigned to individual offices.113 Contemporary accounts, however, seldom make clear that a specific allocation was made. In one of the manuscripts, for example, which reported the proceedings at Penenden Heath, and which may be dated as late eleventh or very early twelfth century, it was stated that Lanfranc " restored all the afore-mentioned lands, and other lands, and all the privileges of his church and its customary rights... so that as the king held his lands free and quit in his demesne, so did the archbishop of Canterbury hold his lands. " 114 The same text made it clear that the report was drawn up so that the archbishop, who had many other privileges in the lands of the king, and his successors might know what their rights were.115 On the other hand, the so-called D manuscript which, as it now exists is probably a thirteenth-century copy of an earlier text, attested that the king ordered the plea to be held "to decide the privileges and customs which Christ Church had in its own lands and should have in the royal lands. " 116 The same document also described Odo of Bayeux as the man who had appropriated a number of properties belonging to the archbishopric.117 The D version, if it is a Canterbury manuscript, considered the church, rather than the archbishop, as the victim of aggression and spoliation. The distinction is blurred again, however, in the notice in the acta Lanfranci (dated from the year 1070) which disregarded any separate identity between primate and priory: " Also in this year a meeting was held at a place called Pinenden, and there Lanfranc proved that he and his church held 112 113 114

115 117

See the " A " version in Le Patourel, "Reports," pp. 21—22. R. A. L. Smith, Canterbury Cathedral Priory. A Study in Monastic Administration (Cambridge 1943), p. 14. " Et in eodem placito non solum istas prenominatas et alias terras sed in omnes libertates ecclesie sue et omnes consuetudines suas renovavit... quod sicut ipse rex tenet suas terras liberas et quietas in suo dominico, ita archiepiscopus Cantuarbeire tenet suas terras omnino liberas et quietas in suo dominico," Le Patourel, "Reports," p. 23. 116 Ibid., p. 24. Ibid., p. 22. "qui multas terras de archiepiscopatu sibi usurpaverat," ibid.

71

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England all their lands and customs, on land or sea, as freely as the king held his/' 118 The reference in the A text to the archbishop's demesne appears to emphasize Lanfranc's general jurisdiction over the lands of his see, but, in fact, it may have been a way of recognizing an accepted division of property. In a letter of c. 1086, Lanfranc, in response to an inquiry about his lands, made it clear that in certain counties (probably Essex and Suffolk) he held nothing in demesne, but that all the lands there were for the support of the monks.119 It was to be expected that the archbishop as landlord would distinguish between properties from which he himself derived support and those whose income went elsewhere. What more obvious way than by referring to them as demesne land and conventual land ? The Domesday evidence bears this out in that those estates which the archbishop held in dominio were only those listed as his possessions, whereas those lands of the monks, which the archbishop nevertheless had in his possession, were never listed in that way. But this rule does not admit of general application. Even at Canterbury, some years later, when Henry I confirmed the grant of St. Martin's, Dover to the archbishop and to Christ Church, the church of St. Martin's was to be in the demesne of the primate. Likewise at Hereford cathedral, the land at Holme Lacy which Bishop Robert Losinga granted in return for military service, had belonged, as he said, to the church of Hereford and was held by the bishop in his demesne for the support of the canons.120 Other conventual lands which had been taken by the archbishop tended to be reduced in value to the church, although some of them continued to produce revenue.121 Hunton, for example, a part of East Farleigh, was still furnishing income to the convent in the twelfth century, and so was Ruckinge, which belonged to Ickham, and which came to Canterbury through William of Eynsford and his heirs c. 1150.122 It was still burdened, however, 118

119

120 121

122

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. C. Plummer and J. Earle (1892), vol. 1, appx. B, p. 289. Frank Barlow, " Domesday Book: a letter of Lanfranc," EHR 78 (1963), 284-289; The Letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. H . Clover and M . Gibson (Oxford 1979), n o . 56. Regesta 11, 1736; Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. iv, p . 538; EHD 11, p . 897. A n elaborate list for the history of the estates was compiled b y D u Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, appendix A. Ibid., p . 340; Saltman, Theobald, p . 269, n o . 42.

72

The cathedral priories

with the service of one knight to the archbishop. But generally only fractions of these estates were in the hands of laymen. At Adisham, for instance, the manor was worth £46 16s 46. in 1086 and paid £ 5 to the archbishop de garsune. Although there were two knights holding land their share was actually £13. The gross value to the priory was, therefore, something like £28.123 The Domesday return at Little Chart was £ 8 8s 4d, but the share of William, son of Hermenfrid, was assessed at 40s and, in addition, he paid the priory church 25d.124 Whether the tenant was in fact enfeoffed with the land he held, or whether he only farmed it, is a question that cannot always be answered conclusively. In some cases in the DM the nature of the tenure is indicated. Appledore and Brook were held ad jirmam by Robert de Romney, and Almsland was similarly held of the prior by Robert Fitz-Wazo. It is possible that East Farleigh, Adisham, Ickham, Seasalter, Meresham, Meopham, Surling and Huntingdon were also at farm. At Farningham the estate was held of the archbishop by Ansgod who also paid the farm to the monks, and Richard, the constable, a member of the archiepiscopal familia, held Graveney infeodo ...et tamen reddit jirmam monachis, so that the knight's fee produced a rent as well.125 The picture at Canterbury in the late eleventh century, then, is one in which the mensal division is not yet clear cut. Monastic estates were listed under the lands of the military tenants, some of the archbishop's own manors helped to support the convent, and a few lands which were leased out to laymen provided the monks with an income. The process of separating the property was one which deepened and hardened over an extended period. It was not until well toward the middle of the twelfth century that the monks of Canterbury came to the point of being able to manage their lands without direct archiepiscopal interference. The fact that most of the conventual estates in Domesday Book and in the DM were listed as the archbishop's is both a reflection of a longestablished tradition of episcopal autocracy, and a true indication of where the weight of diocesaa political power lay in the period. The dominant position of the bishop, or archbishop, in his church and see had always been proclaimed by ecclesiastical writers, and this view would have many ardent supporters in the twelfth 123

DB 1, fo. 5b. The DM values are practically identical. The premium of £ 5 may not have been an annual charge, in which case the value to the monks would have been 124 125 increased. DB i, fo. 5a, and DM, p. 91. DM, pp. 92-95.

73

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England century and beyond. Indeed, it would continue to be voiced in theory long after the reality of his power had been eroded by the increasing strength and independence of the chapter. A comparison of the Domesday estates, in which the monks of Canterbury had an interest, with later inventories of conventual property will show that the body of lands which had been allocated in the eleventh century remained largely intact throughout the medieval period. The temporalia of the prior of Christ Church in the Taxatio of c. 1291 included the majority of estates listed under terra monachorum in 1086.126 Looking back, as it were, from the thirteenth century, it would be natural to say that the blocs of landed wealth were formed at an early date and underwent comparatively little change. At the time of the Domesday inquest, however, there was no reason to think that this would be the case. Not only was there a problem in determining to what extent the archiepiscopal and conventual lands were separate from each other, but there was also the difficulty of knowing in what way they were separate, whether administratively and financially according to their management and income, or according to the title established to them. The instability of the endowment whereby estates were lost and then recovered, perhaps to be lost again, undoubtedly obscured the respective rights of the parties involved. Seasalter, for example, appeared in Domesday Book as a small borough under the lands of the monks, held of them by Blize, but belonging to the archbishop's kitchen.127 In the DM, Blize still held it from the monks, but it was to supply their kitchen.128 If not an error in transcription, this contradiction implies either that the two households were not yet separated, or that the archbishop had reassigned to the priory the revenues from property to which they laid claim.129 Another example is Sandwich which, according to the Domesday testimony, had been given to the monks by King Edward. It appears to have been appropriated by Odo of Bayeux, and finally recovered by Lanfranc.130 In 1086 the archbishop held 126 127 128 130

Taxatio ecclesiastica Angliae et Walliae auctoritate P. Nicholai IV circa A.D. 1291, ed. T. Astle, S. Ayscough, and J. Caley (London 1802), p . 4. " quod proprie pertinet coquinae archiepiscopi," DB 1, fo. 5a. " Saesealtre est burgus monachorum et de cibo et proprie de coquina e o r u m , " DM, p . 129 90. See Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, p. 21. An earlier grant went back to Cnut. AS Charters no. 808. See also Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, p. 35, note 3; F. M. Stenton, The Latin Charters of the AngloSaxon Period (Oxford 1955), p. 17; AS Writs, p. 177, note 1 and p. 426, note 5. For the

74

The cathedral priories it de vestitu monachorum. Some time later, in 1127, when a suit was heard between the monks of Christ Church and the monks of St. Augustine, although twelve men from Sandwich and twelve from Dover testified to the right of the Canterbury monks in the property, the first witness from Dover, a man named Wulfwine, whose oath was the only one reported in full, stated that Sandwich belonged both to the archbishop and to the convent.131 When Henry II granted the monks rights there which they had possessed in the time of Henry I, Wulfwine's ambiguous testimony seems still to have had an effect.132 If Wulfwine was not yet ready to recognize the independent title of the convent, in practice Sandwich remained a monastic property well into the thirteenth century, when it was given up to Edward I in exchange for £60 in other rents.133 In the case of Saltwood, land had been given there to Hugh de Montfort by William I, and then recovered by Lanfranc at Penenden Heath.134 It was still in dispute, however, in 1078, and held by Hugh from the archbishop in 1086.135 In the DM, Saltwood was listed under the monks' land, but still in the hands of Hugh. Sometime later, before his exile in 1107, the church at Saltwood was granted to Bee abbey by Robert de Montfort. Part of the estate still remained with the archbishop, however, and was granted to the monks by Anselm, while part furnished income to Henry of Essex, the royal constable.136 This portion reverted to the king after 1161 and was finally recovered by Archbishop Hubert Walter from Richard in 1197.137 The lands outside of Kent were also subject to the same kind of arrangements which contributed to their unstable history. Patchcharter of Odo which confirmed Sandwich villa to Christchurch see HMCR, 5th report, appx. 1, p. 457, and L. Delisle, " Recueil de 109 chartes originales de Henri II roi d'Angleterre et due de Normandie rassemblees et photographiees par le rev. H. Salter," 131

132 133 135

136

137

BEC

69,

573. Sandwich

was included

in

the

list

of

properties

returned to Canterbury priory at the death of William I. Le Patourel, " Reports," p. 25. D . M . Stenton, English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter, 1066-1215 (Philadelphia 1964), p p . 117—120; Regesta 11, n o . 1511, a n d appx. exevii. HMCR, 5th, appx. 1, p . 4 5 7 ; see also L. Delisle, BEC 69, 561, 565-566, 5 7 1 . 134 Calendar of Close Rolls, in, 24 Ed. I, p . 497. DM, p p . 3 1 , 6 5 , 67. Jennifer C . W a r d , " T h e L o w y of T o n b r i d g e and the lands of the Clare family in K e n t : 1 0 6 6 - 1 2 1 7 , " Archaeologia Cantiana 96 (1980), 123. Saltman, Theobald, n o . 297. O n t h e control o f Saltwood see D u Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, pp. 366-368, and A. L. Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087-1216, The Oxford History of England (Oxford 1951), p. 292, note 2. For the confirmation to Bee, see HMCR Various Collections, vn, p. 30. For Anselm's donation see Epistola 475, Opera Omnia 11 (1968). Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, p. 99, note 5.

75

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

ing, in Sussex, an estate allocated to the monks ad vestitum in Domesday, was appropriated by Godfrey of Mailing, and leased from the monks for an annual farm of £18. By the early thirteenth century it had become a possession of the De Waley family.138 Likewise, Little Coggeshall, in Essex, although monastic in 1086, had passed into lay hands a hundred years later.139 At Stisted, also in Essex, there was a Domesday manor of Christ Church, for land had been granted there to the monks by Wulfgyth about 1046.140 Appropriated by Odo of Bayeux, it was recovered at Penenden Heath and again assigned to the convent by Anselm.141 But the estate was soon passed into the hands of Ansfrid, the sheriff of Kent, who farmed it until it was taken over by his son, John (1136 x 1139).142 John kept it for as long as he lived and at his death it was recovered by the monks with the help of Archbishop Theobald. They, in turn, soon leased it to Matilda of St. Saens for a life interest of £10 per annum with the understanding that the manor would revert to the priory at her death, fully stocked and free of claims by her relatives.143 Shortly thereafter Stisted came into the possession of William of Allington, Ansfrid's grandson, and then passed to William's minor daughter.144 The estate was in the king's hands in 1185 and was administered by the sheriff of Essex. Although it paid £10 to the Canterbury monks, the sheriff was grossing £13 16s during the first year, and 14 marks in 138 139 141

142

143

Saltman, Theobald, p p . 5 3 5 - 5 3 6 ; D u B o u l a y , The Lordship of Canterbury, p . 371. 140 RBE, p . 473. W h i t e l o c k , Anglo-Saxon Wills, p p . 8 4 - 8 5 , 197-198. Agnes C o n w a y , " T h e o w n e r s of Allington Castle, M a i d s t o n e : 1086—1279," Archaeologia Cantiana 29 (1911), 8. R. C . van C a e n e g e m , Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glanvil, Selden Society 77 ( L o n d o n 1959), p . 4 5 9 ; PUE 11, p . 3 6 9 ; Delisle, BEC 69, 554. Anselm to the m o n k s of C a n t e r b u r y : " Similiter m a n e r i u m q u o d Stistede vocatur eisdem monachis r e d d o , q u o n i a m h o c ad res e o r u m pertinere et pertinuisse s c i t u r , " Epistola 474, Opera omnia 11 (1968). T h e o b a l d ' s charter makes clear that Ansfrid had n o hereditary right to the estate, b u t J o h n m a y very well have assumed the contrary after it h a d been in his family for s o m e time. See Saltman, Theobald, n o . 44. Regesta in, 1 4 7 - 1 4 9 ; Saltman, Theobald, n o . 4 4 ; Matilda de Sancto S y d o n i o was referred to b y K i n g Stephen as cognata mea, and her father, Helias of St. Saens (de Sancto

Sydonio) in Normandy, had married a daughter of Robert, duke of Normandy. See Regesta in, no. 147-148; OKvn, p. 183 and xi, p. 93. 144

T h e wife o f W i l l i a m of Allington paid 100 marks for custody o f the lands o f their son (PR 2 H e n r y II, p . 105). Several years later this render h a d been reduced to 50 marks (PR 12 H e n r y II, p . 112). W i t h i n a year it was reduced t o £ 1 0 and she was quit of debt (PR 13 H e n r y II, p . 200). See the references in Agnes E. C o n w a y , Archaeologia Cantiana, 29 (1911), p . 14. P o p e Alexander HI established a commission to restore to Christ C h u r c h the Stisted estate w h i c h was illegally held b y William, b r o t h e r of Ralph o f Allington. PUE 11, n o . 176.

76

The cathedral priories

addition to the stock, now depleted, in the second.145 King Richard, who in 1189 was receiving £ 4 from the sheriff for Stisted, and an equal amount from the prioress of Clerkenwell for the care of the daughter, Avelina, then married the child to Osbert of Longchamp, the brother of his chancellor, William. 146 After Osbert's death in 1209, Avelina granted her interest in Stisted to St. Andrew's priory, Rochester, for 5s per annum, at which point part of the land must have been lost to Canterbury. In 1238 an agreement was made between the monks of Christ Church and William, son of Osbert, whereby two carucates in Stisted were to be held by William and his heirs from the prior for a rent of £16 per annum. When William died in 1256, his interest passed to his widow, Alice, and she and her second husband, Hugh, continued to pay the rent to the priory.147 John, son of Ansfrid, had evidently taken possession of the estate during the vacancy at Canterbury between the death of William of Corbeil in 1136 and the appointment of Theobald in 1139, and the monks doubtless viewed such a period with apprehension. Their combined strength was as yet an imperfect instrument to be used in the recovery of alienated land, and their success depended more on the good will and authority of the primate than on their own limited power. But in the restoration of the lands at Stisted and at Deepham, to a large extent Theobald met their needs and willingly acted on their behalf.148 Nevertheless, in spite of the achievement of a certain harmony of purpose and practical union, it is just as clear that the archbishop, particularly one of Theobald's forceful personality, could and would oppose any infringement by the convent on his authority. There were occasions when he helped and hindered at the same time, as in the dispute over the election of the prior in the early 1140s. Despite opposition from the convent, their appeal to Rome, and his subsequent defeat in a legatine court, Theobald ultimately triumphed and appointed the man of his choice.149 The monks were still denied the right to take the important step of electing their own. At the same time, the prior himself, in loco abbatis, had succeeded 145

147 148

Rotuli de Dominabus et Pueris et Puellis de XII Comitatibus, ed. J. H. Round, PRS 35

146 (1913), pp. 71-72. PR 1 Richard I, p. 21. In 1341 Henry de Longchamp still held of the convent and was paying £ 2 0 per annum. Agnes E. Conway, Archaeologia Cantiana, 29 (1911), 24—38. 149 Saltman, Theobald, no. 44 and pp. 536-538. Ibid., pp. 57—64.

77

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England in drawing apart from the convent so that by the 1160s, if not earlier, he had his own household, buildings, servants, and revenues.150 Like the archbishop who had his possessions marked off from those assigned to the convent, the prior now had his own endowment as well. As the archbishop drew further apart from his cathedral monks his position became more and more that of a titular abbot, while the duties he relinquished fell to the prior as the chief local administrator.151 Undoubtedly, but perhaps unwittingly, the early separation of goods at Canterbury encouraged the division of offices. While Lanfranc, strong in the tradition of the black monks, made no distinction in theory between archbishop and abbot, his arrangement endured but a short time before it gave way in the face of stronger economic and political pressure.152 Not only did archbishop and prior each soon have his own income and his own seal, but the senior obedientiaries as well had their separate staffs and revenues.153 Their increasing number and importance in the daily life of the priory in the twelfth century hastened the process of fractioning the endowment and of creating what amounted to a hierarchy of mini-tnensae. The price of increased efficiency in one direction, however, was greater cost in time and money and petty conflicts in another, as the convent was transformed from a spiritual family into a social and economic community. The worldly life of Christ Church in the time of the reforming prior, Henry of Eastry, in the late thirteenth century, might have moved Anselm to tears; but already in the latter's term of office the basis of the administrative system was firmly established and was becoming increasingly self-sufficient.154 From the appointment of Thomas Becket, and for more than a century, the relations between the archbishop and the monks of Canterbury, although often amicable, were punctuated by a series of conflicts brought about by disputes over the mensa, appoint150

181

153

154

R. A. L. Smith, Canterbury Cathedral Priory, p. 30. Some of the domestic help began to enlarge their own holdings at the expense of the church. Ivo the cook, Godfrey the baker, Bartholomew the steward, and William the gatekeeper were actively engaged in these ambitious undertakings. Urry, Canterbury under the Angevin Kings, pp. 160, 165-66. Ibid., p. 31. For Prior Wibert's roll (1153 x 1167) see pp. 221—226, and for the survey 152 of monastic property (1163 x 1167) see pp. 226-243. MO, pp. 622—624. Urry, Canterbury Under the Angevin Kings, p. 387, no. 3, and Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, ed. W . de G. Birch, 6 vols. (London 1887-1900), nos. 1170, 1368. Southern, Saint Anselm and his Biographer, pp. 253—259.

78

The cathedral priories

ments, income, and the ill effects of a lingering debt. In several instances the consequences were confiscation of the conventual estates and revenues. It was in the time of archbishops Baldwin and Hubert Walter, at the end of the century, that these difficulties came to a head and can be vividly illustrated from the contemporary sources. The chronicle of the struggle that ensued and its implications for the mensal division will be laid out in due course, but it is worth noting here that during the protracted hostilities, the profits from the priory lands at Eastry, Monkton, and Meopham were appropriated, and oblations were diverted from the shrine of St. Thomas.155 This was done, apparently, to provide support for the new foundation of canons at Lambeth. Lacking prebends in a cathedral abbey, the archbishop sought to establish canonries for his own use.156 On complaint by the convent, Urban III, in 1186, ordered Baldwin to restore the tithes of the churches illegally seized.157 The settlement agreed upon, however, divided the profits from the lands between archbishop and monks. For Monkton church, Simon, the archdeacon, later the bishop of Chichester, was to give ten gold pieces, and at his death half of the grain tithes were to go to the monks' alms, and the other half to the archbishop. At Eastry, Ralph, one of Baldwin's clerks, was to pay six gold pieces annually; and at Meopham Virgil was to pay one gold piece as long as he lived.158 Although Archbishop Richard had previously refused the exennia, the seasonal offerings, from the priory manors, Baldwin took them again for himself and his successors, in spite of a saving clause on behalf of the monks.159 Eastry and Monkton were estates in the fens of eastern Kent, and the division of the marshland there, probably based on fishing and eeling rights, was also disputed. Evidently the respective jurisdiction of archbishops and convent had not been clearly defined for some time, so it was decided that a group of twelve or more lawmen should determine the interest of each party.160 In the following year Baldwin's successor, Hubert Walter, revised the scheme for a foundation at Lambeth, and another round of accusations and complaints erupted. 155 157 159

160

HMCR, 8th, appx. I, pp. 328-330; Epistolae Cantuarienses, RS-3$ 11, pp. 156 xxxii—lxxviii, 224. C. R. Cheney, Hubert Walter, p. 137. 158 PUE 11, p. 431. Roger of Howden, RS-si iv, pp. 127-128. R . A . L . S m i t h , Canterbury

Cathedral

Priory, p . 7 , n o t e 6 ; Epistolae

Cantuarienses,

.RS-38,

11, p. xxx. Roger of Howden, RS-si* iv. The monks were also allowed to have a court for their tenants.

79

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England An important factor in the increased irritability of both parties was the growth in size of the Canterbury community. By the midtwelfth century, with some hundred monks and as many domestics and servants, it was one of the larger cathedral monasteries in England. As the priory's jurisdiction widened, and as its administration grew more complex, and correspondingly more expensive, it faced the need for a regular and orderly income. In theory, at least, it held its property inviolate as a body which never died and never lacked an heir.161 Since the archiepiscopal household was also beset by new demands and costs, and as land was wealth, the focus of their conflicts was most often their landed possessions. Although many monastic writers, and some modern historians, like to insist on the favorable climate engendered in a bishop's abbey when the prelate was a monk, it is easy to overplay this special relationship. Lanfranc, for example, recovered monastic estates for his own use, while Theobald and Baldwin carried on long disputes with their convents. On the other hand, William of Corbeil, a regular canon, and Thomas Becket, who took the cowl long after his consecration, cannot be said to have neglected the welfare of their own church. The critical factor was probably not whether the archbishop was a monk among monks, but whether he, in his official position, was viewed as a threat to conventual liberties. In that case, points of contention might be fired to high heat. John of Salisbury felt it worthwhile to remark during the Becket controversy that the monks of Canterbury "made a practice of disliking their archbishops. Anselm they ignored, Ralph they scorned, William was defeated, they conspired against Theobald, and now they persecute Thomas. " 162 Thus, three monks, a regular canon, and a courtly secular could be presented without incongruity as objects of resentment by the chapter. But aside from John's summary history which, in fact, probably contains more truth than hyperbole, and the obviously defensive position of the Canterbury monks in the face of a wave of black monk persecution, what does the position of the archbishop reveal about the development of the mensa and the movement of the convent toward a freer administration? To answer the question it is worthwhile going back to the earlier twelfth-century history. 161 162

U r r y , Canterbury under the Angevin JSL, vol. 11, p. 486.

80

Kings, p p . 156—157.

The cathedral priories Anselm's marked ascetic nature, his immoderate fear of sin, and his reformist sympathies led him to a rather lofty expression of the theory of trusteeship of church property. In a letter to Hugh, archbishop of Lyon, in which he seized the opportunity to describe his confrontation with William Rufus, he referred to himself as the keeper (custos) of the Canterbury lands while the king was the protector and guarantor of their security.163 It was, however, a task that Anselm accepted reluctantly and carried out selfrighteously. At the meeting in Rochester in 1093, when still bishop-elect, he was able to bring the king to agree to the restoration of all the lands which Lanfranc had held.164 Shortly afterwards at Windsor, however, despite urging from the king and his fellow bishops, Anselm refused to accept royal enfeoffments made on the Canterbury estates after Lanfranc's death. 165 On this point he was unnecessarily stubborn, and Rufus was understandably vexed.166 In Eadmer's account of the matter, he reports that the king, after having taken the church lands, ordered an inventory to be made of all the property. He then had allocated to the monks what he thought they required and took the rest for himself. His part was then either leased out or added to the royal demesne.167 The convent's share ad victum apparently meant just enough for minimal support. The steps in the king's action, the seizure of the ecclesiastical lands, the inventory and the apportionment to the monks, and the temporary loss of income, lead one to the conclusion either that the monks had no welldefined tnensa, or that, if they thought they did, it was not recognized by higher authority. Whenever the king intervened, in spite of the assurance of later restitutions, there was a high risk that certain of the properties would never be fully recovered. To offset this potential damage, Anselm continued to resist royal appropriation of the church lands. To Urban II, in 1098, he complained of the military tenancies on lands which should have been restored.168 A year later 163

165 166

168

Epistolae Anselmi, in Sancti Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia, ed. F. S. 164 Schmitt, 6 vols ( L o n d o n 1940-1961), iv, n o . 176. HN, p p . 39-40. Ibid., p p . 141-142. " P r o b a b l y Anselm w o u l d have been well-advised to c o m p l y . It is true that the archbishop's lands w e r e already overstocked w i t h knights in relation to the military revenue d u e from t h e m . B u t he h a d a v e r y large estate and in the administration of it he needed the support o f the k i n g a n d his c o u r t s , " Southern, Saint Anselm and his 167 HN, p. 26. Biographer, p. 156. Epistolae Anselmi, in Sancti Anselmi Opera, iv, no. 206.

8l

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England he confessed to Paschal II his frustration in not being able to correct the evils which affected the country in general and his church in particular.169 But Anselm made no consistent distinctions in his use of the words " archiepiscopatus," "ecclesia," or "ecclesia Cantuariensis." This may have been due to the fact that the plan for the allocation of revenues was clearer to him than it is to us. It also may have been due to Anselm's own theory regarding his custodial obligations which was that all the Canterbury land was church land under his care. We are told that he shuddered at the mention of the word "property," preferring to accept all possessions as gifts for the common use and benefit through god's natural law and munificence.170 He was, he said in a letter to Henry I, "a bishop devoted more to spiritual labor than to the supervision of church business. " 171 Consistent with this view of his charge, Anselm, at one point, took 200 marks of silver and gold from the Christ Church treasury and, with other funds, gave them to the king to meet the obligations of the tax which was imposed in 1096.172 Eadmer was careful to say that this expense was approved by the greater part of the convent, and that later Anselm turned over the estate at Petham to the monks for seven years.173 Petham was an episcopal demesne manor in Domesday Book, where it appeared as Piteham worth £20 per annum, from which the convent had a small income.174 Eadmer's purpose in this instance was to take the breath out of the current rumor which criticized Anselm's handling of the church endowment. The details are lost, but evidently the grant of Petham did not satisfy some members of the convent who continued to voice their opposition. But if most of the members of the convent had been consulted before the tax was paid, it is difficult to account for the persistent hostility on these grounds alone. As an archbishop with a distaste for administration, however, Anselm may have acted impetuously simply to silence the king's demands. For him the Canterbury endowment was all of a piece. It had been given to him as Lanfranc had held it, and it would go to his successors as he held it on the day he lived and died. In the meantime it remained for him to deal with it as best he could. If his actions invited adverse comment, 169 171 172

173 174

17 Ibid., no. 210. ° Eadmer, Vita Anselmi, ed. R. W. Southern, pp.40-41. HN, p. 176. Ibid., p p . 74—75. T h e k i n g w a s b o u n d t o raise a large s u m t o finance t h e crusading venture of his brother, Robert. B a r l o w , William Rufus, p p . 2 4 6 - 2 4 7 ; Southern, Saint Anselm and his Biographer, p . 157. DB 1, fo. 3c.

82

The cathedral priories

then he was at some pains to set things right, even if his gesture, in the eyes of his monks, fell short of a satisfactory resolution. In the long run, it was important to keep the endowment intact because there was no reason to think that later kings would support claims for property which had once been given away.175 For those who took the job seriously, there was considerable risk in administering a diocese. In Anselm's mind the price of eternal vigilance seemed very high. Better it might be, he thought, to give away the ecclesiastical lands than to suffer their waste and be held responsible for it. An unwilling archbishop (genuinely so), and fearful for his soul should his work prove to be unsatisfactory, Anselm found exile, whether physical or mental, an attractive solution.176 A simple answer to a complex set of problems did not appear to him to be illogical any more than it did somewhat later to Paschal II who proposed the return to the king of all secular lands held by German churchmen as a way of dealing with the twin dangers of simony and lay investiture, or to Thomas Becket who could not bring himself to admit that successful management of the church was based on the art of political compromise. 177 Even away from England, Anselm continued to pursue his idea of trusteeship. As a condition of his return from the second exile, pushed forward by threat of excommunication at an indelicate time, he forced Henry I to agree to the restoration of the lands which had been lost to the archbishopric.178 But trusteeship implied full control of the endowment by the prelate based on assumptions regarding church property, which fitted in nicely with a conception of the primitive church devoted to pious works and with the early structure of communal monasticism. The theory, however, no longer answered the needs of the cathedral priory in the twelfth century. While the monks as a whole might applaud Anselm's careful work to reintegrate the ecclesiastical patrimony, some members of the community, certainly, found the idea of greater self-government far more attractive. Anselm was succeeded at Canterbury first by Ralph, bishop of Rochester, then by William of Corbeil, and in 1139 by Theobald of Bee. By Theobald's time, when enough evidence is available to 175 176 177 178

Epistolae Anselmi, F. Schmitt, no. 176 in Sancti Anselmi Opera, vol. iv. Ibid., no. 210. EHD11, p. 71. Archbishop Theobald, writing to Henry, bishop of Winchester, c. 1158, made the same point. JSL 1, n o . 38. Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, p. 47.

83

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England see the internal development fairly clearly, it is apparent that not only has the core of the endowment been preserved, but that the upper echelon of the convent has taken important steps to develop an efficient administration. The rentals which show the distribution of conventual property reveal the great extent to which the monks were buying real estate for cash and arranging profitable exchanges, rather than relying so heavily on traditional gifts and donations.179 At the same time the obedientiary offices of the cellarer, the chamberlain, and the sacrist, which probably were established some time before, were now each supported by separate funds.180 In looking back to the twelfth century to assess the relative positions of archbishop and convent, it is essential to keep in mind that the distinction was not simply one between the prelate and a homogeneous body of monks, but in a more intricate way, a distinction between the archbishop, the prior, the members of their respective households, the obedientiaries and their staffs, and the different members of the convent. As a consequence, the archbishop was faced with an increasingly fragmented administrative system, which demanded a larger and larger share of the income for its operation and which became gradually more difficult for him to control. Ultimately, the monastic liberty of Christ Church, that collection of franchisal privileges which was assembled on the basis of royal grants throughout the century, came to be distinguished from the archiepiscopal barony. The agreement between the prior and Archbishop Boniface in 1259 marked the beginning of "the medieval history proper of the liberty. " 181 From this point of view, the period from Lanfranc to Hubert Walter was one in which a variety of privileges was defined, tested, and finally worked up into a satisfactory settlement. But even then the monks did not wish to have, and probably were incapable of imagining, a state of complete independence. While they urged their own rights and customs, they still counted on the archbishop to guarantee them. Paradoxically, the success of their independence depended, to a degree, on their dependence on the diocesan. They were not yet ready to risk denying themselves his support and protection. For his part, the twelfth-century archbishop, whether an 179 180 181

U r r y , Canterbury Under the Angevin Kings, p p . 28ff., and p p . 221-382, 390—442. R. A. L. Smith, Canterbury Cathedral Priory, p p . 1 4 - 1 5 ; PUE, 11, n o . n o . R. A. L. Smith, Canterbury Cathedral Priory, p p . 83-89.

84

The cathedral priories

Anselm, a Theobald, or a Hubert Walter, no matter how sympathetic he might be to arguments in favor of conventual autonomy, was never willing to permit a severe loss of his own privileges. Considering the relationship between archbishop and monks, Knowles wrote that "at Canterbury the best was over with Anselm's death, though his successor, and perhaps Theobald a little later, were in the same tradition. " 182 But even Theobald, himself a monk, reasonable in outlook and not insensitive to the welfare of the cathedral community, kept his pontifical prerogatives firmly in mind and strictly in place. For him there was a natural order, and deviation from it could only produce unhappy results.183 Like Anselm, he had a strong sense of the superior position of the church of Canterbury in the kingdom, and of the personal nature of the trust which he held to promote its authority.184 This view was strengthened by the defensive posture which Theobald was forced to adopt after the three-year vacancy, following the death of William of Corbeil. Due to the heavy encroachment upon his primatial power by the papal legate and arbiter regni, Henry, bishop of Winchester, an uneasiness about shepherdless churches and a resentment of Henry's dominating position were thoughts that no doubt played a part in fashioning Theobald's view of his charge.185 His upbringing at Bee would naturally have influenced his conception of Canterbury as a monastic community with himself as father over all, and Stephen's charter of 1136, which directed the care of ecclesiastical persons and property to be in the hands of the bishops, would have confirmed it.186 In the face of an increasingly spirited argument by the monks for their own independence, Theobald's relations with his convent were subject to major strains. Ten years of his life were disturbed by a running controversy over his right to appoint the prior and other officers. Eventually an agreement was reached whereby Theobald reaffirmed this privilege with regard not only to the prior, but also to the sub-prior, precentor, steward and two porters as in accordance with the Benedictine rule.187 But the issue remained a controversial one. When Prior Wibert died in 1167, at 182 183

185 187

MO, p. 624. " Quae rectum ordinem deserunt aut nunquam aut raro laetos exitus sortiuntur," in a 184 Ibid., p. 191. letter to Richard, bishop of London, JSL 1, p. 112. 186 See the discussion in Saltman, Theobald, pp. 15 and 19. SC, pp. 143—144. Saltman, Theobald, no. 47.

85

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England the height of the Becket dispute when the archbishop was in exile abroad, the monks sought the king's permission to elect a successor. It was at this point that John of Salisbury issued his reprimand accusing them of deserting the rule of St. Benedict and turning their backs on the law of the church.188 For both Theobald and John the ancient custom governing the abbot in his monastery applied to the bishop-abbot in his cathedral church. Nevertheless, this notion of authority was at the same time undermined in the archiepiscopal charter of confirmation which specified that the cellarer, the chamberlain, and the sacrist were to be permanently established with their own revenues. Thus, the conventual resources were being separately administered as a practical matter, and once this was recognized it would be very difficult to reassert successfully the older paternal theory of management. 189 It is significant that within a few years three treasurers were appointed by the prior and certain of the monks to distribute the funds proportionately to the obedientiary offices.190 With the gradual definition of the respective privileges of the archbishop and the convent, there appeared also a distinction between the prior's property and that of the convent at large. In 1187 the conventual leaders replied to Archbishop Baldwin's plan for managing the church while the prior was away by arguing that if the priory were vacant, by absence or death, the convent was to take control of its possessions on the grounds that what belonged to them was not in the jurisdiction of the prior.191 Before these problems had arisen, however, a more dramatic revelation of conventual mismanagement, referred to above, came about. In the spring of 1151 the conventual property was found to be producing insufficient income and Archbishop Theobald was asked to take it over. It is no surprise that this act provoked the 188 " U t i n a m perniciei huius n o n dedissetis e x e m p l u m , beati Benedicti f o r m u l a m deserentes, terga vertentes ad legem, neglectis constitutionibus, quibus sancti patres d o c u e r u n t christianis esse v i v e n d u m , " JSL n, n o . 244. See above, p . 35. 189 See, for example, the confirmation of C r u n d a l e church, given b y Eustace de Mustrel, - to the c o n v e n t " i n u s u m m o n a c h o r u m . . . et nos consequenter e a n d e m ecclesiam ecclesie C a n t u a r ' et monachis in c i b u m conventus ad p r o p r i a m m e n s a m e o r u m concedimus et eis in p e r p e t u a m confirmamus possessionem salva dignitate archiepiscop a l i , " Saltman, Theobald, n o . 36. In another example, the tenants of the Christ C h u r c h lands w h i c h b e l o n g e d t o t h e m o n k s w e r e t o p u t themselves u n d e r the jurisdiction o f the prior, ibid., nos. 32, 45. 190 R. A. L. Smith, " T h e central financial system of Christ C h u r c h , C a n t e r b u r y , " p p . 23—24. See also PUE 11, nos. 180-183. 191 Epistolae Cantuarienses, RS-38 11, pp. 71—72.

86

The cathedral priories

fears and jealousies which had theretofore lain dormant in the conventual mind, but which were never far below the surface. How sensitive the monks were to the issue of control and, therefore, how important to them was the right to exercise their own independent authority, can be seen in the ensuing round of public accusations of incompetency. The monks, suffering from a curtailed cash-flow, first decided that the best remedy was to increase their debt. As is so often the case, then as well as now, without a well-planned schedule of investments, an expanded mortgage had the ultimate effect of decreasing the net wealth until a point was reached when only a major financial reorganization would restore the proper balance between income and expenses. Unlike some other groups at the time, such as the abbey at Bury St. Edmunds, the Canterbury monks apparently did not attempt to solve their domestic problems by appointing their own administrator. Instead, they placed the endowment in the hands of their archbishop and thereby temporarily undid half a century of careful politics aimed at capitular independence. The chief account of the story was written by Gervase some thirty years later in which he cited as causes the violence of the barons' wars, famine, and poor fiscal supervision by the prior.192 He did not give one of the factors more importance than the other two, but in a modern review of the dispute the political dislocation has been played down because it has been pointed out that "southeast England, where the bulk of the Canterbury estates were situated, suffered least from the anarchy." 193 On the other hand, the resistance against the empress by the queen and William of Ypres in Kent may have done more damage than can be determined by the local accounts. Wandering mercenaries, of whom a large group was still active in 1154, were often more destructive than troops engaged in battle.194 William Fitz-Stephen called William of Ypres "violentus incubator Cantiae," and he was generally supposed to have held a large part of the county under his thumb at one time. 195 It is possible, although there is no direct evidence, that some of his lands may have been taken from the conventual endowment. A 192 193 194

195

Gervase o f C a n t e r b u r y , Historical Works, RS-73, p p . 142—143. Saltman, Theobald, p . 59. H e n r y of H u n t i n g d o n , Historia, RS-74, p p . 268fF., W i l l i a m of N e w b u r g h , Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. R. H o w l e t t , RS-%2 1, p p . ioiff. W i l l i a m Fitz-Stephen, Materials RS-67 in, p . 19. Cf. Gerald of Wales, Speculum Ecclesiae, RS-21 iv, p . 2 0 1 ; Gervase o f C a n t e r b u r y , RS-73 1, p . 121 and 11, p . 7 3 ; JSL, 1, 24.

87

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England comparison of the entry for Kent in the De compotis diversorum vicecomitum (i 154-1155) with the Domesday figures shows a slight fall in value which may have been due to the presence of his men.196 Thus the local disturbances may have led to insufficient production, to famine, always so close to so many in the period, and thus to the depression for which the prior was blamed. Gervase's view gains support from the fact that the decrees issued at the Council of London in 1151, which was called by Theobald about the same time the estates were taken over, make it clear that baronial encroachment on ecclesiastical privileges, illicit taxes, and the destruction of church property by the magnates were the chief reasons for the complaints.197 According to Gervase, Prior Walter, who had been Theobald's chaplain, approached the archbishop and implored him to relieve the hardship in which the church found itself by providing for the convent as long as the bad times continued.198 Theobald is made to appear ignorant of the problem or, if he were aware of it, uncertain as to what remedy the prior had in mind. Judging from what followed, he was reluctant to interfere. Nevertheless, he finally agreed to take on the task and appointed his own custodians answerable only to him. There was put in place a new economic plan which led to a severe cut-back in expenses, a reduced program of public charity, an unexpected austerity diet for the monks, and, predictably, a growing resentment against the archbishop. Within a short time some of the monks thought to take their complaints to Rome. Theobald acted quickly and decisively. He had the messengers arrested, the prior's horses 196

197 198

De compotis diversorum vicecomitum in diversis comitatibus Angliae. RBE, pp. 648—649. From Canterbury, "which William of Ypres holds," there was reported ^ 2 3 blanch and £ 2 0 tale, which is only slightly different from the ,£29 blanch and £ 2 0 tale in the Pipe Roll for 2 Hen. II, p. 65. For these calculations see Urry, Canterbury under the Angevin Kings, p. 42. Land at Sutton and Little Delce was listed as waste. Stubbs put down the diminished revenues to high living and the ravages of war, Epistolae Cantuarienses, vol. 11, pp. xxxii—xxxiii. Saltman, Theobald, document I, pp. 547—549. "Omnia enim tarn intus quam extra vestrae committimus dispositioni dum tan tarn in Anglia videmus perturbationem," Gervase of Canterbury, RS-73 1, p. 143. The alternate reading is "dum enim in Anglia tantus strepitus est..." (ibid., p. 45). The word "dispositio" meant "arrangement," or "management," or "administration," certainly not " alienation," in this context. It occurs also in Theobald's will, first as a testamentary "disposition," and then in regard to the management of monastic property (cum libera rerum omnium et hominum suorum disposicione) which the editors have translated as " with free disposal of all their property and men," JSL 1, p. 247. What Theobald probably meant was administration rather than alienation. Eadmer used it this way in the time of Archbishop Anselm, HN, p. 219.

88

The cathedral priories

seized, and closed down the monastery. The brothers, he growled, were no better than dogs. The nasty turn of events which Theobald had anticipated when he at first refused the charge had come about.199 More than two weeks went by before an agreement was reached. The archbishop lifted his restrictions and, in return, the monks dropped their appeal. Most of their property was restored, but Theobald kept his hands on their churches and on the exennia until the prior should resign.200 This final act was necessary because the archbishop's status had been damaged by the appeal and he wished to make it clear that he maintained the superior position in his cathedral church. The whole drama lasted a little more than two years, and although it was followed by a longer period of general harmony which lasted until Theobald's death in 1161, it left bitter feelings to which Theobald referred in a letter to the convent written shortly after its resolution. He explained that the prior was deposed because he was acting unlawfully. He also pointed out that the custodians whom he had appointed to manage the estates had carried out their task in a more efficient manner than the monks themselves had been able to do, so that the scheme was ultimately to the advantage of the community. 201 He was, indeed, at some pains to justify his action by placing it in the traditional framework of monastic discipline in which it was the duty of the father to chastise his sons. At the end of his life, he was still troubled enough by the shock of the appeal and by his own reprisals to ask the monks to forgive him if he had failed them in any way.202 The apology was probably more than mere literary convention since he referred to the episode again in a letter to Henry II written as he lay dying.203 Why the monks chose to give over their estates to the archbishop, rather than attempt to work out a solution themselves, is a question that is easier to answer if it is approached with the idea that the Canterbury property was not yet sufficiently defined and that the mensal separation had not been in operation long enough for them to have reached the point of a permanent division. The whole dispute illustrates the rather loose organization of the church estates which could be passed easily from convent to 199 201 203

Hostile clergy as dogs was a favorite epithet. See The Chronicle of the Election of Hugh 200 of Bury St. Edmunds, p. 59. Gervase of Canterbury, RS-75,1, pp. 145—146. 202 JSL 1, pp. 1-2. Ibid., pp. 245-248; Saltman, Theobald, pp. 254-257. JSL 1, 249-251.

89

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

prelate and back again within a short period of time. The archbishops, from the time of Anselm to the time of Becket, appear to have lived a significant amount of time with their monks, to have used monastic personnel in their household and, in spite of a more secular cast given to the first important list of archiepiscopal officers which appeared about mid-century, to have depended on the convent's wisdom and ability.204 There were five charters issued during the last decade of Theobald's life in which certain monks of Canterbury, who were also chaplains of the archbishop, subscribed as witnesses.205 That they were monks who served as chaplains is suggested by the fact that they were separated from Theobald's clerks and, in one of the charters, referred to as monachi nostri.2oe They were there in the company of Richard of Whitstable who was a witness to a charter of Prior Wibert in which he is grouped with the monks of Christ Church.207 Other monks in the primate's service appeared from time to time. 208 That it was not an uncommon practice can be inferred from a letter of Alexander III to Archbishop Richard of Dover in 1177 in which the pope instructed him to keep monks in his service, and even to place one in charge of his seal, since the archbishop himself wore the monastic habit.209 Since Alexander III had recently approved the appointment of clerks from the royal household to the sees of Winchester, Bath, Ely, and Norwich, his aim was not so much to promote a monastic bishop and his entourage as the ideal combination, but, as a consequence of the emotional upheaval over Becket's murder, the uncertainty of peace with the king, the fact that the see had lain vacant for ten years, and the recent difficulties over the nomination of the abbot of Bee to Canterbury, to enhance the strength of the archbishopric by encouraging the cooperation and union of prelate and convent. Thus a long 204 205

206

207 209

Saltman, Theobald, n o . 2 5 5 ; a n d see D u B o u l a y , Lordship of Canterbury, p p . 2 5 2 - 2 5 3 . Saltman, Theobald, n o . 77 ( C o l n e p r i o r y ) ; n o . 78 ( N o r w i c h ) ; n o . 176 (Mailing); n o . 225 (Rochester); a n d n o . 255 ( S t o k e - b y - C l a r e p r i o r y ) . Ibid., n o . 225. T h e fact that in t h e twelfth c e n t u r y m o r e a n d m o r e m o n k s w e r e b e c o m i n g priests w h o w e r e responsible for t h e cura animarum was resented b y the bishops a n d canons w h o saw their o w n jurisdiction being encroached u p o n . This c h a n g e has been cited as a factor in t h e sudden g r o w t h o f anti-monastic feeling in t h e period. See G. Constable, Monastic Tithes from Their Origins to the Twelfth Century ( C a m b r i d g e 1964), p p . 145-165, a n d t h e c o m m e n t s in S. C h o d o r o w , Christian Political Century. The Ecclesiology of Gratian's Theory and Church Politics in the Mid-Twelfth Decretum (Berkeley 1972), p p . 43—47. Cf. b e l o w p p . 126, 210, a n d 292. 208 Saltman, Theobald, n o . 40 a n d n o t e . Ibid., n o . 86, n o . 176 PUE 11, n o . 137.

90

The cathedral priories

tradition of overlapping jurisdiction whereby the archbishop had kept a hand in conventual affairs made the prior's proposal to invite in the archbishop less strange, if no easier, than it might have been. The act of surrendering the estates evidently produced no constitutional problems, but it does imply that the archiepiscopal household had developed a greater managerial capacity than the monks had. Moreover, Stephen and Theobald were at the time enjoying one of the brief moments of accord in their relations. The threat by Henry of Blois to encroach on primatial authority had receded, and Theobald had recently been granted legatine authority by Eugenius III. What better choice for the prior than his lord? Throughout his tenure, Theobald's position was that of St. Benedict's abbot into whose hands had been placed the care and education of the spiritual family. To him was given full authority, tempered by prudence and discretion, to rule with the counsel of his monks. It was he who felt the heavy burden of responsibility of his office for which he would have to answer when called at last to judgment. In a practical way, of course, the increasingly complex work of daily administration had been eased, by Theobald's time, by allowing the prior to assume greater responsibility for conventual affairs while remaining bound to the primate. The archbishop, by numerous acts and gifts, showed his concern for the welfare of the community. With Prior Wibert, the successor to the unhappy Walter, there appears to have been no test of wills, but Theobald consistently, if obliquely, referred to Wibert's dependent position, and he found it natural to regulate conventual financial and administrative affairs.210 On the other hand, it should be noted that the separation of the two establishments was marked in other ways. The service whereby the monks contributed to the repair of the archbishop's house was abolished lest it come to have the power of custom. In a charter to the prior, Theobald explained that he found it disgraceful that the convent, which should have the freedom to do god's work, was constrained to do the archbishop's. Whatever was required in building or in property should be taken in hand by the archbishop for the monks, not by the monks for the archbishop, as good fathers have always done from the earliest times.211 While Theobald freed the convent from this obligation, he reminded them in other letters of the greater 210

Saltman, Theobald, nos. 31 and 47.

91

211

Ibid., no. 30 and p. 64.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England one of submitting to his authority.212 These documents date from before and after the period during which the archbishop took over the property, so that Theobald's position was not shaped simply by the recent exhibition of monastic incompetence. Another glimpse of Theobald's stand on episcopal authority can be had from the texts of his will. This instrument exists in at least eight manuscripts which contain important variants, but which cannot be dated with any precision.213 His executors were Walter, bishop of Rochester; his chancellor, Philip; master Ralph of Lisieux; and John of Salisbury to whom he conferred the remainder of his moveable goods which were to be distributed to the poor. He forbade anyone to seize the property which had been assigned for the monks' own use, or to alienate lands belonging to the see, or to interfere with the liberties and customs of his clerks.214 The monastic property was described as res ad usus, whereas the archiepiscopal estates were terrae ad archiepiscopum pertinent; to the archbishopric they belonged, to the convent they were allocated. The difference in wording supports the view that the Canterbury property was first and foremost archiepiscopal, and that it was the archbishop who granted out the lands to support the convent. In a passage which appears in another copy of the will, Theobald revealed his fear that he would be criticized for endowing the monastic offices of cellarer, sacrist, and chamberlain as if he wished to divide the unity of the cathedral church into three separate parts. His intent, he says, was not to divide, but to nourish; to supply the monks with enough possessions to provide for their food, their clothing, and the upkeep of the fabric through the three officers respectively. The obedientiaries, in the interests of efficient management, were to have the right to order their men and property as they wished. Gervase made the same point in a passage in which he insisted that the allocation of property to the convent was made so that both archbishops and monks could live separately without destroying 212

213

See the agreement m a d e w i t h Godfrey of Mailing over land in Patching (Sussex), and the promise to intervene on the m o n k s ' behalf in D e e p h a m (Norfolk), ibid., nos. 32, 45, and d o c u m e n t s A and B , p p . 535-538. Printed b y Saltman, Theobald, n o . 28, w i t h the variations; and i n J S L , 1, p p . 245—248, w h e r e the p r o b l e m of the correct order of the texts is discussed briefly, and JSL 11, p p .

xvi-xvii. 214

" P r a e t e r e a ex parte omnipotentis dei et sub anathemate interdicimus n e quis [omcialium d o m i n i regis] ad res q u e propriis m o n a c h o r u m Cantuariensis ecclesie usibus dicate sunt temerariam m a n u m presumat e x t e n d e r e . . . , " ibid.

92

The cathedral priories

the integrity of the church.215 His thinking still circumscribed by the monastic tradition, Theobald was unable to admit that a largely independent convent could serve the interests of the cathedral church as well as a community directly dominated by the archbishop-abbot. Theobald died in April 1161, chastised by Gervase for his destructive influence on the see, but held in honor by others who wished to add another saint to Canterbury. During the next half century the relations between primate and convent were defined, questioned, redefined, and adjusted in ways which still retained uppermost the idea of the superiority of the archiepiscopal presence in elections, appointments, jurisdiction, income and property rights, but which, nonetheless, gradually worked to consolidate the authority of the prior and monks.216 By the early thirteenth century the conventual treasury, which was the basis for a central and regular financial accounting, and which thereby strengthened the control of their estates, was well in place. Increased expenses due to a rise in taxes, costly law suits, elaborate household finery and the burden of building repairs, meant that the church was never safely free of debt. But the problems of over-spending were dealt with largely by the monks themselves. If the surrender of the monastic estates to Archbishop Theobald meant that earlier there had been no adequate fiscal system in use and no effective plan for reform upon which the convent could rely, the fact that this did not occur again points to a far stronger basis for independent planning and decision.217 Indeed, much later, during the dark financial crisis of the 1280s it was Archbishop Pecham who turned to borrow money from the monks.218 It was also the case that by the thirteenth century, in the time of Gregory IX, the convent was given papal permission to elect the prior, a logical 215

216

217 218

" H a e c ideo facta sunt n o n ut unitas scinderetur ecclesiae, sed ut p e r p e t u o u t r o b i q u e conservaretur utilitas, d u m r e r u m s u a r u m plenam utrique haberent libertatem. Si vero aliqua e m e n d a t i o n e digna e m e r g e b a n t in ecclesia, n o n alicujus praesumptione vel tryannide, sed c o m m u n i c a t o consilio fiebant o m n i a ad utilitatem ecclesiae," Gervase of C a n t e r b u r y , RS-73 1, p . 43. For the w i d e r political implications of " c o m m u n i c a t o consilio" see A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England II: c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century (London 1982), vol. 1, p . 250. In 1174, w h e n C a n t e r b u r y cathedral was rebuilt, it was the m o n k s w h o engaged the contractors, n o t the archbishop. Gervase of C a n t e r b u r y , RS-73 1, p p . 6 - 7 . See also Saltman, Theobald, p . 55. R. A . L. Smith, Canterbury Cathedral Priory, p p . 30, 100—102, 131-132. D . Sutcliffe, " T h e financial condition of the see of C a n t e r b u r y : 1 2 7 9 - 1 2 9 2 , " Speculum 10 (1935), 5 3 - ^ 8 .

93

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England extension of the privilege they had possessed sede vacante from the time of Alexander III.219 Soon thereafter the archbishop and the prior reached an agreement which defined their respective rights in the Canterbury barony.220 At the same time a difference became apparent between the archiepiscopal and monastic archives defining further their separate status and functions.221 These steps towards independence are unmistakable, but it is not clear how the parties involved viewed the development. The possessions of the monks were threatened from time to time, from different quarters, by the king, the archbishop, the secular magnates and by the prior himself. It is difficult to say, however, what distinctions they made, or wished to make, between the archiepiscopal and conventual mensa. The troubles which arose during the Becket controversy, however, are instructive in that they show how different writers of the time referred to the endowment. At the Council at Woodstock in July 1163 Becket resisted the king's demand for an aid of two shillings on the hide, replying heatedly that "by the law of the church, indeed, not one penny shall be given from any of my lands. " 222 Shortly afterwards, at the Council of Northampton in October 1164, William FitzStephen reported that, according to Becket, should the king require him to turn over his moveables the church of Canterbury would be ruined.223 In the second instance, perhaps to make a stronger case for himself, he identified his property with the wealth of the church rather than as a separate asset. In a letter to the archbishop, Alexander III confirmed this view by condemning the forfeiture of his moveables, since he possessed none except the goods of his church.224 By insisting on the unity of church property, the pope reintroduced the concept of the superiority of the bishop-abbot in his cathedral church. Becket, himself, came to argue, pro re nata, that the property of the see belonged not to the archbishop, nor to the king, (nor, even, it might be said, to the convent), but to the church and to god.225 Other observers, 219 220 221

222

224 225

HMCR 8th, appx., p . 317. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 12 H e n . in, vol. vi, p p . 420-424. J. E. Sayers, " T h e medieval care a n d custody o f t h e archbishop o f C a n t e r b u r y ' s a r c h i v e s , " BIHR 39 (1966), 96. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. J. C. Robertson 223 and J. B. Sheppard, RS-67 11, p. 374. Materials, RS-67 in, p . 62. Materials, RS-67 v, p p . 178-179. " N o n e s t , " ait, "haereditas q u o d teneo, nee d e rege sed d e d e o , cui in eleemosynam data sunt quae p o s s i d e o , " E d w a r d G r i m , Vita, in Materials, vol. 11, p . 398. See also W i l l i a m o f C a n t e r b u r y , Materials, vol. 1, p . 39.

94

The cathedral priories

however, like Gilbert Foliot, who were not transported on the wings of Becket's self-esteem, found it easy to refute such a concept and to treat the bishopric as a barony. 226 The papacy, too, was well aware by this time of the advantages to be gained from a practical division of the mensa, and its argument is little more than verbal support for the beleaguered archbishop. Another view, not without interest, is again provided in a letter ofJohn of Salisbury written as a reprimand to the convent. After the death of Prior Wibert in the fall of 1167, one of the monks was sent to the king to ask him to prevent Ranulf de Broc from seizing the possessions of the convent. The De Broc family had farmed the see of Canterbury during the period of Becket's exile and naturally had availed themselves of the opportunity to take over some of the estates. Why not add to them when the priory was vacant? It turned out, however, that some of the monks had entered into negotiations with the excommunicate De Broc, and consequently had been excommunicated themselves.227 John of Salisbury accused the monks of loose living, of squandering the goods of the church, and rebuked the sub-prior, in particular, for having taken advantage of the vacancy to deplete the treasury.228 The resources which the sub-prior had taken for his own use were not his, railed John, but rather belonged to the church and should be used to support their father, the archbishop, in exile.229 One of the consequences of the division of the mensa, however, was the tendency to promote one endowment against another, one office over another, and the individual against the community. Several other issues which bear on the vexed problem of dependence and control were raised during the dramatic confrontation of the archbishops and the convent largely in the last decade of the twelfth century. The dispute, which in its intensity, violence, and duration was exceptional, centered on the plan of Archbishop Baldwin, put in hand soon after his consecration in 1184, to establish and endow a church of secular canons, first at Hackington outside Canterbury, and later at Lambeth, near London.230 Baldwin, who had taken the Cistercian habit as abbot 226

227 229 230

D . K n o w l e s , The Episcopal Colleagues of Archbishop Thomas Becket ( C a m b r i d g e 1951), p p . 150—154; S. W o o d , English Monasteries and their Patrons, p . 33. 228 K n o w l e s , Thomas Becket, p p . 99, 113, 121, 133, 135, 140. JSL 11, n o . 236. Ibid., nos. 2 4 2 - 2 4 5 . T h e story is r e c o u n t e d in detail b y Stubbs in the Epistolae Cantuarienses, vol. 11, i n t r o d u c t i o n . See also R. Foreville, VEglise et la royaute en Angleterre sous Henri II Plantagenet (Paris 1943), pp. 533—556.

95

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England of Ford, became bishop of Worcester in 1180 and was translated to Canterbury four years later. He was proposed and elected by a group of bishops led by Gilbert Foliot, but opposed by the monks of Christ Church. Under pressure from the king, the prior, and those members of the convent of sounder judgment (sanior pars), the convent finally agreed to support Baldwin, but they took care to insist upon their right to proceed by their own electoral process and to conduct their own service at Westminster abbey. Baldwin's character has been difficult for historians to assess, and conflicting testimony from his contemporaries has resulted in contradictory statements by modern writers.231 Much of the problem has arisen from the heated commentary generated by his dispute with his own monks. In the end it is uncertain to what extent he was acting with the stern discipline of a father who had their interests at heart, or behaving like an aggressive stranger careless of their welfare. From the salsa of Gerald of Wales comes the depiction of Baldwin by Urban III as a man whose religious commitment faded as his career in the church advanced. Without making too much of this witticism, it is ironic that Gerald, who knew Baldwin from their trip through Wales together in 1188 to drum up business for the third crusade, found more of the monk than the archbishop in him.232 By insisting on his position as abbot in his cathedral church he increased the opposition to his plans; yet at the same time he failed to maintain discipline because he could not adapt his character to worldly office. This is precisely the complaint that Gerald, as well as a number of bishops, raised when they said they preferred prelates who were seculars to those who were drawn from the monastic orders.233 From 1186 until about 1190, when Baldwin left for the Levant on crusade, the arguments over the respective rights of archbishop and convent were brought to a head, and the sensitive nerves of both parties were laid bare. Theobald, it will be recalled, had taken over churches on the monks' lands and had diverted the exennia paid at Christmas and at Easter from their manors. During 231

232 233

" . . . n a m Alanus prior ecclesiae Sanctae Trinitatis Cantuariae venit Lundonias c u m saniore parte capituli sui et c u m litteris ratihabitionis. Q u i convenientes in u n u m in capitulo m o n a c h o r u m Westmonasterii, elegerunt sibi et Cantuariensi ecclesiae in archiepiscopum p r a e d i c t u m B a l d e w i n u m W i g o r n e n s e m e p i s c o p u m , " R o g e r o f H o w d e n , Chronica, RS-si n, p . 287. T h e puzzle o f the evidence is discussed briefly b y Knowles, MO, p p . 316-318. Gerald of Wales, Itinerarium, RS-21 vi, ii, 14; and Speculum Ecclesie, ibid., iv, 11, 25. Ibid., p. 75-

96

The cathedral priories Becket's absence, and during the lenient rule of his successor, Richard of Dover, the monks had gained a variety of concessions which they were reluctant to lose. Just after the fire at Canterbury, in September 1174, Odo, the prior, went to Woodstock to ask the king to seal new charters for his church.234 Like the forged charters for Battle abbey, which exempted the monks from the jurisdiction of the bishop of Chichester, so would the Canterbury charters provide immunity to the convent from the archbishop.235 Thus when Baldwin, armed with an order from Lucius III, and renewed by Urban III, re-appropriated the churches and resumed the exennia, his actions were met with the strongest resistance. More serious, perhaps, in view of its impact on monastic sensibilities and its subsequent history, was the move by Baldwin to revive the plan for a church at Hackington. He maintained that it was Becket who wanted to found the church and according to Peter of Blois the idea was as old as Anselm's pontificate.236 When Baldwin sought the advice of his colleagues, Hugh, bishop of Lincoln, warned him that the plan was inadvisable and that "if there were to be a quarrel between you and the monks of Christ Church the whole community would suffer. " 237 As it turned out, and as Hugh's biographer writing after the event was well aware, that is exactly what happened. Some of the monks appealed to Rome. Baldwin invaded the convent and for a year and a half, from January 1188 to August 1189, Christ Church was in a state of siege with the monks closed up inside and religious services largely suspended. The archbishop's clerks were introduced into the convent and onto the monastic estates, and in the face of a breakdown of supply lines, the convent was supplied with food by the Jews and sympathetic townsmen.238 Further appeals to Rome were delayed by the death of Urban III in October i 187, the death of his successor, Gregory VIII, two months later, and then by the election of Clement III. Baldwin, who insisted on the privileges of his office, appointed Roger Norreys as prior of Christ 234 235

236 238

Epistolae Cantuarienses, p . 4 ; Gervase o f C a n t e r b u r y , RS-73 11, p p . 399-400. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, ed. E. Searle, O x f o r d Medieval Texts ( O x f o r d 1980), p p . 280-296, and the c o m m e n t b y Searle, p p . 22—23. 237 Epistolae Cantuarienses, vol. 11, p. 556. Magna Vita, vol. 1, p. 122. Epistolae Cantuarienses, vol. 11, pp. 183-184; Gervase of Canterbury, RS-73, pp. 405—406. On the appeal to Rome as the only recourse open to the Canterbury monks, see the discussion by Werner Maleczek, Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216. Die Kardindle unter Coelestin III und Innocenz HI, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1 Abt., 6 Bd. (Vienna 1984), pp. 253—255.

97

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Church over the protests of the monks.239 Roger had been the treasurer and had already been named cellarer by the archbishop despite some opposition. The monks accused him of wasting their fields and woods, but whether he was encroaching unjustly, or simply managing things more efficiently, it is difficult to say. Gervase has an unflattering portrait of him, perhaps a consequence of Roger's attempt to appropriate conventual land to the archbishop's use.240 Baldwin may have planned to take the monk's estates to endow the church at Hackington, although he claimed that he was building on his own land.241 The divided mensa appears still to have been a source of confusion. At last, upon the death of Henry II, who had generally supported Baldwin in the struggle, some pressure was relieved. Gervase had seen the king as the force behind the idea of replacing monks by canons, and he was convinced that Baldwin had followed his lead.242 Richard I managed to reach a temporary settlement late in 1189 whereby the Hackington site was abandoned. Prior Roger was transferred to Evesham where, as abbot, he subjected his monks to the same treatment that had convulsed the convent at Canterbury. He seized their estates, curtailed their income, and forced them, starving and shivering, quasi oves sine pastore, to beg in the neighborhood, relying on public charity.243 The Hackington project was moved to Lambeth, where Baldwin already had property, and the archbishop left England, never to return. The agreement, which was entered into by the archbishop condescendingly and by the monks of Canterbury reluctantly, remained in force for only a short time. With the advent of Hubert Walter as successor to Baldwin, the issue was heated up again and representatives of both sides were plunged into furious controversy. The monks protested that the proposed foundation at Lambeth would come to replace their own, endowed as it was with Christ Church property. Hubert Walter, a royal justice and 239 240

241

242

243

ibid., P . 382. " . . . superbus, elatus, p o m p o s u s in v e r b i s . . . aspernator religionis, ad superiores adulator, ad inferiores c o n t e m p t o r . . . a m i c u s foeminarum, a m a t o r e q u o r u m . . . , " Gervase of C a n t e r b u r y , RS-73 1, p . 382. Ibid., p . 344. Smalley believes that B a l d w i n did n o t intend to use conventual property, b u t this view is n o t strongly p u t . B . Smalley, The Becket Conflict and the Schools. A Study of Intellectuals in Politics (Oxford 1973), p. 216. Gervase o f C a n t e r b u r y , jRS-73, 1, p p . 538—542. Peter of Blois also blamed the king, Epistolae 211 and 233, MPL c c v n , cols. 492-495, 534. Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, RS-29, pp. 102—107, 236—251.

98

The cathedral priories

late bishop of Salisbury, tried to appease their fears by promising that the canons of the new church would neither elect the primate, nor receive the relics of St. Thomas to the detriment of the Canterbury priory. The monks were neither appeased nor convinced, and appealed to Rome.244 Before long the matter was examined by the pope, newly consecrated as Innocent III in January 1198. Having heard mainly the complaints of the monks, Innocent threatened Hubert with excommunication if the Lambeth buildings were not torn down as ordered. At this point the king intervened and seized the conventual estates on the grounds that the royal dignity had been injured by papal interference in English affairs.245 His was not the only voice critical of Innocent's decision. The pope's action provoked a cry of injustice from Ralph de Diceto who argued from a different premise that while "to Peter was given the power of building up, what law, indeed, allowed him to tear down a holy place?" 246 Hubert, fearing that the exercise of regalian right would enrage the pope and compromise his position, urged Richard to restore the properties. This did not prevent him, however, from laying hold of some more manors and appropriating their income.247 In the meantime, Innocent appointed delegates in England to hear the case in May 1199. It was not until late in the next year that an agreement was reached, and this was not approved by the Roman curia until the spring of 1201.248 In the end, the archbishop abandoned the idea of a separate collegiate church near London, although he had permission to construct a Premonstratensian canonry there, provided that Christ Church estates were not used. Nevertheless, he retained the advowson of the four churches at Monkton, Eastry, Eynsford and Meopham, and the right to the exennia, privileges which were not far from the conditions offered, but rejected by the convent in November 1199. The chief source for the Hackington—Lambeth dispute is the history by Gervase who was a monk himself and who was working in the interests of the convent. There is no comparable narrative from the archbishop's side, although the letters of Peter 244 246 247 248

245 Gervase of Canterbury, RS-73 1, p. 546. Epistolae Cantuarienses, p . 409. R a l p h d e D i c e t o , Opera, RS-68 11, p . 165. Epistolae Cantuarienses, p p . 488—489. C . R. C h e n e y , Hubert Walter, p . 149, n o t e 2. Innocent's letter t o H u b e r t W a l t e r , in w h i c h h e set o u t the legal and quasi-legal a r g u m e n t s for quashing the case, can b e found in the Epistolae Cantuarienses, ccccxcviii, p p . 459—465, a n d in Gervase o f C a n t e r b u r y RS-73 1, pp.576-584.

99

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England of Blois, who was one of Baldwin's clerks, attempt to explain the legality of his actions. But allowing for a prejudiced account, there are some useful lessons to be learned from these years of controversy. They illustrate once again the extent to which the papacy was ready to intrude into matters of diocesan organization and to deprive the bishop of a measure of local control. As one of the explosive issues of the period, it arrayed both king and episcopate from time to time against the authority of Rome. Nor do the years of dispute leave any doubt about the powerful role of the monarch in directing the course of ecclesiastical affairs in England. As to the archbishops, throughout the controversy both Baldwin and Hubert Walter maintained a strong sense of their superior position in the cathedral church. As we have seen, Baldwin never gave up the idea of a natural order which put the monks in subjection to him as their abbot. At one point, faced with pressure from the king to reach a compromise, he ordered a copy of the Rule to be brought in so that he might have a text with which to dispose of their arguments.249 At the same session, in December 1189, the archbishop of Rouen, speaking with episcopal privilege in mind, defended Baldwin's proposal to build another church, as well as his right to nominate the prior, as acts which lay within his jurisdiction and legal competence. He admonished the monks, who he thought had exceeded their authority, to seek the forgiveness of their lord.250 Undoubtedly there were many monks who were prepared to acknowledge the abbatial status of Baldwin and Hubert Walter provided that their demands were not unreasonable, that is, as long as they were not arbitrary, sudden, or novel, and that they did not seriously reduce the conventual income. As the dispute developed, however, the convent reacted to increasingly strong episcopal pressure and was thrown on the defensive, beyond the point of easy compromise. Even reasonable acts then became suspect, and a chorus of protest was raised by voices that grew ever more fearful and shrill. Paradoxically, the division of the mensa, which allowed the archbishop to form a view of the Canterbury property based on his own possessions, and the convent a view based on theirs, naturally gave rise to conflicts over rights to property; but there was also reluctance on both sides to define their privileges too carefully for fear that a precise inventory might result in 24

* Gervase of Canterbury, flS-73 1, pp. 476-477. 100

250

Ibid., p. 479.

The cathedral priories

important losses. The argument that the archbishop acted as abbot in his cathedral monastery, with the jurisdictional privileges which the position implied, could be turned around in favor of the monks. The exchange between Baldwin's envoy, Peter of Blois, and the convent's advocate, Pillius, in the papal court in 1187 illustrates the point. If the archbishop were indeed abbot, argued Pillius, he could not alter or alienate conventual land without the monks' permission (or at least that, we may suppose, of the sanior pars of his spiritual family). But this view accepted what was useful in the abbot's position and underestimated his role as father, leader, and disciplinarian. The arbitrary nature of the argument was pushed to an extreme in the next century by the monks at Winchester who claimed that their bishop was not the abbot, rather the prior was; nor was the bishop their patron, rather the king was.251 In a meeting with representatives of the monks in 1187, Baldwin questioned their right to restrict him from building on his land, or, in fact, doing with it whatever he wished. To this the monks' emissary replied that his wealth was their wealth, his land their land, and all that he had was theirs by law. Whatever he had came to him through the church, and everything belonged to the church.252 Now it was one thing for the monks to demand the right to administer their mensa, but it was quite another for them so far to identify themselves with the cathedral church that they excluded the archbishop altogether. The first claim was disputed; the second was beyond consideration. Here the monks came close to denying the utility of a divided mensa. On the other hand, the monks cited the antiquity of tradition to prove, at least to their own satisfaction, that not only was the mensa separated so that the archbishop had nothing of theirs, but also like the convent at Winchester, that they held in capite of the king. Thus the archbishop was not their lord, nor they his tenants.253 But this was an argument before its time. Hubert Walter considered that the lands which the monks had from the king had been stolen, 251

253

For the remarks of Pillius, see Gervase of Canterbury, RS-73 1, p. 368; for the monks of Winchester see Registrant Johannis de Pontissara, vol. 11, p. 613, cited by Wood, English 252 Monasteries, p. 479. Gervase of Canterbury, RS-73 n, p. 344. Epistolae Cantuarienses, ccxliii, p. 225. A similar claim to hold not of the bishop but of the king was made by St. German's priory in Cornwall on the grounds that it was a royal foundation and endowment. But the bishop maintained that the priory held of him, and, moreover, that he had a right to the income sede vacante. Cf. Wood, English Monasteries, p. 77. IOI

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England implying that their title was inferior to his and their mensa could not be independent.254 As the drama unfolded it was apparent that the struggle was not simply one between primate and convent, but one that involved, at different times, the archbishop's clerks, the monks' servants, the citizens of Canterbury, other bishops and the local priests, the king, the papacy, and various other European rulers. Loyalties shifted in the course of the dispute and were not always in the expected alignment. The convent staff proved to be the monks' worst enemies, some of the Canterbury priests took the side of the archbishop, and some of the local townsmen aided the convent. 255 The episcopal colleagues of the archbishops appear generally to have added their voices to the increasing criticism of the black monks which was gaining force in England towards the end of the century.256 Even the convent was divided against itself. A faction of the younger monks was held by Baldwin to have been responsible for the unrest. He, it was said, preferred older monks whose senility would not allow them to hamper his plans.257 The point is important in that it illustrates the fact the convent was far from presenting a unified view. It is easy to speak of the monks as if they together formed a stable community hewn, as it were, from a single block. In reality, it was a disparate group, rent by cliques and opposing views, and, therefore, vulnerable to manipulation by the prelate. The age differential was a constant factor which divided and weakened the community. The problem can be illustrated in the next century, in the time of Archbishop Pecham, when a serious dispute broke out between the prior and the older monks over their financial operations. The younger inmates, given to hawking and hunting, were loath to bring about a settlement and even the intervention of the archbishop proved for a time to be unsuccessful.258 Against the tendency of some members of the Canterbury community to excite their fellows with thoughts of full autonomy, there was set the natural conservatism of the priory as a whole which, over the course of the twelfth century, allowed the convent 254 255 256 257

258

Epistolae Cantuarienses, dxxvi, p. 506. Ibid., p p . 208—209. Gervase o f C a n t e r b u r y RS-73 p p . 405—406, 425, 472. MO, chap. 18. A . Gransden, " C h i l d h o o d a n d y o u t h in medieval E n g l a n d , " Nottingham Studies, 16 (1972), 14, w h o cites Gervase. D . D o u i e , Archbishop Pecham ( O x f o r d 1952), p . 176. 102

Medieval

The cathedral priories to develop an independent administration without a sudden upheaval. In fact, it was not so much the wish for independence which moved the monks, as the desire for greater freedom in the management of their affairs. This was achieved less by advancing legal claims than by establishing an organized and efficient household which was able to assume the risk and expense of administration while at the same attracting the support of the community. The striking fluctuations in revenue from certain estates in different years due to a capricious climate, as well as to inept supervision, made it imperative that a reliable apparatus be put in place. In the 1150s we have seen that the monks gave their estates to Theobald because they could not run them by themselves. Thirty years later, although the weather was still unpredictable and inefficiency was still a problem, there was no question that the management of the estates was in their hands. Like the archbishop, they began to recall lands which were out on long leases to replace them by a variety of short-term rents, or by the direct exploitation of the demesne. 259 Although the convent borrowed heavily between 1215 and 1223, including >£3°° from the archbishop, largely to pay the costs of litigation at Rome and to meet the expenses of electing a new prelate, the decision and arrangments were theirs. They can be faulted for accepting a very high rate of interest on the loan, and failing to invest part of the borrowed funds to produce some income, but those were shortcomings which perhaps could not be avoided at the time. 260 In the same period a prior's council emerged to deal with jurisdiction sede vacante, and the monks obtained papal approval to elect the prior who was granted the privilege of wearing the ring and mitre. 261 These institutional changes encouraged an outlook among the members of the convent which made them increasingly sensitive to any attempt to infringe on what they considered to be their rights. When Archbishop Boniface (1244-1270) ordered two Canterbury monks to come to his estate at Teynham to explain alleged transgressions, the prior and monks refused, saying that they would deal with their land only in the chapter house at Canterbury.262 Even in regard to the question of episcopal 259 260

261

D u Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, pp. 204-206. M . M a t e , " T h e indebtedness o f C a n t e r b u r y cathedral p r i o r y : 1215—1295," Economic History Review, 2 n d ser. 26 (1973), 184. R. A. L. Smith, Canterbury Cathedral Priory, p p . 6 8 - 7 0 ; PUE11, nos. 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 ; HMCR, 262 M a t e , " I n d e b t e d n e s s " , p . 187. 8th, appx., p . 317. Cf. b e l o w , p p . 429 ff. 103

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England elections, the convent can be seen to have made some progress toward the recognition of the importance of its role in the process. Theobald had been elected by the monks of the cathedral priory. His candidacy was also approved by the king, but where the latter intervened in the electoral sequence is not clear.263 Becket was elected by the monks for the king and approved by the bishops of the province.264 Led by Gilbert Foliot, the prelates appointed Baldwin as archbishop in 1184 and they remained an important element in the process until Langton's election in 1206 when they were suppressed.265 As greater weight in domestic administration was transferred from archbishop to prior, the source of conflict, which in the twelfth century had centered on the relationship beteen prelate and convent, now shifted to the relations between the monks and the prior. In the late thirteenth century, at a time when the conventual estates were again badly managed so that an enormous debt of £5,000 had been incurred, Archbishop Pecham arranged to have a committee of six monks appointed by the convent to supervise their affairs.266 Some of the monks, it seems, were far from blameless in their conduct. They had resisted injunctions from both prior and archbishop and were guilty of stealing from the treasury. As a defense, they accused Pecham of appropriating the conventual seal to gain possession of their property; whereupon he replied that he had taken the seal to prevent them from wasting the endowment.267 Repeated intervention followed and in 1284, upon the resignation of the prior, King Edward seized the temporalities. At that time the convent was involved in over twenty law suits of which two were between the prior and the monks, and two others between the convent and the king. 268 The possessions were soon restored, although they were once again sequestered by the king in 1297. Finally a settlement was reached whereby it was agreed that the monks were to elect the new prior. Pecham appeared at the door of the church and preached to them on a significant text from the gospel of John: "And other sheep I 263 264 265

266 267 268

PUE 11, n o . 102; Saltman, Theobald, p p . 7 - 1 4 . F. B a r l o w , Thomas Becket (Berkeley 1986), p p . 6 6 - 6 7 . M . P o w i c k e , Stephen Langton, p . 80. See Gervase, i?S-73 1, p p . 3156°. on the dispute b e t w e e n the suffragan bishops and the m o n k s . D . Sutcliffe, "Financial c o n d i t i o n , " p p . 53-68. D o u i e , Archbishop Pecham, p p . 176—191. HMCR, 5th, appx., 1, p p . 432—433; Registrum epistolarum fratris Johannis Peckham,

RS-77 11, pp. 539-540; Mate, "Indebtedness", p. 191.

IO4

The cathedral priories

have that are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. " 269 But while he emphasized the importance of the traditional position of the bishop-abbot in insuring a stable foundation, he also recognized the need for the dominant conventual faction to be able to administer its own property effectively and profitably. Thus the divided mensa was compromised, but at the same time strengthened, by the overlapping jurisdiction of archbishop and monks, although this ambiguity provided the ground for intermittent disputes for some time to come. A further attempt at definition was made by the prior in the time of Pecham's successor, Robert Winchelsey (1293-1313). Fearing that the king might invade the see and seize the temporalities in order to force payment of a tenth due as a subsidy for the defense of the realm, he issued letters stating that the church of Canterbury was the property of the prior and convent and quite separate from the estate of the archbishop.270 At long last the divided mensa had come into its own and the church itself had been made a conventual possession. CARLISLE

Carlisle was the last bishopric established in England before the sixteenth-century reformation, and the second dating from the reign of Henry I. Like Ely, it might have served as an example of the way in which the wealth of a new see was distributed between bishop and chapter, but the dearth of records leaves very little of the history that can be pieced together before the thirteenth century. The preparations for the foundation of the see appear to have begun with William II when in the course of his penetration to the north, into Cumberland and Westmorland, he rebuilt and fortified the town of Carlisle as a strategic outpost near the Scottish frontier.271 By the 1120s a house of canons had been established there, although whether Henry I was the original founder is a question that has not been definitely answered.272 They were 269 271 272

27 J o h n 10:16. ° HMCR, 8th, appx., p p . 344-345. Regesta I, n o . 463, 478. J. C . Dickinson, " T h e origins o f t h e cathedral o f Carlisle," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, n.s. 45 (1945), 135—138. See also his The Origins of the Austin Canons and Their Introduction into England (London 1950), pp. 245-254, and "I canonici regolari e la riforma ecclesiastica in Inghilterra nei secoli xi e xn," Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali 3 (Milan 1962), 274-303.

105

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England provided by the king, however, with an endowment for their support which included the churches of Newcastle-on-Tyne and Newburn, as well as those at Warkworth, Corbridge, Whittingham, and Rothbury, all of which Henry had given to his chaplain, Richard d'Orval, earlier in the reign. The canons were to have the lordship (dominium), and after Richard's death they were to take possession of those churches as their own. 273 Henry also gave them the manor of Wetheral, and the land and churches of Walter, the priest, a benefactor of the priory, in free alms and quit of tax.274 The remaining pipe roll for the reign shows a payment of £10 to the canons ad operationem ecclesie, and relief from a tax assessment of 37s 4d.275 This latter sum was kept on the books, and it appears in the sheriffs accounts from the beginning of the reign of Henry II through the rest of the century and the reign of John. 276 All of these grants may have been made in preparation for the establishment of the bishopric in 113 3. The scheme for a northern see embracing Cumberland and Westmorland on the west, which would balance Durham on the east, was attractive to the archbishop of York, to the pope and to the king. The Scottish church had no metropolitan authority and therefore traditionally it was considered, by the English and by Rome, to be subject to the archbishop of York, but it had never been easy to force compliance to the ruling. This was the case until the late twelfth century (1192) when the pope took all the sees in Scotland, except for Galloway, Orkney, Argyll, and the Isles, under his fatherly protection and made the church his jilia specialist17 John, bishop of Glasgow, a chaplain of King David,was adamant in claiming jurisdiction far to the south and, in particular, proved to be a tireless and resourceful adversary of English ecclesiastical and political expansion. For Archbishop Thurstan, a new diocese within his province was a way of insuring his authority in a territory which had long been in dispute; for the pope, the new see served to reduce the influence of the hostile bishop of Glasgow; and the king saw that a captive religious foundation in the unsettled northwest was a promising means of defining the border between the two 273 274 276

277

Regesta n , n o . 1431. F o r t h e grant t o Richard d ' O r v a l , see ibid., n o . 572. 275 Ibid., nos. 1491, 1752-1753. Cf. ibid., n o . 1617. PR 31 H e n r y I, p . 141. See for instance, PR 19 H e n r y II, 29 H e n r y II, 33 H e n r y II, 1 Richard I, 10 Richard I, 3 John, 16 John. B a r l o w , English Church, v o l . 11, p . 3 9 ; J. A . Green, " A n g l o - S c o t t i s h relations 1 0 6 6 1174," England and her Neighbours: 1066-1453. Essays in Honour of Pierre Chaplais, ed. Michael Jones and Malcolm Vale (London 1989), pp. 53—72. 106

The cathedral priories

countries.278 The fact that Carlisle and its environs were rich in lead and silver deposits, which were being mined at the time, should also be considered a factor in Henry's plans.279 In 1133 the lands which had been attached to the Augustinian priory were taken to form the principal endowment of the cathedral church, and Adelulf, a royal chaplain and prior of the Augustinian house of St. Oswald's, Nostell, in Yorkshire, was consecrated bishop by Archbishop Thurstan. When he entered his see is another question. It is a point of some importance because the assumption among historians generally has been that the creation of a bishopric at Carlisle was made possible by the agreement of King David not to attempt to prevent it. The price of his acquiescence was that Thurstan should refrain from interfering in the affairs of the Scottish bishops in order to bring them under the jurisdiction of York.280 Yet it is uncertain if Adelulf took up his duties right away, and the fact that Carlisle was invaded and the castle taken by David within a short time of Henry I's death, suggests that the Scottish king, while taking advantage of the disorder brought about by the contest for the throne, may never have accepted the imposition of a new English diocese.281 Adelulf s itinerary can be plotted roughly from his attestations to royal charters. He was at Winchester with Henry soon after his appointment to the see, before the king crossed to Normandy, in 278

279

281

U p t o 1133 Carlisle h a d been part o f the archdeaconry o f R i c h m o n d w h i c h belonged t o Y o r k . It was r e m o v e d from this jurisdiction after the see was established. For H e n r y and for T h u r s t a n " the creation of Carlisle fixed t h e southern limit of the large bishopric of Glasgow at t h e Solway F i r t h , " G . W . S. B a r r o w , Kingship and Unity. Scotland: 1000—1306, N e w History o f Scotland 2 ( L o n d o n 1981), p . 67. " H o c etiam t e m p o r e vena argentaria reperta fuerat a p u d Carluil, u n d e investigatores, qui earn in visceribus terrae quaerebant, quingentas libras regi H e n r i c o a n n u a t i m p e r s o l v e b a n t , " R o b e r t d e T o r i g n i , Chronicle, RS-82 iv, p . 123. O n t h e Pipe Roll o f H e n r y I the burgesses o f Carlisle account for £ 5 from the old farm o f the mines, a n d the custodians for £40 from the current farm (PR 31 Henry I, p. 142). They were still producing both lead and silver in the reign of Henry II and long thereafter. The Pipe Roll for 14 Henry II notes fifty-five cartloads of lead for the king's works (p. 109), and the Pipe Roll of 10 Henry II records the account of William the moneyer for ,£200 (p. 28 2). ° See M.Brett, English Church under Henry I, pp. 24-27. I owe an illuminating discussion of this problem to Dr. Judith Green of the Queen's University of Belfast at the Harlaxton conference in 1988. Now see her article, " Anglo-Scottish Relations, " p p . 62-63. That the creation of the see was a hostile move against the Scots was emphasized by R. B. Dobson in a study of the northern bishoprics later in the medieval period: "Henry I's and Archbishop Thurstan's apparently ad hoc and certainly politically crude anti-Scottish political manoeuvre of elevating an obscure and struggling house of canons into the cathedra of a new bishop of Carlisle," " Cathedral chapters and cathedral cities: York, Durham and Carlisle in the fifteenth century," Northern History 19 (1983), 19.

107

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

August of 113 3, and then went over himself, since he was among the witnesses at Rouen in 1134 and 1135, and at Falaise in 1133 x 1135.282 In the following year he was back in England, at York in February, at Westminster at Easter (22 March), and at Oxford in early April.283 In 1137, however, he was again in Normandy with Stephen, at Evreux and at Lyon-la-Foret. Stephen returned to England in November 1137 and Adelulf may have accompanied him. He was at Oxford in 1139, and at Norwich and Lincoln in 1140.284 Assuming that Adelulf was present on the occasions when he was cited as a witness, and that he was not shuttling back and forth across the Channel during the time between, he may not have taken up his duties at Carlisle before the beginning of 1136. Subsequently, he was away for nine months in 1137. On the testimony ofJohn of Hexham, Adelulf was restored to his episcopal see by the papal legate, Alberic of Ostia, with the approval of King David, on the occasion of the council of Scottish clergy in the summer of 1138.285 Thus he might have been in office for a year, then absent for almost a year, and finally back again in 1138. It is possible, therefore, that Carlisle remained unoccupied because of resistance to the appointment by King David, or because Adelulf considered it prudent to wait until the situation in the north became more stable. Whether Adelulf was in residence in his church or not, there is no indication that any division of property between bishop and canons had been made, or even attempted. Unlike the Benedictines, or the secular chapters, the Augustinians were, in theory, thoroughly integrated into a structure which, in a cathedral church, had the diocese as its jurisdiction and the bishop as its head and patron. The promise of cooperation with episcopal authority, rather than competition; of subservience, rather than separation; and of moderation rather than militancy; these were essential characteristics of the regular canons which appealed to episcopal and royal founders alike. There was, therefore, less reason to believe that a division of the 282

283 284 285

Regesta H, nos. 1764, 1767. Cf. E. U . C r o s b y , " T h e O r g a n i z a t i o n o f the English E p i s c o p a t e , " SMRH 4 (1967) 74. As prior, Adelulf seems to have been at R o u e n w i t h the k i n g in M a y 1131. Regesta 11, n o . 1 6 9 1 ; Regesta 11, nos. 1900, 1902, 1908, 1910-1911, 1913, 1915, 1919. A r o u g h c h r o n o l o g y is p r o v i d e d b y E. W . Williamson in his edition of The Letters ofOsbert of Clare, Prior of Westminister (London 1929), p p . 203-206. Regesta m , nos. 99, 335, 717, 919, 942, 9 7 5 ; 4 6 ; 2 7 1 . Ibid., nos. 280-282, 6 0 8 ; 598; 452, 621-622, 6 2 7 ; 399; 114. Councils and Synods, vol. 1, ii, p p . 767-768, from S i m e o n o f D u r h a m , Opera, RS-7S 11, p p . 297—299: " Aldulfum episcopum in gratiam eiusdem regis [David of Scotland] et in sedem suam de Karlel recipi i m p e t r a v i t . "

108

The cathedral priories

mensa was uppermost in the minds of the canons, and even less reason to think that it was presented as a condition for peaceful internal relations.286 In any case, the practical advantages attached to the new see were lost when King David invaded Cumberland in 1135 and took the city of Carlisle.287 David's son, Henry, was given the lordship of Carlisle, as well as the earldom of Huntingdon, by Stephen in an agreement reached at York in February 1136. So, soon after his election, Stephen was already negotiating from a position of weakness. What he did was buy a temporary peace with Scotland at the cost of alienating the powerful family of Ranulf, earl of Chester, who had a hereditary claim to Carlisle through his father. In the critical period after 1149, the year in which young Henry of Anjou was knighted by David of Scotland, Ranulf, having made peace with the Scots, joined forces with the Angevins to present the final challenge to Stephen's rule. Although nominally under Yorkist ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the diocese of Carlisle remained in Scottish hands until 1157, the year of Adelulf s death.288 From 1157 to 1203 Carlisle was without a bishop. The canons probably remained under a prior, but how their endowment was administered it is impossible to say. Henry II issued at least two privileges in favor of the priory by which he confirmed the canons' property.289 He also made an effort, in 1186, to fill the vacant see by offering the bishopric to Paulinus of Leeds, the head of St. Leonard's hospital in York. It was apparently an unpopular appointment and in spite of the fact that he was promised an income of 300 marks a year from three churches and two royal manors, Paulinus refused.290 There is no doubt that the bishopric itself had little to offer in the way of compensation. It was isolated, impoverished and exposed to the political and military uncertainties of the frontier. Nevertheless, it seems to have had some kind of working administration. In the pipe roll for 1187—1188, 286

A n Augustinian chapter, o f course, did n o t always guarantee s m o o t h sailing. See t h e account by Dereine in the Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographie ecclesiastiques, vol. x n , PP- 379-38o, who cites the long-term problems at Bordeaux, Lucca, and Salzburg. 287 H e n r y o f H u n t i n g d o n , Historia, RS-74, p p . 2 5 0 - 2 5 9 ; A . A . M . D u n c a n , Scotland, the Making of the Kingdom ( E d i n b u r g h 1975), p p . 2 1 9 - 2 2 3 . 288 VQH Cumberland, 11, pp. 12-13. For the ambiguity of the date of death see C. R. C h e n e y , Pope Innocent III and England, p p . 74—75. 289 Calendar of Close Rolls, in, p p . 81—82, f r o m an inspeximus o f 35 E d w a r d I (February 290 R o g e r o f H o w d e n , RS-$i 11, p . 309. 1307). 109

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Nicholas de Morewich and William Roger accounted for the see and the archdeaconry with a total income of £52 19s 6d for two years.291 This relatively small sum was derived from synodalia, pentecostal oblations, school revenue and judicial income. What the canons' return was on their landed property is unknown. Their support, however, was supplemented by cash allowances paid through the exchequer. After this abortive attempt to fill the see, no effort made to find a bishop met with any success until the appointment of Bernard, archbishop of Ragusa, in 1203. Bernard was in England with King Richard after the third crusade and he may already have been granted custody of Carlisle by 1200.292 In any case, he seems to have had enough of Ragusa, and by his own petition he was released from his vows by Innocent III.293 King John granted him twenty marks yearly for life.294 Paulinus, it seems, would have done better twenty years earlier. After a little over a decade in office, Bernard died and within a short time Alexander, king of the Scots, took over the see and persuaded the canons to elect a Scottish bishop. The confusion engendered by unstable baronial loyalties, civil war, and the French invasion which marked the last year ofJohn's reign, worked to Alexander's advantage. For a brief time the political strategy of strengthening the northwestern frontier which rested, ultimately, on the bishop, was rendered null. John died in 1216 before steps could be taken to improve the situation, but in the spring of the next year a letter of complaint in the name of Henry III was forwarded to Rome. In it were recited the dangers to the English kingdom caused by the Scottish invasion and the nomination of a foreign bishop. The ill-behaved canons of Carlisle, it was pointed out, had acquired for themselves so much of the wealth of the cathedral church that the bishop had been reduced to poverty. Consequently, the king, for his part, was unable to find anyone to take the see.295 He asked the pope to replace the regular canons (who, he said, were better called "irregular") by seculars with their own prebends. Such a move would be a deterrent to others tempted by the same errors, and it 291 292 293

295

PR 34 H e n r y II, p p . 7 - 8 . C. R. Cheney, Pope Innocent III and England, p. 54, note 1. 294 Letters of Pope Innocent III, no. 473. Calendar of Close Rolls, 1, 67.

"Cum enim ipsi [the canons] in multis habundent, episcopus eorum ita hactenus egestate afflictus est et inopia, quod vix habet ubi capud suum reclinet et non invenitur aliquis, qui in aliquo nobis utilis esse poterit aut necessarius, qui episcopatum ilium recipere voluerit," Calendar Patent Rolls, 1, p. i n . IIO

The cathedral priories

would establish a new chapter loyal to the king. Honorius III replied with a mandate to Guala of St. Martins, the papal legate, and one of the executors of the young king, to remove the canons and to place them in other churches. A new group was to be installed who were loyal to the monarch, and the property of the church, principal as well as income, was to be distributed between them and the bishop.296 This is the earliest direct evidence of a formal division of the mensa at Carlisle. If, indeed, it was the first attempt to do so, the most obvious explanation for the delay is that several generations of canons had come and gone during the extended period when the see was without a bishop, and consequently not only was there no one with whom the canons had to share their possessions, but inevitably they developed a strong sense of their own authority to resist the interference of outsiders in the administration of their affairs. Furthermore, if the mensa remained intact the canons may have gained more income in the long run, in spite of the temporary sequestration of their assets by the king, than if they had been obliged to restrict their support to the revenues from the conventional mensa capitularis. Hence the complaint in the name of Henry III, and the revelation that the priory was solvent but that the bishopric was not. The proposal to replace the intractable Augustinians by secular canons organized on the prebendal system was not merely a reflection of the anti-monastic sentiment still active in England; it was also a solution to the problems raised by having a secular bishop in charge of a regular chapter. The practical division of the mensa, however, was fraught with problems. Honorius III wrote again to his legate in 1218, but by that time the new bishop, Hugh of Beaulieu, had been elected by the canons and confirmed by the king. It was he who petitioned the pope in 1219 to complete the division of rents and property.297 Guala had left England and had been replaced as papal legate by Pandulf, the bishop-elect of Norwich. Under him a commission was appointed composed of the abbot of Holmcultram in Cumberland and the prior of Hexham in Northumberland aided by various others, including the dean, and the sheriff of Carlisle.298 This lengthy procedure was theoretically brought to a conclusion in a letter of Honorius III in May 1223 whereby he confirmed the bishopric of Carlisle to Hugh "with the customs which are observed in the other 296

CPL 1, p. 48.

297

Ibid., p. 164. Ill

298

Ibid., p. 68, p. 81.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England bishoprics in England," an ambiguous phrase which in context probably was meant to refer to the secular cathedral churches. The assets of the see included the prebend of St. Peter's at York granted by Archbishop Thurstan, Melbourne church in Derbyshire, the land of Barrow-on-Trent, five shillings a day from the king, and the ordinance made by Guala with the division of goods approved by the commissioners.299 Within a month of this settlement Bishop Hugh was dead. His successor was the royal treasurer, Walter Mauclerc, who evidently found the terms of the agreement to be less than satisfactory. An equal division of property was certainly not made, and the bishop, impatient of bureaucracy, usurped the right of collation of priests to churches which belonged to the chapter.300 Henry III strengthened the bishop's hand by granting Walter a long list of benefits, including the custody of Carlisle castle, the manor of Melbourne in Derbyshire, the Horncastle interest in Lincolnshire, and hunting rights in the royal forest of Daleston.301 In a charter addressed to the bishop and the prior and canons in 1231, the king confirmed to them their lands, rents, possessions, rights, liberties, customs, and immunities, all of which were to be held by the bishop. He was to have the fines of the men in his lands and fees, and in those of the prior, which would have fallen to the king. In a constitutional sense, the bishop was to have the authority to exercise the same power that the king would have had had the property belonged to him. But overlapping jurisdiction of this kind simply served to compound the problems of internal ecclesiastical organization. Folio wing the division of goods made by the legatine commission, for example, the churches of Corbridge and Warkworth had been withheld by their lay lords. The bishop and the prior then brought suit against them and obtained release of the property. Whereupon the bishop offered the canons a choice, either they could keep the whole of Warkworth church in their possession and pay the bishop seventy marks yearly in rent, or the bishop would keep the church, assume the cost of maintenance, including forty marks due the bishop of Durham for churches in Northumberland held by Carlisle, and pay the prior sixty marks yearly in rent. 302 299 301

300 Ibid., p. 91. Cf. the mandate of Honorius HI in 1226, CPL 1, p. 112. Calendar of Close Rolls, 1, pp. 264-265, 301-302, 323, 332, 346, 467-468, 484-485, 495,

529, 571, 573 ; Calendar of Charter Rolls, 1, pp. 126—127, H o ; Cartae Antiquae, vol. 1, no. 302 27. Calendar of Charter Rolls, 11, pp. 363-365. 112

The cathedral priories

The rent was to be drawn from a variety of sources, such as income from churches, lands, and tithes, as well as a small return in kind. What adjustments were made as a consequence of this proposal are unknown, but it is an example of the way in which relations between bishop and chapter were often compromised based on the economic realities of the moment. Soon after the consecration of Bishop Silvester de Everdon (1246-1254) another dispute arose in connection with the church at Corbridge. A second commission was appointed and a compromise was agreed upon by the bishop and prior in 1249.303 The extensive confirmation of rights to the prior and canons by Innocent IV marks an important step in the official recognition of their separate status. The chapter was granted the right to elect the prior and the bishop was prohibited from disposing of their possessions without their consent. In spite of subsequent disputes over property, the canons consolidated their independent position. In 1280 they succeeded in electing Ralph Ireton, the prior of Gisbourne, to the bishopric. He was chosen by the prior, the precentor, the succentor, the cellarer and the sacristan, who had been delegated the electoral authority by the rest of the chapter.304 Edward I, II and III all confirmed the capitular mensa and capitular jurisdiction distinct from episcopal rights.305 The long vacancy at Carlisle in the twelfth century was undoubtedly the most significant reason for the delay in reaching an agreement over the division of property. At the same time, however, with the bishop absent, the canons possessed quite early a definite sense of their own collective authority. Unlike the problem at the other cathedral churches where the bishop remained for so long the leading figure to whom the canons, or the monks, had to accommodate themselves, at Carlisle, upon his return, a place had to be found for him at the head of an established capitular community. COVENTRY

The twelfth-century history of the bishops of Coventry is complicated by the fact that the see, which for centuries had been at Lichfield, was moved to Chester soon after the Conquest, and 303 305

304 CPL 1, p. 256. Ibid., p. 461. Ed. I: Calendar of Charter Rolls, n, pp. 81-82, 365-366. Ed. II: Calendar of Charter Rolls, in, p. 269. Ed. Ill: Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv, p. 270.

113

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England then to Coventry early in the reign of Henry I. These changes were made without either the bishops giving up their jurisdiction in the churches, or the chapters forsaking their claims to cathedral status. Lichfield had been the Old English Mercian bishopric of St. Chad which was once proposed by Offa as a third metropolitan see in England. After his death in 796, however, the plan was dropped, and it was officially rejected at the Clovesho synod in 803. Not so much remote from current affairs as poorly endowed, Lichfield managed to have quite an inconspicuous history up to the mideleventh century when Leofwine, the first abbot of the new Benedictine foundation at Coventry, was appointed to the see. His term of office spanned the years of the Conquest, but it appears to have been unremarkable in regard to the building of Lichfield, and it ended in disgrace. It was probably Leofwine who was the unnamed bishop of Lichfield accused of incontinence at the legatine council at Easter in 1070.306 According to the references made in a letter from Lanfranc to Alexander II written in the following year, the bishop did not try to hide the fact that he had a wife and several children. In a gesture that makes one marvel at the hierarchy of values in religious life, he forthwith resigned the bishopric and returned to the monastic habit at Coventry. After a short vacancy he was replaced by a clerk from the royal household named Peter. It is hard to believe, however, that Leofwine's alleged moral transgressions were the principal reason for his leaving. It is far more likely that he, as so many other ecclesiastics, fell victim to the political purges of 1070 when William I was faced with a succession of revolts. To forward the plan of replacing not only the English thegndom, but also the English episcopate, by Normans and other men of William's entourage, Stigand was forced from Canterbury and Winchester, Aethelmar from Elmham, Aethelric from Selsey, and in the following year Aethelwin from Durham. It is possible that Archbishop Ealdred of York, had he not died in 1069, would have suffered in the same way. 307 The destruction of the lands around Lichfield by the king as a retaliatory measure added to the financial woes of the bishopric. 308 306

307

308

Letters of Lanfranc, n o . 2. For the possibility o f Leofwine as abbot, see ibid., p . 36, n o t e 2 ; p . 79, note 16; and p . 113, n o t e 1. M . Gibson, Lanfranc of Bee (Oxford 1978), p . 114; F. B a r l o w , The Feudal Kingdom of England, 1042-1216 (London 1963 ; 2nd edn., L o n d o n 1979), p . 93 ; and especially H . E. J. C o w d r e y , " Bishop Ermenfrid of Sion and the penitential ordinance following the battle of H a s t i n g s , " JEH 20 (1969), 225-242. Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, ed. W . D . M a c r a y (London 1863), RS-29, p p . 9 0 - 9 1 . 114

The cathedral priories

This was probably reason enough for Peter to despoil the wealthier abbey of Coventry, and then to have his see transferred to the town of Chester where he established himself and a group of canons in the church of St. John sometime around 1075.309 Chester had also suffered considerable damage during the years of rebellion, but its inhabitants seem to have been able to recover some degree of commercial affluence by 1086. The bishops of Lichfield, moreover, had holdings and rights in Chester, including fifty-six houses and the custom of fines from men who violated holy days by working, all of which pre-dated the Conquest. The land at Redcliffjust outside the town in the eastern suburbs near St. John's, where the bishop had two-thirds of a hide, was listed in Domesday as an episcopal manor. It was also said to belong to the church, evidently for the support of the canons. Just when the bishop acquired it is uncertain, but if he was in possession before the move from Lichfield, there is more reason to think that he had been attracted to the town for some time. 310 Elsewhere in the county, the bishop held six estates, together assessed at fifteen and a half hides, all of which had belonged to the see at Lichfield before 1066.311 There were also three estates at Bettisfield, Burwardston (Iscoed), and Tilston in that part of Domesday Cheshire which was extended into what is now Wales. The lands in Cheshire, therefore, were largely those of the Lichfield bishopric.312 The see remained at Chester until Robert Limesey moved it once again, this time to Coventry, about the year 1100 or 1102. Coventry had also been an attractive site for the diocesan church and it is possible that Peter may have had a plan to go to Coventry, but was unable to bring it off. His harassment of the monks at Coventry during which he seized their lands, their horses, and their goods, and lodged himself and his household in their quarters for a week, drew a surprisingly mild reproof from Lanfranc.313 It was almost as if the archbishop 309 YQII Cheshire, i, p . 302; in, p . 5. 310 The Chartulary or Register of the Abbey of St. Werburgh, Chester, ed. James Tait, C h e t h a m Society, n.s. 79 (1920), 1, pp. xx—xxv; The Domesday Survey of Cheshire, ed. J. Tait, C h e t h a m Society, n.s. 75 (1916), p p . 28—29. O n the episcopal connection w i t h St. John's see especially A. T . Thacker, " C h e s t e r and Gloucester. Early ecclesiastical organization in t w o Mercian b u r h s , " Northern History 18 (1982), 201—202. 311 B u r t o n , Eyton, Farndon, (Guilden) Sutton, Tarvin, and W y n b u n b u r y . 312 Bettisfield had also once belonged to St. C h a d , but Earl E d w i n had taken it away long before the Conquest. DB 1, fos. 263 and 264b. 313 Regesta 1, n o . 280, cites Lanfranc's letter as addressed to Peter's successor, Robert de Limesey, as does Joan Lancaster ( " T h e C o v e n t r y forged charters. A reconsideration," BIHR, 27 [1954], 135), thus m a k i n g Robert responsible for the depredations. T h e

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England tempered his criticism because he realized that Peter had already achieved a dominant position in the administration of the abbey. Income from the estates there was probably being used to support the bishop, but the fact that Abbot Leofwine was apparently still living in 1095 may have temporarily thwarted the move. 314 The peculiarity of the triple see, such as it was, caused some ambiguity in the references by contemporary writers, as well as differences which can be noted in the episcopal style. Robert de Torigni disposed of the nominal problem, at least, by saying that, "the bishopric still has three sees at Lichfield, Chester, and Coventry. " 315 In a charter of Stephen, Bishop Walter Durdent was called the "bishop of Lichfield," but referred to as the "bishop of Chester" in a writ of Henry II. In one of his own charters he styled himself the "bishop of Coventry," and perhaps was the first one to do so.316 Roger de Clinton (1129—1148) was addressed as "bishop of Coventry" in a privilege of Innocent II, but himself used the title "bishop of Chester. " 317 Richard Peche (1161-1182), was likewise called both "bishop of Chester" and "bishop of Coventry. " 318 Richard I addressed Hugh de Nonant as "bishop of Coventry" in 1189, but referred to his "church of Coventry" as well as his "church of Lichfield. " 319 Early in the thirteenth century, the monks of Coventry refused Bishop Alexander Stavensby the right of visitation, in part because they suspected him of trying to turn Lichfield into a cathedral church to their detriment. On his seals and in his letters, they said, he styled himself "bishop of Lichfield" although his predecessors were

314 315

317 318

319

p r o b l e m is w h e t h e r the letter in the manuscripts is " P " or " R " (for Robert). T h e latest reading accepts the " P ", as n o t e d in MPL CL, col. 530. See B a r l o w , The English Church, vol. 11, p . 62, n o t e 52, and p . 189, n o t e 5 1 ; and Letters ofLanfranc, n o . 27. VCH Staffordshire, in, p . 18, and see above, n o t e 306. " H a b e t itaque ille episcopatus usque hodie tres sedes, Lichesfeldensem, Cestrensem, C o v e n t r e n s e m , " R o b e r t of T o r i g n i , Chronicle, RS-82 iv, p . 121 (and in the Waverly Annals, RS-3611, p . 223), and so Sir Peter Leycester in his Historical Antiquities o f 1673 : " the bishops here w e r e some times stiled of Chester, sometimes of Lichfield, and sometimes of C o v e n t r y , from the place w h e r e they fixed their residence, having then three sees, yet all o n e and the same b i s h o p r i c , " cited b y W . W . M o r t i m e r , The History of the Hundred of Wirral with a Sketch of the City and County of Chester compiled from the Earliest Authentic Records (Chester 1847), p. 121. See also Geoffrey Hill, English Dioceses, A History of their Limits from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (London 1900), pp. 316 246fF. Registrum Album, ed. H . Savage, nos. 167, 274—275. Ibid., n o . 169; PUE u, n o . 19. Sir Christopher Hattons Book of Seals, ed. L. C . L o y d and D . M . Stenton (Oxford 1950), n o . 510; Facsimiles of Early Cheshire Charters, ed. G. Barraclough (Oxford 1957), p . 22. Registrum Album, n o . 22.

The cathedral priories

called only "bishops of Coventry. " Gregory IX was evidently of little help when he addressed Alexander in a letter about the dispute, as "bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. " 320 Inextricably bound up with the controversy over the importance of titles, was the long-standing argument as to whether the bishops should be buried at Coventry or at Lichfield.321 Such was the force of the ancient tradition and rival claims that the problem had not yet been resolved by the end of the twelfth century. At the time of the Domesday survey the bishop at Chester was Robert Limesey, a former chaplain in the royal household. His possessions were distributed over the five adjacent counties of Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, and Warwickshire, with another three estates in Hertfordshire. In Cheshire the bishop and Earl Hugh, as tenants-in-chief, divided the county between them.322 In Staffordshire where the bishop held twelve estates, one of the larger landholders had been the church of St. Chad. With the large manor at Prees, he held seven estates in Shropshire; another three in Warwickshire with the manor at (Bishop) Tachbrook which accounted for about half the assessment; and three in Derbyshire. The Domesday heading for the property in Hertfordshire was terra Roberti episcopi de Cestre. These estates comprised Broadfield assessed at one virgate, Bygrave in the north of the county at five and a half hides, and Mimms in the south at eight hides. Some of this land probably should be considered as the bishop's personal holdings, rather than land of the church. Mimms, for instance, did not belong to the bishopric, according to the Domesday jurors, but had come to Bishop Robert through his father, Raynerius.323 Broadfield and Bygrave had been in the hands of a man of Archbishop Stigand. Upon the latter's dispossession, the estates were split up among several tenants, at which time the bishop probably acquired his part.324 Bygrave soon passed into the Somery family and part of it went to St. Albans abbey.325 Mimms was part of the honour of Gloucester in the twelfth century and in 1272 Miles de Somery held a knight's fee there.326 In none of the counties of the Domesday survey was there any suggestion that a permanent separation of episcopal goods from capitular or conventual goods had been made. All of the lands 320 322 325

321 Ibid., no. 466. VCH, Warwickshire, vm, p. 316. 323 324 DB 1, fos. 262-263. Ibid., fo. 137c. Ibid., fos. 137c, 141c, 142b. 326 Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 11, p. 229. RBE, 506.

117

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

were held by the bishop either as part of the endowment of the see, or as his own property. With the move to Coventry abbey about noo, Robert Limesey acquired some twenty estates, chiefly in Warwickshire, but also in Gloucestershire, Leicestershire, Worcestershire, and Northamptonshire, which probably came close to doubling his income. From then on the see at Chester was neglected in favor of Lichfield and Coventry. The church, which had been left unfinished, became once again a college of canons and the bishops, although they were still property holders in the town and county, ceased to use it as their principal residence.327 As the monks of Coventry had protested against the incursions of Bishop Peter, so they complained about Robert Limesey's appropriation of their wealth. A plea was brought before the king's court at Portsmouth, but the bishop successfully defended his rights in the priory. By the transfer of important jurisdictional franchises to the bishop "as fully and as freely as the church held them in the time of King Edward and Earl Leofric who built the church," Henry I, in effect, gave to Robert full legal control of the Coventry property.328 Some of the assets he kept and probably used in the work of rebuilding the church at Lichfield, some he granted out, and the rest were allocated to provide the necessary support for the monastic community. 329 At this point there arises the question of the dates of the Coventry forged charters. These consist of a group of documents, including Earl Leofric's foundation charter for the abbey, two writs of King Edward which granted the monks an interest in half the town and restricted the powers of the bishop, a privilege of Alexander II which had the effect of freeing the community from episcopal control and allowing them to elect the abbot, and two writs of William I which confirmed the previous grants and exempted the monks from castle guard duty. 330 The charters are thought to have been fabricated sometime 327

Registrum Album, n o . 262. F r o m a charter of H e n r y II to Bishop W a l t e r D u r d e n t in w h i c h the terms of the earlier grant, assuming it t o have been authentic, w e r e recited. Registrum Album, n o . 18. T h e w h o l e text was printed b y R. H . C . Davis from the Lichfield cartulary, " A n u n k n o w n C o v e n t r y c h a r t e r , " EHR 86 (1971), 542, n o t e 2. See also VCH Staffordshire, m , p . 18. 329 Qp^ p ^ I Q . Anglia Sacra sive collectio historiarum de archiepiscopis et episcopis Angliae ad annum 1540, ed. H . W h a r t o n , 2 vols. (London 1691), 1, p . 445. 330 Detailed references to the charters m a y be found in J o a n C . Lancaster's i m p o r t a n t Writs, article, " T h e C o v e n t r y forged charters, " BIHR 27 (1954). See also Anglo-Saxon ed. F. E. H a r m e r (Manchester 1952), p p . 214—222. 328

The cathedral priories

during the first half of the twelfth century. Certain of them, and their variants, were probably made up before 1130, and the others probably before 1147.331 It has been assumed that Bishop Robert, as part of his effort to gain a dominant position at Coventry, supported the manufacture of one group of the charters which served as evidence for the restoration of property rights, including his interest in the town half. After his death in 1117 there was a vacancy until the appointment of Robert Peche in 1121, and another vacancy occurred between the latter's death in 1126 and the election of Roger de Clinton in 1129. It was perhaps during these periods, when the convent was free of the bishop's presence, that the monks began to forge, or to have forged, a second group of the charters which protected them from episcopal control. Since the time Joan Lancaster examined the documents, however, the problem has been reopened by R.H.C. Davis, not in regard to the chronology of the mensal division, but rather to prove the authenticity of a charter of Ranulf, earl of Chester (1129-1153), which in its context is peculiar since it does not mention a division of the town into the earl's part and the convent's part. 332 His conclusions, based on a reinterpretation of the evidence, point to a later date of compilation, probably toward the end of Stephen's reign, when the Westminster forgery group was active. In fact, it would seem that a division of the town, if there ever was one, cannot be dated before an entry in the Pipe Roll for 21 Henry II in 1175.333 It is also the case that the privilege of Eugenius III in 1151 referred to the inviolate nature of the possessions of the church of Coventry which had been granted by Earl Leofric and were immune from seizure by the bishop. A bull of Innocent II, however, of 1139, made no mention of this endowment. 334 But in the text of Eugenius' letter it was stated that anything contrary to its provisions which might be found in the mandate of Innocent II was to be held invalid. It is just possible that the author of the draft for the bull of 1151 wished to include a confirmation of the ancient 331

332

333

Lancaster, " T h e C o v e n t r y forged c h a r t e r s , " and Pierre Chaplais, " T h e original charters of H e r b e r t and Gervase, abbots of W e s t m i n s t e r (1121—1157)," in A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton, P R S , n.s. 36 (London i960), p . 92. R. H . C . Davis, " A n u n k n o w n C o v e n t r y c h a r t e r . " T h e n o t i o n of a t o w n divided b y t w o administrative structures was disposed of b y Davis in a subsequent article, " T h e early history of C o v e n t r y , " Dugdale Papers 24 (1976). PR 21 H e n r y II (PRS, vol. x x n , p . 93). J o a n Lancaster admitted the evidence, b u t on other grounds m o v e d the date back to the time of R o b e r t Limesey's death ( " T h e 334 C o v e n t r y forged c h a r t e r s , " 128, 137). Registrant Album, nos. 262, 454. 119

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

liberties which were, in fact, the set of forged charters, well aware that they had not been available when the letter of Innocent II was composed. The separation of the mensa, therefore, which is implied in the forged charters, was not a late eleventh-century development, but rather one that gradually came about at Coventry during the middle years of the twelfth.335 The first document of any length which implies a division is, in fact, the 1139 privilege of Innocent II which falls midway in the episcopate of Roger de Clinton (1129—1148). 336 The pope confirmed the allocation by the bishop to the prior and monks of Coventry of £100 worth of land at Hardwick, Honington, Marston, Offchurch, Wasperton, and Southam, one half of the rent of Coventry, the church of the Holy Trinity in the town, the mill at Ufton, and 30s income from land at Win wick. Parts of Hardwick, Honington, Marston, Wasperton, Southam, Ufton, and Win wick had been Domesday lands of Coventry abbey which previous bishops had appropriated. Their combined estimate in 1086 was something over £30; so that the bishop, if the figure of ^100 is correct, must have increased the value of the holdings, or have been willing to grant property which had greatly appreciated. Parts of these lands of the church had been taken to support the bishop's military tenants and freemen, and these, in order to reduce the burden of the service on the monks, the bishop was authorized to keep himself. Those parts which had been given to the canons of Lichfield as prebends the bishop likewise was allowed to retain. In all cases, it was the bishop who had the final authority to receive lands and possessions, to keep them, or to assign them to the monks or to others. There is other evidence, in fact, which suggests that the worth of the bishopric had increased during the early part of the century. In Simeon of Durham's history one reads that Roger had agreed to pay the king 3,000 marks for the bishopric. The report has been discounted as mere rumor because the figure seems unreasonably high. 337 It is true that payments to the king in Roger's time were usually in the 50 to 200 mark range, but there were a few which approached the sum given by Simeon. The bishop of Ely paid £1,000 for castleward at Ely. Geoffrey de Mandeville paid £866 13s 4.6. for his 335

337

Arthur and Eileen Gooder, in "Coventry before 1355. Unity or division? The importance of the earl's half," Midland History 6 (1981), 1-38, also argue for a division 336 about 1145. PUE 11, no. 18. VCH Staffordshire, in, p. 23, note 90. 120

The cathedral priories

father's land, the earl of Chester £1,000 for his inheritance, and the Jews of London £2,000 for " having killed a sick person. " 338 If the bishopric, including the three sees, was worth about £200 a year in Domesday values, the income had probably increased by late Henry I, so that the 3,000 marks was, perhaps, not an unreasonable cost for the investment. It is, of course, uncertain whether Roger actually paid in the money or only part of it, or none at all. Since the report by Simeon cannot be verified, it is only useful in showing that there was some reason to think that the financial base of the bishopric had been improved and that it had become a desirable office. This also meant a corresponding improvement in the status of the chapter and the convent and, hence, a greater likelihood that the canons and the monks would have been increasingly sensitive to the need for an independent position in their church. The privilege of Innocent II was confirmed, with a few changes, by Lucius II in 1144.339 Three years later Roger de Clinton, true to the description given of him in the Gesta Stephani as plus miles quam episcopus, left England to go abroad on the second crusade.340 Within a year he had died and was buried before the walls of Antioch. Archbishop Theobald thereupon called for an election by the monks of Coventry. Under his direction they chose Walter Durdent, the prior of Christ Church. But frustrated by such unilateral action which excluded their interests, the canons at Lichfield and at Chester complained to Eugenius III. Theobald declared a moratorium. Lawrence, the prior of Coventry, thereupon journeyed to Rome and convinced the pope of the legality of the election and Walter was consecrated by Theobald in 1149. This, at least, is the account according to the Coventry texts.341 A slightly different version was given by Thomas Chesterfield in the fourteenth century, which reduced the part played by Theobald, but did not soften the hostile feelings between the canons and the monks.342 Although Coventry had been partly destroyed during the civil war by Robert Marmion, "that warlike, savage and cunning man," a recovery had been made by Walter's time and enough estates were producing income to support the bishop and monks.343 Some lands had been restored 339 338 pR 3 I Henry I, pp. 44, n o , 149. Registrum Album, no. 455. 340 341 Gesta Stephani, p. 104. Printed in Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. vi, 1242. 342 Anglia Sacra, vol. 1, p. 434. For a discussion of the two accounts see Saltman, Theobald, 343 pp. 114-116. William of Newburgh, RS~$2 1, p. 47.

121

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England by an earlier privilege of Eugenius III, and confirmed by Stephen, who must also have used the texts of the forged charters.344 Since the royal charter was addressed generally, with Lawrence, the prior, and the monks named as beneficiaries, it is likely that it was issued during the vacancy after the death of Roger de Clinton in April 1148, and before the consecration of Walter in October 1149, during the time that the prior had the see to himself. Some of the restored estates, like Southam and Ufton, appear to have been held by the monks, but others, like Chadshunt and (Bishop) Itchington were recovered by the bishop. Soon after he took office, Walter Durdent obtained a confirmation from Henry II of the estates which, as it turned out, were to remain as part of the episcopal holdings for the rest of the medieval period. Included in this list were the lands at Chadshunt and Itchington, as well as several other important Domesday manors at Burton, Farndon, Tarvin, and Wybunbury in Cheshire, the great estate at Prees in Shropshire, Sawley in Derbyshire, and Lichfield, Eccleshall, Haywood, Boswick, and Brewood in Staffordshire. At the other see at Lichfield, the period of the rebuilding program, which was put in hand by Roger de Clinton in the early part of the twelfth century, seems also to have been the time when a small measure of autonomy was allowed to the chapter of canons. The Domesday estates which had been attached to St. Chad's church in King Edward's reign probably served as their support, although it is not certain that the lands were yet allocated as prebends. After the Conquest, however, all the property was appropriated by the bishops, and it was then reassigned to the Lichfield church on a piecemeal basis. This distribution began with Robert de Limesey and was continued, at a greater rate, by Roger de Clinton.345 While some of the estates were recognized as the property of the chapter, and others were confirmed to the bishop for the use of the church, all of them were under his jurisdiction. 346 Several of the prebendal estates granted to Lichfield by Roger de Clinton were later recovered by Walter Durdent and listed in the general restoration of his property confirmed by Eugenius III in 1151.347 In some cases, however, while the manors were held by the bishop, their churches remained attached to the Lichfield prebends.348 Years later, when Lichfield had become an established 344 346

345 Regesta m, no. 246. PUE 11, p. 158; Registrum Album, no. 454. Registrum Album, nos. 450, 452. See also the confirmation by Lucius II in 1144, ibid., no. 347 348 263. Ibid., no. 262. As at Chadshunt and Itchington, ibid.

122

The cathedral priories

and prosperous see, Bishop Geoffrey Muschamp voiced a complaint to Innocent III about the ease with which certain estates had been moved about. Specifically, he accused Walter Durdent of having appropriated Lichfield benefices for the use of the monks at Coventry.349 The pope, it may be said, had already given Geoffrey a general license to recover whatever his predecessors had illegally alienated from the bishopric.350 Since the estates in question are unnamed it is impossible to say to which see they originally belonged. The incident, however, reveals not only the fact that the controversial issues between the sees of the bishopric over respective property rights were kept alive by aggressive bishops as well as by the canons and monks, but that the three-way division among Lichfield, Chester, and Coventry made it more difficult than usual for any one chapter to assert itself against the bishop. In Walter's defense it should be noted that lands which he had previously granted to his steward were assigned to the church at Lichfield for the common fund with the approval and consent of the monks at Coventry.351 A useful illustration of the same problem which arose again in the early thirteenth century, occurred in a mandate of Honorius III in 1224. By its terms, the bishop of London was ordered to hear a complaint from the dean and chapter at Lichfield about the late bishop, William Cornhill, who, "of his own will," had assigned certain lands and churches to the use of monks at Coventry. 352 One of the estates was at Hardwick which had belonged to the abbey in 1086. The income from it had been allocated to Lichfield by Roger de Clinton and the chapter undoubtedly considered it their own. From their point of view Cornhill had deprived them of part of their mensa; from the monks' point of view, and perhaps this was the bishop's as well, he was returning to the clergy of Coventry what had once been theirs. In the course of the work of restoration at Lichfield by Roger de Clinton, there soon appeared a dean, a sub-dean and a treasurer; and by the end of the twelfth century there was a precentor and a chancellor.353 The canons can be seen exercising their rights in their churches, receiving and buying land, and defending their privileges, in short, exhibiting many of the signs of an organized community. In the thirteenth century this administrative frame349 351

Letters of Pope Innocent III, no. 83. Registrum Album, no. 582.

352

350 Ibid., no. 77. Ibid., no. 583.

353 YQH Staffordshire, m, pp. 141—142, and the references there cited. 123

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

work would form the basis of the capitular structure which allowed the canons to act largely independently of the bishop. 354 But it was a slow development. The wars of Stephen's reign had resulted in a loss to the endowment at Lichfield, as well as at Coventry, and Bishop Richard Peche (1161-1182), when he came to office, found it necessary to undertake a fiscal rebuilding program.355 The income to the deanship, for example, had been reduced and the bishop assigned to it some of his own resources, as well as the prebend of Brewood in Staffordshire.356 The remainder of the income was partly in land, partly in tithes, and partly in rents derived from small endowments which were widely dispersed. Evidently, this was an unsatisfactory arrangement from the chapter's point of view since it proved difficult to collect the revenue. Soon after the accession of Bishop Hugh de Nonant, in 1192, therefore, all the bits and pieces were replaced by the church of Adbaldston, with its lands, which had been held as a prebend in Eccleshall.357 Brewood was left intact, so that the two prebends then formed the endowment for the dean. To meet the increased expenses of a larger staff needed to handle cathedral and diocesan business, the bishop found that the appointment to prebends provided a means at minimal cost to himself. By this device he was in fact funding members of his household and chapter dignitaries with income drawn from property which otherwise would have been allocated to support the canons. In the case of Adbaldston church, its transfer to the deanship was later disputed by a canon who claimed it as his prebend.358 The problem was eventually resolved by the bishop in the thirteenth century whereby the church remained attached to the deanship, but the dean was forced to settle with the canon for eighty marks of silver. By that time the office of the dean, who was the chief capitular officer, had been carefully separated from the prebendal endowment which was assigned to the resident canons. A similar problem arose in regard to the common fund which in 1161 was practically non-existent. Unable to transfer assets from the bishopric, Richard Peche arranged that whenever a prebend 354

355

356

Registrum Album, nos. 131, 134, 170, 312, 314, 475, 512-516, 6 0 4 - 6 0 6 ; Chartulary or Register of the Abbey of St. Werburgh, Chester, vol. 1, n o . 104. Richard was the son of Bishop R o b e r t Peche w h o had died in 1126. Ralph pointed o u t that h e was n o t the first son of a priest to b e p r o m o t e d t o episcopal office; o n e had only to look at the popes themselves! Ralph de Diceto, Opera Historica, RS-68 1, p . 305. 357 358 Registrum Album, n o . 497. Ibid., no. 251. Ibid., no. 250.

124

The cathedral priories

fell vacant no new appointment was to be made for one year, so that the income might be diverted to augment the commons.359 As it turned out, only part of the income from a prebend was used to do this since during the vacancy the chapter was obliged to choose and to pay a vicar, but the plan met the bishop's requirement that the chapter should pay its own way. But more attractive was the scheme to have someone else provide the funds which the bishop would then confirm, as in the case of Peter Gilford who gave a dwelling in Lichfield to the chapter, or to supply the common in kind from some one else's land.360 Nevertheless, in spite of the attention given to it by several of the bishops, the growth in value of the common fund over the years appears not to have been very great. Bishop Geoffrey Muschamp, in the beginning of the thirteenth century, thought it desirable to pay into it twenty marks a year for the ale ration because of its " extreme meagerness. " 361 Richard Peche was in office for twenty-two years, the longest tenure of any bishop in Coventry—Lichfield in the twelfth century. Nevertheless, there seems to have been no entirely successful financial plan developed according to which the budgetary needs of the bishop and the chapter together were taken into account. By restricting the permanent allocation of land to the chapter, by increasing income in one direction and then depleting it in another, and by depending on outside grants to supplement capitular funds rather than on income generated by the chapter's own resources, the establishment of a firm economic foundation was necessarily delayed. The practice whereby the bishop reduced his costs by using capitular funds prevented the growth of a strong fiscal base for either party. Richard Peche's predecessor, Walter Durdent, was the last of the twelfth-century monastic bishops at Coventry. Peche (11611182) had been archdeacon of Coventry, Gerard Pucelle (11831184), his successor, was a clerk in the service of Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, Hugh de Nonant (1185-1198) had long been a royal familiaris who had moved in the highest circles of government in the reigns of Henry II and Richard, and Geoffrey Muschamp (1198-1208) was a former archdeacon of York. Under this secular regime, during the last half of the century, the community of monks at Coventry suffered from encroachments 359

Ibid., no. 28.

360

Ibid., nos. 113, 337-

125

361

Ibid., no. 444.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

on their rights, while the canons at Lichfield made further gains toward capitular autonomy. Upon the death of Gerard in January 1184, and against the wishes of the monks, Henry II gave the bishopric to Hugh de Nonant. He was elected in 1185 but not consecrated until January 1188. As bishop-elect the king gave him the priory of Coventry and authority to administer the affairs of the church. 362 After Henry's death the grant was reissued by Richard I for 300 marks and Hugh was put in possession of the priory lands, liberties and knight's fees.363 He also incurred a financial liability since in the returns of the scutage assessments of 1190-1191, the bishop was answerable for 100 shillings de militibus prioris quia prioratus est in

manu sua.3™ A point of some interest is that on the key issue of the appointment of the prior, the king also confirmed the bishop's right, although in a letter of Urban III (1185x1186) it was acknowledged that the prior of Coventry, unnamed, but undoubtedly Lawrence, had previously obtained a concession from Rome which allowed the monks free elections. This had been accomplished by disregarding what Urban termed "the general custom of England," whereby bishops in monastic cathedrals retained the privilege of appointment. To correct the error, Urban forthwith confirmed the right to Hugh, and the monks were obliged to wait a little longer, until the last decade of the twelfth century and the accession of Celestine III, to obtain a sympathetic ear at Rome. In the meantime Hugh had invaded Coventry, expelled the monks and replaced them with secular clerks.365 Or it may have been the case that some of the monks remained, but only as seculars. The accounts of this crisis were written largely by monastic historians and Hugh was painted as the scoundrel of the piece. Not only was he said to despise monks in general, but at the council of Westminster in 1189 he sought to have his fellow bishops agree to finance a campaign to purge all the abbeys of England. He himself was ready to put up the sum of 1,000 marks 362 363 364

365

Ibid., nos. 591, 590, 4 5 1 . Ibid., n o . 168. PR 2 Richard I, p . 4 3 ; Gervase of C a n t e r b u r y , RS-73 1, p . 326. RBE1, p . 74. T h e r e w e r e ten knights of the prior, since h e paid £ 1 0 scutage in 1195 (PR 8 Richard I, p . 58), and the bishop of C o v e n t r y accounted for £ 2 5 , of w h i c h the greater part was for his o w n fifteen knights (ibid., p . 59). T h e ten knights of the prior appear again in PR 9 Richard I, p . 177. Richard o f Devizes, Chronisle, p p . 69—773 5 W i l l i a m o f N e w b u r g h , RS-82, 1, p p . 3 9 4 - 3 9 5 ; Gervase of C a n t e r b u r y , RS-73 1, p . 4 6 1 . 126

The cathedral priories

if the others would contribute 2,000 marks.366 On the one hand, the episode can be seen as part of the long-standing episcopal antagonism in England to the religious orders. In this respect it can be compared with the struggle which was taking place at Canterbury almost at the same time. 367 On the other hand, the difficulties reveal that while the monks may have developed a proprietary sense in regard to their own mensa, neither in force, nor in law, did they form a corporation independent of the bishop. As long as he had the king's favor, there was no obstacle in the way of his taking over the priory, reassigning the lands for his own benefit or making prebends of the capitular assets. William of Newburgh went so far as to say that Hugh, homo callidus, provoked the monks and then, pointing to their violent behavior, removed them.368 Gervase implied that the bishop seized the priory in order to recover the 300 marks which he had paid the king for the bishopric.369 But in defense of the bishop's action, and as a corrective to monastic calumny, it was apparently the case that many houses of black monks were inefficiently run and loath to accept more efficient administrative practices, so that replacing them, from the viewpoint of a secular bishop, may well have been the obvious step toward improvement. Nevertheless, concern for the consequences of his action gave him pause and led him to provide against future quarrels. Some of the prebends were assigned to Roman cardinals so that in the event of a dispute over rights, the whole curia, as Richard of Devizes put it, would be on his side.370 Gervase of Canterbury also reported that when Hugh got inside the priory, he manhandled the monks, broke open the cupboards and threw certain cartae and privilegia into the fire. Given the bishop's declared antipathy to the religious orders, the way in which he putatively acted is no surprise. What is interesting, however, is the note that he made a selection of the documents 366

367

368 370

Gerald o f Wales, De Vita Galfridi, RS-21 iv, pp. 394-395. The other bishops were Baldwin of Canterbury, Gilbert o f Rochester, Godfrey de Lucy of Winchester, Reginald Fitz-Jocelin of Bath, William Northall of Worcester, William Longhamp of Ely, John of Oxford of Norwich, Geoffrey of York, and Hugh de Puiset of Durham. MO, pp. 313—330. The description o f the assault on the priory by Hugh given in Gervase's history, is very similar to that o f the attack by Peter, bishop o f Chester, described in the letter from Lanfranc a hundred years earlier. William of Newburgh, RS-82 1, pp. 394—395, reading "callidus" as "crafty," rather 369 than "skilful." Gervase o f Canterbury, RS-73 1, p. 461. Richard of Devizes, Chronicle, p. 70.

127

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

which he found there and had them destroyed.371 It is reasonable to assume that the priory must have been at work collecting texts which supported their argument for independent status, and that Hugh probably feared that they would be used later as the basis of a formal protest. The importance of written evidence was not lost on either party. Gervase was the only historian to report the destruction of the deeds, but the account of Richard of Devizes suggests that Hugh wanted to be completely free of the incumbrances of the past, for when he invaded the priory it was related that, "[he] tore down to the very foundation whatever buildings were in the monastery, so that by the altered look of the place all the memory of those who had gone before might be taken away from those who came after. " 372 The legal implications of Hugh's action were brought out in a plea of nouvel disseisin entered by the prior and some of the monks in the fall of 1194 before the king's justices. They had been deprived of their property by the bishop, they said, iniuste et sine iudicio?1* The canons who had replaced them, however, argued that Henry II had granted the priorate and the barony of Coventry to Hugh, as it had been held by his predecessor, Roger de Clinton, and that this had been attested by the prior himself.374 They offered the king 600 marks to have this confirmed. Thereupon the prior produced a royal charter, which revealed that he had been given the priory and barony as fully as his predecessors had held it, and he made a counter-offer of 600 marks. At that point the archbishop of Canterbury stepped in to reject the civil plea, and to claim the suit for his consistory court under ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The royal justices, however, objected on the grounds that the plea concerned the bishop's barony. It is not clear what happened next except that 371

372 373 374

" Sciens itaque i d e m malignus episcopus q u o d trecentarum m a r c a r u m regi cupido spopondisset p e c u n i a m , vii ides octobris armata m a n u p r i o r a t u m invasit, p r i o r e m fugavit, m o n a c h o s in ecclesiam fugientes verberibus attrectavit, alios vulneratos inutiles reddidit, alios in vincula projecit et carcerem, alios spoliatos ignominiose fugavit. O m n i a etiam ecclesiae almaria confregit cartas et privilegia q u a e d a m igne c o n c r e m a v i t , " Gervase of C a n t e r b u r y , RS-73 1, p . 461. In a reference to this passage in the Chronicle of Richard of Devizes t h e editor hurried t o o fast over the Latin and turned the last sentence as: " H e smashed all the altars o f the church and b u r n e d the convents' charters and privileges," Richard of Devizes, Chronicle, p . 87. W h a t the bishop smashed, h o w e v e r , w e r e almaria, n o t altaria, i.e., in the context, the chests w h e r e the m u n i m e n t s w e r e kept. In a later reference, the error was corrected, J. T . Appleby, England without Richard, 1189-1 199 (Ithaca 1965), p. 27. Richard of Devizes, Chronicle, p. 69. Rotuli curiae regis, ed. F. Palgrave (London 1835), vol. 1, pp. xviii-xxviii, cxii, 3, 66. Registrum Album, nos. 168, 454, 590-591. 128

The cathedral priories

a final decision was left to the king. In the meantime Hugh, who had become an ardent supporter of Prince John and took an important part in the deposition of the chancellor, William Longchamp, fell afoul of Richard and was deprived of his lands as a bishop, and of his shrievalty as a royal servant. Within a year, however, he succeeded in buying his way back into favor by a payment of several thousand marks.375 It was not until January 1198, however, that Celestine III instructed a commission to restore the monks to Coventry. Samson, the abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, monachus pro monachis de Coventria, arranged that one of the monks be given seisin, symbolized by a book.376 Shortly thereafter, in spite of objections by the king, the community apparently was reestablished and a new prior appointed. Hugh de Nonant died in March 1198, but a mandate of Innocent III in June addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Lincoln and Worcester, and the abbot of Tewkesbury, suggests that the monks had not yet been put in full possession.377 Not until 1221 were they able to obtain a confirmation of their manors from Honorius III.378 But as late as 1233 they still had not been able to recover their interest in the chapel of St. Michael at Coventry which Hugh de Nonant had given to one of his clerks at the time of the takeover. They had appealed to Honorius III without result; they had argued with Bishop William de Cornhill to no advantage; and they had, at length, petitioned Gregory IX who appointed another commission to deal with the claim.379 A pertinent question which arises from this affair is to what extent the displaced monks, of whom there were about twenty, were able to retain a sense of community during the years in which Hugh held their church? Dugdale assumed that, "the bishop had his desires fulfilled, the poor monks being scattered up and down to seek their future in the world. In which banished condition they continued during the whole life of that bishop. " 380 The contemporary evidence, however, indicates that many of them 375

376

378 380

A t the Exchequer accounting for Michaelmas 1195, H u g h o w e d 2,000 m a r k s for the price of the king's grace and g o o d will. PR 7 Richard I, p . 191. H u g h ' s historia calamitatum was chronicled b y R o g e r of H o w d e n (RS-si 111, p p . 141-147, iv, p p . 35—37), and s u m m a r i z e d in A p p l e b y , England without Richard, p p . 212—214. Jocelin of Brakelond, Cronica, p p . 9 4 - 9 5 , 2 9 6 ; R o g e r of H o w d e n , flS-51 iv, p p . 3 5 - 3 6 ; 377 Letters of Pope Innocent HI, no. 28; MO, p. 324, note 5. CPL 1, p . 2. 379 CPL 1, p. 85. Registrant Album, no. 271. Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. m, p. 180. 129

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England remained together. The legal suit by the prior suggests that the spirit of collective action was not dead. Moreover, Abbot Samson was able to entertain fourteen of the monks at dinner after the Oxford plea.381 Since the invitation was evidently offered on short notice, the monks must not have been as widely dispersed as Dugdale supposed. Palgrave took a firmer view : It appears, however, from the pleadings on the roll that the monks kept together as a body, notwithstanding their expulsion, nor was any legal objection taken by the court against their corporate existence. Similar examples may be found in modern times, the monks of La Trappe and the ruins of Syon having, though despoiled of their possessions, equally withstood the revolution of France and the reformation of England, preserving their unbroken succession to the present day. An ecclesiastical corporation may be extirpated by the secular arm, but, according to the doctrines of the canonists, it can only be legally disolved by competent ecclesiastical authority.382 The point to consider, of course, is to what extent was the body of Coventry monks a defined group, either in sentiment or in law, by the end of the twelfth century? The modern examples of La Trappe and Syon can be dismissed as irrelevant, and the doctrines of the canonists were not laid out and forcefully applied until the next century or later. At the time of the expulsion of the monks from Coventry there was no legal definition of a corporation which could be applied to them. Although the notion rested on the sense of community which can already be marked at Coventry by the middle of the twelfth century, it would be premature to identify the rapid growth in the fraternal strength of the convent with an established corporate administration before the turn of the century. But the monks nevertheless held together and after their restoration the feeling of unity, which was thereby enhanced, can be counted as an important factor in provoking several new confrontations which soured the relations of the convent with the bishop in the thirteenth century. These were the old problems of lands* privileges, and jurisdictions, and a number of them were revealed as grievances in a bull of Gregory IX addressed to the bishop.383 The monks refused to admit the bishop on visitation, 381 382

383

Jocelin de Brakelond, Cronica, p . 94. Rotuli curiae regis, vol. 1, p p . xxvi—xxvii. J. A p p l e b y t h o u g h t that the m o n k s " m a n a g e d to preserve some sort o f corporate i d e n t i t y , " England without Richard, p . 212. Registmm Album, n o . 466. 130

The cathedral priories

and they disregarded a subsequent excommunication. 384 They were fearful that because he used the style " bishop of Lichfield " he favored that cathedral church to the detriment of their own, and they resented what they considered to be his "excessive demands of obedience. " They had been frustrated in having their proposed right to elect the bishop go unrecognized. After the death of Hugh de Nonant, Geoffrey Muschamp had been chosen by the dean of Lincoln on orders of Hubert Walter, and the election of Walter de Grey, the royal chancellor, to replace Geoffrey, had been annulled by Stephen Langton in 1208. During the vacancy of 1238-1239, the monks appropriated certain churches illegally and kept them for their own purposes.385 But leaving aside the strains of paranoia and militant aggressiveness, the significant aspect is the continued growth of a self-conscious community combined with unity of action. The prior and monks were able to make grants to the bishop and to laymen, and to receive grants from the bishop and the king. They drew up contracts independently of episcopal authority and, to a large extent, ordered their own lives in the church.386 At about the same time a similar development was taking place at Lichfield. The constitution of 1195, which was drafted during the time of Hugh de Nonant and perhaps reflected his preference for the Lichfield canons over the Coventry monks, gave a prominent place to the dean who was placed in charge of the canons, the vicars, and their prebends.387 His was the principal voice in the chapter, and neither he nor the canons were answerable to the bishop except as a recognized body. As at Coventry, the surviving documents show the dean and chapter buying and leasing land, receiving grants, and arranging their internal financial affairs in large measure without episcopal interference. Their property was differentiated from that of the bishop and it constituted, in theory and in practice, a separate mensa.388 Two important acts of the chapter, which came very close together in the 1220s, marked its constitutional independence. One was the 384

385 386

387 388

See also M . Gibbs a n d j . Lang, Bishops and Reform: 1215—1272, with Special Reference to the Lateran Council of 1215 ( O x f o r d 1934, repr. O x f o r d 1962), p . 152. Registrum Album, n o . 303. Ibid., nos. 175, 360, 457, 475, 691. Yet it was still necessary for H o n o r i u s III in 1223 to order an administrator to b e elected b y the priory to prevent the p r o p e r t y of the see from being wasted d u r i n g the bishop's illness, CPL 1, 9 1 . Mansi, Concilia 22, els. 657—659. Registrum Album, nos. 112, 189, 270, 2 8 1 , 309, 352-353, 360.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England right, granted by Bishop Cornhill and confirmed by Honorius III in 1221, to elect the dean.389 The other was the right to share with Coventry priory in the election of the bishop. This privilege which had a long history, and had just been recently and violently disputed by the monks, was confirmed by Gregory IX in an adjudication of 1228.390 Its terms were further refined in a mandate of 1252.391 By the middle of the thirteenth century, therefore, it seems safe to say that at Coventry and at Lichfield the chapters of monks and of canons had developed into separately recognized legal bodies, in each case based on the divided mensa, which were able to enforce their own rules, to discharge their own obligations, to defend their own privileges, and to administer their own assets. DURHAM

The history of the separation of the episcopal from the monastic estates at Durham cathedral priory is still much of a mystery for there is surprisingly little direct evidence for the growth of the monastic establishment under the Norman bishops. The matter, moreover, is confused and made complicated by the ambiguous account given in the principal narrative sources attributed to Simeon of Durham, and by the corpus of spurious charters which allegedly date to the time of Bishop William of St. Calais soon after the Conquest, but which were probably assembled late in the twelfth century.392 In the years before the appointment in 1080 of William, a monk of St. Calais and abbot of St. Vincent-des-Pres in Normandy, the relations between bishop and chapter, for the church of Durham at the time was served by a community of secular priests, can hardly be said to have been very successful. In 1042 Aethelric, a monk from Peterborough, was appointed to Durham, but he had resigned in 1056. His brother, Aethelwine, who succeeded him, was deposed in 1071. Neither bishop, evidently, was able to reach a peaceful settlement with his clergy. According to the account in Simeon, Aethelwine tried to leave England for Cologne in 1071 389 390

392

Ibid., n o . 4 3 3 ; CPL I, p . 8 0 ; Edwards, Secular Cathedrals, p . 122. Ibid., nos. 365-366, 464; Annals ofDustable, RS-36 in, pp. 90, 104; VCH Staffordshire, 391 HI, p. 12. VCH Warwickshire, 111, p. 8-14, 147. In general see the Feodarium prioratus Dunelmensis, ed. W. Greenwell, Surtees Society 58 (1872), pp. i—lxxxi; Durham Episcopal Charters, 1071—1152, ed. H. S. Offler, Surtees Society 179 (1968); and G. V. Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, Bishop of Durham (Cambridge 1956), pp. 300-307.

132

The cathedral priories

with some of the church property, although it is uncertain how much of it belonged exclusively to the chapter.393 The two brothers were followed by Walcher, a clerk from the Lotharingian circle in England, who sought to reestablish a monastic community. He was killed in obscure circumstances in 1080. By that time he had replaced Waltheof as earl of Northumberland and his death appears to have been brought about by a violent internecine struggle.394 His design for a monastic community, however, was fulfilled by his successor, William de St. Calais, who drew its members from the dependent houses at Jarrow and Wearmouth. With perhaps as many as twenty-three monks in residence, he set about the organization of his cathedral church. 395 Offices and duties, we are told, were assigned to certain of the monks, a prior was appointed, and the bishop separated his estates from those of the convent. The latter were left free and quit of episcopal customs and service.396 Simeon, moreover, put great store by the supposed antiquity of the Durham tradition which, to his satisfaction at least, was evidence for a divided mensa. It was the custom of the church, he wrote, that those who did god's service before the tomb of St. Cuthbert held their lands apart from those of the bishop.397 There is nothing in the surviving texts, however, which shows this to have been the case. As long ago as 1872 Canon Green well demonstrated that prior to the time of Bishop William there is no reason to suppose that the possessions had been permanently divided.398 The clergy who served the church would have as a matter of course been allocated sufficient food and clothing and housing for their support, but not necessarily their own mensa. More recent investigations have confirmed this account.399 393

394

395

396

397

398 399

Simeon of D u r h a m , Opera, RS-j$ I, pp.91—105 ; B a r l o w , The English Church, vol. 11, p. 64. Simeon of D u r h a m , Opera, RS-7$ 1, p p . 9 0 - 9 2 ; see also the Historia continuatio Symeonis, ed. H o d g s o n Hinde, Surtees Society 51 (1868), p p . 98—100. T h e C o t t o n text gives t w e n t y - t h r e e m o n k s , b u t the figure is erased from the other manuscripts, Simeon of D u r h a m , Opera, RS-7S, 1, p . 122. See B . M e e h a n , " O u t s i d e r s , insiders and property in D u r h a m around 1100," Studies in Church History, 13 (1975), 57. " D e n i q u e terrarum possessiones illorum ita a suis possessionibus segregavit, ut suas o m n i n o ab episcopi servitio, et ab o m n i consuetudine liberas et quietas ad suum victum et vestitum terras monachi possiderent," Simeon of D u r h a m , Opera, .RS-75,1, p . 123. " A n t i q u a enim ipsius ecclesiae h o c exigit consuetudo, ut qui deo coram sancti C u t h b e r t i corpore ministrant, segregatas a terris episcopi suas habeant," ibid. T h e priory took the saint as tenant, grantee, and beneficiary. Feodarium, preface. H . E. Craster, " T h e p a t r i m o n y of St. C u t h b e r t , " EHR 69 (1954), 197.

133

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Even Simeon implies that Bishop William did not put himself out to gratify the monks' desire for property. He had given them a little piece of land, in addition to the estates attached to Jarrow and Wearmouth which they had brought with them, and he was on the point of providing more, so that the monks would not be forced to live from hand to mouth, when he suddenly died in 1096.400 There is nothing here to suggest an extensive endowment. What the bishop had given the monks cannot now be determined, but it may indeed have been very little. All the church estates in Domesday Book are listed under the rubric terra episcopi. Only at Blyborough in Lincolnshire was it noted that of the seven bovates which the bishop held there two teams were for the use of the monks.401 The seven bovates still belonged to the bishop in the time of Ranulf Flambard, William's successor.402 It may also have been the case that William's difficulties with the king had an adverse effect on the lands at Durham in that the bishop grew reluctant to allow too much land to escape his control. Accused of treason, he was in dishonorable, if temporary, exile from the end of 1088 until his see was restored to him in 1091.403 Already in March of 1088 he had been deposed from office and the lands of his bishopric seized by the king's men. The celebrated account of the trial and hardships of Bishop William, referred to earlier, was laid out in the Libellus de iniusta vexacione contained in Simeon's history.404 Summoned to trial before the king at Salisbury in November of 1088, William refused to acknowledge the competence of the court and declared the procedure to be contrary to the law of the church. He had been deposed, he said, the lands of his bishopric pillaged, and he himself forced to attend a court beyond his ecclesiastical province. Needless to say, the bishop was arguing against a stacked bench. The upshot of the hearing was that the castle and the see of Durham were taken into the king's hands and the bishop crossed to Normandy where he took up residence under the patronage of 400

402 404

"Episcopus quoque aliquantulum quidem terrae monachis largitus est, veruntamen ut sine indigentia et pecunia christo servirent, sufficientes ad victum illorum et vestitum terras eis una cum rege ipse providerat, et jamjamque daturus erat. Sed ne id ad effectum perveniret primo regis ac postea episcopi mors impedimento fuerat," Simeon 401 of Durham, Opera, RS-J$ I, p. 124. DB 1, fo. 340b. 403 Lindsey Survey (LRS-LS), p. 239. Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 169, 294. RS-7S x> PP- 170—195; Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 1, pp. 2446°.; EHD 11, pp. 609-624. See also the proposed revised dating by H. S. Offler, EHR 66 (1951), and the comments in Barlow, English Church II, pp. 28 iff.

134

The cathedral priories

Robert Curthose. In the conversations reported in the Libellus, the bishop is constantly made to speak of" his bishopric," " his lands," and " his possesions," as one would expect in view of the nature of his complaint. But he also refers to "the lands of our church," " the lands of my church," " the lands and men and livestock of St. Cuthbert which the king sequestered," and "my lands and the livestock of the church. " 405 That is, the bishopric, which certainly belonged to the bishop, was now made to include the conventual lands as well. This may have been his intent in trying to fashion the strongest possible case against the alleged illegality of his deprivation. The ambiguity of the references also suggests that the division of the property at Durham in William's time was in a rudimentary stage. When Ralph Pagnell, the sheriff of Yorkshire and one of the greater northern barons, ravaged the Durham lands and distressed the bishop's tenants, it was unlikely that he was careful, or even conscious, of a difference between episcopal and conventual property. But when the bishop himself protested against the seizure of the "land and men and chattels of St. Cuthbert which the king took from me," it does not seem that he was bound to make a distinction either.406 If the De iniusta vexatione was indeed a contemporary account of the proceedings against William, whatever part of it may have been embroidered, it strengthens the view that the bishop retained the lands of his see under his firm control.407 He probably saw no need for a legal separation of estates, provided the revenues assigned to the monks proved to be sufficient for their support. William came to Durham 405 406

407

Simeon of D u r h a m , Opera, RS-7S I, p p . 245-249. T h e " lands of St. C u t h b e r t " were the lands of the bishopric w h e n the bishop exercised diocesan and baronial jurisdiction. B y this time, the p o w e r of St. C u t h b e r t , w h o was t h o u g h t still to be alive in his t o m b , was traditionally seen as exercised on behalf of the monks. T h e saint preserved the priory lands from the tax collectors sent b y William I, and his miracles performed sede uacante in 1152—1153 were meant to strengthen the bonds of the c o m m u n i t y . In Reginald of D u r h a m ' s Libellus, St. C u t h b e r t is m a d e to appear as the bishop and the father of the m o n k s , as opposed to the incumbent then in office (Reginaldi monachi Dunelmensis, libellus, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Society 1 (1835), p . 140); and in m o r e detail see Victoria T u d o r , " T h e cult of St. C u t h b e r t in the twelfth century. T h e evidence of Reginald of D u r h a m , " in St. Cuthbert. His Cult and his Community in A.D. 1200, ed. G; Bonner, D . W . Rollason, and Clare Stancliffe ( W o o d b r i d g e 1989), p . 449, note 1, and p p . 453—454. O n the miracles of St. C u t h b e r t to protect the monastic lands, see Benedicta W a r d , Miracles and the Medieval Mind (Philadelphia 1987), p p . 56-66. T h e proposal b y Offler that the core of the Libellus was composed early in the twelfth century as a justification for the protest of the bishop, while not wholly convincing, w o u l d not, if accepted, make the tract less useful for our purposes.

135

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England as a monk, and when he reorganized the cathedral church with a monastic chapter he took over the responsibility and administration of the possessions as the abbot. Although it has been argued that some of the monks in favor of a divided mensa united against the bishop, they were unable to move him to support their position before his death.408 The attempt by certain members of the convent to modify the bishop's title as abbot in order to reduce his authority was made only at a much later date. 409 Which of the estates generated income for the monks cannot be known for certain. A partial list may be compiled from the "Ego Willelmus " charter which, although shown to have been spurious, appears to have been composed early in the reign of Henry I and may reflect some portion of the mensa conventualis*10 In addition to the lands and dependencies at Jarrow and Wearmouth, the possessions of the convent probably included Billingham which had been granted by William II and is attested by a writ addressed to Geoffrey Baynard, the sheriff of Yorkshire. Geoffrey is warned not to meddle in any way with the goods of the monks. 411 The bishop is not mentioned and as the document cannot be later than 1093 it should probably be assigned to the period of exile when the conventual estates lay open to baronial encroachment. Domesday Book lists three estates, at Sessay, Knayton, and Brompton in Yorkshire, which belonged to St. Cuthbert rather than to the bishop, and these should also be included. Hemingborough, on the other hand, with Brakenholm, in Yorkshire, said to have been granted to the monks by the Conqueror, exists only in a spurious charter.412 Aycliffe was the subject of an agreement between Robert, earl of Northumberland, and William of St. Calais, whereby the former restored to the bishop his jurisdiction in certain manors in return for a payment of £100. 413 The convent was not a party to it. But Aycliffe was soon lost again, and not recovered until Ranulf Flambard's successful suit in the king's court in 1109.414 The confirmation by Bishop William of the churches at Northallerton, Kirby Sigston and Brompton, and the tithe from his demesne lands, although now known to have been forged, may in fact represent the interests of the convent since all 408 409 410 411 412

F. B a r l o w , Durham Jurisdiction^ Peculiars (Oxford 1950), p . 8. Durham Episcopal Charters, 3a; Feodarium, lxvii—lxviii. Durham Episcopal Charters, p p . 6—15. Regesta 1, n o . 344. See also Craster, " P a t r i m o n y , " p . 186. 413 414 Regesta 1, n o . 286. Ibid., n o . 349. Regesta 11, n o . 918.

136

The cathedral priories

the churches were later allocated for the monks' support. The convent may also have derived income from lands at Rainton, the two Pittingtons, Merrington, Shincliffe, and Elvet.415 Staindrop in Durham was in the hands of the prior late in the reign of Henry I, but whether it was monastic before that time is uncertain. 416 The other Durham lands, including the large Yorkshire estates at Howden, Welton, Hatton Conyers, and Howgrave; Home in Northamptonshire; Normanton with Bonnington, Kingston, and Gotham in Nottinghamshire; Arlesey and Millow in Bedforshire; part of Blyborough in Lincolnshire; and Waltham in Essex, were all episcopal. Aware of the corpus of forged charters exposed through the efforts of Canon Green well, modern scholars have generally seen the pontificate of William of St. Calais as the period when the mensa was divided. The most propitious time seems to have been after his restoration in 1091 and during the building of the cathedral church, which was begun in 1093. Greenwell, himself, although at great pains to demonstrate that the bishop and chapter at Durham had lived in common before the resettlement of 1083, allowed that some early allocations had been made by William. 417 Cornford, Bohmer, Knowles, Barlow, Southern, and Offler have agreed, with some important differences, that the community had a group of estates under its jurisdiction before noo. 418 In their studies of the church, Cornford, Bohmer, and Knowles imply that a permanent settlement was reached under William; Barlow, Southern, and Offler, writing later, suggest that the separation of estates was an ongoing process, but one which was probably put in hand shortly after 1083. What occurred is described by most of the authors as "a division" of lands, but without further inquiry as to what kind of division it was. In his study of the Durham franchise, Professor Barlow recognized the difficulties, but did not pursue the question of the extent to which the chapter enjoyed a 415 417 418

416 See Durham Episcopal Charters, p. n . Craster, " P a t r i m o n y , " p . 196. Feodarium, p p . xxxiv—xxxvii. M . C o r n f o r d , VCH Durham, 11, p . 8 6 ; H . B o h m e r , Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XL und XILJahrhundert. Eine historische Studie (Leipzig 1899, repr. Aalen 1968), p . 4 9 8 ; K n o w l e s , Monastic Order, p p . 625—626; B a r l o w , Durham Jurisdictional Peculiars, p p . xvii, 4—5; R. Southern, " R a n u l f F l a m b a r d , " in Medieval Humanism ( N e w Y o r k 1970), p . 2 0 2 : " F l a m b a r d carried t h r o u g h the division o f estates b e t w e e n bishop and c o n v e n t w h i c h his predecessor h a d b e g u n " ; H . S. Offler, Durham Episcopal Charters, p . 104: " T h e terms of t h e division b e t w e e n t h e bishop's and t h e monastery's

shares in the patrimony of St. Cuthbert, carried through by Bishop William of St. Calais in 1083, have not survived in comprehensive detail."

137

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England legal position independent of the bishop.419 As to the monks' share, only a fraction, he concluded, was funded before the time of Flambard. As to their independence, this was seriously compromised by a succession of forceful bishops throughout the next century. In fact, a survey of the relations between later bishops and the priory down to the death of Richard Marsh in 1226, suggests that it was only in the early thirteenth century that the convent at Durham had become firmly enough established to be considered a group permanently separated from the episcopal household. Some of the problems inherent in the loose allocation of lands in the time of William of St. Calais, veiled by the use of the word " division," began to show up under his successors and provoked a lengthy sequence of disputed claims. Several of the estates appear to have been ill-defined geographically, while others suffered from a defective title. The task which faced the monks in the years of Flambard's rule, and afterwards, was to establish the right to lands which were assumed by the bishop to have been traditionally his own. The problem can be illustrated by the way in which several manors were held. In Domesday Book, Welton in Yorkshire was listed, with the berewicks of Ellerker, Walkington, Hunsley and Yokefleet, under the bishop's possessions.420 But soon after he seized the throne, Henry I took it into his own hands, along with two estates at Northallerton and Howden. He kept the three properties until 1116, when they were restored to Bishop Flambard.421 A few years later the bishop conveyed the right to the demesne tithes from those manors to St. Cuthbert and his monks.422 About the same time he put the monks in possession of a piece of his land lying between Hunsley and Walkington which amounted to thirty-two perches running along the vill of Hunsley.423 In the charter Hunsley is referred to as the villa monachorum. According to the wording of an earlier confirmation by Henry I, land in Hunsley had been given to the monks of Durham by Robert d'Estouteville.424 The charter, however, is not above suspicion, so that it is uncertain whether the convent possessed a portion of the estate at so early a date. It is one of four charters issued by the king on behalf of the monks probably of the same date and place.425 Drewton in Welton hundred in the East 419 421 423 425

42 B a r l o w , Durham Jurisdictional Peculiars, p . 6. ° DB i, fo. 304c. 422 Regesta 11, n o . 1124. Durham Episcopal Charters, nos. 14-15. 424 Ibid., nos. 16-17. Regesta 11, n o . 505. Ibid., nos. 502, 503, 504, 505.

138

The cathedral priories

Riding of Yorkshire, a portion of which was granted to the monks in two of the charters, was held by Robert Malet in 1086.426 He died in 1106, when he chose to fight on the wrong side at Tinchebrai, and the descent of his lands in England was blocked. He had probably given the land to the monks while he served in the royal household, land which then was lost to them upon his death. Or they may have forfeited it when the king confiscated Welton in I I O I . 4 2 7 In any case, the return to the convent came only piecemeal, first the right to tithes, folio wed by the right to the land. Blakiston was another estate which had been given by Flambard to Richard, his nephew, and confirmed by Henry I.428 The monks evidently had an interest in it, since it was included among the lands restored to Durham by the bishop just before his death. Richard, however, persisted in his claim and this provoked an intervention by the king on the monks' behalf. The result was that Blakiston was restored to the convent, but it continued to be held by members of Richard's family.429 In some cases the boundaries between episcopal and conventual estates remained uncertain for a long time. The vill of Hemingborough, for instance, a part of the Yorkshire franchise, was allegedly granted to the monks by William I. The charter, however, is suspect.430 The vill was, nevertheless, included in the general confirmation issued by Eugenius III in 1146.431 By the beginning of the thirteenth century, a large portion of the estate had been taken over by the bishop. As a consequence of this, there arose a dispute over the extent to which the monks had vested rights. Witnesses were called to testify for the bishop, but while they knew that a part belonged to the convent, they were unable to say how much it amounted to, or where the boundaries lay.432 Witnesses for the monks seem to have been no better informed. They stated that they knew the woods of the estate had been used for many years by the monks, but that the bishop still retained some rights in them.433 The chronic uncertainty over the 426 427

428 429 430 433

DB 1, fos. 320c and 381c. C . W . Hollister, " H e n r y I a n d R o b e r t M a l e t , " Viator 4 (1973), 1 1 5 - 1 2 2 ; Eleanor Searle, " W o m e n and the legitimization of the succession at the N o r m a n C o n q u e s t , " Proceedings of the Battle Conference 3 (1980), 228, note 24. Regesta 11, n o . 1603. Ibid., no. 1604; Feodarium, pp. 144—146; Durham Episcopal Charters, p. 105. 431 432 Regesta 1, n o . 286. PUE n, n o . 51. Feodarium, p . 254. Ibid., pp. 288-290.

139

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

respective jurisdictions undoubtedly encouraged a powerful bishop like Hugh de Puiset, who was in office from 1153 to 1195, to encroach on what the monks believed to have been their rights to timber and forage.434 Other conflicts stemmed from a defective or deficient title. The jurisdiction in Gateshead, for example, which belonged to the bishop and which included the forest at Heworth became a matter of dispute between Hugh de Puiset and the convent. That the monks had a defective title is suggested by the forged charter of Henry I confirming Flambard's restitution in general, and Heworth Wood in particular.435 Although the rights in Heworth were confirmed in a papal privilege of 1157, they were still being negotiated under Puiset, and a final agreement was not reached until the time of Bishop Richard Poore in 1229.436 In another case, the monks, who wished to exercise their jurisdiction in the hermitage of Finchale, found that they were without a proper title. They had one manufactured, therefore, in the form of a charter attributed to Bishop Flambard in which he was made to grant the land in perpetuity to the priory. Finchale, however, did not become a possession of the convent until late in the twelfth century. Even then it was granted, not to the prior and monks, but to a pair of Durham monks, Richard and Henry, who were already in residence there.437 These problems, which the monks faced in the arduous process of establishing their separate position, lead once again to a consideration of the spurious charters of Bishop William of St. Calais, the foundation texts of Durham priory. Greenwell had dated them to the first quarter of the twelfth century, but that judgment was later criticized by G. V. Scammell in his biography of Hugh de Puiset, who revised the chronology to c. 1165 for one set of the charters, and to 1185 x 1200 for another.438 H. S. Offler, in his edition of the Durham Charters, also viewed them as products of the late twelfth century.439 It is not difficult to see why Green well was drawn to place them in the time of Bishop William when the see was refounded and, it was thought, the endowment 434

435 See G. V . Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, p . 131. Regesta 11, n o . 1574. 436 pug H j n o p4 H e w o r t h was confirmed in Le Convenit, Feodarium, p . 217. 437 Durham Episcopal Charters, p p . 68—71. For Flambard's charter see Charters of Endowment, Inventories and Account Rolls of the Priory of Finchale, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Society 6 (1837), p . 20. 438 Feodarium, p p . 1—lxxxi; G. V . Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, p p . 300—307. 439 Durham Episcopal Charters, p . vii.

140

The cathedral priories was redistributed.440 But since they appear to have been written up almost a hundred years afterwards, there is a strong suggestion that the monks lacked the necessary documentary evidence to prove their right to the lands which they held, but did not own, or which they wished to own, but did not hold. Surely they would not have put themselves to the trouble and risk of expensive forgery if the proper charters had been in their possession. The heavy-handed rule of Hugh de Puiset, falling at a time, as we have seen, when some members of the convent were increasingly conscious of what their own privileges might be, and increasingly aggressive in devising means to secure them, when greater need spurred them to acquire greater wealth, and when there were examples of successful capitular action in other cathedral churches to encourage them, was undoubtedly an important factor to be considered in an attempt to explain why the forgeries were composed at that particular time. Nor should one discount a genuine feeling of uncertainty and confusion in regard to the possession of the estates which probably played a part in moving the monks to action. As part of his explanation of the mensal division, Green well offered a theory which had the double effect of excusing the monks and vindicating the bishops: In the early times of the first bishops at Lindesfarne, and later on when the seat of the Bernician episcopate was transferred to Chester le Street, the land given to the church and to St. Cuthbert was hardly distinguishable as episcopal and monastic, for the interests of the two bodies being one, the estates were the property of the general body, of which the bishop and the monks were parts. In course of time a separation was made between estates of the see and others given or devoted for the ministers of the church; and eventually two entirely distinct corporations existed, with different and at times conflicting interests. Under such circumstances, a certain confusion must necessarily have arisen with regard to some of the estates, which had once been the common property of the two, as belonging to St. Cuthbert; and to which, as representing him, each corporation might assert a claim, and not be satisfied with the severance which Bishop William I had made. And it is not unlikely that in this way the so-called abstractions of Bishop Flambard originated, he asserting his right to land which, though at the time in the hands of the 440

To the episcopal charters "Ego Willelmus," "Quia rerum," and "Venerabilis patribus," and their variants, should be added several questionable charters of William I and Henry I, and a privilege of Gregory VII. See G. V. Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, pp. 304-305. 141

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England convent, was not held by any title sufficiently clear to prevent him from reclaiming what, it might be asserted, belonged to the see. And judging as to the merits of the transactions between Bishop Flambard and the convent, it must not be forgotten that the accounts we have are all on the one side, that of the monks, by whom any reclamation of estates would not unnaturally be regarded as robbery.441 It is worth noting that the privilege of Calixtus II, confirming the foundation of Durham priory in 1123, mentioned no specific properties, but referred only in a general way to the goods of the monks. Either there was no list of estates which could have been submitted to Rome for approval, or the prior was negligent in omitting to forward it. Calixtus, moreover, clearly viewed the Durham convent as organized under the rule of St. Benedict, so that the bishop-abbot would have been considered the principal titleholder.442 The uncertainty over an effective conventual title persisted into the next century. It was not until a general agreement was drawn up with the convent under Bishop Richard Poore (1228-1237) that a precision in the definition of their respective rights was achieved which was to remain as the basis of later grants until the suppression of the priory in 1539.443 From time to time the bishops of Durham did appropriate estates later claimed by the monks, doubtless, as Greenwell remarked, on the assumption that they belonged to them, or that they had charge of the lands held in common. An illustration of the latter point is supplied by a charter of Flambard's, dated late in his career, by which he granted land at Hewic free and quit of customs and dues, except for an annual rent. The bishop's cattle, however, and those of his men were to graze in the same pasture as the cattle of the monks and their men.444 Common grazing had long been recognized as a basic element in the contemporary field system, since all the harvest had to be in before the animals were turned out, but what better preparation for later disputes than shared privileges of even so minor a kind as these ? There are many examples of overlapping jurisdiction and many examples of lands and privileges which may once have been conventual, but which were easily appropriated by the bishop, either for his own use, such as Flambard's diversion of monastic income from altar and burial fees to be used in building the church, 441 443 444

442 Feodarium, p p . 108-109, n o t e . PUE n, n o . 5. Le Convenit, printed b y Greenwell, Feodarium, p p . 212—219. Durham Episcopal Charters, no. 21.

142

The cathedral priories

or as income for his men.445 The history of these operations has been catalogued for the time of Hugh de Puiset, and important properties can be cited like Elvet, Aycliffe, He worth, Norham and Billingham, as well as rights to wreck, wood, and tithes. Nevertheless, throughout most of the twelfth century, the priory was the beneficiary of a fairly large number of donations from kings, bishops and laymen, and a few of these the monks seem to have been able to retain in their possession.446 At the same time the convent was also granting out lands without episcopal interference, but not always without episcopal influence. Staindrop and its berewicks had been part of the endowment of St. Cuthbert's since well before the Conquest, but by the time of the Domesday survey it is uncertain whether the bishop or the convent enjoyed the income, or whether they were joint beneficiaries.447 It soon came into Flambard's hands, since it was one of the properties restored to the priory by the bishop just before he died. Staindrop was then granted by Algar, the prior, and the monks to Dolfin, son of Uhtred, son of Meldred, and his heirs, in an agreement made in 1131.448 Dolfin was to render £ 4 of rent per annum and he became the homo ligius of St. Cuthbert, the prior and monks, saving his fealty to the king and bishop. If summoned by the prior as his tenant, he was to appear before the conventual court, providing his presence was not contrary to the will of the bishop. Here is an early example of liege lordship involving a corporate lord which existed in its own right apart from the bishop. The concept of an independent conventual court with exclusive jurisdiction at this date, however, has been played down on the grounds that not only is there no other evidence to support it, but that the agreement was reached sede vacante after Flambard's death and before the appointment of Geoffrey Rufus, and with the royal custodian present at the transaction.449 Flambard also restored lands at Blakiston, Wolvisten, Kirby Sigston, Burdon, Carleton, and Aycliffe, but how much the convent benefited from them is uncertain. Burdon, Carleton and 445 446

447 448 449

Simeon of D u r h a m , Opera, RS-JS I, p . 139; Durham Episcopal Charters, nos. 24—25. G. V . Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, p p . 139-167 and p p . 153—154, and appendix, nos. 6, 9 ; see also Feodarium, p p . 230—247, 255—257, 262—266; PUE 11, n o . 269. For later donations see Regesta 11, nos. 1108—1109, 1143 ; Durham Episcopal Charters, nos. 30, 3 5 ; Feodarium, p p . 205—206; and p . 10, n o t e 1. Durham Episcopal Charters, p . 109. Feodarium, p p . 5 6 - 5 7 ; Durham Episcopal Charters, p p . 76, 109. G. V . Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, p p . 150—151.

H3

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Aycliffe were recovered from the Northumbrians, but by midcentury Burdon had been subinfeudated.450 Blakiston, while monastic, was held by members of Flambard's family, and Wolviston was not wholly in the monks' possession.451 The church at Kirby ultimately was taken over by Bishop Hugh to support his own clerks.452 Flambard also is said to have granted to the convent freedom to administer their own affairs and possessions.453 But the wording of the charter is vague, and in context, and in the light of Flambard's relationship with his church, it was perhaps intentionally so. The phrasing of the text is rich in laudatory nouns such as dignitas, libertas, and honor which may have been added to lend importance to what were rather modest concessions. The body of Flambard's charter was repeated, almost word for word, in a general confirmation by Hugh de Puiset issued to the convent shortly after his elevation to the see.454 The latter differs, however, in that the restored properties were not identified, the clause ad dispositionem is sheared of its excess verbiage and made brief and business-like, and the important salva in omnibus mea episcopali auctoritate is added

at the end. The monks, however, continued to have problems which stemmed from the custody of the see when it was vacant after Flambard's death. Prior Absalon eventually came to an agreement with Elias Escolland and his heirs in regard to the disputed boundaries between the land at Dalton, which the priory claimed, and land at Seaham and Seaton which formed the barony held by Elias in 1166 of the old enfeoffment.455 It was evidently no easy matter to satisfy both sides and, as insurance against later claims, a large number of people were involved in the perambulation.456 The division was marked by ditches filled with stones, and the whole was granted by Hugh de Puiset and ratified by an exceptionally long list of witnesses. Hugh de Puiset came to Durham in 1153 after a decade of severe internal conflict. Upon the death of Geoffrey Rufus in 1141, 450 451 453

454

456

Regesta n, n o . 9 1 8 ; Durham Episcopal Charters, p . n o . 452 Feodarium, p p . 139-142. G. V. Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, p . 236. "Concessi etiam priori et eis u t ad dispositionem o m n i u m r e r u m suarum infra ecclesiam et extra in o m n i b u s liberam habeant facultatem ea dignitate et libertate et h o n o r e et quietudine qua u n q u a m [melius] et honorabilius hactenus h a b u e r u n t , " Durham Episcopal Charters, n o . 24. G. V . Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, p . 254. Cf. the privilege of Alexander HI in 1162 for 455 similar phrasing, PUE 11, n o . 107. Feodarium, p . 1 2 1 ; RBE, p . 417. Feodarium, p . 121.

144

The cathedral priories

Matilda had hoped to introduce William Cumin, an archdeacon of Worcester and a member of the household of her uncle, David, king of Scotland. It was a step which would have advanced the Scottish campaign in the north, but at Durham it had the effect of dividing the chapter into two hostile groups.457 After Stephen's restoration at the legatine council at Westminster in December of 1141, however, the important support of Henry of Blois was shifted to the king and to the candidacy of William St. Barbe, the dean of York.458 Cumin resigned his position and William took office in 1144. Within a short time another conflict broke out in regard to the respective rights of Roger, the prior, and Wazo, the archdeacon. Since the latter was an episcopal agent, while the prior ordinarily spoke for the convent, it was a dispute which in larger terms reflected the persistent competition over jurisdiction, still unsatisfactorily defined, between the bishop and the monks. The immediate difficulty was apparently settled by a packed board of inquiry composed of Ailred, abbot of Rievaulx; Robert, abbot of Newminster; Cuthbert, abbot of Guisborough; Richard, prior of Hexham; and German, prior of Tinmouth. They found, not surprisingly, that the prior took precedence over the archdeacon, and enjoyed a position in the cathedral church next to the bishop.459 A charter of William St. Barbe, relying on the testimony of the five diocesan seniores, confirmed the inferior place of the archdeacon, but neither the charter, nor the statement of the judges is above suspicion.460 If, in fact, they should be dated from a later period, they provide no evidence for the privileged status of the prior at the time Puiset came to the bishopric. The mandate of Hadrian IV in 1157 which accorded the prior second place was probably based on a copy of the earlier disposition which had been 457

459

460

Simeon of D u r h a m , Opera, RS-7S i> H 5 - T h e circumstances are n o t e d briefly b y Marjorie Chibnall, " T h e Empress Matilda and church r e f o r m , " TRHS, 5th ser. 38 458 (1988), 116. Councils and Synods, vol. I, ii, p p . 792-794. Durham Episcopal Charters, p p . 142—151. U p t o this point the legal implications of the prior as archdeacon had n o t been w o r k e d o u t . Bishop W i l l i a m of St. Calais, for instance, appointed T u r g o t , the prior, as archdeacon, while Ranulf Flambard appointed his o w n archdeacon. W h e t h e r it was advantageous t o the bishop to c o m b i n e the t w o positions in o n e m a n must have depended largely o n the personalities involved, rather than o n still-undeveloped constitutional theory. For some pertinent remarks, see A. J. Piper, " T h e first generations of D u r h a m m o n k s and the cult of St. C u t h b e r t , " in St. Cuthbert, His Cult and His Community to A.D. 1200, ed. G. B o n n e r , D . W . Rollason, and C. Stancliffe (Woodbridge 1989), pp. 441—443. Feodarium, pp. lx—lxiii. Already some doubt was cast on their authenticity by Greenwell. Offler (Durham Episcopal Charters, nos. 36-37) discusses the suspicious elements at some length.

145

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England taken to Rome. 461 In the long run, however, the prior did achieve a preeminent position in the convent as the chief administrator for a bishop who was often absent. This occurred during the time of Bishop Hugh, when there is evidence for his seal, and was an important step in the development of a conventual identity. The monks were also successful, late in the century, in excluding the archdeacons from their deliberations held for the election of the bishop.462 In the case of Hugh, however, the nomination was forwarded by the prior and archdeacons together to Theobald of Canterbury who approved it in his capacity as papal legate. 463 A summary of the rights which the monks wished to have, but had not yet acquired, can be had from the composition of the forged charters. Henry I, in a charter issued on behalf of Prior Algar and the convent, was made to confirm all the dignities and liberties which the monks allegedly possessed in 1096, viz., that the prior was first after the bishop, that he was to administer all the conventual property, that he was to appoint to offices without episcopal interference, that he with the monks was to have his own court, and that the convent was to be immune from intrusion by royal justices.464 In the bull Sacrosancta romana ecclesia, purportedly issued by Gregory VII, and in the Ego Willelmus charter, supposedly of William de St. Calais, there can be found, in addition, the claim of the convent to elect freely the prior, to have custody of vacant churches and lands belonging to the priory, and to be quit of archdiaconal encroachment. 465 But in Puiset's time most of these privileges were new, although they were claimed on the strength of an old tradition. Not until the very end of his tenure, in 1195, did he grant a general confirmation which incorporated the principal clauses of the forgeries.466 For most of his pontificate he seems to have allowed very little of his authority to be compromised by the grant of specific conventual rights. Ever mindful of his superior position as bishop-abbot, the idea of an independent monastic administration was probably as remote to 461

462

464 465 466

" It is fairly clear that a copy or abstract of the 1147 settlement h a d been forwarded for papal confirmation," G. V . Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, p . 305. Ibid., p . 163. For the seal see C . H . H . Blair, " C a t a l o g u e of D u r h a m Seals from a manuscript of the Rev. W . Greenwell, collated and a n n o t a t e d . . . , " Archaeologia Aeliana, 463 Saltman, Theobald, p p . 120-122. 3rd ser., 15 (1918), 163. Regesta 11, n o . 1574. p p . xxxviii—xliii; Durham Episcopal Charters, nos. 3, 3a; PUE 11, p . 133. G. V . Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, appx. 11, nos. 7 - 1 0 ; PUE u, n o . 2 7 8 ; Feodarium, p p . lii—lvi.

I46

The cathedral priories

his way of thinking as it had been, for different reasons, to Flambard's. In 1155, two years after Puiset took over, Lawrence was replaced by Absalon as prior, but he proved to be unable to provide an effective counter-weight to the pretensions of the bishop.467 Nor was his successor, Thomas, elected by the convent, able to do any better. Between Thomas and the bishop there soon arose a dispute over certain privileges regarding the church at Northallerton. In spite of some attempt at resistance, neither the prior individually, nor the monks collectively, could overcome their fundamental weakness.468 In 1162 Puiset deposed Thomas and subsequently gave the custody of the churches to different persons. Between 1186 and n 89 he took over the monks' property, usurped what authority they had exercised and charged himself with their administration.469 Against the bishop's aggressive personality the monks were unable to erect any kind of effective defense. Like the celebrated ira regis of the Angevins, and, indeed, of the Anglo-Norman kings before them, the ira episcopi, the public sign of his private strength, was a potent and effective weapon to bend the conventual leaders to his will. Quicker and cheaper than lengthy arguments or physical coercion, its power lay in infrequent use and the acknowledgment of the resources which a man like Puiset could command. 470 It was at this point of intensified episcopal encroachment that the corpus of forged charters was assembled and submitted for the bishop's confirmation.471 If Puiset's late charters of 1195 are authentic, then he himself approved the demands of the convent which were based on the fabricated texts attributed to his predecessors. Likewise, Alexander III, Lucius III, and Celestine III, responding to the Durham petitions, used parts of the forgeries in their own privileges addressed to the priory. 472 But Puiset's death-bed restitution did not lead to a reconciliation between his successors and the convent. Most of the first quarter of the 467

468 469

470

472

" Defuncto igitur Laurentio priore, p r i o r a t u m accepit Absalon, vir q u i d e m de forinsecis edoctus sed minus literis eruditus, sub q u o n u t a b a n t libertates ecclesiae, d u m n o n esset qui contra episcopum v o c e m contradictionis assumerat," Geoffrey o f C o l d i n g h a m , in Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Society 9 (1839), p . 7. Ibid., p . 8. Roger of Howden, Chronica, RS-$i n, p. 360; Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, ed. W . Stubbs, 2 vols. RS-49 n, p . 60. For the use u n d e r the Angevins, see J. E. A. Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship ( L o n d o n 1963), 471 chap. 4. G. V . Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, p p . 134—135. PUE n , nos. 119-120, 223, 278.

H7

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England thirteenth century was troubled by a series of disputes aggravated by a long vacancy from 1208 to 1217. Philip of Poitou (1197-1208) and Richard Marsh (1217-1226) each held that his position as bishop meant that he was also abbot in the church, and hence opposed to a separate and independent convent. Consequently, they remained at odds with their monks during most of their time in office. Perhaps they found Puiset's charters suspect; they certainly resented, and then resisted, a constitutional change which would have left them with only a small voice in the management of ecclesiastical affairs. This view was supported by Innocent III who made it clear that the weight of papal authority was behind the conception of a dominant episcopate with a subordinate chapter. In a letter of December 1198 he identified the bishop with the abbot, and ordered the monks of Durham to strict obedience. They were not to alienate property, or to appoint to churches, or issue charters or hire servants without the approval of their superior.473 In 1205 he again wrote to Bertram, the prior, to remind him that the monks were not to interfere with the bishop's rights or disregard their obligations to him.474 The latter notice was doubtless a consequence of Bertram's insistence on his own position as abbot in everything but name.475 An important focus of the dispute was on the jurisdiction over the church of Coldingham which was claimed by both bishop and prior. The threat to episcopal authority led to verbal and physical abuse of the monks by the archdeacons, ex precepto episcopi, and to the seizure of their possessions.476 At the same time there appeared a forged letter of Innocent III which granted to the prior of Durham the liberties and customs of the abbot as they had been granted by Bishop William de St. Calais.477 The text, however, was based on a privilege of Celestine III, Innocent's predecessor, which was issued in 1196 on behalf of the prior, but which, in turn, was modeled on the spurious text of Gregory VII.478 Celestine, moreover, by that time was almost ninety years old and no longer 473 474 Letters of Pope Innocent III, no. 64. Ibid., no. 566. 475 "£)j c e b a t enim episcopus donationem ad eum pertinere tanquam ad episcopum et abbatem Dunelmensis ecclesiae. Haec contra prior respondit, quod ad eum pertinebat donatio, quia praedecessores sui et ipse sine alicujus contradictione eas dederant, sicut priores et domini fundi et illi qui omnem potestatem abbatis in choro et in dispositione domus et reddituum suorum habent, ex concessione regum et institutione episcoporum Dunelmensium et Romanorum pontificum confirmatione," Roger of Howden, 476 Chronica, RS-$i iv, p. 69. Feodarium, pp. 22off. 477 478 Letters of Pope Innocent III, n o . 1109. PUE 11, no. 278.

I48

The cathedral priories

effective, or even competent, to interpret the law. 479 Innocent's charter, nevertheless, illustrates the urgency on the part of the prior's group to demonstrate written evidence of their independent status. In 1220 x 1223 the monks objected to an episcopal visitation, and when the bishop asked to inspect their charters, they refused to produce them on the grounds that they suspected the bishop of dishonest intentions. The monks were again dealt with so harshly that they lodged another appeal at the papal chancery. But the real reason for their reluctance to comply with the bishop's request was that they knew that all they had was a corpus of fabricated documents.480 Although about 1204 King John set out in detail and confirmed the property and privileges of the convent, it was not until the election of Bishop Richard Poore in 1228 that the first written agreement was produced which defined the separate revenues of the bishop and the monks.481 The convent had, of course, continued to administer the lands which provided its own income. In the case of Elvet, for instance, the citizens were granted freedom from dues and customs by the convent, except for the conventual court, which the prior retained in his own hands, and the annual farm. The monks' right in the town market, however, was at the discretion of the bishop.482 Richard Poore was already well known to the Durham monks because they had once elected him as their bishop when he was dean at Salisbury. This occurred during the vacancy of 1208-1217, but their choice was not approved since neither king nor pope could agree to it. Richard was then consecrated to Chichester in 1215 and translated to Salisbury two years later. It was under his direction that the seat of the bishopric was moved from Old Sarum to Salisbury and the construction of the new church was begun. With his encouragement, several sets of statutes were issued which defined more clearly than ever before the rights of bishop and chapter. Already in 1213, as dean at Salisbury, he had had a hand in the formulation of the new cathedral constitution. 483 It is no surprise, then, that when he was translated again to Durham in 1228 he set about drawing up in writing an 479 480 482

K. Pennington, Pope and Bishops. The Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Philadelphia 1984), p. 11. Roger of Wendover, Liber, jRS-8411, pp. 256—257; Gibbs and Lang, Bishops and Reform, 481 p. 152. Feodarium, p. 94; VCH Durham, 11, pp. 91-92. 483 Ibid., p . 199. Charters and Documents ...of Salisbury, pp. I28ff.

149

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England agreement reached with his monks which was intended to put to rest the long controversy, dating from the very foundation of the restored priory, over their respective jurisdictions. Le Convenit was a lengthy document which defined very carefully, and in some cases for the first time, important aspects of the relationship between the two parties.484 The monks were granted free election of the prior, subject to episcopal approval of canonical legality; the prior, who then assumed the office of abbot, was to stand next to the bishop on his right side in choir; and the prior was to have his court free of certain episcopal customs. Thus the two most incessant demands of the monks dating back half a century, were at last conceded by the bishop. Additional concessions afforded the convent a greater role in the administration of church affairs and granted them increased jurisdiction in the liberty of Durham. The monks were to be associated with the bishop in the correction of faults found on his visitations; rights of presentation to certain churches were to rest with the monks, as was the custody of their churches sede vacante; the prior was to appoint and dismiss all monastic officials; the monks were to be quit of fees for procuration; and professions made to the prior were to be confirmed without delay by the bishop. The respective interests of the bishop and prior in judicial pleas and the profits of justice were defined, as well as the spoils of wreck, navigation on the Tees, woodland jurisdiction, and rights-of-way for the water supply over episcopal land. Nevertheless, it was not possible, in the nature of things, that the Le Convenit could have provided a satisfactory solution for all the administrative and legal disputes at Durham. While an effort was obviously made to be precise as to the governing powers of both bishop and convent, some points remained obscure, or unproven, and some aspects of episcopal intrusion into conventual affairs were left aside and not considered. As a precedent for future claims, however, the text was of paramount importance. "Until the dissolution, Le Convenit remained the monastery's basic charter of liberties. " 485 Insofar as its limitations are concerned, they can be illustrated by the disputes which occurred later in the century during the time of Bishop Anthony Bek (1283-1311). A serious controversy again flared up over the proper division of authority 484 485

Printed in Feodarium, p p . 212—219. R. D o b s o n , Durham Priory: 1400—1450, C a m b r i d g e Studies in Medieval Life and T h o u g h t , 3rd ser., 6 ( C a m b r i d g e 1973), p . 222. I5O

The cathedral priories

between bishop and prior. The convent was placed under siege, and Prior Hoton was injured, imprisoned, and finally excommunicated along with most of the obedientiaries. The bishop's men sequestered the lands of the monks on the grounds that episcopal right was regalian right. In 1302 Boniface VIII gave Bek the right to descend upon the cathedral with an entourage rather than to visit it unaccompanied, as the prior had thought proper, and in 1306 Clement V confirmed the administration of the church and convent to the bishop. Under royal pressure, however, this mandate was reversed in the following year. Bek finally named a new prior, useful to himself, but satisfactory to the monks, and the penalties of excommunication were lifted.486 Under Bek's successors, Richard Kellaw and Lewis de Beaumont, further concessions were made to the monks so that by the latter's death in 1333 the prior and convent can be said to have established a strongly protected independent corporation, resistant, if not immune, to the violent disputes and staggering losses which had marked the twelfth century and the thirteenth.487 ELY

The explanation given by William of Malmesbury for the establishment of the see of Ely in 1109 was that the diocese of Lincoln, out of which it was carved, was too big to be administered effectively. There is undoubtedly some truth in this since Dorchester-Lincoln was the largest of the English bishoprics and had had a history of problems which made it difficult to govern. In view of the steps taken to create the new bishopric, however, this reasoning may have been more a justification than a direct cause.488 After a long vacancy, which stretched all the way back to the last year of William the Conqueror, Richard, a son of Richard of Clare, was granted the abbey of Ely in 1106 by Henry I. His predecessor was Simeon who, it seems, had lost the strength to preserve the lands of his church from encroachment by his own lay 486

C. M. Fraser, A History of Anthony Bek, Bishop of Durham: 1283-1311 (Oxford 1957), p p . I3off. 487 A l t h o u g h Professor B a r l o w t o o k 1229 as the year w h e n " t h e history of the partition of the estates can be considered as almost finally closed," the sorting o u t and tidying u p lasted another century. See Durham Jurisdictional Peculiars, p. 10. 488 " T u n e enim quia Lincolniensis episcopatus diocesis nimium protendebatur, consilium habitum est ut apud Heli constitueretur episcopus, haberetque pagum Grantebriggensem," GP, p. 325.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England tenants, and who had finally asked the king to intervene on his behalf.489 Although the exact date is uncertain, at some time between 1086 and 1093 the abbot, as an unwilling partner, and Ranulf Flambard, acting on a royal mandate, made an arrangement to provide the monks of Ely with adequate support on a yearly basis.490 In addition to money payments of £70 towards their clothing and £60 for the kitchen, they were to receive renders of 200 fattened pigs (ad sagimen), all the pigs which grazed within the abbey, all the cheese and butter except that in the reeve's farm, as well as seven measures (treias) of grain and ten measures of malt weekly. To pay for the lights of the monastery they were to have the burial fees from St. Botulph's church, and if there was sufficient wine, a measure on twelve feast days and on Saturday, but if there was not enough, then half the ration. 491 This is the first instance of a division of property at Ely for which there is a documentary reference. Since the allocation was made by the custodian at the king's command, and was reported in detail only for the monks' portion, apparently it was an ad hoc arrangement made to answer current needs. There seems not to have been any kind of established procedure upon which the prior or the abbot could have relied. The monks, of course, had to be clothed and fed, but the allowance was made for specific items and expenses; it was not simply estate income to be used at the discretion of the convent. In the descriptio of the possessions of the abbey under Flambard the number of monks was put at seventy-two, and the chapter ordinance of the mid-thirteenth century referred to seventy monks as traditional.492 A century later the number had dropped to about fifty and continued to fall until the dissolution. According to a modern interpretation, the individual allocation to each monk by Flambard was calculated at £ 2 per annum. 493 The general arrangement undoubtedly reflected the efficiency (an inventory was taken) and the budgetary restraint (living expenses were pared down) of Flambard's managerial system. Normally the monks expected to draw supplies from the food farms which had been established many years before on their best manors. The 489 490 491 492

493

LE 11, nos. 135-137Ibid. F o r t h e dating p r o b l e m see t h e c o m m e n t s b y Blake, LE, p . 220, n o t e 1. Ibid., n o . 136. Ibid., no. 139. Ely Chapter Ordinances and Visitation Records: 1241—1515, ed. S. A. J. Evans, C a m d e n Society, 3rd ser. 64 (1940), p p . x, 1, 14. R. W . Southern, " R a n u l f F l a m b a r d , " in Medieval Humanism ( N e w Y o r k 1970), p . 190.

152

The cathedral priories

allocation made by Abbot Leofsig c. 1030, for instance, listed a group of estates sufficient for a year's provisions supplied on a rotating basis.494 While the new plan may have set some of the monks to murmuring, it probably provided them with a more stable income than they had recently been accustomed to. In practice, however, the returns were subject to constant fluctuations. Abbot Wulfric, in a moment of fraternal sympathy, alienated six estates on leases to his brother, Guthmund, who had found himself inadequately endowed to proceed with his intended marriage.495 Livermere, Occold, and Nacton in Suffolk, Garboldisham and Marham in Norfolk, and Benstead in Sandon in Essex, were granted to him in order to augment the marriage gift (maritagium) without the approval, and perhaps without even the knowledge, of the monks. Although an agreement was reached with Wulfric's successor, Thurstan, whereby the lands were to be returned after Guthmund's death, in the post-Conquest years they were seized and held by Hugh de Montfort.496 Other properties were lost because of the confusion caused by the military action in the Fens as a consequence of the suppression of Here ward's revolt. Parts of the vast holdings of Archbishop Stigand, acquired before his deposition from Canterbury and Winchester in 1070, included several Ely properties, but it is uncertain whether these estates had been usurped or simply leased out. Methwold and Croxton in Norfolk, for example, were held by Stigand from the monks for a food rent; and Methwold, at least, on condition that it be returned to the church on his death.497 Snail well in Cambridgeshire, another estate held by Stigand before the Conquest, although it belonged to the monks' demesne, was in the hands of the king in 1086 and held by Hugh de Port. Claimed by Abbot Simeon, it was not recovered until early in Bishop Nigel's time towards the middle of the twelfth century.498 Wood Ditton, likewise in Cambridgeshire, had also been in Stigand's possession, but it was taken by the king and farmed by William de Noyers at the time of Domesday Book.499 While there may be some truth in the view that Stigand acted as the protector of monastic houses which he 494

495 496

497 498

LE 11, n o . 84, but see Lennard, Rural England, p . 131, for the suggestion that the text is defective. LE 11, n o . 97, and p p . 424-425. Stubbs, Constitutional History, vol. 1, p . 674. DB 11, fo. 54a. H u g h de M o n t f o r t (Montfort s/Risle, Eure) was an i m p o r t a n t tenantin-chief in several southern counties including Kent, Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk. Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, 138, 195; D B 11, fo. 136b. 4 LE in, n o . 48. " D B 11, fo. 136a.

153

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England had taken in charge, rather than their despoiler, and that although a secular, he was often a generous benefactor to them, his reputation did not gain at the hands of contemporary monastic writers. Nor was it enhanced after his deposition by the necessity of claiming that he had held the abbey's lands unjustly in order that the monks might make a proper case for their restoration. 500 Abbot Wulfric died in 1065 and was succeeded by Thurstan (?io66-?iO73) and he, in turn, by Theodwin of Jumieges (? 1073—? 1076). There then occurred a vacancy of six years during which time the church estates were administered by Eudo, dapifer, aided by the Norman monk, Godfrey. During Thurstan's eight years in office an attempt was made to recover the privileges, and probably some of the property, of the monks. The loss of conventual rights was also of concern during the vacancy and finally a royal inquest was held at Kentford in 1081 to which the men of the shires came to testify to the customs belonging to the abbey.501 The judicial and fiscal rights of sake and soke, toll and team, and infangentheof, hamsocn, grithbryce, jihtwite and ferdwite,

within towns and without, which the abbey possessed in King Edward's day, were there confirmed by the king and repeated later in similar fashion by Henry I in his general charter to Ely.502 That William I was moved to have the Ely claims sorted out and the abbey's privileges restored is apparent from the writ for the inquest and from the confirmation issued afterwards.503 On the other hand, there is some question as to which of the privileges dated from the time of Edward the Confessor. Edward's charter was considered spurious by Harmer, and suspect by Blake, although probably based on an authentic original.504 It was probably drawn up, perhaps about 1080, as a document to support the monks' claims to their alienated property. The charter included the grant of sake and soke which does not appear in the authentic writ of the king by which he confirmed the grant of Ely abbey to Wulfric.505 Yet sake and soke were mentioned in the charter of 500 501

502 503 504 505

Blake, LE, p. 4 2 5 ; Barlow, The English Church, vol. 1, p . 78. Regesta 1, n o . 122. For the disputes and the p r o b l e m of dating see J. H . R o u n d , Feudal England. Historical Studies of the 11th and 12th Centuries (London 1895, repr. 1964), pp. 495-561, and E. Miller, " T h e Ely land pleas in the reign of William I," EHR 62 (1947). Blake has suggested a revised chronology in LE, p p . 426-432, and notes p p . 198—207. Regesta 11, n o . 1048; LE m , n o . 7. Regesta 1, nos. 129, 155; LE n, nos. 117, 120. AS Writs, p . 222; Blake, LE, p p . 417-418. T h e charter was printed in the LE 11, n o . 92. AS Writs, n o . 4 7 ; LE 11, nos. 95-95a.

154

The cathedral priories

William I, which makes their inclusion appear to be a postConquest addition. Not only are there some estates listed in the charter which cannot be found as part of the abbey's holdings until 1086, but there is also a reference to a spurious papal privilege of Victor II regarding episcopal immunity. 506 The confirmation charter of William I, moreover, while it refers to the day on which Edward died, does not list the properties he named, and the reason may be that it was composed at a later date. 507 William also restricted the lands to be recovered by excepting those which he himself had granted. The tenants of those thegnlands and sokelands were to reach an agreement with the abbot as best they could; if a satisfactory arrangement could not be worked out, the church was to have the land.508 The solution, in most cases, was to enfeoff the tenant who had usurped the land as a way of meeting the requirements of royal military service which bore heavily on the abbey.509 It was at this time that Abbot Simeon, being pressed by the king, kept a group of his knights in his household where they drew a daily allocation of food from the cellarer. This action created, temporarily, a kind of mini-mensa whereby the revenues of the abbot and the monks were shared with the military and the needs of the latter paid for from the resources of the monastery. There is no reason to doubt the complaint of the author of the Liber Eliensis that the armed men were a serious burden to monastic life. Thus we may have here an illustration of the way in which the demands imposed by the servitia debita of the Norman kings influenced the move on the part of a cathedral chapter, or in this case the convent, to divide the mensa. But even though the depletion of the Ely lands was considerable, especially during the two long vacancies from 1075 to 1081, and from 1093 to 1100, little was accomplished in the way of a permanent settlement of property between abbot and monks before the twelfth century. Several other vacancies, 506 507

509

LE 11, n o . 93. Regesta I, n o . 155; LE 11, n o . 120. C . H a r t (The Eqrly Charters of Essex [Leicester 1966], p . 27) supposed it t o have been w r i t t e n u p after the C o n q u e s t in order t o aid the 508 recovery of estates lost t h r o u g h the invasiones. LE 11, nos. 120-121. " E x h o c e n i m abbas, compulsus n o n ex industria aut favore d i v i t u m vel p r o p i n q u o r u m affectu, quasdam terras sancte Ethelrede invasoribus in f e u d u m permisit tenere, sicuti Picoto vicecomiti, H a r d w i n o de Escal', Rog[ero] Bicot, Herev[eo] B i t u r i c u ' , et aliis...," LE 11, n o . 134. R o g e r B i g o d claimed land in Suffolk w h i c h belonged t o the a b b o t of Ely. T h e a b b o t later p r o v e d his right there so that R o g e r then held of the abbot, LE, 135. T h e same can b e said of D a r m s d e n , also in Suffolk, DB 11, fo. 283.

155

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England between 1107 and 1109, 1131 and 1133, 1169 and 1174, and 1215

and 1220, which will be discussed later, generated similar losses and posed similar problems of recovery. The Domesday returns differentiated between the estates of the monks, which were largely in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, and the estates of the abbot, which were to be found in Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Hertfordshire, and Huntingdonshire, but neither was it clear here that any kind of permanent division had been made. In Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire the heading was "the land of the abbot of Ely;" in Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex it was "the land of Saint Aethelreda;" and in Huntingdonshire it was "the land of the abbey of Ely." The entries for Cambridgeshire show that most of the estates were held by the abbot, while a few were said to be in the demesne of the church. In Hertfordshire the three manors of Hadham, Hatfield, and Kelshall were in the church's demesne but all three were held by the abbot. The Norfolk and Suffolk lands were held by St. Aethelreda before the Conquest, but by 1086 many had been encroached upon with the result that the abbot, as the feudatory, rather than the saint, gained in prominence. 510 Banham in Norfolk, for example, was held in the survey by William d'Ecoris from the abbey, although the monks had possessed it in 1066 in the name of their spiritual patron. 511 In other cases, what had once been abbey land was later subinfeudated and the pertinent rights then passed to the abbot. Oxwick and Calveley, both estates of the saint before the Conquest, were held of the abbot in 1086 by Rainald, son of Ivo, and by Berner, respectively.512 This was also the case with Tuddenham, Yaxham, and Pyrleston (Billingford), and numerous other properties.513 The Essex estates were particularly hard hit by the invasiones. In a few cases there is the suggestion that some of them had been previously allocated to the monks, since it is they who entered the claim. Bensted, which was held by Hugh de Montfort and his tenant in 1086, is an example, as well as property which the abbey had possessed in South Hanningfield and in Witham. 514 Other manors were in the hands of the abbot or the church before the Conquest and were claimed by him. Land at Rettendon, for instance, had been held from the church of Ely, but in 1086 it was divided between Ranulf Peverel, who held of the king, and Eudo, 510 513

DB n, fo. 212b. Ibid., fo. 214b.

5n

Ibid., fo. 213b. 514

156

512 Ibid., fos. 214a and 214b. Ibid., fo. 97b.

The cathedral priories

dapifer, who held of the abbot. Likewise, Roding with Shellow, Easter, and Amberden, once abbatial, had been lost to lay magnates and an attempt was made by the abbot to recover them. 515 In Huntingdonshire, although the main heading was terra abbatiae de Ely, the entries for the estates were listed under the abbot who held them. There is, however, an ambiguity in the manuscript abbreviation "abb.", which can be taken as "abbot" or " abbey," for the estates at Colne, Bluntisham, and Somersham. Peake, writing in the Victoria County History, considered Bluntisham as the "land of the abbey," while in the same volume, Simkins decided that at Somersham and Colne it should be "lands of the abbot." Since all three properties ultimately went to the bishop, the correct reading is probably "abbot," rather than "abbey," and this is the opinion of the latest editor in the Phillimore edition.516 From these examples, it does not appear that the distinctions made in Domesday Book between "abbot's land" and "monks' land" are clear or consistent enough to allow one to argue for more than a loose arrangement of allocated estates and overlapping jurisdiction. With this in mind, it is disappointing to come to the establishment of the bishopric of Ely in 1109, an unusual opportunity one would have thought to see to what extent the new bishop assumed the position, and the property, of the former abbot, to find that the picture of the divided mensa was not yet in focus. In large part this lack of clarity can be attributed to the number of suspect charters which makes a precise chronological analysis of episcopal aims and motives extremely difficult. The plan for creating another diocese in Cambridgeshire can be traced at least to the time of Abbot Richard early in the reign of Henry I. Richard's appointment in 1100, when Henry was in a vulnerable political position, served both to fill a long vacancy at Ely, and to bring a trusted member of the Clare family to an important ecclesiastical post.517 Within a short time, however, Richard was deposed, in circumstances which are still not clear, only to be restored, probably within the year, to live out the remainder of his life at Ely. The Liber Eliensis lays the rapid 515 516 517

Ibid., fos. 60b, 62, 74. VCH, Hunts., n, pp. 154, 168, 224; DB-Phil, Cambridgeshire, fo. 190c. At the same time the king appointed Robert, son of the earl of Chester, as abbot of Bury St. Edmunds. Neither action met with the approval of Archbishop Anselm. R. W . Southern, Saint Anselm and his Biographer, p. 168.

157

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England dismissal and reappointment to a personal antagonism between the king and Richard's family. Given the apparent lack of any deepseated principles in the case, this seems a reasonable explanation. 518 It is likely that it was Richard who proposed the plan to convert Ely abbey into a bishopric because, as the story goes, the diocese of Lincoln was "too full of people," or simply because it was "too big. " 519 But it is difficult to imagine that Lincoln, which was the second largest diocese in extent after York was overly populated in the early twelfth century. More to the point is Eadmer's view that there was too much acreage to administer properly. 520 Richard, moreover, was a man of some ambition and it is tempting to assume that he saw in the new bishopric not only a chance to acquire higher status for himself, but also a way of reducing the influence of the bishop of Lincoln in the affairs of Ely. Ecclesiastical immunity was an active issue at the time, and resistance to the interference of the diocesan, in part a reaction to the submissive outlook of the aged Abbot Simeon, stiffened during this period. 521 It was for this reason that the monks of Ely looked for the origins of their privileges in the spurious charters of King Edward and Victor II.522 Upon Richard's death in 1107 the abbey was taken into the king's hands and placed under the administration of Hervey, the former bishop of Bangor. Hervey had been a chaplain to William II, as well as to Henry I, and he had been appointed to the Welsh see in 1092 as a result of the Norman military advance into Gwynedd. When the conquest faltered he was forced out of office by the natives and quickly fled to the royal court. 523 He was with the king at Gloucester at Christmas time in 1093 and then, after his expulsion, he was present at the Council of Westminster in 1102, when Richard of Ely was deposed.524 As a reward for his services, 518

LE n, nos. 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 ; P- 413519 " ^ t a c o u n c { i h e i j a t N o t t i n g h a m in the a u t u m n of 1109, because the diocese of Lincoln was ' v e r y full of people,' H e n r y I established a bishopric at Ely w i t h Cambridgeshire as its diocese," Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, p . 7 5 ; see also Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, no. 419; Regesta 11, no. 919, LE m, no. 6. 520 HN, p p . 195-196. See also a letter from Paschal II to A n s e l m : " Lincolniensem itaque episcopatum t a n t u m t a m q u e spatiosum ex filii nostri regis vetrisque litteris a g n o v i m u s , ut ad ea q u e episcopalis sunt officii peragenda unus nulla terms sumcere possit episcopus," 521 LE, p p . 402—409. LE in, n o . 5. 522 Ibid., n, nos 92—93, and p p . 417—418. 523 D a v i d W a l k e r , " T h e N o r m a n Settlement in W a l e s , " Anglo-Norman Studies 1 (1978),

I3I-I43524

Councils and Synods, vol. 1, pp. 6 6 8 - 6 7 5 ; Episcopal Acts and Cognate Documents Relating

to Welsh Dioceses: 1066-1272, ed. J. Conway Davies, (Cardiff 1946) vol. 1, pp. 92-97.

158

The cathedral priories

Henry I had first attempted to place him in the bishopric of Lisieux. Failing that, he had conferred upon him the custodianship of Ely abbey and, before long, he approved his appointment as the first bishop, all of which steps testify to consistent royal favor.525 Hervey, for his part, did what he could by promises and favors to enlist the support of the Ely monks in the plan for the bishopric.526 Two charters of the king issued late in Abbot Richard's time, or soon after his death, also helped to pave the way. 527 One of them confirmed the restoration of the manor at Hadham which Richard had won from Ranulf Flambard after a favorable hearing in the royal court; the other, in which there is no reference to the abbot, granted freedom from toll and customs to the monks for the supply of wood, lead, iron, and stone to be used in the construction of their church.528 With the appointment of Hervey to Ely there occurred a kind of intricate, but ill-defined, traditio whereby the bishop (or the bishop and the church together) inherited the authority of the abbot (or the authority of the abbot and the church together). In a charter, addressed to the tenants of see, which was one among several issued by Henry I about 1109, it was reaffirmed that all those lands which Abbot Simeon had had in his demesne on the day he died, Hervey and the church should now have in their demesne. An exception was made, however, of the estates expressly held by the convent of the king or the abbot. 529 Thus it could be said that the proprietary power passed from the abbot to the bishop and his church, although the wording of the charters is not consistent and it would be incautious to read into them any kind of planned constitutional change. The feudal lordship, however, clearly belonged to the bishop. Tenants of lands which had been recognized as part of the fee of the church in the time of William I were to acknowledge that they held of the bishop, and they were to render to him the required military service.530 He, on the other hand, undertook to fulfill the other feudal obligations such as garrison duty and scutage payments. It is well known, for example, that Hervey bought out the military service due at 525 526 527

528

530

T h e king's proposal o f Lisieux w a s t h w a r t e d b y Anselm, OV v, p p . 3 2 2 - 3 2 3 , n o t e 4. LEm, no. 1. A revised scheme o f dating H e n r y ' s charters t o Ely, based o n Farrer's " I t i n e r a r y , " was offered b y Blake, L £ , p p . 2 5 2 - 2 5 3 , n o t e 1. F o r H a d h a m see LE n, n o . 149; Regesta n, n o . 684. F o r t h e exemptions, Regesta n , n o . 529 7 7 1 ; LE ra, n o . 2 1 . Regesta 11, n o . 9 3 1 ; LE in, n o . 10. Regesta n, nos. 1420, 1503, 1543; L E m , n o . 11.

159

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Norwich castle from the king at a cost of £1,000, and that he was able to reduce the scutage tax from £100 to £60 for the sum of About the year 1114 Henry I again confirmed all the lands and possessions which belonged to the bishopric, and all the ancient liberties and customs of the church. Much of the wording of this charter was lifted verbatim from the grant of William I, so that it was not so much a statement which implied a contrast between the bishop's property and the convent's, as the repetition of a royal confirmation made before the see was established. Hervey, for his part, succeeded in recovering several properties for his church including Chatteris abbey, a weekly market in Hadstock (Essex), and a fair in Ely on the feast of St. Etheldreda (23 June). Although again confirmed by the king in the name of the church and bishop, these restorations were chiefly additions for the benefit of the priory.532 In other cases, the bishop, like the abbot before him, granted away church land, including property assigned to the monks, in the form of knights' fees.533 But some adjustment was usually made. The manor of Pampisford and Little Thetford in Cambridgeshire, for instance, which were Domesday lands of the abbot, were bestowed by Hervey on his nephew, William, the archdeacon of Cambridge. This was done, apparently, with the approval of the prior and convent, and the rent of 5 s per annum for Thetford was payable to the monks.534 The fact that church land often seems to have been considered as much the bishop's as the monks' raises the question as to whether Hervey was responsible for a divided mensa at Ely. Bentham thought that he was: "Hervey being settled in his bishoprick and judging it better and more convenient both for himself and the monks to have their estates separate and independent of each other, thought proper to apply to the king (for approval)."535 Seiriol Evans, in the introduction to the Ely Chapter Ordinances, went even further: " From that date (1109) the prior became president of the house, and the bishop, though titular 531

534 535

Regesta 11, nos. 1499 and 1656, and in Bentham, The History and Antiquities of Ely, appx., xviii, xix, xxi, xxii, xxiv. For the historical problem see Round, Feudal England, p. 268; Frank Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism: 1066-1166 (Oxford 1932, 2nd edn. O x f o r d 1950), p p . i79fF.; Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, p . 157. It was n o t the first time H e n r y I h a d sold an e x e m p t i o n from military duty, see Regesta 11, n o . 532 533 1306. Regesta 11, nos. 1542, 1576, 1620. LE 11, n o . 134. Regesta 11, no. 1502 and Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, p. 280. B e n t h a m , The History and Antiquities of Ely, p . 133 a n d appx., x x v a n d xxvi. 160

The cathedral priories

abbot, was left with jursidiction only as a visitor. " 536 But Professor Miller was more cautious: "One eventual result of the estabhshment of a bishopric at Ely in 1109 was that, in the Isle and elsewhere, the bishop and the cathedral priory became landowners more or less independent of one another." 537 If, in Bentham's words, the bishop thought it "better and more convenient," the question is why did he think so? That royal approval was needed for a division of property within the see is nowhere shown to have been the case. Nor is Evans' view substantiated by the evidence, since the bishop possessed more extensive powers than those of a visitor for many years after 1109. As Miller's statement implies, the mensal separation was not accomplished all at once in 1109; rather it was a gradual process and the lack of an acceptable definition of episcopal and monastic jurisdiction troubled the bishopric for most of the twelfth century. This point was made clear in his monograph on the abbey: "The final division of the lands of Ely abbey between bishops and monks took time... A stable territorial settlement between bishop and monks may not in fact have been reached much before the early years of Henry II's reign." 538 This view is borne out by the evidence which indicates that nothing definite in the way of an independent monastic mensa was achieved before mid-century. Hervey, to be sure, had made a division of the church property, but he did it in such a way as to invite the hostility of the convent. They wanted more than he was willing to give them. What he did grant was specified in two charters of disputed historical value. In the first one, the bishop separated the property, which produced income for the monks' food and clothing, from the episcopal holdings, and arranged the division under the headings "ad vestitum," "ad victum," "ad luminare ecclesie,9' "ad operationem eccelesie," and "ad opus

ecclesie. " 539 In the second charter the headings were omitted and the content varied slightly, but the division of property was similar.540 What differences there are, however, are important, and they stand out from a comparison of the two texts. The first charter, which is undated, listed the following estates, all in Suffolk, ad vestitum: Stoke, Melton, Kingston, Bawdsey, Sudbourne, Rescemere, Hoo, and five and a half hundreds of the soke 536 538 540

537 Ely Chapter Ordinances, p. vii. E. Miller, VCH Cambridgeshire, iv, p. 7. 53d Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, pp. 75-76. Ibid., pp. 282-283. LE in, no. 26.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England of Widow. The estates ad victum were Winston, Lakenheath, Undley, Sceppeia, and Fotesthorp in Suffolk; Stuntney, Littleport, Sutton, Whittlesea, Willingham, Hardwick, Hauxton, Newton, Melbourne, and Meldreth in Cambridgeshire. There were another two estates ad luminare at Wentworth and Turbutsey, also in Cambridgeshire. Hatfield and Hadham in Hertfordshire were listed ad operationem. A further group included Rettendon and Littlebury church in Essex, the church of St. Mary in Ely, and other lesser assets, such as a cow farm at Bela, twelve measures of grain from the sons of Hardouin de Sealers, four measures of cheese from Dernford (Cambridgeshire), eight measures of salt, a vineyard, 30,000 herrings from Dunwich (Suffolk), 20,000 eels from Stuntney (Cambridgeshire), six fishermen with their houses and men, customary wood, and a man with his house and land at Bluntisham where the wood was collected. The second charter omitted the Suffolk estates of Kingston and Ho, the Cambridge estates of Littleport, Willingham, and Hardwick, those in Hertforshire at Hatfield and Hadham, and Rettendon and Littlebury in Essex. Instead of eight measures of salt it specified six from Tirenton. On the other hand, it included manors at Witcham, Witchford, Stretham, Shelford, and Swaffham, all in Cambridgeshire; the tithe of the demesne farm (bertona); Barham in Suffolk; and 23,000 eels instead of 20,000. This charter was printed by Bentham without comment, but it was cited as spurious by Miller who had the first one to compare with it.541 He found the wording suspect, and considered that the more generous grants it contained were a sign that it had been compounded by the monks for their own benefit. On the other hand, Blake, in a recent study, has been inclined to accept them both on the grounds that the first charter represented concessions by the bishop with which the monks were dissatisfied so that he met their demands by the second.542 Moreover, in the first charter Hervey granted merely "incomes from certain manors for the various requirements of the convent (necessaria monachorum), as distinct from the res episcopates, and such an assignment, conferring no rights of administration or free disposal of the manors themselves, is all that the Ely charter records. Possession and independent control of the manors themselves were the subject of the later grant. " 543 541

Bentham, The History and Antiquities of Ely, appx. xxvi. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric 542 543 of Ely, pp. 75-76, and p. 76, note 1. LE, pp. 1-li. Ibid. 162

The cathedral priories The significance of the change in the meaning of the words, however, is not clear, nor is it obvious that the second charter improved greatly on the first in the value of the assets which were granted. The first charter reads, "I have separated the property used for the food and clothing of the monks from the episcopal possessions, and I have granted this division inperpetuum " followed by the list of estates.544 The wording of the second charter embraces a more detailed explanation of the reasons for Hervey 's decision: I have ordered the possessions of the monks to be separated from the episcopal property. Since the conventual possessions were formerly held in common, and fearing that this arrangement, if continued, might give rise to disputes in the future, I have worked out a separation of conventual and episcopal property, and I have allowed the monks, who have agreed to this, to hold the estates listed below. I grant that this plan should remain in perpetuum unless one of my successors should make a more generous allocation.545 This reference to the charter follows a description of the see in the Liber Eliensis in which Hervey is said to have made initially a rather parsimonious division of church goods by separating the monastic property from the episcopal in such a cunning way that he took the best estates for himself, and left the convent with lands which were so poor that they failed to produce sufficient income. 546 The monks murmured and complained on the grounds that, according to the canons, they should have an equal share with the bishop. Hervey's view seems to have been that as a monastic community they were to hold their property in common, but that once the monastery became the bishop's abbey a separation of 544

"... monachis eiusdem loci victum et vestitum separatim a rebus episcopalibus ordinasse et sic ordinatum inperpetuum concessisse," Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, p. 282. 545 "...decrevi necessaria monachorum a rebus episcopalibus separare. Monachorum quippe prius per o m n e m eiusdem cenobii postestatem communiter capiebantur, ego vero, si eodem m o d o in posterum maneret aliquam tali de causa seditionem timens pullulare, res monachorum a rebus episcopalibus separatim ordinavi et ad ipsorum necessaria eisdem ad horam assentientibus hec subscripta illos separatim possidere permisi et, ut permissa et divisa sunt, nisi siquid a posteris meis erga eos liberalius fiat, in perpetuum manere concedo," LE HI, no. 26. 546 " j j j c q U oque victum monachorum Helyensium de rebus episcopalibus primum, sed artissime, separavit, concipiens dolorem perpetui dispendii atque discriminis, statuens eis pro multis latis et optimis particulas terrarum steriles et vix aliquas fertilis glebe, que sibi nee advenientibus hospitibus ad annonam sumciunt...," ibid., no. 25.

163

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England goods was desirable to avoid dissension. But the division he made was not into equal portions and it is unlikely that he even thought of doing it that way. Nor is it clear that the second charter gave the monks the right of alienation of their estates whereas the first did not. As to the value of the endowment in the two charters, the second does not reflect a marked improvement over the first. Nine estates were lost to the monks in the second, while six others were added. The only way to determine net loss or gain is by basing a valuation on the Domesday appraisals. Although this is an imperfect method because the income may well have changed over the years, and, if the estate were divided, it is not always known what part lay with the church lands, it can be made to yield a rough figure for purposes of comparison. The missing lands in the second charter, in Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Hertfordshire, and Essex, had a total Domesday valuation of almost >£9O.547 This was partially made up by some additions the total value of which amounted to £47. 548 Thus, there appears to have been a net loss of about ^43. 5 4 9 It is quite possible that the deficit disappeared because of a rise in land values, especially if the transfer, for which Hervey's charter is evidence, occurred late in his term of office.550 Nevertheless, it would be incautious to argue that the second charter represented a substantial improvement over the first and was issued, therefore, to quiet the protests of the monks. The second charter, which was inserted into the abbey chronicle and lacks a witness list, retains enough suspicious phrasing to give it the character of a text inflated for the benefit of the community. Because it was a more valuable charter to them than the first, it alone was copied into the cartulary. The comprehensive clause regarding grants made to the abbey either before, during, or after Hervey's time would have been an unnecessary episcopal concession. The grant to the monks of their own court is corroborated by no other evidence while Hervey was bishop. Nor can the suggestion made in the Liber Eliensis that the monks expected an equal division of the endowment according to the laws of the 547

548 549

Suffolk: Kingston 40s, H o o £4; Cambridgeshire: Littleport £10, Willingham 100s, Hardwick 100s; Hertfordshire: Hatfield £ 2 5 , Hadham £ 1 5 ; Essex: Rettendon £ 2 0 , Littlebury church (this is uncertain, although the estate was worth £ 2 0 ) . Suffolk: Barham 120s; Cambridgeshire: Witcham £ 5 , Witchford £ 1 0 , Stretham £9, Shelford ,£12, Swaffham 100s. The increase of 3,000 eels may have been offset by the loss of salt. The tithe of the barton 55 is unknown. ° SeeMiller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, p. 200.

164

The cathedral priories 551

church be verified. Although there exists a charter, purportedly of Henry I, which approves such a mutual division of goods, there is no other reason to think that this was Hervey's plan. The wording of that particular charter, moreover, is also suspect, since it promises to the monks more than was customary in royal grants, and it exists only as a copy in the Liber Eliensis.552 It is more likely that Hervey, while he allocated income from certain estates to the monks, retained control of the properties as, in theory, the abbot had done before him. It was not difficult, therefore, for the bishop to alienate lands, to hold back, or to redirect income as he wished.553 The lack of a sufficiently developed monastic administration during the first two decades of the existence of the bishopric was to lead to a series of particularly bitter disputes with Hervey's successor, Bishop Nigel. After Hervey's death in 1131, the see lay vacant and in the king's hands until the appointment of Nigel, the royal treasurer, in 1133. According to the Ely chronicler, it was a time of troubles during which the monks lost their hold on their possessions and were forced to accept the management of their property by outsiders.554 Hervey's ministry, in comparison, looked positively beneficial. Even a rudimentary division of the mensa was no insurance against appropriation by regalian right. The difficulties, moreover, continued during the long tenure of Nigel down to 1169. Although the bishop was successful in recovering some properties which had been alienated from the see, he also granted away lands to his military tenants, and lost others to King Stephen. That this was now seen as clearly a morally indefensible action is shown by the fact that throughout he was constantly dogged by the papacy to get the estates back.555 Soon after he was consecrated, Nigel had 551 552

553

555

LEm, no. 25. " Sciatis quia volo et concedo et precipio q u o d m o n a c h i ecclesie de Hely habeant de sua abbatia iustam p o r t i o n e m et e q u a m divisionem secundum m o r e m et ius ecclesiasticum in omnibus r e b u s . . . , " LE m , n o . 8; Regesta n, n o . 1050. William of M a l m e s b u r y p u t the total yearly revenue of the see of Ely in the 1120s at £ 1 , 4 0 0 , of w h i c h the m o n k s had ^ 3 ° ° - GP, p . 324. In theValor ecclesiasticus of the time of H e n r y VIII the t w o parts were valued (very roughly) at £ 2 , 3 1 4 for the bishop, and £ 1 , 0 8 4 for the m o n k s . Whereas in the early twelfth century the m o n k s held about 21 percent of the total assessed value, in the sixteenth they had increased their interest to about 47 percent. For continued episcopal control under H e r v e y and Nigel see the comment in D . Lohrmann, Kirchengut im nordlichen Frankreich. Besitz, Verfassung und Wirtschaft im Spiegel der Papstprivilegien des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts, Pariser historische 554

Studien, Bd. 20 (Bonn 1983), p. 149. PUE 11, nos. 63, 92-93, 96, 98-100.

165

LE in, no. 41.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England an inventory made of the priory's assets which resulted in a formal hearing at Wandlebury before Ralph Basset and Aubrey de Vere, the commissioners for Cambridgeshire.556 As a way of freeing his hands for important business elsewhere, the administration of the Ely lands was given over to Nigel's clerk, Ranulf of Salisbury, who, according to the abbey account, did what he liked, took what he wanted, and reduced the monks to servitude.557 The old prior was deposed and Ranulf was said to entertain grand designs for control of the church independent of the bishop. If he had such a plan, he never was able to put it into action, for by 1137 he had fled the precincts, his co-conspiraters had been punished, and Nigel had regained control. The evidence for the whole episode is tantalizingly fragmentary, and it is of no great importance for the development of the mensa except to illustrate the ease with which the monastic establishment could be thrown into disorder and driven to penury because it had not yet mastered an effective defense against the intrusion of the king or the bishop.558 But whether they wished it or not the fortunes of the monks were still tied to the political status of their episcopal lord. They might prosper when he was in favor with the king, but they certainly were bound to suffer when he was estranged. At the time of the famous arrest of the bishops by Stephen in 1139, when his uncle, Roger of Salisbury, was stripped of his see and his wealth, Nigel found himself without a friend at court and took refuge, temporarily, in his castle at Devizes. The king then took over the temporalia, and quickly exacerbated the problems relating to the endowment which the monks of Ely faced. Nigel defied the king, and eventually returned to the fens where he was besieged in the Isle of Ely before he left to take refuge with Matilda.559 In 1140 he was deprived of his bishopric, and many of his valuables, including horses and clothes, were stolen from him by the king's men at Wareham in Dorset while he was preparing to go to Rome.560 To make good his losses, Nigel took certain properties of the priory into his own hands, illustrating once again that while the mensa had been divided, the bishop enjoyed the decisive authority. This action provoked further complaints from the monks, as well as 556

558

560

LE in, nos. 48 and 50. For the earlier inventory of Flambard, see LE n, no. 139; and for 557 LE m, no. 51. the one preceding his, ibid. no. 114. The plot is discussed by E. O. Blake, "The Historia Eliensis as a source for twelfth559 Gesta Stephani, pp. 65-67. century history," BJRL 41 (1959), 319. LE m, nos. 73, 78, 89, 92.

166

The cathedral priories 561

from the papacy. At a London council held by the royalist bishop of Winchester, Henry of Blois, Nigel was accused of alienating church property by endowing knights' fees, and of treason against the king.562 He was forced to make amends by agreeing to give up the Hadstock estate and by paying a fine of 300 marks to Stephen.563 The chief concern of the pope was that ecclesiastical property should not be alienated, whether by bishops or monks, or by kings or laymen. Innocent II had addressed a privilege to Nigel in April of 1139 approving the restoration of some estates to the monks. The list is very similar to those in the charters allegedly issued by Bishop Hervey, except that the three Cambridge manors of West Wratting, Stetchworth, and Stapleford were now included.564 It was, moreover, a principle of canon law, Innocent reminded Nigel, that "neither the property of the monks, nor property which you have reserved for episcopal use may be broken up or subinfeudated as knights' fees. Property alienated was to be recovered, and, once recovered, it was to remain within the jurisdiction of the church under the bishop's care. " 565 Thus the papal position, not surprisingly, reinforced the superior place of the bishop in his church. It was he who was to recover lost lands, it was he who was to keep them intact, and in this regard the monks played a secondary role. They were cautioned only against wasting the endowment. Innocent, indeed, enlisted the help of the king, the bishop of Winchester and the archbishop of Canterbury, in the task of restoring the Ely patrimony. Lucius II, in turn, took up the cause again, and the injunction against alienation was repeated by Eugenius III who maintained that neither bishop nor abbot could make free use of church property.566 Eugenius revoked not only the grants of property taken from the church which had been made by Nigel, but also those made by Hervey, and even those made by their predecessor Richard, the abbot of Ely, who had died in 1107.567 The repeated admonitions, however, show that Nigel paid scant attention to the lessons taught in Rome. Some knights' fees which were in fact recovered by Nigel were later let out again for 581 562

563 564

568

Ibid., p p . 434-436. Ibid., n o . 77. For the date of the council see Councils and Synods, vol. I, ii, p p . 794fF.; J. H. Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville. A Study of the Anarchy (London 1892), pp. 411—413. LE p . 325, n o t e 16. PUE n, n o . 2 1 ; LE in, n o . 56. Innocent had already confirmed the restoration of estates 565 PUE 11, n o . 2 1 . in 1138, cf. PUE 11, n o . 17. 567 Ibid., nos. 22, 23, 27, 35, 36, 40. Ibid., n o . 6 3 ; LE in, n o . 95.

167

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England military service during the disorder of the 1140s. The Pampisford estate is a case in point. It had been granted to William, archdeacon of Cambridgeshire, by his uncle, Bishop Hervey, but it was restored by Nigel at the Wandelbury plea about 1135. Afterwards, however, it was subinfeudated again by the bishop and in 1166 it was held by Walter of Pampisford.568 In 1166 the knights' fees held by the bishop of Ely of the old enfeoffment amounted to fifty-six and a quarter, and sixteen and a half of the new, making a total of seventy-two and three quarters.569 At that time these figures put Ely in fourth place behind Lincoln with 104, Canterbury with ninety-one and a half, and Winchester with seventy-four and a half. As successor to the abbots of Ely, Nigel maintained his right to administer and, by administering, to add to, or to dispose of, the assets of the priory.570 Thus it was that Hadrian IV, about the year 1156, issued another set of directives for the restoration of property lost since 1133.571 Were his demands not met, the pope threatened to suspend Nigel from office. At this point Archbishop Theobald intervened on the bishop's behalf to protest that Nigel had incurred many expenses and that he was making every effort (laborat ad sanguinem) to comply with the pope's mandate. It was not so much the fault of the bishop, said Theobald, in an interesting twist of logic, as the fault of those who held the estates of the church unjustly.572 In the meantime Nigel was obliged to pay 100 marks on orders of the papal agent, Boso, who also took an additional ten marks for himself, and the deadline for the recovery of the property was extended.573 The principal estates in question were at Rettendon in Essex, Marham in Norfolk, and Hartest in Suffolk, all of which were held by the bishop in 1086, but had been subinfeudated to comply with the increase in knight service demanded by the king.574 The treasury at Ely was also to furnish income to offset the bishop's expenses and provide security for his debts. About n 59 Nigel was said to have paid £400 to Henry II in order that his son, Richard, might have the office of treasurer.575 The Ely chronicler, 568

569

571 573

Regesta n , n o . 1502; PR 31 H e n r y I, p . 44. See the discussion b y Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, pp. 168-171. Thomas K. Keefe, Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and his 570 Sons (Berkeley 1983), p. 27, and p. 244, note 5. LE m, nos. 90, 92. 572 PUE 11 no. 92; LE in, 123. Saltman, Theobald, no. 103. 574 575 JSL 1, no. 42. Ibid. p. 71, note 3. LE m, no. 122.

168

The cathedral priories

however, in recounting the affair, implied that Nigel did not have the cash to do it. The suggestion was made that he raised so large a sum by pawning the richly embroidered palla which had been given to the church by Queen Emma many years before, as well as several other valuable objects.576 The palla had already proved to be a useful asset when it was loaned to Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, for the same purpose. Whether the £400 was > ^n fact> a bribe, or whether it was accepted as a tax is uncertain. The bishop of Ely appears to have been exempt from the assessment either for the scutage or the donum of 1159 levied by the king to finance the war in Toulouse. But the £400 was a figure not far from the £500 in payments made by the bishops of Winchester and Lincoln at the time, and it is possible that it represented the Ely contributor 577 A further example of the difficulty which the monks faced in assembling the pieces of their patrimony is afforded by the Stetchworth case. William, the archdeacon, who had been granted Pampisford and Little Thetford by Bishop Hervey had a son named Henry who, in due course, laid claim to the estate at Stetchworth in Cambridgeshire. He produced a charter from Bishop Hervey which was promptly disputed by the monks as a forgery. They sent off an appeal to Rome in the spring of 1150, alleging that Henry had usurped the manor and had let it out "in knights' fees and for secular uses." 578 Nigel, evidently as a conciliatory gesture, took Henry into custody until Archbishop Theobald intervened and he was released and reseised. Theobald then appointed the bishop of Norwich and the abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, both monks themselves, to investigate the case. Not surprisingly they found for the Ely monks who then took the estate into their own hands. Henry, at length, was absolved of the charge of forgery, but in turn demanded damages against the prior for illegal detention of Stetchworth. Eugenius III then appointed Gilbert Foliot to hear the case in the summer of 1152. He dismissed the charges brought by Henry and awarded the estate to the priory. Henry, ever persistent, appealed to Anastasius IV who did no more than confirm Foliot's decision in an order of September 576 577

578

Ibid., nos. 92 and 122. P a y m e n t s from Ely for the dona d o n o t appear in the Pipe Roll for 5 H e n r y II, n o r are they o n R o u n d ' s list (Feudal England, p p . 125—127). See the remarks b y Blake in LE, p . 372, notes 1-3. " A d militare officium et ad seculares usus," PUE 11, n o . 6 1 ; LE, p . 4 0 5 ; Saltman, Theobald, pp. 146-150; Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, pp. 168—171.

169

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England 579

1153. He left open, however, for one year, the question of the right to the property.580 Theobald thereupon invested the monks with the estate and obtained a confirmation from Stephen. 581 After a certain point Nigel appears not to have interfered in the affair and the monks themselves carried their case to a successful conclusion. Stetchworth, a practical object of the papal resolve to prevent alienation of church property, remained with the priory throughout the rest of the century. At the time of the dispute, the archdeacons were also accused by the monks of encroaching on other of their churches and customs. The violation of the priory's privileges within the Isle, and a later quarrel between the prior and the archdeacons in the time of Bishop Geoffrey Ridel (1173-1189) over which party should present the bishop-elect to the primate for consecration, were serious matters of concern.582 They had the effect, however, of throwing into sharper relief the rights which the community was gradually bringing to definition.583 A charter of Prior Alexander, who made his first appearance about 1151, records the significance of these mid-century years in the move towards the priory's independence.584 It referred to a grant made by the Ely convent, independently of the bishop, of the Isle of Coveney to their steward, Ralph. In it Alexander made clear that neither he nor the monks would entertain any claim that Coveney had been given out by the church in Hervey's time, when the monks did not have access to their seal, or in the time of Bishop Nigel, when he held their lands and property in his own possession. They guaranteed nothing, in fact, concerning Coveney, which might have been agreed upon previous to the present instrument which was validated by their common agreement.585 The implications of the statement are worth noting. We see that the monks possessed a seal 579

581 582 583 584

585

PUE 11, nos. 6 1 - 6 2 , 64, 67-68, 7 1 , 74, 79. A reconstruction of t h e c h r o n o l o g y was 580 prepared b y Blake, LE, p p . 405—407. Ibid., p . 124, n o t e 4. B e n t h a m , The History and Antiquities of Ely, p . 216. LE, p . 124, n o t e 4 ; B e n t h a m , The History and Antiquities of Ely, p . 216. LE in, n o . 37, 102; Saltman, Theobald, n o . 102. F o r Alexander see LE in, n o . 103. His charter was printed b y Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, p p . 287-288, from B L . M S . C o t t o n C l a u d . C . xi, fo. 346V. " E t sciatis q u o d nos n o n w a r r a n t i z a m u s aliquem qui dicat se habuisse d o n a c i o n e m vel confirmacionem factam a nobis de predicta insula t e m p o r e d o m i n i H e r v e i episcopi q u a n d o nos n o n h a b u i m u s c o p i a m sigilli nostri vel eciam t e m p o r e d o m i n i Nigelli episcopi q u a n d o ipse habuit terras et res nostras in saisina sua, quia n u l l a m d o n a c i o n e m vel confirmacionem w a r r a n t i z a m u s ante h a n c n o s t r a m d o n a c i o n e m q u e facta est c o m m u n i voluntate nostri conventus et ad utilitatem et h o n o r e m nostre ecclesie," Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, pp. 287—288.

170

The cathedral priories

at a fairly early date; that dispositions taken while they were deprived of their seal, and hence of the symbol of independent authority, were not to be recognized; and that now that the civil wars were over and their property consolidated they were able to act as a legal body. In the context of these affairs Nigel's early charter of liberties to the convent, dated 1133x113 9, is difficult to accept as it stands.586 According to its wording, when Nigel came to the see in 1133 he found the estates of the church dispersed and barely enough income to support the monks. He, therefore, reconfirmed their possessions, using the suspect second charter of Bishop Hervey as a model, and reproducing the larger section of it verbatim. He omitted, however, estates at Stretham and Shelford in Cambridgeshire, and at Bawdsey, Winston and Brightwell in Suffolk, and replaced them by those at West Wratting, Stetchworth, and Stapleford in Cambridgeshire, and Kingston in Suffolk. Nigel did not include either of the estates at Hardwick or at Willingham which formed part of Hervey's first charter, but not part of the second. Yet he did grant a court to the monks, which appeared previously only in Hervey's second charter but for which there is scarcely enough evidence to support the contention that they had one in the early twelfth century. 587 Thus the closest link appears to have been between Nigel's charter and Hervey's second charter so that the presumption that they were both fabricated by the priory about mid-century has more than a speculative basis to recommend it. The papal confirmations by Innocent II, supposedly in 1138, and by Lucius II in 1144, exist in the cartulary copy and its related manuscripts, and are also indebted for their wording to Nigel's charter.588 If, as was usually the practice, the monks submitted their own composition to the papacy for approval, there is no reason why a portion of the same text could not have been used. From 1133 to about 1155, then, Nigel seems to have made little effort to restore the lost properties to the priory mensa. In one of his later charters there is an admission that in times of necessity he did in fact usurp part of the monks' property. But a bishop, he admitted, should not invade his see for his own profit; thus what he had taken in troubled times, he then agreed to restore in time 586

Nigel's charter is printed in LE m, no. 54, and in Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, no. 415 where the editors labelled it suspect. Hervey's second charter is printed in LE 587 HI, no. 26. E. Miller in VCH Cambridgeshire, iv, p. 8. 588 pug n^ n o s 2 I a n c j ^^. £ £ m ^ n Q S 5 5 a n c j g 5 171

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England of peace.589 But the restitutions which he made in the last years of his life may have been the consequence of his illness. It was of a serious nature from at least 1166, and perhaps earlier, so that this chronology would accord roughly with that of the charter evidence.590 When the bishop died in May 1169, the Ely lands, both episcopal and monastic, were immediately taken into the king's hands and Geoffrey Ridel, the archdeacon of Canterbury, was appointed custodian.591 After a long vacancy of four years, Geoffrey, who had been among those excommunicated by Becket in the summer of 1169 and who had to be readmitted to grace by Alexander III in 1172, was consecrated as the new bishop in October 1174.592 Geoffrey, who had been a chancery clerk, was certainly the king's choice. He may also have been the choice of the convent's sanior pars, if for no other reason than that he was well enough placed to be able to aid the monks in the recovery of their possessions.593 To the extent that vacancies were profitable to the king, they were a hardship for the resident community. In 1172, for example, Henry II levied scutage on all of the seventy odd knight's fees of the barony of Ely, whereas the normal practice when a bishop was in office was to charge the traditional assessment on forty fees.594 Moreover, sede vacante, the immunity in the Isle broke down, which allowed the sheriff and royal justices to enter to hear pleas and to deliver royal writs on the grounds that the privilege of exclusion belonged to the bishop and not to the abbey.595 So with Geoffrey, it may have been the case that the leading monks were resigned to having the devil they knew rather than the one they did not. Although the mensa had been divided by the middle years of the twelfth century, and the priory was beginning to take on the authority of a separate community, it was not the case that full control of their property passed at once to the monks. The later history of the bishopric is a good illustration of the enormously slow development. As a result of the part which the bishop of Ely 589

LE m , nos. 134—135. Ibid., n o . 127. See ibid:, p . 384, n o t e 2 ; and Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, p . 157, note 1. 591 LE m , n o . 138. T h e confirmations of H e n r y II in favor of the m o n k s m a y have been issued sede vacante, BEC 69 (1908), p p . 561, 563. 593 592 pjjE ^ n Q I 2 7 a n c j Materials, vol. vi, p p . 601-602. PUE 11, n o . 130. 594 Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, p. 162. 595 E. Miller, VCH Cambridgeshire, iv, p. 5.

590

172

The cathedral priories

played in the publication of the interdict in England in 1208, the property of the see was seized by the king, apparently without any distinction between the episcopal and monastic mensae.b9e Similar encroachments occurred sede vacante in 1229, and in that particular year, the difficulties for the church were exacerbated by the fact that the priorate and the episcopate were vacant at the same time.597 At the end of the thirteenth century, the death of Bishop William of Louth in March of 1298 provided an opportunity for Edward I to propose his treasurer, Walter Langton, for the see and to renew his demands for a subsidy from ecclesiastical lands. For more than four years there had been relentless royal pressure on the church in England to agree to the king's demands for additional funds. This had provoked an active clerical opposition, and in 1279 it had resulted in the general appropriation of the temporalia and the outlawry of the clergy. At Ely, which by this time was a very wealthy see, a payment of 2,000 marks was imposed to defray the expenses of the king's nephew who was in service in southern France.598 The monks objected, the estates were seized, and an inquiry was finally made into the matter. The king asked the prior to show him why, once he, the king, had provided for the community ad victum et vestitum, he might not keep the remainder for himself.599 This step invited a protest from the archbishop of Canterbury who argued that while the king might take the episcopal mensa during a vacancy, he had no right to hold the conventual mensa, particularly when the prior was in office. The archbishop based his view on what he referred to as the traditional separation of the possessions of the church, although he gave no date as to when it might have occurred, nor did he cite any texts in support of it.600 At the time certainly a mensal division was accepted as part of the normal administrative structure. So it had been, as we have seen, for many years. This did not mean, however, as the intervention of Ed ward I showed, that full control by the prior or convent was a foregone conclusion. After a 596

597 598 599

600

C . R. C h e n e y , " K i n g J o h n ' s reaction to the interdict on E n g l a n d , " TRHS, 4th ser. 31 (1949), 143-145. W o o d , English Monasteries, p . 7 9 ; B e n t h a m , The History and Antiquities of Ely, p . 218. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1292—1301, p . 435. Rose G r a h a m , ** T h e administration of the diocese of Ely d u r i n g the vacancies of the see: 1298—1299 and 1302—1303," TRHS, 4th ser. 12 (1929), 496°. Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, A.D. I2g4—ijij, ed. Rose

Graham, Canterbury and York Society 51-52, 2 vols. (1952-1956), p. 254.

173

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England disputed election at Ely, in which the king's candidate was rejected and replaced by a papal nominee, the usurped churches were restored to the community at the cost of a fine of 500 marks. The prior and also monks were obliged to pay 1,000 marks to insure that henceforth their temporalia, as distinct from the bishop's, would not escheat to the crown. 601 Yet the king still insisted on his right sede vacante to oversee the offices of the cellarer, the chamberlain, the sacrist, and the sub-prior. A few years later, the monks of Ely reached an agreement with the prior which served to place a limit on his expenses of church money, and forced him to render an account by an annual audit.602 Looking back to the rudimentary division of the property in the middle of the twelfth century, one can see that the development of the convent as a community distinct from the household of the bishop and the prior, and to a certain extent immune from royal control, was a complicated, uneven and very gradual affair. Even though the monks enjoyed a separate existence so that they were able to manage many of their own financial affairs, an implicit dependence on the bishop, and on the king, never entirely disappeared. The community of Ely became a semi-independent community, but one that was subject constantly to outside influence and pressure. NORWICH

The Domesday lands of the bishop of Thetford were not distinguished from those of the chapter, although there was a clear attempt to separate the so-called terra episcopi ad episcopatum from the terra de feudo.eoz Such a division pointed not to any mensal endowment, but to property which for a long time had belonged to the bishopric, as against property more recently acquired. This was J. H. Round's explanation, which he based on a similar separation in Essex where the lands defeudo were those in possession of various owners under Edward Confessor which Bishop William had acquired after 1085, while the "bishop's lands" formed the 601

602

Calendar of Fine Rolls, vol. i, p. 4 1 9 ; Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1292—1301, pp. 457, 520. See also J. H. Denton, Robert Winchelsey and the Crown: 1294-1313. A Study in the Defence of Ecclesiastical Liberty, C a m b r i d g e Studies in Medieval Life a n d T h o u g h t , 3rd ser. 14 ( C a m b r i d g e 1980) p p . 6off. D . O w e n , " T h e m u n i m e n t s of Ely cathedral p r i o r y , " in Church and Government in the Middle Ages. Essays presented to C. R. Cheney, ed. C. N . L. Brooke (Cambridge 1976), 803 p. 169. DB 11, fos. 191-193.

174

The cathedral priories

ancient endowment of the see.604 This view is preferable to that of Charles Johnson who argued that the Norfolk lands defeudo were those acquired since the death of King Edward, or to that of Beatrice Lees who described the Suffolk feudum episcopi as the estates acquired since the Conquest. 605 There are simply too many exceptions which have to be made when these later theories are applied to the Domesday lists and since a number of estates under both the terra episcopi and the terra defeudo were held in demesne, tenure seems not to have been a significant factor. The main sections in Domesday are folio wed by a chapter of the invasiones where are specified the annexations, made largely by Bishop Aethelmar (1047—1070), of lands of freemen who had once been men only of commendation, or homage, but who now were turned into burdened tenants (consuetudinarii), to the bishop's advantage.606 From this it would appear that Aethelmar, whose long pontificate of twenty-three years lasted until the ecclesiastical purges of 1070, had profited from the redistribution of property after 1066 to reduce the status of individual tenants. There is no question that the bishop had assembled a vast estate in which the possessions of the church and the see were easily treated as his own. Of his holdings, the larger portion was to be found in Norfolk, although the two important manors at Hoxne and Homersfield were in Suffolk. For years Hoxne had been the secondary seat of the bishops who resided at Elmham in Norfolk, and it was a reminder of the dual administrative history of earl and bishop in medieval East Anglia. Some property Aethelmar had received by gift, some by grant, some by forfeiture, some he had annexed, and some he had bought. Blofield, for example, had been acquired as a dowry before he became bishop, and after the Conquest it was added to the lands of the see.607 On the other hand, the manor at Hemsby, formerly held by Aelfgar, earl of East Anglia and Mercia, was seized by Stigand, who then gave it to Aethelmar, his brother. The land became part of the bishopric, although the Domesday hundred court was unable to testify to the transfer.608 Similarly, the manor at Eccles, once in the possession of Ralph, earl of Hereford, was taken by Aethelmar and held by Bishop William in 604 y C H Essex ^ p 3 3 9 a n d y C H Noffolkf I} p 3 0 S e e b e l o w > p 3 I 5 605 C.Johnson, VCH Norfolk, n, p . 14; B . Lees, VCH Suffolk, 1, p . 393. 606 DB 11, fos. 197b—201b; R. Welldon Finn, An Introduction to Domesday Book (London 60? 608 1965), pp. I 4 3 - H 7 . DB 11, fo. 195b. Ibid.

175

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England 1086, but the jurors maintained that it had never been part of the bishopric.609 The estate at Beighton Aethelmar had bought from Earl Aelfgar; Skipden, with Gunton, he had bought ad episcopatum; Blickling and Martham had been part of Harold's holding at Cawston which the bishop was granted by William I; and Godwin's land at Plumstead, also forfeited to the king, came into the bishop's hands because, we are told, the widow who held it married too soon after the death of her husband.610 In this latter case the strict application of the canons had a useful and practical result. All of the property, however acquired, increased the size and importance of the bishopric and, by adding estates in the east and south of Norfolk, the geography of the holdings was also changed considerably.611 After Aethelmar's fall, most of the lands were passed to Bishop Herfast who shortly afterwards transferred the see from North Elmham to Thetford. Herfast, like his predecessor, appropriated nearby land which was added to his possessions. Spurred by his success, he also went so far as to advance a claim, which proved to be valueless, against the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds. At his death about the year 1085 he left five churches in Thetford, including the episcopal church of St. Mary, to his sons.612 They were holding them in 1086, which is prima facie evidence for concluding that little effort was made to distinguish personal property from ecclesiastical. William de Bellofago, a royal clerk who succeeded Herfast, was the bishop during the Domesday inquest and the beneficiary of the accumulated landed wealth from the time of Aethelmar. This endowment was subsequently inherited by Herbert Losinga, the last bishop of Thetford, consecrated, it would seem, about the year 1091. He soon moved his seat, in 1094 o r !O95> to the town of Norwich where he began the long reconstruction of the cathedral church.613 Domesday Book shows some houses and churches 609

610

611

Ibid., fo. 194. See also the case of the church of St. S i m o n and St. J u d e in N o r w i c h w h i c h was held b y the bishop in 1086, b u t could n o t b e verified b y the h u n d r e d . Ibid., fo. 117b. B e i g h t o n : DB n, 194b; G u n t o n and Skipden: ibid., fo. 194; Blickling and M a r t h a m : ibid., fo. 196; P l u m s t e a d : ibid., fo. 199. O n this see the c o m m e n t s b y D o d w e l l , " T h e foundation of N o r w i c h C a t h e d r a l , " p p . 1-18.

612 613

Dodwell, ibid., pp. 2 - 3 . For the annexation see DB n, fos. 118b, 194, 197b, 199. For the dates of the removal see Dodwell, " T h e foundation of N o r w i c h cathedral," p. 7, and EEA vi, p. xxx. Herbert attests as bishop of Thetford in January 1091 (Regesta 1, no. 315). H e attests again as bishop of Thetford in I I O O X I I O I , but as bishop of

176

The cathedral priories

possessed by the bishops in Norwich, so that it is quite possible that Bishop William already had a plan to transfer the see. Norwich offered several advantages as the diocesan capital and, in the post-Conquest period when a number of sees were moved to safer and often more prosperous sites, it was an obvious choice. It was an important crossroads market in a well-populated district and the administrative center for East Anglia. There was a castle erected there by the king soon after the Conquest, and when Herbert arrived, one of his first labors was to build a fortified palace for himself. It was his interest in improving the safety of the monks, the Norwich Registrum reports, that was a significant factor in the move.614 Herbert remained at Norwich until his death in 1119 and during this period there is substantial evidence for an early separation of the mensa. Unlike Elmham, or Thetford, which had secular chapters, the church in Norwich was constituted with a community of monks organized along the lines of Herbert's old abbey at Fecamp where he had been prior.615 William II had given lands to the bishop on the condition that a monastic foundation was to

614

615

Norwich in IIOI (Regesta n, nos. 524, 544). The meaning of Herbert's name, Losinga, remains a problem. William of Malmesbury explained it on the grounds that the bishop was known as a flatterer: "Herbertus cognomento Losinga, quod ei ars adulationis impegerat"' (GP, p. 151). But he then says that Herbert's father, Robert, whom he installed at Winchester abbey, bore the same "cognomen." The question is, how was it possible for a nickname ("cognomen" in the modern sense) to be passed back to the father as a family name ("cognomen" in the classical sense)? It can be shown to have been a family name, since Robert, bishop of Hereford (1079—1095), bore it as well (A. Gransden, "Cultural transition at Worcester in the Anglo-Norman period," in Medieval Art and Architecture at Worcester Cathedral, BAA Transactions 1 [Leeds 1978], 3). In the latter case, it p r o b a b l y referred t o Lotharingia as the place o f origin, and this m a y also have been the reason for attaching it t o Herbert. Professor B a r l o w , indeed, has suggested that the t w o bishops w e r e related (The English Church, vol. 1, p . 118, n o t e 2). O n the other hand, " l o s i n g a , " m e a n i n g flatterer, does have r o m a n c e roots (Du C a n g e , Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, 7 vols. [Paris 1840—1850], vol. v, p . 143; " v o x gallica = losenge: adulatio seu falsa l a u s ; " Ital. " l u s i n g a " ) , so that M a l m e s b u r y m a y have been m a k i n g a play o n w o r d s . " M o n a c h o r u m q u o q u e paci consulens et securitati, oblationes ecclesie ab o m n i u m exactione liberans m o n a c h o r u m o m n i n o esse censuit e o r u m usibus o m n i m o d i s profuturas," Primum Registrum Conventus Norwicensis Ecclesie, ed. H. W . Saunders, N o r f o l k Record Society 11 ( N o r w i c h 1939), p . 24. F o r t h e castle at N o r w i c h , see Regesta 1, nos. 82, 385. T h e abbot o f Ely also had a fortified house at N o r w i c h , Regesta 1, n o s . 153-154 a n d DB 11, fos. n 6 b - H 7 . A general survey o f t h e origins and d e v e l o p m e n t o f the t o w n , leading t o the conclusion that " b y the time o f William t h e C o n q u e r o r , N o r w i c h w a s o n e o f t h e three o r four most [sic] i m p o r t a n t cities in E n g l a n d , " can b e found in James C a m p b e l l , " N o r w i c h , " in Historic Towns, ed. M . D . Lobel (London 1975), v ° l - n . D o d w e l l , " T h e foundation o f N o r w i c h cathedral," p . 12; GP, p . 151.

177

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England be established there. 616 Herbert, it is reported, paid the king a thousand marks for the see and for his father's preferment to Hyde abbey at Winchester.617 He then was supposed to have undertaken a trip to Rome which has usually been explained on the grounds that he was seeking absolution from the sin of simony. The chronology, however, as well as the motive, is obscure. It may have been the case that he was more interested in papal confirmation of his appointment than in forgiveness for what was at the time a not uncommon act on the part of an incoming bishop. Moreover, once he was consecrated, he would have wished to follow up the claims of the see of Norwich on Bury St. Edmunds with papal approval.618 According to the priory register, Herbert used his own money for the move to Norwich, and thereby is implied a great personal sacrifice for the good of his church. Rather than having paid for the office, he may have paid for the site and, therefore, could not have been guilty of simony. The adverse judgment on Herbert as a simonist comes only from William of Malmesbury. 619 In any case, whatever presumption of wrongdoing there was, it appears not to have affected his status as bishop in any practical way. Upon his return to Norwich, he set about the lengthy and expensive task of reconstructing the cathedral church and of building his own residence. At that point the register relates that he made a separation of goods "so that it should be clearly seen which of them were set aside for episcopal use and which for the use of the monks. " 620 Until then there had been no distinction made of any consequence between episcopal and capitular property. Yet even Herbert, while sensitive to the needs of the monks, did not embark upon a wholesale redistribution of lands and privileges. The episcopal estate, composed of the lands accumulated over the years by Aethelmar, Herfast, and William, was, in effect, at his disposal. He was obviously obliged to grant the fifty or so monks living there the means of support, but it was entirely his own decision as to how this was done. In the so-called "foundation charter" of Norwich cathedral 816 618

620

617 Regesta I, no. 385; PUE n, no. 3. Barlow, The English Church II, p. 68. Dodwell, " The foundation of Norwich cathedral," pp. 4—5. For the chronology see also 6I9 GP, 151. Councils and Synods vol. 1, ii, pp. 641-643. " Set et possessiones discrevit, quarum partem non modicam tarn a rege Henrico quam a ceteris fidelibus ipsius regis assensu multo labore et pretio adquisierat, ut liquido constaret quae monachorum queque episcopalibus usibus deservirent," Primum Registrum, p. 24.

178

The cathedral priories priory, Herbert assigned to the monks the following possessions: four manors at Hindolveston, Hindringham, Hemsby, and Martham; six churches, St. Leonard next Norwich, St. Nicholas at Yarmouth, St. Mary and St. Margaret at Lynn in Gaywood, and three others at Hoxne, Langham, and Elmham; a settlement (villa) at Lakenham, as well as one at Catton and another at Ameringhall (Arminghall); land at Beckham and Plumstead, and Newton; a house and an eel farm at Hilgay; a mill with land in Norwich; salt works at Gaywood with a new mill; one half of Thorpe wood and one half of Thorpe meadow. In addition to the real estate which, except for Hoxne, lay in Norfolk, Herbert allocated certain tithes from his demesne manors, the income from the pentecostal fair at Norwich, and oblations and burial fees. 621 Part of the division was set out under certain conditions, however, and the net return to the monks was less generous than it would appear to have been. It is uncertain, for example, what portion of the income from the four estates was allowed for the use of the monks. Martham, which belonged to Hemsby, was divided, and the income from some of the others may also have been reduced. 622 Gaywood was at farm, and the revenues from fairs and tithes had already been allocated among the bishop's chaplains. Lakenham, which with Catton and Ameringhall, was included in Thorpe manor, was burdened by the fact that Osbern, the archdeacon, had an interest in it. Thorpe itself had been in the king's hands in 1086 and was ultimately given to Herbert by Henry I. 623 The portion of the woods assigned to the monks carried the restriction that no one of them could give or sell it without the king's permission. It was to be in the joint custody of the bishop and the monks for their 621

The charter is printed in the Primum Registrum, pp. 34-36, and in Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, no. 112. See also EEA vi, no. 11. 622 pug n^ n o g^. Dodwell, "The foundation o f Norwich cathedral," p. 13, note 2. The possessory sense appears in the preamble to the text where it is said that among the incidents o f Herbert's rule it will be related in what manner he had divided the episcopal holdings from the property which he had given the priory: " quomodo bona episcopalia a bonis per eundem datis diviserit" (p. 22). Cf. folio 4 (p. 34): "Omnia igitur que hactenus et erant et dicebantur episcoporum, deinceps et sint et dicantur ecclesie sancte trinitatis." 623 Regesta 11, no. 548. The pertinent passage in the edited version of the Primum Registrum (p. 34), beginning " D e hiis rebus d i v i d o . . . , " is punctuated in a misleading way. The effect o f it is to alter the meaning o f the passage. Recte: "(Herbert) gave the tithes of his manors to the monks, except those which he had given to his chaplains. He also gave Lakenham with all that belonged to that villa, except the land o f Osbern, the archdeacon. Likewise, he gave the estate at Ameringhale, half of Thorpe W o o d , etc." Cf. the version in Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. I, p. 61.

179

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England mutual benefit.624 Hunting rights throughout the manor, as was usual, belonged wholly to the bishop.625 The half of Thorpe meadow, however, was intended for the monks to use as they wished, although the wood was undoubtedly more valuable than the meadow, and the Thorpe estate was one of the more important investments which the bishop possessed. In Domesday Book it was valued at ^ 3 ° ' a considerable increase over the pre-Conquest figure.626 The conditional nature of the grant of Thorpe illustrates some of the problems involved in making an equitable distribution of property. It soon became a controversial issue which was not resolved until the time of Bishop John de Grey in the early thirteenth century. At an early stage it appears that the monks wished the bishop to buy the land for them, which implies that they were still dependent on him for substantial additions to the endowment. When the division was made, a reason given by the bishop for the unequal apportionment was that he needed a place to stay near Norwich in order to relieve the monks of the duty and expense of providing hospitality for him and his entourage.627 To justify further his control of Thorpe, Herbert gave to the monks in exchange his estate at Gnatington, the church at Thornham, the land and service of Thurstan, the deacon, and the land and rent of Hago in Minding near Gaywood, all of which were relatively minor possessions.628 Gnatington, for instance, had been bought by Herbert from William Haltein and was assessed at 20s in 1086. The Register adds that the bishop also gave the grange at Pockthorpe with some other lands.629 Still, the grant was modest, and its value further compromised by the claim of John, the bishop's steward, that he, not the monks, had the rights to Gnatington. The dispute was not settled until Herbert's successor, Everard, agreed that the monks were to have it.630 624

625 626 627

628 629 630

" . . . medietatem silve de T h o r p ita q u o d nulli m o n a c h o liceat inde quicquid vendere vel dare sine licentia episcopi, sed custodiatur silva per ministros episcopi et ministros m o n a c h o r u m ad necessaria episcopi et m o n a c h o r u m , " D o d w e l l , Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. I, no. 112. The Primum Registrum (p. 34) edition omits episcopi after licentia, b u t it seems obvious that this is w h a t is meant. Dodwell, Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, no. 112; Regesta 11, no. 1955. D B , fo. 138a. This is a charter w h i c h m a y be dated as early as 1101. D o d w e l l , Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, no. n o . Regesta n, no. n 59; Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, no. 4. DB n, fo. 271b; Dodwell, Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, no. 109. Primum Registrum, p. 76; EEA vi, no. 39. For John as dapifer episcopi, see ibid., p. 68. 180

The cathedral priories

An initial problem in assessing the value to the monks of their endowment is that the surviving versions of the foundation charter cannot be dated earlier than the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, and the Registrum Primum, the priory cartulary, was probably written in the early fourteenth.631 There is, therefore, the important question of its authenticity and it may be that it does not represent exactly the division which Herbert made. The mention of the manor of Colkirk, for instance, in the charter has been noted as out of place at the time and may suggest some tampering with the text.632 The foundation charter, furthermore, did not reflect anything like a final agreement between bishop and the monks over their respective property rights. In the case of Thorpe, Herbert's successors confirmed the division as he had laid it out, retaining the separate jurisdiction of the priory and the general supervision by the bishop, but they failed to put to rest the complaints of the monks over their rights in the wood. Not until 1211 was an understanding reached by Bishop John de Grey and the community which was accepted as a solution to the problems in Herbert's vexing legacy.633 According to a rather complicated plan worked out to insure a measure of equal opportunity, the monks were allowed to cut down trees there on the approval of the bishop and his forester, and the bishop could take trees with the approval of the monks. The trees in question were to be selected and marked with the signs of the bishop, or the monks; there was to be no sale of wood to a third party unless by episcopal permission; rights of pasturage and land-clearing (panage, herbage, and assart) and general pleas were to be equally divided; and equal access was to be had to the common. Although the bishop apparently went to some length to draw up a peaceful settlement with which the monks could live, he nevertheless kept overall supervision since he was, he said, the head of the church.634 Other persons, of course, besides the bishop, gave incomeproducing property to the monks. It was, moreover, in the 631

632

633

For the dating see D o d w e l l , Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. I, introduction, and EEA vi, p . 10. E. Stone, " T h e estates of N o r w i c h cathedral p r i o r y : 1100-1300," D.Phil, dissertation, University of O x f o r d (1956). Dodwell, Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, no. 173; Primum Registrum, pp. 106-108.

634

" Silva custodietur per servientes nostros et m o n a c h o r u m ita t a m e n q u o d nos t a m q u a m caput ecclesie habebimus s u m m a m c u s t o d i a m , " D o d w e l l , Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, nos. 173 and 204.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England bishop's interests to enlist the support of the king and magnates in order to reduce the cost to himself. Henry I had given Thorpe manor.635 Godric, the steward, and his wife and son granted land at Newton for the monks' demesne.636 Land in Plumstead and Beckam came from Herbert de Ros; Eaton manor from Alan of Flaald; Hubert de Ria assigned the tithe of his estates at Hockering, Swanton, Deopham, Buxton, and Markshall, and Agnes de Bellofago, his wife, gave the church and manor at Aldeby.637 In the course of time, several further additions were made, but nothing more on a grand scale.638 Herbert and his successors appear to have kept the lion's share of the possessions in the episcopal endowment for their own use and a rough tally of the Domesday values of the respective properties will show this to have been the case. The combined total for the bishop comes to about £300, although it is practically impossible to determine in all instances what fraction of an estate's income might have been used by the monks. The priory portion amounted to about £80, which does not include later grants made by Herbert and others. But even if these returns are taken into account, the sum. would be well below the estimated value of the episcopal mensa, perhaps by as much as three to one.639 At the end of the foundation charter Herbert is made to confess to a certain uneasiness about the grants made to the convent. His fear is that his successors might hold him responsible for alienating the resources of the mensa episcopalis**0 To prevent this he mentions that he has repaired the (bishop's) house in Norwich at a cost of £20, and kept in his hands Elmham, Eccles, for which he paid ^60, and Colkirk. Assuming that the cautionary tone is more than a literary convention, this is an instructive passage which illustrates how Herbert was torn between his duty to provide for 635 636 637

838 639

640

Regesta n, n o . 548. Ibid., nos. 740, 787, 1059; D o d w e l l , Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, nos. 7—8. R o s : D o d w e l l , Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, n o . 112; Flaald; ibid., n o . 17; R i a : ibid., n o . 2 0 ; Bellafago: ibid., n o . 20. For an i n v e n t o r y see D o d w e l l , " T h e foundation of N o r w i c h cathedral," p p . 14-17. A n admittedly incomplete estimate for the see in 1087 has been given as ,£403 1%S 6d in J. Alexander, " H e r b e r t Losinga, bishop o f N o r w i c h , " p . 125. T h e Taxatio of 1291 p u t the figure at £ 4 8 9 7s 2d of w h i c h £46 8s w e r e spiritualia. VCH Norfolk, n, p . 318. For later additions, including the m a n o r at Fring given ad victum, a fair at Lynn, and churches and mills, see EEA vi, nos. 13—15. " E t ne cui successorum m e o r u m gravis videtur m i n o r a t i o episcopalis, d o m i n i u m restitui illus [sic] h o c m o d o , " D o d w e l l , Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, n o . 112.

182

The cathedral priories

the community of monks and his obligation to act as trustee in the canonical manner for the assets of his cathedral church. To give to the former was to deplete the latter, unless outside grants could be counted on; to give too little invited a chorus of complaints; to give too much impaired the future operation of the diocese. In Herbert's case, it seems that he provided a modest endowment which was justified by the idea of stewardship implicit in the role of the abbot in his monastery. "He established there a community of monks," says the chronicler, "and taught them to serve according to the precepts of St. Benedict's rule," implying that all authority rested ultimately in the bishop-abbot. 641 "He then took those things which belonged to the bishop and called them the property of the church, for the use of the church and the use of himself and his successors. What was needed for the food and clothing of the monks he then allocated in particular ways. " 642 In this regard, William of Malmesbury's remark that Herbert gave no property of the bishopric to the convent, lest he incur the wrath of later prelates, is certainly in error as to the bishop's action, but probably correct as to his motive.643 When Herbert first assembled the property at Norwich, what was his and what was episcopal was, for all intents and purposes, the same.644 As he set aside revenue to support his monks, a distinction was made between the mensae, and although the bishop may have intended only revocable grants, the natural tendency on the part of monks was to consider whatever came to them as an addition to a permanent and irrevocable endowment. 645 In addition to the effect exerted by the conservative image of the bishop-abbot, in whose gift all things were held, one may assume that Herbert felt reluctant to encourage a full mensal separation because of insufficient funds. In a letter written towards the end of his life to Roger, bishop of Salisbury, the procurator regni, Herbert complained of the £50 demanded from his lands pro placitis, the ^60 in scutage {pro militibus), and the payments (consuetudines) laid on the Thorpe estate, all of which he avowed that he was unable 641 643 645

642 Primum Registrum, p. 28. Ibid., p. 34. GP, p. 151; GR 11, p. 386; Dodwell, "The foundation of Norwich cathedral," pp. 644 12—13. Primum Registrum, p. 34. As, for instance, in the confirmation to the priory of Newton by Henry I: "...et volo et concedo et firmiter precipio ut hoc manerium habeant monachi in dominio suo perpetualiter..." (Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, no. 8), or in Herbert's charter in which Hindringham, Hindolveston, Martham, and Hemsby were described as having been in episcopal demesne (ibid., no. 112).

183

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England to pay because his resources (substantia) had been so far reduced over the past few years.646 The enormous sum he paid the king for his appointment to Norwich shows that he was not a man without some wealth, although he may have been a much poorer one as a result. How wealthy he was, it is hard to say, since the thousand marks may not have been paid all at once but by installments over a period of unknown duration, only part of it may have been paid, or none at all. Without the early pipe rolls for the reign of Henry I it is impossible to know what value the amount represented to the bishop. But to add to these financial problems, Herbert also embarked on an extensive building program, not only at the cathedral church, but at the priory of St. Margaret, at the churches of St. Nicholas, and St. Leonard, at a church in Elmham, at a leper house outside the town of Norwich, and at a hospital within.647 Although the leper house was built with revenue taken from the church, the bishop's own funds were probably used elsewhere. If these constituted expenses from principal which was not replaced, then it is conceivable that his resources would have suffered over the long run. Herbert may also have considered his clergy to have been below the mark as efficient administrators. If so, he would have been more anxious about his own finances and would have been less inclined to give up control over his property. One example does not necessarily make a proof, but some evidence can be cited which illustrates this point and which suggests, moreover, that the bishop had a well-defined notion of his own proprietary rights. In a letter addressed to the sheriff and to the diocese at Thetford, Herbert complained of the lack of support which his clergy had lent him in times of trouble. By the nature of their relationship, he argued, as he labored for their welfare, so they should endeavor to fulfill their obligations to him. He recited the circumstances of a robbery committed in his park at Homersfield when unknown men broke in and killed a stag. After gutting it and cutting off the head and feet they took it away, but the monks were of no help in tracking down the culprits. The outraged bishop thereupon excommunicated the trespassers not, he explained, because he set 646

647

Epistolae Herberti de Losinga, Primi Episcopi Norwicensis, Osberti de Clara et Elmeri, Prioris Cantuariensis, ed. Robert Anstruther, Caxton Society (London 1846), no. xxvi. H. G. Richardson and G. O . Sayles, The Governance of Medieval England from the Conquest to Magna Carta (Edinburgh 1957), p p . 161—162, date it n o later than M a y 1118, and probably 1114X 1115, o r 1116X 1118. See also R o u n d , Feudal England, p . 214. Primum Registrum, pp. 30—32, 46—48, 50-52; Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. iv, 13.

184

The cathedral priories

great store by the stag, but because he wished to bring the evil men to confession and punishment for such a serious act.648 The greater crime, one may conclude, was the threat to episcopal possessions which moved the bishop to heights of anger out of proportion to the severity of the crime. The defense of his property seems to have been only of secondary importance to the convent. In another letter he scolded the monks at Norwich for not doing their part to advance the work on the cathedral church. While he and his men were heavily burdened to provide the necessary materials, he said, the monks were lazy and lax and reluctant to contribute anything of their own. The proper division of goods and labor in the bishopric, as Herbert saw it, had been upset by inefficient conventual management.649 Finally, one might cite the letter of the bishop to his prior, Ingulf, in which he complained that he had to go to court with few horses and little money. Should the need arise during his absence, the prior was to borrow enough money which the bishop would then repay upon his return.650 Herbert himself appears to have been short of cash, but confident of enough revenue forthcoming to be able to cover an unspecified debt within a short time. The monks, on the other hand, apparently had no reserve and their only recourse, while the bishop was absent, was to borrow the funds they needed. One could argue, of course, that Herbert had the money, since he was going to pay the creditors, but that he had decided that an appearance of poverty was a better means of soliciting royal favor than one of affluence. The monks, however, had even less, which may have been due in part to poor management, at a time when a reliable system of auditing accounts was not yet in place, but in part also to Herbert's wish to cling rather to a conservative fiscal plan which allowed him control of the finances and, consequently, permitted only carefully measured contributions to the endowment of an independent-minded convent. Herbert de Losinga died in July of 1119 and after a two-year vacancy he was succeeded by Everard, a former archdeacon of Salisbury, prebendary of St. Paul's and clerk of Henry I.651 648 851

649 650 Epistolae Herberti, xxxvi. Ibid., xiv. Ibid., xv. GP, p. 429. Cf. L. Landon, "Everard, bishop of Norwich," Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History 20 (1930), 186—198. Everard was, perhaps, related to Nigel, the Domesday tenant of the church of Calne and also a prebendary of Mora belonging to St. Paul's. See Brett, English Church under Henry I, p. n o , note 4.

185

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

Everard's confirmation charter referred to the lands with which Herbert had endowed the priory and which were again recited as given "for the use and needs of the monks." 652 There is no indication that the convent held them independently. There was, rather, a problem of disputed jurisdiction which, while hardly uncommon in the period, points up very well the difficulty in recognizing which possessions belonged permanently to the episcopal mensa, and which to the conventual. The monks complained bitterly to Everard about his men who continued to exercise their authority in what were considered to be monastic precincts. The trouble was particularly acute in estates which lay close to the bishop's own, or formed a part of them. 653 Ministri episcopi were known predators and monastic privileges were likely to be threatened whether or not the mensa had been divided. On the other hand, given the reluctance of Bishop Herbert to grant the convent full possession, it is quite possible that there was a genuine uncertainty as to rightful ownership. An inquiry was held and shortly afterwards Everard agreed that the monks should have their lands free of all obligations and entirely for their own use.654 There are indications that by this time the priory had a block of lands, apart from those pf the bishop, which it administered, and that it was in a position to increase substantially its own endowment. The restoration of the church of St. Edmund at Hoxne in free alms to the church and the monks at Norwich by Maurice of Windsor and his wife, Egidia, is an illustration of this development. Although first granted to Norwich by Bishop Herbert, the church was subsequently alienated and fell into the hands of Maurice. It then seems to have been given back to the monks without any kind ofjoint tenancy with the bishop. 655 Land at Yaxley, however, which the monks added to this property, and which had been assigned to them by Bishop Herbert, was still subject to episcopal authority ad usum monachorum.656 Under Bishop Everard, the prior and convent also founded the hospital of St. Paul for the poor on their land. For its support they 652 653 654

655

Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. i, no. 117, 119; EEA vi, nos. 39-40. Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, no. 117. Ibid., and n o . 116. Paschal II's confirmation, w h i c h is referred t o in the charter, says essentially the same thing, ibid., n o . 274. T h e priory k n e w the value of written records. In a charter t o the m o n k s w h o had complained about the unjust jurisdiction of episcopal officers in their lands, the bishop was careful n o t only t o confirm their rights verbally, b u t to write t h e m d o w n : non solum verbo sed etiam scripto...", EEA iv, n o . 40. 656 Ibid., nos. 119, 120. Primum Registrum, p. 68.

186

The cathedral priories allocated the tithe from Martham, Blickling, and land at Sprowsten and other places in the fens. They were also helped by extensive royal and baronial concessions.657 Their own charter specified that the tenants of the hospital, who held of the prior and convent at their pleasure, were to have their land as long as they fulfilled their legal obligations and paid an annual rent to the hospital agent. The administration, including the leasing arrangements, was taken over entirely by the convent. The bishop inserted a nominal claim by confirming that the hospital had been established with his aid and approval. During the wars of Stephen's reign, Everard gave the estates at Blickling and Cressingham to a pair of knights in order to save the rest of the episcopal lands from being ravaged. The incident is referred to in a letter of the bishop to Eugenius III, written after he had retired from Norwich to the abbey of Fontenay about 1145 and before his death in October 1146: Seriously threatened by the dangers of the wars in England, I gave two villages of the episcopal mensa, Blickling and Cressingham, to two powerful knights of the neighborhood, lest the rest of the bishopric be completely despoiled; considering that once order was reestablished in the land I might endeavor and succeed in returning the estates to my own demesne. Although I gave over the lands to the knights by a written instrument authenticated by my seal and the seal of the church, I confess, nonetheless, that I did this without the counsel, or agreement, or knowledge of the convent and the archdeacons. For this reason I feel that my soul is in danger and I humbly ask your mercy that I may be absolved and that you so order things that my soul be not too much burdened, and that the church of Norwich have her possessions restored to her.658 The date when the estates were delivered remains unspecified, although the most likely period is toward the end of Everard's term, after the arrest of Geoffrey de Mandeville at St. Albans in 1143 when the destruction of the civil war was carried into East Anglia. The fenland revolt was spread over several counties and judging by the stories concerning other churches Everard could well have imagined that the worst was yet to come. The abbot of Ramsey, sixty miles away, who had been chased from his church, 657

658

Ibid., p. 6 2 ; Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. I, nos. 98—105, 254—259; EEA vi, n o . 42. Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, no. 118; PUE11, n o . 47; Primum Registrum, p. 70. Eugenius became pope after the death of Lucius II in February 1145.

187

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England found his demesne land desolated and uncultivated, his food supplies exhausted and his treasury empty. 659 Around the abbey of Ely there was not an ox or a plow to be had for twenty miles.660 Armed gangs convulsed the countryside; episcopal excommunication had no effect; neither bishops nor monks could travel abroad without risk of injury; and churches and abbeys were divided up for public sale.661 Faced with this state of affairs it is no wonder that Everard sought protection by making friends of potential enemies. Blickling and (Great) Cressingham were Domesday estates of Bishop William of Norwich. Blickling lay in South Erpingham hundred about two kilometers north-northwest of Norwich near Aylsham, and Cressingham was in South Greenhoe hundred about four kilometers to the west. Although separated geographically, they were properties of about the same size and value. Blickling was rated at £6 in 1066 and £$ in 1086; Cressingham at £ 6 in 1066 and £9 in 1086.662 Blickling belonged to Cawston, which Harold had held, and which after the Conquest descended to Bishop Herfast and Bishop William.663 Cressingham was part of the manor of Sporle which belonged to Edward and then passed to Earl Ralph and remained in his possession until his lands were forfeited in 1075. In Domesday it was episcopal demesne, and listed as part of Pickenhorn, a berewick of Sporle, in which both Ralph de Tosny and Alan of Brittany held land.664 Parts of both Blickling and Cressingham had been subinfeudated, or leased out, by the bishop, and the churches were given over to the cathedral priory. Under Herbert Losinga, Cressingham church was held by Godwin, the deacon. With the bishop's approval he gave the church and its rents to the monks of Norwich with the idea that he would enter there as a member of the community after his wife's death.665 While the monks evidently received the church, the manor remained with the bishop as a demesne estate. It did not come into the monks' possession until about 1205 when it was exchanged by Bishop John de Grey for property in Lynn.666 Blickling church was first given to the monks by Everard. In the 659

661

663 665 666

R o u n d , Geoffrey de Mandeville, p . 217, note 4, from the Ramsey chronicle, RS-83, p . 660 331. Ibid., p . 219. William of Malmesbury, Historia novella, ed. K. R. Potter, Nelson Medieval Texts 662 (London 1955), p p . 41—42. DB u, fos. 191a, 196b. 664 Ibid., fo. 115a. Ibid., fos. 119b, 114b, 235. Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, nos. 106, 125. Ibid., nos. 35, 146, 193, 310.

188

The cathedral priories

early thirteenth century it was held jointly by the bishop and the monks.667 There is no question, therefore, that Everard had granted out his episcopal demesne estates and not property which traditionally had been monastic. What is interesting in the affair is that the development of the convent as an independent body had prospered sufficiently by 1145, when Everard resigned the bishopic, for him to want to admit his error in the unauthorized use of its real estate, as well as in failing to consult with its leaders, in spite of the fact that he could scarcely be held guilty of alienating the conventual mensa. Although his confession and sorrow can be put down as simply a deathbed repentance, a premium paid on his policy of spiritual insurance, its wording implies a recognition on the part of the bishop of the significantly different status of the cathedral priory. According to the text of Everard's letter, the knights were to have the estates in return for their promise to defend the bishopric, but it is possible that the bishop was the victim of a local protection racket. There is ample evidence to show that during the upheavals of the 1140s some soldiers, after making threats, offered their services for the price of a piece of land, and blackmail of this kind was frequently practiced against holders of ecclesiastical estates. Numerous examples can be found in Stephen's reign when the political disruption undoubtedly provided many opportunities for the unscrupulous.668 Nevertheless, the wording makes it clear that the bishop expected to recover the estates once conditions had improved. That, and the fact that the agreement was written down and sealed, suggests that Everard may have sought out the knights and asked for their assistance. They are not identified in the letter, but in the cartae baronum Blickling had been given to one John, son of Robert, as a knight's fee, and in 1166 it was held by 867 B68

Ibid., nos. 177. In the course of a discussion of the meaning of tensare (" to extort money ") Round cited an instance: "Willelmus Boterel constabularius de Wallingford pecunia accepta a domno Ingulfo abbate res ecclesiae Albendonensis a suo exercitu se defensum promisit. Sponsionis ergo suae immemor in villam Culeham quae huic coenobio adjacet, quicquid invenire potuit, depraedavit," Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 415. See also The Peterborough Chronicle, ed. Cecily Clark (Oxford 1958) for 1137: " Hi laeiden gaeldes on the tunes aeure um wile, 7 clepeden it tenserie," p. 56, and the Gesta Stephani, p. 102, where possession of the churches was subjected to forced taxes, and pp. 104—105, where Miles of Hereford was shown exacting payments from the bishopric; and the comments in the Historia Novella, p. 38, on Roger of Salisbury's conduct when at the peak of his power: " Si quid possessioriibus eius contiguum erat quod suis utilitatibus conduceret, continuo vel prece vel precio, sin minus violentia, extorquebat."

189

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England John's brother, William.669 It was not restored until later in the twelfth century when it was listed as part of the episcopal demesne by Bishop John of Oxford in 1198.670 Cressingham, about which nothing is said in the cartae, reverted to the monks, as we have seen, only in the early thirteenth century. 671 Everard's successor was the prior, William Turbe, who came to office amid the heated argument over the alleged murder of the boy, William of Norwich, by the Jews. The charge had been made in a synod Everard had held in the cathedral in 1146 and the Jews who were named as responsible were subsequently summoned to appear in the diocesan court. In this action the bishop encroached on royal jurisdiction since the Jews were the king's property, and little came of it, except the famous legend of poor little St. William.672 Whether Everard believed the allegation it is not possible to say. Henry of Huntingdon described him as "the most hard-hearted of men, and for that reason he was deposed" but he offered no explanation of what he meant. 673 Both Everard and William Turbe may have thought to capitalize on the story as a way of attracting extra revenue to the church.674 That William Turbe had held office at Norwich since the time of Herbert Losinga may indicate that he was elected by the monks, or at least by the anti-Jewish party among them. 675 In any case, he seems to have confirmed most of Herbert's grants to the priory and, although his relations with the members of the community were not without some friction, to have given the monks greater freedom in the administration of their own property. In the time of Everard, for example, the land in fee at Fring was given jointly by the bishop and the prior to their man, Henry. In the 1150s, however, it was enough for the prior to act by himself with the consent of the convent.676 After almost three decades at Norwich Bishop William died in 1175 and was followed by John of Oxford, the dean of Salisbury, a man of many accomplishments, but well known as an emissary 869 672 673 675

678

870 671 RBE, p. 392. Primum Registrum, p. 86. See note 666. The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich by Thomas of Monmouth, ed. A. Jessopp and M. R.James (Cambridge 1896), pp. 104—108. Henry of Huntingdon, Epistola ad Walterum, ed. T. Arnold, RS-74 (London 1879), p. 674 316. See the comments by Barlow, The English Church II, pp. 154—155. Saltman, Theobald, p. 103. For the little that can be gleaned about William's career see C. Harper-Bill, "Bishop William Turbe and the diocese of Norwich, 1146-1174," Anglo-Norman Studies 7 (1985), 142-160. Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, nos. 123—134; ibid. vol. 11, nos. 83—84.

190

The cathedral priories and spokesman for the king. He had acted in Henry's behalf from the time of the promulgation of the Constitutions of Clarendon and became heavily engaged in the Becket controversy. Because he supported the anti-pope, Paschal III, he was consequently excommunicated, but then absolved by Alexander III. He was later a member of the matrimonial party which accompanied the Princess Joan to Sicily in 1176.677 According to John of Salisbury, who had little that was good to say about him, he obtained the deanship by force and the bishopric by royal appointment. 678 Within a few years he was at odds with the monks and the estrangement continued until his death in 1200.679 One might be tempted to argue that the installation of a secular clerk of John's rough and tumble experience was bound to invite trouble. But we have seen that monastic bishops in cathedral priories could be just as difficult from the convent's point of view. The problem, in fact, seems to have been less one of combining men from the secular and regular orders than that cathedral chapters and convents everywhere had developed enough of an identity of their own so as to harden their resistance to interference by outsiders. Proposals which the leading monks found detrimental to their interests were bound to provoke them. At Norwich one issue concerned the allocation of funds which, contrary to long-established canonical legislation, were often paid to the church, such as fees for appointments to livings, presentations to churches, the granting of charters, church dedications, and aids levied on diocesan households to finance church construction. To control income to the priory, the bishop forbade all such exactions, allowing only moderate payments for burials, wakes, marriages and the celebration of divine service.680 In numerous other ways John intruded on the life of the monastic community. While he gave portions of the tithe from several of his own demesne manors to support the hospital of St. Paul, he also transferred part of the tithe from the prior's demesne 677 678 679

680

Ralph de Diceto, RS-6S I, p p . 416-417. JSL n, p p . 112, 170, 183-184, 354. Primum Registrum, p p . 82, 84. A contrary view was given b y the author of the episcopal annals in B a r t h o l o m e w o f C o t t o n ' s Historia, w h o cited J o h n ' s building efforts and m e n t i o n e d vaguely " . . . et multa b o n a monachis fecit," Bartholomaei de Cotton Monachi Norwicensis Historia Anglicana, ed. H . R. Luard, RS-16, p . 393. B u t this opinion is offset by the practical evidence o f his pontificate. EEA vi, nos. 262, 268. See also Councils and Synods, vol. 1, ii, p p . 738 (2, 3), 774 (1), 986 (7). 191

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England in Taverham and from the monks' demesne in Newton. 681 He arbitrarily demanded an annual ration of herrings from the monks, something that neither Herbert, nor Everard, nor William had done before. This resulted in such a strain on relations that it was remitted by John de Grey in 1205.682 Those monks who opposed the bishop's appropriation of their possessions, by citing written proof of their privileges, he expelled. This action finally brought a condemnation by Celestine III in October 1194 whereby he forbade the bishop to seize conventual goods, threatening the monks or in any way presuming to interfere with them, their clerks or their servants.683 While it is well to remember that the mandate was a reply to a petition forwarded by the monks and couched in the terms chosen by their complainant, in which the bishop's views were not represented, the alleged injuries were consistent with what is known of John's behavior at Norwich. Already early in the bishop's tenure, the prior and convent thought it necessary to obtain a privilege from Alexander III which protected them against illegal excommunication. 684 A large part of the problem was John's treatment of the monastic establishment as a dependency of the episcopal mensa. He did not yet recognize the convent as a separate entity, although in Celestine's text the words universitas and collegium, which were used to refer to the monastic community, show very well the direction the development was taking. Shortly before John's death, Celestine's successor, Innocent III, answered another set of complaints from the prior and monks. 685 This time the problem was not the seizure of their goods, but infringement of their privileges; privileges which if successfully defended were the most potent force in defining capitular status. Innocent charged the bishop with interfering, or threatening to interfere, in the internal administration of the priory. He was constrained by ancient custom from instituting monks against the wishes of the community, or forcing upon them a prior from another house, or expelling one canonically elected by them. Nor might he remove the heads of dependent houses who were satisfactorily carrying out their duties in order to replace them 681 882 683 685

EEA vi, no. 269. Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. I, no. 176; EEA vi, no. 392. 684 Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, no. 285. Ibid. Letters of Pope Innocent III, nos. 205—206; Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, no. 286. 192

The cathedral priories with others whom he had chosen. Nor might his archdeacons or other officials oppress the priests and churches which were dependent on him. John, it seems, as patron, and probably as political debtor, had been cultivating support and repaying his obligations in the usual way in a monastic cathedral where there were no prebends, by making appointments to the convent itself, or to dependent foundations. Historically, there was nothing exceptional in this. Part of the monastic income, it may be recalled, had once been used to support the bishop's dapifer. By the late twelfth century, however, the rapid development of the convent made the procedure outdated. In the light of earlier acts, the consuetudo antiqua referred to in the text of the papal letter was nothing more than an attempt to justify current hopes by making them appear to be ancient practices. Ironically, the monks would win the day against the bishop, not by invoking alleged historical rights, but by forcing him to meet their terms through political and economic pressure, which action could then be justified by an appeal to the ancient law. John of Oxford died in June 1200, to be succeeded by John de Grey, a clerk of the royal household, and a man who proved to be one of King John's loyal and trusted servants.686 The next century would bring with it major changes in the structure of the English cathedral churches. The number of monastic bishops decreased significantly, the chapters developed a more explicit independent status, and the decrees of Lateran IV began to have an impact on the conduct of ecclesiastical affairs.687 At Norwich, two aspects in particular were important. In the first place, the convent worked out in some detail the organization of its internal departments. The chamberlain, the cellarer, the sacrist, the precentor, and the almoner were assigned specific revenues from selected lands and offices, saving to the bishop in perpetuum his pontifical and parochial rights. There were a great many grants of this kind under John de Grey, especially in the great year of reform of 1205, which means that it grew far more difficult either to treat the conventual mensa as an episcopal possession, or to intrude arbitrarily upon its resources.688 While a number of monastic properties were exchanged for an annual rent, the monks had become sophisticated enough in at least one case to have the bishop 886

688

Ralph de Diceto, RS-6S 11, p. 169; S. Painter, The Reign of King John (Baltimore 1949), 687 p. 79. See Gibbs and Lang, Bishops and Reform. EEA vi, nos. 373-406.

193

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England supplement their income should it fall short of the agreed amount.689 Instances to the contrary can, of course, still be found, as in the case of Wighton church. It had been given to Norwich by Henry II as a benefice for one of his clerks. It was later allocated to the cellarer by John de Grey, but taxed to the detriment of the convent by Bishop Pandulf (1222 x 1226). It was restored in full by his successor, Thomas Blundeville, in 1233.690 Such examples are no more than to be expected where change proceeded not by mandate but by compromise and adjustment in daily practice. In the second place the discord, which in the twelfth century had embroiled the bishops and the convent, was shifted from the cathedral precincts, as it were, to the greater town of Norwich, and there grew into a series of confrontations between the monks and the burgesses over their respective jurisdiction. There were alarming incidents in 1232, 1239, 1256, and a major riot in the summer of 1272. The cathedral church was partially destroyed by fire and the king intervened and seized the property of both the priory and the city.691 Aggressive behavior on both sides continued into the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and troubled relations can be traced all the way down to the dissolution in 1538. One of the main difficulties in these disputes was that privileges granted to the priory in the twelfth century ran afoul of liberties granted to the town government later on.692 In view of these developments, there was a palpable attempt on the part of the Norwich bishops to come to terms with their monastic community, to recognize its needs and its position apart from their own, and to profit from its support. John de Grey made the point in a charter attributed to him in the priory copy of a fifteenth-century register compiled by several different scribes: 889

690

Ibid., n o . 380. Cf. The Making of King's Lynn, ed D . M . O w e n , Records o f the Social and E c o n o m i c History of England and Wales, n.s. 9 (London, 1984), p p . 34—39, and p . 379, n o . 413. Charters ofNorwich Cathedral Priory, vol. 1, nos. 31,140, 153,188; Primum Registrum, pp. 118-121.

691

692

A substantial account is given in the history of B a r t h o l o m e w of C o t t o n , RS-16, p p . 146-149. See also VCH Norfolk, 11, p p . 320—321. N . P. Tanner, The Church in Late Medieval Norwich: 1370—1532, Studies and Texts 66

(Toronto, 1984), pp. 140-154. The problem at Bury St. Edmunds in regard to fiscal rights and income divided between the abbot, the monks, and the merchants, whether London merchants or from the borough, has been discussed by R. S. Gottfried, Bury St. Edmunds and the Urban Crisis: 12QO—153Q (Princeton 1982), pp. 84—85, and is of interest for comparative purposes. Norman M. Trenholme, The English Monastic Boroughs. A Study in Medieval History, University of Missouri Studies 2 (July 1927), may also be consulted.

194

The cathedral priories Since from the time of the foundation of the church of Norwich discussion has arisen between our predecessors, the bishops, and the monks of the church, and since, according to holy scripture, it is not right that the head be separated from the body, we wish to extinguish the spark of discord and to unite both parts in perpetual harmony and peace.693 The anthropomorphic metaphor was traditional and probably came easily to John whose intent was to emphasize the benefits of cooperation over the harmful consequences of contention. By his time, however, it was an inapt choice since to separate the body from the head, in the interests of greater peace and freedom, was precisely what the more independent-minded members of the convent were striving to do. As if to recognize this contradiction, there followed a long list of properties in which the jurisdictional competence of each side was made clear. This is the first known instance at Norwich in which a serious attempt was made to work out an inventory which would form the foundation of an equable and balanced settlement. By 1248 there is notice of the mensaprioris at Norwich, undoubtedly the immediate ancestor of the camera prior is which by mid-century administered the supply of bread and ale. 694 Thus the revocable allocation of lands and privileges made by Bishop Herbert to help support his growing monastic community in the early twelfth century had developed and hardened into a group of demesne lands and subsidiary possessions which formed the basis of the separate monastic community by the thirteenth. 695

ROCHESTER

In the years after 1066, when William I gave much of the church property at Rochester to his half-brother, Odo, the comparatively modest revenues of the church reached their lowest point. With Bishop Siward's death in 1075, there were said to be no more than 693 894 695

Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. i, no. 178. On the relationship of the different registers, see pp. xxv—xl. Stone, "The estates of Norwich cathedral priory," p. 274. By using the evidence of witness lists to charters to trace the administrative development, Dodwell comes to the same conclusion: " The situation began to change in the last quarter of the twelfth century and by 1200 the difference is marked. The bishop was no longer the head of the religious community. There were now two quite separate establishments which might even be antagonistic," Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, vol. n, p. xiii.

195

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England five canons able to support themselves from the aggregate income.696 But help was not far away. Archbishop Lanfranc, newly appointed to Canterbury in 1070, took his suffragan church under his protection, and gradually improvements were made. Arnost, a monk from Bee, was brought in to succeed Siward, and when he died within a year he was replaced by Gundulf, also from Bee, who had been a spiritual colleague and financial advisor of Lanfranc at Canterbury.697 A community of monks was installed at Rochester to replace the chapter of canons, and their success was such that there may have been close to sixty inmates well before the time of Gundulf s death in 1108.698 The endowment was increased to provide sufficient income for them, and the construction of a new cathedral church was begun. Gundulf appears to have been an energetic bishop who relied heavily on financial assistance from Canterbury through Lanfranc's success in restoring a number of alienated estates.699 The best-documented incident in this effort was the trial at Penenden Heath (1072 x 1076) when the archbishop argued for the return of property which had fallen into the hands of Odo, as earl of Kent, or which in some other way had been lost.700 The core of the endowment of the church was a group of estates which had come to Rochester during the years before the Conquest and which included Stoke (738), Hailing (765 X785), Frinsbury (778), Trottiscliffe (788), Bromley (789), Borstal (811), Snodland (830), Cuxton (880), Mailing (942 x 946), Wouldham (980 x 995), Longfield (980), Denton (980), and Fawkham (c. 980).701 Although when Lanfranc arrived in England, Bishop Siward was already in office, some of the Rochester lands were kept by the archbishop for his own use and not relinquished until the appointment of Gundulf. Others, like Stoke and Denton, two estates in Kent claimed at the trial of Odo, were again in the hands of the bishop 696

699

700

701

The Life of Gundulf, p. 17. William of Malmesbury put the number at about four. GP, 697 698 136-137. The Life of Gundulf p. 10. Ibid., p . 17. R. A . L. Smith, " T h e place o f G u n d u l f in the A n g l o - N o r m a n c h u r c h , " p p . 257—272; and see also t h e same author's, " T h e early c o m m u n i t y o f St. A n d r e w at Rochester: 604—c. 1080," EHR 60 (1945), 289—299. Bates, " T h e character a n d career o f O d o , bishop o f B a y e u x " ; Le Patourel, " T h e reports o f the trial o n P e n e n d e n H e a t h . " References in AS Charters: Stoke (27), Hailing (37), Frindsbury (35), Tretticliffe (129), B r o m l e y (130, 6 7 1 , 893, 1457, 1511), Borstal (165), Snodland (280, 1456), C u x t o n (321), Mailing (514), W o u l d h a m (885, 1458), Longfield (1511), D e n t o n (1511), F a w k h a m (1457, 1551), a n d see Charters of Rochester, ed. A . C a m p b e l l , A n g l o - S a x o n Charters 1 (London 1973), p . xix.

I96

The cathedral priories 702

in 1086. Lanfranc may have felt uncertain of Siward's capability, and it has also been suggested, quite plausibly, that the properties were retained to offset the expenses incurred in the building of the church at Rochester.703 Lanfranc, it is fair to say, always put consideration for Canterbury first, and it is reasonable to assume that he would have been hesitant to risk the depletion of his own resources by a bishop whose administrative qualities he did not know. Gundulf, on the other hand, was his own man of proven worth and his own choice for the bishopric. Lanfranc's particular interest in Rochester came about because of its unique position. Unlike any other English bishopric, Rochester was the suffragan see of the metropolitan in which the archbishop maintained his right of administration sede vacante. The bishop of Rochester, moreover, was to be elected by the monks of the cathedral in the church at Canterbury. In feudal practice the bishop of Rochester owed knight service to the archbishop and not to the king.704 Rochester castle, for instance, was granted by Henry I to the archbishop of Canterbury inperpetuum in 1126, and Henry II reaffirmed Rochester's subordinate status. Conversely, the bishops claimed to act in the absence of the archbishop and to collect a fee for doing so.705 Gundulf, who remained at Rochester until his death early in the reign of Henry I, was the first bishop of the see about whom there is substantial biographical information. This is due chiefly to the survival of the Vita Gundulfi, a eulogistic, didactic account of the monk-bishop, written at Rochester in the twelfth century, and to notices in the priory cartulary, the Textus Roffensis.706 Included in this material are several useful references to the relationship of the bishop to his convent and, especially, to his position in regard to the cathedral mensa. 702 703

704

705

706

Le Patourel, "The reports of the trial on Penenden Heath," pp. 15-26. W. S. St. John Hope, " The architectural history of the cathedral church and monastery of St. Andrew at Rochester," Archaeologia Cantiana 23 (1898), 200. The Chronicle of John of Worcester ed. J. R. H . W e a v e r , Anecdota Oxoniensia 13 ( O x f o r d 1908), p . 2 3 ; Gervase o f C a n t e r b u r y , .RS-73 1, p . 302. F o r t h e military obligation see C h e w , English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in Chief, p. 184. F o r t h e origin and duration o f t h e claims see I. J. Churchill, Canterbury Administration ( L o n d o n 1933), vol. 1, p p . 2 7 9 - 2 8 7 ; Gervase o f C a n t e r b u r y , RS-73 1, p . 132; Textus Rqffensis, ed. T . H e a r n e ( O x f o r d 1720), p p . 227—228; Ralph Diceto, RS-68 11, p . 14. TheVita Gundulfi survives as B L . M S . C o t t o n N e r o A. viii, fos. 42 V -86 V . It was printed b y W h a r t o n in the Anglia Sacra a n d b y M i g n e in MPL CLIX. T h e r e is a m o d e r n critical edition b y R o d n e y T h o m s o n , The Life of Gundulf Bishop of Rochester ( T o r o n t o 1977) and a reasonably satisfactory translation b y the nuns o f Mailing abbey, The Life of the Venerable Man, Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, 2nd edn. (West Mailing 1983).

197

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Many years ago R. A. L. Smith thought he saw the first, faint sign of a separate endowment at Rochester in the middle of the eighth century as the result of two royal grants made to the bishop "for the support of (his) monastery" and "for the use of the church of which he was the head. " 707 Following Lesne in his view that "des l'origine ce qui n'etait pas reserve a la communaute fut a la disposition du prelat," Smith found that the formation of a capitular mensa was derived from the older episcopal mensa whereby the bishop had held the property and the canons enjoyed the usufruct.708 "Only one step further was needed to give the community full proprietary rights. " 709 How soon the final step would have been taken will never be known since before that could happen the Normans arrived and control of the cathedral estates was taken over by the newly settled aristocracy. The description of property held at Rochester in the Old English period corresponds to what is known about most of the English cathedral churches. Everywhere, and in every sense, the bishop was the dominant figure. Whether he ruled a chapter of canons or a convent of monks, the administration of the estates remained in his hands. After the Conquest, however, Smith saw a major change in the distribution of wealth, so that Bishop Gundulf, at Lanfranc's insistence, made a permanent separation of the revenues; "henceforth the mensa conventualis was clearly distinct from the mensa episcopalis, subject to the one condition that the monks supplied the bishop with an exennium from their manors annually on the feast of St. Andrew. " 71 ° In discussing and dating this important development, Smith relied heavily on the cathedral history retold in the Vita Gundulfi. But while the text provides a colorful portrait of the saintly Gundulf, it is not entirely acceptable as a trustworthy source for the material progress at Rochester. The most recent scholarly assessment of the Vita dates it probably to the early 1120s, contemporary with the Textus Roffensis, and with a group of suspect charters which were issued on the monks' behalf.711 "The manufactured charters supplied legal evidence of Gundulf s grants; the Vita sanctified the same grants by presenting them as the 707 708 709 710

" Ad augmentum monasterii tui; ecclesiae usui mancipandam quam tu jure gubernas," R. A. L. Smith, "The early community o f St. Andrew at Rochester," p. 297. Ibid.; cf. Lesne, VOrigine des menses, p. 5. R. A. L. Smith, "The early community o f St. Andrew at Rochester," p. 297. R. A. L. Smith, "The financial system of Rochester cathedral priory," in Collected 711 Papers, p. 43. Thomson, The Life of Gundulf, pp. 9-10, 17.

I98

The cathedral priories

solemn and deliberate acts of a particularly holy individual. " 712 Thus guilty by association, the evidence from the biography has to be weighed very carefully. In the Vita it is recounted that once sufficient property had been assembled, Gundulf, in consultation with Lanfranc, arranged that he and the monks should hold their possessions separately: After a while, when the church was enriched with enough possessions so that part of them might support the bishop and part the monks, it seemed good to the bishop and to Lanfranc that the bishop should have his own property and the monks theirs. This arrangement was made primarily so that some later bishop, who might be hostile to the monks, would not be able to diminish their portion.713 There are several points worth noting here. First, that a division was envisaged only when enough property had been accumulated to allow the bishop and his household, on the one hand, and the convent and its household, on the other, sufficient income. The implication is that the bishop was not about to decrease the total revenue to his disadvantage. Second, that the decision to separate the property was made by the bishop himself with, in this case, the archbishop's approval. Third, that the reason given for making the allocation is, on the face of it, illogical. "This [separation of goods]," we are told, " was made specifically, lest in the future any bishop hostile to the monks might try to diminish their portion." Obviously their share could not be reduced until a division had been made establishing one. If the threat by an aggressive bishop was a likely occurrence, then it might have been better not to make any division at all. It could be argued that what the author of the Vita had in mind was the existence of an early, rough allotment of church property which was used to support the monks with food and clothing, but which had no definite legal form; whereas now this portion was officially recognized and agreed to by the bishop. But it is difficult to square this interpretation with the first part of the quotation which implies a common tenancy between bishop and monks. On the other hand, in view of the fact that the Vita was written sometime after 712 713

Ibid., p. 10. " C u m autem postmodum tot esset possessionibus ditata ut earum pars quidem episcopo, pars vero monachis sufficere posset, placuit episcopo placuit et Lanfranco ut episcopus res suas seorsum, monachi vero et ipsi possessiones suas haberent seorsum. Hoc autem ideo maxime factum est, ne quis episcopus superventuro tempore esset qui monachos non adeo diligens res eis divisas minuere posset," ibid., p. 49.

199

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Gundulf s death, when the convent was certainly troubled by encroachments on what they considered to be their property, the paragraph can perhaps be better understood as a complaint against later bishops who did, in fact, turn out to be unfriendly. In the Vita it is stated further that since more monks had joined the church, the expenses of the convent were consequently greater, and so it was wisely provided that they should hold a greater number of estates than the bishop. This plan Gundulf is supposed to have authenticated by his charter.714 It is not apparent from other evidence, however, that such an unequal division, either in numbers of manors or in their value, was ever made. There is, moreover, some confusion over the chronology of the separation. The first mention of it, in the paragraph quoted above, places it in the time of Lanfranc between 1077, when Gundulf became bishop, and 1089, the year the archbishop died. Since Domesday Book makes no distinction between the possessions of the bishop and those of the convent, it seems unlikely that a formal division had been made so early.715 The next reference occurs later in the text where it is said that Gundulf served three kings.716 Under the first William he built the church with Lanfranc's assistance; under the second he added to its lands; and under Henry I he divided the monks' property from his own and, with royal approval, confirmed it by his charter.717 Thus the division was moved up to the period n o o x 1108, which seems more probable, although there are still difficulties, some of them major, in the way of this dating. There is a problem, first of all, with Gundulf s own status as a bishop in debt. There is no doubt, as already mentioned, that Gundulf, in his work to promote the cathedral priory, was deeply beholden to both Lanfranc and Anselm, as well as to royal favor. Even before his appointment to Rochester he had built a reputation on borrowed money by feeding the poor on Lanfranc's generosity.718 The archbishop supplied funds for the new church, and through the bishop he constantly made gifts of valuable ornaments to Rochester.719 Indeed, so doting a father was he that he risked spoiling his spiritual son and protege. We are told that on one 714 718 717

718

715 Ibid. VCHKent, n, p. 121. Thomson, The Life of Gundulf, p. 61. " Rege nanque Guillelmo primo aecdesiam Rofensem Lanfranco suffragante construxit, regnante secundo terns aHquibus auxit. Rege Henrico filio prioris et fratre secundi res monachorum a suis regiae auctoritatis carta distinxit et confirmavit," ibid. 719 Ibid., p. 32. Ibid., pp. 40, 48.

2OO

The cathedral priories

occasion, after a meeting with the archbishop, Gundulf had received no presents to take home. Fearful that the bishop would be distressed and pout, Lanfranc hastened to find something rich and pleasing to send after him. 720 Anselm, in his turn, also helped to increase the lands and rents, and was instrumental in the foundation of Mailing abbey.721 As to royal aid, the grants of William II were not disinterested. Dartford church already belonged to the bishop.722 Rotherfield had been in the possession of Odo of Bayeux and may very likely have once been Rochester property.723 The land at Chatham had been appropriated by the monks of Rochester after Odo had returned it, but as the price of a written confirmation the king demanded 200 masses to be sung for his father's soul, and another estate of equivalent value to be given to him by Bishop Gundulf.724 Three other properties, each of which had been held by the Countess Goda, the sister of Edward Confessor, were confirmed to Rochester: an estate at Aston (Gloucestershire), the church of St. Mary, Lambeth, and the manor at Haddenham.725 St. Mary's was to be held of the king and, quite possibly, Aston as well, so that the cost to William II was minimal. Lambeth church and manor, also held previously by Goda, and Haddenham, were granted for the support of the monks, but it is uncertain whether Gundulf passed on the revenues to them.726 There is some question as to whether Gundulf, dependent as he was, would have brought himself to the point of allowing an independent community to develop which would certainly have taken a good deal of property out of his control. In regard to the documentary evidence, it is asserted in the Vita Gundulji that the bishop's division of the mensa was confirmed by King Henry, his barons, Archbishop Anselm, and by Gundulf himself, in concert with other bishops of the realm.727 The charter in question exists now only in a later manuscript copy which probably was composed in the 1140s.728 It was dated, however, to 20 September 1089. The text makes much of the trouble which the bishop had in restoring lands to the church, but it leaves no doubt 720 722 725 726 727

728

721 Ibid., p . 48. B L . M S . C o t t o n D o m i t . X , fos. i i 9 v - i 2 O v . 723 724 Regesta 1, n o . 4 5 1 . Ibid., n o . 450. Ibid., n o . 355. Ibid., nos. 301, 302, 400. T h o m s o n , The Life of Gundulf, p . 9, n o t e 1; p . 50, n o t e 2 7 / 1 1 . Registrum Roffense, ed. J o h n T h o r p e ( L o n d o n 1769), p p . 33—34. See T h o m s o n , The Life of Gundulf, p . 60, n o t e 3 6 / 7 . B L . M S . C o t t o n C h a r t e r viii, 10, printed b y D u g d a l e , Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 1, p . 175. Cf. Registrum Roffense, p p . 6-7 and Regesta 11, n o . 845.

201

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England that the reader is to believe that he separated the mensa.729 The body of the grant consisted of the churches at Woolwich, Dartford, Sutton, Wilmington, Chiselhurst, Aylesbury, Rotherfield, Fernet, and Stourmouth, as well as the altar of St. Nicholas with the chapel of St. Margaret in Rochester cathedral church, and the estates at Wouldham, Frindsbury, Denton, Southfleet, Stoke, Lambeth, and Haddenham. The bishop also specified the value of the exennium from the manors assigned ad victtim monachorum

which was to be paid to him, along with the portion of the produce allocated to the priory, each year on St. Andrew's day.730 Should the bishop be absent that day, the whole exennium was to be used for the poor (in usus advenientium hospitum et pauperum

dispensetur). Most likely the renders represented the kind and value of the items which the bishop was entitled to demand, and these were then supplied over an extended period. This seems a reasonable interpretation, since eventually the bishop received gifts worth at least £10 for his expenses in celebrating St. Andrew's day in the cathedral. This custom later gave rise to a further problem, in that the monks accused the bishop of taking the presents, but failing to appear in church. The bishop's reply, after a hearing on the matter held in the early fourteenth century, was that he recognized the exennium, but denied the burden attached to it (episcopus fatetur exennium, et negat onus pretensum)™

1

Aside from the unusual precision of the date, there are several other elements which make the charter suspect.732 The language is designed to emphasize the benefits to the monks; it is not certain that Lambeth or Haddenham had come into their possession so early; and the witness clause includes names which appear to be out of place in 1089. Ralf, abbot of Seez, was not in office before 1104, nor was Ralf, abbot of Battle, before 1107, and Hamo was probably not sheriff of Kent before noo. 733 A similar confusion 729

730

732 733

" D e possessionibus a u t e m et donationibus a regibus et aliis christi fidelibus datis et concessis, quas u n d i q u e districtas et dispersas reperii, d e regis benevolentia c u m m a g n o labore recollegi, congregavi et adquisivi, v i c t u m e o r u m a victu m e o discrevi... Sic q u o q u e p r o m o n a c h o r u m quiete et pace perpetua, terras, decimas et possessiones c u m suis libertatibus et rectitudinibus, separatim ab episcopio, assensu regio et confirmatione secernere decrevi," Monastkon Anglicanum, v o l . 1, p . 175. This a m o u n t e d t o 16 small pigs, 30 geese, 300 hens, 1,000 lampreys, 1,000 eggs, 4 salmon, 60 measures {fascicules) o f grain (farra), 1 basket o f oats from Stoke, 500 lampreys from Lambeth, and 10s worth offish from Haddenham. Half of the fish and 731 Registrum Hamonis Hethe, p . 4 3 1 . eggs was to go to the monks. C . R. C h e n e y , English Bishops' Chanceries, p p . 8iff. Regesta 11, nos. 677, 845 a n d notes.

2O2

The cathedral priories

occurred in a purported charter of Anselm to Rochester which confirmed his grant of some of the bishop's estates to the priory. It was dated in the year I I O I when at least a third of the witnesses were already dead.734 A second charter of Gundulf, dated 1091, which confirmed his grant to the monks of appointments to livings in the churches set aside for their support, is also composed in an unusual form and written in unnecessarily elaborate language. 735 It was recited in an inspeximus of Theobald of 1145, and has been pronounced a forgery.736 It contains a long list of tithes of episcopal churches granted to the convent, with the names of the donors, which was a practice more usual in the mid-twelfth century than at the end of the eleventh.737 The 1091 charter, moreover, has almost exactly the same anachronistic witness list as that of 1089, a coincidence which by itself argues for a common composition at a later date. The bishop's grants were confirmed by Henry I in a charter drawn up in inflated language in the hand of a Canterbury, or a Rochester, scribe, probably in the 1140s.738 The charter was reproduced verbatim by Stephen, and it was used again in a confirmation by Archbishop Theobald of the Rochester possessions between 1142 and 1148.739 A further charter of Theobald which confirmed the rights of Rochester priory in Islingham and Frekenham, lands which were once episcopal manors, is also suspect. Its principal defect is that in it the archbishop was styled apostolice sedis legatus, but the charter was witnessed by Bishop Ascelin. The archbishop only became legate in 1150, while the bishop died in 1148. This may be a scribal error, yet the two manors do not appear in a group of properties confirmed to Rochester by Henry II, although they are mentioned in what appears to be a spurious charter of Archbishop Anselm.740 734

735

736 737

738

739

740

A n n e M . Oakley, " T h e cathedral p r i o r y of St. A n d r e w , Rochester," Archaeologia Cantiana 91 (1975), 56. Registrum Roffense, p p . 8 7 - 8 8 , and Saltman, Theobald, n o . 222. Cf. T h o m s o n , The Life of Gundulf p . 60, n o t e 3 6 / 7 . Saltman, Theobald, n o . 2 2 2 ; T h o m s o n , The Life of Gundulf p . 9, notes 2—3. F o r comparison see the confirmation b y T h e o b a l d to S t o k e - b y - C l a r e p r i o r y in Suffolk w h i c h dates from the 1150s (Saltman, Theobald, nos. 255-256), and the confirmation t o Rochester b y H a d r i a n IV in 1155 (PUE n, n o . 88). T. A. M. Bishop, Scriptores Regis. Facsimiles to Identify and Illustrate the Hands of Royal Scribes in Original Charters of Henry I, Stephen, and Henry II (Oxford 1961), no. 658. Regesta 111, n o . 7 1 8 ; Saltman, Theobald, n o . 2 2 0 ; T h o m s o n , Life of Gundulf, notes that " [it] has apparently also been t a m p e r e d w i t h , " p . 9, n o t e 2. Saltman, Theobald, no. 221; Registrum Roffense, pp. 441—450; Monasticon Anglicanum,

vol. 1, pp. 176-177. 203

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England The texts, therefore, which bear directly on the early division of property by Bishop Gundulf were made up for the purpose perhaps as much as half a century later. The community at Rochester, it seems, did not escape the temptation, so widespread in the early twelfth century among monastic houses, of forging charters to advance its own claims. The most obvious reason for assembling a group of charters which attested not only to the antiquity of the mensal division, but which also named the estates and churches allocated to the monks' support, was the inquest held at the council of London in 1145. Under the supervision of the legate, Imar, the dispute over property rights, particularly in regard to jurisdiction in Lambeth and Haddenham, between Bishop Ascelin (1142-1148) and the monks, was heard and decided. The difficulties may have begun during the time of the first Bishop John (1125-1137) who was appointed upon the death of Ernulf in 1124. Since there were evidently two bishops of Rochester named John who follow in succession from 1125 to 1142, it is not certain to which one the documents refer.741 An example of the ambiguity is provided by a charter in the name of "John, bishop of Rochester" which confirmed the restoration to the convent of the manors of Lambeth, Stoke and Haddenham. 742 It has been attributed to John II mainly on the grounds that Robert, the archdeacon who witnessed it, who was Robert PuUen, was not appointed until after the death ofJohn I in 1138.743 But his dates at Rochester remain uncertain. It is possible that he was in office as early as 1134 while he was engaged in lecturing in the schools at Oxford.744 Moreover, in the charter the bishop refers to his predecessors, Gundulf, Ralf, and Ernulf, but not to John, which suggests that it is a charter of thefirstJohn, not the second. IfJohn I took the estates and then returned them, John II must have taken them again. But the bishops were not the only culprits. Robert PuUen had evidently taken income from the monastic churches at Boxley and at St. Margaret and St. Nicholas for his own use, and he had also appropriated the revenues of the church at Aylesford, assigned to Jordan, the chaplain, as well as those of the church at Southfleet assigned to John, the priest, and the church at Stanes. Bishop Ascelin filed a complaint against him at Rome. About 1143 741 742 744

The case for t w o bishops of the same name was made by A. Saltman, "John II, bishop of Rochester," EHR 66 (1951), 71-75. 743 BL. MS. Cotton Domit. x, fo. 120. Saltman, Theobald, p. 73. Smalley, The Becket Conflict and the Schools, pp. 39-46.

2O4

The cathedral priories

Celestine II responded, and since Pullen had neither appeared in court, nor sent a deputy, the pope condemned the encroachment and ordered the churches restored.745 Ascelin must also have made a case against Pullen for non-residency, since the archdeacon was ordered to seek forgiveness at the hands of the bishop, but if he chose not to serve the church as custom required, he would be replaced by another man who was more suitable. As it turned out, Pullen left Rochester altogether for better things. He was made a cardinal, and then papal chancellor just before he died about the year 1146. His archdeaconry was bestowed upon his nephew.746 Ascelin finally restored to the convent the lost churches of Boxley, Aylesford, Southfleet, Sutton, and Rochester, as well as the land of his clerk, Ralf, in Borstal and Haddenham, which he had usurped.747 Boxley, in particular, illustrates the fast traffic in church goods. It had once been held by Ansfrid, a clerk, and then by Geoffrey, a chaplain of Henry I, and was later given to the convent at the dedication of Rochester cathedral church in May 1130.748 It was then seized by Pullen, or by Ascelin for Pullen, and eventually restored by the bishop. It was again taken by a chaplain of Archbishop Theobald who paid the monks 60s yearly until the church should be returned.749 The account of the inquest of 1145 is contained in two contemporary texts, one of which is Imar's decision and judgment, and the other a general notification by Archbishop Theobald.750 The two versions should be read together since they differ in important ways, and Theobald supplies significant facts which Imar omits.751 Both texts list the judges, in addition to the archbishop and the legate, as Robert, bishop of London; Henry, bishop of Winchester; Alexander, bishop of Lincoln; Everard, bishop of Norwich; Seffrid, bishop of Chichester; Gervase, abbot of Westminster; and Peter, abbot of Sherborne. Theobald,

45 47

48 49 50

751

746 PUE 11, n o . 33. Ibid., n o . 46. B L . M S . C o t t o n D o m i t . x , fos. I 2 5 v - i 2 6 v , a n d Registrum Roffense, p p . 384—385 ; Anglia Sacra, v o l . 1, p . 344. Regesta 11, n o s . 1728, 1 8 6 7 ; Registrum Roffense, p . 177, p p . 3 4 - 3 5 . S a l t m a n , Theobald, n o . 2 1 9 ; Registrum Roffense, p . 180. PUE 11, n o . 45 a n d Councils and Synods, v o l . 1, ii, p p . 810—813; S a l t m a n , Theobald, n o . 23. It is odd to find the editors of the volume of Councils and Synods dismissing Theobald's version as merely adding " certain details to the account of the case itself, none of substance," vol. 1, ii, p. 811.

205

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England however, adds Edward, abbot of Reading; Walter, abbot of Ramsey; Aimar, prior of Lewes; and Clarembald, prior of Bermondsey. Imar omits Theobald's additions, and includes Geoffrey, abbot of St. Albans, and a master Hilary, presumably the next bishop of Chichester.752 Imar describes the case as a controversy between Ascelin and his monks over the manors of Lambeth and Haddenham. The monks, it is said, were adamant that they had been given the estates for their support by William II, Archbishop Lanfranc, and Bishop Gundulf. To prove their claim they produced a set of their own charters, as well as those in the names of Henry I, Anselm, and Stephen. Bishop Ascelin, on the other hand, was unable to offer any kind of documentary evidence. The judgment, therefore, went against him, the estates were awarded to the monks, and the matter was concluded by the bishop's kiss of peace. Theobald presents the dispute in the same general way, but he adds significant details. Ascelin, we are told, had taken Lambeth, following its seizure by Bishop John, and he had demanded £ 1 0 each year from Haddenham. After Imar's council, Ascelin began to regret the trouble and expenses he had incurred because of the judgment, as well as the cost of his trip to Rome to deal with the problems caused by Robert Pullen. But the monks, realizing that an angry bishop was not a good guarantee of their rights in spite of their judicial success, agreed to pay the archbishop one hundred marks in installments, fifty to be paid within the year, fifteen each year for the next three years, and five in the fourth year. It was only after this contract was made that the bishop gave the monks the kiss of peace and confirmed their possessions to them. Payment by the installment plan over five years suggests a restricted cashflow by this time in the conventual treasury. At an earlier time William II had asked £ 1 0 0 straight out to agree to the grant of Haddenham by Gundulf.753 It can be seen from these accounts that although the legatine decision was rendered in favor of the convent, it was another thing to put it into effect. Having done his duty, Imar departed, leaving the practical implementation of the decree to Theobald. Under these circumstances it is hardly surprising that Ascelin was expecting a cash settlement to insure 752 753

ibid. Textus Roffensis, p. 145; Barlow, William Rufus, p. 97. In 1086 Haddenham had been assessed at forty hides and valued at £ 4 0 , 206

The cathedral priories

the orderly return of the alienated rights. The kiss of peace sealed a bargain; it was not a gesture of charity. Another point of interest is that at the critical moment only the monks were able to produce their charters. They had been fabricated to meet their needs in the dispute with John and Ascelin. Why the bishop was caught out is more difficult to explain. It may have been that Ascelin was unaware that the monks were so well armed and thought it unnecessary to prepare documentary proof. Although it is not an accurate trial record, the description of the bishop's position gives the impression that he was at a loss to respond to the monks' success: "Since the said Ascelin, bishop of Rochester, offered no strong rebuttal, nor was able to prove a legal interest in the said manors, we certify and order that the possessions in question rightly belong to the monks. " 754 From the earliest day, various properties belonging to the church of Rochester had passed in and out of episcopal hands without the bishops ever having been obliged to supply documentary proof of their rights. To the bishop, as abbot, belonged the jurisdiction in all the lands of his church. But John I had been the first bishop of Rochester since the Conquest who was not a monk, and the convent soon woke up to the fact that careful documentary proof would be needed to advance its claims. It was part of a widespread response to the wave of literate legal thinking in early twelfth-century England which would force all parties in dispute to show their charters, and work to the disadvantage of those who had none. A good illustration of this tendency can be found in the reign of Henry II in the quarrel between the bishop of Lincoln and the abbot of St. Albans. The abbot claimed exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, but the bishop protested and the case was heard before the king. On the abbot's side, charters dating from Offa to the time of Henry I were produced to support his charge. The bishop, however, had no charters and rested his case on customary right. But title by prescription was not sufficient for the king who ruled that documents were of greater validity than tradition. 755 The fact that the convent's early charters lacked seals to authenticate them, 754

"Contraque cum prefatus Ascelinus R o f episcopus nil firmum nichil validum responderet, nee se in pretaxatis maneriis jus habere probare posset, predictas possessiones de jure monachorum esse cognovimus et eas judiciario ordine ipsorum esse decrevimus," Saltman, Theobald, p. 451. 755 « priviiegja u t credimus praejudicant praescriptioni..." Gesta Abbatum Monasterii Sancti Albani, ed. H. T. Riley, RS-28 iv, i, p. 154.

207

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

a point which the bishop hoped to advance in his favor, was rightly dismissed, since Old English diplomata were not sealed. In any case, the charter of Henry I, with a seal, served to validate the earlier instruments.756 In the dispute with Ascelin, there was clearly a firm conviction on the part of the monks that the saintly Gundulf had permanently divided the mensa in the late eleventh century. It was a fiction which formed the basis of their claim to a separate corporate existence and, as such, soon became part of the Rochester tradition. The thirteenth-century cartulary used by Thorpe for his edition of the Registrum contains a number of references to Gundulf s division, and a Rochester inventory of the same period mentions the bishop as having separated the possessions of the church ad vestitum et ad victum monachomtn.757 The tenacious legend was

accepted by Edward Hasted who relied on Dugdale's evidence, and by later scholars, such as R. A. L. Smith and A. M. Oakley. 758 While it can be believed that Gundulf set aside income from certain estates to feed and clothe the monks, and that he put up new buildings, and increased the number of clergy, there is no reason to think that he made a permanent separation.759 Even in the Vita, Gundulf was characterized as dispensator prudens, a careful manager of church property who made sure that the endowment entrusted to him was not wasted.760 Anselm cautioned him that a bishop on his death-bed should not divide the church property so as to have nothing left for his successor, a view, it should be noted, which was the opposite of the one supported later by canon law that it was unseemly for a bishop to die rich. Gundulf was said to have exclaimed: "Thank god, I have enough wealth not only to aid the poor, but also enough income from the estates to provide 756

757 758

759

" Q u i d est q u o d mussitant Lincolnienses dicentes privilegia, n o n sigillata, nullius esse m o m e n t i ? Ecce, sigillum avi m e i sigillum est o m n i u m c h a r t a r u m originalium q u a r u m confirmatio in ejus carta c o n t i n e t u r , " ibid., p . 151. In t h e late thirteenth century, h o w e v e r , w h e n A r c h b i s h o p P e c h a m responded t o t h e complaints o f the m o n k s o f Rochester d u r i n g his visitation, h e finally decided in favor o f the bishop because t h e latter was able t o p r o v i d e t h e necessary charters t o substantiate his position, D o u i e , Archbishop Pecham, p . 175. BL. MS. Cotton Domit. x, fos. n 6 - H 7 v and Cotton Vesp. A. xxii, fo. H7V. E. Hasted, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, 12 vols. ( C a n t e r b u r y 1797—1801), vol. m , p p . 473, 529; v o l . iv, p . 466. " S e d e m e t e n i m episcopalem m o n a c h i c i ordinis cultu instituit ac, delegatis terris et aliis quae sustentationi illic servientium d e o c o m p e t e b a n t , d i v i t e m de paupere, s u b l i m e m de humili, sicut in praesenti h a b e t u r , effecit," HN, p . 15. See also Lennard, Rural England, 76 p . 140. ° TheLife of Gundulf, p. 62.

208

The cathedral priories

for my successor and his men, even if he brings in thirty new ones." 761 There is also some question as to whether the monks at Rochester, who did not form a stable group under Gundulf, were capable of administering their lands completely apart from the bishop and his lands, to say nothing of being able to govern themselves independently. There was, for example, a tract of land near Rochester which belonged to the church, but which had become overgrown with trees and brambles. The monks evidently were not up to clearing it themselves, so the bishop undertook to do it. He led them out to the place and dug up a few shovelfuls of earth to encourage the others to get on with the job. 762 The expense of hiring additional laborers may have stalled the monks until Gundulf appeared to pay the bill, but the incident emphasizes the important managerial role which the bishop enjoyed. The tract was later turned over to the almoner for the support of the poor. At the end of his days, Gundulf insisted on dying as a monk rather than as a bishop. He gave up his episcopal garments and put on the cowl, as if his time as bishop were only a transitory passage in the religious life in which he had been raised and to which he was devoted. His episcopal ring he gave to Ralf, abbot of Seez, who protested, saying that while he was a monk in habit, he did not have the habit of living like one. 763 Nevertheless, he took it, and eventually he succeeded Gundulf as bishop of Rochester. By contrast, Ascelin died in 1148 as much a bishop as when he lived. He was succeeded by Walter, the archdeacon of Canterbury, a brother of Archbishop Theobald, to whom he undoubtedly owed his appointment.764 Walter, in turn, after more than thirty years in office was followed by Waleran, the archdeacon of Bayeux, in 1182, and he by Gilbert Glanvil, archdeacon of Lisieux, in 1184. It may be that the line of non-monastic bishops in the second half of 761

763

764

" ' D e o ' , inquit, 'gratias a g o quia michi facultas suppeditat tanta quae p a u p e r u m indigentiam relevare et successori m e o secum homines etiam habenti triginta novos ad 762 usque redditus terrae copiam possit p r a e s t a r e ' , " ibid., p . 62. Ibid., p . 52. " N o n est mei ordinis a n u l u m habere. S u m e n i m habitu m o n a c h u s etsi n o n v i t a . . . , " ibid., p . 66. G u n d u l f had his preferences, or the author of the Vita could n o t resist a prophetic story, since shortly before G u n d u l f had refused to give his ring to the abbot of Battle abbey o n the grounds that he was a m o n k . Cf. St. Bernard, Apologia ad Guillelmum abbatem, 26, " ' C e t e r u m in habitu,' inquis, ' n o n est religio, sed in cbrde.' B e n e , " in Sancti Bernardi Opera m ( R o m e 1963), p . 102. Gervase of C a n t e r b u r y , RS-73 1, p . 132. 209

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England the century was an important aspect of episcopal—conventual relations which contributed to the decisive separation of the mensa during that time. The general confirmation of their manors, churches, and tithes issued to the prior and convent of Rochester by Hadrian IV in 1155 represented the monks' inventory of their possessions and privileges at mid-century. It was based on the core of estates and churches which existed in the time of Henry I, but which had been improved by numerous, but relatively small, benefactions. Although this endowment probably provided income for both convent and bishop, the daily operation tended to be more and more under the supervision and control of the monastic obedientiaries of whom the chief was the cellarer.765 Economically decentralized and administratively inefficient, particularly in view of the growing market for cash sales of manorial stock and grain, which demanded precise financial accounting, the monastic household was unable fully to exploit its wealth. By the midthirteenth century its expenses had crept ahead of its income and the priory slid into serious indebtedness. Adequate measures were not taken until the reforms imposed on the convent by Archbishop Pecham in 1283 and Archbishop Winchelsey in 1299.766 Part of the difficulty was that while the bishops of the late twelfth century, Walter (1148-1182), Waleran (1182-1184), and Gilbert Glanvil (1185-1214), had allowed greater independent action by the monks, they never agreed to lift the weight of their authority for very long. Waleran, for example, following the customary practice of his predecessors, gave several churches to the members of his own household for their support, in spite of the fact that they had been allocated to the convent. 767 More threatening was his scheme to replace the monastic community at Rochester with a chapter of secular canons. This was part of a broader policy, forwarded by a group of secular bishops with the support of the king, to reduce the importance of the black monks in England.768 The decade of the 1180s, when an unusually large 765

R. A . L. Smith, " T h e financial system o f Rochester cathedral p r i o r y , " p p . 587-588. Ibid., p p . 5 9 0 - 5 9 1 . 767 B . E. A . J o n e s , " T h e Acta o f Archbishops Richard a n d B a l d w i n : 1174—1190," P h . D . dissertation, U n i v e r s i t y o f L o n d o n (1964), p . 127. 768 " p i a c u j t s e r m o regis o m n i b u s episcopis et de facili tracti sunt in sententiam, u t hi q u i m o n a c h o s cathedrales habebant, p r o p e civitates suas ecclesias fundarent, i b i d e m q u e canonicos instituerent seculares. R i d i c u l u m e n i m eis v i d e b a t u r u t m o n a c h i aliquas 786

210

The cathedral priories number of bishoprics fell vacant, was a favorable time for them to try out their plan. Baldwin at Worcester (n80-1184) and then at Canterbury (1184-1190), Hugh de Nonant at Coventry (11851198), Hubert Walter at Salisbury (1189-1193) and then at Canterbury (1193-1205), Savaric at Bath (1191-1205), Geoffrey at York (1189-1212), and Gilbert Glanvil at Rochester (1185-1214) were the more prominent supporters of the idea. 769 But Henry II died in 1189 before any success could be achieved, and little was accomplished either on a national or on a local level. Rochester was spared a revolution, at least until the views of the second Henry, in the ripeness of time, found fulfillment in the reign of the eighth. The tensions generated by the uneasy relationship between a strong-minded bishop and a convent seeking greater authority to govern itself and to administer its lands, a scenario typical of the late twelfth century, can be illustrated by a look at the relations between Bishop Gilbert Glanvil and the community at Rochester. On the one hand, he seems not to have been more deeply troubled than his predecessors by the overlapping jurisdiction in the church. He was willing to confirm the convent's rights in manors, rents, and tithes much as he found them in the charters without questioning too closely their authenticity. 770 It would appear, however, that he was chiefly confirming income, rather than principal, which suggests that control of the endowment still remained largely at his discretion. 771 On the other hand, he did not hesitate to use part of the monks' endowment for his own purposes. To support the establishment of a college of secular canons at St. Mary's hospital at Strood, Gilbert appropriated the church revenues at Aylesford, Hailing, St. Margaret's in Rochester, and St. Nicholas in Strood. For Aylesford he paid the monks two marks yearly, as well as some other rents, and for St. Margaret's he paid a half mark. Although he took part of the meadow at Strood which belonged to Rochester, he discharged the monks' debt to the Jews, amounting to £ 3 0 plus interest, and he contributed funds for the building of the cloister and an organ. The confirmation by the prior and convent of

769 770 771

haberent ecclesias c u m n o n possent animas regere, vel ut p a s t o r u m s u o r u m liberam peterent electionem," Gervase of C a n t e r b u r y , RS-73 1, p . 5 4 1 ; and see ibid., 11, p . 402. T h e complicated story is recounted b y Knowles, MO, chap, xviii. Registrum Roffense, p. 47. Ibid., pp. 529-530. See also Registrum Hamonis Hethe, pp. 42—43. 211

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Aylesford church to Strood in 1193 was witnessed not only by Ralf, the prior of Rochester, and other monks, but also by William, archdeacon of Rochester, Master Elias, dapifer of the bishop, and several other clerks of his household.772 One has the feeling that the payments by the bishop were the outcome of agreements reached after he had taken what he needed, rather than the price agreed to beforehand. As the result of another dispute over the rights to presentation to livings in churches which the monks held, a compromise was reached whereby in the case of churches outside the diocese the bishop shared the rights with the monks, but for churches inside, he enjoyed the privilege himself. The monks had recently been the beneficiaries of a papal confirmation of their right to elect within the diocese, and to present the candidate to the bishop for confirmation, so that here the rules from Rome were reinterpreted to the bishop's advantage. Other disputes, such as concerned the payment of exennia, and the hiring of priory servants, were likewise decided in favor of the bishop.773 Also of concern to Gilbert was that the value of certain estates, which he had once held, but which were now diverted to support the community, had increased since the middle of the twelfth century so that more and more of the income was lost to him. Included in this group were Stoke, Haddenham, Cuxton, Dartford, Southfleet, Frindsbury, Denton, and Wouldham. 774 In addition, he found that the monks had encroached on tithes and other revenues to the detriment of episcopal wealth. The problem was ultimately resolved, not by reappropriation by the bishop which at this stage would have been difficult to implement, but by an agreement reached by "knowlegable and discreet men" which resulted in a long text of reconciliation relating to the respective rights of bishop and convent.775 Gilbert's position in regard to his monastic clergy, then, was less that of an imperious lord, who was out to regain what he viewed as his alienated rights, than that of the nominal head of a community from which he was somewhat distanced, but with which he was obliged to come to terms by compromise and reconciliation. Yet overall there hangs the impression of ill-defined jurisdictions and unsettled privileges. 772

774

Registrum Rqffense, pp. 631-633. Likewise at London under Gilbert Foliot the bishop's charters were witnessed by men of the episcopal/ami/ia and by members of the chapter, 773 GFL, p. 190. Oakley, " Cathedral priory of St. Andrew," p. 52. 775

Registrum Rqffense, pp. 52-55. 212

Ibid.

The cathedral priories

There were complaints in John's reign over property in Boxley, Haddenham and Norton which were doubtless exacerbated by the fighting in 1215 when Rochester was besieged and the cathedral sacked.776 Further disputes arose over the distribution of income between Bishop Benedict and the monks in the 1220s, and between them and Bishop Henry in the 1230s.777 Even among themselves the monks found it hard to reach agreement. An inquiry supposedly conducted by Bishop Lawrence in 1252 into the conventual privileges produced no lasting results.778 When Archbishop Pecham visited Rochester in 1283 he found wild disorder, mismanagement of funds and incompetent administrative practices.779 Among other transgressions, the prior and some of the monks had put aside church funds in private hoards. That this had been done over a fairly long period of time meant that the central control and audit necessary to a well-established corporate body were not yet in place. Pecham's reform sought to correct the problem by establishing a treasury with three officers to take charge of all revenues, to pay out all funds to the obedientiaries (except to the almoner, the sacrist, and the cook) and to conduct a yearly audit. Even at this late date, the convent had not been able to establish a successful administration by itself and depended on the bishop to intervene for its benefit. Rochester had never been a wealthy see and from the earliest days of the monastic foundation the leading members of the community depended on help from outside. In the mid-thirteenth century Bishop Lawrence declared it a disgrace that Rochester might be said to be the poorest of all the English sees, put to shame even by Carlisle.780 The taxation of 1291, which placed Rochester at the very bottom of the ranked bishoprics, confirmed his opinion. The lack of extensive resources was an important reason why successive bishops (and archbishops) kept a hand in conventual affairs. A small bloc of estates and churches was thus passed back and forth between bishop and convent, depending on the circumstances and 776 778 779

777 VCH Kent, n, p. 122. Registrum Roffense, pp. 55-59. Oakley, "Cathedral priory o f St. Andrew," p. 51. For this, see Douie, Archbishop Pecham, pp. 174—175, and Registrum epistolarum fiatris Johannis Peckham Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, ed. C. T. Martin, JRS-77 (1882—1885), pp.

621—625.

780 « Obprobrium enim ei videbatur quod ille episcopatus inter omnes Angliae episcopatus pauperrimus diceretur et a Karleolensi jam superaretur," Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, RS-SJ

v, p. 273.

213

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England needs of the moment, which tended to work against the establishment of a separate conventual jurisdiction. Intervention by the bishops also allowed them to appoint officials in the priory and on the monastic estates which not only increased their power administratively, but gave them the opportunity to provide for their relatives and supporters. In 1250 Innocent IV, acting to reduce the number of serjeanties and obedientiaries, limited the bishop's rights to appointment to those which the archbishop had in the church of Canterbury. 781 But it is doubtful if this mandate had the desired effect since similar charges of episcopal excess were raised by the monks in the course of Archbishop Simon Mepham's visitation in 1329. They accused the bishop of appointing too many Serjeants, of appointing twenty or more officers in the priory when he was restricted, like the archbishop, to four or five, of appointing his own relatives to priory posts, of appointing officials who refused to recognize the authority of the prior, and of seizing estates of the monks to give to his relatives.782 Complaints of this nature, of course, while they implicitly acknowledge the lack of full independence on the part of the convent, at the same time attest to a separatist viewpoint among the monks which already at the end of the twelfth century was markedly different from what it had been at the beginning, and which was to lead them further along the road toward ecclesiastical autonomy. Another important sign of capitular identity was the right of the monks to elect their own bishop. The chronology of this long struggle at Rochester is very similar to that of the development toward self-administration. Almost all the bishops from Arnost to Waleran, that is, for more than a century after the Conquest, were appointed by the kings and archbishops. Lanfranc, as we have seen, chose first Arnost and then Gundulf, both monks from Bee.783 Anselm had appointed Ralf d'Escures, who served six years before he himself was translated to Canterbury. 784 He, in turn, appears to have brought in Ernulf, a former monk of Bee, abbot of Peterborough and prior at Christchurch, as his successor. It is not clear whether the monks at Rochester had a hand in his nomination or not. The Vita Gundulfi says simply, and William of Malmesbury agrees, that the archbishop proposed him and the monks 781 783

782 CPL 1, p. 259. Registrum Hamonis Hethe, p. 431. 784 The Life of Gundulf pp. 15-16. Ibid., p. 48.

214

The cathedral priories 785

concurred. The next in line was the secular clerk named John, now listed as John I, who was appointed by archbishop William de Corbeil. His successor, John II, may have owed his office to Innocent II, but as in the case of Ernulf, the facts of his election are quite uncertain.786 Ascelin, on the other hand, was clearly the choice of Archbishop Theobald, as was his successor, Walter, the archbishop's brother.787 Walter was nominated by Hugh, the abbot of St. Augustine's and subsequently elected, secundum antiquam consuetudinem, by the monks of Rochester in the chapter house at Canterbury. But it seems improbable that he would have advanced so far if Theobald had opposed him. 788 On the death of Walter in 1182, after a long tenure of thirty-five years, Archbishop Richard of Dover seized his property and put forward Waleran, his clerk and an archdeacon of Bayeux. He was elected pro forma by the monks at Rochester.789 When Waleran died in 1184 there was at the same time a vacancy at Canterbury. Instead of papal intervention and provision, as had occurred in 1137, Gilbert Glanvil appears to have been the choice of the conventual leaders of his cathedral church.790 Thus, for the first time, and in the period when their communal self-consciousness was becoming noticeable in other ways, the Rochester monks had chosen the man they wanted. The monks, moreover, according to ancient custom, were said to have brought Waleran's episcopal staff to Canterbury as a sign of their subservience. But in the ensuing argument over their right to choose their diocesan, they sought to rid themselves of the oppression of the authority of Canterbury by getting rid of the symbol. They thereupon buried the staff with the bishop in his grave.791 Although this dramatic.act produced no lasting consequences of an institutional importance, it does fit very well with the more aggressive stance of the community by this time. But the momentum was not maintained. A papal privilege by Alexander III reconfirmed the subjection of the see of Rochester to Canterbury and the right of the archbishop to appoint the bishop. The latter was to receive the temporalia from the metropolitan and swear fealty to him. Royal assent was required neither for election 785 787 788 789 791

786 Ibid.,GP, p . 138. Saltman, " J o h n II, b i s h o p o f R o c h e s t e r , " p . 72. Registrum Roffense, p. 39. Saltman, Theobald, p p . 103—104; Gervase of C a n t e r b u r y , RS-75 1, p . 132. 790 Ralph de Diceto, RS-6S 11, p p . 13-20. Anglia Sacra, vol. 1, p . 390. PUE 11, n o . 2 4 2 ; Gervase o f C a n t e r b u r y , -RS-73 n , p . 312.

215

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England nor for ordination.792 The right to elect, however, was still illdefined and it continued to be the subject of dispute between archbishop and chapter for many years. Edmund Rich, in the 123 os, refused to approve the nomination of Richard, the priest of Bromley, who had been the choice of the monks, on the grounds that his position as archbishop had been disregarded. The convent appealed to Rome and, in what was a familiar story, Rich took over the revenues of Rochester which, he maintained, was his right to do sede vacante.79* The question was not resolved until Gregory IX intervened in 1238 on behalf of the prior and monks. 794 From then on, according to the highest interpretation of the law, the convent alone would have the right to elect its bishop.

WINCHESTER

Winchester cathedral, like its sister houses at Canterbury and Worcester, gained financially from the reorganization of the endowment carried out in the course of the late tenth-century reformation. Some property which had been alienated to the lay aristocracy was recovered under royal pressure, the tenurial obligations of a few of the magnates were reassigned to the bishop, and since a convent of monks holding their lands in common had in 964 replaced a chapter of canons holding their goods individually, the prebendal property was, in principle, restored for the benefit of the community. The local economic and social consequences of the forced religious changes, however, have yet to be worked out in detail. But the heat of the reform movement was gradually dissipated and the tenurial adjustments proved to be neither uniform nor permanent. At Winchester, although the community of monks remained to serve the cathedral church, the bishops Aelfwin, Stigand, and Walkelin, whose appointments stretched from 1032 to 1098, were all clerks appointed from the royal court. Stigand, who made a fortune by holding the valuable sees of Winchester and Canterbury together, in particular treated the ecclesiastical endowments as a personal estate rather than as a property in trust. This development can best be seen by comparing the Old 793

Anglia Sacra, vol. I, pp. 386-387.

CPL 1, 148, 156, 159.

794 Registrum Roffense, pp. 95—98; Churchill, Canterbury Administration, vol. 1, p. 283. 795

Barlow, The English Church I, p. 79.

216

The cathedral priories

English endowment with the return of the estates in Domesday Book. A long tradition of separate allocations can be traced back at least as far as the tenth century. A charter of King Edgar shows that the chapter was assigned a portion of the revenues, but it does not specify to what extent, if any, the clergy were to control and administer the property.796 From the later years of the century comes a group of charters which, if the dating is correct, were drawn up as a defense of the monastic church after the refoundation under Ethelwold.797 The charters confirmed certain lands to the bishop for the support of the monks. Most of these properties were entered in Domesday under the heading terra episcopi, although a few were assigned to the convent. For the most part they lay in Hampshire, except for Fonthill and Downton in Wiltshire, and Taunton in Somerset. In a recitation of these charters by Edgar, the new proprietary relationship between the bishop and the monks, which was meant as an improvement over the plan for the former capitular lands, was described.798 In summary it stated that the bishop was to observe the allocation of certain estates to the convent, in particular the lands at Chilcomb, which were to be administered by him for the monks' benefit. Any surplus was to go to the poor by mutual agreement. By no means was the bishop to ask for support or hospitality from the lands of the monks, nor was he to squander the income from their estates on his knights, friends, or relatives. All future bishops were to be drawn from the monastic ranks. There are three points of particular interest. First, the monks were not yet in a position to administer the lands themselves and this task was left in the hands of the bishop. Second, while the estates were allocated, but not given, to the convent, the bishop was so carefully prevented from profiting from the revenues that the property might as well have been granted away on a permanent basis. Third, it obviously had been common practice for the bishop to divert the surplus income to his own use, to require the monks to support his entourage when traveling in the diocese, and to use monastic wealth to support his military tenants and his family. To what extent these 796 797

798

J o h n , " T h e division o f t h e mensa," p p . 147-148. Early Charters of Wessex, ed. H . P . R. Finberg, Studies in Early English History 3 (Leicester 1964) nos. 109-119. T h e circumstances of their composition are discussed b y Finberg, Early Charters of Wessex, pp. 237—241. AS Charters, no. 818; Finberg, Early Charters of Wessex, no. 119. For the text see CSB in, no. 1159.

217

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England episcopal privileges, or abuses, were reformed as a result of this legislation is uncertain, although one might assume that under Ethelwold the new constitution had the greatest chance to be put into practice. In addition to these charters, there is also extant a pre-Conquest list of estates which were said to have belonged to the priory at Winchester.799 These holdings lay at Chilcomb, Hurstbourne, Whitechurch, Overton, Highclere, Alresford, Crawley, Wootton-St. Lawrence, Oakley, Polhampton, Micheldever, Candover, Abbotstone, Crondall, Bentley, Droxford, Fareham, Boarhunt, Havant, Bishop's Waltham, and Fawley, and carried a total assessment of about 550 hides. By the time the lands were entered in Domesday Book, they had been divided and were listed partly under terra episcopi and partly under terrae de victu monachorum.

Chilcomb, Hurstbourne, Whitechurch, Highclere, Crondall, Droxford, Polhampton, Fawley, Boarhunt, Havant, and Wootton were primarily monastic. They were assessed at about 327 hides on the pre-Conquest list and at a little over 200 hides in the TRE valuation in Domesday. This reduction was due in part to the beneficial hidation at Chilcomb which had been set at a single hide. The 1086 assessment was further reduced to about 165 hides. The rest of the estates, except Micheldever and Oakley, which amounted to a total of 218 hides on the pre-Conquest list were episcopal. Some of them were demesne lands and some had been subinfeudated.800 The Domesday TRE valuation for them totaled 167 hides, which was down to 156 in 1086 and included the beneficial hidation at Fareham "because it was on the sea and exposed to Viking raiders. " 801 Micheldever at ten hides was held in 1086 by St. Peter's abbey in Winchester.802 The land at Oakley, which before the Conquest had been divided among three laymen who held of the king, was in the hands of three tenants-in-chief of William I in 1086, down from ten hides to about one and a half hides.803 The reduction in hidage may have been to the advantage of the church as a whole, but by Bishop Walkelin's time (1070-1098) eight of the eleven monastic estates had been absorbed, at least in part, into the episcopal mensa and subsequently leased out or subinfeudated. Nevertheless, each of them, except Chilcomb, was 799 800 802

CSB in, n o . 1161; Finberg, Early Charters of Wessex, n o . 179. 801 Ibid., nos. i n , 113, 115, 117, 119, 176, 179. DB 1, fo. 40c. 803 Ibid., fo. 42c. Ibid., fos. 45c, 46c, 48b.

218

The cathedral priories described in Domesday as belonging to the priory or to the church.804 While there appears to have been a net loss to the convent in the course of these changes, the monks were still drawing significant income from portions of the manors. Chilcomb, in fact, which was held by the bishop, provided £ 8 0 for the monks' support. Whitechurch, assessed at fifty hides TRE, had dropped to thirty-three in 1086. In detail, four hides were held by Ralph, son of Geoffrey, William of Fecamp had seven, Mauger and Aelfric, the priest, each had one hide, so that while thirteen hides out of thirty-three, valued at £ 1 9 , were probably lost, the other twenty, which produced £ 1 6 , quite likely benefited the monks. 805 The three estates at Boarhunt, Wootton-St. Lawrence and Havant survived the redistribution after the Conquest and remained as part of the conventual mensa in 1086, held by the monks de episcopatu for an aggregate income of almost ^37. 8 0 6 ^n addition to the properties listed in the priory inventory, there were several other estates which by 1086 were producing income for the monks. This group included Chilbolton, Avington, Exton, Nursling, Alverstoke, Worthy, Wonston, Bransbury, Stoneham, Millbrook, Hinton, Ecchinswell, Hannington, Hoddington, Hayling Island, and Brockhampton. All of them, except Hayling and Brockhampton, were held by the bishop, but only Chilbolton, Exton, Alverstoke, Bransbury, and Stoneham were leased out. 807 The other Hampshire estates entered under the terra episcopi in Domesday Book were held by the bishop either in demesne, or as tenant-in-chief, or were subinfeudated. Througham, Sclive, and Fawley were incorporated into the N e w Forest and held as demesne, although they had belonged to the priory. Calbourne in the Isle of Wight had also been granted to the priory, but by 1086 it was in the bishop's hands and about a third of it was subinfeudated. The estate at Brownwich of a single hide was an exception in that it was held of the bishop who, in turn, held it of the king in fee. The Domesday jurors attested that it did not belong to the bishopric, so that it probably was part of the bishop's personal property. 808 The distinction made in Domesday Book 804 805 806 807

In monasterio juit, semper fuit in monasterio, semper fuit in aecclesia, DB i, fos. 40, 41c. Ibid., fos. 41a—41b; Finberg, Early Charters ofWessex, no. 42. Ibid., fos. 41 d and 43a. Ibid., fos. 4 i a - 4 i d . There were several manors in Hayling Island, a portion o f which was claimed by the abbey of Jumieges to the detriment o f the Winchester monks. See /IS Writs, pp. 384-385; see also V. H. Galbraith, "Royal charters to Winchester," 808 EHR 25 (1920), 382-400. D B 1, fos. 51a and 52c, and fo. 4od. 219

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England between the episcopal and the monastic lands indicates less the respective sources of income in the late eleventh century than the long history of assigned lands which extends back into the Old English period. At all stages the tenurial profile of the properties was subject to revision at the hands of the bishops, and several examples can be cited of those who usurped church estates for their own use in the pre-Conquest period, but before the reforms instituted by Ethelwold.809 The estimated income to the bishops from the Hampshire estates in Domesday listed under the heading terra episcopi, excluding subinfeudated land, amounted to about £370. The estimated income to the monks from their lands de victu, excluding subinfeudated land, was about ^340. 81 ° Since all but five of the priory estates (Boarhunt, Wootton, Hayling, Brockhampton, and Havant) were held by the bishop himself, in theory he received the revenues and then allocated them for the use of the church. In practice, he probably did this by designating income to the priory from individual manors which were those described as monastic in Domesday Book. What portion of the total monastic income was diverted to the bishop's use it is impossible to say. The revenues from the five estates which amounted to about £46 can be assumed to have been paid to the convent, plus a portion of the remainder in the bishop's hands. Even if the convent had been allocated a half, it would have meant an income of about £150 for the monks and something like £500 f°r t n e bishop. In Bishop William Giffard's charter of restitution he notes that his predecessor, Walkelin, had divided the property of the church, giving half to the monks and keeping the other half for himself. Subsequently, Prior Symeon, who was the bishop's brother, lent Walkelin land worth £300 to defray the expenses of building the church.811 This figure is fairly close to the £340 i*1 revenues from the conventual estates held by the bishop in Domesday Book. If the negotiations took place about 1079 those lands could be expected to have been entered as held by the bishop in 1086.812 809 810

811 812

Early Charters of Wessex, p p . 224—225. T h e quicksands of D o m e s d a y statistics are well k n o w n , b u t difficult t o avoid. T h e editors of Winchester in the Early Middle Ages. An Edition and Discussion of the Winton Domesday, Winchester Studies 1 (Oxford 1976), give a total of ,£332 15s for the lands of the monks, with a variation of " n o t m o r e than £ 7 " (p. 309, note 2). Chartulary of Winchester Cathedral, ed. A. W . G o o d m a n (Winchester 1927), p . 1. A. R. R u m b l e , " T h e Structure and reliability of the C o d e x Wintoniensis, (B. M . Add. M S . 15350)," D.Phil, dissertation, University of L o n d o n (1979), p . 290. 220

The cathedral priories

The loan was shortly increased by transferring to the bishop the patronage of certain monastic churches. This distribution of wealth would have left the convent, at least temporarily, with little more than the five estates worth about £46. Beyond the borders of Hampshire, the bishop of Winchester in 1086 held lands in Wiltshire, Somerset, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, and Surrey. But only in Somerset, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire did the monks have a share in the ecclesiastical revenues.813 In Somerset the bishop held the great lordship of Taunton, including sixty-four burgesses, and its pertinent lands, as Stigand had held it before him, with its immense privileges and valuable revenues amounting to over ;£i5O.814 ^ had become episcopal property quite early so that almost half the estate was subinfeudated and there is no indication that by the late eleventh century there had been any interest in it gained by the priory. 815 Two other estates, one at Pitminster and one at Rimpton, which were also once in Stigand's possession, were the bishop's in 1086 and worth together £23. 816 The only property marked for the use of the monks was held by the bishop at Bleadon at ^I5. 8 1 7 In Berkshire the bishop held twenty-seven properties (hagae) in Wallingford, and the three estates of Brightwell, Harwell and Woolstone. The first two were held by Walkelin in dominio de episcopatu suo and were worth, respectively, £25 and £16, while the third, also held by him, was marked de victu monachorum.sls Although the value of Woolstone had increased from £16 to £22 by 1086, about a third of it had been subinfeudated and was held by Roger d'lvry. The bishop held Ivinghoe in Buckinghamshire, worth £18, and West Wycombe, worth £15 which was allocated to the monks' support.819 The Wiltshire lands were dominated by the enormous estate at Down ton assessed at ninety-five hides and worth >£8o to the bishop, and £23 to his military tenants.820 He also held land at Fonthill worth £14; and at Fifhide, worth £ 5 , which had once supported the sacrist of the church.821 The other lands in the 813 815 816 818 821

For a general description of the distribution of the estate see Lennard, Rural England, pp. 814 75-84DB 1, fol. 87C-<1. CSB n, 273; F. W . Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond. Three Essays in the Early History of England (Cambridge 1897, repr. London i960), p. 258. 817 DB 1, fo. 87c. Ibid.; Early Charters of Wessex, no. 519. 819 82 DB 1, fo. 58b. Ibid., fo. 143d. ° Ibid., fo. 65b. Capicerius ecclesie, ibid., fos. 6sc-6sd. 221

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England county were assigned to the monks, although in every case the bishop exercised the* primary control and negotiated leases as he wished. Beyond these holdings the monks possessed no other estates allocated for their support, except for £ 1 2 from a pledge (de vadio) which had been bequeathed to them in Enham manor. 822 The bishop, on the other hand, held two estates in Oxfordshire, one of which, at Adderbury, he had appropriated from the lands of the church; a manor at Cottered in Hertfordshire, which also had once been church property; four estates in Cambridgeshire at Morden, Clapton, Bassingbourne, and Abington Pigotts; and one at Farnham in Surrey.823 The different properties have been laid out in detail in order to show the extent to which the authority of the bishop curtailed not only the income, but also in some measure the administrative initiative, of the convent. It would be unwise to speak of conventual rights at this stage, assuming anachronistically that the monks were sensitive to any indication of a decline in their economic position in the church. Temporarily, they may very well have looked to the bishop and his household as the best mechanism to assure their solvency. Rights, moreover, are neither intrinsic nor essential, but depend largely on what a superior power is willing to approve. But this conservative attitude would soon begin to change and over the course of the next few decades one is aware of an increasingly aggressive posture on the part of the monastic leaders which was manifested in the attempt to disengage their lands, and the management of them, from the bishop's jurisdiction. Using the Domesday valet figures, the total value of all the Winchester estates, excluding subinfeudated or leased property, comes to about £1,287. Of this amount the bishop had, in demesne, about £864. and the monks about £423. 8 2 4 Given the 822 824

823 DB 1, fo. 50b. Ibid., fos. 133b, 154, 155, 190b. The figures can be broken down as follows, excluding subinfeudated or subordinate

tenures: i. 2.

3456.

Hampshire Somerset Wiltshire Berkshire Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire

Bishop

Convt

£370

>C34°

133 183 41

14 32 22

18

15 —

45 222

The cathedral priories

wide margin for error in computing Domesday values, these figures appear to be more precise than in fact they are. There is no way of knowing, for instance, what portion of a subinfeudated tenure was profitable to the bishop, nor what part of an estate allocated to the monks, but held by the bishop, was lost to them. 825 The relative proportions, however, are probably fairly accurate so that it can be assumed that at the end of the eleventh century the bishop of Winchester was holding property which in its productive capacity was worth twice what the monks had. There is no reason to think that these values were in any way fixed or permanent, but they do reflect the income from a core of estates many of which remained either with the bishop or the convent for many years. During Walkelin's time, work had begun on the new cathedral church, and enough of the structure had been completed by 1093 to permit a formal ceremony of dedication. Allusion has already been made to the way the bishop may have financed the undertaking by diverting income to the operation from the monastic estates.826 In search of more funds, he appears to have squeezed some of his Hampshire manors for greater payments than they could easily produce. Overton, (West) Meon, Fareham, and Houghton were assessed at £50, £30, £16, and £24 respectively, but farmed at £61, £40, £20, and £30 respectively, which, as the Domesday scribe put it, was more than they could bear. Likewise, three of the monastic estates, at Nursling, Exton, and Hannington, valued at ^ 9 , ^20, and £8 respectively, were producing £10, ^30, and >£i5, and here is yet another instance where additional conventual revenues were appropriated by the bishop.827 If Bishop Walkelin took what he needed from the monastic mensa, it was because this was the easiest and quickest way to raise income without exceeding the bounds of traditional 7. 8. 9.

825 826 827

Cambridgeshire Hertfordshire Surrey

33 — 3 — 38 — 864 + 423 = 1287 Lennard's calculations p r o d u c e d a total of £ 1 , 3 2 5 , b u t he included the subordinate tenures at T a u n t o n w h i c h I have excluded. These a m o u n t e d t o £ 4 4 , and if they are subtracted from his figures, the total comes t o £ 1 , 2 8 1 , w h i c h is very close t o m y o w n (Rural England, p . 77). His estimate for the value o f the demesne lands of the bishop was a b o u t £ 8 0 0 , and for the m o n k s , " n o t m o r e than £ 5 0 0 , " ibid., p . 83. R. W e l l d o n Fin, An Introduction to Domesday Book (London 1965), p . 221. See above, p . 220. See the c o m m e n t s b y J. H . R o u n d , VCH Hampshire, 1, p . 415.

223

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England episcopal privilege. The practice was continued by his successor, William Giffard (1100-1129). William had been named to Winchester in 1100 by Henry I, but owing to the dispute with Anselm over investitures, he was not consecrated until 1107. A member of the important Clare family, he had served in the chapel of William I, and as chancellor to both William II and Henry I. His appointment to the vacant bishopric was probably as much an attempt on the part of the new king to insure a loyal following when his throne was at great risk, as it was a normal reward for useful service.828 Soon after his installation, William embarked on an extensive building program in the diocese which included the construction of his own house in Winchester, another at Southwark near London, a hall at Taunton castle, and the foundation of Waverley abbey.829 To help finance this work, he used the income from conventual properties several of which he must have retained until very late in his life. In a charter which can be dated 1123 x 1129, the bishop is said to have recognized his error, and the errors of his predecessor, and to have confirmed to the monks their possessions, liberties, customs, rights, and the patronage of their churches.830 Although William mentioned the 300 librates of land wrongly seized by Walkelin, these properties were not made a specific part of the restoration. The churches which Walkelin had taken may have been recovered by the prior, and subsequently seized again by William. In another charter of about the same time he referred to the churches as having been in the possession of the prior and monks upon his accession. They had been used to support members of the bishop's household, but were to be returned to the prior at the death of the incumbents. In the meantime the rent due was to be paid to the prior.831 On another occasion, three hides of land at Alton (Priors) had been taken by the bishop as a knight's fee for the king's cook, William Escudet. It was restored some time after 1114.832 828 829 830

831 832

Frohlich, Die bischoflichen Kollegen, p p . i44fF. Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, p . 324, n o t e 5. Anglia Sacra, vol. 1, p . 279, and s u m m a r i z e d in Chartulary of Winchester Cathedral, n o . 1. T h e date "c. 1 1 2 7 " was given b y G o o d m a n , b u t expanded to 1123 x 1129 b y the editors of Winchester in the Early Middle Ages (p. 309, n o t e 2), presumably because of Geoffrey Rufus, the chancellor, w h o appears as a witness. T h e most likely date, in their opinion, was 1124 w h i c h corresponded t o the reconciliation m e n t i o n e d in the Winchester annals (RS-36 11, s.a.), and t o the completion of the n a v e of the cathedral church. B L . M S . A d d . 29436, fos. 2 6 - 2 6 v ; Chartulary of Winchester Cathedral, n o . 2. Regesta 1, n o . 270.

224

The cathedral priories

But in spite of the aggressive episcopal presence at Winchester, the monks had succeeded in making some gains and they had a certain amount of success in adding to their endowment. A survey of the royal holdings in the borough of Winchester carried out about 1110 by the bishop and four laymen listed a gross yield to the convent from their properties of about £23. 8 3 3 A second survey was made in 1148 under the direction of Bishop Henry of Blois at which time the income from the so-called Prior's fee came to a little over £28.834 The prior then held about 17 percent of all the borough tenements and the income amounted to 7 percent of the total paid in the town.835 He was receiving regular payments from his tenants, including rents from the bishop, and he was, in turn, paying rent to the bishop for property he held.836 The bishop, nevertheless, was due from his holdings more than twice the amount of the prior's valuation. He held about 34 percent of the tenements which made him the most important landlord in Winchester in the mid-twelfth century.837 Of Henry of Blois it may safely be said that he was the leading figure and wealthiest prelate in the church in England from the later years of Henry I to the accession of Henry II. In return for the bishop's support in 1135, his brother, Stephen, had promised the church its liberties and, in particular, he had given to the bishops the right to administer all ecclesiastical property and to dispose of it as they wished.838 But as the political game with the king became more uncertain, Henry turned to back Matilda in 1141. As papal legate from 1139 to 1143, he had condemned Stephen's arrest of the bishops in 1139 and the king's seizure of their possessions. At the Council of Winchester in the same year, which Stephen declined to attend, he approved legislation aimed to prohibit similar usurpation of ecclesiastical property. Bishops' castles, he even argued on one occasion, were, in fact, spiritualia, and, like bishops themselves who were ecclesiastical persons and could be tried only in a church court, their fortresses were beyond the reach of the secular arm.839 Yet he himself, from the point of 833 834 836 837 838

839

Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, Survey I, sections 14-16, 23, 26, 28, 153. 835 Ibid., p . 355. Ibid., p . 369, tables 21-22. Ibid., Survey II, sections 526, 535, 556, 593-601, 606, 607, and 358, 629, 764, 824. Ibid., p . 353E. U . Crosby, " T h e organization o f the English episcopate u n d e r H e n r y I , " SMRH 4 (1967), 4fF. T h e string of restorations b y Stephen t o Winchester w e r e all m a d e " to the bishop and the c h u r c h , " Regesta m , nos. 944—958. Barlow, The English Church II, p. 305. 225

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England view of the Winchester convent, was as vulnerable to the charges of encroachment as the king, but it is doubtful if he was moved by the irony. He incurred great expenses by his sumptuous and extravagant style of living and the church lands provided the supplementary income. The episcopal palace at Wolvesey in Winchester, the foundation of the hospitals of St. Cross and St. Mary, the renovation of the abbeys at Glastonbury and Hyde, the building and repair of castles at Merdon, Farnham, and Waltham, and a luxury trade in books, brocade, metalwork, and paintings represented enormous outlays which could not be met solely from his episcopal holdings.840 But if Henry appears to have treated the priory property as his own, the monks never were deprived of adequate support. In fact, they stood to profit from the increased affluence and notoriety of the cathedral church and see under Henry's administration. Except for the years of reclusion at Cluny from 1154101158, he remained at Winchester until his death in 1171; but after the accession of Henry II he never regained the quasi-royal position he had enjoyed under Stephen. Toward the end of his life he issued several charters by which he confirmed to the prior and monks the restoration of certain possessions which he had appropriated. They are significant for the light they shed on the mensal structure. 841 In one of them the lands and customs, fees and knight service, and the service of freemen in their manors were recovered. Knights and freemen were to do homage to the prior as their lord. The prior was to have charge of the administration of the internal affairs of the church, and the patronage of the monastic manorial churches. There followed a list of over twenty-five churches which had been returned. A second charter, if authentic, also restored the lands, liberties, churches, and privileges, and so on, to the monks which Henry had in his possession. The prior was not mentioned as a grantee; rather the bishop cautioned him and his successors, as well as future bishops, it may be said, not to interfere in the business of the convent without the consent of the monks. A fiscal report on the convent was to be rendered annually after an audit by twelve 840

841

Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 491—492; Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 11, 437; Lena Voss, Heinrich von Blois, Bischqf von Winchester: 1129-1171, Historische Studien, Heft 210 (Berlin 1932), p p . 776°.; H . A. C r o n n e , The Reign of Stephen, 1135—1154. Anarchy in England (London 1970), p p . 118—134. The Chartulary of Winchester Cathedral, nos. 3 , 6 , 7 , 1 4 . All of t h e m are of uncertain date, b u t they could represent a death-bed repentance just prior to August 1171. See H . E. Salter, " T h e death of H e n r y of Blois, bishop of W i n c h e s t e r , " EHR 37 (1922), 7 9 - 8 0 . 226

The cathedral priories senior monks, and any surplus was to be marked "for the use of the community" since monks, according to the Rule, "have nothing of their own." In a third charter, Henry restored the lands of the convent which belonged to the monks when he was made bishop in 1129, but which he had held in his own hands, or as a loan, or in some other way. Some of the provisions of these charters were confirmed by a privilege of Alexander III issued about 1172 during the vacancy of see after Henry's death and before the appointment of Richard of Ilchester in May 1173. 842 It was addressed to Robert, the prior and, inter alia, referred to the lands at Chilcomb and Burclere (Burghclere) which the bishop had taken " on loan (mutuo) during the time of hostilities," and had then restored before he died. These properties were confirmed by Henry of Blois himself and then by Henry II.843 The word mutuum had appeared earlier in connection with land which Bishop Walkelin, under pressure from William I, had given to support William Escudet, the king's cook. The land had previously been allocated to the monks and it was to be held for William's lifetime with service to the bishop. At his death it was to revert to the monks. 844 It was, in fact, returned to the priory by Bishop William Giffard.845 The property in each case appears to have been considered as a life-grant, to be recuperated by the priory on the death of the beneficiary without claim or dispute.846 There is no evidence that an exchange of property was involved, or that there was any cost to the bishop for it, but it was a device by which the convent could hope to protect itself from eventual loss. In another arrangement, both the bishop and the convent profited from the income generated by the fair at the church of St. Giles in Winchester. The fair had been granted to Bishop Walkelin and the monks of the church by William II for three days. The bishop was to have the revenues which belonged to the king in the town. 847 Henry I allowed eight days, partly in exchange for lands with which to build Hyde abbey. 848 In 1136 Stephen increased the 842 843 844 845 846

847

PUE 11, n o . 125. The Chartulary of Winchester Cathedral nos. 14, 26; BL. M S . Add. 29436, fos. 25~25 V . Galbraith, "Royal charters to Winchester," p. 387, no. V. The Chartulary of Winchester Cathedral, no. 220. William I's charter in regard to the grant to William Escudet reads: " ut in vita sua inde serviat episcopo et post mortem suam sine calumpina alicuius hereditatis redeat in victum predicatorum fratrum," Galbraith, "Royal charters to Winchester." 848 Regesta 1, no. 377. Regesta n, no. 947.

227

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England time to two weeks, and in 1155 Henry II added two more days, which effectively doubled the grant of his grandfather.849 When Henry of Blois became bishop, the monks had been receiving twenty-five marks of silver annually from the bishop.850 At some point, perhaps at the time of his other concessions made shortly before he died, he increased his payment to thirty marks, to be paid from the burgage rent (landgable) of the fair or, this being insufficient, from other sources.851 The grant was renewed for the same amount by Henry's successor, Richard of Ilchester, and the charters of both bishops were confirmed by Lucius III about 1185.852 In 1189 the income from the fair was £146 8s 7d, which meant that the monks were making about 14 percent on what to all intents and purposes was the bishop's investment. These charters show Henry to have been an adept manager of the resources of his cathedral church, concerned to provide his convent with adequate support, but not moved to recognize in any formal way its growing independent status. Gerald of Wales spoke of him as a good administrator who was careful not to waste the lands of the church unnecessarily, and who, nearing death, redistributed his own possessions.853 Other historians of the time say the same and, on the whole, he probably did a great deal more good for his church than he harmed it by making its property his own. There are clearly signs, however, that in the last quarter of the twelfth century the monastic community was aware of the benefits to be had from the establishment of itself as a selfgoverning body. A broad confirmation of conventual powers was issued by Alexander III, probably on petition, immediately after the death of Henry of Blois. The monks were to have free rights of appeal to Rome, or to the archbishop of Canterbury, should their bishop, or their prior, or anyone else, presume to alienate their churches, their goods, or their lands, or to sell, or mortgage or rent them, or in any way to reduce their value, without the consent of the chapter. The members of the convent, it was ruled, might admit other monks to the church, even if the bishop refused, and they were to have the right to administer their manors and their goods. If anyone denied them their privileges, he was to lose his office and benefice until the case was resolved by papal authority.854 The implication was that the bishop and the prior 849 851 853

850 Regesta in, no. 952. The Chartulary of Winchester Cathedral, no. 6. 852 Ibid. PUE 11, no. 232. 854 Gerald of Wales, Vita S. Remigii, RS-21 vn, p. 49 PUE 11, no. 126.

228

The cathedral priories

were potential adversaries, and that the body of monks was distinct from both. As a way of emphasizing these differences, by mid-century the sacrist, the infirmerer and the cellarer at Winchester each held separate properties in the town. 855 Before long the convent would expand its land-holding to Berkshire, Dorset and Somerset, and the properties would be routinely administered by its own officials.856 Success in maintaining its independence also required of the monastic community a level of sophistication in the knowledge and use of law which they had lacked in the early part of the twelfth century. An illustration of this problem is provided by a papal letter addressed to the bishop, probably by Innocent III, in response to a complaint by the prior and convent.857 The bishop's predecessors, he alleged, had unjustly taken away certain churches and other possessions which belonged to the monks. The bishop, however, insisted that because he had taken an oath before the pope not to alienate the possessions of his bishopric, he could not admit he had broken it by returning the properties in question. The pope met subtlety with utility by pointing out that he could not believe that any benefits to the church as a whole would be lost if what had been alienated was restored. He therefore ordered the bishop, in spite of his oath, to make immediate restitution.858 As might be expected from a pope so much concerned with the significance of legal distinctions, Innocent readily criticized the convent at Winchester for failing to make use of privileges and liberties which had been granted to them by former popes and kings. This neglect was due in part to the political disturbances of 855 856 857

Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, Survey II, sections 61,791, 796-798, 818, 928, 1002. J. S. Drew, "Manorial accounts of St. Swithun's Priory, Winchester," EHR, 62 (1947), 20-41.

Calendared in Letters of Pope Innocent HI, no. 1096, and printed, pp. 276-277. Probably issued by Innocent to Peter des Roches, but possibly sent by Innocent IV. It was ascribed with some uncertainty to Innocent II by Goodman in The Chartulary of Winchester Cathedral, no. 320. 858 ''Dilecti filii nostri...prior et conventus Wynton' sua nobis insinuatione monstrarunt quod cum quidam predecessores tui quasdam ecclesias et possessiones ad ipsos pertinentes eisdem iniuste subtraxerint, tu eas illius iuramenti pretextu quod de non alienandis tui episcopatus possessionibus apud sedem apostolicam prestitisti in eorum preiudicium detines et reddere contradicis. Cum igitur non credamus aliquid ecclesiasticis utilitatibus deperire si ea que sunt alienati reddantur, fraternitati tue per apostolica scripta precipiendo mandamus quatinus non obstante iuramento predicto ecclesias et possessiones predictas... priori et conventui antedictis restituas prout ad eos pertinere noscuntur, mandatum nostrum taliter impleturus quod illud per alios exequi non cogamur," Letters of Pope Innocent HI, no. 1096. 229

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England the kingdom, but also in part to the monks' own naivete and ignorance of the law which allowed even their own bishops to encroach upon their rights. 859 An example was the use Bishop Godfrey de Lucy (i 189-1204) made of church funds to reimburse himself for a fine of £3,000 with the king which allowed him to recover the manors of Meon and Wargrave, to protect his own patrimony, to accede to the shrievalty of Hampshire and to have the custody of the castles at Winchester and Portchester. 860 The episcopal-conventual disputes of the thirteenth century reflected the changes of the twelfth which had brought the monks to a position of administrative independence. In the time of Bishop Aymer de Lusignan (1250-1260), the king's half-brother, certain of the obedientiaries refused to render an account of the church property at the episcopal palace at Wolvesey before the bishop's men. A quarrel erupted between the bishop-elect and the convent, but it was not resolved before Aymer and the Poitevins were banished from England as a consequence of the baronial triumph in 1258. The victorious party then sought to deprive the bishop of Winchester of his wealth and to that end they enlisted the aid of the monks of the cathedral priory. At that point they were opposed first by the pope who in 1259 ordered Aymer reinstated, and then by Henry III who by 1261 had regained his authority. 861 Yet the convent had achieved sufficient authority to have been treated as a confederate by the ruling power, and such treatment, in turn, enhanced its independence. More telling in regard to the definition of specific jurisdictions was the subsequent dispute carried on between the bishop and the monks in the time of Nicholas of Ely (1268—1280) and John of Pontoise (1282-1304). The more vocal members of the convent complained that Nicholas had imposed disciplinary measures of excessive severity and, moreover, that he was unjustly using their property as if it were his own. It was well known, they said, that the mensa had been divided, and that from time immemorial the prior and the convent had had the right to manage their possessions without interference or approval by the present bishop, or by any of his predecessors. Now, however, Nicholas had arbitrarily restricted the sale of the convent's wool and cheese and cheap 859 880 881

Ibid., no. 1094, printed p. 276; The Chartulary of Winchester Cathedral, no. 51. Annals of Winchester, RS-36 n, pp. 94-95. Documents of the Baronial Movement of Reform and Rebellion: 1258—1267, ed. R. E. Treharne and I. J. Sanders (Oxford 1973), pp. 93—97.

230

The cathedral priories

grain, which was to their serious disadvantage.862 What is interesting is that by this time not only was the separation of episcopal from monastic goods assumed to have been an ancient privilege, so old, indeed, that no one could remember when it had come about, but also that there was present the idea that a divided mensa carried with it the right of independent authority and administration. Neither of the two assumptions, of course, was historically correct, but they undoubtedly added some force to the monks' accusations. Furthermore, it was argued that since the conventual possessions were entirely separate from the episcopal, and since King Edgar had founded the cathedral priory, but not an episcopal endowment, both bishop and monks were separate tenants-inchief.863 The king, said the monks, was their patron, not the bishop. They owed no services or rents to the bishop, nor was he able to administer their possessions, nor should he interfere in their right to elect the prior.864 Because the rights of the bishop as patron in his cathedral church included the privilege of profiting from dues, services, and hospitality, of administering the possessions of the priory sede vacante, and of choosing the prior, the reasoning advanced by the monks, if accepted, would have effectively barred Nicholas of Ely and John of Pontoise from participating in the political life of the community. 865 In this the monks had the support of Edward I who, for his own purposes, maintained that he was the patron who exercised advowson rights. But not only did the monks deny that the bishop was their patron, they also maintained that he was not their abbot. Rather, they said, it was the prior who had assumed this position in the cathedral abbey which they viewed by that time as having grown 862

863

864 865

" I t e m c u m b o n a monasterii d i c t i . . . P r i o r i s et C o n v e n t u s a bonis vestris separata seu discreta esse dinoscantur annua pacifica possessione vel quasi firmiter predicti Prior et C o n v e n t u s b o n a sua amminstrandi, tractandi et per se ipsos disponendi a t e m p o r e q u o n o n extat m e m o r i a p r o ut eis et voluntati Ecclesie sue, vestro vel a l i q u o r u m predecessorum vestrorum concensu [sic] nullatenus requisito, visum fuerit expedire, et vos, pater, m o t u p r o p r i o q u e d a m statuta super lana et caseo nostris p r e manibus n o n vendendis similiter et de vescis nostris sine consensu vestro n o n vendendis, edidistis in grave prejudicium d i c t o r u m Prioris et C o n v e n t u s , n e c n o n et casualiter nobis prejudiciale esse posset t a m n u n c q u a m in futuro, E g o frater supradictus appello ut supra," Registrum Johannis de Pontissara, vol. n, p. 646. " . . . e t q u o d o m n i a b o n a sua et h o m i n u m s u o r u m o m n i u m et singulorum penitus separata et discreta r e m a n e a n t a bonis episcopatus," ibid., p . 693. Ibid., p p . 611HS15. A t h o r o u g h discussion of the p r o b l e m can b e found in W o o d , English Monasteries, p p . 9-10, 48—51. See also Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, vol. 1, p p . 254—256.

231

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England apart from constant episcopal supervision into a separate corporation.866 To these arguments Nicholas of Ely replied with the traditional image that the bishopric and the prior together were one body which constituted the church of Winchester. The bishop was the head and the convent the members. It was obvious, therefore, that the prior could not also claim to be the head, since that would produce two heads on the same body and turn the church of Winchester into a monstrosity.867 Nor could the head be rightfully separated from the members.868 The bishop at Winchester stood to the monks as abbot, and this could be proved by the fact that new monks were admitted by him, that the monks professed to him and not to the prior, and that he allocated property for the support of the convent.869 Furthermore, he said, because he was responsible to the king for services from both bishopric and priory, because he collected the feudal dues and customs from the monks' manors and because he had custody of the priory sede vacante, the bishopric and the priory formed one barony of which he was the patron.870 The case for each side was laid out with more elaborate references to historical precedents and to canonical theory than has been indicated here, but enough of the arguments have been cited to show the central importance of the mensa in the defense of both positions. That there was some validity in the points raised by the monks which was recognized at the time meant that a solution to the problem was sought in a compromise. Thus it came about early in the pontificate of John of Pontoise that the bishop resigned as abbot but remained as patron. The inspeximus of an episcopal charter from the thirteenth year of Edward I, and an agreement between the bishop and the convent, recited the main points. The prior was to administer the rights and goods of the convent, appoint the obedientiaries and servants, and admit monks to the community. The bishop confirmed to the prior and convent his rights in some thirty manors which belonged to the monks. Should the priorate fall vacant, the monks were to act as custodians. After petitioning the bishop, as patron, for the license to elect 866 867

869

Registrum Johannis de Pontissara, vol. n, pp. 609-615, 676—684. " C u m enim obligant sibi episcopum qui est loco abbatis ut predictum est, si haberent priorem tamquam capud essent duo capita in eodem corpore et sic foret Wintoniensis 868 ecclesia monstruosa," ibid., p. 678. Ibid., p. 692. 87 Ibid., pp. 678-681. ° Ibid., pp. 685-686.

232

The cathedral priories

(which was to be granted pro forma), the monks were to choose freely the new prior. The bishop, however, retained his right of receiving professions from the monks, and of conducting visitations.871 But all this did not come cheaply. The monks gave to the bishop the manors at Droxford, Alverstoke, and Havant.872 The bishop, in turn, made over the manor at Swainston (Isle of Wight) to the king and agreed to pay him £2,000 for confirmation of the charters. Half of the sum was accounted for at the exchequer by the bishop's men; the other £1,000 was to be paid by the prior and convent as the price of settlement.873 Although the agreement of 1284 did not put an end to disputes between the bishop and his monks, the comprehensive nature of the privileges conferred on the prior, and the greatly diminished legal position of the bishop as abbot, make it a good place to end the most important phase in the history of the mensal separation. While there remain a number of questions still unanswered, the process is not as obscure as it was once thought to be.874 By the late twelfth century the division of the landed holdings had been established in a long-term durable pattern. 875 In spite of the fact that there continued to be problems involving the respective jurisdictions of bishop and convent, as, for instance, in 1239 when the possessions of the priory, which was not vacant, were included in the property of the bishopric which was, later bishops would find it increasingly difficult to encroach upon the conventual mensa 871 872 873 874

Calendar of Charter Rolls, vol. n, p p . 287-289. Ibid., p . 2 8 9 ; Registrum Johannis de Pontissara, vol. 11, p p . 423—424. Ibid., p p . 716-717. " . . . i t must be r e m e m b e r e d that the distinction b e t w e e n the possessions of the bishop himself and those o f the prior a n d convent is, as in so m a n y other cases, exceedingly obscure." H u b e r t Hall, The Pipe Roll of the Bishopric ofWinchester: I2o8-i2og (London

1903), P- xv. "It is not yet really clear at what historical point there occurred a main division of the bishop's property into those manors which provided the resources and revenue of the bishopric, and those which were for the support of the monks...," Barbara C.Turner, A History of Hampshire (London 1963), p. 24. "By 1291 the possessions of the prior seem to have been definitely separated from those of the bishop," T. C. Cox, VCH Hampshire, n, p. 108. "At Winchester in 1239, before there had been a firm separation, the property of the priory, not itself vacant, was included in that of the vacant bishopric," Wood, English Monasteries, p. 79. " During this century [the twelfth century] there was a gradual definition of which were the estates which could be regarded as the chapter's property apart from the lands of the bishop," Audrey M. Erskine, " The medieval financial records of the cathedral church of Exeter," Journal of the Society of Archivists, 2 (1960-1964), 255, and see the similar comment by Erskine in "Bishop Briwere and the reorganization of the chapter of Exeter cathedral," 875

Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, 108 (1976), 162. R. R. Darlington, VCH Wiltshire, n, p. 85.

233

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England with as much ease, and with as little protest from the monks, as did Walkelin, William Giffard, and Henry of Blois.876 WORCESTER

Worcester cathedral priory, like St. Paul's in London, was one of the few churches in which there seems to have been a regular division of property between bishop and convent established before the Conquest, and in which the separate endowments were recognized in a variety of documents thereafter. Already in the late ninth century the community was leasing land itself.877 But separation did not mean independence, and it would be unwise to imagine that the monks enjoyed full control of their property much before the middle of the twelfth century. The history of this development which began with a divided mensa and grew to the point at which there was a recognized conventual body standing apart from the episcopal constitution can be taken up most usefully with the appointment of Bishop Wulfstan (1062-1095), unus et solus de antiquis Anglorum patribus, a monk appointed to rule over monks. Not only did he undertake to recover some of the lands alienated from the see, but in the process he granted to the convent a certain measure of control in the conduct of their own affairs. Wulfstan had been prior at Worcester under Ealdred, and he replaced him when Ealdred, after some difficulties at the Roman curia, finally obtained papal approval and was translated to the archbishopric of York in 1062. From 972 to 1016 three successive bishops of Worcester had held their see together with York, and Ealdred had renewed the practice in 1061. As archbishop, he retained a number of Worcester manors and it was this loss which provoked the litigation by Wulfstan.878 Half of the Alveston estate in Warwickshire, for example, along with some other lands, had been usurped by Ealdred.879 They had been acquired from William I, complained Wulfstan, by much work and at great cost for the support of the monks. Eventually he succeeded in recovering fifteen hides for the convent, which in his time had grown from a congregation of about a dozen men to close to fifty. Alveston was confirmed to the monks by William II after the bishop's death, 876 877

879

W o o d , English Monasteries, p. 79. AS Charters, nos. 1415 and 1416. For a brief discussion confirming the early date of a mensal division see E m m a Mason, St. Wulfstan of Worcester, c. 1008—1 095 (Oxford 878 1990), PP- 160, 211-217. AS Writs, p p . 407-410. Worcester Cartulary, no. 3.

234

The cathedral priories

although the hidation was not mentioned.880 Later on when the property was reconfirmed by Henry I and by Stephen it can be found to have been reduced to five hides.881 Wulfstan also granted a mill, with the miller and his land, at Tappenhall ad victum monachorum to help support the growing community whose needs must certainly have exceeded its income. 882 When Wulfstan became bishop he appointed his brother, Aelfstan, as prior in his place, and the latter was granted extensive rights over his lands and men by the king. 883 This does not mean, however, that the convent as a whole was thereby recognized as an autonomous body. Aelfstan is mentioned only as monk, not as prior, and the wording of the writ, which is personal, cannot be construed to have conferred separate privileges on the Worcester community. Unlike the Confessor's confirmation of sake and soke over their men addressed to the abbot and monks of Bury St. Edmunds, for example, the Worcester writ concerned the prior alone.884 After the Conquest, however, William I issued a confirmation to Wulfstan on behalf of Aelfstan, then named as prior (decanus), and the monks, allowing free use of their property.885 This was confirmed again by William II whereby all the goods of the convent were placed in the hands of the prior.886 But since it is likely that this writ was granted sede vacante after Wulfstan's death in 1095, i t s legal force was limited and it probably should not be considered an instrument w hich marked a permanent division. Wulfstan has been described as a bishop who was close to his monks and whose pontificate appeared to be free from any major internal disputes.887 He combined in his person, wrote William of Malmesbury, both the faith and devotion of the monk, and the 880

Ibid., n o . 5. Ibid., nos. 6 - 9 . Stephen's charter and the charter of R o g e r of W a r w i c k b o t h refer t o the five hides confirmed b y H e n r y I in spite o f another text o f H e n r y ' s charter w h i c h granted e x e m p t i o n from t h e original fifteen hides. F o r a brief discussion see ibid., p p . 882 10—11, n o t e 1. Ibid., n o . 4. 883 884 AS Writs, nos. 1 1 5 - 1 1 6 ; AS Charters, nos. 1156-1157. Ibid., p . 409. 885 Regesta 1, no. 252; Worcester Cartulary, no. 2. For the use of decanus see Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 1, p. 579, and The Letters ofOsbert of Clare, Prior of Westminster, ed. E. W . Williamson and J. A r m i t a g e Robinson ( L o n d o n 1929), p . 212. 886 « p r a e c i p i o etiam u t o m n i a q u e ad v i c t u m m o n a r c h o r u m pertinent in m a n u prioris sint et nullus se intromittat de rebus e o r u m nisi per p r i o r e m , " Worcester Cartulary, n o . 2. 887 The Vita Wulfstani of William of Malmesbury, ed. R. R. Darlington, Camden Society 40 (London 1928), p. xxxvii, note 3, and Worcester Cartulary, p. xlv. But Eric John argued for greater discord than Darlington allowed. See his " An alleged Worcester charter of the reign of Edgar," BJRL 41 (1958-1959), 54-80.

881

235

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England authority of the bishop.888 If he tended to withdraw from the conduct of daily affairs, there was all the more reason that the prior should have assumed the practical duties of property management, but without compromising Wulfstan's position as prelate. In 1092, fearing that his end was near, Wulfstan held a synod in the crypt of his church to review the administration of the bishopric. 889 Thereupon there arose a dispute between two priests, Alfnoth of St. Helen's and Alam of St. Albans, over the rights of their respective churches. This drew the ire of the monks who complained that their income from the church of St. Helen, which belonged to them, would be reduced if the quarrel were not brought to an end. In the course of the ensuing discussion it was shown that the convent, from the time the monks replaced the secular clergy under Edgar, had held the revenues of their dependent churches for the common use. If it is authentic, the text of the synod is further evidence for monastic self-government, since it provides for a separate income for the convent, confirms the prior's position as chief officer under the bishop, and excludes the archdeacons from interfering in the life of the monks. 890 Another attempt at the definition of conventual property was made by Hemming, the sub-prior under Wulfstan, in the second part of his celebrated cartulary. He was, he says, writing at the bishop's request, so that the estates of the church (he meant the convent) might not be lost or forgotten.891 He drew up a lengthy inventory of properties which had been alienated from the convent in order that they might be reclaimed in the future; Wulfstan, himself, apparently was unable to do so.892 They were the lands which had been set aside ad victum monachorum and the records pertaining to them were distinguished by the fact that, by Wulfstan's order, they had been classed separately from the other muniments in the church.893 Hemming, nevertheless, was aware 888 890

891

892

893

889 Vita Wulfstani, p . 20. Worcester Cartulary, n o . 52. I. Atkins, " T h e church of Worcester from the eighth to the twelfth century," Antiquaries Journal 20 (1940), 1—38. For later enactments of conventual privileges based on the 1092 text see R. M . Haines, The Administration of the Diocese of Worcester in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century (London 1965), p p . 24—27. Hemingi chartularium ecclesiae Wigorniensis, ed. T . Hearne, 2 vols. (Oxford 1723), fos. 119-142, 144-152, 154-200. For a discussion of the dating and foliation see Ker, " F l e m i n g ' s cartulary." Hemingi chartularium ecclesiae Wigorniensis (Codicellus Possessiorum), ed. T. Hearne (Oxford 1923), p p . 248-288. For the meaning of the phrase ad victum monachorum, see Ker, " H e m i n g ' s cartulary," p . 63.

236

The cathedral priories

that in spite of the distribution of property and the increased scope of conventual jurisdiction an autonomous chapter had not yet emerged. Incorporated into the cartulary was an extended version of the preface in Domesday Book which described the interest of the church in the Oswaldslaw hundred.894 Where he might have made alterations to give the monastic side significant benefits, he did not do so, and his copy reflects the dominant position of the bishop in the Domesday text. The bishop was to receive dominial dues and fines, the hundred was considered a part of the demesne of the church under authority of the bishop, and the whole was judged by the shire court to belong to the bishop. There is no indication that the prior had a part to play which was of equal importance. Not included in Hemming's cartulary was the purported tenthcentury charter of King Edgar which did grant to the monks more explicit rights and possessions.895 Estates at Cropthorne, Pendock and Overbury, Sedgeberrow, Shipston, Grimley, Hallow, Harvington, and part of Teddington, were to be drawn upon for the monks' use. In addition, one hundred hides, or a third of the Oswaldslaw, formed by doubling the fifty hides at Cropthorne, were placed under monastic jurisdiction. This allowed the convent quasi-episcopal status, and the right to appeal either to the king or to the archbishop of Canterbury if their complaints were not met in a satisfactory way. Some of the lands mentioned above do appear in Domesday Book as possessions of the church, that is, for support of the monks, rather than the bishop. But other properties, said in the charter to be monastic, including the large estate at Blockley, were listed as largely episcopal in 1086. Another difficulty in accepting the Edgar charter is that none of the alleged conventual rights was confirmed by other extant charters of either king or bishop. The charter of William I, for instance, issued after the settlement of the land claims between the bishop of Worcester and the abbot of Evesham confirmed the privileges of the bishop "in his hundred." 896 But the whole defense of monastic privilege has been vitiated by the most recent critical appraisal of the charter which makes it a confection dating from the reign of Stephen, probably coincidental with his 894 895

896

Hemingi Chartularium, p p . 2 8 7 - 2 8 8 ; DB 1, fo. 172c. T h e much-discussed Altitonantis dei largiflua dementia..., printed in the Worcester Cartulary n o . 1, and Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 1, 617—618. Regesta 1, n o . 2 3 0 ; cf. n o . 221.

237

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England confirmation charter of 1136 x 1139.897 What may have happened is that in the mid-twelfth century the convent was finally moved to claim estates which had indeed been allocated to them at one time, but which by Wulfstan's death were retained by the bishop and then held by his successors, or which were held by other ecclesiastical or lay magnates. The first official confirmation of the monks' rights in the Oswaldslaw appears in a charter of Bishop Simon (1125-1150), most likely dating from the year 1149.898 There it is said that the prior and monks had the same liberty as the bishop, and that they were entitled to a third of the profits. The reference to the Oswaldslaw follows a long list of properties which the bishop confirmed to the prior and monks, many of which can be traced to grants of the eleventh century. There then appears a general confirmation to the monks of lands in Worcester town and suburbs, and of lands and tithes which Simon himself had given.899 It is possible, therefore, that the Oswaldslaw privileges had their origin early in Simon's episcopate, linked perhaps to the change in royal rule in 1135.900 In the protection charters issued on behalf of the prior and monks by Henry I and Matilda during the vacancy of 1112-1113, after Bishop Samson's death, there is no reference to the Oswaldslaw liberty, or to the monks' revenue from it. Nor is there any reason to suppose such privileges were granted by Samson's successor, Theulf (1113-1123).901 The move toward a clear definition of respective rights, therefore, appears to have been a gradual process which took many years to develop. This view is supported by the disposition and allocation of the Worcestershire entries in Domesday Book. There is no attempt to distinguish episcopal from conventual holdings by listing them under different headings, as was the case in some other counties. The single title is "the land of the church of Worcester. " 902 Only by following the individual entries is it possible to sort out which estates provided income to support the monks. Round seemed to think that the inconsistency in the arrangements was due to the lack of good editing at the time: In the adjoining county of Hereford we similarly find the heading "the land of the church of Hereford", but the corresponding entry in the 897 899 901

898 R. R. Darlington in the Worcester Cartulary, p. xvi. Ibid., no. 73. 900 Ibid., no. 73; cf. nos. 68, 69. Ibid., p. xvi. Ibid., nos. 63, 149. Theulf was nominated in 1113 but not consecrated until June n 15. 902 DB 1, fo. 172c. Le Neve, Fasti, vol. n, 99, and below p. 247.

238

The cathedral priories

schedule of names is "the bishop of Hereford". In this, as in many other matters, the practice of Domesday was not uniform. Sometimes it spoke of the fief as the bishop's, and sometimes as that of his church; in one case it would treat together the manors of the bishop and the monks, and in another it would treat them as distinct and survey them, accordingly, apart.903 But it may also have been the case that in those counties where the estates were not specifically divided, there was a genuine uncertainty on the part of the Domesday compilers as to the structure of the eleventh-century mensa. At Worcester, the bishop retained certain privileges in all the lands of the Oswaldslaw, including those of the monks, as well as in five estates in Esch hundred. Moreover, the shire court testified that the bishop should have one load (summa) of the best quality grain from each hide, whether free or not, which belonged to the church of Worcester. It was to be paid yearly on St. Martin's day ( n November), and the penalty for not complying was to render eleven times the original amount. 904 The same taxing privileges, it might be noted, which here belonged to the bishop, were held by the abbey church of St. Mary at Pershore in its triple hundred, although by 1086 they were shared with the abbot of St. Peter's, Westminster.905 If only the hides of manors allotted to the monks are counted, the tax could have amounted to about ninety-five summae, a rent which further served to emphasize the strong episcopal presence in the lands of the church of Worcester. An additional complication in understanding the division of revenues, is that the outlying portions of three Cotswold manors from the Oswaldslaw episcopal lands had been allocated for the support of the monks. From Bredon manor there were three hides at Teddington and one at Mitton; from Tredington manor there were two hides at Blackwell; and from Blockley manor there was one hide at Church Icomb.906 These were, in fact, relatively small parcels since Bredon was rated at thirty-five hides, Tredington at twenty-three, and Blockley at thirty-eight. The values of the monastic estates, however, compare favorably with the demesne holding often hides at fy 10s and with the other sub-tenancies. Teddington and Mitton at four hides were worth £ 4 ; from two hides at Cutsdean held by Alric, the archdeacon, there was £1 10s; 903 904 906

J. H . R o u n d , VCH Worcestershire 1, p . 245. DB 1, fo. 174a. See also Finn, Introduction, p . 197. Ibid., fos. 173-173c.

239

905

Ibid., fo. 175c.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England and from sixteen hides held by Urse d'Abitot at Redmarley, Pendock, Washbourne, and Westmancote, £13 16s. At Tredington there were, perhaps, seventeen hides in demesne at ^12 1 os, while the monks had £2 10s for two hides at Black well, and Gilbert, son of Turold, had four hides at Longdon for £ 3 . The value of the monks' portion of the Blockley estate at Church Iscomb is not indicated, but the other tenancies, at Ditchford, Daylesford, and Evenlode, as well as the episcopal demesne, are rendered at close to a pound a hide. The separation into small estates reflects part of the lengthy process, antedating the Conquest, of detaching portions of the conventual endowment from the episcopal possessions in order to reduce the bishop's liability, while at the same time giving the monks better control of their income. It should also be noted that in many cases where the value of the demesne is expressed in the number of ploughs, as at Blackwell, the net income remains unknown and may have been less than it would appear to have been from the reported figures. If the individual entries in the Domesday section for Worcestershire are counted there appear to have been eight estates which were held by the bishop, followed by another fifteen held by the convent. The total assessment of the episcopal holdings amounted to about 225 hides of which about 95, or 42 percent, were held in demesne, and about 130, or 58 percent, had been leased or subinfeudated. In addition, the bishop had ninety houses in Worcester, of which half were in demesne, and three more in Droitwich.907 By comparison, the monks held fifteen estates, 907

Ibid., fo. 173c. Of the ninety houses, Urse d'Abitot held twenty-four. A few lines later he is said to have held twenty-five houses in foro Wircestre. This may refer (with an additional house) to the twenty-four above, or it may mean that the bishop had 115 domus in the town. The totals of the manors will vary depending on how the Domesday entries are calculated. John Hamshere in "The structure and exploitation of the Domesday Book estate of the church of Worcester," Landscape History 7 (1985), 43—48, assigns eleven manors to the bishop since he counts in addition the three membra of Upton, Tidmington, and Tibberton belonging, respectively, to Ripple, Tredington, and North wick. On the other hand, his figure of twelve manors for the monks is three short of my count of fifteen. Moreover, in the case of the monastic manors, the named dependent properties (Pendock with Overbury, Wiburgestoke with Harvington, Broadwas with Hallow, Netherton with Cropthorne, Lench with Cleve, Aston and Baddington with Stoke (Prior), and Knighton with Eardiston) are not counted. If they were, the total should be increased to twenty-three, or even to twenty-seven, if the berewicks of Alvechurch were included. On p. 47 of the article cited, however, Hampshere refers to the " fourteen manors " of the monks, which is edging closer to my figure! See also the discussion in Christopher Dyer, Lords and Peasants in a Changing Society. The Estates of the Bishopric ofWorcester: 680—1340 (Cambridge 1980), pp. 36-38.

24O

The cathedral priories

assessed at i68| hides, of which they had about 120 in demesne, or 71 percent, to supply their needs, and had leased out thirty-seven, or about 22 percent. Since the estimated value in 1086 for the eight episcopal manors and for the fifteen conventual manors was nearly the same, it is apparent that the bishop had kept the more productive land in his possession.908 The fact that a considerable part of each of his manors was leased out or subinfeudated, and that the losses suffered by the church at the time of the Conquest were mostly to the episcopal lands, also point to their greater value. Urse d'Abitot, for instance, the royal constable and sheriff of Worcestershire who, with his brother, Robert dispensator, and Roger de Lacy and Walter de Ponther, was the greatest threat to the ecclesiastical endowment, had encroached upon some sixty hides of land in ten episcopal manors, but in only three manors belonging to the convent. The church also held land in Gloucestershire where the Domesday heading, as in Worcestershire, was terra ecclesiae Wirecestre.909 In this case, however, it is more difficult to separate the conventual possessions from the episcopal. The estates at Westbury, Colesbourne, Bibury, Withington, Condicote, and (Bishops) Cleeve can all be shown to have been granted to the church before the Conquest, but by 1086 the conventual interest had been crowded out by extensive leasing, subinfeudation, and encroachments by the bishop.910 Westbury, with its membra at Henbury Red wick, Stoke (Bishop), Yate, Aust (Cleeve), Compton, and Itchington was rated at fifty hides, of which twenty-six and a half hides were tenanted. The Domesday value to the monks was calculated at ^29 14s 6d, as against fy for the leased land. Prior to the Conquest the whole estate had been worth only £24, so it is possible that some increased profit had resulted from a more efficient exploitation of the demesne. But Hemming, in a note describing conditions before the Domesday inquest, assigned thirty-five of the fifty hides to the bishop's demesne, and the other fifteen to his milites, distributed evenly among Itchington, Compton, and Stoke.911 In Domesday five hides in Itchington 908

910

The monks may have tried to build up a compact estate near Worcester, leaving the bishop, who was more mobile, the properties further away. While this may have been their intention, the plan was not completed since they still possessed holdings at Hartlebury, Wolverley, Alvechurch, Eardiston, Knighton, and Shipston, more than 909 ten miles out. DB i, fo. i64d. AS Charters, Westbury: 1187, 1433; Colesbourne: 1262; Bibury: 1254; Withington: 911 1255; Condicote: 1475; Cleve: 1283. Hemingi Chartularium, pp. 83-84. 24I

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England were held by Constantine, five hides in Stoke by Osbern Giffard, but only three and a half hides in Compton by Gilbert, son of Thorold. Furthermore, Thurstan, son of Rolf, then held five hides in Aust, which is not mentioned in Hemming, and six riding-men held eight additional hides. By 1086, therefore, there had been a redistribution of the holdings which increased the subinfeudated land, and apparently decreased the land held in demesne by the bishop.912 Of the twenty-three and a half hides of land remaining in demesne in 1086 it is uncertain how much had been assigned to the benefit of the convent by Wulfstan. Domesday speaks of the manor as being in the demesne of St. Mary's which implies a shift from the episcopal mensa to the monastic. But the bishop's interest in the thirty-five hides may not have been forgotten, since it was the case that Bishop Samson, Wulfstan's successor, seized the churches at Westbury and Compton, among other properties which allegedly belonged to the monks. It was not until the time of Bishop Simon, about 1150, that the lands and churches were finally restored.913 Of the other Domesday manors in Gloucestershire, the eight hides in Colesbourne were entirely held from the church by Walter, son of Roger; twelve of the twenty-two hides in Bibury were subinfeudated; likewise twenty-five and three quarter hides out of thirty in Withington; twenty-five hides out of thirty in (Bishop) Cleeve; and the forty-two hides in Condicote. Bibury, with Eycot, Withington, Condicote, and Cleeve, moreover, were all held of the bishop, an arrangement which seemingly excluded the demesne rights of the convent.914 At Cleeve, seven hides had been subinfeudated to Bernard and Reginald, who, it is said, "did not wish to do their military service to St. Mary's." 915 Since Wulfstan held the manor, they likely viewed themselves as his men, rather than men of the convent. Overall, the bishop held eighty-two hides of land valued at about £79, °f which some sixty-five hides had been leased. The convent, on the other hand, if Westbury and Colesbourne are assigned to the monks, held fifty-eight hides worth about ^34 of which thirty-five hides had been leased. Although the bishop had alienated a substantial part of the demesne of the church, he had used a considerable part of the conventual estate to do it. 912 914 915

913 See Round, Feudal England, p. 231. Worcester Cartulary, no. 62. DB 1, fos. 164CI-165. " . . . e t servitium S. M a r i e n o l u n t facere," ibid. fo. 165.

242

The cathedral priories In Warwickshire, the Domesday lands were listed as terra episcopi de Wirecestre which comprised estates at Hampton, Stratford, Alveston, Spelsbury, Flecknoe and Loxley. Altogether there were about fifty-five hides valued at £ 7 2 of which twelve hides or so had been leased out. There is no indication that the convent had an interest, except that Hemming assigns them Alveston and Loxley. 916 In this case he may have been right since Alveston, as noted above, was given to the monks by Wulfstan, and Loxley was included among the properties restored to the prior in 1149 by Bishop Simon. 917 Here, it may be remarked, is an illustration of the difficulty in relying too heavily on the incomplete Domesday evidence to decide questions of rights in particular estates. The Domesday assessment of ecclesiastical land in the three counties shows the total to have been about 593 hides. Of this number the bishop held 362 hides with 204 leased or subinfeudated, and the convent held 231, with 72 leased or subinfeudated. The financial burden imposed by these assessments, and the pressure to meet the obligation for military service, undoubtedly encouraged the bishop to let out a high 61 percent of his holdings. It has been assumed that most of the fees were created between 1088, the date of a rebellion against which household knights were used, and 1095, the year in which Wulfstan died. 918 In the scutage returns of 1156, the bishop argued that he was responsible for only fifty knights, out of a quota of sixty. 919 Ten years later the carta listed enough enfeoffments made during Wulfstan's episcopate to provide forty-nine and four-fifths knights. To these were added four under Bishop Samson, and four more under Bishop Theulf. Since Theulf died in 1123, all the fees (57.8) reported in 1166 were, for the purposes of the royal inquiry, of the old enfeoffment. 920 But the carta revealed that the bishop could count on only thirtyseven and a half knights, since most of the lordly tenants disputed the number they were to supply. It is possible that Wulfstan made up the difference by supporting a number of household knights (stipendarii) in his court at Worcester. 921 Although Henry I later set a limit on the tax liability of the bishop of Worcester of 387I hides, the financial and military obligations were heavy enough so that 916 918

921

917 Hemingi Chartularium, p. 311. Worcester Cartulary, no. 73. C. W. Hollister, The Military Organization of Norman England (Oxford 1965), pp. 66, 919 920 173. RBE 1, p. 661. Ibid., pp. 300-301. Vita Wulfstani, pp. 46-47, 55-56.

243

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England while Wulfstan may have had the interests of his monks at heart, he was careful not to make over to them more of the endowment than he could afford.922 The practice of using conventual land for episcopal subinfeudation is again revealed in the writ, issued by William II in the spring of 1095 when the see was temporarily vacant, by which he demanded a payment from each of certain tenants on the episcopal barony. A list of thirty landholders was drawn up with the assessment set against each name. 923 Many of the men, or their ancestors, can be found holding Worcester estates in 1086, and some of them appear to have been enfeoffed on land which was under monastic rather than episcopal jurisdiction. Urse d'Abitot, the greatest landholder of all, was exempt, but Roger de Lacy in Hallow and Crowle, the abbot of Evesham in Hampton and Bengeworth, and Baldwin who held of Hugh de Grandmesnil at Lyppard, can be counted among them.924 The assessment, which amounted to £250, if collected and not reduced too much by royal favor, would have provided the king with a substantial income. Since the vacancy at Worcester was of short duration so that the return on the temporalia could not have been very great, it is quite possible that Rufus made up part of the deficiency by levying the tax on the baronial tenants. At the same time the members of the convent, without a bishop in office, assumed some privileges in the management of their affairs. A royal writ which confirmed Alveston to the church, because it clearly placed the care of their property in the hands of the prior and monks, has been cited as evidence that the community was allowed full control based on a traditional mensal separation.925 Strictly speaking, however, the clause in question belongs with the Alveston grant and cannot, without other evidence, be taken as applied to the priory as a whole. Sede vacante administration, moreover, while in the long run it was a key factor 922 923

924 925

Regesta n, n o . 1114; Worcester Cartulary, n o . 6. Relevamen is the w o r d used in the writ, b u t it is easier to explain it as a tax than as a relief. Hemingi Chartularium, 79—80. It was printed and discussed in R o u n d , Feudal England, p p . 241—245. See also the c o m m e n t s in Southern, " R a n u l f F l a m b a r d , " in Medieval Humanism, p p . 193—194; B a r l o w , William Rufus, p p . 235—236; H o w e l l , Regalian Right, p p . 16-19. T h a t the levy was n o t an oddity of Rufus' reign, and thus cannot be used to d r a w the once-popular portrait of an evil king, is s h o w n b y the fact that H e n r y I took b o t h an aid o n the knights of the bishopric of D u r h a m and a subsidy from the n o n knightly tenants. See J u d i t h A. Green, ' " P r a e c l a r u m et magnificum antiquitatis m o n u m e n t u m ' ; T h e earliest surviving Pipe R o l l , " BIHR 4 (1982), 7. DB 1, fos. I 7 3 d - i 7 4 . Worcester Cartulary, no. 5. See also Howell, Regalian Right, p. 16.

244

The cathedral priories

in the development of capitular autonomy, reflects at this point the exceptional organization and management of chapter resources rather than the usual and ordinary. On the other hand, the monks were responsible for several transactions which helped, temporarily, to strengthen their position. They gave a life interest, for instance, in St. Helen's church and its lands which belonged to the conventual estate, to Fritheric, Wulfstan's chaplain.926 He was also given the land on which he had already built his house, so that the bulk of the grant was made during the vacancy. The terms of the agreement, however, do not seem to have been kept, since St. Helen's was later lost to the convent and only restored in the time of Bishop Simon, 1130X 1148.927 The vacancy came to an end early in 1096 with the appointment of Samson, a former canon at Bayeux and chaplain to William I. His brother was Thomas, archbishop of York, and his son, another Thomas, born before he came to his bishopric, would also become archbishop of York. 928 Samson remained in office until 1112, but the general instability of the conventual mensa is shown by the kinds of grants which were made to it in his time and by the property which was later sequestered. The large estate of Westbury on Trym in Gloucestershire, with its berewicks, came into the hands of Samson and was not restored until the pontificate of Bishop Simon.929 But Samson confirmed to the monks the grant by Osbern Fitz-Richard of the church of Dodderhill from his estate in Shropshire.930 Rights to the church were later disputed by the monks and the heirs of Osbern with the result that the church was temporarily lost until recovered by Bishop Roger about 1175. The original grant by Osbern was recognized by his grandson, Osbert Fitz-Hugh, and he and his brother were to have a life advowson and present the priest to the prior. The prior, in turn, was to present him to the bishop. After the death of Osbert and his direct heirs, the church was to revert to the convent.931 Samson also confirmed to the monks the church at Hartlebury for their support and the church at Wolverhampton in Staffordshire.932 Wolverhampton had been given to Samson by 926 928

930 932

927 Worcester Cartulary, no. 53, and above p. 236. Ibid., no. 54. GP, p. 289; Worcester Cartulary, pp. xlvii-xlix; V. H. Galbraith, "Notes on the career of Samson, bishop of Worcester: 1096—1112," EHR 82 (1967), 86—101; Barlow, The

929 English Church I, pp. 71-72. DB 1, fo. 164c!; Worcester Cartulary, no. 62. 931 Cheney, Roger, Bishop of Worcester, appx. i, nos. 77—78. Ibid. Hemingi Chartularium, p. 426; Worcester Cartulary, nos. 73, 77, 259, 268—269.

245

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England William I when he was serving in the king's chapel. He then granted it to his son, Thomas, the later archbishop, and on his appointment to Worcester, he confirmed it to the prior and monks. 933 After Samson's death, Wolverhampton was confirmed zsfeudum episcopi to Bishop Theulf by the archbishop of York. 934 At some point in the next few years Wolverhampton church was seized by Roger, bishop of Salisbury, perhaps during the two-year vacancy after Theulf s death in 1123. Toward the end of his life, Roger confessed that he had taken the church "through ambition and wordly power, unjustly and without judgment" and begged the monks' forgiveness.935 It was, in fact, one of a group of churches which Roger restored at the same time to his own chapter at Salisbury, to the convent at Cirencester, and to the Oxford priory of St. Frideswide.936 Upon the arrest of Roger and his fellow bishops in June 1139, Wolverhampton fell into the king's hands and it was forthwith granted by Stephen to Roger, bishop of Chester, in whose diocese it lay. Before long, however, in a remarkable reversal of policy by which the king cancelled his own grant, Stephen made the gesture, at least, of restoring Wolverhampton to the monks of Worcester. 937 The king tried to put as good a face on it as possible, while admitting, nevertheless, that he had acted inadvisedly (inconsulte).938 Rather than having been recovered for the use of the monks, however, it appears that Wolverhampton was returned to its original status as a royal chapel which it had when William I gave it to Bishop Samson. 939 The monks of Worcester may have had a few years of income from the church, but the separation of the mensa was obviously no insurance against alienation. Samson was succeeded by Theulf, also a canon from Bayeux, who was nominated in 1113 but not consecrated until June 1115. It was probably during his pontificate that an inventory of property which belonged to the bishopric was drawn up. 940 In a 933 935

936 937 938

939 940

934 Worcester Cartulary, nos. 260-262, 264-265. Ibid. " P e r a m b i t i o n e m et secularem p o t e n t i a m iniuste et sine iudicio," E. Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, pp. 264—265; Worcester Cartulary, no. 266. Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, p p . 262-269. Regesta m, no. 969; Worcester Cartulary, no. 263. Worcester Cartulary, p. xlix; J. H. Denton, English Royal Free Chapels, i 100-1300. A Constitutional History (Manchester 1970), p p . 41—44. Worcester Cartulary, p. xlix. E a d m e r h a d written to the m o n k s u r g i n g t h e m t o elect a regular since evil m e n w e r e trying t o replace monastic bishops w i t h seculars (Southern, Saint Anselm and his

246

The cathedral priories

comparison with the holdings in 1086, it can be seen from the later schedule that there had been a few transfers of property and some reduction in hidation. In the Oswaldslaw, the bishop gained three hides in Bredon from Alric, the archdeacon, and from Durand, the sheriff; three hides in Northwick from either Urse d'Abitot or Orderic, and one hide in Ripple from Orderic. He lost four hides in Fladbury, one and one-half hides in Blockley, and threequarters of a hide in Wick, all to Walter de Beauchamp, the sonin-law and heir of Urse d'Abitot. The monks, for their part, gained a hide in Cropthorne from Robert dispensator, and the story of recovery was similar in the other Worcestershire hundreds. In Cresslau hundred, of the twenty hides in Hartlebury held by the church in Domesday Book, fifteen were picked up by the bishop, and five by Walter de Beauchamp. In Came hundred the thirteen hides belonging to the church in Alvechurch were gained by the bishop, and in Esch hundred, of the fourteen hides in Hanbury, the bishop had thirteen and a half and Walter de Beauchamp one half. The church also lost one half hide in Cleeve (Prior) and Lench, and four hides in Phepson. On the basis of these figures, the bishop had an increase of seven hides and a loss of six and a quarter in the Oswaldslaw, for a net gain of three-quarters of a hide, while in the other estates he added forty-one and one half hides from the conventual estates. The monks gained one hide in the Oswaldslaw, but elsewhere they lost fifty-one and a half hides of their land. The chief monastic decline was in Hartlebury, Alvechurch, and Hanbury, all estates held by the church in 1086. All three estates, moreover, were confirmed as episcopal property by Gregory IX in 1237.941 In other properties which they had held in Domesday Book, however, the monks continued to have an interest. Thus, Wolverley, Stoke (Prior), Eardiston and Knighton, Cleeve (Prior) and Lench, and Phepson were listed as monastic in 1115. Where the hidation remained the same but the tenants had changed, as at Alvechurch, it can be assumed that the estate simply passed from the monks' hands to the bishop's. In other cases, where the tenants remained the same, but the hidation was reduced, as at Phepson, it probably reflected a change in benefits whereby some of the hides Biographer, p. 286). Henry I then appointed Theulf, a secular! The inventory is in Round, Feudal England, pp. 140-148, from Hemming's cartulary, pp. 313-316. Round dated the survey n o 8 x 1118, but it may well have been a product of the vacancy after Samson's death, 1114 x 1115. See the comments in the DB-Phil, Worcestershire, appx. 941 V, Worcester C, note. Worcester Cartulary, no. 433.

247

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England were exempted from geld. At Phepson this certainly seems to have been the case, since a writ of Henry I quit-claimed to the prior and monks the geld and royal customs on four hides, which is exactly the loss indicated in the survey.942 Other reductions in hidation were made at various times by the king, such as the relief of three hides from geld and aids at Stoke (Prior).943 This, however, was later than 1115 since in the survey the estate was still rated at the Domesday figure often hides. As might be expected, the bishops of Worcester can be found disputing some of the assessments. Alvechurch, for which a rating of nine hides was claimed, instead of the thirteen which had been the basis of the sheriffs geld, is a case in point.944 Reductions in the total hidation for particular estates may reflect encroachments on the episcopal lands by other lords, such as Walter de Beauchamp in Fladbury. Or they may be explained by a process of continual subinfeudation from the time of the Conquest. A list of demesne hides which is included in the Red Book of Worcester, itself mainly a thirteenth-century production, shows a marked decrease in hidation on the bishop's manors in Gloucestershire, particularly at Westbury, Bibury, and Cleeve (Episcopi), which can be accounted for by the grants made by successive bishops which reduced the value of the estates.945 After a two-year vacancy following Theulf s death in October 1123, Simon, a secular clerk and Queen Adele's chaplain, succeeded him as bishop of Worcester. He remained in office for twenty-five years and proved to be a benevolent head of his monastic community. Among several noteworthy donations he made were the restoration of Laugherne, albeit somewhat reluctantly at King Stephen's request, and the recovery of St. Mary's church in London.946 Laugherne had been part of Wick manor in 1086 which was held by Urse d'Abitot and Robert dispensator. It may still have been in the hands of the Beauchamp heirs when the monks petitioned the king for its return. St. Mary's had been given away by Simon, " heedlessly," he says, to a brother of one of his clerks. On the other hand, the bishop made a number of grants to the convent, as distinct from restorations, including two churches in Worcester, the anniversary payments of five marks from the toll in Worcester, Peter's Pence collected by his 942 945 946

943 944 Ibid., no. 18. Ibid., nos. 35-36. Ibid., pp. xlvi-xlvii. Red Book of Worcester, 1, pp. 442—443. For Laugherne see Worcester Cartulary, nos. 84-85; for St. Mary le Strand, see ibid., nos. 70-72, and Saltman, Theobald, pp. 545-546.

248

The cathedral priories officials from the monastic property, and the hay tithe from several of his manors.947 In 1149, nearing the end of his life, the bishop issued a general confirmation to the prior and monks of all their possessions. It was, in fact, a summary recognition by Simon, in the presence of Archbishop Theobald, of the separate conventual mensa which by that time had become firmly established.948 Included were most of the lands which had appeared in Domesday Book as belonging to the monks, the tithes of hay and wine from various episcopal estates, revenues from toll, a number of churches, and other grants by the bishop himself. The provisions of Simon's charter, with a few exceptions, were later confirmed by Alexander III in a privilege of 1159 x 1163. 949 The papal order was most likely issued sede vacante after the death of Bishop Alfred in 1160 and before the election of Roger early in 1163. If so, it is to be paired with a charter of Henry II which also confirmed their lands and goods to the prior and monks. 950 A few years before that, the king had confirmed to the church of Worcester and to Bishop John of Pagham (1151-1157) all the lands and liberties which had been held in the time of Henry I. 951 The confirmation to both bishop and convent can be interpreted to mean that the king intended to include all the property assigned to both the episcopal mensa and to the conventual without making any distinction. It is possible that the chancery clerks still thought of ecclesiastical property in this collective sense. Although the editor of the Worcester Cartulary found "no later instance of a grant of this kind," thus arguing for the conclusion that by midcentury the convent was routinely administering its own property apart from the bishop, a charter of King Richard in 1189 was also addressed to the church of Worcester and the bishop jointly. 952 It confirmed that 614 acres of land were quit of assarts, surveys, pleas, and customs. The property lay in thirteen estates, nine of which were episcopal and four monastic. But for some time the monks had had an interest in at least seven of the episcopal estates. Nevertheless, the rights in the 614 acres were conveyed specifically 947 948 949 950

952

Worcester Cartulary, nos. 64-69, 87. Ibid., nos. 7 3 - 7 4 ; Saltman, Theobald, n o . 299. Ibid., n o . 7 7 ; PUE u, n o . 109. Worcester Cartulary, n o . 51. See also n o . 43 of the same date w h e r e b y the m o n k s were 951 Ibid., n o . 50. promised protection from unjust claims. See the c o m m e n t s b y R. R. D a r l i n g t o n in The Worcester Cartulary, p . lxii; and cf. n o . 325.

249

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England to the bishop and his successors. Thus, the dual confirmation seems more a reflection of a formulaic tradition, than an attempt at legal definition. Under Bishop Roger (1164-1179), a further step was taken whereby the monks were permitted to have an independent administration of their churches, with the bishop's approval, providing that in each case the vicar was allowed enough income for himself and to enable him to meet his financial obligations to the bishopric. By these arrangements, which were confirmed in writing, the cathedral priory held the church in question in usus monachorum, thereby assuming the position of "corporate rector." The right of the bishop to approve the terms of the pensions and obventions, or payments received, however, was still reserved to him.953 Roger was also heir to the dispute between the canons of Osney abbey and the monks of Worcester, which is of interest in so far as it reflects the development of legal thought in regard to the rights of the cathedral convent. Bishop John of Pagham, Roger's predecessor but one, had given his church at Bibury, with its appurtenances, to Osney, and this was confirmed by Alexander III about 1163.954 When Roger came to office he reclaimed the church because of its value as a post of patronage, and the pope, in a reversal of his former decision, ruled that the original grant was illegal because it had been made without the consent of the monks of Worcester.955 The case ultimately came before Bartholomew, bishop of Exeter, who in 1173 was acting as papal judge-delegate. It was decided that Osney abbey was to hold the church in return for an annual payment of sixty shillings to the Worcester monks ad victum and the right of the bishop to appoint a canon at Osney to say prayers on his behalf.956 In spite of the lapse on the part of the papal chancery, the dispute was brought to an end largely in favor of the original beneficiary, while the rights of the Worcester community were defined and incorporated into the official decision. In order for Bishop Roger to recover the church a defect had to be found in the grant by John of Pagham. The price of repossessing the church, therefore, was to admit the inability of the 953

954 955

956

T h e implication of the phrase " in usus m o n a c h o r u m salvo per omnia hire episcopali et sufficient! portione vicarii" is discussed by M . G. Cheney, Roger, Bishop of Worcester, p p . 78—82, and p p . 173—174, w h o also supplied the apt phrase " c o r p o r a t e rector." PUE in, n o . 146. M . G. Cheney, Roger, Bishop of Worcester, p p . 182-183, and appx. 1, nos. 51, 84; appx. 11, n o . 36. Worcester Cartulary, no. 226; Cartulary of Osney Abbey, nos. 511—517.

250

The cathedral priories bishop to dispose unilaterally even of a church on his own demesne. As a result, the Worcester convent, and in particular, the prior, owing to Bishop Roger's exile from 1167 to 1172, achieved a significantly greater role in administration than ever before. In matters of internal discipline, the twelfth-century bishop was accustomed to appoint the prior and, through him, to control the other members of the conventual hierarchy. This jurisdiction did not necessarily affect the structure of the mensa, except that it tended to reinforce the superior position of the bishop in dealing with his clergy. At Worcester, Bishop Simon deposed his prior c. 1145 for reasons that cannot now be determined, although he may have been acting on complaints of some of the monks. The archbishop of Canterbury then called him to account. The grounds of Theobald's decision are also unclear, but he ordered Prior David to be reinstated until a successor could be found. Certain of the monks thereupon absconded with part of the cathedral possessions, only to be arrested by the bishop. The affair drew a letter from Gilbert Foliot on behalf of Bishop Simon in which he described, and defended the bishop's action. He went so far as to urge Theobald " to put his faith in one truthful bishop, rather than in a band of disloyal and angry monks. " 957 While this outburst can be taken as a reflection of the generally aggressive attitude of the episcopate toward the monks, coming as it does from Gilbert, himself a black monk and a former Cluniac prior, it is probably more an indication of his outrage at the current disorder in the diocese in which the authority of the father-figure of the bishopabbot was not accorded sufficient respect. The prior, as head of the monastic community, had not only to contend with hostile members of his own convent, as well as a dominating bishop, but also with the substantial power of the archdeacons. Gilbert Foliot, for example, claimed to be vicarius in the diocese of Worcester upon the death of Bishop Simon in March of 1150. In this case, to the vicar was entrusted the management of the spiritual affairs of the church which was temporarily without a shepherd, while the tetnporalia were in the hands of the king's commissioner. 958 But Gilbert was rebuffed by the archdeacon of Worcester who argued that it was he who held such authority {plena potestas) during a vacancy, and that, 957 « Credendum etiam plus estimo episcopo uni et veraci quam irate monachorum turbe et contumaci...," GFL, no. 47; Saltman, Theobald, p. 86. 958 Morey and Brooke, Gilbert Foliot, pp. 226—227.

251

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England furthermore, no one might legally be placed between him and the archbishop of Canterbury. The business of being vicar, complained Gilbert, was more a burden than an honor. 959 He was, nevertheless, to have his day. During the extended vacancy after the death of Bishop Alfred in 1160, and until the appointment of Roger in 1163, Gilbert again served as the vicar at Worcester. The increasing independence of the priory from the mid-1140s onward, which gave the monks greater freedom in granting and receiving land, in drawing up agreements and in negotiating rents, all without direct interference by the bishop, led to a formal written agreement between the bishop and the prior about the year 1190. This set of regulations dealt with the internal distribution of goods which had been granted to the church by testamentary bequests. They reflected the uncertain practices of previous episcopates which were now given permanent definition. If a warhorse, or a palfrey, or gold accompanied the body of the deceased [freeman], they will belong to the prior; if a mare, or a nag, they will belong to the sacristan. Furs or arms will belong to the chamberlain; all other clothes will go to the sacristan. If there are mantles or cloths, they will belong to the keeper of the refectory. If there are tools, they will go to the cellarer. In whatever way a testament will have been made, these conditions will remain in effect. If indeed the testator made his will in regard to other things, for whatever goods he bequeathed to certain places his wishes will be respected. If the goods will have been left simply to the church of Worcester, the chapter will have two parts, and the sacristan the third part, in whatever cemetery the deceased may be buried. These conditions apply to free men, not to monks. In regard to those who became monks when about to die, the prior will have all their things, except that if a vigil shall have to be held, the sacristan will provide all that is necessary, and the prior will pay him 32d. In the case of peasants, all their goods belong to the sacristan.960 The hierarchical and separate structure of the obedientiary offices, the kinds of goods that might be expected as legacies, the identification of the church of Worcester with the convent, and the absence of the bishop as beneficiary, are all points of interest in regard to the developed mensa. By this time, too, can be dated the first evidence of the priory seal.961 959 981

960 GFL, no. 93. Worcester Cartulary, nos. 439—457, and no. 334. T. A. Heslop, "The romanesque seal of Worcester Cathedral," in Medieval Art and Architecture at Worcester Cathedral, B.A.A. Transactions 1 (Leeds 1978), pp. 71-79; W. de G. Birch, Catalogue of Seals, vol. 1, no. 2295.

252

The cathedral priories

More time was needed, however, and more agreements made, before the bishop and his monks were able to define and settle their jurisdictional differences in a lasting arrangement. The uneasy relationship between the two parties which characterized the opening years of the thirteenth century can be attributed to the legacy of unsolved problems from the twelfth, especially in regard to the elections of bishop and prior, as well as to the instability occasioned by the rapid succession of the late twelfth-century bishops of Worcester. From 1151 to 1218 there were eleven men consecrated to the office, of whom nine died and two were translated to other sees; but from 1190 to 1200 there were four bishops none of whom held on for more than two years. Bishop Mauger, who had been rejected for the episcopal nomination by Hubert Walter, archbishop of Canterbury, but then confirmed by Innocent III, first disputed, and then reached an accord with his monks over their joint income.962 Having delivered the interdict of 1208, he sailed abroad and died in Normandy in 1212 while John confiscated his property at home. The selection of Ralph, the prior of Worcester, as his successor was approved by the monks, but subsequently annulled by the papal legate, who was acting in concert with the king. Chosen instead, early in 1214, was the royal chancellor, Walter de Gray. Ralph became abbot of Evesham, and Sylvester of Evesham, a monk at Worcester, took his place as prior. Walter can be shown to have confirmed the revenues of St. Helen's church to the convent, and the church on his episcopal manor of Cleeve, so that the monks might improve the services which they offered to pilgrims and the sick.963 Within a year of his appointment, however, Walter was translated to York minster and succeeded at Worcester by Prior Sylvester. Simon, the camerarius, took his place as prior.964 By the summer of 1218, Sylvester had died and again the monks sent up their nomination. Again they were denied by the legate who confirmed the election of William of Blois, the archdeacon of Buckingham. As it turned out, the relations between William and Simon deteriorated to such an extent that within a short time the bishop attempted to depose the prior. The trouble seems to have been due largely to the insistence by the bishop on his rights of visitation, following the dictates of Lateran IV, and the resentment which this engendered. 962 963 964

Annales Monastici, RS-36 iv, p. 390. Ibid., p. 404; Worcester Cartulary, no. 230. Worcester Cartulary, pp. lviii—lix.

253

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England After some skirmishing, he finally had his way, with the result that he dismissed the sacristan and excommunicated three of the hostile monks. 965 This campaign of personal warfare provoked a round of negotiations, as it was intended to do, and subsequently a settlement which was reached in a synod at Worcester in 1224. In the presence of Stephen Langton, Jocelin of Bath, Hugh of Lincoln, the abbots of Evesham and Reading, inter alia, the rights of the bishop and the convent at Worcester were defined in regard to the appointment of the prior, the custody of the priory when vacant, the payment of certain tithes and dues from churches, and the bishop's right to enter the chapter house (capitulum),966 It was decided that the bishop was to nominate the prior from a list of seven names carefully considered and forwarded by the monks. The appointment was not to be postponed should the bishop be absent, lest the priory be left desolate and forsaken, nor was the prior to be removed except for just cause. During a vacancy in the priory, the bishop was to have the right to present to the churches which belonged to the convent. He was also to have his rights as baron in regard to marriages, wardships, escheats, reliefs, knight service, and the customs of free tenants. Should the bishop delay unduly, however, in appointing a prior, all the feudal returns were to go to the convent. All the other revenue from their manors, churches, and other investments was to remain in the hands of the monks. The bishop and the convent were to share equally in the proceeds realized from the tomb and relics of St. Wulfstan and in the appointment of the custodians of the shrine. As to the bishop's right to enter the chapter house, it was agreed that he was to warn the brethren before coming and state his purpose. If he wished to discuss spiritual matters, he was to appear alone without his secular clerks. If he wished to discuss temporal matters, then he might come freely with his clerks. Should he at any time, however, turn to consider spiritual things, then the clerks must retire. 967 In its relative complexity, the composition reflects not only the troubles which the monks had suffered at the hands of their bishops in the preceeding years, but also the greater legalistic turn 965

Annales Monastici, RS-36 iv, pp. 411—414. The sentences of excommunication were annulled by the archbishop of Canterbury. 966 Ada Stephani Langton Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, ed. K. Major, Canterbury and York Society, 1 (1950), pp. 160-162. 967 "Xractare...de spiritualibus seu ordinem tangentibus, vel potius de temporalibus...," Registrum Prioratus Wigorniensis, ed. Hale, pp. 28a—29a.

254

The cathedral priories

of mind which in the meticulous attention to the rules and their exceptions was a fundamental characteristic of the period. The 1224 agreement was confirmed a year later at the monks' request by Honorius III, and again by Nicholas IV at the end of the century.968 To what extent its provisions were observed by succeeding bishops after 1225 is hard to say, although Bishop Giffard, whose long episcopate from 1268 to 1302 was disrupted by a serious dispute with the convent over alienation of property and visitation rights, nevertheless saw reason to agree to it. 969 It is also worth noting that the procedure established at Worcester when the priory was vacant, whereby seven names were sent to the bishop, was duplicated in the compromises made between Boniface of Savoy, the archbishop of Canterbury, and the clergy at Lincoln, London, and Salisbury between 1261 and 1263. The archbishop claimed the right to exercise episcopal jurisdiction in the sees until a new bishop should be appointed. This was disputed by the deans and chapters who finally forced Boniface to agree to a joint jurisdiction. The names of up to four canons were to be submitted to him from which he would choose one person who would represent him in the diocese and would share his power with the incumbent dean.970 At Worcester, however, when the agreement was made with Boniface in 1268, there was no list of names presented to the archbishop. The prior, or if necessary the sub-prior, was to exercise full jurisdiction in the diocese without sharing his authority with anyone else. Except for procurations ad victum monachorum the revenue was to be divided into three parts of which the archbishop took two and the prior one for their expenses.971 The rights of the prior to the custody of the vacant see had been put forward in 1236 in the time of Archbishop Edmund Rich. It was then argued that this was a privilege which belonged to the prior and monks of the cathedral church based on a long and ancient tradition.972 But the antiquity of the custom was probably more in the hearts and hopes of the cathedral clergy than in the written texts, because in 1255 the archbishop seems to have appointed his own agent upon the death of Bishop Walter de Cantilupe.973 Thus the parties were led to the accord of 1268, after 968 970

972 973

969 Worcester Cartulary, nos. 437, 540. VCH Worcestershire, vol. 1, p. 101. T h e procedure is described in Churchill, Canterbury Administration, vol. 1, p p . 161-193, 971 and vol. n, p p . 4 1 - 6 1 . Ibid., vol. 1, p p . 1846°.; Worcester Cartulary, n o . 473. Worcester Cartulary, no. 323; Registrum Prioratus Wigorniensis, pp. 137—138. Churchill, Canterbury Administration, p. 185.

255

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England which the prior at Worcester was solidily established in his jurisdiction sede vacante. The division of the mensa, which by the end of the twelfth century had long been recognized in practice as an economic reality, had by the mid-thirteenth century been given a legal justification and definition which marks the status of the convent as a largely independent community. With the examination of the conventual arrangements at Worcester, we have reached the last in the list of bishop's priories which altogether made up ten of the seventeen medieval English cathedral churches. While in an ideal setting as expressed, say, in the Decreta Lanfranci, the monks were to be joined together in contempt of the world through the virtues of humility, chastity, and obedience, a principle which set them apart from the rest of the clergy, in fact they were constantly exposed to the same kind of economic pressure, political influence, and self-interested urgency as any of the chapters of canons. In many cases, the problems which the two groups had to confront, and the answers which they found, were much the same. Yet important differences remained, and the dissimilarities in constitutional structure justify a consideration of each type of organization under a separate heading. Let us turn, therefore, to a survey of the history of the seven secular cathedral churches.

256

Chapter 4

THE SECULAR CATHEDRALS

CHICHESTER

Chichester became the new seat of the former diocese of the South Saxons when the cathedral was transferred there from Selsey soon after the Conquest. Selsey, where Wilfrid had once preached Christianity to the pagans, had been a monastic church and when the Abbot Eadbert was made a bishop at the beginning of the eighth century and the diocese cut away from the West Saxons, he chose to remain where he was. 1 Little is known about the early history of the see, although there seems to have developed a close connection with Canterbury. Bishop Aethelgar was translated to the archbishopric in 988 and three monks from Christ Church between 1032 and 1070 were appointed bishops of Selsey.2 Valuable grants of land in Sussex were made to the archbishops by the Anglo-Saxon kings which they still held, although not without dispute, in 1086.3 Precisely when, and for what reason, the convent at Selsey, in spite of a long line of monastic bishops, was replaced by a chapter of secular clergy is not known. Aethelric II, who was the last Old English bishop, was deposed in 1070 during the great purge, and under his successor, Stigand, the see was removed to Chichester. Stigand, as bishop of Selsey, was present at Lanfranc's consecration in August 1070, so that it is likely that Aethelric was deposed at the Whitsun council at Windsor. 4 In the fall of 1071, however, Alexander II wrote to the king ordering the case to be reconsidered. The principles of canon law were to be applied and the bishop was to be restored to his see. Illegally 1 2 3

4

Bede, HE, bk. v, chap, xviii. AS Writs, pp. 146-147, 435-436; Barlow, English Church I, pp. 74, 222. D. P. Kirby, "The Church in Saxon Sussex," The South Saxons, ed. P. Brandon (London 1978), pp. 171—173. Councils and Synods, vol. 1, ii, no. 90, p. 588; Letters qfLanfranc, p. 62, note 7. H. MayrHarting gives 1075 as the date of the transfer of the see to Chichester (Acta, p. 5).

257

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England disseised, one might say, he was to be reseised before judgment. 5 Why he was deposed in the first place is unclear.6 When he reappeared in a cart at the meeting on Penenden Heath to which he had been summoned by order of the king to help explain the English law, he was by then an old man (vir antiquissimus et legum terre sapientissimus).7 If the meeting fell within the period August 1072 and July 1073, then it is possible that Aethelric was reinstated for a brief time as bishop.8 At the Council of London, 24 December 1074 x August IO75» Stigand was again present as bishop of Chichester, so that Aethelric was out of office and perhaps dead by then.9 In the text of the Council of Winchester held by Lanfranc in April 1076 there is the note that the case of Aethelric had been disposed of.10 Stigand died in 1087 and he was succeeded by two short-lived bishops, Godfrey and William, and then by Ralph Luffa (10911123) and Seffrid I (1125-1145). It is not until the accession in 1147 of Hilary, the learned canonist, papal advocate, and royal servant, that sufficient texts are available to show in what direction the relationship between the bishop and the chapter was moving. For the period up to the mid-twelfth century, in spite of some early signs of capitular initiative, control of the administration remained firmly in the hands of the bishop. Certain of the canons served as members of the episcopal staff and there was little distinction made between the two households. 11 All the evidence points to a dominant episcopal presence in the holding and distribution of property. As to the capitular officers, there is mention of a dean named Gilbert in the time of Ralph Luffa, and one named Richard under Seffrid I, but we are not on safe ground in supposing an endowed office until 1157.12 In March of that year there is notice of John " the dean of Chichester church " who can be identified with John, the deacon, in the witness lists to a pair of charters of Bishop 5 6 7 8

10

11 12

Letters ofLanfranc, no. 7. Barlow, English Church I, p. 85, note 7, and p. 113, note 7. Le Patourel, "Reports of the trial on Penenden Heath," p. 23. For the dating see Le Patourel, "The date of the trial at Penenden Heath," EHR 61 9 (1946), 378-388. Councils and Synods, vol. 1, ii, nos 92, p. 612. "In qua fratris nostri Ailrici Cicestrensip quondam episcopi causa canonice definita et ad certum finem perducta est," Councils and Synods, vol. 1, ii, no. 93, p. 619. The Acta of the Bishops of Chichester: 1075—1207, ed. H. Mayr-Harting, pp. 8, 10. Ibid., p. 44 and appx. iv; Eadmer, HN, RS-Si, p. 205.

258

The secular cathedrals Hilary. 13 This was John of Greenford who, in 1174, was consecrated as bishop of Chichester. As early as the 1120s there is reference to "Charles, the precentor" (cantor), but he does not reappear until the time of Hilary when there is the beginning of a regular succession to that office.14 The first dateable mention of a chancellor and treasurer is also about 1150. 15 It may be the case that the paucity of documents in the early twelfth century disguises the reality of some kind of established capitular constitution before mid-century. But even if this were so, there is no indication that it served the canons as a basis for an administration independent of the bishops, most of whom tended to treat capitular officers as their own. Other evidence suggests that the separation of episcopal and capitular property and jurisdiction was a gradual, and often uncertain, development. The Domesday lands of the bishop of Chichester, which were confined entirely to Sussex, were not divided for the benefit of the canons. They were all listed under the heading terra episcopi, including an assessment of sixteen hides valued at £ 8 which the canons held in common and which, they claimed, was free of tax. 16 Where the lands were located is not known, but it is possible that they had belonged to Selsey abbey whence they came to form part of the communa of Chichester cathedral. The entry follows immediately after the one for Preston which, it is stated, always belonged to the monastery. The sixteen hides may have been part of that holding, especially since Preston was the only manor which the bishop did not hold in demesne. Land once used to support the monks was now used to support the canons. Besides Preston, the bishops held eight other estates which had belonged to the see before the Conquest. 17 Together they amounted to about 150 hides with an annual return of about ^130. This figure put Chichester among the poorer bishoprics, although returns from other unspecified assets and from the 13

14 17

Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, nos. 5, 30-31. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey relates that, " In prima ebdomada quadragesirhe sequentis venerunt duo decani episcopi Cicestrie, Ansgerus scilicet Lewensis, et Thomas Hastingensis, Bellum, adducentes secum quinque presbiteros..." (p. 162, and cf. p. 202). But Ansgar and Thomas were the bishop's deans,or rural deans, who individually might be recorded as decanus in the witness lists, but who were obviously not deans of Chichester. The latter is, in fact, referred to by that title a few lines further down in the account. 15 16 Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, appx. iv. Ibid. DB 1, fo. 17a. Aldingbourne, Amberley, Bishopstone, Ferring, Henfield, Selsey, Sidlesham, and Wittering, DB 1, fos. i6d-i7a.

259

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England spiritualia would have increased it slightly.18 The bishop also claimed ten dwellings (hagae) in Chichester which belonged to the royal manor at Bosham, two hides at Treyford, and four at Westbourne held by Earl Roger.19 There had been other losses under the Normans which were only partially recovered in the course of the next century. The bishop's five burgesses in Pevensey were absorbed in the grant to the count of Mortain, earl of Cornwall and step-brother of the Conqueror. 20 The estate at Hazelhurst which Bishop Aethelric had held infeudo of the king before 1066, and which was worth £7, had passed to Robert, count of Eu.21 Some of the problems which arose from the claim of ecclesiastical rights in landed property can be illustrated by the descent of the Bexhill estate. Aethelric had held Bexhill before the Conquest which was assessed at twenty hides valued at £20. 22 In 1086, however, it was in the hands of the count of Eu as part of the castellaria of Hastings and held of him by one Osbern. The count had three hides in demesne, Osbern held ten hides, and the others were divided among eight other tenants. Although the bishop appears to have lost an important part of his endowment, it was not forgotten that it had once been his. In 1148, John, the then count of Eu, admitted that the town and manor of Bexhill, with its church, had been taken unjustly by his ancestor, and he restored them to the bishop and the church.23 King Stephen confirmed the manor, hundred, and churches to the bishop to be held of the king "as the right of the church of Chichester. " 24 Henry II confirmed the hundred, as well as the warren in the episcopal manor, and Alexander III confirmed the town, hundred, and church to the bishop.25 In the Carta of 1166, however it was noted that "In Bexhill there are ten hides of land which the bishop of Chichester had of old in his demesne, but which the count of Eu took away and used to enfeoff four knights. The bishop and the church recovered five hides in demesne, but two knights held the other five hides for two knight's fees. " 26 The ten hides in question may have been the land granted to Osbern and held by him in 1086. In 18 20 23 24 26

On Corbett's scale Chichester was ranked next to the bottom, just above the see of 19 Chester, CMH v, pp. 509-511. DB 1, fos. 16b, 23b, 24a. 21 22 Ibid., fo. 20c. Ibid., fo. 19b. Ibid., fo. 18b. The Chartulary of the High Church of Chichester, ed. W . D . P e c k h a m , n o s . 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 . 25 Ibid., no. i n ; Regesta in, n o . 183. Ibid., n o s . 1 2 3 - 1 2 4 ; PUE 11, n o . 113. RBE 1, pp. 198—200; Ada of the Bishops of Chichester, no. 35.

260

The secular cathedrals spite of the good intentions of the count, the bishop had lost ten hides, and of the property recovered only five hides were in demesne.27 Perhaps as a measure of protection he soon granted out three more fees to Geoffrey de Baiolo and his son and heirs to be held of him and the church.28 But in the course of time other lands in Bexhill were returned to the church. Archbishop Theobald resolved a dispute between Bishop Hilary and Robert de Turneham, whereby Robert quit-claimed to the bishop six knight's fees in Iklesham and Bexhill in return for land nearby at Wickham. Robert, who had an eye to the future, also agreed to assist the bishop in the recovery of the other Bexhill lands, but in the end kept half of them. 29 Bexhill was valuable land of the bishopric which was used by the king and by the bishop to support their own men. There is no indication that the canons individually or as a group were consulted or had a hand in the disposition of any of the property. We also learn that in Bexhill two clerici, Geoffrey and Roger, held one hide as a prebend, and that at Treyford two hides made up another prebend.30 Thus, while there were prebends, there is no evidence for a prebendal system which was administered independently of the bishop. Over a long period of time, of course, the development of a prebendal arrangement served to emphasize the distinction between the episcopal and capitular mensae, since the canons came to regard the prebends as their own property even though the bishop retained the right of collation, but in the early twelfth century much more of a unity of interests prevailed. If Ralph Luffa and Seffrid I enjoyed some reputation as dutiful and protective bishops of their church, they were not inhibited from acting on their own, particularly in granting lands and privileges of the church to support the different members of their household. 31 If the pre-Conquest values of the Chichester estates in Sussex are compared with the 1086 values and with the bishop's share in those estates, it will be seen that Ralph Luffa and Seffrid 27

28 29 30 31

The Carta of John, count of Eu, confirmed the fact that the bishop had the service of four knights, RBE I, p. 202. See also T. K. Keefe, Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and his Sons (Berkeley 1983), pp. 50—51. Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, n o . 23. P e c k h a m , nos. 161, 313, 3 2 1 ; Saltman, Theobald, n o . 7 1 . DB 1, fos. 18b, 23b. See H. Mayr-Harting, The Bishops of Chichester: 1075—1207 Biographical Notes and Problems, Chichester Papers no. 40 (Chichester 1963); Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, nos. 9, 16. 26l

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Table 3. Chichester holdings

Manor Bishopstone Henfield Aldingbourne Ferring Amberley Siddlesham Selsey Wittering Preston

a

TRE

£

Bishop's share in 1086

Post-1066 1086

£

£

£

26

11

20

10

7

12

15

10

18

7

5

7

6

20

15

21

14

13 \

10

14

12

•15 (18)-

10

10

8

12

10

8

8

18

10

18 (2 5 ) a

126

84

134 (147)

10

10

\

8

I6(?) 101

Henfield was valued at £12, but farmed for .£18; while Preston was valued at 8, but farmed for £25, which it could not pay.

were heirs to an overriding interest in the property of the church. In spite of some loss after the Conquest, in about half the cases the value of the bishop's portion was the same as the value given for the whole estate TRE. In 1086 his income amounted to about 69 percent of the whole, which, after deductions for lands subinfeudated, left the canons with a relatively small fraction. 32 This distribution can be seen in table 3. Under Bishop Hilary, however, there were some signs that members of the chapter were taking more responsibility for the management of the cathedral assets. Soon after he was appointed to the see, as might be expected of a clerk high in royal favor and experienced in legal procedure, he took steps to recover possessions which had been alienated. Bexhill, as we have seen, was quickly restored; reparations were made by the earl of Sussex; the estates at Litlington, assessed at ten hides, were recovered; and the bishop pushed ahead with claims, unsuccessfully as it turned out, to the lordship of Battle abbey. When he came to the bishopric, he says in the Litlington charter, he made an inquiry into which lands 32

Thefiguresin parenthesis refer to the estates where a greater income was expected than was assessed. 262

The secular cathedrals belonged to the episcopal mensa.3* The reference to the mensa occurs here for the first time in the extant Chichester charters. Hilary was consecrated in August 1147 and the charter can be dated within the next eight months. A similar reference to Litlington and the mensa episcopalis can be found in the confirmatory privilege of Eugenius III to the bishop issued in April 1148.34 Although it was not the case, of course, that church property was suddenly divided under Hilary, mensa episcopalis implies mensa capitularis, and the principle of division leading to greater independence seems now to have been recognized. 35 Given Hilary's desire for an organized allocation of land and income, the definition of his own episcopal possessions was the first necessity.36 Once that was done the property of the canons could be regulated in a satisfactory way. As to the Litlington fee, William Burdet, who admitted to having usurped it, agreed to give it up for 150 marks of silver and, in turn, received a life interest in the estate. Although entirely concerned with episcopal property, the concord, it should be pointed out, was witnessed, inter alia, by three canons of Chichester. The personnel of the two households were still not entirely separate. The list of estates which Eugenius III confirmed to Hilary in 1148 included the nine Sussex manors which were entered in the Domesday returns, as well as some lands added since that time. Parts of some of those estates, usually the churches, and often the tithes, had been, or would soon be, set aside as prebends for the canons. Such was the case with Ferring, Preston, Selsey, Wittering, and Bishopstone.37 In the definition of the mensa capitularis the growth of the prebendal structure was an important element. Yet it is difficult to know exactly what a prebend was in the twelfth century. Some grants were called prebends, but some were not so designated, although they look very much like separate endow33

35

36 37

" N o t u m esse volumus tarn presentibus quam futuris quod cum nos ad episcopatum venissemus et terras ad mensam episcopalem pertinentes requireremus," Ada of the

34 Bishops of Chichester, no. 22. PUE n, no. 57. Further evidence for a distinction o f property occurs in the privilege o f Eugenius III: " Clericis preterea sive laicis qui de manu tua aut de Cycestrensi ecclesia aliquid tenent nunquam liceat ius tuum aut ipsius ecclesie aliqua occasione subtrahere," PUE n, no. 57Hilary's penchant for order was thought worthy o f comment b y the Battle abbey writer, Chronicle of Battle Abbey, ed. Searle, p. 148. Ferring: Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, 25—27; Preston (Wickham): ibid., 24; Selsey: Peckham, 192; Wittering: ibid., 6 5 ; Bishopstone: ibid., 105. A group o f prebends established b y Hilary's time, but lacking complete references, is given in ibid., p. 42.

263

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England ments. Prebends were sometimes provided for members of the bishop's family and household, even though they held other benefices at the same time. Some prebends were probably not on record, and others may be impossible to distinguish from ordinary grants of income. Land at Hacheston in Suffolk, for instance, which had been given to the church by Robert, earl of Leicester, was made over by Hilary to Walter, his relative and earnerarius. The estate was to pay one penny yearly to each canon, and six pennies to the bishop if he were present at the time in the town. 38 This was prebendal property in the simplest sense of the term in that it supplied an allowance to the members of the chapter, but it was not assigned to an individual canon and, therefore, not put beyond the bishop's grasp. The deduction of an annual fee from the income may have been a way ofjustifying the grant of church property to a kinsman. By the end of the twelfth century there were at least sixteen prebends in existence and probably twenty-three a hundred years later.39 Because of what appears to have been the chronic poverty of certain prebends and offices at Chichester, there was a constant need to readjust and augment income. This problem of low yield probably contributed to the greater dependency of the Chichester canons on the bishop than in other cathedral churches, and was in part responsible for the slow rate of independent development. Land at Ferring, for example, which had been a Domesday episcopal estate, was given by Hilary for the support of his chaplain, Roger. But to increase the value of the holding, more land at Arlington, Withyham, and Cooden, as well as chapels and tithes, was added to it.40 Early in the thirteenth century the prebend at Woodhorn, which had been poorly endowed, was augmented by the church at Amberley, formerly attached to the prebend of Aldingbourne.41 At about the same time, to raise the income of the deanery, two of the canons offered parts of their own prebends for the purpose.42 An interesting text of John, bishop of Chichester (i 173-1180), which dates from the late 1170s, illustrates not only the problem of deciding which benefices were prebends, but also emphasizes the financial hardship which could be caused by underendowment. The story, in fact, begins with Bishop Hilary who gave the church of Eartham to his chaplain, 38 39 40

Ibid., no. 33Ibid., pp. 41—48. See the similar problem at Lincoln, below, p. 294. 41 42 Ibid., no. 26. Peckham, no. 210. Ibid., no. 42.

264

The secular cathedrals

Richard, a canon of Chichester, to hold in free alms with all its lands and tithes. In return, the chaplain was to have a weekly mass said for Hilary's brother, Robert.43 By Bishop John's time, this grant of the church had led to a dispute between two canons of Chichester, one of whom claimed that it belonged to his prebend, while the other claimed it as a gift of the bishop. John, with the consent of the canons, declared the church to be a prebend, and he added to it a yearly money payment of three marks, tithes in Bishopstone, and a house in Chichester. All this he then granted to Luke, the treasurer.44 One of the canons who protested was probably Richard, the original beneficiary, who may have thought that the church was his by gift since there was no mention of a prebend in Hilary's charter. The other canon claimed the church only as a portion of his prebend, but the bishop cut the Gordian knot of controversy by making Eartham itself a prebend. It was an act which cannot have endeared him to either party in the suit. Within a few years, however, John's successor at Chichester, Seffrid II, restored the living to Richard, the chaplain, with the three-mark fee and some adjustment to the tithes.45 The original grant, therefore, was given as a prebend, reassigned to the treasurer, and then later recovered for the first beneficiary. In each case it was the bishop who acted as the executive authority in the church, although the maior pars of the chapter gave its consent. Saving extraordinary royal favors or a sudden disposition to piety by wealthy laymen, the inventory of the landed possessions of the church which produced its revenues changed only slowly. Eartham church, for instance, was still bedevilled by low income in the time of Bishop John III in 1329.46 Bishop and chapter were obliged to shift their accounts, often taking funds out of one pocket to put them in another. Low-yield prebends were also a factor in the problem of non-residency which affected the canons at Chichester. Alexander III found occasion to rebuke Bishop 43 44

Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, n o . 28. " N o v e r i t universitas vestra q u o d c u m controversia orta esset inter duos canonicos ecclesie Cycestrensis super ecclesia de E r h a m , altero e o r u m earn petente t a n q u a m ad suam pertinentem p r e b e n d a m , altero vero ex donatione episcopi; nos b o n o p a d s studentes utriusque partis assensu sed et actore petente de ecclesia ilia p r e b e n d a m fecimus consilio et assensu totius capituli n o s t r i , " Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, n o . 61.

45

46

Ibid., n o . 89. A c c o r d i n g t o the editor, the latest date for Hilary's charter was 1157, the earliest for J o h n ' s was 1174 a n d the earliest for Seffrid II's was 1187, so that it is just possible that Richard, the beneficiary, could have been the same m a n in each case. P e c k h a m , n o . 1076.

265

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Hilary and to insist that the canons were not entitled to all of their income unless they agreed to be present in person for the service of the church.47 Thus by a reprimand the pope intruded into the internal operation of the church and in so doing defined the rules by which the clergy were to conduct their lives.48 By the midtwelfth century the prebendal arrangement at Chichester was being administered according to a set of customs which, insofar as they removed the prebends from the direct supervision of the bishop, gave increased support to independent capitular control. A canon had the right to make provision for the disposal of his prebendal income for a year and a day from the time of his death, and with the advice and consent of the dean and chapter the money was to be used to pay his debts and for the support of his family and friends.49 If the argument is accepted for attributing the actum which laid out these regulations to Seffrid I (1125-1145), rather than to Seffrid II (1180-1204), and it seems reasonable to do so, then it is fairly early evidence for this kind of capitular liberty. 50 In 1152, however, Eugenius III agreed to a modification of the arrangement by allowing income for a year from only half the prebend to be used to pay the debts of the deceased. If there was no indebtedness, then the income was to be assigned to the building fund of the church. The other half of the prebend was to be used for the common support of the other canons!51 Thus Bishop Hilary was able to reduce the freedom of the individual canon in this respect, but to provide greater income to the chapter as a whole. Since Chichester was not a wealthy see, Hilary may have wished to see prebendal income diverted to other purposes, and to encourage the prebendaries to pay their debts from their personal funds. Alexander III confirmed this rule to Hilary in 1163, but he insisted first that one half of the income go to the chapter, and that the other half be used for church expenses, or, if necessary, to meet the canon's obligations. There was no mention of the support of friends or relatives.52 In 1192 SefFrid II agreed to the right of the canons to make their own wills, to appoint executors, and to dispose of their possessions.53 At the beginning of the thirteenth 47 48 49 51 53

PUE 11, n o . 199. See M . Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England, 1066-1166 ( O x f o r d 1986), chap. 8. 50 Ada of the Bishops of Chichester, no. 15. Ibid., p. 84, note. 52 PUE 11, no. 70. Ibid., 11, no. 113. Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, no. 84.

266

The secular cathedrals century Bishop Simon of Wells (1204-1207) took up the question of the rights of deceased canons in a set of rules composed at the insistence of the chapter.54 He confirmed the earlier provisions, but he did so by a complicated list of conditions which must have reflected difficulties that had arisen among the canons in the preceding years. If a canon died between Michaelmas and the middle of Lent, then one-half of his prebendal income was to go to the chapter and one-half to the church for the remainder of the year. The harvest of his farmland, between Michaelmas and the day of his death, except for the lands of the prebendal churches, was also at his disposition. If a canon died between mid-Lent and Michelmas, he, or rather his estate, was to have all of the prebendal income up to Michaelmas eve. After that date, and for the next year, half his income was to support the chapter, and the other half was to support the church. The disposal of income accordingly was tied to a seasonal arrangement which allowed the canon less freedom in the winter months, when the renders in kind were down, than in the summer when there was likely to have been sufficient quantity for the rest of the community. Also by this time rules had been worked out for the distribution of the common fund to the resident canons, for the appointment of vicars and the payment of their stipends, and for the protocol governing rank and dress in choir. 55 But the separation of capitular from episcopal jurisdiction, in administration, finance, and social privilege, while an inevitable component of ecclesiastical growth, was still slowpaced and, at times, marked by inconsistency. Although Seffrid II, for example, seems to have given over to the canons the administration of the common fund and its income, he required them to set aside ^ 5 a year, in four installments, to fund a prebend which initially went to Master Peter of Bloxham who probably was a member of the bishop's household. 56 A further sign of the gradual development is that while many of the acta of Hilary, John, and Seffrid II were issued under their own authority, not a few added the weight of capitular approval.57 None of the earlier bishops appears to have thought this necessary. In fact, the inclusion of an approval clause in the thirteenth-century fabricated charters of Ralph Luffa for Lewes priory points to the confusion on the part of the forger who obviously thought that it would make them more respectable. It was, unfortunately, one indication 54 57

55 56 Ibid., no. 145. Ibid., pp. 46-47. Ibid., no. 98. Hilary: ibid., nos. 24-27, 32; John: ibid., nos. 63, 65; Seffrid II: ibid., nos. 89-90, 93, 101.

267

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England among several that the charters were made up. 58 The more rapid change in the late twelfth century may also have been due to the fact that at Chichester both John and Seffrid II had been deans of the cathedral church, and it is quite possible that the marked separation of mensal jurisdiction which occurred during their time in the episcopal office came about because having known both sides of the administration they were less reluctant than their predecessors to share their authority. Another example which illustrates the sense of a corporate outlook on the part of the dean and chapter occurred in the spring of 1157 in the course of a dispute between the bishop of Chichester and the abbot of Battle over the bishop's claim to certain privileges in the monastic house. Hilary was abroad at the time so that the abbot was summoned to a plenary session of the chapter by John, the dean. This was John of Greenford who, after a vacancy, was to succeed Hilary as bishop in 1174. When the abbot was asked to submit a statement of submission to episcopal authority he refused, since he did not recognize the Chichester claims, nor would he act without the counsel and consent of his monks. He was mortal and would die, he said, whereas Battle abbey was immortal and would remain long after he was gone. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him to make decisions which would affect the life of the convent only on the basis of a mutual agreement. In reply, the dean is alleged to have insisted on a written submission so that whatever the abbot owed to Chichester would be clearly defined. Moreover, he explained: "We are the church. We will remain after the bishop is gone, and that is why we demand this of you. " 59 Thus the excuse which the abbot had given for not acting hastily was turned around by the dean in chapter and used as the reason why he should at once comply. So often used in an ambiguous way, referring now to the bishop, now to the chapter, or to both together, "the church" was suddenly and strikingly defined. But there was no legal sanction to uphold it and very quickly the dean qualified his statement by saying that the bishop, " dominus noster ... pastor noster, pater noster ..., "had ordered him to present the case as he did, and that he, and the canons, as good sons of the father, had obeyed.60 The abbot, however, could not be persuaded to change his position and the meeting was brought to an end. The 58 59

Ibid., no. 10 and pp. 62—70. " N o s itaque ecclesia sumus, episcopo decedente permanebimus et hac de causa hoc a vobis exigimus," Chronicle of Battle Abbey, p. 172.

268

60

Ibid.

The secular cathedrals

distinction between the bishop, who is the transient person, and the canons, who are the permanent body, was, nevertheless, clearly made. As a reflection of mid-twelfth-century thinking on the relationship between the two authorities it provided the theoretical justification for the gradual separation of their material possessions and their jurisdictional privileges. For years the chapter, usually acting in the person of the dean, had been granting lands of the church, buying property for the common fund, and drawing up final concords and agreements concerning its possessions and privileges, more or less independently of the bishop. Early in the next century this development would be enhanced further in a practical way by the use of a chapter seal, by the oath which incoming canons with prebends took to the dean and chapter, and by the expectation that the leading members of the chapter would vote in the election of a new bishop or a new dean.61 Episcopal control of the chapter, and beyond that, of the religious houses and parish churches in the diocese was a manifestation of lordly authority which only gradually gave way to individual and autonomous power structures. In a meeting with the king in which he protested the intransigence of the abbot of Battle, Bishop Hilary is said to have cautioned Henry against confirming the abbey charters to his detriment, " lest others follow his example and rise against their bishops. " 62 Although this view was reported by his adversary, there is no reason to doubt that it was one which Hilary would have found altogether natural. His task, like that of the abbot, was to safeguard the possessions and privileges of the church committed to his care, protecting what was threatened and recovering what had been lost.63 The important change which took place in the twelfth century was that this sense of responsibility, which was inimical to the idea of capitular autonomy in the early years, gradually came to be compatible with it toward the end.64 EXETER

About the year 909 Crediton was detached from the old diocese of Sherborne and made a bishop's see with jurisdiction over Devon and Cornwall. Although Cornwall came to have its own 61 83 64

62 Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, no. 97. Chronicle of Battle Abbey, p. 156. Of which the same is said of the abbot of Battle, ibid., p. 260. Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, nos. 94, 101.

269

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England subordinate bishop at St. Germans twenty years later, the revenues from the single county probably proved insufficient to support another episcopal household and the two sees were reunited under Bishop Lyfing of Crediton in 1027.65 From this period of the Crediton bishopric there is extant a diploma of King Athelstan by which he allegedly granted to Bishop Eadwulf and his familia three hides of land at Sandford in 930. 66 The land had been under episcopal control, although the king was used to taking the profits ofjustice from it. It was now granted to the canons ad mensam for them to hold in perpetuity free of royal and secular dues and obligations including the necessitas trimoda, the triple burden of military service, and the repair of fortified places and bridges. The canons were enjoined to obey god, the church and their lord bishop, but they were not to give away the land to anyone, including the king and bishop, unless they were able to obtain a better and larger parcel to be held likewise in perpetuity and confirmed by a written deed (cartula). The text of the diploma has been much scrutinized and its authenticity much debated. Dr. Ghaplais rejected it as a forgery on diplomatic and paleographical grounds and dated it, together with a large group of Athelstan's charters, to the early, or mid-eleventh century. 67 Professor Finberg subsequently rescued it on historical and topographical grounds and restored it as a genuine grant by Athelstan.68 According to this view, the bishop kept the inner part of the Sandford estate and gave the other, outer, property to the canons. If Athelstan's diploma is authentic it is evidence for an early division of the mensa and independent control of their property by the canons. Consequently, because of its importance for this study, it is worth another look. When Ethelred II confirmed two hides in Sandford to Bishop Aelfwold in 997, so that the bishop could bequeath one of them to his brother-in-law, the land was presumably taken from the inner portion, leaving the capitular holdings untouched. 69 But in spite of the evidence which has been assembled 65

66

87

88 89

See H . P . R. Finberg, " Sherborne, Glastonbury a n d the expansion of W e s s e x , " TRHS, 5th ser. 3 (1953), 119 for St. G e r m a n s as a suffragan see. Bodleian MS. Eng. hist. a. 2. Ill, printed in The Crawford Collection of Early Charters and Documents now in the Bodleian Library, ed. A. S. Napier and W. H. Stevenson (Oxford 1895), iv, and CSB m, no. 1343. Pierre Chaplais, "The authenticity of the royal Anglo-Saxon diplomas of Exeter," BIHR, 39 (1966) I O - I I . H . P . R. Finberg, West Country Historical Studies ( N e w t o n A b b o t 1969), p p . 2 9 - 4 4 . Ibid.

270

The secular cathedrals

to support the practice of a divided mensa in other pre-Conquest abbeys, although not all of it is above suspicion, and in spite of the skilful argument in defense of this text, it is difficult to accept it as it stands.70 Not only does the diplomatic analysis cast serious doubt on it which is difficult to set aside, but also certain of the conditions included in it make it suspect. There is the surprising immunity from royal exactions which was granted to the church; there is the right of the canons to hold the estate, illegal action on the part of some of them notwithstanding; and there is the prohibition against alienation, even to the bishop, unless a better piece of land could be confirmed by charter. All of these clauses were unusual at the time and particularly beneficial to the chapter, facts which suggest that the charter may have been composed in its interest and quite possibly at a later date. But whatever the truth of the matter, the grant of part of Sandford ad mensam soon lost its importance. Under Bishop Leofric (1046-1072), a familiar of the king who belonged to the contemporary circle of prelates brought from Lorraine, the see was moved from Crediton to the larger and better-fortified town of Exeter in 1050.71 There the old abbey buildings were taken over, the monks expelled, and a new chapter of canons was established. It has been generally assumed that the church was thenceforth organized along the lines of the adjusted Chrodegang rule whereby the bishop and the canons lived together in common under episcopal authority.72 It is far from clear, however, to what extent the rule was applied. Apart from the statement of William of Malmesbury that the canons ate together in one room and slept together in another, which was according to Lotharingian custom but foreign to English practice, there is little evidence to go on. Nor are we better informed about the endowment of the see until the episcopal lands were entered in the Domesday survey. As to the reason for the transfer of the see, the author of the Leofric Missal claimed that the bishop made the move to Exeter 70 71

72

F o r t h e o t h e r abbeys see J o h n , " T h e division o f t h e mensa." B a r l o w , English Church I, p p . 8 3 - 8 4 , 2 1 2 - 2 1 5 . T h e W i n c h e s t e r C h r o n i c l e calls Leofric regis cancellarius a n d britonicus. F o r britonicus as C o r n i s h , rather t h a n B r e t o n , see F r e e m a n , Norman Conquest, v o l . n, p . 83. T h e text o f the Leofric missal refers t o h i m as capellanus regis (Councils and Synods, v o l . 1, i, p . 691). Cf. B a r l o w , "Leofric a n d his times," in Leofric of Exeter. Essays in Commemoration of the Foundation of Exeter Cathedral Library in A.D. 1072 (Exeter 1972), p p . 8—10. GP, p. 201; cf. The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang with the Latin

Original, ed. A. S. Napier, EETS, o.s. 150 (London 1916).

271

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England because it was safer than Crediton. Leofric's emissary to the pope in 1050, on the other hand, reported simply that Crediton was too small, and, therefore, unworthy to be the bishop's church. 73 In any case, whether its size or its location was the paramount reason, once enthroned in Exeter the bishop found the place despoiled and it is possible that for a period of time Leofric supported the chapter from his own resources, while he set about to recover what was missing and to repair what had been damaged. A late eleventhcentury inventory notes that when Leofric arrived in 1050 he found the church in possession of no more than two hides at Ide and seven head of cattle.74 To assure himself of a minimal endowment, he took with him to Exeter the manor of Crediton, to which the Sandford estate belonged, instead of leaving it behind to the canons.75 William of Malmesbury mentioned that the bishop appointed a steward (economus) to look after the clerks and it was he who was to provide them with their daily food rations and yearly supply of clothes.76 This arrangement would have emphasized the importance of regular communal life practiced under the paternalistic authority of the bishop and, indeed, the chapter income at Exeter was still administered in common in the twelfth century. Equal shares were paid to all twenty-four prebendaries and the balance apportioned daily, or weekly, in money or food.77 Until the chapter was willing and able to take in hand the administration of its own goods, it would remain dependent on the bishop. What had been lost to Exeter abbey is confused by the fabrication in the late eleventh century of another group of charters purporting to date to the reigns of several of the Saxon kings including Athelstan.78 The town had been partly destroyed by Danish invaders in 1003 and the archives burned, so that the Exeter cathedral clergy may have felt the need to reconstruct the 73

74 75 76 77 78

Leofric's missal refers in one place to the move as "de Cridionensi villa ad urbem Exoniensem," and in another as "a Cridionensi villula ad civitatem Exoniam," which has the effect of making both Crediton and Exeter shrink in size before our very eyes. But I doubt that any great significance should be attached to the change in wording (Councils and Synods, vol. i, i, pp. 691 and 692). Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 11, p. 527. O.J. Reichel, "The manor and hundred o f Crediton," Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, 54 (1923), 146-181. "... habentque clerici economum, ab episcopo duntaxat constitutum, qui eis diatim necessaria victui, annuatim amictui commoda suggerat," GP, p. 201. Erskine, "Bishop Briwere," p. 161. Reviewed in detail by P. Chaplais, "Authenticity."

272

The secular cathedrals written evidence for its estates.79 Through god's help, and by his advocacy and through his own resources, it was said, Leofric rebuilt the wealth of the church. The full list of restored properties included Culmstock, Branscombe, Salcombe, St. Mary Church, Staverton and Sparkwell, Marshall near Ide, Sidwell, Brightston, Topsham, Stoke Canon, Sidbury, Newton, Norton, and Clyst. It seems likely that the bishop used his own money to have the pleas settled to his advantage and, perhaps, to pay those persons to whom the estates had been alienated. Some of Leofric's own property, including land at Bampton, Aston, Chimney, Dawlish, Southwood, and Holcombe, was also conveyed to the church and was the subject of a separate list.80 Although Leofric lived until 1072, the Conquest brought with it major readjustments to the endowment. A comparison of the restored estates with those listed in Domesday Book will show not only further substantial loss to the chapter, but the pervasive influence of Leofric's successor, Osbern, in bringing a large part of the property under his own control. In the Exchequer Domesday all of the Exeter lands were listed under the heading of terra episcopi. Except for five estates which were subinfeudated, the bishop held them himself.81 Although the heading in the Liber Exoniensis was the "land of St. Peter of the church of Exeter," it was also noted there that the bishop held the estates.82 If, as seems to be the case, the Exchequer Domesday was compiled from the information in the Liber Exoniensis, the change in heading is consistent with the reorganization of the property under Bishop Osbern. While this may be so, too much significance should not be attached to it, and certainly no legal difference, since in another entry the Liber has " the lands of the abbot of Tavistock church in Devonshire," whereas the Domesday copy uses the title "the land of the church of Tavistock." Of the property restored or granted by Leofric, five manors were allocated for the supplies of the canons, at Branscombe, St. Mary Church, Staverton, Dawlish, and Ide. Other estates, such as those at Topsham, Sidwell, Norton, Clyst, and Bampton, had been alienated and were lost, at least temporarily, to the chapter.83 In the case of the important 79 80 81 83

ASC, s.a.; Monasticon Anglicanum, v o l . 11, 535-536. Regesta 1, n o . 2 8 ; Chaplais, " A u t h e n t i c i t y , " p p . 31—33 ; F. Stenton, Latin Charters, p . 87. 82 DB 1, fos. ioid-iO2a. Liber Exoniensis, VCH Devon, 1, pp. 4146°. Topsham, Bampton, Sidwell, among other holdings, appear in the confirmation of Eugenius III in 1153. PUE n, no. 77.

273

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England manor of Crediton, which had increased in value from £21 in 1066 to £75 in 1086, Bishop Osbern relied on proof that the cathedral church had once held it in order to show that it now belonged to him. It was held by the bishop in Domesday Book, but parts of it were in dispute. The manor of Newton St. Cyres which was attached to it had in fact been held by Dunn from King Edward and he maintained that he still held it from William I.84 A claim against him was advanced by Osbern who, it was said, "displayed his charters" and showed that the church of St. Peter was seised of the land before King Edward came to the throne, i.e., before 1042.85 He then proved before the king's barons that since 1066 the estate had belonged to him.86 The barons in question were undoubtedly the Domesday commissioners who were uncertain apparently both as to the correct title and the correct value. They listed the estate twice, once under the bishop and once under the terra tainorum regis for Dunn.87 In the first instance it was appraised at £ 3 , and in the second at £ 6 , although the tax base in each case was three hides. Rather than acting on behalf of the canons, Osbern appears to have used the charter evidence of the church to support his own claim. In doing so, he made no distinction between the ancient church property and episcopal property. What belonged to St. Peter's belonged to him as bishop. The same can be said of Checomb manor, listed in the terrae occupatae section of the Liber Exoniensis, which had been held by the canons but was included as part of the episcopal manor of Crediton in 1086.88 Why it was entered in the claims section is unclear, unless the bishop had placed it with his own holdings against the wishes of the chapter. Besides the Domesday lands in Devonshire, the bishop of Exeter also held property in Cornwall, Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey, and Sussex. Of the eleven Cornish estates, all but four, which were subinfeudated, were held by the bishop, as they had been held by Leofric, his predecessor. The largest was that of St. Germans church which had been divided into two parts, rated at twelve hides each, one for the 84 85 86

DBi, fos. 10id, 118b. " D e hoc manerio ostendebat Osbemus episcopus cartas suas...," ibid., fo. i o i d . "...insuper tempore regis Wilelmi diratiocinavit coram baronibus regis esse suam," ibid. The Liber Exoniensis replaces "coram baronibus regis" by "testimonio francigenarum..." See the note in DB-PhiL, D e v o n , vol. n, Exon. 2, 2. Cf. F. Rose-Troup, " N e w t o n St. Cyres and Norton," Transactions of the Devon Association, 68 (1936) 87 88 221-231. DB 1, fos. i o i d , 118b. Liber Exoniensis, fo. 499.

274

The secular cathedrals bishop worth £ 8 , and the other for the canons worth ^ 5 - But the overall value was reduced after the invasion by Robert, count of Mortain. He established a market in his castle nearby which drew income from St. Germans, and he appropriated other lands of the manor, some of which he subinfeudated.89 Osbern's Surrey property consisted of a manor at Titing given by William I, valued at ^ 2 , and land at Woking at £g ios. 90 In Norfolk there were five small estates at Banham, Forncett, Hindringham, Tasburgh, and Wyck, altogether worth about £6.91 He also held the manor at Chippenham in Wiltshire, valued at 55s, and Bampton in Oxfordshire at £6, and land in the town of Gloucester, as well as in the county. 92 During his service as chaplain to King Edward, Osbern had been granted part of the Bosham church estate with some of its dependencies. This was an extensive collection of properties in Sussex and in Hampshire which had formerly been part of the royal endowment. Separate from it was Bosham manor held by Earl Godwin. In Domesday Book Bosham manor was in the hands of the king, while Osbern held most of Bosham church. 93 The whole of the church estate was rated at 147 hides TRE with an aggregate value of something like £345. 9 4 Indeed, the estate was so large that Edward had granted out land at Saddlescomb, Plumpton, and Itchenor to Earl Godwin who subsequently leased the first two properties to Godwin, the priest, and the third to Leofric. Lavington, and Farringdon in Hampshire were given directly to Godwin, the priest, while Elsted and Preston were added to Osbern's lands.95 After the Conquest, Saddlescomb and Plumpton came into the hands of William of Warenne. Saddlescomb was held of him by Ralph de Chesney and Plumpton by Hugh Fitz Ralph.96 Itchenor formed part of the lands of Roger of 89 92 94

95

98

90 91 DB 1, fos. I 2 2 b - i 2 2 d , 123b. Ibid., fo. 30. Ibid., fo. 202a. 93 Ibid., fos. 64c!, 155a, 165a. Ibid., fos. 16b, 17b. T h e total hidage was arrived at b y adding B o s h a m church at 114 hectares, Itchenor at 1 h., Elsted at 13 h., Preston at 3 h., L a v i n g t o n at 6 h., a n d F a r r i n g d o n at 10 h. ( D B 1, fos. 17b, 17c, 24b, 43a). B o s h a m church was listed at 112 h. in D o m e s d a y , b u t the hidage of its m e m b e r s , P l u m p t o n a n d Saddlescomb, was given as 49 h. w h i c h w i t h the 65 h. granted to O s b e r n makes the 114 h. F. B a r l o w c o m p u t e d the total hidage o f 147 h. at £ 3 ° ° » leaving aside the values assigned to Itchenor, Lavington, Elsted, Preston, and F a r r i n g d o n ; English Church I, p p . 190-191, and p . 190, n o t e 2. T h e r e is n o indication in D B w h o held Preston TRE, b u t the chances that O s b e r n did are g o o d . J. H . R o u n d , " Notes on the Sussex D o m e s d a y , " Sussex Archaeological Collections, 44 (1901) 140-143; Regesta 11, n o . 1872.

275

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Montgomery, earl of Arundel, and was held of him by Warin. These estates were, therefore, lost to the episcopal endowment which Osbern retained when he became bishop of Exeter in 1072. Nevertheless, he had succeeded at some point in regaining the lands of Godwin, the priest, at Lavington and Farringdon and, as a result of these changes, Osbern appears to have held about fortyeight hides which in 1086 were valued at £17 10s. The fact that Bosham church was on the doorstep of the bishop of Chichester soon raised problems of jurisdiction. At the end of the century an agreement was made between the two bishops and their respective chapters in regard to the appointment and discipline of the canons which left most of the authority in the hands of the bishop of Exeter.97 Aged, frail and probably blind, Bishop Osbern died in 1103. After a four-year vacancy he was succeeded by William Warelwast, a leading member of the royal court and a trusted intimate of both William II and Henry I. He had played a key role in arranging the agreement between the king and Anselm in 1106 over episcopal appointments and this, in turn, led to the London Council of 1107 which brought the controversy to an end and resulted in the consecration of five new bishops to the widowed sees. Warelwast was given Exeter as a reward for his services. According to his itinerary, he spent a good deal of time away from his church on the king's business.98 This may have encouraged the chapter to take a more independent line, since by mid-century the evidence suggests that the canons were accustomed to receive, grant and exchange property without the formal authority of the bishop. A precentor was in office by 1133, when the new cathedral was dedicated, and by that year the chapter had its own seal.99 The grant of a cemetery to the nuns of Polslo (Devon) by the Exeter chapter about the year 1160 provided a charter with an exceptionally long list of witnesses, including five magistri among the canons, as well as clerks and citizens of the town. 100 By that time there was also a treasurer, although the appointment of a 97 98 99

100

HMCR, various collections iv, p. 18; Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, no. 149. Crosby, " T h e Organization o f the English Episcopate," pp. 76—77. D . W . Blake, "Bishop William Warelwast," Transactions of the Devonshire Association, 104 (1972) pp. 26-28; Erskine, "Bishop Briwere," pp. 161-163; HMCR, various collections iv, pp. 46, 48, 49, 52, 55, 58—59. HMCR, various collections iv, p. 49. On the problem of distinguishing between canons and clerks in the chapter see A. Morey, Bartholomew of Exeter, Bishop and Canonist. A Study in the Twelfth Century (Cambridge 1937), p. 87.

276

The secular cathedrals

chancellor and a dean would have to wait until the early years of the thirteenth century.101 The confirmation of property to the chapter by Eugenius III in 1153 shows the canons in possession of a group of churches, houses, estates, and tithes in Exeter and its suburbs from which they drew the income for the common fund and for their prebends.102 Of the fifteen estates listed, all but two were Domesday holdings of the bishop, although the revenues from five of them had already been allocated to the canons in 1086. The shift, therefore, of property from the bishop to the chapter to augment the core of the eleventh-century endowment, marks the progress of the canons toward greater independent jurisdiction. The absence of a dean, however, precluded the establishment of the chapter as a separate entity. Even under Robert Warelwast, who had been dean at Salisbury, there was apparently no attempt to make such an appointment. This deficiency has been explained by the tradition of the Chrodegang rule at Exeter whereby the bishop and the archdeacons shared the duties which would have fallen to the dean.103 But the practice of a common life was wearing thin by the mid-twelfth century and it is difficult to believe that this would have prevented the creation of the office had the canons thought it necessary to do so.104 There is no evidence for any long and bitter dispute between bishop and chapter at Exeter, which was characteristic of so many other cathedral churches at the time, and which would have focused attention on chapter rights and privileges. In spite of the fact that the canons counted among themselves some distinguished men, like Geoffrey de Lucy, the son of Henry II's justiciar, and John of Salisbury, who served as the treasurer in 1170, men who were very much in touch with the affairs of the world, they seem not to have thought the formation of the more powerful combination of a dean and chapter a prime requirement. The bishop, for his part, was doubtless content to accept matters as they were. In their charters, and those of the donors to the church, the word canonici is used as frequently as the word capitulum. When the deanship was finally created in 1225 it was done with the consent of the bishop 101

102 103 104

D. W. Blake, "Bishop William Warelwast," pp. 26-27; Morey, Bartholomew of Exeter, p. 88; Edwards, Secular Cathedrals, p. 142. Uf n o 77 • c f Regesta 111, n o . 284 for an earlier confirmation b y Stephen. Morey, Bartholomew of Exeter, p. 88; Edwards, Secular Cathedrals, pp. 4 0 - 4 1 . F. R o s e - T r o u p , Exeter Vignettes (Manchester 1942), p . 10.

277

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England so that canonice a capitulo et de capitulo unus de canonicis eligatur decanus et solempniter instituatur.105

From then on the chapter was able to make its own rules and conduct its own business, although the canons were still under an obligation to consult the bishop on matters touching his privileges or of concern to the church as a whole. The institution of the dean and chancellor was accomplished during the time of Bishop William Briwere (1223-1244) who also issued a confirmation of the capitular mensa for the first time, and provided a site for the construction of a chapter house. In spite of a move by Bishop Walter Bronescombe late in the century to require all the cathedral statutes to have his sanction, Briwere's tenure marks the emergence of the Exeter chapter as a separate community possessed of its own considerable powers.106 HEREFORD

On the basis of a writ issued by King Edward (1057 x 1060) on behalf of the priests (prestes) at Hereford, which confirmed to them sake and soke over their lands and men within borough and without, it has been assumed that a division of the mensa had been made there sometime before the Conquest.107 Although the writ exists only in two fifteenth-century copies, one in Latin and one in Middle English, it appears to have been based on an authentic Anglo-Saxon text. If at the time the writ was issued there was a consecrated bishop at Hereford, it would indeed suggest that a separation of goods had occurred. Conversely, if no bishop can be shown to have been in office, then the concessions can be interpreted simply as an extension of the king's protection of the Hereford chapter sede vacante without implying a mensal division. The writ was addressed to "Ealdred the earl [sic] and Harold the earl" in the English version, and to "Ealdred the bishop and Harold the earl [comes]" in the Latin version. Ealdred, of course, was never earl, but this mistake may be no more than a copyist's error. By the phrase "Ealdred the bishop" was undoubtedly meant Ealdred as bishop of Worcester, an office he held from 108

107

Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. n, pp. 234-235; R. J. E. Boggis, A History of the Diocese of

Exeter (Exeter 1922), p. 112. , 106 Erskine, "Bishop Briwere," pp. 163-170. AS Writs, no. 49; AS Charters, no. 1101. "A division had evidently been made at Hereford, as it had at York, and some other places, between the property belonging to the episcopal see and that belonging to the collegiate body serving the church," AS Writs p. 228.

278

The secular cathedrals about 1046 to 1062.108 What, in fact, was his connection with Hereford? In 1056 a soldier-chaplain of Harold's named Leofgar was appointed to the see of Hereford by King Edward. "Giving up the cross and chrism for the spear and sword," says the author of the Chronicle, he thereupon set out with his priests to fight in the Welsh wars.109 Three months later he was killed in a battle on the Wye. "He had been bishop," we are told, "eleven weeks and four days. " n o Hereford was a fortified town on the frontier, but it had been captured by the Welsh under Griffith the year before. It was then sacked and burned, so that Leofgar's raid, which was well beyond his home territory, may have been an act of reprisal.111 But his death left the see vacant and Ealdred of Worcester was asked to administer the affairs of the diocese. Did he, in fact, become bishop of Hereford? The editors of the Handbook of British Chronology make him bishop of Hereford and

Worcester from 1056 to 1060.112 The C and D texts of the AngloSaxon Chronicle, however, state that Ealdred "took u p " the bishopric, which may or may not mean that he was consecrated bishop: "And Ealdred bisceop feng to da b'rice )>e Leofegar haefde." On the one hand, this is less definite than the description in D of the appointment of Bishop Aethelric to Selsey in 1057: "Eac gefor Heca b' on SudSexum. and Aegelric waes on his setl ahafen," or of that in E in 1058: " and Stigand arcebiscop hadode Aegelricrh aet Xpes cyrcean to b' to Su5Seaxum." On the other hand, when D says for 1056: "Her forlet Aegelric bisceop his bisceoprice aet Dunholm. and ferde to Burh to see Petres mynstre. and his broSor Aegelwine feng Saerto," or E for 1060: "and Walter feng to )>am b'rice on Hereforda," or for 1066: "and Harold eorl feng to Englalandes cynerice," or for 1076: " On J?isu geare for5 ferde Swaegn cyng on Daen mercan. and Harold his sunu feng to J>e cynerice," it can hardly mean less than that the person in question become bishop or king with the full rights of office.113 Once translated into modern English by the editors of the second volume of the English Historical Documents series, the phrase regarding Ealdred was made to read: "and Bishop Ealdred succeeded to the bishopric which Leofgar had held," which 108 111

112 113

109 no Ibid., p. 559ASC, s.a. Ibid. Brut y Tywysogyon, or the Chronicles of the Princes. Red Book ofHergest Version, ed. T. Jones, University of Wales History and Law Series 16 (Cardiff 1955), p. 25. HBC, p. 217. ASC, s.a. "Fon to rice" is usually translated as "to succeed to an office."

279

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England implies that Ealdred became the new bishop.114 A note to the text explained that" Aired, who was already bishop of Worcester, kept the see of Hereford until in 1060 he became archbishop of York." 115 That "to keep a see" was not an illuminating explanation was obvious, since in the second edition of the volume it was clarified by another note which said that "Aired, bishop of Worcester, administered the see of Hereford until he became archbishop of York in 1060. " 116 Thus, he may not have been consecrated bishop. This was also the reading by Harmer who earlier had concluded that Bishop Ealdred of Worcester "administered the see of Hereford for four years. " 117 In a similar capacity he also held Dorchester, as well as the abbeys of Tavistock and Winchcombe, and some estates of Gloucester abbey without becoming the abbot of any of them.118 There is no conclusive evidence, therefore, that he ever was bishop of Hereford at the time of King Edward's writ. Moreover, as to the grant itself, the right of sake and soke seems to have been made ordinarily to the bishop, or to the abbot, by the king, rather than to the church, or to its priests. Examples can be found, for instance, in writs of Edward to Giso at Wells (c. 1060), to Ealdred as archbishop of York (1060 x 1066), to the abbot of Ely (1055 x 1066), and to the abbot of Coventry (1043 x 1053).119 On the other hand, the three writs by Ethelred, Cnut and Edward to the priests of St. Paul's, London, which also grant sake and soke, while not above suspicion, can probably be dated to periods when the see was vacant.120 The evidence for Hereford, therefore, does not seem strong enough to support the conclusion that a permanent separation had been made in Ealdred's time. Upon the consecration of Walter, Ealdred's successor to the bishopric of Hereford in April 1061, King Edward granted him the bishopric with sake and soke and all rights within and without the borough without allusion to the chapter.121 Now that a bishop had been installed, the privileges of the see were made over to him according to the traditional notion of episcopal authority. 114 116 118

119 120 121

115 EHD n, p. 135. Ibid., p. 135, note 3. 117 EHD II, 2nd edn. (1965), p. 133. AS Writs, p. 228. Chronicon ex chronicis (Florence of Worcester), ed. Benjamin Thorpe, English Historical Society, 2 vols. (London 1848—1889), v o l . 1, p . 2 1 1 . AS Writs, nos. 64, 118, 47, 46 a n d AS Charters, nos. i m , 1159, 1100, 1099. AS Writs, nos. 52, 53, 54. Ibid., n o . 50. See J. B a r r o w , " C a t h e d r a l s , provosts a n d prebends. A comparison o f twelfth-century G e r m a n and English practice," JEH, 37 (1986), 557—558.

280

The secular cathedrals

By the time of the Domesday inquest, nevertheless, a theoretical distinction was made between the lands belonging to the bishop and those belonging to the canons. The main heading was terra ecclesiae de Hereford which was immediately followed by the bishop's holdings in Hereford itself and in several manors, some of which had been alienated. To the bishop pertained sixty houses in the town, where there had been ninety-eight before the Conquest. There also had been an episcopal moneyer, but probably no longer. In addition, he had lost two estates, one at Dudley, and another at Stane worth ten hides of which nine were waste. The nine had been taken partly into the royal forest, and partly into the lands subject to the castellaria of Ewyas Harold of Alfred of Marlborough. All in all, there seems to have been a reduction in income of as much as 50 per cent.122 Thereupon was interposed a heading for a long list of properties which "belonged to the canons. " 123 The division, however, was not as clear-cut as it might look because under the heading of the canons' lands, of the fortyeight properties listed, twenty-eight of them appear to have been exploited to the bishop's advantage. On at least nineteen estates he had enfeoffed knights and on nine of those same estates his clerks and chaplains had been established, as well as on four others. In most cases these amounted to relatively small holdings of a hide or two. At (Canon) Pyon, for example, three of the bishop's clerks held four and a half hides, and three knights held three and a half hides out of a total assessment of twelve hides.124 In the copy of the Herefordshire Domesday of about 1160, however, a marginal annotation attributes Pyon to the canons, as the place-name now implies, and eventually it did come back into the hands of the dean and chapter.125 Other estates were alienated in whole or in part for a longer time. Ullingswick and Bridge were in the possession of the Clifford family in 1166 and in 1212.126 Moreton, Lyde, Preston-on-Wye, Bishopstone, Walford, and Caples all had military tenants in the late twelfth century. 127 A better-known example of the contested property was the land at Holme Lacy (Hamme) which had been usurped by Harold 122

124 125

127

DB 1, fo. 186. F o r a discussion o f t h e losses, see M . D . Lobel, " H e r e f o r d , " in Historic 123 DB 1, fo. 181c. Towns, ed. M . D . Lobel ( L o n d o n 1969), vol. 1. Ibid., fo. 182b. Herefordshire Domesday, ed. V . H . Galbraith a n d J. Tait, P R S , n.s. 25 ( L o n d o n 126 RBE, p p . 495-4971947-1948), p . 27. Ibid. For Bishopstone-Malveshill see the c o m m e n t s in Herefordshire Domesday, p . 28 note, a n d p p . 90—91. 28l

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England before the Conquest and later restored by William I to Bishop Walter for the support of the canons. The bishop, however, granted it out on a life lease to Walter de Lacy for the service of two knights. Upon Walter de Lacy's death in 1085 the estate reverted to the church. It was then that his son and heir, Roger de Lacy, approached the bishop, Robert de Losinga, per amicos et per pecuniam, to request the land. Bishop Robert, after consulting the members of his household, agreed to a second lease for the same service.128 It was specified that when Roger died, or if he became a monk, that is to say the legal equivalent of secular death, Holme Lacy would be returned to the bishop for the use of the church. Neither Roger's mother, nor his wife, nor his sons, nor his brother, nor any of his relatives were to have a claim to the land. Certain of the bishop's men, moreover, on nearby estates were allowed to enter to cut wood for heating and repairs to houses when they wished to do so, and to graze their pigs. The document concluded with a long list of witnesses for the bishop on the one hand, and for Earl Roger on the other, but with none for the chapter. The privilege clearly states that Holme Lacy was land of the church and its saint, but that it was held by the bishop for his own benefit and that of the chapter (quam terrain predictus episcopus inproprio dominio ad victum ecclesiae et sui tenebat).129 It was also the case that Roger

held other land at Onibury de victu proprio episcopi on the same conditions, except that while he lived he was to pay a yearly rent of twenty shillings, and when he died, or became a monk, the land was to revert to the bishop.130 For practical purposes all of the property was in the hands of the bishop to administer as he liked, even though it may have been designated de victu canonicorum. In the case of Holme Lacy, however, the contract was of a conservative aspect and, in theory, was meant to afford some protection to the church represented in the permanent body of canons. The lease was for only one life and a formal written record was made, witnessed and preserved. Under those conditions Bishop Robert could hardly be accused of wasting ecclesiastical property which had been entrusted to his care. But as it turned out, in spite of the careful arrangements, the Holme Lacy estate was not returned to the church, and it was still in the Lacy family when the 128 129 130

V . H . Galbraith, " A n episcopal land grant of 1085," EHR 44 (1929), 353-372. Ibid., p . 372. T h e similar character of land de dominio and land de victu is discussed b y Galbraith, ibid., p p . 365-366.

282

The secular cathedrals baronial returns were made in 1166.131 In fact, the estate was not recovered by the bishop until the mid-thirteenth century. Only afterwards was it turned over conditionally to the dean and chapter.132 Since the bishop had settled milites on parts of the estates which represented 40 percent of the land consigned to the canons in Domesday, the relationship between the mensa and episcopal political obligations is worth noting. The requirements of military service in the Conqueror's time, although still arbitrary and variable, would have encouraged the bishop to keep as much of the land of the bishopric as he could in his own hands. The unsettled conditions of the west midlands and the strategic importance of the town of Hereford in the control of the valleys of the Usk and Wye and Severn imposed a constant and a costly burden of defense upon him. The story was a familiar one in the years following Hastings and the celebrated passage in the Abingdon chronicle could have applied equally well to Hereford: At the beginning of his abbacy [Abbot Athelhelm] deemed it necessary never to go about without an armed retinue, for in the midst of the conspiracies which broke out almost daily against the king and the kingdom, he felt compelled to take measures for his own protection ... Athelhelm therefore, having retained the lands which had aforetime been given to the church, afterwards allotted the manors to those who would hold them from the church, and in each case he declared what would be the obligation involved in its tenure.133 The servitium debitum of the see of Hereford eventually amounted to fifteen knights, but it is hard to say how far the bishop had exceeded his obligation in the eleventh century. 134 Although the Domesday list for Herefordshire alone reveals thirty-two milites established on lands of the church, it is unlikely that each of these holdings constituted a knight's fee. For the most 131 132

134

RBE, p . 279. T h e history is given in detail b y H . M . C o l v i n , " H o l m e Lacy, an episcopal m a n o r and its tenants in t h e twelfth and thirteenth centuries," Medieval Studies Presented to Rose

Graham, ed. V. Ruffer and A.J.Taylor (London 1950). Cf. the thirteenth-century inventory of episcopal estates, most of which belonged to the bishop in 1086, A. T. Bannister, "A transcript of 'The Red Book,' a detailed account of the Hereford bishopric estates in the thirteenth century," Camden Society, 3rd ser. 15 (1929). Ralph, bishop of Hereford (1234-1239), granted the estate to the dean and chapter. Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. vm, 1215—1216; and see W. E. Wightman, The Lacy Family in England 133 and Normandy (Oxford 1966), p. 128. EHD 11, p. 967. Round, Feudal England, p. 199.

283

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England part, the milites are unnamed and the fractions of the whole in their possession are very small. The two milites who held three hides together at Frome, or the miles who held three virgates at Hampton, should probably be considered as armed retainers, rather than as knights with fiefs. The bishop had also used parts of thirteen estates of the church to support certain members of his household. But in a period when the episcopal and capitular administration overlapped, and when the duties connected with each were often performed by the same men, it was no doubt quite logical and consistent in the bishop's view to use the property in this way. The lands of the church of Hereford in other counties were all entered in Domesday Book under the bishop. In Worcestershire he held eight hides at Bockleton, fifteen and a half hides at Inkberrow and two hides at Kyre.135 Bockleton had been seized before the Conquest and restored to the bishop by William I, while Inkberrow had been held by Harold and given to Bishop Walter "because it belonged to the see." In Gloucestershire there was the single large estate of Prestbury which, with Sevenhampton, amounted to thirty hides, some of which had been subinfeudated.136 The Writtle estate in Essex had been held by Harold and subsequently recovered by William I with a drop in assessment from sixteen to fourteen hides. When it was partly restored to the bishop, his portion amounted to a little more than two hides.137 Finally, in Shropshire the bishop held Lydbury, of which thirty-two and a half hides out of fifty-three were listed as waste, and, as noted before, Onibury held by Roger de Lacy.138 The bishop also claimed the manor at Montfort, which in 1086 was held by Roger, son of Corbet, a tenant of Earl Roger, and an estate at Bayston which likewise had been lost.139 The evidence cited so far suggests strongly that the late eleventhcentury bishops of Hereford dominated the church and made arrangements for allocating landed property which best suited their needs. The same can probably be said for their successors in the early twelfth century, but who, although they were numerous, have left very little in the way of biographical information. Upon the death of Robert Losinga in 1095 a royal clerk and nephew of Walkelin, bishop of Winchester, named Gerard, was appointed to 135 138

DB 1, fo. 174b. Ibid., fo. 252b.

136

Ibid., fo. 165. 139

284

137 Ibid., fos. 56; 26a. Ibid., fo. 191.

The secular cathedrals

the see, but within five years he was translated to York. 140 Gerard made some grants to Gloucester abbey with "the consent of his synod," but whether the approval of his chapter was sought and given is uncertain.141 He was succeeded by Roger, larderer of Henry I, who came and saw and died within a week of his appointment.142 He was followed by Rainald, the queen's chancellor, and it was probably he who granted the estates at Ullingswick and Little Hereford, both of which were listed under the canons' lands in Domesday, to Walter of Gloucester in fee for the service of two knights.143 Part of Ullingswick had already been held for military service in 1086, and, as noted above, it eventually passed into the hands of Walter de Clifford.144 Little Hereford, while not leased out, was shortly granted by Walter of Gloucester to his nephew, William de Mere, for the service of two knights. 145 In the early thirteenth century it was in the possession of the earl of Hereford. When Henry I confirmed the bishopric to his clerk, Geoffrey de Clive, in 1115, he allowed him to restore to the episcopal demesne all the land which had been granted as prebends by Bishops Gerard and Rainald.146 Preferment to prebends was a strong episcopal tradition, but much open to abuse. It may have been the case that the estate which had been put together by Robert de Losinga had become greatly fragmented by the time Geoffrey came to power, but it seems likely that the restoration he requested was intended to benefit the bishop rather than the chapter. Little is known of the internal history of the cathedral church until the advent of Robert de Bethune, the former prior at Llanthony, who was appointed in 1131 and remained in office until his death in 1148.147 Robert was singled out by the author of the Gesta Stephani as an exemplary prelate who, unlike some of his colleagues, withstood the temptations of secular gain and remained true to the principles of his episcopal charge.148 To stop there, however, leaves his character undefined and some important questions unanswered, and it is worth looking further into his relations with the chapter which were a reflection of the difficult 140 141

143 145 148

Barlow, The English Church II, p. 72. Historia et Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae, ed. W . H. Hart, .RS-33 1, pp.

142 250-251. Frohlich, "Die bischoflichen Kollegen," p. 153. 144 Regesta n, no. 1268 and note. RBE, pp. 495-496. Ancient Charters Royal and Private Prior to A.D. 1200, ed. J. H. Round, PRS, 10 (London 146 147 1888), no. 11. Regesta n, no. IIOI. GP, pp. 304-305. Gesta Stephani, pp. 104—106.

285

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England position in which he found himself during the civil war. It should also be noted that the author of the Gesta was generally defensive of the ecclesiastical order and quick to take to task those who challenged it. This is apparent in his treatment of the arrest of the bishops in 1139, but particularly in the description of the oppression of the church by Miles of Gloucester. Created earl of Hereford by the empress in 1141, Miles was repulsed by Robert de Bethune in his demand for money and took his revenge by ravaging the diocese. He was subsequently excommunicated, but, as it turned out, given little time to repent. Like William Rufus, to whom the monastic writers were also hostile, Miles was mistaken for a stag while hunting one day and was shot through the chest. One might ask if this was the proper literary finale for contemptuous and over-weaning lay lords who were viewed as oppressors of the church ? Be that as it may, Gilbert Foliot, when abbot of Gloucester, thought it necessary to write to the bishop, about 1140, to encourage him, indeed to urge him, to act with all the weapons of the faith against his enemies.149 Part of the interest of Miles in Herefordshire was the inheritance of the Lacy fee which had passed, not without dispute from the claimants, to his son, Roger Fitz-Miles, through Roger's wife, Cecilia, a descendant of the eleventh-century baron, Walter de Lacy. Stephen had conferred extensive lands on Roger in order to insure the support of Miles.150 When the latter went over to the empress in September of 1139, the king granted the Lacy property to another of his supporters, Gotso of Dinan.151 The fief was ultimately reassembled by Gilbert de Lacy, a grandson of Walter and a constant claimant to the inheritance. It was in the midst of these hostilities, brought about by dynastic competition and compounded by personal ambition and fragile loyalties, that the bishop found himself on the defensive. Undoubtedly he moved cautiously to find the best advantage for himself and his church.152 As usual, to survive the struggle meant compromise, and the price was the loss of ecclesiastical property which was granted out to powerful lay magnates. Although Robert was indeed described as a saintly bishop devoted to fulfilling his clerical obligations, he evidently was not 149 150 151

GFL, no. 2, p. 37, but see the comments by the editors on the problem of identifying the correct addressee. Regesta m, no. 312; Wightman, The Lacy Family, p. 175. 152 Regesta ni, no. 437. Cronne, The Reign of Stephen, pp. 158-159.

286

The secular cathedrals concerned to make too fine a distinction between his property and that of his cathedral church. He granted an estate at Littley to his nephew, John, for a yearly rent of one gold mark, although the land in question had been given to the bishop and the chapter.153 In a letter to Eugenius III, written soon after his election as Robert de Bethune's successor at Hereford, Gilbert Foliot sought the pope's help in recovering two castles which Bishop Robert had given to Waleran, count of Meulan and earl of Worcester, and to Hugh Mortimer, a man who threatened great injury to the church.154 Robert also gave a good deal of property to Llanthony priory, his own mother house before he became bishop. Some of the assets he took from the Hereford endowment, including the churches at (Bishop) Frome and Prestbury, an episcopal manor in Worcestershire, and a villa called Moor in Chiltenham.155 It will be recalled that in 1086 a chaplain of Bishop Robert de Losinga held a hide in Frome, and three episcopal clerks held, with the canons, four hides in the manor.156 For more than fifty years the bishops of Hereford had allocated those properties for their own use. Why should Bishop Robert de Bethune have thought twice about a grant to his former priory ? A case was made for such generosity by the bishop's biographer, William of Wycombe, who by 1127 was a resident canon at Hereford.157 Because the priory had been heavily damaged in the western campaigns of the civil war, he said, the bishop gave to Llanthony his houses, barns, a chapel, and other necessary buildings, and he paid the canons what they required out of his episcopal income.158 The effort of Wycombe to classify the wealth as episcopal suggests a growing sensitivity to the distinction between the bishop's possessions and those of the chapter. Already by 1132 the canons were conveying land without interference.159 In 1144 there was a dean, a treasurer and a precentor at the head of the capitular hierarchy, and late in the same decade there was quite possibly a 153

155

156 157

159

Charters and Records of Hereford Cathedral, ed. W . W . Capes, Cantilupe Society i 154 (Hereford 1908), p p . 1 0 - 1 1 . GFL, n o . 80. T h e properties are n a m e d in a series o f confirmations e x t e n d i n g from Innocent II in 1142 t o H a d r i a n IV in 1158. T h e m o s t comprehensive list is that of Eugenius HI in 1146. PUE 1, nos. 26, 35, 39, 72. See also GFL, nos. 80, 327. DB 1, fos. 182, 182c. Anglia Sacra, vol. n , p p . 293-322. See also t h e discussion b y B . J. P a r k i n s o n , " T h e Life of Robert of Bethune by William of Wycombe," B. Litt thesis, University of Oxford 158 Ibid., chap. xxi. (1950). Charters and Records of Hereford Cathedral, p. 7.

287

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England chapter seal.160 That the dean was possessed of a heritable estate is illustrated by a story related by Wycombe of a dispute between Bishop Robert and Ralph, the dean. The growing hostility between the two men came to a head with decisive action on the part of the bishop which resulted in the sequestration of Ralph's property and his expulsion from office. Although Gilbert Foliot, then abbot of Glastonbury, intervened on Ralph's behalf and requested his reappointment, lending him his support against the bishop, the affair was complicated by the interest of Ralph's three sons in their father's estate. Because of their resistance to an adverse settlement, the case took up a good deal more time than it should have. Wycombe refers to their immunditia, and considered the whole business unseemly and detrimental to the church. 161 While the alienations carried through by the bishop worked to the obvious disadvantage of the chapter, the creation of family holdings within the church served to loosen the grip of the strongminded prelate on ecclesiastical property. There is no reason to presume, however, that the action of the dean, as in this case, necessarily benefited the canons. The threat which he posed to their individual and collective financial stability by the creation of a special benefice was no less than that presented by the bishop. Easier relations between bishop and chapter appear to have existed after the appointment of Gilbert Foliot to the see of Hereford in 1148. He seems to have made an effort to fashion an ecclesiastical organization to which each side contributed in a positive way.162 That this was due chiefly to Gilbert's reluctance to encroach on established capitular prerogatives does not so much detract from his stature as bishop, as it enhances his commitment to the developing corpus of canonical legislation which more and more allowed the cathedral chapter an independent existence. Gilbert had been named vicar by the pope to administer the vacant see after the death of Robert de Bethune at the Council of Reims in 1148. With the approval of Archbishop Theobald, Eugenius III then provided him to the bishopric, although he was of necessity consecrated abroad.163 As bishop, Gilbert resolved the problem of 160 161 162 163

Parkinson, "Robert o f Bethune," pp. 52-53; M.Jones, "The estates o f the cathedral church o f Hereford: 1066-1317," B. Litt thesis, University o f Oxford (1958), p. 48. Wycombe, chap. 20, in Parkinson, "Robert o f Bethune." Morey and Brooke, Gilbert Foliot, pp. 200-202. Round, in Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 251, assumed that Eugenius had provided him, but this was questioned by Morey and Brooke in Gilbert Foliot, p. 97, note 1. Certainly it

288

The secular cathedrals

the grants to Llanthony made by his predecessor. An agreement was worked out whereby the prior kept the property in return for an annual fee of sixty shillings payable to the chapter at Hereford, and the restoration of one half hide in the barton. 164 As an example of his recognition of capitular rights, Gilbert felt it incumbent upon himself to specify that prebends which were confirmed to the canons were to be free of episcopal dues and customs.165 The establishment of the prebends, however, remained an episcopal privilege. At a later date, Bishop Richard Swinfield (1283-1317) refused a place in chapter to a royal candidate on the grounds that from the time of the foundation of Hereford cathedral, the number of canons had been limited by the bishop in proportion to the prebends which were available.166 When Lucius III took the church under his protection in 1184 and confirmed their rights to the dean and chapter, there were already several funds in operation for the canons' expenses, such as those devoted to the fabric, the obits and the communa, which were quite separate from the episcopal income.167 Although the chapter was obliged to pay King John £100 in order to have their estates confirmed, and consequently carried a debt for several years thereafter, the canons had clearly established a separate administration by the end of the twelfth century and one which they were capable of conducting themselves.168 As a result of the dispute between Bishop Peter d'Aigueblanche and the chapter in the mid-thirteenth century an extensive confirmation of privileges, particularly relating to tithes, pensions and jurisdiction of capital assets, and control of the deanship, was made to the canons by Innocent IV.169 Although it did not exclude the bishop from capitular affairs, it reduced his influence considerably in favor of the organized cathedral clergy.

165

167 168

was the case that the pope ordered him to be vicar and permitted his consecration by French bishops under Angevin control. See also Saltman, Theobald, pp. 108—110. The promotion of John II to Rochester at about the same time also seems to have been by 164 GFL, no. 327. papal mandate. Registrum Ricardi de Swinfield Episcopi Herefordensis, ed. W. W. Capes, Canterbury and 166 York Society 6 (1909). Ibid., p. 286. PUE n, no. 226; M.Jones, "Estates," p. 49. From an inspeximus o f 25 Henry III, Calendar of the Charter Rolls, vol. 1, pp. 256—257. 169 CPL 1, p. 222. See Charters and Records of Hereford Cathedral, pp. 55-56.

289

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England LINCOLN

Bishop Remigius, formerly a monk at Fecamp and an intimate of William I, succeeded Wulfwig in the see of Dorchester shortly after the Conquest. When the cathedral church was removed to Lincoln about 1080 he brought with him some of the old episcopal properties to add to the new endowment. The move to the new site undoubtedly owed as much to the strategic position of Lincoln castle in the line of defense against invasion from the north, as it did to the conciliar decrees of 1075.17° By the time of the Domesday survey Remigius held possessions in ten counties and in geographical extent Lincoln was the largest of all the English dioceses.171 This vast acreage presented the bishop with persistent difficulties of communication, untoward problems of administration, and irritating uncertainties as to how far he could exercise satisfactorily his jurisdiction and control. The questions of communication and administration were met eventually by the establishment of seven archdeaconries before Remigius' death in 1092, and by the familiar organization of dean, precentor, treasurer and, probably, chancellor at the head of a body of canons. 172 The question ofjurisdiction, however, brought Remigius very quickly into collision with Ealdred, the archbishop of York, whose predecessor had claimed Lindsey and part of Nottinghamshire for many years. Although Pope Nicholas II in 1061 had ruled in favor of Bishop Wulfwig of Dorchester, the matter was raised again by Ealdred's successor, Thomas of Bayeux, and it was not finally settled until Bishop Robert Bloet reportedly paid the king ^3,000 to support the Lincoln claim. 173 Remigius also asserted his rights to land held by the bishop of Durham, Earl Alan of Richmond, the Countess Judith, Godfrey of Cambrai, and a number of others. 174 Another interesting point in regard to contested rights was that the see of Dorchester had been held by three monk-bishops in the first 170

171

172 173 174

H e n r y o f H u n t i n g d o n says that the bishop b o u g h t land in the u p p e r part o f the t o w n next t o the castle, Historia, RS-74, p . 212. Cf. D . O w e n , " T h e N o r m a n cathedral at Lincoln," Anglo-Norman Studies 6 (1983), 192—193. Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Rutland, N o r t h a m p t o n s h i r e , H u n t i n g d o n s h i r e , Bedfordshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, a n d N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e . Even at the end o f the twelfth century, w h e n t h e diocese o f Ely h a d been cut from it, Lincoln was considered remarkable for its great size, Magna Vita, vol. 1, p . 93. Le N e v e , Fasti, Lincoln, appx. n , p p . 7, 12, 16, 18, 24. LRS-RA 1, no. 247. Henry of Huntingdon put the fine at £5,000. DB 1, fos. 304b, 341, 366b, 377. 29O

The secular cathedrals half of the eleventh century, all of whom had come from Ramsey abbey. Many Dorchester properties were, consequently, granted to the abbey, a practice which gave rise to several disputes over possession after the Conquest. At Drayton in Lincolnshire, for example, a small parcel had been given by one of the bishops to Ramsey for the support of the monks, but by 1086 it was held by Earl Alan. Remigius laid claim to it, and he was supported by the men of the wapentake who testified that Bishop Wulfwig had held it of the abbey in the time of King Edward. 175 As to the chapter at Lincoln, although the eleventh-century evidence clearly shows a rudimentary structure, there is little positive information on its inner workings until well into the next century. Nor is it possible to gauge with any precision the time it took for the bishops to allow a separate capitular mensa to come into existence. The first clear picture is provided by the mass of cartularial material which becomes available in the time of Bishop Robert de Chesney (1148—1166). By the 1150s the chapter was, to a large extent, operating its own administration, but this was the result of a long period of preparation. There is no doubt that Bishop Remigius and his immediate successor exercised the controlling power in the church. Among the early documents relating to the post-Conquest possessions of Lincoln is the charter attributed to William I in which were listed several of the principal properties. 176 Land in Lincoln was set aside free of customs for the construction of the cathedral and the king granted the manors at Welton and Sleaford, as well as the tithes and churches of the royal estates at Kirton, Caistor, and Wellingore, and the churches of St. Laurence and St. Martin in the town. At the request of Remigius, he also gave an estate at Leighton Bromswold which Waltheof, earl of Huntingdon, had given the bishop, and another at Wooburn in Buckinghamshire which he himself had bestowed upon Remigius when he had acceded to the bishopric. In addition, there were confirmed to the church, with the bishop's consent, churches at Bedford, Leighton Buzzard, Buckingham, and Aylesbury which Remigius' predecessors had held. The first part of this endowment was made directly to the church; the second part was made to the church through the bishop. There is a distinction made, therefore, 175 176

DB 1, fos. 348b a n d 377d clamores. Regesta I, n o . 283, a n d LRS-RA 1, n o . 2.

291

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England between church property and episcopal property, but whether the former category was meant to comprise capitular possessions exclusively, or referred to those jointly held, is not clear. But by omitting any reference to the bishop in the first group and by citing only his approval for the transfer of property to the church in the second, the document is made to be entirely favorable to the canons. For a charter allegedly from the time of William I, this aspect raises some doubt as to its authenticity. The dating falls within the years 1067 x 1087, between the consecration of Remigius and the death of the king. These limits could be narrowed if it were known at what time Remigius transferred the see to Lincoln, since the move is referred to in the text. There is no direct evidence for this, however, before the Domesday inquest which calls Lincoln the seat of the bishopric.177 Remigius was still referred to as the "bishop of Dorchester or Lincoln" in 1075, which may indicate that while the shift was contemplated as early as 1070, it was not made until sometime later.178 Although in the London Council of 1075 notice was given of the transfer of the cathedral churches to Old Sarum, Chichester, and Chester, Lincoln was not mentioned. It may be that the move was delayed, with some of the others, until the king returned from his military expeditions overseas.179 Remigius, as bishop of Lincoln, appears in royal charters from about 1080 onwards, so that perhaps a revised chronology to 1080 x 1086 is the more likely one.180 The suspicion that William I's charter was a later fabrication for the benefit of the chapter is strengthened by the fact that most of the properties which were granted to the church are to be found 177

178 179

180

T h e HBC puts t h e transfer t o Lincoln in 1072 (p. 2 5 5 ) ; t h e editors o f t h e Letters of Lanfranc also assume it t o h a v e been in 1072 (p. 76, n o t e 9 ) ; a n d D o d w e l l considers 1072 likely, b u t gives 1086 as t h e terminus ad quern; t h e editors o f t h e LRS-RA 1 tie it t o William's charter dated 1070 x 1087 (p. x v i ) ; the D o m e s d a y entries suggest that the m o v e had been m a d e fairly recently: " R e s i d u a m d i m i d i a m carucatam terre habuit et habet sancta Maria de Lincolia in qua n u n c est episcopatus" (DB1, fo. 336b; LRS-DB, p. 4 ) ; the editors of the Regesta suggest c. 1079 (Regesta 1, n o . 266, note). Letters of Lanfranc, nos. 3, 11. • " D e quibusdam qui in villis seu vicis adhuc degebant dilatum est usque ad regis audientiam qui in transmarinis partibus tune temporis bella gerebat," Councils and Synods, vol. 1, ii, p . 613. T h e Lincoln version of William I's w r i t dealing w i t h the ecclesiastical courts was addressed to his officials " q u i in episcopatu Remigii episcopi terras h a b e n t , " which suggests that the Dorchester—Lincoln site was still n o t settled. T h e d o c u m e n t can be dated u p to c. 1086, w h i c h fits the proposed n e w limits, Councils and Synods, vol. 1, ii, p p . 622—624. Gerald of Wales in the Vita Remigii gave n o date, b u t J o h n of Schalby's reference in his fourteenth-century history has 1086, J o h n of Schalby in Gerald of Wales, Opera, RS-21 v n , p p . 193—194. 292

The secular cathedrals

in Domesday Book under the lands of either the bishop or the king. The canons of the church held only a small fraction of the real estate. Six canons had five teams in demesne in Welton and eleven teams in tenanted land which made up the full assessment of sixteen teams.181 Whether they held the property in common or individually as prebends is not made clear. The use of a common endowment in which several priests had interests can be found in other pre-Conquest churches in England, so that Welton may represent an older practice of St. Mary's church carried over into the Norman period.182 The thirty mansiones which Remigius had in the town were held in ecclesia sancte Marie, which may imply that he held them in the name of the church for the church's benefit while he retained control. The canons had also inherited one half carucate of land in the fields of Lincoln outside the town walls which the church had possessed in the time of King Edward.183 But it compared poorly with the larger shares held by the king, the bishop and other laymen. Professor Stenton's contention that the charter in question comes from the time of William I was based primarily on the inflammatory phrase cum episcopali baculo by which the king gave the manor of Wooburn, since he doubted the existence of a forger so subtle as to include it in a later fabrication. By 1107, the year of Henry I's agreement with the church when he evidently relinquished the practice of investiture with the spiritual symbols of ring and staff, the phrase was out of date. But it could be argued that the imaginative powers of medieval copyists were up to the task and that, furthermore, if the phrase suddenly fell into disuse, there might have been all the more reason to include it as a mark of authenticity.184 Similarly, a charter of William II of 1090, which is doubtful as it stands, confirmed in large part the same group of lands for the benefit of the chapter.185 If anything, it is drawn more pointedly in favor of the canons. The manor of Leighton Bromswold, for example, which in William I's charter was described as having been given to Remigius by Earl Waltheof with the consent of the king and then granted to the church, was now said to have been given by Waltheof to the church intercessione et obsequio Remigii venerabilis episcopi.1*6 But the inclusion in this

charter of a list of capitular regulations was an anomaly which 181 184 186

182 183 DB 1, fo. 344. Le Neve, Fasti, Lincoln, p. x. DB I, fo. 336b. 185 LRS-RA 1, p. 4, note. Ibid., no. 3. Ibid., see F. M. Stenton in VCH Hunts., 1, pp. 327-328.

293

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Stenton likewise found to weigh heavily against its authenticity. 187 The dating of both royal charters is, therefore, problematical; but since a certain measure of power in disciplinary measures is accorded the dean, and a definite prebendal arrangement is assumed, it is possible that they were composed after the death of Remigius in 1092 during the vacancy before the appointment of Robert Bloet in 1094. There is little doubt that Remigius, eager to organize the religious and political life in his new cathedral, set about the establishment of an adequate endowment and the institution of the necessary church offices. Gerald of Wales is the authority for the report that twenty-one prebends had been founded, and then doubled by Robert Bloet before his death in 1123.188 But such a statement conveys less information than it appears to do. Prebenda was essentially provendwn, an investment which produced a return whether in cash or kind. It could easily be augmented or diminished, or be combined with another, shared among several beneficiaries, or eliminated altogether. It is, therefore, uncertain as to how prebends should be counted, and equally uncertain how many canons there were at Lincoln in relation to the number of prebends. In some cases the canons enjoyed the income from properties which had belonged to St. Mary before the Conquest, of which Welton is the principal example. In other cases some of the old Dorchester lands were transferred to them. 189 Still other additions were made by kings and magnates, or taken from the episcopal holdings. As might be expected, the clamores section of the Lincolnshire Domesday reveals that a number of them were in dispute.190 But whether the cases were adjudged by the men of the wapentake in the bishop's favor or not, they all suggest a strong and persistent episcopal authority with which the Lincoln chapter was as yet insufficiently organized to compete. Lands in Lindsey, for instance, which had once been given to the church, were reclaimed by Remigius because of their apparent value. 191 But it seems reasonable to suppose that had the bishop not raised the 187 188 189

Ibid., pp. I O - I I note; cf. ibid., no. 64. Vita Remigii, vol. vn, p. 19; John de Schalby's account agrees, ibid., pp. 194 ff. Such as the churches at Bedford, Leighton Buzzard, and Aylesbury, assuming that the charter o f William I reflected actual grants. See the important discussion o f the problems in tracing prebends and their provenance by D . Greenway in Le Neve, Fasti, -Lincoln, pp. ix-xii; and by Judith A. Cripps, additional notes, ibid., pp. 169-172. Other property remained to endow the monks at Dorchester after the see was moved, 190 191 LRS-RA 1, no. 286. DB 1, fos. 375~377d. Ibid., fo. 375.

294

The secular cathedrals issue, no one else including members of the chapter would have done so, even though the canons ultimately stood to gain if the recovered lands came to be permanently attached to the church. Another example of the way in which property passed in and out of control of the chapter can be found in the history of the church of Caistor in Lincolnshire. The foundation charter of William I made it appear that St. Mary's held the church on the royal manor, as well as the tithes from the income of the manor by his gift.192 Caistor, which was once Earl Morcar's land, was listed as terra regis in 1086. 193 But the men of the wapentake testified that the king had given the church and its berewick at Hundon in free alms to Lincoln, although it was evidently being exploited at the same time by the king's tenants.194 The dispute appears to have been brought to an end with the death of Remigius when the canons lost their interest in the property entirely. This seems a plausible reconstruction of events from the terms of the charter of William II by which the sheriff of Lincolnshire was ordered to reseise the canons of those lands of which they had been despoiled, but in particular of the lands of the church of Caistor. 195 Whoever disseised the canons remains unknown, but he acted, the charter states, after the king fell ill. If Remigius had a claim to the church and the lands up to the time of his death in May 1092, the disseisin probably occurred after that, and the best-known and most dramatic sickness of Rufus was March—April 1093 when he seemed to be near to death while at Gloucester. 196 Lincoln was vacant until the appointment of Robert Bloet in March and his consecration in February 1094. Thus a period without episcopal control may have seemed the most attractive time to usurp the lands and William II's confirmation fits in with his specific grants of restitution.197 As far as the canons were concerned, however, there is no evidence to show that they were able to maintain their jurisdiction over the church, the lands, and the tithes. The possessions were still in dispute when Henry I came to the throne and once again a writ was issued to the sheriff of Lincolnshire to have Bishop Robert hold the churches of Caistor and Kirton with their tithes as Remigius had held them. 198 Economically the 192 194 195 196 197 198

193

LRS-RA 1, no. 2.

DB 1, fo. 338c.

Ibid., fo. 375d.; LRS-DB, p p . 2 1 4 - 2 1 5 . Regesta 1, n o . 4 0 7 ; LRS-RA 1, n o . 13. B a r l o w , William Rufus, p p . 298-300. Ibid., p . 300, n o t e 166; Regesta 1, n o . 4 0 6 ; LRS-RA LRS-RA 1, no. 27.

295

1, n o s . 11-12.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England properties were of considerable importance. Caistor manor was appraised at £50 in 1086 and Kirton at £80. Both figures reflect a substantial increase over their pre-Conquest values. The churches and their lands were also of considerable worth since Stephen, c. 1139, gave to the canons of Lincoln £18 worth of land in Corringham in exchange for the ,£18 which they had been receiving from the tithes of the lands of the churches.199 Thus the canons were to some degree the beneficiaries of royal largesse, even though the grants had been confirmed in the name of the bishop. It is also known that a canon at Lincoln named Hugh held land in Hundon, the berewick of Caistor, although it had been taken away by the men of Roger of Poitou. 200 While the chapter appears to have lost control of the tithes from the Caistor and Kirton churches, the churches themselves were in their possession in 1146 when they were confirmed by Alexander III.201 The remainder of the charters of William II, and many of those of Henry I, include both the bishop and the canons as beneficiaries. They often take the form whereby the bishop and his canons are to have the property, or that the property has been granted to the church of Lincoln and the bishop: William king of the English to N., the sheriff, greeting. I command you to cause Bishop Remigius and his canons to have their church of Kirton with the tithes which belong to it... Henry King of England [sic] to Earl Simon ... et al. Know that I have restored Kilsby to god and St. Mary of Lincoln and to Robert the bishop with sake and soke and all its customs...202 Note may be made of the difference in wording. The phrase "the bishop and the canons" may have been intended to refer to possessions which were known to have formed part of the capitular endowment, whereas the phrase "the church and the bishop" seems likely to have been used to describe land under episcopal jurisdiction. At that time Kirton generated some revenue for the canons, while Kilsby appeared among the bishop's estates 199 201 202

20 Regesta in, nos. 473-474. ° LRS-RA 1, no. 50. Ibid., no. 255; see also Judith A. Cripps, additional notes, in Le Neve, Fasti, Lincoln, p.

170.

" W . rex...mando tibi ut facias episcopo Remigio et canonicis suis habere ecclesiam suam de Chirchetona cum decimis que ad earn pertinent...";" H. rex Anglie... Sciatis me reddidisse deo et sancte Marie Lincoliensi et Roberto episcopo Chilesbi cum soca et saca...," LRS-RA 1, nos. 8, 43.

296

The secular cathedrals

in a papal privilege of 1126.203 There is a view, however, which tends to complicate the meaning of the words still further, since it has been argued that "St. Mary of Lincoln" was used as synonymous with the diocese or the bishop.204 In the Cartae of 1166, for example, the sixty knights of the bishop were referred to as knights "of the fee of St. Mary." 205 But if this were so, then why was it thought necessary to include both the bishop and St. Mary of Lincoln together in the phrasing of the earlier charters ? Although the returns for Bury St. Edmunds in 1166 were also made in the name of the saint, very few ecclesiastical foundations used that form. But probably not too much should be made of the relevancy of the wording of the 1166 responses to the royal charters fifty years before, except to say that the repeated use of the joint beneficiaries is significant in that " to the bishop and St. Mary of Lincoln" implies that the income of the cathedral had not been formally separated from that of the bishop.206 Further evidence to support this contention can be found in the writ of Henry I in which he granted to St. Mary of Lincoln and Bishop Robert four churches at Nassington, Wood Newton, Tansor, and Southwick, all in Northamptonshire, as a prebend to be held by the bishop and canons.207 Although addressed to Simon, the dean of Lincoln, and the chapter of St. Mary, the bishop's authority to provide to livings was explicitly recognized. Similarly, William I granted Osbert, sheriff of Lincoln, permission to give eleven bovates of land, which he held of the king, to the church of St. Mary as a prebend to be held by the bishop of the king.208 This, it was said, was done to fulfill William's promise to Osbert, presumably, so that one of Osbert's relatives might hold the property, but in such a way that the king would not thereby lose his service. Both Robert Bloet and his successor, Alexander, were praised by contemporaries for their efforts to enrich the church at Lincoln and for their contributions to the plans for new buildings. But they were also criticized for granting away portions of church property as if it were their own. 209 Henry of Huntingdon, who grew up in the court of first the one and then the other bishop generally found 203 208

208

209

204 205 Ibid., no. 248. F. Hill, Medieval Lincoln, p . 68. RBE, p . 374. O w e n , Church and Society, p . 42. O t h e r j o i n t grants m a y be found in LRS-RA 1, nos. 207 15, 23, 31, 34, 4 1 , 53. Regesta 11, n o . 1032; LRS-RA 1, n o . 4 1 . LRS-RA 1, n o . 7. William, nepos Osberti, held land in Walescroft w a p e n t a k e in the Lindsey Survey (LRS-DB and LS, p . 245), and Ralph, b r o t h e r of Osbert, and a canon at Lincoln, had p r o p e r t y as well (ibid., p . 241). Vita Remigii, vol. v n , chaps. 2 1 - 2 2 .

297

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England good things to say about them and carefully pointed out that Alexander, who habitually lived beyond his means, drew subsidies not from the lands of St. Mary, but from his friends.210 Gerald of Wales, on the other hand, charged that he built four abbeys and three castles using the revenues of the see.211 Like any other bishop of the age, he probably did both. In any case, whether he was founding the hospital at Newark "from his own property," acquiring remunerative market rights, or repairing the cathedral fabric, the initiative and general direction lay with the bishop, rather than with the dean and chapter, and the whole enterprise depended on his control of the endowment. One reason why the bishop was reluctant to give up his hold on the temporalities and transfer his rights to the canons was that he might, at any time, be required by the king to make a contribution of property or revenues. A case in point was the demand by Stephen, addressed to Alexander, that he provide a sum from his funds to match the yearly income of ^14 with which the king had endowed a prebend at Lincoln for his clerk, Baldric de Sigillo.212 Close association with the crown had obvious advantages for the bishop, but there was always a substantial price to pay. It is generally true that in this period the canons still lived closely with the bishop, even though he was often in residence elsewhere, and individual members of the chapter served in his household, witnessed his charters, and assisted him in the daily routine of administration.213 He, in turn, like the king, used prebendal appointments as livings for his friends and relatives. Simon, dean of Lincoln, was the son of Bishop Robert Bloet; David, the brother of Bishop Alexander, became archdeacon of Buckingham; and a nephew, William, was archdeacon of Northampton. In the course of time, however, some of the canons themselves began to form small hereditary tenancies, as in the case of Jocelin, Alexander's steward, who was succeeded in his post by his son, Walter of Amundeville, in the 1130s. One of Walter's brothers was the cathedral treasurer, and his son held a prebend. William, the bishop's constable, had a son named Robert who was also a canon in the church, and there were several other livings, including one at Corringham, which passed from father to son.214 Para212

211 Henry of Huntingdon, RS-74, p. 280. Vita S. Remigii, in Opera vn, p. 33. " Ego autem ex mea parte tibi mando et obnixe te requiro quatinus tantum ex tuo addas eidem prebende prefate ad honorem et utilitatem ecclesie...," Regesta in, no. 478; LRS213 214 EEA 1, nos. 10, 33. Ibid., p. xlii; no. 160. RA 1, no. 88.

298

The secular cathedrals doxically, it was this readiness to develop an increased individual proprietary interest which at first tended to work against the development of a capitular corporate sense, that in the long run probably contributed to the growth of the autonomous chapter.215 The movement in this direction can be shown by the wording of a series of papal privileges, beginning with one of Honorius II in 1126 which was addressed to Alexander and his successors in the see of Lincoln. The pope confirmed to the bishops the property of the church, which was to remain unimpaired, and then by them, or through them, it was confirmed to the chapter.216 The language is not dissimilar to that found in other papal privileges of the period which give over the possessions of the church to the bishop with the understanding that he would then distribute them to the chapter. This tendency can also be seen in a privilege addressed as well to Alexander and his successors by Innocent II in 1139 which was like that of Honorius II, except that the property of the church was confirmed to the bishop and to the canons.217 Moreover, a distinction was to be made sede vacante between what were referred to on the one hand as episcopal possessions, and on the other hand as church possessions. By the latter we can assume that the capitular property was meant. This was to be administered by a group of clerics until a new bishop was appointed. A number of estates and churches which provided support for the canons were also mentioned, so that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that a separation of the mensa was recognized and, therefore, had been made. Already in the Lindsey survey, for instance, dating from c. 1120, it was acknowledged that the Lincoln property was held separately. Under the appropriate headings in the different wapentakes can be found " the lands of the bishop," " the lands of St. Mary of Lincoln," and "the lands of the canons of St. Mary." 218 Several years later, in 1146, Eugenius III granted two privileges of confirmation, one to Bishop Alexander, and another 215 216

217

218

Owen, "The Norman Cathedral at Lincoln," p. 197. " B o n a ergo et possessiones quas iuste et legittime possidet vel in f u t u r u m largiente d o m i n o canonice poterit acjipisci firma tibi tuisque successoribus et per vos ecdesie Lincolniensi et illibata p e r m a n e a n t , " LRS-RA 1, n o . 248. LRS-DB and LS, p . 237 (8), p p . 240-241 (1), p . 243 (1), p . 257 (20). For the date of the survey see R o u n d , Feudal England, p . 155. " Statuentes u t q u a s c u m q u e possessiones q u e c u m q u e b o n a i d e m locus in presentiarum iuste et canonice possidet a u t in f u t u r u m largitione r e g u m vel p r i n c i p u m oblatione fidelium seu aliis iustis modis d e o propitio poterit adipisci, firma tibi tuis successoribus n e c n o n canonicis eiusdem ecclesie i m p e r p e t u u m et illibata p e r m a n e a n t , " LRS-RA 1, n o . 249.

299

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England to the canons.219 The episcopal properties, with a few additions, follow the list in the previous papal documents, while the chapter's possessions were substantially increased and certain of them were identified as belonging to the common fund.220 Finally, in 1163, Alexander III addressed a lengthy confirmation of their property to Adelm, the dean, and the canons of Lincoln.221 Although the phrasing is similar to that in the privileges of Honorius II and Eugenius III, the manors and churches were neither given to the bishop directly, nor to the bishop and then by him to the chapter. The bishop, in fact, was absent from the privilege in name, while all the property was confirmed to the canons and their successors. It seems safe to conclude that the capitular mensa was then an established institution which obliged the papal chancery to respond to the chapter's claims by issuing a separate confirmation. The pontificate of Alexander III (1159—1181) overlaps with the last years of Bishop Robert de Chesney (1148-1166), and it is during the latter's term of office that enough information on the structure of the divided mensa can be found to give a good idea of its operation. Robert's extant acta number more than three times as many as those of Remigius, Robert Bloet, and Alexander combined.222 The danger of arguing from this evidence, without knowing the total number of acta for each bishop, is offset by the qualitative difference of the specific references to the relationship of bishop and chapter under Robert, as well as to the corroborative material which can be drawn from contemporary sources. The gradual separation of the bishop's interests from the chapter's came about, as we have seen, by means of the exemption of the canons from episcopal jurisdiction, by confirmation of capitular immunities, by direct grants of lands and privileges, by the successful claims of the canons to certain rights which they believed were theirs, and by the formation of hereditary offices and prebends. 223 A key text in this development was the charter of privileges granted by Bishop Robert which was addressed generally and which exempted the prebends at Lincoln from all episcopal exactions and from all archdiaconal demands. The canons were to 219 221 222

223

22 Ibid., nos. 2 5 1 , 2 5 2 ; cf. n o . 2 5 0 ; PUE 11, n o . 48. ° Ibid., line 88. LRS-RA, 1, no. 255. T h r e e for Remigius, twelve for R o b e r t Bloet, fifty for Alexander, a n d 219 for R o b e r t de Chesney, EEA 1. S o m e examples can b e found in EEA 1, nos. 4 1 , 157, 158, 161, 162, 312.

300

The secular cathedrals

have the same liberties in their prebends as the canons of Salisbury had in theirs.224 Although the capitular mensa in the form of endowments and income for the canons' support had been in existence for some time, not until that point had it been considered immune in theory from episcopal interference. Being thus protected, it took on the appearance of a separate institution with a privileged position in the diocese, yet not one which was fully independent of episcopal restraint and control. But neither the purpose of the charter, nor its provisions, was forgotten by Robert's successors. It was reconfirmed at the end of the century by Hugh of Avalon, and again at the beginning of the thirteenth by William of Blois.225 In Robert de Chesney's time the chapter also came to have a more noticeable presence than was the case under earlier bishops. More grants were made by the bishop assensu capituli, more instruments were drawn up in the chapter house, and more properties were given to and by the canons with or without the bishop being mentioned.226 It is also the case that a saving clause for the chapter figures more prominently in many of Robert's acta, although again this may simply reflect the greater number of his acta which have survived.227 Already under Bishop Alexander there can be found a few instances which usually conformed to such phrasing as: salva tamen matris ecclesie nostre Lincolniensis in omnibus dignitate.228 This wording, on the face of it, takes into greater consideration the chapter than the single clause in a charter ascribed to Robert Bloet: salvis consuetudinibus sancte Marie Lincolniensis ecclesie in omnibus que ad episcopum seu archidiaconum pertinent;229 224

225 226 227

EEA i, n o . 161; LRS-RA I, nos. 287, and 290 w h i c h is a notification b y the bishop to his archdeacons that h e has granted i m m u n i t y from their jurisdiction t o the canons. In J o h n of Schalby's b o o k the charter was ascribed, in error, t o R o b e r t Bloet, w h i c h w o u l d date the division earlier than the evidence warrants, The Book of John de Schalby, Canon of Lincoln (1299-1333) concerning the bishops of Lincoln and their acts, ed. J. H. Srawley, Lincoln Minster Pamphlets 2 (Lincoln 1949), p p . 6-^7. T h e witness list pins the charter to 1160X 1161, but a reference in a privilege of Alexander III, after 1171, to the liberty which Robert conceded to the canons in their prebends circa tempora sue promotionis seems to refer to this grant. If the promotio means his appointment to Lincoln, then there m a y be reason to suspect that a prior arrangement was made 1148 x 1149. For this question see D . Smith, EEA 1, n o . 161, note. LRS-RA 1, nos. 288-289. EEA 1, nos. 104, 133, 139; LRS-RA x , nos. 2681-2682. 228 229 EEA 1, p . xlviii and n o t e 1. Ibid., nos. 54, 55. Ibid., n o . 8.

301

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England and which is closer to a slightly different form in another of Alexander's charters: salva nimirum in omnibus dignitate episcopi et ecclesie Lincolnie.230 Appearing throughout Robert's acta is a conditional phrasing such as: salva in omnibus Lincolniensis ecclesie dignitate ;231 which appears a great many more times than the variant: salva in omnibus episcopalibus consuetudinibus et Lincolniensis ecclesie dignitate, or salva tamen in omnibus ecclesie Lincolniensis et nostra dignitate et consuetudinibus et rectitudinibus.232 Whether the chapter's rights or the bishop's rights, or the rights of both, were to be protected obviously depended on the kind of grant that was being made. But the large number of acta with saving clauses for the chapter which appear under Bishop Robert is surely significant. A corroborative illustration of the growing importance of capitular initiative is afforded by a group of charters of Henry II which, while it includes several conveyances to the bishop and the church, also contains a number of others in which the canons are the sole beneficiaries.233 In one instance, the royal vineyard in Lincoln, which had been given to St. Mary, Bishop Robert Bloet and the canons by Henry I, was confirmed by Henry II to St. Mary and the canons alone, even though a reference was made to the earlier charter.234 In 1146 Eugenius III confirmed to the canons a virgultum ubifuit vinea regis which suggests that the canons had begun to encroach on the property before Bishop Robert's time.235 Similarly, the manor at Nettleham, given many years before to St. Mary and Bishop Robert Bloet, was confirmed by Henry II to the church of Lincoln in free alms.236 Here the church appears to stand for the chapter, and it is true that part of 230 232

233

235 236

231 Ibid., n o . 49. Ibid., n o . 79Ibid., nos. 74, 198. T h e saving clause o n behalf o f the chapter can b e found in nos. 84, 88, 89, 91, 108, 112, 129, 130, 133, 135, 142, 155, 166, 168, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 199, 200, 202, 203, 207, 213, 222, 226, 230, 248, 256, 257, 265, 276, 284. T o the bishop and chapter: LRS-RA 1, nos. 136, 138, 139, 145, 147, 159, 170, 184; to 234 the chapter: nos. 156, 157, 167, 193. LRS-RA 1, nos. 23 and 171. Ibid., n o . 252. It was confirmed again b y Alexander III in 1163, ibid., n o . 255. Ibid., nos. 6 1 , 163.

302

The secular cathedrals

the manorial income in tithes had already been assigned to the canons. In all these cases there are grounds for viewing the changes in wording as more than merely stylistic, and that given the supporting evidence which attests to the importance of the community of the chapter, they are constitutionally significant. The chapter began to have a defined place beside the bishop due in large part to the fact that the latter was single, itinerant, and transient, while the former was collective, resident, and permanent.237 Another aspect of this development can be seen in the grants by laymen made to the church of Lincoln which had the canons as beneficiaries, and in the property which was given by the chapter to endow its own prebends or as benefices for church officers.238 An example of how the chapter came to assert its authority with regard to prebendal jurisdiction is provided by the history of the vill of Asgarby in Lincolnshire. In the reign of William II a canon of Lincoln named Robert de Grainville held Asgarby which had been given as a prebend to the church of Lincoln by Roger, son of Gerald, the father of William de Roumare, the earl of Lincoln under Stephen.239 The prebend was held with the bishop's consent and it was later confirmed to Robert by Henry I, as well as by William de Roumare.240 Under Stephen the prebend passed to Ralph of Caen, a canon of Lincoln and later a royal clerk in the household of Henry II.241 A series of writs by Henry II granted the prebend royal protection and confirmed Ralph's possession of it.242 Further confirmation was made by William de Roumare, the junior. 243 Ralph became the sub-dean at Lincoln and when, with the consent of the canons, he let out part of his prebend at Asgarby to Edrich, his liege-man, in feudo et hereditate for an annual payment often shillings, Edrich became, in effect, the liege-man in possession of the prebend and the tenant of St. Mary's.244 The greater importance of the chapter in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, undoubtedly encouraged the marked proprietary sense that is apparent in the remarks of Gerald of Wales and John Schalby. Although they both acknowledged that Robert 237 238

241 242

244

LRS-RA i x , nos. 2426, 2 4 7 8 ; x , n o . 2939. LRS-RA 11, n o . 332; in, n o . 7 6 8 ; iv, nos. 113, 1191, 1295; v n , nos. 2001, 2065, 2123, 239 240 2124. LRS-RA 1, n o . 58. Ibid., nos. 5 6 - 5 7 ; 130-132. Ibid., nos. 79-80, 121. Ibid., nos. 118—129. Henry II, in fact, confirmed a number o f Lincoln prebends in favor 243 Ibid., no. 132. of the canons, cf. BEC LXIX, pp. 549, 565. LRS-RA n, no. 495.

303

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England de Chesney acquired property which was useful to the canons, they condemned what they considered to be illicit alienations. The bishop was accused of giving certain lands to his nieces as dowries? of endowing the priory of St. Catherine in Lincoln, and of incurring a debt of £300 to Aaron, the Jew. 245 It is uncertain, however, whether the properties granted away were his own, or whether they were properly the assets of the church. In the case of St. Catherine's, the gift was made initially with the consent of the chapter, but later this was forgotten and it was described as an unjustified loss.246 As a consequence, the bishop was fined 400 marks by the king and the loan from Aaron of Lincoln may have been sought to pay such a large amount. 247 Later, when the bishop built his house on land which had provided income to the canons, he was careful to compensate them for it.248 While some allowance has to be made for the embroideries of Gerald, such opinions as these provide further evidence that the chapter had come to be considered as an entity in its own right. It is worth noting also that during Bishop Robert's time both diocesan foundations of St. Frideswide's priory in Oxford, and St. Albans abbey were granted exemptions from the jurisdiction of the bishop of Lincoln. This was not accomplished without some effort, and compensation for the loss of the privileges had to be made.249 But certainly the cathedral chapter, although it probably stood to lose some payments from the liberated churches, must have viewed the negotiations with active interest since the principle of episcopal exclusion was exactly the course they had set for themselves. Robert de Chesney died about the year 1166 and the bishopric at Lincoln lay vacant until the appointment of Walter of Coutances in 1183. Between these dates Geoffrey Plantagenet, the son of Henry II and an archdeacon of Lincoln, served as bishop-elect. He was barely twenty years old when chosen, and although confirmed by Alexander III in 1175, he was never consecrated to the see. In 1181 he resigned to take the post of royal chancellor.250 After a stormy career as archbishop of York, he ended his days in exile in 245 246

248 250

Gerald o f Wales, Vita Remigii, p p . 3 4 - 3 5 ; J o h n o f Schalby, p . 198. H . P . K i n g , " T h e life a n d acta o f R o b e r t d e Chesney, bishop o f L i n c o l n : 1148-1166," 247 PR, 11 H e n r y II, p . 37. M . A . thesis, University o f L o n d o n (1955), p . 173. 249 LRS-RA iv, p . 78. EEA 1, nos. 219, 234. Gerald of Wales, RS-21 iv, p p . 363, 3 8 4 ; R a l p h de Diceto, RS-6S1, p p . 392-393 ; W a l t e r M a p , De Nugis curialium, ed. M . R. J a m e s , rev. C . N . L. B r o o k e a n d R. A . B . M y n o r s , Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford 1983), pp. 478-480, 494-498. The see of Lincoln was already vacant in August 1181, PR, 27 Henry II, p. 63.

304

The secular cathedrals

Normandy and died in 1212. Both Gerald and John of Schalby, however, speak well of him at Lincoln. They mention his efforts to recover some lost property, including those church ornaments which Robert de Chesney had pledged to Aaron the Jew, and his contributions to the repair of the cathedral furnishings.251 There is no suggestion, however, that the chapter gained privileges at his expense. Indeed, if his strong-minded action at York, which brought him into serious conflict with his church officers there, is an indication of his readiness to defend episcopal rights, there is no reason to suppose that he granted them away. At Lincoln it is known that his brother became an archdeacon, and that his mother received a small sum for her support paid, evidently, from the income of the see. His sister was likewise paid her expenses in the reign of Richard I.252 Geoffrey was followed by Walter of Coutances who was elected and consecrated in the spring and early summer of 1183. Officially translated to the archbishopric of Rouen in the fall of 1184, he left a surprising number of acta for having spent so little time in the see.253 In regard to the mensal history, it can be seen how he emphasized the episcopal source of judicial power in the diocese while at the same time delegating his authority to the dean and chapter by defining their separate jurisdictions. In a mandate addressed to the archdeacons and their officials he instructed them not to delay in bringing to justice, when requested to do so by the chapter, anyone who detained property from the common fund of the church. If the archdeacon's men refused to intervene, the bishop would assign their authority to the dean, or failing the dean, to the sub-dean or another of the canons.254 The archdeacons as the bishop's agents were presumed to be able to control their own men; if they could not, then the archdeacons were to abide by the judgment of the dean and chapter. Each of the two parts of the church, the episcopal in the person of the bishop, and the capitular in the person of the dean, had its rules (iura) which allowed it by this time to conduct its own affairs salvo, as the bishop put it at the end of the document, iure et dignitate nostra. Walter's charter was 251

252

254

" E t ipse q u o q u e ornatus ecclesiae suae p l u r i m u m propriis donariis amplificavit. C u i et inter cetera q u o q u e campanas duas grandes, egregias, atque sonoras, devota largitione d o n a v i t , " Gerald of Wales, Vita Remigii, p p . 36—37; J o h n of Schalby, in Gerald of Wales, Opera p . 198. Cited b y D . Smith, EEA 1, p . xxxvii from PR, 27 H e n r y II, p . 64 and Pi?, 6 Richard I, 253 p . 165. For his dates and charter style see EEA 1, p . xxxix. LRS-RA 1, n o . 2 9 5 ; EEA 1, n o . 313.

3O5

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century

England

followed within a few years by one of Hugh of Avalon (i 186-1200) by which he notified his archdeacons that he, likewise, had granted the dean and chapter the right to bring usurpers of the common fund to ecclesiastical justice. 255 He was perfectly well aware, nevertheless, of his episcopal prerogative. Whereas Walter had used the verb transfere in permitting the dean the power to act, Hugh referred to his grant as an indulgencia, a favor bestowed at the bishop's pleasure, and added the saving clause, salvo in omnibus iure episcopi et eius potestate. But he was ready to accede to capitular demands. Neither archdeacon nor rural deans were to absolve persons censured by the dean unless they had his permission, or were directed to do so by the bishop. Similar mandates were issued by Bishop William of Blois (1203-1206) and by Bishop Richard Gravesend (1258-1279) which made the archdeacons and rural deans answerable to the dean not only in regard to the common fund, but in all cases in which capitular rights had been violated.256 Thus, the action by Walter and Hugh was an early but integral part of the process of defining separate capitular jurisdiction. These acta, however, were concerned primarily with the common fund, not with prebendal endowments. It was from this fund that revenue was derived which was used to supplement the income of the resident canons and to meet the expenses of general administration and the repair of the church buildings. Payments into the common fund were made from dozens of small, scattered holdings which had been assembled over the years. The first list of these properties appeared in the privilege of Eugenius III in 1146, and additions to it were made in the privilege of Alexander III in 1163, which would correspond approximately to the period of more determined constitutional change.257 Because non-residency was a growing problem in cathedral chapters, the promise of income from the common to canons who fulfilled the necessary requirements was a usual way of making compliance more attractive. A passage in the biography of Hugh of Avalon makes it clear that the bishop insisted that those who benefited from ecclesiastical endowments should serve the church in person. It was a sentiment, on the text of I Corinthians that "those who serve at the altar should share in the proceeds" (and not those who do not serve), which was much in keeping with his 255 257

LRS-RA 1, no. 294. Chesney's exemption of prebends from archidiaconal control was 256 confirmed by Hugh, EEA iv, nos. 93-94, 102-103. Ibid., nos. 297-300. Ibid., nos. 252, 255.

306

The secular cathedrals

portrait as a disciplined administrator.258 Those canons who refused to reside were to be compelled by the dean to find vicars to replace them.259 The fact that the common at Lincoln, apart from the manor at Friesthorpe, consisted of so many small endowments made it easier for outsiders to encroach upon it, and this vulnerability was quite likely the motivation for the charters issued by Walter and Hugh. Although Hugh's biographer pictured the bishop living in harmony with his canons, as in the ideal world a father would live with his sons even to the point of calling them "his lords," the division between episcopal and capitular possessions remained in practice distinct.260 The patronage of Eynsham abbey which, according to John of Schalby, Robert Bloet had appropriated to his own use, was said by the same author to have been rescued by Bishop Hugh from threatened loss for the benefit of the church of Lincoln.261 Hugh also ordered that the collection of pentecostals, the contributions at Whitsuntide by each household in the diocese to the cathedral church, which had been neglected at Lincoln, were to be paid to the chapter. At Chichester, by contrast, they were still divided between bishop and canons.262 Nevertheless, the bishop could, at times, confuse the issue by his view that the property of his church was not so much his as it was Mary's, the mother of god and his patron; or by refusing, at first, to make a will on the grounds that he possessed nothing, since the church possessed it all.263 But it has to be remembered that this was good twelfth-century ecclesiastical theory and just the sentiment a biographer would consider proper to attribute to the pious and saintly bishop. It had little relation to the practical distribution and administration of the endowment. Hugh, in fact, provided that after his death the surplus bona temporalia were to be given to charity in order to prevent their confiscation by the king's commissioners.264 258

"Qui altario deserviunt altario hire participantur", Magna Vita, vol. I, pp. 119-124; 11, p. 97; I Corinthians 9:13; EEA iv, nos. 93—94, 106—107. This is another example of the balanced aphorism, like quod omnes tangit, which combined the confirmation of a right with a demand for service typical of the changed political climate of the late twelfth 259 260 century. LRS-RA 1, no. 300. Magna Vita, 1, p. 124.

261

J o h n o f Schalby in Gerald o f Wales, Opera, RS-21 v n , p p . 196 a n d 200. 263 O w e n , Church and Society, p p . 42, 107. Magna Vita, v o l . 11, p p . 115, 187. Ibid., p . 187. After the refusal b y H u g h t o furnish troops o r m o n e y t o Richard I, his bishopric was o r d e r e d into t h e king's hands. W h a t was m e a n t , explained Gerald o f Wales, was the bishop's regalia, i.e., his b a r o n y , and n o t the mensa capitularis, RS-21 v n ,

262 264

104.

307

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Although the author of the Vita had no trouble in deciding which possessions, referred to as terrae, mobilia, oppida, villae, and castelli, belonged to the bishop, when convenient for tax purposes the king and his officials assumed that the liability was shared by both bishop and chapter. This was a long-standing view and is, of course, at variance with the modern theory that the principal reason for the division of the mensa was to prevent oppression of the chapter through the exercise of regalian right. At Lincoln the problem can be illustrated by the tradition of the episcopal mantle. Robert Bloet was said to have given the king a sable mantle (pallium) worth ^ i o o , and thereby to have bound his successors in the episcopal office to do the same. The story was related by Gerald, although the biographer of Hugh attributes the initial gift to Bishop Alexander.265 Both Alexander and Robert de Chesney evidently made money payments to satisfy the debt. When King Richard demanded the same of Hugh the fee was set at ioo marks yearly. Both the bishop and the church were held to be liable, but Hugh eventually bought off the debt for 2,000 marks.266 To raise the sum Hugh offered to retire to Witham abbey and to divert the revenues of the bishopric, which were worth about £1,500 a year, to the exchequer.267 Hugh had been in the habit of spending a certain amount of time at Witham each year, so that the idea of finding monastic peace at his old abbey was probably as much an expression of a recurrent desire as a practical solution to his financial difficulties.268 The clergy, it was said, opposed this plan and agreed to pay the money themselves. By "clergy" apparently was meant the diocesan clergy who were taxed for the amount in question. By "revenues of the bishopric" Hugh must have had in mind his episcopal income, since only if it had been differentiated from the general revenue of the see would his absence have had any effect. The implication, therefore, is that the mensal division had been clearly made, although the king, like any modern taxing authority, preferred to assume the broadest possible base. Well aware of the increased technical demands of his office, Hugh had insisted on a strong group of men who were good churchmen, capable administrators, trained litigants, and loyal 265 266

268

Gerald of Wales, Vita Remigii, p p . 3 1 - 3 3 ; Magna Vita, vol. 11, p p . 3 4 - 3 5 . Magna Vita, vol. 11, p p . 34~37- T h e text gives the figure as 3,000 m a r k s of silver; the s u m recorded in PR, 7 Richard I, p . 159, was 2,000 marks w h i c h m a y represent only partial p a y m e n t ; R o g e r of H o w d e n has 1,000 marks, Chronica, RS-si m , p . 303. T h e king's 26? H o w e l l , Regalian Right, p . 123. release is printed in LRS-RA 1, n o . 198. Magna Vita, vol. 11, p p . 44, 49, 149-150.

308

The secular cathedrals

supporters. On them he conferred prebends and made them members of the chapter. Thus the exigencies of a complex bureaucratic and legal-minded ecclesiastical society in the later twelfth century also encouraged the growth of a separate capitular organization. Although the practice of bishops in appointing members of their household to prebends and archdeaconries, and of using members of the chapter to witness their charters and in other ways to serve their needs, tended to emphasize the integral nature of the cathedral clergy, from the time of Robert de Chesney there was a noticeable attempt to identify witnesses who were primarily in the bishop's circle, as against those who were officers of the chapter.269 By Hugh I's time, the principal figures of the dean, sub-dean, precentor, succentor, sacrist, chancellor, and their clerks were prominently established. For the most part they had acquired individual plots of land and fixed dwellings in the town.270 Hugh had delegated to the dean a large measure of disciplinary power, including the authority to excommunicate persons of proven hostility to the canons, without interference by the archdeacons or other episcopal officials. He had also made clear that the right to elect the bishop was in the hands of the chapter residents, or their superior pars.271 But in the late twelfth century this decision was more on the order of wishful thinking than concrete achievement. In spite of the attempt to rid the elections of the symbols of royal sanction, by having the voting take place not in the royal chapel but in the chapter house at Lincoln, the kings continued to play an important role in the process until they were temporarily superseded in the fourteenth century by papal commissions. As a practical manifestation of their growing independence, moreover, the canons soon possessed their own seal. Notice of an episcopal seal occurred in the time of Bishop Alexander, and of a chapter seal perhaps as early as 1150.272 Certainly there was one in use by Richard, the dean, in the late 1180s. 269

270

272

F o r t h e p r o b l e m o f identification see D . Smith in EEA i, p p . xxxix—xlvii. In 1200, h o w e v e r , H u g h , t h e dean and the sub-dean acted together as judges-delegate, Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III Concerning England (1198—1216), ed. C . R. Cheney and R. Semple, Nelson Medieval Texts (London 1953), n o . 5. K. Major, Minster Yard, Lincoln Minster Pamphlets, 2nd ser. n o . 7 (Lincoln 1974), p p . 271 6-15. Magna Vita, vol. 1, p. 96. EEA 1, pp. lviii—hri; Documents Illustrative of the Social and Economic History of the Danelaw, ed. F. M. Stenton, British Academy Records of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales, nos. 383, 440; LRS-RA 11, p. 340.

309

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England But the separation of jurisdiction which rested upon the material division of the mensa was not something which was easily achieved in a short time. Strong counter-currents of antagonism lay beneath the surface of agreements and accords, and it took many years and great perseverance to have a permanent division recognized. The serious dispute which erupted in the time of Bishop Robert Grosseteste (1235—1253) over the right of the bishop to visit, in his official capacity, the cathedral chapter, can serve as an illustration. The point at issue was insisted upon by the bishop, but denied by the canons. Grosseteste had begun his career at Lincoln with a round of diocesan visitations which were notable for their severity. When it was necessary, the result was the abolition of customs deemed frivolous or unworthy, and the suspension, or even removal, of those in charge of the religious houses.273 The dean and chapter of Lincoln who observed these rigorous, innovative, but strictly canonical, procedures with some anxiety, were determined that they should remain immune from any such thoroughgoing investigation. Thus, when Grosseteste turned his attention to his own church, the dean and his supporters were at first resentful, then resistant, and finally openly rebellious. They ordered the canons in their livings to disobey the bishop, and sent off an appeal to Rome. Grosseteste replied by removing the dean, the sub-dean and the precentor; the response of the papacy was to submit the whole matter to a committee composed of the bishop of Worcester and the archdeacons of Worcester and Sudbury. Since their decision was favorable to Grosseteste, the chapter appealed again, while the dean was replaced by the archdeacon of Oxford, one of the bishop's supporters who later was promoted to the see of Coventry. In itself, this was a significant act because the new dean had not been elected by the chapter, but simply appointed by the resolute exercise of episcopal authority. This was in keeping with Grosseteste's own belief that his was the principal power in the diocese. Whatever privileges the lesser officials enjoyed, and the latter included the dean and chapter, were theirs through delegation. As the pope was to the church, Grosseteste argued, so was the bishop to his see. With a wealth of scriptural references, 273

F. S. Stevenson, Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln. A Contribution to the Religious, Political and Intellectual History of the Thirteenth Century (London 1899), pp. 186—201, 248—250; J. H. Srawley, "Grosseteste's administration of the diocese of Lincoln," Robert Grosseteste, Scholar and Bishop, ed. D. A. Callus (Oxford 1955), pp. 172—173. 310

The secular cathedrals

particularly those allegorical images of natural dominance which opposed the sun to the moon, the shepherd to his flock, the physician to his patients, the husband to his bride, and the father to his children, the superior constitution of the episcopal office was emphasized and redefined.274 The dean and chapter, on the other hand, denied that their authority had been delegated to them as an independent corporation. It was, they said, already vested in them. There was no precedent, they argued, for episcopal visitation at Lincoln, and certainly no need for one now. The canons went so far as to exhibit a document purportedly from the reign of William II which gave the dean disciplinary power over the chapter and the right to call in the bishop, or the king, only if he felt it to be necessary. It also implied that a division of the mensa had been made at that early date whereby the canons were assigned separate income and benejicia.275 Since the text stated that the king had held a council of eight archbishops and sixteen bishops, clearly it had been fabricated for the purpose, but it may have added some strength to the chapter's position at the time. On the other hand, Grosseteste's wide-ranging discussion of legal reasons for visitation, while it went far to establish a case on theoretical grounds, never included examples relating specifically to the church of Lincoln. His references were to Benedictine houses which, even if subject to their superiors, were not exempt from episcopal authority; to the Cistercians who were only exempt by papal mandate; and to the orders of friars each of which had a system of visitation by its provincial head. Intrigued by the legal power to be had from precise definition, he offered an elaborate explanation of the different meanings of the words visor and visitator, as they were applied to the bishop and chapter. Visor, he argued, was the dean, since he was no more than an inspector; visitator, however, was the bishop, since only to him was granted the original authority of visitation.276 The dean's reply, that the bishop's jurisdiction no longer included the chapter and that he could show no precedent for visitation, may have contained an element of truth. By the time of Grosseteste's appointment the chapter was a well-entrenched community, as comfortable in 274

275 276

T h e m o s t detailed account o f Grosseteste's position is t o be found in his letters, especially n o . 127, in .RS-25. T h e r e is a brief n o t e o n the bishop's visionary a r g u m e n t s in R. W . Southern, Robert Grosseteste. The Growth of an English Mind in Medieval Europe ( O x f o r d 1986), p p . 2 6 4 - 2 6 5 . M a t t h e w Paris, Chronica Majora, RS-SJ iv, p p . 154—156. Srawley, "Grosseteste's a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , " p . 173, n o t e 2.

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England asserting its claim to self-administration as the bishop's predecessors were negligent in exercising their authority. Thus, Grosseteste could do little more than fashion literary examples. But neither could the canons cite precedent at Lincoln in their favor. The fabricated text attributed to William II, therefore, was a sign of the two-fold insecurity of their position: they could call on no legitimate legal examples, and in the struggle with their bishop they were inevitably thrown on the defensive. It is interesting to note that Grosseteste's fellow bishops were not at all as eager to support him as one might have supposed. Where they did not share his difficulties with their own chapters, they wished to let well enough alone. Some of them were no doubt fearful that the disposal of the case in the bishop's favor might encourage the archbishop of Canterbury to assert his own rights more strongly in their dioceses which they were eager to protect from undue outside interference.277 Ultimately a decision was made at the higher level of the papal curia to bring the affair to a conclusion. At the Council of Lyon in 1245 Innocent IV and his advisors, helped to their decision by money paid through the bishop's account, produced a document that was generally favorable to Grosseteste. Nevertheless, they were constrained to recognize the development which had taken place leading to a independent capitular administration with its own endowment.278 In the first place the bishop, by the responsibility of his office as shepherd to his flock, was obliged by the law of the church to visit the chapter at Lincoln, and all prebendal churches, including those of the church officials and those belonging to the common. The canons, while they were bound to obey the bishop, were not obliged to take an oath to him, and their customary practices, now sanctioned by time, including the election of a dean, were allowed to continue unimpeded. The bishop's rights in his church were thus redefined to make room for the distinct jurisdiction and privileges of the body of canons.279 Absolutely essential to the success of the chapter was the economic support upon which they could rely in the form of the divided mensa. In 1256 the canons of Lincoln were given permission by the 277 278 279

Roberti Grosseteste Episcopi quondam Lincolniensis Epistolae, ed. H. R. Luard, JRS-25 (London 1861) no. 80. Matthew Paris, Chronica Major a, RS-S7 iv, pp. 497-501; LRS-RA 1, no. 273. Gibbs and Lang, Bishops and Reform, pp. 946°.

312

The secular cathedrals king to construct a protective wall around the cathedral church and their own houses. Some years later they obtained an order to allow them to crenellate it, making of the cathedral precincts a kind of enclave within the town set apart from the rest of the community. Other cathedral chapters were doing the same thing: York and Exeter in 1285, Wells in 1286, and Lichfield in 1299. Although this rebuilding may have been done initially because the dean and chapter had enlarged the church beyond the existing city wall, the symbolism of withdrawal, independence, and defense offered by the architectural plan can be said to have marked a new era in episcopal—capitular relations. 280

LONDON

The well-documented internal history of St. Paul's cathedral church in the twelfth century points to a comparatively early capitular administration based on a rudimentary prebendal organization which was probably in place by the late eleventh century. 281 How far the arrangement can be traced back before the Conquest is uncertain, although it is reasonable to assume that the shift from the Old English communal basis to the Norman prebendal one may have begun in the time of the Edwardian bishops, Robert of Jumieges (1044-1051) and William (1051-1075). There is no firm evidence, however, to suggest that there was an independent capitular mensa at such an early date. Although it has been claimed that in the mid-eleventh century the canons "had landed interests completely separate from those of the bishop," apart from an oblique reference in the Eynsham cartulary, the only evidence cited in support of this thesis is the entry for the canons' estates in the Exchequer Domesday.282 Even then it is difficult to argue a case for an independent chapter. Moreover, the London property, as opposed to the country estates, was probably still undivided in 1086.283 An early grant by Cnut to the London clergy of sake and 280

281

282 283

LRS-RA 1, n o . 245. See F. Hill, Medieval Lincoln ( C a m b r i d g e 1965), p p . 120-121 a n d K. Major, Minster Yard, p . 26. C . N . L. B r o o k e , " T h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e chapter o f St. P a u l ' s : 1086—1163," Cambridge Historical Journal 10 (1951), 111-132. See also chapter 1, " T h e Earliest T i m e s to 1485," in A History of St. Paul's Cathedral and the Men Associated with it, ed. W . R. M a t t h e w s and W . M . Atkins ( L o n d o n 1957), p p . 1-99. M . Gibbs in Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, p . xviii. Ibid., p . xviii, n o t e 2 and p . xix, n o t e 1.

313

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England soke and toll and team which has been used in evidence is not above suspicion, and while it may be based on a genuine writ, it cannot be used to measure the extent to which the chapter's assets were separate from those of the bishop.284 In an almost identical writ of Edward Confessor, which is also interpolated but probably basically authentic, the king declared himself unwilling that the canons "receive into their minster any more priests than their estates can bear and that they themselves desire. " 285 This provision has also been interpreted along the same lines, in this case to mean that the canons "enjoyed the privilege of rejecting episcopal nominees into their community and consequently to a prebend. " 286 If the phrasing is authentic it may be no more than a reference to canonical tradition.287 On the other hand, it could also have been the answer to attempts by laymen to intrude relatives into the chapter, as much as attempts by the bishops to do the same. But this view does not explain why Edward would have approved legislation in favor of the London canons which worked to the disadvantage of the bishop. Robert Champart, the prior of St. Ouen and later abbot ofJumieges, was a long-time friend of the king when he was promoted to the see of London in 1044. In 1051 he was translated to Canterbury and to replace him, Edward appointed the abbot of Abingdon, a man of his own called Sparhafoc. But backed by support from Rome, the new archbishop refused him consecration. Sparhafoc, nevertheless, settled in at London for several months with the king's permission. When he was expelled a short time later, William, a Norman clerk from the royal household, was given the see. Each of the three men was the king's choice, and while there is no information to be had on their personal relationship with Edward (indeed, the incumbency of Sparhafoc remains shrouded in mystery) there is no reason to believe that the king was moved in any way to give preferential treatment to the London chapter. With the Domesday inquest the picture is somewhat clearer. In 1086 the bishop of London possessed estates in Middlesex, Essex, Hertfordshire, Dorset, and Somerset, and the canons of St. Paul's in Middlesex, Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, and Surrey. In the three counties where their possessions overlapped were to be 284 285 286 287

AS Writs, no. 53, pp. 235-243, 468-470. Ibid., no. 54, but of no precise date. Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, p. xxi; AS Writs, pp. 238-239. As suggested by Harmer, AS Writs, p. 238.

3H

The secular cathedrals

found the most extensive holdings of each. In Essex and Hertfordshire the lands of the bishop and the chapter appear to have been entered separately, while in Middlesex they were included together. In Essex there were three different headings, one for " the land of the bishop of London," another for " the fief of the bishop of London," and a third for "the land of the canons of St. Paul's in Essex. " 288 An explanation for the bishop's double heading was offered long ago by Round who argued from evidence found in the Hertfordshire Domesday. The lands which before the Conquest had not been in possession of the church, but of lay owners, and which subsequently had been bought by Bishop William from the king, composed the feudum. The lands which traditionally belonged to the church composed the terra episcopi.289 The estates in question in Hertfordshire were at Throcking, Wickham and Stortford.290 Throcking was part of the purchase of the bishop, as his own men testified, although the shire court was unable to agree to this. Wickham was said to have belonged to the episcopal fief (defeudo). Stortford was part of the fief which had been bought by the bishop. Only in the last case, therefore, was the land which had been bought specifically linked to the fief. The lands defeudo in Essex can be shown to have been acquired by Bishop William from lay tenants, while the lands of the terra episcopi, in almost all cases, belonged either to the bishopric or to St. Paul's church.291 It was reasonable, therefore, that having derived an indication of the meaning of holdings de feudo from the Hertfordshire entries, the distinction between the headings in Essex could be explained. That the lands in Hertfordshire which were bought by the bishop were not listed under the feudum episcopi, but under the terra episcopi, appears to be an

inconsistency. It may be that since they were largely acquired by purchase, there was no need to separate them from the inherited estates. A further discrepancy in the entries, which was probably due to procedural problems in the compilation of Domesday Book, was that in Essex the possessions of the canons follow directly after those of the bishop, whereas in Hertfordshire the lands of eight other tenants-in-chief were intercalated between the 288 289 291

DB, i, fos. 9b, n a , 12b. J. H. Round in VCH Essex, 1, p. 339, and VCH Hertfordshire, 1, pp. 278-279. See above, 29 pp. I74-I75° DB1, fos. I33c-i34a. The Layers, which were held by freemen TRE, were recovered by the bishop ad opus ecclesiae suae. Wasley, although held by Gyrth TRE, had once belonged to St. Paul's church.

315

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England two listings.292 In Middlesex, while there is only a single heading for the bishop of London, the estates of the canons were grouped together following the two episcopal manors at Stepney and Fulham. There might well have been a separate heading for them as was done elsewhere since a clear distinction was made in the entries. An idea of the relative importance of episcopal and capitular jurisdiction can be found by a closer look at the individual holdings. Although several of the properties in Essex which belonged to the canons can be traced back as far as the tenth century, others had been alienated prior to the Domesday survey. Tillingham, Chich (Cicc), and Dunmow, for example, had once been granted to the chapter ad victum by Bishop Theodred about the year 950, but Chich was lost to later bishops and Dunmow to lay tenants. Only Tillingham remained in the canons' hands.293 The estate at Chingford, although held by the canons TRE, had been invaded by the Norman barons, Peter de Valognes, Geoffrey de Mandeville, and Robert Gernon who took away some small portions. With other estates the canons had more success. Belchamp, Wickham, and Navestock appear on a property list of about 998.294 The chapter's right to the first two estates was not disputed in 1086, but Navestock was held by two freemen before the Conquest and it was consequently seized by the canons who maintained that it had been given to them by the king. A second estate called Navestock was held by a layman, and the canons collectively simply took it (invasit) as well.295 At Barling the canons also took the land (occupaverunt) after 1066.296 In Middlesex, the two great episcopal manors were at Fulham and Stepney, both of which had been partly divided and were held by other tenants in 1086.297 The Fulham estate, assessed at forty hides and worth £40, had been in the possession of the bishop of London as early as the eighth century. At the time of the Domesday survey five hides were held by the canons of St. Paul's from the king pro uno manerio. They had held the manor before the 292

T h e Essex heading for t h e canons' lands is " terra c a n o n i c o r u m sancti Pauli in Exsessa ".

This can be compared with the entry for Holy Trinity, Canterbury, which comes immediately after the king's lands in the county and before those of the bishop of London. There the heading is "terrae sanctae Trinitatis de Canterberia ad victum monachorum," DB n, fo. 8a. The plural of "lands" is changed to the singular for London and there is no descriptive heading such as ad victum. 293 296

Early Charters of Essex, n o . 9. Ibid., fo. 14a.

294 297

295 Ibid., no. 29. DB 11, fos. Ibid., fos. I 2 7 b - i 2 8 b .

316

The secular cathedrals Conquest in demesne for their support, but now they were in the anomalous position of being royal tenants of a small property within the episcopal estate. Fulham was followed in Domesday by two other estates in the same Ossulstone hundred at Twyford and Willesden. In Twyford, a canon named Durand held two hides from the king, and another canon, named Gueri another two hides, but evidently not from the king.298 Arguing against a fully integrated prebendal arrangement before the twelfth century, Gibbs traced the development of individual properties to show that, in the case of Twyford, Durand's portion became an estate ad prebendam, whereas Gueri's holding was farmed out in 1102 to one Ulfus, and his heir, for an annual payment of five shillings.299 The chapter at London was thus leasing estates to their own members and to outside laymen, which must have meant that individual allocations had not yet been made on a permanent basis. Willesden had been a demesne manor held for the canons' support before the Conquest. In 1086, however, there was nothing in demesne and the whole estate was at farm by a group of peasants who paid a rent of £6 6s 6d to the canons. The other important episcopal estate was at Stepney where the bishop was joint tenant with Robert Fafiton and Robert Fitz-Rozelin.300 Those who held of the bishop included Ranulf Flambard, William de Vere, the bishop of Lisieux, and several of the canons. Before the Conquest, the chapter had held two and a half hides in demesne for their support. Sired, a canon, held another two and a half hides which he could give or sell to whomsoever he chose. The five hides, and an additional virgate of a man named Doding, who could not give or sell it on his own, were combined and held by Hugh de Bernieres in 1086. Sired had also held a manor of four hides, which he was able to give or sell. In 1086 it was in the possession of Robert Fafiton, but claimed by the bishop.301 Another hide and virgate in Stepney were held by one canon, Englebrith, from the bishop. He had held it from Bishop William before 1066, but he could not sell it. Thus Sired's parcel belonged to him, but Engelbrith's belonged to the bishop. This may indicate that in the latter case the holding constituted a prebend, whereas in the former case it did not. Other 298 299

300

DB 1, fo. i 2 7 d . Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, pp. xxiii-xxxiv. For the later disposition o f the p r o p e r t y see ibid., nos. 243, 166, a n d 171. D B 1, fos. I 3 o b - I 3 o c ; K. G. T . M c D o n n e l l , Medieval London Suburbs (London 1978), 301 p p . I4ffDB 1, fo. 130b.

317

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England estates which made up part of the demesne of the chapter and were used for the canons' common support were strung out across the northern part of London. Properties at Tottenham (Court), St. Pancras, Islington, Hoxton, Rugmere, Stoke Newington, and other nearby sites, were later converted into separate parcels.302 The picture of the landed possessions at St. Paul's shortly after the Conquest was, therefore, one in which the canons were accustomed to held important properties for their own use, either collectively as a source for the communa, or individually as prebends.303 Some were held in demesne, some from the bishop, and a few estates from the king. But there is no evidence that in those years the chapter was able to develop a corporate status of its own. It was still heavily dependent on the bishop for its welfare and, consequently, it could command only the weakest defense in the face of episcopal aggression. How vulnerable was the position of the chapter was revealed in the time of Bishop Maurice, a former archdeacon of Le Mans, and a chaplain, and later a chancellor, to the king. He was appointed toward the end of the year 1085, consecrated the following spring, and he ruled at London until his death in 1107. An undated letter of his exists, addressed to the dean, the archdeacons, and the canons of St. Paul's, in which he admitted to wrongdoing, asked forgiveness, and promised to restore the chapter's rights. On the advice of his brother bishop, Herbert of Norwich, he confessed to have repented of the injuries done to the church and canons and asked their mercy. He agreed that they should have their customs, statutes, (rights) of election and the authority to assign prebends in their manors as they possessed them on the day he took office.304 If authentic, the document sounds like a last will and restitution, and on these grounds it has been assigned to the last year of Maurice's episcopate.305 It is not clear that Maurice was diverting funds from the chapter revenue to his own purposes, but this may have been one of the 302 303

304 305

Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, p. xxiv. Thus Hale: " The bishops of London appear to have possessed their manors in the time of the Anglo-Saxon kings in their o w n right, for there are no traces of any of the episcopal lands having at any time belonged to the cathedral," The Domesday of St. Paul's of the Year 1222, ed. W . H. Hale, Camden Society, o.s. 69 (1858), p. iv; and Davis: "At no time did any o f the bishops' lands belong to the cathedral," "London lands and liberties of St. Paul's: 1066—1135," Essays in Medieval History presented to Thomas Frederick Tout (Manchester 1925), p. 54. Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, no. 59. H. W . C. Davis, "London lands and liberties of St. Paul's," p. 54.

318

The secular cathedrals

canons' complaints. In 1087 the Old English cathedral church burned down and the bishop embarked on an expensive building program. The increased financial demands may have compelled the bishop to use income which was thought by the canons to have belonged to them. Sufficient evidence does exist, however, to show that the bishop had been interfering in elections to capitular offices and in the arrangement of livings. Consequently there was pressure on Maurice by members of the chapter, many of whom were married, to retain the right to dispose of their prebends as heritable estates. Thus there would have been denied to him the use of an important component of ecclesiastical wealth. 306 Ranulf Flambard, for example, even after he had been promoted to the see of Durham in 1099, continued to hold the deanship, while relatives of his were prebendaries, and other families from Bayeux were established in the chapter.307 These advantages were the fruit borne of his close relationship with Maurice when the latter served the king as chancellor and Flambard was the seal-keeper.308 It may also have been Flambard who brought the good counsel of Herbert of Norwich to prevail upon Maurice in his last days, since for years he had been intimately associated with the East Anglian see and the bishops there.309 Whether or not Maurice had been exploiting the wealth of his church in an excessive way, his letter points up clearly the problem by which the canons felt themselves frustrated. The theory of the heritable prebend, of course, ran counter to the traditional privilege of the bishop to use the income to support his friends and relatives. In practice it also reduced the revenue payable to the common fund, or to the fabric fund of the church. Hence the widespread legislation concerning the property of deceased canons which began to appear at about this time in the English secular cathedrals. At St. Paul's, the value of the prebends was no small matter of concern. Apparently the canons went to some trouble to obtain a group of royal charters, purportedly dating from the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, which allowed them the right to their lands, customs, and properties. The charters, however, exhibit enough peculiarities to make them suspect. One of them, ascribed to William I or William II, takes the canons of St. Paul's into the king's care, as they had been under his predecessors, and 306 307 308

C. N . L. Brooke, "The composition o f the chapter o f St. Paul's," p. 125. Ibid., p. 124. 309 Southern, "Ranulf Flambard," in Medieval Humanism, p. 191. Ibid.

319

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England grants them permission to lease and assign their prebends as freely as they did under Bishop William and "other bishops." 310 The fact that the charter was attested by Odo of Bayeux, who was arrested in 1082 and released late in 1087, and who was then in rebellion against William Rufus before his return to Normandy in August of 1088, argues for William I over William II.311 H. W. C. Davis considered the text unusual, although he did not analyze it.312 There is no supporting evidence, however, that earlier kings accorded special protection to St. Paul's, or that the canons had the right to lease or to dispose of their prebends under earlier bishops. Nor is it clear why William would have taken the chapter into his own hands, unless it was during the vacancy between the death of Bishop Hugh in January 1085 and the nomination of Maurice at Christmas in the same year. Moreover, the wording of the document is duplicated verbatim in another attributed to Henry I c. 1101.313 The latter opens with the address, Henricus deigratia rex Anglie omnibus primatibus suis acjidelibus tocius regni Anglie salutem,

and can hardly be authentic as it stands. The rex dei gratia clause is repeated in another charter of Henry I, supposedly o f n o i x 1102, by which he confirmed to both the bishop and the canons their lands and rights.314 Davis saw the significance of the dual beneficiary in that it suggests that in the king's mind, "the ecclesia sancti Pauli was a legal person superior to, and embracing, those not always concordant partners. " 315 Whether or not Henry I saw things this way will probably never be known. The argument, however, if accepted, would reduce the importance of the chapter as a body separate from the episcopal household. But in view of the suspect nature of the text, it would be unwise to imagine that it was intended in this way.316 The only other writ of Henry I which can be dated before the death of Maurice in 1107 confirmed in a general way their customs to the canons.317 In the face of such uncertain evidence it is difficult 310 311 312 313 314 315 316

317

Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, no. 19. Bates, "Character and Career of Odo," pp. 15—16. H. W . C. Davis, "London lands and liberties of St. Paul's," p. 54. Regesta n, no. 507; Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, no. 21. Regesta 11, no. 604; Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, no. 29. H. W . C. Davis, "London lands and liberties of St. Paul's," p. 55. Other examples of writs attributed to Henry I with the style dei gratia exist in the two versions of the foundation charter for Reading Abbey, Reading Abbey Cartularies, pp. 33-38. As in the case of the Reading examples, the royal charters for St. Paul's may have been based on authentic material, but modified at a later date. Regesta 11, no. 605.

320

The secular cathedrals

to say how extensive the canons' rights were in their prebends. It may be that Maurice's letter was no more than a pious wish. There were few things in the medieval spiritual world which had the attraction of a death-bed repentance. It cost nothing and was worth everything. The obligation to fulfill its terms was left to the bishop's successor; it was he, not the dying man, who had to pay the price of the concessions which were granted. This may have been what occurred at London, since the canons appear to have lost no time in procuring yet another charter from Henry I between the death of Maurice in September and the consecration of the new bishop, Richard de Belmeis (Beaumais), in July 1108.318 The career of Richard, however, will show how difficult it was for one bishop to bind his successor at a time when the chapter lacked the force to see that his wishes were carried out. The extensive family of Richard de Belmeis was first discussed at length in modern times by Bishop Stubbs in his edition of the works of Ralph de Diceto.319 The relations of its members and their importance in the composition of the chapter were later worked out in detail by Professor Brooke. 320 Richard himself was drawn into royal service from the household of the Montgomery family and appointed to the see of London, while still serving as sheriff of Shropshire in May 1108. His nephew, William de Mareni, was dean from m i to 1138. Another nephew, Richard, was archdeacon of Middlesex, and two others, Ralph and Richard, were canons. William, archdeacon of London, was his son, and a second Richard de Belmeis, who became bishop of London in 1152, was another nephew. He, in turn, then brought in another group of relatives, as will shortly be seen. There was, moreover, a family connection between the Belmeis line and Gilbert Foliot, who succeeded Richard II as bishop of London, in 1163.321 For a large part of the twelfth century, therefore, from 1108 to 1127 and again from n 52 to 1187, the London see and chapter were dominated by a Belmeis-Foliot dynasty. Although Richard de Belmeis I is known to have obtained a few privileges for his canons, such as exemption from archidiaconal interferences, to have carried on the building program, and to have restored some property, he was chiefly remembered for the 318 320

319 Ibid., no. 899. Ralph de Diceto, Opera, RS-6S I, pp. xxiff. C. N. L. Brooke, London, 800—1216 (Berkeley 1975), pp. 345—347. For Richard as sheriff see J. A. Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, H.M.S.O., PRO Handbooks no. 24 (London 321 1990), p. 15. Morey and Brooke, Gilbert Foliot, pp. 204—205.

321

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England ease and generosity with which he provided for his relatives out of the assets of the church. Moreover, some of the land he recovered for the clergy had, in the first instance, been appropriated by himself. This was true, for instance, of the wood at Aeldulvesnasa (the Nase) which he had taken into his park at Clacton-on-the-sea in Essex.322 In a similar case, fear of the horrors of hell supposedly led him to return Abberton, also in Essex, which had been given to the chapter by Ranulf Peverel, but which the bishop had appropriated.323 Abberton may have been lost again since it was subsequently returned by Bishop Robert de Sigillo about 1142.324 What practical effect the Belmeis-Foliot administration had on the development of the chapter toward independence is hard to calculate. It was formerly thought that the period from 1127 to 1162 saw the chapter " at once at the height of its independence and autonomy, and at the nadir of its material prosperity. " 325 The reasons for this paradoxical situation were, it was said, three " short-lived bishops ": Gilbert the Universal (1128-1134), Robert de Sigillo (1141-1150), and Richard de Belmeis II (1152-1162); " two long vacancies," from 1134 to 1141, and again from 1150 to 1152; and the weakness of Stephen's rule which gave the canons an opportunity to elect the bishop of their choice. But, in fact, two of the three pontificates were fairly long ones often and eleven years respectively, and only one of the vacancies was very short. Nor is it certain that there was a direct relationship between the length of a bishop's time in office, or the duration of a vacancy, and the growth of capitular autonomy. There were, indeed, enough forces at work in the London chapter during the time in question, that is, up to mid-century, which were directed against this idea to compromise the success of any effort to establish the community on a firm basis as a separate corporation.326 Upon the death of Richard de Belmeis I in 1127, Henry I gave 322

324 325 326

Aeldulvesnasa in Domesday Book evidently incorporated the three later parishes of Walton, Thorpe, and Kirby, called the Sokens. See P. Morant, The History and

Antiquities ofthe County ofEssex (London 1763—1768), vol. 1, pp. 481—485; Early Charters 323 of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, no. 60. Ibid., no. 61. Ibid., no. 219. C. N . L. Brooke, "The composition of the chapter o f St. Paul's," p. 126. Brooke suggested, and this seems quite reasonable, that by the death of Gilbert Foliot in 1187, the chapter, "as a religious community maintaining the liturgical rites of the cathedral, and as an economic unit administering its extensive property... worked independently o f the bishop." But he also added in a note, "At least in theory. But I am doubtful of the extent to which the chapter was really independent of the bishop under Maurice and Richard de Belmeis I," ibid., p. 119, note 47.

322

The secular cathedrals the see of London to the legal scholar, Master Gilbert, called " Universal. " 327 He was not a man of the royal curia and it has been suggested that Henry was given more and more to the appointment of bishops from an increasingly wider international background, a policy which facilitated the introduction of canon law into England and consequently made the leaders of the English church more sensitive to the issue of ecclesiastical liberty. 328 But the appointment of non-curial bishops and of men from abroad was nothing new, nor was it necessarily the case that these men worked harder at achieving capitular freedom and autonomy than any of their colleagues. By the mid-twelfth century the English church was, by the force of circumstances, more international in its outlook and personnel than it had ever been before. To take two well-known examples, Henry, bishop of Winchester, King Stephen's brother, spent part of his youth at Cluny, and Roger, bishop of Worcester, his younger cousin, attended the schools in Paris. Naturally, there would have been a more rapid exchange of ideas and policies in a much shorter time. Whether this was due to a deliberate plan of Henry I, however, is far from certain. In the case of Gilbert, there is no reason to think that he supported the idea of an autonomous chapter. He lacked the commitment to London interests that might have moved a local man, and he was already quite old when he came to the see. 329 Rather he showed himself to be aggressive and imperious in the defense and promotion of what he considered to be his episcopal rights. He appeared uninvited at the abbey of Westminster during mass on the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul (21 June) in 1133, and appropriated the offerings of the altar. This was immediately viewed as an encroachment on the abbey's immunity and the circumstances of his intrusion were quickly reported to Rome. There followed a condemnation of his action by Innocent II in September.330 On another occasion, when he seized the church of All Hallows in London because he suspected an infringement on his authority, it was only through the king's intervention that the church was restored to its legal owners. 331 Gilbert was painted by Henry of Huntingdon and Hugh the Chantor as outstandingly 327

B . Smalley, " G i l b e r t u s Universalis, bishop of L o n d o n (i 128—1134) and the p r o b l e m of the glossa ordinaria" Recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale, 8 (1936), 24-60. 328 Brett, English Church under Henry I, pp. 111-112. 329 J o h n o f Worcester called h i m grandaevus, cited b y Smalley, "Gilbertus Universalis." 330 puE ^ n o I ? 331 B r e t t Engiish church under Henry I, p. 147.

323

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England greedy. There is no evidence that he endowed the chapter, or even contributed to the building program. "He took much and gave little," wrote Henry, who reported that the bishop had amassed a large fortune which he shared with no one.332 During the long vacancy after Gilbert's death in 1134 the chapter was rent by the appearance of opposing factions among the canons which divided their loyalties and weakened their position in the church. Upon receiving Stephen's permission to elect a successor to Gilbert, one group of canons nominated Anselm of Santa Saba in Rome, who was the abbot of Bury St. Edmunds and the nephew and namesake of the former archbishop. This choice was opposed by a rival party led by the dean and supported by the king. An appeal to Rome produced a papal ruling that the dean must consent to the election of the bishop in his church.333 At that point, which was during the year 1141, Matilda, whose wheel of fortune was for the moment at its apogee, intervened to appoint Robert de Sigillo. He had once been the master of the writing office under Henry I, but had subsequently become a monk at Reading Abbey. The new bishop was, of course, resented by the king and he is said to have died in 1150 from poison.334 The seven-year vacancy, therefore, does not appear to have encouraged the chapter to form a stronger and more united front. On the contrary, it seems to have permitted the disruptive tendencies, which were never far below the surface, to emerge into the full light of day. After 1150 there was another, but shorter, period when London was without a prelate. Again the chapter was divided. Pressure was exerted by the king, but insufficient direction was provided by the pope, and in the end, in 1152, Richard de Belmeis, a canon and archdeacon of Middlesex, and a nephew of the former bishop of the same name, was chosen. Stephen's approval was bought for £500, which was, in effect, the going price of a free election.335 Exactly what kind of election it was which insured the resurgence of the Belmeis family to a position of influence remains a mystery, although it is obvious that certain members were soon well placed in the church. One of the 332

Multa perquirens, pauca largiens, H e n r y of H u n t i n g d o n , Historia, RS-74, p p . 307—308. Ralph de Diceto, Opera, RS-68 1, p p . 248-252. T h e p r o b l e m is s u m m a r i z e d in The Letters ofOsbert of Clare, p p . 198—199. 334 J o h n of Salisbury, Historia Pontijicalis, ed. Marjorie Chibnall ( O x f o r d 1956), p . 88. Cf. the biographical note in The Letters ofOsbert of Clare, p p . 207-208. 335 n o . 9p ? p p . 137—138; Regesta 11, n o . 1492.

333

324

The secular cathedrals .

bishop's brothers was Richard Rufus, the archdeacon of Essex who, with his two sons, was a prebendary of Holborn. He held leases in the lands of the canons at Barling, the Sokens, Beauchamp, and Run well.336 It was the same Richard, moreover, who cleared 240 acres in the Essex manor of the canons at Runwell, evidently without permission, although the property was later restored by King Stephen, which suggests the difficulties the chapter had in dealing with the episcopal group. 337 Another brother was Ralph of Langford who became dean at London about 1142, and a Hugh de Mareni, who was archdeacon of London, succeeded Ralph as dean in 1160.338 Not long into his term, Richard found himself in financial trouble and beset by problems of ill-health.339 Although there is no evidence for a sudden leap forward in capitular independence, these difficulties may have worked in favor of the canons. About 1161 there appears the first mention of a treasurer, and at about the same time the royal chancellor, Thomas Becket, who was also a canon of St. Paul's, invited Gilbert Foliot, then bishop of Hereford, to undertake the administration of the see which the bishop evidently was no longer able to supervise.340 Thomas himself was said to be enjoying the revenues from the bishoprics of Chester, Exeter, and Worcester which were vacant in 1160.341 Although none of the vacancies was very long, the question of what he did with the money later became a major problem in his dispute with Henry II. Gilbert, on the other hand, was reluctant, indeed fearful, to become entangled in the politics of the see, or in the claims of the bishop's creditors. He wrote to the king requesting that the task be given to someone else.342 On Gilbert's advice, and the advice of his uncle, Robert de Chesney, bishop of Lincoln, the affairs at London were put into the hands of the dean, Hugh de Mareni, and the archdeacon of London. 343 It was not the first time that Gilbert and de Chesney had acted together on behalf of the ailing bishop. On one occasion they had intervened in a 336

337 339 340 341 342 343

The Domesday of St. Paul's of the Year 1222, ed. W . H . Hale, C a m d e n Society, o.s. 69 (1858), p p . 65, 70, i n , 125, 126, 129, 138-139, 148, 150; C . N . L. B r o o k e , " T h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e chapter o f St. P a u l ' s , " p . 125, n o t e 76. 338 Regesta m , n o . 565. Le N e v e , Fasti, p . 5. Ralph de Diceto, Opera, RS-6S 1, p . xxxvii. GFL, n o . 139; Le N e v e , Fasti, p . 2 1 . JSL 1, n o . 128, p . 2 2 3 ; H o w e l l , Regalian Right, p . 32, n o t e 5. GFL, n o . 139. Ibid., n o . 140; H . P . King, " R o b e r t de C h e s n e y , " p p . 3, 15.

325

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England controversy between him and one of his canons over a claim to the archdeaconry of Colchester.344 At another time it was over the right of the possession of a church; and a third time over the rights to ordination without the chapter's approval.345 The dispute over the archdeaconry was with the canon, Henry of London, and it is not without some points of interest. Henry claimed the archdeaconry of Colchester, which was vacant in 1154, a s well as the churches at Fulham and Stepney, although they were held by Roger de Brun. He maintained that the bishop owed him a rent of £6 yearly and that he had the charters to prove it. A compromise was reached through the efforts of Archbishop Theobald whereby Fulham church was returned to the bishop who then granted it to Henry, while Stepney church was to be held by Roger until his death, unless he wished to give it up before, at which time it was to pass to Henry. Thereupon, Fulham church was to be restored to the bishop. The controversy illustrates the problem facing an incoming bishop who was plunged unexpectedly into a controversy due to previous agreements of which he was unaware. Henry's claim was not an idle one since he backed his case with written documents and an outside diocesan was called in to settle it, although apparently without a clear-cut victory for either side. According to Gilbert, Becket had originally asked him to provide for Bishop Richard and his household from a portion of the revenues of the see, and to pay the remainder to the king. 346 If it is assumed that the chapter was not already provided for by a separate accounting, then it seems that what was intended was that the canons, of whom there were about thirty at the time, were to be supported from the king's share. Even though it was not a question of a vacant see, but of an incapacitated bishop, Henry II still expected to make a profit. When Bishop Richard died in May 1162, the see was farmed and the commissioners rendered an account of £123 1 is 1 id at the Michelmas exchequer from the previous half-year, and 62s from archidiaconal revenues.347 The debts of the bishop were also bound to affect the income of the chapter, as Foliot had feared, so that the canons were not yet free of their dependence on the prelate and certainly not yet protected by the limited liability which would eventually be provided by the much later conception of a 344 345 346

JSL 1, no. 5. Ibid., nos. 72, 113. F o r Gilbert Foliot's advice see GFL, nos. 101-103. 347 GFU n o . 139. PR 8 H e n r y II, p . 73.

326

The secular cathedrals MS

persona jicta. But within a year Gilbert Foliot was translated from the see of Hereford and consecrated as the new bishop of London. His relations with his chapter have been described as generally cordial.349 He kept a hand in the appointment of the archdeacons and the canons, several of whom were members of his family. The only noticeable ripple on the remarkably smooth surface of ecclesiastical politics was an attempt in 1179 to force the election of a dean against the wishes of the bishop.350 In the end, Gilbert prevailed upon the chapter to accept Ralph de Diceto who had been archdeacon of Middlesex, and probably had been a prebendary since 1153.351 Ralph's work in the chapter from the time of his election in 1181, reflected a new professional attitude typical of the late twelfth century. In the interests of promoting greater capitular autonomy, the rules for residency were tightened up and the accounting system was placed on a firm basis by an extensive review of the chapter's estates. The problem of canons who did not live in, but who profited in one way or another from the capitular mensa in competition with the resident members, affected most of the cathedral churches at the time. At London it had become an issue in the time of Bishop Robert de Sigillo and an attempt was made to limit emoluments from the common fund to those canons who took part in the services.352 When Ralph de Diceto became dean he apparently assumed that some canons would never be resident on a permanent basis, and he did not endeavor to run against the tide by trying to force them into compliance with what was then a vague and uncertain rule. Rather he set out a definition of residency which allowed the canon, providing he met the necessary requirements, to receive income from the common fund in proportion to the time he spent in church.353 Non-resident canons had no claim on the church funds except for a food ration of bread and ale and a small stipend.354 Diceto's statute represented an attempt to reduce the depressive effects of long-term non-residency on the chapter as a whole and to reform the body of canons along the lines of the earlier integrated cathedral chapters. In this, however, he was not 348 350 352

353

354

349 GFL, n o . 140. M o r e y and B r o o k e , Gilbert Foliot, p p . 200-211. 351 Ibid., p . 2 0 5 ; GFL, n o . 240. Le N e v e , Fasti, p p . 5—6, 15—16, 79, 90. Ralph de Diceto, Opera, RS-6S 11, p p . lxix-lxxiii; C . N . L. B r o o k e , London, 800-1216, PP- 35O-352. B r o o k e estimated that only about seven o u t of thirty canons at the end of the twelfth century were permanently non-resident, M o r e y and B r o o k e , Gilbert Foliot, p . 210. PUEi, nos. 183 and 225.

327

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England successful, and the conflict over the question of residency divided the chapter and persisted well into the fourteenth century. Soon after his election to the deanship, Ralph undertook a survey of the capitular communal lands. It lasted a little over three weeks, beginning at Caddington in Hertfordshire on 8 January 1181, and ending at Sutton in Middlesex on 30 January. 355 A great many of the estates had been farmed out for a fixed return in money, or food, or both, but most of them corresponded to the holdings of the church in Domesday Book. Although incomplete, the inquiry showed a remarkable similarity in assessments, in hides, virgates and acres, between 1086 and 1181.356 (See table 4.) The leases had been established at different times during the century and in some cases the terms agreed upon by the chapter give evidence of having been very carefully worked out by officials who must have had some experience in managing estates and in the conduct of negotiations. The conditions at Wickham, at the Nase, and at Kensworth, in particular, show a concern to prevent exhaustion of the manors by a rise in rents, and to provide for adequate stocking.357 The early endowment of St. Paul's, therefore, had remained largely intact throughout the twelfth century, and control of the administration had gradually passed from the bishop to the dean and chapter. In other respects, the distance between the two authorities can be measured by the time it took to establish the principal cathedral dignitaries without whom no chapter could claim independent status. At London, ironically, the posts were not filled until well past the middle of the century. The dean, surprisingly, was not elected by the chapter until the thirteenth century.358 The precentorship was endowed only in the time of Bishop William St. Mere Eglise in 1204.359 The title of chancellor does not appear before the end of the twelfth century, although a magister scolarum was in residence quite early.360 The office of 355 356

357 358 359 360

Inquisitio maneriorum, in The Domesday of St. Paul's, pp. 140—146. Sutton is n o t m e n t i o n e d in the Middlesex D o m e s d a y b u t it was, perhaps, in Fulham. See Lennard, Rural England, p . 121, n o t e 3. Navestock was formerly held b y Ralph de Marci and his son, W i l l i a m (c. 1120), and then b y Ralph de Marci II w h o defaulted in p a y m e n t . It then passed t o R o b e r t and T h e o d o r e de T u r r i . See HMCR, appx. 9, p . 66; Lennard, Rural England, p . 200. The Domesday of St. Paul's, pp. 122—139, pp- xc—c. C . N . L. B r o o k e , " T h e composition of the chapter of St. Paul's," p . 119. Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, no. 89. Le N e v e , Fasti, p . 25.

328

The secular cathedrals Table 4. The London survey of 1181 and Domesday compared (given in hides, virgates and acres) Manor Caddington (Herts) Kensworth (Herts) Ardleigh (Herts) Sandon (Herts) Luffenhall (Herts) Beauchamp (Essex) Wickham (Essex)

1181 1 oh 1 oh 7h

ioh. 2h. 5 h. 3h.-iv.

1086 ioh ioh. 6h. ioh. 2h. 5 h. 3h.-iv.

Aeldulvesnasa (Essex) 2 7 h.

2 7 h.

Heybridge (Essex) Tillingham (Essex) Barling (Essex)

7-5h. 2oh. + 6a. 2.5h.-i5a.

Runwell (Essex)

7-5h. 22h. 3 h. 8h.

Norton (Essex) Navestock I and II (Essex) Chingford (Essex) Barnes (Surrey)

40a. 8h.

Drayton (Mddx.)

ioh.

5 h.

4 h.

8h. o.5h. 6h. + 20a. 5h.-i8a. 8h.

Tenant Baldwin, son of Hugh Humphrey Bucvint (1152) Osbert (1141) Alexander the canon (1155) Richard the archdeacon Robert, son of Alwin, the priest Richard the archdeacon (c. 1148)

Richard the archdeacon andTheodore the scribe Richard the archdeacon (c. 1150) Robert and Theodore de Turri ( n 51) William the Goldsmith The brothers William and Walbert (1108)

ioh.

chamberlain was established some time after the pontificate of Richard Belmeis II.361 On the other hand, there is no way of knowing how much of the work, which was later gathered into the hands of these officials and their staffs, was already being carried out by members of chapter in a less formal way and independently of the episcopal household. The office of treasurer is a case in point. Although it may have been in existence before, it appears to have been endowed only late in the term of Richard Belmeis II about 1162.362 The circumstances of the affair are of interest because of the light they throw on the 361 362

Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, p. xxxvi. Discussed by Gibbs, ibid., pp. xxxv-xxxvi. The pertinent texts, Bishop Richard's charter, the chapter confirmation, and the privilege of Alexander HI, are printed as nos. 192, 193, 231. See also PUE 1, no. 94.

329

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England intricate relationship between the bishop, his household, and the chapter. Evidently Richard's predecessor, Robert de Sigillo, had granted certain churches to Godfrey, a canon of St. Paul's, at Southminster in Essex, and at Aldbury and Pelham in Hertfordshire.363 The reason for the grant was never given, nor is it possible to determine whether Godfrey held a position in the church aside from his prebend. When Bishop Richard came to office in 1152 he claimed the churches as part of the episcopal mensa?** In this he may have been correct because the estates to which the churches were attached formed part of the episcopal possessions in 1086. Richard was probably aware that to recover the churches would be a difficult task since Godfrey, judging by his favored status under Robert de Sigillo, and by his later aggressive behavior, was not an easy man to deal with. After consulting with Archbishop Theobald, some of his fellow bishops, and other trustworthy men, as well as with members of the chapter, and in order to avoid a law suit, Richard appointed Godfrey to the treasurership of the church and assigned the disputed churches as support for that office. This ingenious solution, which allowed the bishop to retain control over the property, did not appeal to Godfrey. He wrote to Rome and a papal commission was constituted, composed of Hilary, bishop of Chichester, Robert, bishop of Lincoln, Godfrey, bishop of St. Asaph, and Lawrence, abbot of Westminster. On the advice of the dean and the archdeacons and certain of the canons, they ordered the bishop to rescind the obligations attached to the treasury which Godfrey found burdensome, and to release Godfrey from his promise to keep them. Thereupon there was established the honor thesaurarii which was to be entirely free from any monetary payments to the prelate.365 No disbursement, moreover, was to be made to the archdeacons or rural deans, except for 13d yearly as synodals. But if the bishop agreed to forgo his interest in the property, the canons did not. It was arranged that 363

384 365

Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, nos. 192-193. The Pelham place-names were later known as Burnt, or Brent, Pelham, and Furneux Pelham. Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, pp. xxxv-xxxvi. "Honorem tamen thesaurarii quam constitueramus integrum perpetuo manere decrevimus tantum ut nee nobis nee alicui successorum nostrorum idem Godefridus aut alius succedens thesaurarius in aliquo onere exhibendo teneatur obnoxius," according to the bishop's charter. The burdens are made clearer in the chapter's confirmation: " Honorem tamen thesaurarii quern constituerat perpetua stabilitate manere decrevit ita ut nullam deinceps redditus compensationem aliquis thesaurarius alicui episcopo facere teneatur," ibid., nos. 192—193.

330

The secular cathedrals the treasurer would contribute up to ten marks each year to defray the expenses borne by the church for the supply of oil for lights, for incense and charcoal, for washing and repair of vestments, for rags, straw, and rushes to be used in cleaning the church, and for the wages of the sacristan's clerk and three daily workers. This was to be done by having the treasurer give over to the bishop the two Pelham churches. He, in turn, was to give them to the dean and chapter from whom Godfrey was to hold them by an oath of fealty. When the office of treasurer was vacant, the two churches, therefore, would revert to the chapter for its use in meeting the cost of maintaining the church. The order of the phrasing in the bishop's charter and in the papal letter imply that the reason for giving up the Pelham churches was to provide income, but the chapter's confirmation suggests that the treasurer was to pay for the expenses, apparently from income from all four churches, and that the appropriation of the two churches was to insure their safekeeping during a vacancy. This appears to be the more reasonable interpretation since all of the churches were furnishing revenue except when the office was vacant, at which time Aldbury and Southminster reverted to the bishop. Ordinarily the treasury was in the bishop's gift and upon the death or retirement of the treasurer the bishop would have profited from the income. The procedure whereby Godfrey gave the Pelham churches to Richard emphasized this relationship, and it was reinforced when the bishop subsequently granted them to the chapter. Only at that point did the chapter assert its authority by allocating them to Godfrey and his successors on the conditions stated.366 In the end the bishop gave up his rights over four churches and two of them he lost permanently. But he established an office of treasurer which assumed part of the financial burden of running the church, and he probably avoided a law suit. Godfrey, for his part, was able to convert certain obligations to the bishop to an annual rent, fixed within clear limits, and payable to the chapter. The canons, in turn, shifted a portion of their expenses to the treasury and were assured of income when the office was vacant. Thus did the chapter slowly increase its authority in the church based on the privileges and the assets of a separate mensa. Although by 1181 the chapter possessed its own seal, the recognition of the chapter as a community different in status and 366

Ibid., no. 47.

331

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England function from the bishop would have to wait until the issuance of the earliest cathedral statutes during the time of the dean, Henry of Cornhill, toward the middle of the thirteenth century.367 According to this agreement, the dean, like the bishop, was to be elected by the chapter. Likewise, the canons were to be inducted by the chapter, but appointments to prebends and offices were privileges to be exercised by the bishop or, sede vacante, by the king. Questions of residency, discipline, income, and expenses were all to be settled by the dean and chapter. Yet the statutory language veils the pressures to which the canons were subjected, especially in appointments and elections, not so much by the bishop after the twelfth century, but in a considerable way by the king, the pope, and neighboring magnates. At St. Paul's there was a significant traffic of royal nominations to prebends in the thirteenth century, and in papal provisions in the fourteenth. There still remained, moreover, a critical battle to be fought over the definition of residency raised by the difference in wealth between the two groups of canons.368 Nevertheless, the later years of the twelfth century stand out as the period when the major step in the development of the divided mensa took place, when the bishop resigned a portion of his authority and influence in the interests of domestic harmony and administrative efficiency, and when a permanent capitular structure was built on the firm foundation of a separate endowment. SALISBURY

The financial problems, chiefly in the form of reduced income, which resulted from the division of the large Old English dioceses into smaller ones, notwithstanding what may have been achieved by way of greater administrative efficiency, can be illustrated by the history of the see of Salisbury. The eighth-century Wessex church had comprised the two dioceses of Winchester and Sherborne, but early in the tenth century a reorganization of the ecclesiastical structure along county lines was carried out under Edward the Elder. Winchester was deprived of Wiltshire and 367

368

Registrum statutorum et consuetudinum ecclesiae cathedralis sancti Pauli, 1294—1855, ed. W . S p a r r o w Simpson ( L o n d o n 1873), p p . 181—183. These w e r e largely incorporated into the greater collection of Ralph d e Baldock, dean a n d then bishop of L o n d o n , at t h e e n d of the century. F o r t h e seal see C . H . H . Blair, " C a t a l o g u e o f seals," p . 141. History of St. Paul's, pp. 38ff.

332

The secular cathedrals

Berkshire, which were taken to form the see of Ramsbury, and Sherborne lost Somerset to the bishop of Wells, and Devon to the bishop of Crediton. Thus in place of two sees there were then five, namely Winchester based on Hampshire and Surrey, Sherborne on Dorset, Wells on Somerset, Crediton on Devon and Ramsbury on Wiltshire and Berkshire. Within a few years a sixth see at St. Germans was established in Cornwall. When Hereman, a royal chaplain from Lotharingia and confessor to the queen of King Edward, was appointed to the see of Ramsbury in 1045 he evidently found the revenues insufficient, and himself without the connections to increase them, so that within a short time he attempted, without success, to move the bishopric to Malmesbury abbey.369 Although the king apparently was willing to approve the transfer, the monks of Malmesbury, with the help of Earl Godwin, persuaded him otherwise and the appointment was refused. Hereman then retired to monastic life at St. Bertin in Normandy. He must have kept up with events, however, since he returned upon the death of Bishop Aelfwold in 1058 and annexed the see of Sherborne.370 But even this merger proved to be unsatisfactory for him. A letter from Lanfranc to Pope Alexander II suggests that Hereman had not given up the idea of a monastic retirement even as late as 1071. The archbishop explained that Hereman was growing old and frail, that he found it increasingly difficult to bear the heavy burden of episcopal office and wished to resign once again. He implored the pope for advice, since he feared that Hereman was too weak to meet the demands of his pastoral duty and thereby threatened the souls of those in his charge.371 Hereman, however, remained at Sherborne until after the London council of 1075. By then he had been given permission to move the see to old Salisbury, adjacent to the castle and within the precincts of the ancient ring fort. The move was made sometime between 1075 and Hereman's death in 1078. William of Malmesbury, for one, writing about it later, thought it a peculiar choice of site. For one thing, Salisbury with its elevated position and fortified wall was said to be.more like a castle than a town. It was built for defense. Yet this seeming incongruity may have been an advantage which recommended itself to Hereman. To leave 369 371

37 GP, pp. 182-183. ° Barlow, The English Church I, p. 82. " Nee id differri oportet, quia valde timendum est, nisi sollercia vestra provideat, ne eius corporalis incommoditas multis animabus causa perditionis existat," Letters of Lanfranc, ed. Clover and Gibson, no. 2, p. 36.

333

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

Sherborne for Salisbury was not, in any case, to leave a village for a well-developed town. But the security offered by the new location was, perhaps, far more important. The protection of a castle colored the thinking of Bishop Walcher at Durham (and, later, of Ranulf Flambard), of Remigius at Lincoln, of Herbert at Norwich, and even of Gundulf at Rochester.372 But a greater defect, to Malmesbury's way of thinking, was the lack of water at Salisbury. Easy access to adequate supplies of fresh water was a critical factor, perhaps the critical factor, in the life of a town, or a castle or a religious foundation, and the men of old Salisbury, it seems, were unable to overcome the problem. When the proposal was under consideration to move the see to the new Salisbury in the early thirteenth century, the dean and chapter argued their reasons in a petition to the pope. The present cathedral, they said, was buffeted so much by the wind that the canons could not hear themselves chant the hours, the wind made many of them ill and damaged the fabric of the church, there were no trees or grass to provide relief from the glaring chalky soil which caused injury to their eyes, the church was built so close to the castle that the lives of the canons were dominated excessively by the garrison commander, and there was such a scarcity of water that it had to be shipped in at exhorbitant prices.373 A papal commission subsequently confirmed these complaints at which William of Malmesbury, had he lived so long, would have smiled in vindication. The different locations of the bishopric in the eleventh century account for the confused entries of the episcopal lands in the Dorset Domesday. Under the heading terra episcopi Sarisberiensis, Bishop Osmund, who was then in office, held six estates at Charminster, Alton (Pancras), Up Cerne, Yetminster, Lyme (Regis), and Sherborne. Together they were rated at seventy-six and a half hides before the Conquest.374 The description of Sherborne was then interrupted by an account of the lands of the monks there. The division was indicated by a marginal Roman numeral III. It was thus made a separate section following the terra regis with an implied marginal numeral I, and the terra episcopi with 372 Qp^ p j g j p o r a n interesting discussion of the cathedral as castle, see the remarks by Richard D . H. Gem, "Lincoln minster: ecclesia pulchra, ecclesia fortis," in Medieval Art and Architecture at Lincoln Cathedral, B.A.A. Transactions (Leeds 1986), pp. 25-26. Security from marauders was also the motive for the move from Crediton to Exeter, Councils and Synods, vol. 1, i, p. 691, and to Norwich, see above, p. 177. 373 374 CPL 1, pp. 46, 53. DB 1, fo. 75d.

334

The secular cathedrals a written marginal numeral II.375 The entry for Sherborne was then resumed and followed by a list of eight estates, each of which was held by the bishop, but all of which were designated as being for the support of the monks. All of these manors had formed part of the endowment of Sherborne abbey in the late Old English period. 376 The general list of the bishop's lands was continued with the three larger estates of Beaminster, Netherbury, and Chardstock, and the four smaller ones at Cerne and Piddle, both river places, Bowood and Buckham, each of which, in part, had been leased out. The problem for the Domesday scribe seems to have been to decide what portion of the lands belonged to the bishop and the cathedral chapter at old Salisbury, and what part remained to supply the monks at Sherborne. After the removal of the see, Sherborne continued to exist as a Benedictine foundation under the jurisdiction of the bishop until 1122, when the community was detached, as it were, from episcopal tutelage and reformed as an abbey.377 While the revenues of the nine manors were known to have been allocated to Sherborne, by 1086 all the lands were nominally in the bishop's possession. Sherborne itself, for example, had been held by Bishop Aelfwold before it passed into the hands of Edith, the Confessor's queen. After it was restored to Hereman and Osmund, thirty-two of the forty-three hides were subinfeudated or leased out. In addition, the bishop had land for sixteen plows which had never been hidated and was, therefore, exempt from geld. The monks, in turn, held land for nine and a half plows. The income value of the demesne land was .£50 to the bishop, £ 2 7 12s to his military tenants, £ 6 to his thegns and £ 6 10s to the monks. These figures suggest that the loss to the monks of a considerable part of their endowment was a direct consequence of the bishop's obligation to establish a sufficient number of milites for which he used the lands of the church. Sherborne, moreover, had suffered from the reallocation of property as a result of the Conquest. Sorne estates were in the hands of Hugh, earl of Chester in 1086, others had been usurped by Hugh, sheriff of Dorset, and by William, the young prince. 378 375 378

378

Ibid., fos. 75b, 75d. The Early Charters of Wessex, Thornford no. 594, Oborne no. 611, Bradford Abbas no. 578, Compton nos. 572, 614, Stalbridge nos. 571, 614, Weston no. 614, Corscombe no. 377 617, Stoke Abbot no. 614. MRH, p. 77. DB 1, fos. 77, 8o-8ob, see also Barlow, William Rufus, p. 32, note 121.

335

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England

Apart from the Dorset properties, the bishop of Salisbury in 1086 had possessions in his home county of Wiltshire, as well as in Somerset, Oxfordshire, and Berkshire. In Wiltshire there were the four very large estates: (Bishops) Cannings which was rated at seventy hides TRE and valued at £60 to the bishop in demesne and £35 to his tenants; Potterne which had fifty-two hides TRE and a value of £60 to the bishop where one of the tenants was a knight who was a nephew of Bishop Hereman, while another three hides had been leased from the bishop for one life by Wulfward; Ramsbury which was assessed at ninety hides TRE with five burgesses in Cricklade and altogether worth £52 15s to the bishop and £17 5 s to his tenants; and the multiple estate called Salisbury worth fifty hides TRE, of which ten were in demesne, with seven burgesses in Wilton valued at £47 to the bishop and £17 1 os to the tenants, and another five hides worth £ 4 held by the bishop at Charnage. There is no indication from the way the holdings are reported that the canons at old Salisbury held their lands separately from the bishop. In addition to the lands in Dorset and Wiltshire, there were two small estates in Somerset, at Seaborough and at Chilcompton. Both of them were held by Alfward before the Conquest and had been subinfeudated to Walter Tirel by 1086. In the time of King Edward, Seaborough had formed part of the royal manor of Cruche and since in Domesday Book it was described as not belonging to the bishopric of Salisbury, it was, perhaps, an example of an estate which had belonged to the bishop himself.379 In Berkshire the important manor was at Sonning, with its berewicks. There was, as well, some hidage at Winterbourne, Wantage, and Great Faringdon. Sonning had gelded at sixty hides TRE, but it was down to twenty-four hides in 1086, with a consequent drop in value from £50 to £40. Part of the loss was due to the depredations of Aubrey de Coci who had acquired twenty hides of land.380 Dunsden in Oxfordshire, which lay adjacent to Sonning but which belonged to the church of Salisbury, rather than to the bishop, was later merged with it. That the Domesday holdings of the bishop of Salisbury belonged nominally to him can be shown not only by the estates listed under his name, but also by the terms of Osmund's foundation charter. This document, if its authenticity and 379

380

DB 1, fo. 8 7 d.

336

Ibid., fos. 56c, 57d, 58b.

The secular cathedrals

traditional date of 1091 are accepted, attested to the fact that there had been made over to the canons an important part of the episcopal endowment.381 Excepting the lands of the bishop's knights, this included part of the manors at Yetminster, Alton Pancras, Charminster, Beaminster, Netherbury, and Wirthlington, as well as twenty-odd churches with their tithes and adjacent lands. Although there is no contemporary text, and the earliest extant version is in a thirteenth-century copy, the charter has generally been considered to reflect the grants which were made by Osmund to his church.382 All the manors and churches, except for Wirthlington and Grantham church, were confirmed by Eugenius III in 1146; eight of the churches and Wirthlington were confirmed by Henry II early in his reign; and fourteen of the estates and churches appeared as prebends on a list of fifty-one properties in the time of Bishop Richard Poore in the thirteenth century.383 It is less certain whether the clauses added at the end of the charter, dealing with the allocation of the altar offerings to the canons and their interest in other church funds, belong to the late eleventh century. Possibly they were added later in the twelfth century when a more comprehensive definition of the chapter's constitutional rights was attempted. 384 In any case, this is not sufficient reason to reject the charter as it stands. The bishop, in fact, was doing no more than allocating, on his own initiative and by his own choice, sufficient income to maintain the body of cathedral clergy. Quite different in regard to the concessions made is the so-called Institutio of Bishop Osmund which, by reference to the witness list, was apparently contemporary with the charter.385 The Institutio goes so far in granting privileges to the chapter as to give the latter an existence independent of the bishop. The canons were to be free of episcopal or archidiaconal interference, and the dean and canons 381

The Use ofSarum.

The Original Texts edited from the Mss. with an Introduction and Index,

ed. W. H. Frere (Cambridge 1898), pp. 259-261, and pp. liii-lvi; Statutaet consuetudines, ed. C.Wordsworth and D. Macleane (London 1915), pp. 16-34; HMCR Various Collections 1 (1904), iv (1907), ed. R. L. Poole. 382

G r e e n w a y , " T h e False Institutio", p p . 7 9 - 8 0 . Registrum, jRS-78 1, p . 2 0 5 ; Charters and Documents of Salisbury, 383 p j j £ n^ n o 5 3 ; yetus RS-7S, p p . 206-208. 384 For this p r o b l e m see G r e e n w a y , ' T h e False Institutio," p p . 8 0 - 8 1 . 385 The Vetus Registrum Sarisberiense alias dictum Registrum S. Osmund Episcopi, ed. W . H.

Rich Jones, RS-7%, was compiled toward the middle of the thirteenth century and is now in the Salisbury Diocesan Registry. It includes the Institutio, as well as the foundation charter.

337

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England were not to answer to the bishop except in chapter. In the late eleventh century this would have been a precocious and unusual arrangement. In spite of these difficulties, the Institutio was long considered an authentic text. Recently, however, the document has been studied anew and it has been shown that rather than a document dating from 1091 in the time of Bishop Osmund, it was probably fabricated in the 1150s with later additions.386 The Institutio, as Dr. Greenway has pointed out, deals with the liberties and rights of the canons, typical concerns of the mid-twelfth century and later, whereas the foundation charter grants particular churches and estates to meet the practical needs of a newly established church.387 Moreover, the hierarchy of chapter officials revealed in the Institutio implies a degree of independence in revenues and financial management which had not yet been achieved at Salisbury in Osmund's time. The division of the mensa, to which this development was closely linked, was a gradual process which took place over many years. It can hardly have reached its final stages at Osmund's death in 1099. In the early years when Bishop Roger came to power, it seems rather that the canons, while they enjoyed the material advantages made possible by Roger's high position in the curia, were obliged to suffer the alienation of their possessions and prebends very much according to the bishop's desires.388 The Osmund charter reflects a division of landed wealth, although not a legal separation of jurisdiction, which was a composite of the bishop's holdings and the lands which belonged to the church. While in the charter Osmund states that he gave the possessions of the church to the chapter as he himself had freely obtained them, this is no more than the usual assertion of the bishop's title to all the property of the see. But it is interesting to note that when, in 1228, the chapter at Salisbury petitioned Gregory IX to approve the canonization of Osmund, they made a point of saying that he had given the clergy his own property.389 This assertion was discounted by the editor as stemming from an excess of zeal at the time, and he cited a 386

387

388

Morey and Brooke in Gilbert Foliot, p. 189, note 1, thought the Institutio an authentic text based on the de qfficiis ecclesiasticis tractatus of John o f Avranches, archbishop o f Rouen 1069-1079. D . Greenway, however, has since proven the text to be a fabrication of the mid-twelfth century. See D . Greenway, "The false Institutio." Greenway, ibid., p. 81. "[There was] no certain case o f complete division o f chapter estates into individual portions by a single act o f episcopal authority until the middle decades o f the twelfth century," Greenway, ibid., pp. 89-90. 389 Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, pp. 101-102. RS-78 11, p. xxviii.

338

The secular cathedrals marginal note in the manuscript to the effect that non possessionibus ac terris de proprio. But he went too far in thinking the endowment consisted entirely of church lands. After Osmund's death three years were to pass before Henry I chose his chancellor, Roger, to succeed him. Another five years went by, due largely to the protracted struggle between the king and his archbishop over investitures, before Roger was consecrated as bishop of Salisbury in August 1107. The positive side of Roger's character as an able administrator, a legal vice-regent, and a tireless builder and benefactor of churches, has been well brought out in the most recent scholarly biography. 390 In this regard he can be shown to have redesigned and reconstructed his cathedral at great expense, to have increased substantially the number of canons there, and to have contributed generously to their endowment. 391 On the other hand, it would be difficult to dismiss the charges of pride and arrogance which were laid against him at the time, for the power of his secular position allowed him to do much as he pleased and to take largely what he wanted. 392 But this is to say no more than that his generosity had a price. In the long run the net gain to the chapter was substantial. Lands and churches, inside and outside the diocese, tithes and timber from the royal forests, and the right to a September fair in the town were confirmed to the church of Salisbury, as well as freedom from taxes and dues in markets.393 As one of the perquisites of episcopal office, Roger settled many of his relatives and friends on prebends of the church. The church of Calne with pertinent rights and exemptions was held by Nigel of Calne, a chaplain in the royal household. 394 Land and churches at Shipston, Swinbrook in Oxfordshire, and Brixsworth in Northamptonshire formed the prebends which Arnold, the falconer, gave for the benefit of his sons and to which he retained the advowson. 395 The churches at Godalming and Heytesbury, held by Ranulf Flambard, comprised a lifetime prebend for that active and influential official who died in 1128. 396 All of these properties were confirmed to the church by Henry II 390 391

392

393 394

Kealey, Roger of Salisbury. Edwards, Secular Cathedrals, p p . 181 and 183, and her article in VCH Wiltshire, m , p p . 158-159. William of Malmesbury, Willelmi Malmesbiriensis Monachi historia novella, ed. K. R. Potter, Nelson Medieval Texts (London 1955), p . 38. Regestau, nos. 753, 824, 1162-1164, " 9 9 , 1273, 1291, 1372, 1715-1716, 1972. Ibid., n o . 1164. Nigel was a n e p h e w of Everard, bishop of N o r w i c h . For the Calne 396 396 Ibid., n o . 1163. Ibid., n o . 753. family see above p . 185, n o t e 6 5 1 .

339

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England in a general charter of 1158.397 On the other hand, as part of his plan to augment the fortunes of Sherborne abbey which belonged to him, Roger transferred there a prebend from Salisbury, and this concession, which gave the abbot a seat in the Salisbury chapter, continued to raise problems throughout the rest of the century. 398 The arrangement, nevertheless, was confirmed about 1150 by Archbishop Theobald and recognized by the bishop and canons in return for a small payment.399 Because the possession of a prebend, in most cases, carried with it the right to vote in chapter, Roger also acquired one for himself. This he did, it has been suggested, in order to strengthen his episcopal authority in the church. 400 There is probably much truth in this assertion and the advantage inherent in such a position was not lost on later bishops. In the beginning of the next century, the prebend of Horton was confirmed to Bishop Richard Poore by the dean and chapter with the intention of making it a permanent possession.401 High on fortune's wheel under Henry I, to use a favorite image of the time, Roger found himself clinging to the bottom under Stephen. After his arrest and deprivation at the king's hands in 1139, Roger, sick and, perhaps, fearful for his soul, dictated a group of letters to a number of religious foundations, including Cirencester abbey, St. Frideswide in Oxford, Worcester cathedral priory, and his own chapter at Salisbury, from each of which he had usurped property and rights.402 In the Salisbury text, addressed to Henry of Winchester, the papal legate and to Theobald of Canterbury, Roger restored to St. Mary's all the prebends which he held unjustly. In particular, (Bishops) Cannings was given to augment the general support of the church with an annual income of forty shillings. The other prebends were not identified, but they may be among the possessions of the church listed in a confirmatory charter of King Stephen issued shortly after Roger's death.403 Other charters of Matilda and the young Henry mention lands which had been alienated and then restored so that almost all of Stephen's reign was a period of uncertainty for the Salisbury chapter. The privilege of Eugenius III, which confirmed to Bishop 397 398

400 401 402

Vetus registrum Sarisberiense, 1, p p . 203—205. W i l l i a m o f M a l m e s b u r y , Historia Novella, p p . 38—39; Charters and Documents of 3 Salisbury, p p . 5 0 - 5 1 . " Saltman, Theobald, n o . 246. Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, p . 101. Charters and Documents of Salisbury, p p . 85—86, p . 95. Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, a p p x . 2, nos. 2 6 - 3 1 , a n d p p . 2 0 2 - 2 0 3 ; see also Sheehan, The 403 Will in Medieval England, p p . 2 4 1 - 2 4 5 . Regesta 11, no. 787.

340

The secular cathedrals

Jocelin in 1146 the possessions of his church, made particular reference to the properties which had been violently and illicitly appropriated since the death of Henry I in 1135.404 To add to the difficulties, real estate values and income levels must have declined in the wake of the military campaign waged in Wiltshire between the opposing sides, particularly in 1149 when Eustace, the king's son, ravaged and burned the churches, houses, and fields around Salisbury.405 The papal confirmation listed the possessions of the canons not only in the diocese of Salisbury, but in Lincoln, Worcester, Bath, Exeter, and Winchester. In some cases, such as that of old Salisbury, Sherborne, Potterne, Lavington, Ramsbury, Sonning, and (Bishops) Cannings, their jurisdiction overlapped with that of the bishop, so that he might have had the estate while the canons held the church. But it seems clear, particularly in view of the acknowledgment of the right of the chapter to elect the bishop, that the division of the mensa was assumed and affirmed. As the legitimate successor to Roger, Jocelin remained at Salisbury until 1184 and it was during that long tenure of forty years that the chapter became firmly established apart from the episcopal household. In the time of Roger, and in the early years of Jocelin, grants to the church were made, more often than not, in the name of the bishop and chapter.406 As time went on, however, there was a tendency for more and more charters to be issued to the dean and chapter alone or in the name of capitular officials, or individual canons.407 But the change was gradual and too much importance should not be attached to a single instance. As a case in point, when Henry I gave the tithes and dead wood in the New Forest to the canons of Salisbury, but the hunting rights to Bishop Roger, it does look as though a separation of assets was intended.408 Yet the same king, on another occasion, confirmed the tithes and timber of the New Forest to both bishop and chapter.409 Similarly, the dean and the chapter can be found 404 405

406 407 408 409

PUE 11, n o . 54. R. H . C . Davis, King Stephen, 1135-1154 (London 1967), p p . 108-109. Stephen himself was n o t easy on the canons. W h e n he came to Salisbury for the c r o w n - w e a r i n g at Christmas in 1139 the canons paid h i m £ 2 , 0 0 0 t o be e x e m p t from taxes on their lands. T h e king gave t h e m 60 marks for repairs to the church and promised to repay the ,£2,000 w h e n times were m o r e peaceful, The Chronicle of John of Worcester, ed. J. R. H . Weaver, Anecdota Oxoniensia, 13 (Oxford 1908), p . 59. Regesta 11, nos. 753, 824, 1291, 1715-1716; K. Edwards, VCH Wiltshire, m , p. 161. Charters and Documents of Salisbury, nos. 40, 45, 50, 58; Vetus Registrum, 1, pp. 284, 289. Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, w h o cites Regesta 11, n o . 1162. Regesta n, n o . 1972.

341

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England making the grant of a prebendal church entirely on their own terms to a clerk for an annuity of half a mark, but at another time, they felt obliged to lease land to St. Augustine's in Bristol with the consent of the bishop. 410 The evidence, therefore, can be said to illustrate both the move toward independence by the chapter and the tenacity of episcopal privilege in the face of it. But in spite of the citation of the bishop in the dean's confirmation, there has been a subtle shift in the weight of authority to the canons by his time. N o longer was the charter written in the name of the bishop and chapter, or of the bishop with the chapter's consent, but by the chapter with the bishop's consent and his name was added almost as a formality at the end. Thus, the document has been interpreted, rightly I think, as an example of the late stage in the loosening of the bishop's control over capitular property. 411 The problems attending the election of the bishop and the dean illustrate in another way the difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory definition of episcopal and capitular jurisdiction. Jocelin, himself a former archdeacon at Winchester, had been appointed by Stephen at the urging of Henry of Blois. This action divided the chapter and set Azo, the dean, and a group of the canons in opposition. About 1144, Gilbert Foliot took the opportunity to write to Lucius II to express his support for Jocelin and to emphasize the traditional power of the bishop in his church. 412 In spite of the hostile faction dedicated to the unrealistic notion of home rule, Jocelin remained in office the longest time of any bishop of Salisbury in the twelfth century. Likewise, when the deanship fell vacant in 1164 due to the appointment of Henry to the see of Bayeux, the king, with Jocelin's approval, named John of Oxford to the post, an important and active member of the royal household and, as it turned out, a particularly strong antagonist of Archbishop Thomas Becket. 413 Some of the Salisbury canons protested on the grounds that it was their right to elect the dean, as well as the bishop. 414 Whether in fact they possessed this privilege in the mid-twelfth century is uncertain; that they saw the usefulness of pushing their claims in this direction is perfectly understandable. As it turned out, John of Oxford was first opposed by Alexander III on well-founded Gregorian principles, but then 410 411 413 414

Vetus registrum Sarisberiense, I, p. 269. K. Edwards, VCH Wiltshire, m , p p . 160-161. For the dates see JSL 11, p . x x v , n o t e 1. K. Edwards, VCH Wiltshire, in, p . 163.

342

412

GFL, n o . 3 1 .

The secular cathedrals

approved late in 1166 for reasons of state.415 This about-face elicited a bold letter from John of Salisbury who scolded the pope for accommodating the demands of the king so easily in violation of accepted canonical practice.416 Before the absolution was granted, however, John of Oxford was excommunicated by Becket from his seat of exile at Vezelay. He had, it was claimed, usurped the deanship at Salisbury without allowing the chapter their part in the choice.417 Becket put the blame on Jocelin for having permitted such a state of affairs to exist and suspended him from his episcopal office.418 Jocelin replied that John had been elected canonically and unanimously by the canons at Salisbury and requested that the archbishop withdraw the sentence against him and his dean.419 In order to defend himself, Jocelin had to assume that the legal claim of the chapter to elect their own head was justified. In the end, John of Oxford remained as dean at Salisbury until 1175 when he was elected and consecrated to the see of Norwich where he served until his death in 1200. In a related incident, and as a further indication of the unsettled nature of episcopal and capitular rights generally, Becket himself found the convent at Christ Church at fault when, on the death of Prior Wibert in 1167, the monks attempted to elect a successor by proceeding directly to the king without his approval. The archbishop's position was defended by John of Salisbury who, having scorned the compliance of Bishop Jocelin in appointing John of Oxford as dean at Salisbury, now castigated the monks of Canterbury for having dared to take the important election into their own hands.420 In both cases he sought to define what to him was the obvious and important principle of episcopal authority. From the mid-twelfth century onwards the deanship at Salisbury was the nursery of important men. Henry, as we have seen, went to the bishopric of Bayeux in 1165, and John of Oxford went to Norwich in 1175, while Robert, the dean, became bishop of Exeter in 1155, Eustace went to Ely in 1197, and Richard Poore became successively bishop of Chichester in 1215, bishop of Salisbury in 1217, and bishop of Durham in 1228. It is hard to escape the thought that the noticeable increase in the dean's power 415 416 417 419 420

Materials, vol. v, p p . 375—376. JSL, 11, n o . 213, and see p p . xxi—xxxiii, nos. 168 and 176. 418 Materials, vol. v, p p . 394-395. Ibid., p p . 397-399. Ibid., p p . 414-416. JSL n, n o . 244. See the c o m m e n t s b y the editors, p . xxxii, n o t e 4, and p p . 484—485, note

343

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England at Salisbury at the expense of the bishops during this time was due to the abilities of these men. So it was, in a way, ironical that they should have ended their lives as bishops who were themselves to grow more and more remote from their cathedral clergy. The separation of the bishop's jurisdiction from that of the dean and chapter, which can be documented in the Consuetudinarium of 1210 and the so-called Nova Constitutio of about 1214, reflected the movement in this direction which was gathering momentum in the later twelfth century. By the terms of these instruments the dean became the chief dignitary in the internal structure of the cathedral church. It was he who assigned places in the choir, who heard pleas, corrected abuses, supervised absences, taxed prebends and allocated them to the canons.421 The holders of prebends were to be instituted by the bishop, but it was from the dean that they took possession of them.422 A detailed set of regulations was promulgated for the canons which dealt for the first time in a comprehensive manner with the rules for residency, the disposition of their property when they died, and provided them with a coherent legal structure for ordering their lives in the church. The problem of residency, in particular, was a chronic one which remained a matter of dispute for many years. By the requirements laid down in the statute of 1214 all the canons, except those exempted by the king, or archbishop, or bishop, were to remain at Salisbury. The penalty for refusing to comply was the loss of a fifth of the income from the prebend. In all cases the chapter, rather than the bishop, had the responsibility of enforcing the rules. When Henry III wished to excuse the canon Master Henry of Bishopston from the residency requirements, since he was on royal service, the king wrote directly to the dean and chapter as a distinct authority.423 Under Bishop Richard Poore (1217-1228) an inventory was ordered of all the church property (possessiones et redditus ecclesie) as

a way of preventing further alienation.424 It was an important step in the definition of the mensa, since the chapter's wealth could then be clearly separated from the bishop's. The point was made again in the time of Bishop Roger de Martival in the early fourteenth century when it was decreed that an inventory was to be made each year. The documents (cartae et instrumenta) relating to the bishop's portion were to be stored in one chest, while those which 421 423

422 Use ofSarum, vol. I, pp. xvii—xx, 8—9. Vetus Registrum Sarisberiense, 1, p. 4. 424 Ibid., p. 267. Charters and Documents of Salisbury, p. 150.

344

The secular cathedrals

concerned the chapter were to be kept in another. 425 Thus, by the mid-thirteenth century the chapter can be said finally to have come into its own. The canons were confirmed in their privileges to elect the bishop and the dean, to order their prebends, to limit the bishop on his visitations, and to keep and use their own seals.426 YORK

It is related by Hugh the Chantor that when Thomas of Bayeux was appointed to the see of York in 1070 he found the land deserted and wasted, and the church in ruins.427 The devastation of the north which confronted the new bishop was a direct consequence of William I's inept exploitation of Northumbrian political weakness and his undoubted fear of another Danish invasion. Faced with armed risings in JO68 and 1069, he moved quickly and ruthlessly to suppress them. Although how much damage was caused locally is difficult to determine, it appears to have been the case that a good deal of the work of Ealdred, the last English archbishop, who placed the Yorkshire churches on a firm foundation, was suddenly undone.428 Thomas, then, came as a restorer who brought back the canons, rebuilt their houses, endowed them with manors and churches for their prebends, and even gave over to them some of his own property. According to Hugh the Chantor, Thomas also established the offices of dean, treasurer, precentor, and master of the schools, but the documentary evidence is uncertain on this point. Perhaps not all the officials were introduced at once, and since the first firm record of a dean and treasurer belongs to the period 1112X 1114, Hugh, who was writing late in the 1120s, may have confused the pontificate of Thomas I (1070-1100) with that of Thomas II (1108-1114).429 425 426

427

428

429

Statuta et Consuetudines, ed. C . W o r d s w o r t h and D . Macleane (London 1915), p . 172. Ibid., pp. 40-48; 96-99; Charters and Documents of Salisbury, pp. 76-77, 336-340, 351-354. Hugh the Chantor, p . 11. T h e lands of the archbishop in 1086 have been calcuated at a b o u t half the p r e - C o n q u e s t value, J. H . Le Patourel, " T h e N o r m a n conquest of Y o r k s h i r e , " Northern History 6 (1971), 10. T . A . M . Bishop, " T h e N o r m a n settlement of Y o r k s h i r e , " Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke (Oxford 1948), pp. 1-14. Aside from the references in H u g h the C h a n t o r , the only eleventh-century notice of H u g h , the dean, is in a transcript of an alleged charter of William II which, in view of the witness list, should be dated 1094 x 1095. It is slightly suspect since it makes H e r v e y bishop of St. David's instead of B a n g o r . It is calendared in Regesta 1, n o . 338 and printed p . 132, and is also printed in the Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. in, p . 546, w i t h an

345

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Inevitably, changes were made. Archbishop Ealdred, who chose to live as a monk in the world rather than in the cloister, had assembled a group of properties from the time he had first been appointed to the see of Worcester in 1046. Subsequently he took over the vacant bishopric of Hereford after its diocesan had been killed in a war with the Welsh in 1056. He held the lands of St. Peter's in Gloucestershire where he finished the construction of the abbey, and the lands of the see of Ramsbury during the absence of Bishop Hereman from 1055 to 1058, as well as estates attached to several other religious houses. Upon Hereman's return, Ealdred gave up Ramsbury, to which Sherborne had been annexed, and went abroad. When Archbishop Cynesige died in 1060, Hereford was bestowed on Walter, one of the bishops of the Lotharingian circle, and Ealdred was translated to York.430 Although Ealdwulf in 995, Wulfstan II in 1003, and Aelfric in 1040 had all held the archbishopric jointly with Worcester, so that there was no lack of precedent, ecclesiastical pluralism was contrary to the principles of the papal reform program and within a short time Ealdred was forced to give up the see of Worcester. In spite of pressure from Rome, however, he managed to hold on to twelve Worcester manors and some of the Gloucester abbey estates. When Thomas succeeded Ealdred in the archbishopric he renewed the claim to the Worcester property against the venerable Wulfstan. But in this he was unable to prevail and by 1070 those possessions had been lost. The case of the Gloucester estates, however, was not settled until the middle of the twelfth century.431 In the twelfth-century history, it was said that the canons at York had lived a life in common for many years and some of them, at least, continued to do so under Thomas. A provost (prepositus) was appointed to look after them in an arrangement similar to that made by Bishop Osbern at Exeter about the same time.432 But in order to accommodate a greater number of clerics,

430

expanded witness list which includes H u g h , the dean. T h e latter also appears as witness to a charter o f T h o m a s II dated 1113 x 1114 (EYC 1, n o . 46), and in EEA v, n o . 2 1 , w h e r e t h e dating is revised to 1 1 0 9 x 1 1 1 4 . B y t h e time o f T h o m a s II there is also evidence for William Fitz-Herbert, the treasurer. For m e n t i o n o f an earlier Ralf as treasurer, see EEA v, p . 123. ASC, s.a.; A History of York Minster, p. 29; Barlow, The English Church, vol. 1, pp.

86-91. 431

Hugh the Chantor; Vita Wulfstani, p. xxvi, note 4 ; Morey and Brooke, Gilbert Foliot, pp. I24ff. See above, p. 234. Nor was he successful in extending his jurisdiction over the lands of the bishop of Lincoln in Lindsey, Stow, Louth, and Newark, Hugh the Chantor, 432 p. 8. Hugh the Chantor.

346

The secular cathedrals Thomas took some of the waste land which belonged to the church and divided it into prebends. 433 The easiest and quickest way to restore the productivity of the estates was to assign individual shares which the holder would then have the incentive to improve to his own advantage. How many prebends were established in his time it is difficult to say. One prebendary is mentioned in Domesday Book at Upper Poppleton in the West Riding, and it possible that two were formed out of the fief of Durand, the archdeacon.434 Holme and, perhaps, Laughton, also existed before noo. 4 3 5 Some estates, including those at Newbald, Walkington, (North) Cave, and Riccoll had been in possession of Ealdred but were held by the canons in 1086. 436 Other estates, like those at Dunnington, had been held by thegns before the Conquest. These may have been possessions which passed to Thomas as part of the episcopal patrimony, which he then allocated to the support of the chapter. Another large group of Domesday estates, also held by the canons, had belonged to the pre-Conquest communal7 Elsewhere, land marked terra sancti Petri was presumably for the benefit of the canons, such as the property at Salton, Marton, and Carlton in the North Riding, and at Acomb and Warmfield in the West Riding. Some holdings, such as Grafton and Ripon in the West Riding, were definitely set aside for the canons, but much of the property was still waste and produced very little income, or none at all. In the city of York, in the time of King Edward, there were seven wards, or shires, of which the archbishop held one, with the third penny of another. His portion also included the houses of the canons, although at a later date the shire would come within the jurisdiction of the chapter. 438 Beyond Yorkshire, the archbishop also had lands, in decreasing order of value, in Gloucestershire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, 433

The Cartulary of the Treasurer of York Minster and Related Documents, ed. J. E. Burton Borthwick Texts and Calendars 5 (York 1978). DB 1, fo. 303c; EEA v, no. 8, and note. At Fridaythorpe and Sherburn, each with attached lands, although Sherburn may have included the property at Upper Poppleton. 435 Q -p Clay, York Minster Fasti. Being Notes on the Dignitaries, Archdeacons and Prebendaries in the Church of York prior to the Year 1307, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, record 436 series 123-124, 2 vols. (York 1958-1959), pp. v-vi. DB 1, fos. 3O2c-3O2d. 437 Ibid. 438 F. M. Stenton, "York in the eleventh century," York Minster Historical Tracts, ed. A. H. Thompson (London 1927); A. G. Dickens, "The shire and the privileges o f the archbishop in eleventh-century York," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 38 (1952-195 5), 131-147. 434

347

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Leicestershire, and Hampshire. 439 Under none of the headings was there a distinction made between episcopal and capitular land. In Gloucestershire the entry was terra Thomae archiepiscopi, in Nottinghamshire it was terra archiepiscopi Eboracensis, in Lincolnshire the same, in Leicestershire it was terra episcopi [sic] Eboracensis, and in Hampshire quod tenet archiepiscopus Thomas. N o property

was specified as having been allocated to the support of the canons except for two carucates which they held in demesne in Nottinghamshire.440 Part of the episcopal mensa, therefore, was assigned to the canons for their support and, in addition, they derived some benefits from the property which had belonged to the old common fund. William of Malmesbury at a later date reported that the successors of Archbishop Thomas I complained that he had given away too much property to (his) clerks, and so had left them, the prelates, destitute. 441 But bishops, or rather their chroniclers, often blamed their predecessors for the poverty of their sees. Archbishop-elect Thomas II, in 1108, who was unable to find enough money to send to Rome for the pallium, blamed Archbishop Gerard (1100-1108) for impovershing the church and its lands.442 As for Thomas I, it is not certain that, by clerici, Malmesbury meant the canons. He could have intended members of the archiepiscopal household, so that what he said has no bearing one way or another on the separation of the mensa}** Archbishop Thomas I died in November 1100. He was succeeded by Gerard, the bishop of Hereford, who had been a chaplain of William I and had enjoyed a high position in the royal diplomatic curial circle. During his seven and a half years in office he made several material contributions to the enlarged cathedral community. He obtained from the queen the church of Laughton as a prebend, as well as the churches of Pocklington, Kilham, Great 439

440 441

442

443

DB 1, fos. 164C-164CI; 2833-2830; 339c~34ob; 230c!, 42a. Part of the A x m i n s t e r estate in D e v o n had also belonged to Y o r k , b u t was lost b y 1086, AS Writs, n o . 120. D B 1, fo. 283a. " Liberalitate sua successores contristavit, ut qui m u l t a m episcopalium t e r r a r u m p a r t e m in clericorum u s u m nimie, ut dicunt, prodigus distraxerit," GP, p . 257. " . . . q u o n i a m d o m n u s Girardus archiepiscopus ecclesias nostras et h o m i n e s et ipsum d o m i n i u m n o s t r u m m u l t u m p a u p e r a v i t , " HN, p . 200. In T h o m a s H's case, h o w e v e r , this m a y have been an excuse n o t to send to R o m e . In D o m e s d a y B o o k a distinction is m a d e b e t w e e n the canonici sancti Petri, as in the D u n n i n g t o n entry, and clerici, as in the E v e r i n g h a m entry w h i c h follows it (fo. 3O2d). T h e distinction was m a d e again in a grant b y T h o m a s I t o the m o n a s t e r y of Selby w i t h the agreement of his clerks and the chapter at Y o r k , EYC1, n o . 42. B u t it is hard t o say if M a l m e s b u r y had the difference in m i n d .

348

The secular cathedrals

Driffield, Pickering, and Aldborough from the king.444 In the case of Laughton, the tithes had been given to the monks of Blyth priory when Henry I had taken over the castle there. The York canons objected, the king issued an injunction against their interference, but their voices were evidently heard by Matilda who made them the grant of the church.445 Still, it was not intended that the monks were to have the tithes while the canons had the church. This is clear from several writs of Henry and Matilda by which the church and the tithes were confirmed to York, and the monks of Blyth, in turn, were forbidden to make a claim against them.446 If some sense of community is suggested by the action of the York canons in defense of their rights, there is little further evidence to confirm it. The king's writ for the other churches was addressed to Osbert, the sheriff, and the property granted to St. Peter's and Archbishop Gerard. When the Driffield tithes were not delivered, Gerard complained and another writ ordered Osbert to see that the archbishop held those churches which had been given to him. The chapter was not named either as addressee or as co-tenant, and the defense of property rights was left in the hands of the diocesan. It is useful to compare this writ with another issued late in the reign of Henry I which ordered Anschetil, the sheriff of York, to see that Hugh, the dean of York, and his clergy (clericis suis) have and hold the said tithes.447 At the same time the king instructed Archbishop Thurstan to cause Hugh to have all his rights in tithes, parishes, lands, and chapels belonging to those churches which the king had confirmed to St. Peter's in free alms. The customs, it was stated, were those which had prevailed in the time of Edward the Confessor, William I, and William II.448 Thus there was effected a transfer of rights from St. Peter's collectively to the dean individually. Thurstan then confirmed them, but quite correctly going back no further in time or precedent than the pontificate of Gerard.449 The provisions of the earlier writ of Henry I, namely 444 £YC i, n o . 426ff., Regesta n , nos. 675, 839; Hugh the Chantor, p . 14. 445 446 Regesta n, nos. 598, 704. Ibid., nos. 720, 807, 808. 447 Regesta n, n o . 1336. EYC 1, n o . 429. Farrer prints " o m n e s rectas decimas de dominiis m e i s , " a n d notes t h e M S . variant of retractas for rectas w h i c h , if accepted, w o u l d raise the question of w h e n the tithes w e r e lost. T h e editors of Regesta 11 c o m m e n t that tithes w i t h h e l d " m a k e s better sense." Since, h o w e v e r , another w r i t o f H e n r y I addressed to A r c h b i s h o p Thurstan, N i g e l de A u b i g n y , and Anschetil regarding the rights of H u g h in tithes has " o m n e s rectitudines suas de decimis," rectas m a y be a satisfactory reading (EYC 1, n o . 430 and Regesta 11, n o . 1072, and see n o t e EEA v, p p . 63-64). 448 449 EYC 1, n o . 4 3 0 ; Regesta n, n o . 1072. EYC 1, n o . 4 3 1 ; EEA v, n o . 78.

349

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England that Gerard was to have his pleas in his court in terris ecclesiarum suarum et in omnibus terris Eboracensis archiepiscopatus,

probably

referred to the lands of his dependent foundations at Ripon, Beverley, and Southwell, and to his other holdings, rather than to a distinction between episcopal and capitular lands. 450 Gerard's successor was Thomas II (1109-1114), the son of Samson, bishop of Worcester, a brother of Richard, bishop of Bayeux, and a nephew of the first Thomas at York. One of the problems he inherited was the ancient quarrel between the sees of York and Canterbury over the question of primacy. It was a dispute which was renewed and seemed to gather strength with every new archbishop appointed on either side of the Humber. Although the issue ostensibly involved the prelates, it was inflamed by the action of their respective chapters. By the beginning of the twelfth century, the canons of York and the monks of Canterbury were numerous enough and provided with adequate leadership to make their arguments count. Moreover, their collective litigious outlook and sense of historical and moral righteousness brought to the efforts of each group an enhanced feeling of solidarity. Already in the time of Gerard, the York chapter, which can hardly have exceeded a dozen canons, had enough confidence in their rights to oppose the disciplinary efforts of the archbishop. Gerard complained about them in a letter to Anselm in 1103 when he may have been having second thoughts about his appointment. "Be glad," he wrote, "that you are at Canterbury among agreeable monks, because at York I am at war against non-resident, noncelibate, and thoroughly contentious canons. " 451 As if to prove the aptness of his remarks, at his death Gerard's body was refused burial by the chapter in the cathedral graveyard. 452 Unwilling to allow the dispute to lapse into dormancy during a change in regime, the canons took up the struggle again when Thomas II came to York, making use of the new archbishop as their captive spokesman. According to the account related by Hugh the Chantor, Thomas was given instructions that he might seek consecration at the hands of Anselm, but that he was in no way to make a profession to him. Should he do so, the canons would then appeal to Rome. 453 Much of what Hugh reported was corrobo450 £YC 1, n o . 14; Regesta n, n o . 518. In subsequent royal charters the double reference was d r o p p e d . See EYC 1, n o . 22. 451 The Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, ed. J. Raine, RS-71 (1879-1894), 452 453 GP, p. 260. Hugh the Chantor, pp. 15—16. in, pp. 23—26.

350

The secular cathedrals

rated by Eadmer, although he altered some of the details to favor the southern see.454 In a letter to Anselm, Thomas admitted that he dared not go against the wishes of his chapter, and that, moreover, some of his canons had forbidden him to recognize the jurisdiction of Canterbury in York.455 For an astonishingly long time the York chapter pursued the question of the primacy. They kept abreast of the changes in personnel and strategy, and they constantly exerted pressure on the chief players to provide the outcome which they desired. Finally, in the time of Archbishop Thurstan (1119-1140), they won their case. The scene in the papal curia in 1123 when Thurstan received the pallium, and when the Canterbury monks, who had presented a collection of forged texts to buttress their arguments, were found out and ridiculed, must have been a memorable one for the Yorkists. Although independent and forceful in their relationships with the archbishops, the success of the canons in exercising control over their estates and income at an early date is less obvious. In regard to the question of division of authority within the church, something must be said about the form and content of a charter attributed to Henry I by which he confirmed to St. Peter's church all the liberties which it had in the time of King Edward and Archbishop Ealdred.456 The general confirmation was followed by a very long section in which the chapter's rights were set out in great detail.457 If the whole text were accepted as it stands, it would be evidence for a surprisingly rapid and early mensal and legal division between the archbishop and the canons at York. Oddly enough, it has not provoked much comment, nor has it met much resistance among historians. Arthur Leach assumed it to be genuine and considered it proof of capitular independence: "These documents [the charter and its appendages] show an absolute imperium in imperio. The chapter in the common lands, the canons in their prebends, were alike little kings and little bishops, free from all jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal, of king or archbishop." 458 It was called "highly suspicious, but possibly an inflated copy of a genuine charter" by the editors of the Regesta, 464

457

Southern, Saint Anselm and his Biographer, pp. 142-143, 298-313; Hugh the Chantor, 1,

455 456 pp. xv-xvii. HN, pp. 203-204. Regesta 11, no. 1083. From the York, Liber Albus, n, fo. i; printed in Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. vm, pp. 1180-1181. For Stephen's confirmation using the text of Henry's charter see Regesta in,

no. 975. Cf. Visitations and Memorials of Southwell Minster, ed. A. F. Leach, Camden

Society, n.s. 48 (1891), pp. 190-196, and Historians of the Church of York, vol. in, pp. 34—36.

458

Visitations and Memorials of Southwell Minster, p. xxxi.

351

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England but other writers on the medieval church at York seem not to have doubted its authenticity.459 There are, nevertheless, certain considerations which make one hesitate to assign it to the early twelfth century. Since all the York archives survive only in later copies, each one has to be examined with more than usual care. In the case of the charter, the earliest dates from an inspeximus of 1253.460 It was also incorporated into a letter from the chapter at York to the chapter of Southwell minster which recited the ancient privileges granted to the York canons as a basis for the Southwell constitution. The letter is known because it was copied into the Liber Albus of Southwell which is no earlier than the first third of the fourteenth century.461 The letter explains that as a consequence of incursions by Osbert, the sheriff, and on complaint of Archbishop Gerard, the king ordered an inquest in 1106 into the rights and customs of the church of York. Robert, bishop of Lincoln, Ralf Basset, Geoffrey Ridel, Ranulf le Meschin, and Peter of Valognes were appointed to hear the case, and they in turn impaneled twelve jurors in the shire court. The latter testified that no royal official had authority to encroach on the prebendal lands of the chapter to enforce the law or levy a distraint unless the canon, whose prebend it was, were informed. If the canon refused to do right, then the dean was to set a day and do right by the church door. After this introductory clause there followed the substance of the charter of Henry I which concerned largely fiscal and jurisdictional rights and was written up obviously for the benefit of the chapter. Penalties were laid down for apprehending and holding a criminal within the church precincts which were progressively heavier if the act took place inside the church or in the choir. If the man were taken in the bishop's seat next to the altar, which the English called the frithstool, or throne of peace, there was to be no compensation. It was a crime which, for the English, was botles, that is, without a remedy. All the payments belonged to the canons and not to the archbishops. There folio wed a line which appears to be defective, but which implied that the 459

460

461

F. E. H a r m e r (AS Writs, p p . 415-416); D . Nicholl (Thurstan, Archbishop of York, 1114—1140 [York 1964], p . 122, n o t e 48), Edwards (English Secular Cathedrals, p . 121, note 1); Rosalind Hill and C . N . L. B r o o k e , in A History of York Minster, ed. G. E. A y l m e r and Reginald C a n t (Oxford 1977), p . 30, note 109. Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain. A Short Catalogue, ed. G. R. C . Davis (London 1958), nos. 1086-1087, 1106. Ibid., n o . 912, and the text from Visitations and Memorials of Southwell Minster, p p . 190-196.

352

The secular cathedrals

Old English word hird, which meant the group of clergy serving a cathedral church, was called the familia, or household, and that the land of the canons was properly termed the mensa sancti Petri.*62 Penalties for the canons or others guilty of wrongs in the church, cemetery, or in the canons' houses, were to be paid not to the archbishop, but wholly to the canons. On the death of a canon, the archbishop might offer the vacant prebend to someone else, but only with the counsel and consent of the chapter. If funds were needed to pay for a wrong committed by the archbishop against the king or pope, the canons would give what they wished to give, but neither the money, nor the men, of the chapter might be seized for a fault or debt of the archbishop. In their houses and lands the canons were to have sake and soke, toll and team and infangentheof,

and intol and uttol, and all other customs which the king himself had in his lands, and which the archbishop held of the king. No one on the canons' land was to be forced to plead in the court of the wapentake, riding, or shire, but was to do right before the door of the church. If the canons were in court when the bell was sounded for the canonical hours, they might be excused. If other land was given or sold to St. Peter's, no one thereafter might claim sake and soke, or toll and team, but the land was to have the same customs as the other lands of the church. The land of St. Peter was quit of all customs and exactions. Only one man was to be sent to the king's army when it was called up. He was to bear the standard of St. Peter. If the burgesses joined the army, he was to lead them as the standard bearer, but he was not to go without the burgesses. At this point the charter was brought to a premature close, although some additional clauses which enhanced the chapter's position were added to it. They consisted of the following stipulations: no one of the royal household or the royal army could claim hospitality in the canons' houses, either within the city or without; wherever a duel was fought in York, oaths were to be sworn on the books or relics of St. Peter and the victor was to offer the arms of the vanquished to St. Peter by way of giving thanks to 462

" Canonici sancti Petri in hirth, id est domestica vel intrinseca familia appellabatur, terra canonicorum proprie mense sancti Petri," Regesta HI, no. 975. The phrase mensa beati Petri occurred in a charter of restitution by Gilbert, son of Nigel, the provost, 1165 x 1175 (EYC 1, no. 39), also from the cartulary. The phrase canonici sancti Petri in hird, id est domestica vel intrinseca familia appellatur, was used by the author of a statement

of capitular privileges in the time of archbishop Melton in the early fourteenth century; S. Brown, "A dispute between Archbishop Melton and the dean and chapter of York c. 1336-8," BIHR, 54 (1981), 119.

353

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England god and the saint for the victory; if the canons or their men brought a claim in the king's court, their claim, insofar as it was possible to do so, was to be heard before any other. At the end there was appended a perfectly acceptable list of witnesses. The letter of the chapter was continued, however, with a lengthy set of clauses in regard to the chapter's rights involving sanctuary and the peace of the church, and the freedom of the archbishop's land in the city from customs and royal interference. At the outset a distinction should be made between the letter and the charter. The letter deals chiefly with the right of sanctuary and the security of the canons' property, with the freedom of the archiepiscopal land within the city and with the jurisdiction of the prepositus in the archbishop's manors. The privileges are thus divided between archbishop and chapter. The terms of the charter, however, concern almost entirely the rights of the chapter. The fact that they were to profit from judicial fines, that they were to have preferential treatment in the royal courts, that a limit was placed on their legal liability, and on their liability for military service and hospitality, that they were to approve the assignment of prebends, and that the rights of sanctuary and benefit of clergy were confirmed to them, makes the text highly suspect. Sake and soke, toll and team and infangentheof were usually granted to the bishop, not the chapter. Indeed, Henry I had done so when he appointed his chaplain, Thomas, to the archbishopric in 1108.463 Henry had also granted to Gerard, Thomas' predecessor, the rights to hold pleas in all the lands of his church and of the archbishopric.464 It seems unlikely that the same rights would have been granted in favor of the chapter, to the exclusion of the archbishop, at about the same time. There are, moreover, enough dubious grammatical constructions and spellings to cast suspicion on the authenticity of the writ. 465 While it is true that the whole 463

464 465

Regesta n, n o . 885; Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. vi, p . 1180, n o . xxix. See the examples at Hereford, Regesta n, nos. 1101, 1243, 1724, or the abbot as beneficiary at W h i t b y abbey (ibid. 1335), Ramsey abbey (ibid. 738), and St. M a r y , Y o r k (ibid. 1276). B u t the canons themselves in certain houses often appear as the grantees, as at St. Paul's, L o n d o n (ibid. 899), St. Martin's, L o n d o n (ibid. 1105), and at Osney abbey (ibid. 1726). Ibid., nos. 518, 686; p . xxvii. As, for example, in the passages: " C a n o n i c i sancti Petri in hirth, id est domestica vel intrinseca familia appellabatur, terra canonicorum proprie mense sancti Petri," just mentioned, and in "Penitentia q u o q u e de singulis sicut de sacrilegiis injuncta in hundreth viii lib. continentur " ; and " Archiepiscopo vero et senescallos et prefectos et milites suos facilius erat predicta placita sequi et tenere." A m o r e grammatical version was printed b y Raine in Historians of the Church of York, vol. 111, n o . xvii.

354

The secular cathedrals text, with a few minor changes in the wording, was confirmed by King Stephen, with another set of witnesses consistent with the proposed date of 1136, the source of his charter is also the later manuscript copy. 466 Both the charters of Henry I and Stephen were confirmed in an inspeximus of Henry III in the Liber Albus which was, in turn, confirmed by an inspeximus of 33 Edward I.467 Added to the earlier grants was a kind of catch-all list of judicial and jurisdictional benefits including the danegeld and other taxes in favor of the canons. While some provisions of the charter, such as the prohibition against lodging members of the king's household, or his soldiers, in the houses of the canons, whether within the city or without, or the grant of relief from military service on the canons' land, can be corroborated by other evidence from the same period, in its present form it cannot be used as evidence for the development of the chapter in the early twelfth century.468 Not until the time of Thurstan's death in 1140, after more than a quarter century in office, is there sufficient evidence to show that the chapter at York possessed an identity of its own, separate from the household of the archbishop, although still quite modest in its notion of independence. 469 Thurstan added to the prebendal holdings of the canons by grants of lands and churches which probably brought the number of canons to about twelve by mid-century. 470 By that time there was also established an independent deanery with its own endowment. 471 Thurstan acknowledged the separate existence of the chapter by granting to the canons two marks yearly from his fair at York and ^ 5 yearly for the dean's school. 472 Like some other of his contemporaries in their cathedral churches, he also made provision for the disposal of the prebendal income of a defunct canon. This was to the effect that should a canon die in his own church the chapter should have the income for a year, except that it might be spent for the salvation of his soul and to pay off his debts, as the chapter wished. 473 Moreover, any canon of York, whether sick or well, who was touched by divine inspiration and felt the need to change his life and habit by joining a house of 466

467 469

471 473

Regesta in, n o . 9 7 5 ; the Magnum registrum album and B L . M S . Cotton Claud, B . iii. T h e editors of the Regesta, m , considered it suspect, ibid., p . 361, note. 468 Calendar of Charter Rolls, vol. HI, p p . 56-58. Cf. Regesta 11, n o s . 713, 1382. T h u r s t a n was elected in 1114, consecrated in 1119 and resigned in 1140, the same year 47 ° Nicholl, Thurstan, p p . 116-117. in w h i c h he died. 472 EEA v, n o . 7 8 ; Regesta n, nos. 1072, 1336. EYC 1, nos. 143-144. EEA v, n o . 80 and EYC 1, n o . 149 w h e r e the text is printed.

355

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England monks or regular canons, might arrange things in such a way that whether he lived or died, two-thirds of a year's income from his prebend was his to keep, or to have paid to his new church, or to needy relatives, or to other indigents, or to his creditors. The remaining one-third of the income was to be used by the chapter of York for the repair of the fabric of the church.474 These provisions were confirmed to the canons by Archbishop Thurstan in response to their prayers and by their counsel and consent. The division of church land into prebends during the course of the twelfth century, not only at York, but in all the secular cathedrals, raised the problem sooner or later of the kind of interest which the individual canon had in the property. Although he might not have the right to alienate the endowment, there was always the possibility that the estate might become a hereditary possession. If that occurred, then there was a risk that the chapter would lose some income, and that the bishop, or archbishop, would have his right of appointment and collation compromised. This was something both sides wished to avoid. The conditions confirmed by Thurstan allowed the individual canon some sense of proprietary interest, but not enough to risk the permanent alienation of the prebend. The final decision as to the dispersal of the funds, however, was left entirely to the chapter. Following Thurstan's death in 1140 there was a disputed election at York in which the candidates put forward by the canons were rejected, first by the king, and then by the pope. Stephen then named William Fitz-Herbert, a canon and probably the treasurer at York, who was elected, invested with the temporalia and consecrated in 1143. But the choice was far from gaining unanimous approval and for the next ten years the chapter remained divided over the appointment. The canons who elected William with royal support were opposed by another group, including the Yorkshire Cistercians, who were backed by St. Bernard and his confidant, Eugenius III. William, it seems, had little success in bringing about a reconciliation. According to John of Hexham, when the bishop went to Rome for the pallium he sold off some of the church treasure in order to pay his way. 475 In the face of strong criticism he was deposed in 1147, and the see was given to Henry Murdac, a Cistercian and a member of the opposing faction. William, however, had not given up, and upon 474 475

EEA v, n o . 7 9 ; EYC i, n o . 150. Simeon of D u r h a m , Historia regum, RS-7S 11, p . 279

356

The secular cathedrals

his return to England after the deaths of Murdac, Bernard and Eugenius, all three of which occurred in 1153, he was restored to the archbishopric by Anastasius IV. After this triumph, he lived only another year, resented by the members of his chapter, but supported by the citizens of his city.476 The episode serves to illustrate not only the less inspiring character of ecclesiastical politics, but also the fact that the community of canons was not immune from internal dissension which, in turn, tended to provoke intervention in their affairs from the outside. Henry Murdac had been rejected by Stephen, as well as by his brother, Henry, bishop of Winchester, and by Hugh de Puiset, the treasurer at York. Upon the bishop's installation, the king seized the prebends belonging to the chapter, while Murdac and Puiset perversely excommunicated each other. Murdac and the chapter were probably never wholly reconciled, although they did come to an understanding in 1151 when the archiepiscopal temporalia were restored to him.477 William Fitz-Herbert's successor was the archdeacon of Canterbury and canon of Beverly, Roger du Pont l'Eveque, who was installed by the king and Archbishop Theobald.478 Roger is known chiefly for the vigor of his opposition to Thomas Becket during the years of controversy, and his reputation, unfortunately, has suffered at the hands of the Canterbury historians.479 At York, he devoted a good deal of his time and his own money to the foundation and construction of new churches and the repair of old. He is said to have increased the financial return to the see, although this may refer to archiepiscopal, rather than capitular, income. William of Newburgh alleged that while he was not a very good priest or shepherd, he excelled in business affairs. He was reported, for instance, to have given church livings to boys under age so that he could collect the revenues until they reached their majority. 480 But it did not take an exceptionally perceptive observer at the time to realize that the church as one of many hierarchical monarchical institutions needed able administrators as much as it desired spiritual leaders in order to survive. Roger's relationship with the 476

478 480

For the history, see D. Knowles, "The Case of St. William of York," in The Historian 477 and Character (Cambridge 1963), pp. 76-97. EEA v, no. 132, note. 479 Saltman, Theobald, pp. 122-125. Knowles, Thomas Becket. A. H. Thompson, "The Chapel of St. Mary and the Holy Angels at York," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 36 (1944-1947), 63-77; Historians of the Church of York, RS-71 in, p. 786; William of Newburgh, RS-S2, 1, p. 225; Benedict of Peterborough, .RS-49 1, pp. 282-283.

357

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England canons appears not to have been marked by any major upheaval; indeed, by this time the institutional strength of the chapter had been developed to the point where it would have been difficult for the archbishop to challenge them without raising a storm of protest, and thereby leaving some record in the contemporary accounts. Under Roger's successor, Geoffrey Plantagenet, the eldest son of Henry II who held the office of treasurer at York, there was an attempt on the part of the archbishop to dominate the canonical factions and, as a consequence, little is heard but the din of contending forces. By his will Roger left his fortune to the poor, the church, his household servants, and his relatives, but at his death in 1181 the revenues of the archbishopric were taken in hand by the royal commissioners and the estates let out to farm. The king's slim pretext for seizing it was that treasure hoarded until death was the property of the crown. 481 The proceeds due to the exchequer from the temporalia amounted on average to about £1,000 a year. From 1186 the spiritualia were in possession of Hubert Walter, the nonresident dean.482 Since York was kept vacant until 1189, the accumulated gross income amounted to several thousands of pounds. Henry II had evidently agreed to the appointment of his illegitimate son, Geoffrey, to the archbishopric, and upon the king's death in July 1189 Geoffrey was nominated by Richard I. He appears to have been elected by a majority faction of the canons but refused by a minority led by the dean. It was an act which reflected the unsettled and contentious character of the York chapter, and which set the stage for the long and often violent struggle with the archbishop until he left for exile on the continent in 1207. Although he was not to be consecrated until August of 1191 and was not enthroned in his cathedral church until November of that year, Geoffrey immediately began a refractory dispute with the chapter over rights of patronage and jurisdiction and, most important, the right to appoint the dean. The archbishop, in return for a substantial payment, was supported by the king and the canons themselves seemed unable to act together in the face of that powerful, albeit temporary, combination. The details of the quarrel, which was far more political than ecclesiastical, due more to personalities than to principles, and 481 482

W . Stubbs, RS-si iv, p. xxxix; William o f Newburgh, EHD n, p. 359. Ibid., p. 7.

358

The secular cathedrals

involved at various times, the archbishop, members of the chapter, the new king, various papal commissions, and several other English bishops, including Hubert Walter as archbishop of Canterbury, have been laid out in the pages of Roger of Howden.483 In this play of power the prize was the plum of patronage, the right to appoint to ecclesiastical office whereby one could satisfy supporters and control loyalties at the same time, and bring in a substantial cash value. The archiepiscopal estates were confiscated, and then returned, by Richard and by John on at least four occasions. At one point John took over the lands and revenues of the chapter as well.484 Geoffrey's intrusion into capitular affairs also resulted in the temporary diversion of income into his own hands and in the long run there probably was a net loss to the chapter. In 1195, for instance, the papal delegates who had been sent to York to hear and judge the complaints of the canons, viewed the drop in revenues as a consequence of the archbishop's degradations, and they assigned a compensatory sum to the chapter of 2,550 marks.485 Although this was a very large figure for the time, it fell short of Geoffrey's payment of 3,000 marks made to King Richard in 1194 in return for the shrievalty of York, and not much more than the £2,000 he had paid earlier for confirmation to his see.486 But it is doubtful if the canons were ever reimbursed by the archbishop, since he was quickly forgiven by the pope and reinstated by the king. 487 The opposing faction in the chapter, of course, had not been idle. In June 1194 they obtained a privilege from Celestine III which, as a reflection of the views of the chapter on their current problems, is not without interest. The pope confirmed all their lands and rights. The archbishop was forbidden to excommunicate the dean, the canons or their clerks without their consent, nor was he to suspend sentences or revoke judgments made by them. The dean was not to do homage to the archbishop on account of his ecclesiastical benejicia, and the archbishop was not to distrain the goods of the canons or to lay down money fines as penalties. The 483

484 485 486

Decima Douie, Archbishop Geoffrey Plantagenet and the Chapter at York, B o r t h w i c k Papers n o . 18 (York i960); M . B . Lovatt, " T h e Career and Administration of Archbishop Geoffrey of Y o r k : 1151?—1212," P h . D . dissentation, University of C a m b r i d g e (1976); Chris Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis, The Royal Bastards of Medieval England (London 1984), chap. 8. Cartae Antiquae Rolls, 1-10, n o . 46. Historians of the Church of York, RS-71, in, p p . 99-104. 487 Roger of H o w d e n , RS-si, p . 261. Ibid., p p . 305-319.

359

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England archbishop might collate to prebends with the approval of the dean, but new canons were to swear loyalty to the church, and they were to be installed by members of the community. Of even greater significance, they were not allowed to reveal the secrets of the chapter to anyone.488 What could be a more apt symbol of a well-developed source of communal identity, of cohesive strength, collective protectiveness, and common interests, than the idea that there were secrets which were theirs and from which everyone else was excluded? The papal privilege was an attempt to assure the canons of a certain degree of self-administration by noting the points in their relationship with the archbishop which were most likely to be abused to their disadvantage. Had both sides agreed to accept the rules, the chapter at York would have taken an important step forward as an independent body. As it was, Geoffrey in no way felt himself bound by them. He was well aware of his legitimate archiepiscopal prerogatives and he spent most of his tenure at York making sure that he retained them. It is, nevertheless, significant that neither Simon, the dean of York, nor Hamo, the treasurer, witnessed any of Geoffrey's extant charters in the last decade of the twelfth century, although there are numerous charters of Simon, who by this time had his own seal, and of Hamo and the chapter by which they confirm grants of lands and privileges made by the chapter collectively.489 The twelfth century, therefore, came to a close at York with a well-developed chapter but with a good many uncertainties with regard to its precise relationship with the archbishop. Some of these were resolved during the long pontificate of Walter de Grey from 1215 to 1255. His success in placing the chapter on a solid footing with archiepiscopal authority was a result of integrating the canons with his own household in the administration of the diocese. This, in turn, was due to the careful exercise of his right to appoint to prebends and offices, so that the more promising of the candidates would be selected, and to greater insistence on the requirements for residency, which brought the canons to York minster for at least half of the year. Despite the ever-present opportunity for the privileges of the canons, individually and collectively, to be imperceptibly absorbed into the archbishop's custom, this scheme apparently provided a better way of dealing 488 489

Historians of the Church of York, RS-71, m, p. 97. Lovatt, "Archbishop Geoffrey of York," p. 94; C. H. H. Blair, "Catalogue of Durham seals," pp. 137, 142.

360

The secular cathedrals with internal problems than the time-honored, but often wasteful and destructive, course of appeals to Rome, to Canterbury, or to Westminster. The chief danger was that members of the chapter would be recruited by the archbishop for his own purposes. What this meant can be seen in the controversy which arose almost a century later in the time of Archbishop William Melton. He claimed a long list of rights which included the requirement that the dean and other dignitaries take an oath of obedience to him. In the case of the dean he wished him to swear on behalf of all the canons, which was clearly a device to intrude himself constitutionally further into the affairs of the chapter. But the canons replied that the dean had never made a promise binding the others, but only himself.490 In the face of this resistance it is not known that Melton ever pursued the matter further. Thus the chapter had become the bulwark of protection for the canons individually. Without that strength they were constantly vulnerable to the exercise of archiepiscopal power, as had been the case up to the beginning of the thirteenth century. 490

S. Brown, " A dispute between Archbishop Melton and the dean and chapter of York: c. 1336-1338," BIHR 54 (1981), 116.

361

Chapter 5

THE CHAPTER AS COMMUNITY

It was in a way paradoxical that as the episcopal church in the Anglo-Norman kingdom under the influence of the ideas of the reform movement began to distance itself in several respects from secular society, it came more firmly under the jurisdiction of the king and was obliged to assume more of the burdens of a worldly life. The inclination toward a celibate priesthood, free of simony and lay investiture, distinctive in dress and ritual, and selfgoverning in law, was countered by the treatment of bishops as barons, their property being subject to royal approval, and their legal competence determined by a royal court. In regard to the assets of individual churches and their allocation, the king's influence particularly was felt by his intervention sede vacante, and by the assessment of quotas for military service due from the tenants-in-chief, ecclesiastical as well as lay. On the last two points some further comment seems worthwhile. As to the king's position during a vacancy, it has been shown that the exercise of regalian right was, by and large, a practice which took hold in the Anglo-Norman period. There appears to be no strong evidence that the Old English kings assumed they had the right to dispose of the revenues of vacant bishoprics or abbeys. The threat of appropriation by royal agents, therefore, was not an important factor in the allocation of estates before the Conquest. 1 Under William I and his sons, however, the cathedral chapters were more and more obliged to take the possibility of a loss of revenue on that account into consideration, and the desirability of a division of assets between bishop and chapter was an issue with which they were increasingly concerned. Although it is often said that in theory the king was entitled only to the revenues from the bishop's share, there appears to have been no legal justification for 1

Howell, Regalian Right, pp. 10-19; Brooks, The Early History of the Church of Canterbury, p. 309; MO, pp. 612-615; OV vra, p. 174.

362

The chapter as community

such a rule until well after the time the property was separated. In any case, this was more the chapter's view of things than the king's, and throughout much of the twelfth century and beyond, the mensal separation was no guarantee that the capitular privileges would be respected. When Orderic Vitalis tells us that William I sent his agents (prudentes legatos ad orbatum domum mittebat) to

describe in writing the possessions of a vacant see lest they be wasted by incompetent custodians, not much more can be inferred from what he says than that the king had an interest in the orderly process of government which would ultimately be to his benefit.2 It could be argued that because of the potential loss involved, the king should never have consented to a separation of property at all.3 But while this is an eminently reasonable position to take, it is one which would have been difficult to maintain in the face of the slow but inexorable pressure exerted by the cathedral chapters on all fronts for jurisdictional and financial independence. Nevertheless, because the larger portion of the assets in the eleventh and early twelfth century tended to belong to the bishop, when the king intervened, even though he confined his interest to the mensa episcopalis, he was assured of significant income. The chapter, therefore, faced the dilemma of remaining the poorer relation in order to avoid the risk of having its property sequestered, or of growing affluent and powerful and thereby increasing the chances that its wealth would be reduced. As the later history was to prove, most of the chapters were more than willing to take the risk. Nevertheless, kings in general were at some pains to keep their bishoprics intact in order to draw upon their wealth. William I ordered the demesne land of the churches restored by the sheriffs who had profited unjustly by taking it.4 William II moved to have the canons of Lincoln reseised of lands lost after the king had fallen ill.5 Henry I was concerned to maintain the rights of the bishop of Lincoln in his baronial court from which the king enjoyed a share. If those summoned did not attend, the bishop was to fine them until they complied, "lest," said Henry, "I should lose the money which the bishop owes me in respect of this. " 6 In the reign of Henry II it was provided by the articles of the inquest of 1170 that an accounting was to be made 2

4 5

OK iv, p. 238. See alsojocelin olf Brakelond, Cronica, p. 8; Howell, Regalian Right, p. 3 37See Wood, English Monasteries, pp. 78, 156-157. EHD 11, no. 38, dated 1077. Cf. Regesta 1, nos. 50 and 98. 6 Regesta 1, no. 407 and Caenegem, Writs, no. 68. LRS-RA 1, p. 41.

363

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England of what had been taken unjustly from the bishoprics by the deans and archdeacons so that it might be restored.7 As a rule, it was in the interests of the chapter to have grants by the bishop and others confirmed by the king. But while a royal charter may have been a precious addition to the cathedral cartulary, it was inherently a device for royal control.8 When a vacancy occurred, different kings acted in different ways, but the usual response, when royal authority was secure, was to ignore whatever mensal division might have existed and, after providing for the basic support of the clergy, to take whatever assets were required, including, if necessary, a supplementary tallage on the see. This could be justified by arguing that the alienation of royal estates under the Norman kings meant that the lost revenue had to be made up in other ways, such as by payments from the exercise of feudal rights, including wardship, which in ecclesiastical terms meant the control of vacant sees and abbeys.9 At times the members of the chapter could find themselves in an uncomfortable position without sufficient income. Such was the case at Canterbury, for instance, after the death of Lanfranc in 1089 when William Rufus gave out some of the lands to his friends.10 On the other hand, a descent by the royal agents did not always spell disaster, and by the terms of the agreement at Worcester, and probably at Durham and Chichester, William appears to have been more generous.11 In the next reign, however, in spite of the promise given in his coronation charter that the church should have its liberties, Henry I kept bishoprics open, appointed new bishops and, like his brother, taxed the tenants of vacant sees. Although gross income from the exercise of regalian right was small in comparison with that from other sources, it was 7 8

EHD 11, no. 48, c. 12. Regesta 1, nos. 155, 230, 318, 326, 336, 357, 385, 426. Nevertheless, it was widely felt in twelfth-century ecclesiastical circles that a church could not long remain vacant without the risk of losing its property and endangering the salvation of its members. In the Summa Coloniensis of 1169, an early commentary on the Decretum, it was thought that the delay in choosing a successor should not exceed three months. The canons of the fourth Lateran council in 1215 made this rule mandatory. SeeJSL 1, no. 117; Jean Gaudemet, Les Elections dans Veglise latine des origines au XVIe siecle (Paris 1979), p. 152;

9 10 11

Lateran IV, c. 23. Howell, Regalian Right, p. 24; J. A. Green, "William Rufus, Henry I and the royal demesne," History 64 (1979), 337—352. HN, pp. 26-27; ASC, s.a. 1100; GR 11, p. 369; O F i v , p. 172. For Worcester: Regesta 1, no. 388; Regesta 11, nos. 940, 1044-1045; For Durham: Regesta 1, no. 412. For Chichester: ibid, nos. 352 and 460. See the discussion by Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 234ff.

364

The chapter as community

nevertheless a significant amount. 12 Stephen, in a weaker political position, seems not to have exploited the vacancies at Canterbury, Durham, London, Rochester, Salisbury and York which occurred in his time. But Henry II returned to the practices of his grandfather. His excuse for taking the revenues, declared William of Newburgh, was that it was far better to use the money for the good of the kingdom than for the idle pleasures of indolent bishops.13 Although William could rarely resist a pointed comment, given the excessively expensive households and entourages of the greater prelates of the day, the king's rationalization was not without some foundation. Both Richard and John continued Henry's exploitation of vacancies by diversion of income to the exchequer, as well as by supplementary tallages.14 Since the bishop was married to his church in an indissoluble union, a vacancy normally occurred when he died and was, therefore, unpredictable.15 But it might happen that a see was left open by the prelate's translation, deposition, or resignation, and thus could be subject to royal or ecclesiastical manipulation. Although long vacancies in wealthy sees were obviously of financial advantage to the king, in a number of cases the length of 12 13

14 15

J. A. Green, The Government of England under Henry /, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 3 (Cambridge 1986), p. 80. " Nonne melius est ut pecuniae istae impendantur necessariis regni nogotiis quam in episcoporum absumantur deliciis ?" Cited by N. Partner, Serious Entertainments. The Writing of History in Twelfth-Century England (Chicago 1977), pp. 87-88. Howell, Regalian Right, pp. 44—59. "Cathedral churches," said John of Pontoise, the thirteenth-century bishop of Winchester, "are the brides of bishops" (Registrum Johannis de Pontissara, 11, pp. 681-682). Eadmer spoke of the bishop as husband of his church (HN, pp. 2$ff). Herbert of Norwich referred to the grants to his church as a dower (Primum Registrum, p. 38). Hugh of Lisieux called his church his wife (OV v, pp. 14-16). In more precise terms, Innocent HI laid out the sequence of steps leading to the union which in a carnal marriage was begun in betrothal, approved in consent and consummated in sexual intercourse, but in a spiritual marriage was begun in election, approved in confirmation, and consummated in consecration (MPL ccxvn, cl. 663). The symbolism of the ring was conventional, and the relationship was cited by Gratian (Decretum, C. vii, q. 1. c.xi). Long tenures meant fewer vacancies and fewer opportunities for royal intervention. Compare the terms of Henry of Winchester (1129—1171), Robert Bloet of Lincoln (1093-1123), Herbert of Norwich (1090-1119) and William of Norwich (1146-1174), Roger of Salisbury (1102-1139) andjocelin of Salisbury (1142-1184), Thurstan of York (1114—1140), John of Bath (1088—1122), Theobald of Canterbury (1139—1161), Hugh de Puiset of Durham (1153-1195), Hervey of Ely (1109-1131) and Nigel of Ely (113 3-1169), and William Warelwast of Exeter (1107—1137), with the short terms of, say, Alfred of Worcester (1158-1160), Gerard of Coventry (1183-1184), Henry Murdac of York (1147—1153), or Reginald Fitz-Jocelin of Canterbury (NovemberDecember 1191).

365

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Table 5. Episcopal vacancies in number of years from 1066 to 1216 {rounded to the nearest half-year) Carlisle 46 Canterbury 19^ 3- Durham 195 4- Exeter 19^ 5- Lincoln i 6 | 6. Coventry 16 7. Hereford 16 8. London 14! 9- Worcester 13 York 11 10. Chichester o± 11. Bath 9 12. 13- Salisbury q\ H. Ely6| 15- Winchester $\ 16. Norwich 4 17. Rochester z\ I.

2.

time the see was open was due more to the difficulty of finding a suitable candidate upon whom all parties, king, archbishop, chapter, and pope, could agree, than to the desire of the king to exploit the ecclesiastical resources for his own purposes. The problem can be illustrated by the delays at Canterbury on the death of Lanfranc in 1089, and at Winchester on the death of Walkelin in 1098, in the reign of William II; at Canterbury on the death of Anselm in 1109 and at Durham on the death of Flambard in 1128 under Henry I; and at London on the death of Gilbert in 1134 and at Canterbury on the death of William in 1136 during Stephen's time.16 Because of the play of these factors it was not always possible to keep the wealthiest sees open for the longest time. Nevertheless, over the course of a century and a half, Canterbury, Durham, Lincoln, and Exeter, which had large endowments, were, except for Carlisle, the ones which were most often vacant, as shown in table 5. As to the wealth of the sees, Corbett's calculations of income 16

See the comment by F. Barlow in regard to these matters under William II where the rehabilitation of the king is strengthened by showing that some of the vacancies were not entirely his fault, F. Barlow, William Rufus, p. 181.

366

The chapter as community Table 6. Income of the English bishoprics in 1086 (in £) Canterbury Winchester 3- London 4- Lincoln (Dorchester) 5- Salisbury (Old Sarum) 6. Worcester 7- Norwich (Thetford) 8. York 9- Exeter Wells 10. 11. Hereford Rochester 12. 13. Durham 14. Chichester IS- Chester I.

2.

i,75O 1,000 615 600 600

480 420

370 360 325 280 220 205

138 85

Table 7. Income of the English bishops in 1086

(in £) Canterbury Winchester 3- Lincoln 4- Salisbury 5- Exeter 6. London 7- Worcester 8. Norwich 9- Wells 10. Rochester Chichester 11. 12. Chester 13. York 14. Durham 15. Hereford 1.

1170

2.

920

660 580 460 440 390 360 285 220

142

96 — — —

based on the Domesday returns provide the schedule given in table 6.17 Recalculated by Brett to reflect only the episcopal income, the ranking of the sees was adjusted slightly and York, Durham, and 17

CMHwy pp. 509-511.

367

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Hereford omitted as uncertain (see table 7). 18 If the number of knights' fees created by mid-century can be used as a rough indication of wealth, then the list of sees should be adjusted again to allow Durham and Ely a more prominent place (table 8). 19 This list is supported to some extent by the figures which can be derived from the accounting of 1212 when certain of the sees were in the king's hands as forfeitures under the interdict (table 9). 20 It can also be corroborated roughly by the much later estimated figures for net taxable income from the Valor ecclesiasticus of 1535 (table 10).21 These comparisons reveal a fairly consistent pattern among the more affluent houses which based on the above values would have to include Canterbury, Winchester, Lincoln, Durham, Ely. and eventually, York. This ranking accords with the one derived from the estimated annual average income during a vacancy made by Margaret Ho well for the late twelfth century (table n). 2 2 The possible return to the king in goods and services from vacant sees was obviously substantial, and neither the privilege of lordship which conferred upon him the control of lands and feudal dues, nor of patronage, which gave him authority over elections and appointments to livings, was one which he could afford to forgo. It is not surprising, therefore, that during the twelfth century there was a consistent pattern of intervention by the king in all of the English cathedral churches, and one is bound to ask to what extent did the exercise of regalian right influence the mensal division? The answer, I think, is two-fold. On the one hand a separation of goods was often thought to be a key requirement in preventing assets which had been allocated to the support of the chapter from being sequestered. It was undoubtedly true, as 18

19 20 21

22

Brett, English Church Under Henry I, p . 103, note 1. Actual wealth, of course, is very difficult to measure since it must be related to expenses, and there is n o t sufficient statistical information for the cathedral churches to d o that w i t h any precision. F u r t h e r m o r e , the total gross i n c o m e , from all sources, is never clearly indicated. T h e D o m e s d a y figures, for instance, w h i c h are based on landed income d o n o t reveal revenue from churches, tithes, or other ecclesiastical dues, n o r d o they take account of judicial payments. It is probably correct, therefore, to consider that the estimated income is consistently o n the l o w side. T h e figures are taken from Keefe, Feudal Assessments, p p . 157—158. P. M . Barnes, PR 14 J o h n , vol. x x x . F. Heal, Of Prelates and Princes. A Study of the Economic and Social Position of the Tudor Episcopate ( C a m b r i d g e 1980), p. 54. T h e figures given here are very close to those cited for the Valor in EHD iv, p . 725. T h e chief differences are that in the latter c o m p u t a t i o n Winchester is rated at approximately £$,880 and Y o r k at approximately £ 1 , 6 1 0 . H o w e l l , Regalian Right, p p . 212—233.

368

The chapter as community Table 8. Episcopal knights' fees in the mid-twelfth century I. 2.

3456. 78. 910.

II. 12.

1314. 15. 16. 17-

Lincoln Canterbury Winchester Ely Durham Worcester Norwich York Salisbury Exeter London Bath Hereford Coventry Chichester Rochester Carlisle

104.0

91-5 74-5 72.25 69.8 57.3 48.5 47-37 43-1 37.16 ( + 7.5 after 1177) 36.14 20.6 18.5 15.0 12.11 — —

Table 9. Income of the English bishoprics in manu

regis in 1212 (in £) I. 2.

3456. 78. 910.

Durham Canterbury Lincoln York London Wells Salisbury Chichester Worcester Exeter

2,650 1,128 1,108 1,018 978 640 626 57i

399 157

contemporary writers inform us, that this solution to the problem was in the minds of many of the reformers, although it is clear that a divided mensa did not always afford the protection which the chapter sought. On the other hand, the interval between the departure of one bishop and the election of his successor was a time when the chapter had the greatest opportunity to develop an 369

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Table 10. Net taxable income of the English bishoprics in 1535 (in £) I. 2.

34. 56. 78. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13-

H1516. 17.

Winchester Canterbury Durham Ely

York Lincoln Bath/Wells Exeter Salisbury London Worcester Norwich Hereford Coventry/Lichfield Chichester Carlisle Rochester

3,885 3,224 2,821 2,135 2,036 1,963 1,844 1,567 1,368 1,119 1,050 979 769 703 677 541 411

Table 11. Annual average income of the English bishoprics sede vacante in the late twelfth century (in £) I. 2.

3. 456. 78. 910. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Canterbury Durham York Winchester Lincoln

1,300 1,300/4,000 1,400 1,000 850

Ely

800 400 400 400 300 250

Salisbury Exeter Bath London Hereford Worcester Chichester Norwich Coventry Rochester Carlisle

250 250 100 100 100

50

370

The chapter as community

independent administration. If the royal commissioners had made an adequate allowance for the chapter, a precedent would have been established which would have served to mark more clearly the division of the endowment and which would have provided the chapter with the basis for an argument in favor of a permanent separation. Moreover, although there is very little information on how this was carried out, sede vacante operation was the most direct way of proving the value of a mensal division. In the twelfth century, however, the still underdeveloped structure of the capitular body and the dearth of contemporary references make it difficult to determine the effectiveness of the cathedral clergy in running the operations of the church when the bishop was not in office. Occasionally there is a hint as to restrictions on the king's authority to exploit the assets during a vacancy, which may imply that as time went on an important part of the property of the church was not infrequently left in the hands of the chapter. In 1229, for instance, the custody of Ely priory sede vacante was specifically given by the king to the monks. At the end of the century, however, nothing prevented the commissioners from taking over both the episcopal and the monastic assets.23 No satisfactory distinction, moreover, had yet been worked out in regard to the meaning of spiritualia and temporalia in order to restrict the access of the royal agents to church funds. The words themselves in the twelfth century seem not to have displaced the more general terms such as res, redditus, and terrae.2* Although spiritualia came to refer to income from sources such as tithes, oblations of one kind or another, and ecclesiastical benefices, while temporalia meant income from manors, estates, markets, and tolls, only gradually were these meanings sorted out. 25 It was not until the thirteenth century that a formal definition of the terms was recognized by the papacy.26 Before then, both clerics and laymen contributed to the confusion. King Stephen, who sought to win the confidence and support of the prelates by the wording of his 23 24 25

26

Ibid., pp. 6 9 - 7 0 ; R. Graham, "The administration o f the diocese o f Ely during the vacancies o f the see: 1298-1299 and 1302-1303," TRHS 4th ser. 12 (1929), 50. W . Lunt, The Valuation of Norwich (Oxford 1926), p. 74. "Spiritualia in the eleventh century usually referred to any payment specifically associated with a sacerdotal function," Constable, "Monastic possession," p. 308. See also Barlow, The English Church I, pp. i59fF. Innocent III, for instance, gave the custody of the see o f St. David's when it was vacant, including spiritualia and temporalia, to Gerald o f Wales, the archdeacon. The Letters of Pope Innocent HI, no. 337. Morey and Brooke, Gilbert Foliot, p. 178.

371

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England coronation charter, vaguely left the possessions of vacant sees in the hands of members of the chapter.27 But the Constitutions of Clarendon (c. 12) declared that all the income from a vacant bishopric or archbishopric was to go to the king.28 Henry II was not inclined to make a distinction between spiritualia and temporalia which might have enhanced the position of the chapter at royal expense. The tendency of the chapter, of course, was to enlarge the definition of spiritualia to preserve as much income to themselves as possible. King John generally followed a course which was to his own advantage. At York in 1207 when Archbishop Geoffrey opposed the collection of the property tax of the so-called "thirteenth" laid on his tenants, the assets of the chapter were in fact distinguished from those of the archbishop's barony. Which portion of them made up the temporalia and which the spiritualia, however, was not made clear.29 As it turned out, the question was of little actual importance since the king soon seized everything in sight. He acted in a similar way when he refused the nomination of Stephen Langton and expelled the monks, and did so again at the time of the interdict.30 When in 1254 a papal tax was imposed on all church revenues, the clergy claimed that the lay property which they held was to be excluded. Baronies and lay fees, they argued, did not generate ecclesiastical income. 31 Nor was it clear, as they maintained, that their temporalia consisted of property subject to lay subsidies while their spiritualia consisted of property which was exempt.32 But in spite of the fact that in Magna Carta (c. 22) a distinction had been made, the pope insisted on full liability. In the thirteenth century the right of the chapter to administer church property sede vacante was also a matter of discussion among the canonists. Where was power located when there was no bishop ? Framed originally in terms of the theocratic source of 27 29

30

31

28 SC, p. 144. Ibid., p. 163. " A t Gaufridus Eboracensis archiepiscopus, id in praejudicium ac subversionem ecclesiasticae libertatis fieri perpendens, praesertim cum homines suos de feodo ecclesiae terras suas tenentes plurimum in hac parte cerneret jam gravatos vel in proximo gravandos, hujusmodi exactores, eos maxime qui bona ecclesiae vel ad ipsius feodum pertinentia invaserant aut invaderent, anathematis vinculo innodavit..." Gervase o f Canterbury, RS-73 11, appx. to preface, p. lix. CPL 1, p. 74; C. R. Cheney, "King John and the papal interdict," BJRL 31 (1948), 301-307. In the special case o f Rochester, it was the archbishop w h o bestowed the temporalia on the bishop, seeking the king's consent neither for the election, nor for the consecration, Anglia Sacra, vol. 1, pp. 386—387. 32 Lunt, The Valuation of Norwich, pp. 63-67. Ibid., pp. 72-73.

372

The chapter as community royal power (where was power located when there was no king?), this question, or rather its answer, was used to confirm the fact that in theory the people as a whole were excluded from governing during an interregnum because all the king's power returned to Christ.33 When applied to the problem of the vacant see, there were several answers possible. Rufinus had thought that the chapter could exercise episcopal administrative and jurisdictional authority during a vacancy and, in an archbishopric, it might confirm the election of new bishops in the province.34 Hostiensis, while he held that the bishop's potestas ordinis might be assumed by the chapter of his church during a vacancy, was inclined to limit its rights to issues which concerned merely capitular affairs.35 In neither case was it maintained that the chapter simply recovered powers which it had delegated to the bishop in the first place. Rather, it was assumed that the episcopal authority which was acquired through election, if not through ordination, descended to the canons during the temporary period of the vacancy.36 As far as the papacy was concerned, although the place of the chapter in the cathedral church was given more extensive consideration during the century after the appearance of the Decretum, its exact legal position remained imprecise. There is no doubt that the benefits of a divided mensa were recognized, but little was said about what functions the canons could undertake in the absence of the prelate.37 The mandate of Lucius III (i 181-1185) providing that sede vacante cathedral chapters were to try persons accused of heresy has been traditionally quoted as an early example of a power which had devolved to the clergy.38 But it appears to have been an isolated case, and it was not until the early thirteenth century that Honorius III (1216—1227) broadened the authority by allowing a chapter to exercise the episcopal right of appointing to prebends when the see was vacant.39 To what extent papal law 33

34 35 37

38

39

By Walter Ullmann in an attempt to prove the legal basis of theocratic kingship, Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn. (London 1966), p. 133, w i t h references there t o Ernst H . K a n t o r o w i c z , The King's Two Bodies. A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton 1957), p p . 334—335. R. L. Benson, The Bishop-Elect, p p . 85, 106; T i e r n e y , Foundations, p p . 128—130. 36 Ibid., p . 128, n o t e 4. Ibid., p p . 126, 129. See, for e x a m p l e , t h e letters o f I n n o c e n t HI c o n c e r n i n g t h e affairs at G l a s t o n b u r y a b b e y w h i c h was u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l o f the bishop o f B a t h , Letters of Pope Innocent III, nos. 437, 695. T i e r n e y , Foundations, p . 1 2 8 ; L. G. D u g g a n , Bishop and Chapter. The Governance of the Bishopric of Speyer to 1552 ( N e w B r u n s w i c k 1978), p . 27. Decretales Gregorii IX, in. 9. ii in CIC 11, cl. 5 0 1 .

373

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England affected English practice in this regard is hard to say, but the establishment of the prior's council at Canterbury in the midthirteenth century, which was concerned with the legal definition of capitular rights sede vacante, is an indication that canonist arguments were not neglected.40 Yet papal recognition of the right of the chapter to govern the church and, to some extent, diocesan affairs during a vacancy, which was developed in a more formal way toward the end of the thirteenth century, was nevertheless vitiated by continual papal intervention in the administration and by the appointment of papal procurators from the outside.41 Undoubtedly influenced by the polemic of the canonist debate, since they quote Hostiensis, the canons at Lincoln in 1313 advanced the theory that they were able to exercise full episcopal power sede vacante because the chapter was the source of the bishop's authority.42 As will be seen, this was a theory which reached to the heart of the argument in favor of an independent chapter, and which, of course, was directly related to the increasingly persuasive but divisive ideas of the later conciliarists. But there was no firm precedent in the history of the church in England to lend this claim significant support. The development of capitular home rule, therefore, on the practical level was advanced rather by specific arrangements which were made in certain of the churches in the course of the thirteenth century. At Lincoln, London, Salisbury, and Worcester, the archbishop of Canterbury chose a member of the chapter to act for him during a vacancy. At Worcester it was the prior. Thus both the claim of the metropolitan to act in loco episcopi and the claim to capitular autonomy could be satisfied.43 The list of grievances submitted to the king by the English bishops in 1257, in connection with the grant of a subsidy, expressed in the first article the then current concern over the exercise of regalian right in cathedral and conventual churches. During a vacancy, the prelates complained, the convents were taxed, their lands and stock impoverished and the income allocated 40

41 42 43

R. A. L. Smith, Canterbury Cathedral Priory. A Study in Monastic Administration ( C a m b r i d g e 1943), p p . 6 8 - 6 9 ; PUE 11, 250—251. See the discussion in L. G. D u g g a n , Bishop and Chapter, p p . 3 0 - 3 1 . Edwards, English Secular Cathedrals, pp. 97-98. Churchill, Canterbury Administration, vol. 1, p p . 161, i69fF. Metropolitan jurisdiction sede vacante for the n o r t h e r n province was claimed b y the archbishop o f Y o r k . Cf. R. Brentano, York Metropolitan Jurisdiction and Papal Judges Delegate I27g-i2g6 (Berkeley

1959), PP- 19-22.

374

The chapter as community to the conventual mensa was seized by the custodians along with the abbot's share.44 One might also add that it could happen that when a cathedral priory fell vacant, as occurred at Ely in 1271, the king might seize the prior's goods and lands even though the bishop was in office and should have had the custody.45 Or it might be the case that the royal commissioners took over the episcopal mensa as well as the goods of the priory which, at the time, was not vacant.46 This happened at Winchester in 1239 and conventual vulnerability in that see was still a problem late in the century.47 If it was a habitual characteristic of medieval royal goverment to forbid a practice and then to grant an exception for a fee, it was obvious to bishops and cathedral chapters, as well as to abbots and convents, that the way to avoid the uncertain consequences of the exercise of regalian right was to buy the king off. In John's time, the dean and chapter at each of the cathedrals of York, Hereford, and London, and the prior and convent of Norwich, paid the king to keep their privileges intact. 48 In 1299 when the see was vacant, the prior and monks of Ely paid 1,000 marks to the king to insure that the priory and its mensa would not escheat with the bishop's portion, whereby they hoped to avoid the disaster of 1271.49 These were pressing problems of the day, and the independent abbeys were affected as much as the cathedral churches. At Bury St. Edmunds in 1281 the king was paid 1,000 marks for a new confirmation of the division of the mensa so that in the future no uncertainty would arise sede vacante as to which part belonged to 44

45

47 48 49

" I n primis, q u o d , vacantibus ecclesiis cathedralibus seu conventualibus, conventus talliantur, terrae relinquuntur incultae, vastantur n e m o r a , parci et vivaria, c o r r u u n t edificia, diripiuntur b o n a , d e p a u p e r a n t u r villani et male tractantur, ita q u o d mendicare c o g u n t u r praelati succedentes per t e m p o r a diuturna, q u o d est contra d o m i n i regis cartam et etiam ecclesiasticam libertatem. Et in t a n t u m j a m crevit malitia, q u o d escaetores n o n ad b o n a a b b a t u m et p r i o r u m usui decedentium deputata m a n u s extendunt, v e r u m etiam ad blada instaurata et alia quibus conventus sustentari d e b e t . . . , " M a t t h e w Paris, Chronica Majora, RS-S7 vi, p . 353. W o o d , English Monasteries, p . 79. This action was later found t o have been i m p r o p e r 46 Ibid. and the p r o p e r t y o f the convent was restored. Registrant Johannis de Pontissara, vol. 11, p. 683. PR 2 J o h n , p p . n o , 242, 153, 147. Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1, p. 4 1 9 ; see Knowles, Religious Orders, vol. 1, p. 2 7 3 ; W o o d , English Monasteries, p. 78. Since the custodians of Ely had been ordered to pay 2,000 marks out of the grain harvest, rents, and other revenues of the bishopric in order to defray the expenses of John, the king's nephew and royal lieutenant in Aquitaine, the fine doubtless appeared to be a good arrangement. Cf. Calendar of Patent Rolls, m (1292-1301), p. 435.

375

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England the abbot and which to the convent.50 This had come about after a long history of confused endowments, and as recently as 1279, after the death of Simon, the king had seized the convent's property as well as the abbot's.51 Nevertheless, notwithstanding his declared affection for the abbey and the previous costly agreement, in 1297 the king took in hand all the goods and manors of both abbot and convent.52 Likewise at St. Albans in 1290, on the death of Abbot Roger, the royal custodians sequestered not only the abbot's goods but also those of the monks, nor did they cease to encroach on the abbey's lands until paid off by the prior.53 In 1301 St. Albans offered 1,000 marks to the king to keep their rights sede vacante, Bury paid another 1,200 marks in 1304 and Evesham 600 marks in 1309.54 In 1320 the mensal division at Abingdon abbey was annulled by Edward II as being without the king's authority or consent, and overseers were appointed to distribute what property was required for "the reasonable maintenance of the convent. " 55 At about the same time the chapters at Exeter, Lincoln, London, and Salisbury were obliged to settle a sum on the king in order to administer the temporalia of their vacant bishoprics.56 So much, one might say, for the divided mensa. But although chapters and convents sede vacante still remained at the mercy of the monarch, the cathedral churches, by forging what by the thirteenth century had become a communal identity, had at least a firm basis upon which to argue, to bargain, and to appeal to ancient tradition. The thirteenth-century disputes between the bishop and chapter which took place in so many of the cathedrals were due in part to the attempt by the bishops to regain privileges which their predecessors had recently ceded to the dean and canons, or to the prior and monks. Connected with the problem of sede vacante administration and its effect on the division of the mensa, was the obligation of the episcopal tenants-in-chief to furnish military service to the king. 50

51

52 53

55 56

" Impetrata est a d o m i n o rege d e n o v o separacio inter b o n a abbatis et c o n v e n t u s sancti E a d m u n d i ita q u o d d e cetero nullo casu c o n f u n d a n t u r . . . , " Chronicle of Bury St. Edmunds, p. 73. " M o r t u o S y m o n e abbate sancti Eadmundi, dominus rex tarn porcionem conventus q u a m baroniam occupavit, q u o d quidem hactenus fuit inauditum," ibid., p . 68. Ibid., p . 139. Gesta Abbatum Monasterii Sancti Albani, ed. H. T. Riley KS-28 (1867-1869) 11, pp. 54 Knowles, Religious Orders, vol. 1, pp. 278-279. 3-6. Calendar of Patent Rolls, E d . II, v o l . 111 (1317—1321), p p . 526-527. Edwards, English Secular Cathedrals, p. 100.

376

The chapter as community

The bishop as baron held estates which escheated when he died, and as baron he enfeoffed church estates as knights' fees. Did the imposition of military quotas on the lands of the greater English churches contribute to the development of the divided mensa?57 The new relationship of the episcopate to the king after 1066 thrust the burden of the servitium debitum upon the bishops, rather than upon the canons or the monks of the cathedral church, and it weighed heavily upon their resources, wealth, and time. Thus there was inherent in the imposition of the service a division recognized between the assets of the bishops and those of the chapter. Eventually certain of the chapters would emphasize the difference to argue against a contribution from their lands, preferring to leave the responsibility in the lap of their prelate. During an episcopal vacancy they would, in theory, likewise remain immune from assessment. In the years following the Conquest the bishops were constrained to find a sufficient number of knights to meet the demand and they did this by keeping them in the household or by enfeoffing them on their lands or on the lands of the church. Considerable time and thought must have gone into the problem of using the resources in the most efficient way. Subinfeudation meant less income to the episcopal household and even to the chapter, and household knights meant that supplies had to be diverted to their support. It was often the case that the capitular assets, due to grants by the faithful, increased at a faster rate than those of the bishops, and that consequently the latter found themselves with lessflexibilityin making their fiscal arrangements. Desirous to retain control of their endowment, the bishops were faced with the need to make a triple distribution of property, part for their own upkeep, part for the chapter, and part to supply the knights for the king and to support others whom the king might call upon them to maintain.58 At first there was naturally some 57

58

The question was raised b y Professor Douglas in regard to the monastic churches in a note to the DM. "The history o f such transactions [the division o f the mensa], and in particular their possible connection with the imposition o f knight-service upon the churches o f England still remains to be written," DM, p. 16, note 9. For the quotas imposed at an early date by William I o n at least the ecclesiastical tenants-in-chief see J. C. Holt, " T h e introduction of knight service in England," Anglo-Norman Studies, 6 (1984), 102. See the discussion for Ely above p. 155, Hereford above p. 283, and Salisbury above p. 335. Neither the bishop o f Rochester nor the bishop o f Carlisle, however, o w e d service to the king. Although in the mid-thirteenth century, the bishop of Rochester argued that he held his church in free alms exempt from secular service, in fact he traditionally

377

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England hesitancy on their part to enfeoff in great numbers. Land once subinfeudated was easily lost. Less risky was the practice of leasing estates for a set term, or of keeping knights on the demesne.59 Grants of land for a number of years, or lives, can be traced well back into the Old English period. Oswald, bishop of Worcester in the late tenth century, leased the lands of his church to his jideles for three lives, in return for which they paid dues and tolls to the church, provided the bishop with horses, acted as messengers and repaired bridges and hedges.60 After the Conquest, Bishop Wulfstan, who died in 1095, was accompanied by a group of knights who had to be fed and clothed from church funds.61 At Ely, William I ordered the abbot to keep forty knights in the Isle for garrison duty. They were maintained infra aulatn ecclesie and supported by the cellarer.62 The bishop of Thetford supplied household knights and Robert Losinga at Hereford granted out life tenures to his milites.** But before long it became apparent that enfeofFmg the knights was preferable to keeping them at home. It was inconvenient to have military men boarded in the church, leased land might be returned depleted, and there was increasing pressure from the knights themselves to have their own estates.64 The abbot of Ely gave his men lands of the church in feudum; Richard, bishop of Hereford, made the first known hereditary grant in 1121; and Bishop Everard subinfeudated the Norwich estates about the same time.65 Not only did the tendency to subinfeudate the lands of the church become widespread, but very quickly the grants were considered by the beneficiaries to be hereditary tenures. Perhaps it

59

60

62 63

64

85

o w e d his service t o the archbishop o f C a n t e r b u r y . See R o u n d , Feudal England, p . 199, note 63. H . M . Chew, The English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief and Knight Service especially in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Oxford 1932), p. 117. Examples of household knights can be found at Ely (LE1,275), and at Worcester (Vita Wulfstani, 55). Cf Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, p p . 167-168. Hemingi chartularium ecclesiae Wigorniensis, ed. T . H e a r n e , 2 vols. ( O x f o r d 1723), vol. 1, 61 p p . 292fF. GP, p . 2 8 1 . LE, p p . 2 1 6 - 2 1 8 ; Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, p . 68. B. Dodwell, " The honour of Thetford/Norwich in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries," Norfolk Archaeology 33 (1965), 188; Hollister, The Military Organization of Norman England, p p . 52—53. R o u n d , Feudal England, p . 236, n o t e 2 4 0 ; S. Painter, Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony, The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series 61, no. 3 (Baltimore 1943), pp. 17, 22. LE, pp. 216-218. Dodwell, "The honour of Thetford/Norwich " ; Hollister, The Military Organization of Norman England.

378

The chapter as community

was at that point that the bishop, as well as the chapter, wished to define their interests by a well-marked division of the mensa™ A number of the bishops can be found using lands of the church, and often lands allocated to the support of the chapter, for this purpose. Archbishop Lanfranc partly met his obligations to the king in this way. His military tenants held estates worth £342 per annum of which a third had been taken from the convent.67 The Canterbury knights were often enfeoffed on very small parcels or fractions of estates which is why he was able to count almost a hundred fees by 1094.68 m contrast to the lay barons whose actions were often limited by the interests of a single family, the ecclesiastical tenantsin-chief produced a new set of relatives to be indulged and rewarded each time an appointment was made.69 Bishop Nigel at Ely used the monks' estates for knights' fees, and Robert I of Lincoln appropriated those of the canons.70 In the latter case, a term was fixed for the lease of the six hides of land in Ascott which were held by one, Guy, of the bishop. When the estate escheated to the church, the bishop gave it out again to Guy's brother, Nigel, on condition that he, in turn, provide the military service due. On Nigel's death, however, the estate, which was in the demesne of the church, was to be returned to St. Mary quit of all claims.71 There are many other examples. The new fees created by the bishop of Worcester in the twelfth century to meet his obligations to the king were in some cases taken from the conventual allocation.72 Bishop Hugh de Puiset at Durham, very much in character as the dominant palatine lord, used the monastic properties for his own purposes.73 The practice of encroaching on the capitular mensa was thus fairly common and it can be corroborated by examples from the greater monastic houses as 66

88

69 71 72

Galbraith, "An Episcopal Land Grant"; Douglas, Feudal Documents, pp. cii—cviii. As a case in point note the conditions imposed by Gilbert, abbot of Westminster, on a grant to William Baynard (EHD11, no. 219), the problems which arose concerning the status of the lands of Abingdon abbey (ibid., no. 223), and the example of land taken by a layman from a monastery by force and then returned to him for a rent (the estate at Crowle taken by a knight of the earl of Mercia from Worcester in Hemingi chartularium, 67 vol. 1, pp. 264-265). Southern, Saint Anselm and his Biographer, p. 257. DM, pp. 71—72; S. Harvey, "The knight and the knight's fee," Past and Present 49 (1970), 32—33; H. M. Colvin, " A list of the archbishop of Canterbury's tenants by knight service in the reign of Henry II," Kent Records 18 (1964), 27. 70 HN, p. 78. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, p. 167. LRS-RA 1, n o . 6. C . D y e r , Lords and Peasants in a Changing

Society.

The Estates of the Bishopric of

Worcester:

680—1540 (Cambridge 1980), pp. 46-47. Knightwick in DB belonged to the demesne of 73 Feodarium, p. 198. the monks allocated ad victum.

379

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England well. The abbot of Abingdon, for instance, gave the monks' land to his nephew, Robert, in the time of William II and enfeoffed a knight named Hermerus by order of the king on an estate assigned de victu monachorum.7* Although there were a few cases, as at Norwich where the enfeoffments seem to have been made from the bishop's demesne, the constant threat of a reduction in the chapter's revenues by enfeoffments which more than likely would become hereditary, and so permanently alienated, must be counted as a factor in encouraging the separation of the endowment. While it is doubtful if it could be argued that either feudal demand or the exercise of regalian right caused the mensal division, both certainly affected its pace. A further sign of the chapter's move toward independent jurisdiction in the twelfth century was its claim to elect the bishop, as well as the dean or prior. This was, however, a very slow development which entangled the clergy in a protracted struggle with both the king and the pope. For most of the period royal approval of the nominee was required. Henry I followed his brother and father by insisting that the elections be held in the royal court and, to prevent the compromise of this position, by regulating appeals to Rome and the entrance of papal legates into the realm. Stephen, because of his weaker political position after 1139, largely gave up his rights, first to his brother, Henry of Winchester, and then to Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury. But with the advent of Henry II, royal authority in this regard was reestablished. In 1160, soon after the death of the bishop of Exeter, Theobald wrote to the chapter to beseech them to forsake their quarrels and private interests, and to avoid a disputed nomination by going to the king to seek the license to elect a new bishop. 75 In 1184 the canons at Lincoln sought to fill a vacancy and they proposed three candidates: Richard Fitz-Nigel, the royal treasurer and dean of Lincoln; Godfrey de Lucy, a royal clerk and a canon at Lincoln; and Herbert, the archdeacon of Canterbury. Each of them was rejected by Henry II in favor of Hugh, the prior of the Carthusian house at Witham. This was the turn which the negotiations took more often than not and it made the monarch the most important and influential figure in episcopal elections. It was Henry II who, in a celebrated letter, wrote to the convent at Winchester to say that the monks were to hold a free election, but 74

Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. J. Stevenson, 2 vols. RS-2 (1858) 11, pp. 35—36; 75 DB 1, fo. 173b. JSL 1, no. 117.

380

The chapter as community

they were not to elect anyone except Richard, his clerk.76 But royal policy, which depended for its effectiveness on political strength and baronial cooperation, was not iron-clad. In 1183 the Lincoln canons elected Walter of Coutances, a clerk in the curia regis. He was at first rejected by the king, but finally consecrated after an appeal to Rome.77 Within a year, however, he was translated to the archbishopric of Rouen. Baldwin, abbot of Ford, was probably elected to the see of Worcester in 1180 by the prior and monks.78 Gerard's appointment may have been the result of a free election at Coventry in 1183,79 In 1189 Godfrey was elected to Winchester and Richard to London; Sylvester at Worcester was the choice of the monks in 1216, and Ranulf, the prior of Norwich, was elected by the canons at Chichester in 1218; and in 1194, but not before an extended struggle with a faction of his own chapter, Herbert was consecrated bishop of Salisbury.80 Although in regard to the question of elections, the twelfthcentury papacy was caught between the two opposing plans of reform, either to support capitular control and the internal administration of the church, or to enhance the authority of the bishop as its local agent, the popes generally ruled that the canons or the monks should nominate and approve a successor bishop.81 In the legislation proposed at the second Lateran council in 1139, the cathedral canons, although they constituted the principal electoral body, were obliged to include the viri religiosi of the diocese in their deliberations.82 "Religious men" probably referred to the monks, although possibly to the broader spectrum of secular clergy.83 This injunction was repeated by Gratian in the 76 77 79

80

81

83

Q u o t e d in W . L. W a r r e n , Henry II ( L o n d o n 1973), p . 312. 78 Magna Vita, v o l . 1, p . 9 2 . Worcester Annals, RS-36 i v , p . 384. B . E. A . J o n e s , " T h e Acta o f Archbishops Richard a n d B a l d w i n : 1174—1190," P h . D . dissertation, University o f L o n d o n (1964), p . 232. H e r b e r t w a s chosen b y a g r o u p o f the canons o f Salisbury {pars major) in 1186 a n d a p p r o v e d b y the king. His election, h o w e v e r , was opposed b y another faction quia de concubina natus est, a n d a n appeal w a s m a d e t o R o m e . W h a t t h e real reason for t h e antagonism was is n o t clear. A n o t h e r eight years w e r e t o g o b y before h e was once again elected b y t h e Salisbury chapter in M a y o f 1194, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, ed. W . Stubbs, 2 vols. RS-49 (1867) 1, p . 352. See Gransden, " A democratic m o v e m e n t , " p . 27. F o r t h e legal d e v e l o p m e n t see A . Desprairies, VElection des eveques par les chapitres au XIIIe siecle (theorie canonique) (Paris 82 1922), pp. 7-i4fF. Lateran II, c. 28, COD, p. 203. Klaus Ganzer, " Zur Beschrankung der Bischofswahl auf die Domkapitel in Theorie und Praxis des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts," Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, K. A. 57 (1971), 30—33 ;Jean Gaudemet, Les Elections dans Veglise latine des origines au XVIe siecle (Paris 1979), pp. 150-151; R. L. Benson, " Election by community and chapter. Reflections on co-responsibility in the historical church," The Jurist, 31

381

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England Decretum and seems to have been the prolongation of the tradition in the early church according to which the episcopal election was to be based on a decision a clero et populo.8* By the mid-twelfth century, however, the greater number of clergy who would have to be consulted, and the increased sensitivity of the chapter to its own electoral privileges made it virtually impossible to follow the ancient principle. It was the cathedral chapter, therefore, which survived as the important body in this regard. In a letter to the bishop of Chichester in 1148, Eugenius III reminded him that a prelate should be chosen by the common consent of the chapter or its sanior pars.Sb Under Alexander III there was a renewed effort to promote free elections, that is, free from interference by the laity, which again thrust the burden to name a successor upon the chapter, although even at this point other ecclesiastics of the diocese or province were named.86 In every case, of course, the pope had to adjust his demands in respect to his current political position and to his relations with the king. Alexander III, himself, played along with Henry II's appointment of his son, Geoffrey, to the see of Lincoln, although the latter lacked legitimate birth and the proper age. The pope drew the line, however, in permitting Geoffrey, before his consecration, to exercise the episcopal right to confer livings.87 The status of the chapter was further enhanced by charges for expenses allowed to the monks or canons of the cathedral church while they were engaged in the task of choosing a new bishop. This was the case at Bath and Wells preparatory to the election of Jocelin in 1206; at Durham in 1196 when the monks were granted £40 by writ of the archbishop to reimburse them for the costs of travel related to the election; at Worcester in the same year when the monks were allowed twenty marks for going abroad and returning pro electione electi sui; and at London after the death of Gilbert Foliot in 1189.88 By this time, as well, the priority

84 86 87 88

(1971), p. 73. The suffragan bishops o f Canterbury, for instance, claimed a share in the election o f the archbishop, The Letters of Pope Innocent HI, no. 657. 85 Decretum, Dist. lxiii, c. 34-35. PUE 11, no. 57. M . Pacaut, Alexandre III. Etude sur la conception du pouvoir pontifical dans sapensee et dans son ceuvre. L'Eglise et l'etat au m o y e n age 11 (Paris 1956), pp. 283-284. Papal Decretals Relating to the Diocese of Lincoln in the Twelfth Century, ed. W . Holtzmann and E. W . Kemp, Lincoln Record Society 47 (1954), no. 7. " Et priori et monachis Dunelmensis ecclesie xl li. ad expensas suas in eundo et redeundo pro electione eorum facienda per breve eiusdem (H. Cant, archiepiscopi)," The Chancellor's Roll for the Eighth Year of the Reign of King Richard the First, Michaelmas ng6, ed. D. M. Stenton (London 1930), PRS XLV, pp. 253, 207. See W. Stubbs, Ralph de Diceto, Opera, RS-6% 1, p. lxxiii.

382

The chapter as community

of papal election was reserved to the cardinals of the Roman see who had been formed into a corporate sacred college during the pontificate of Alexander III. It is reasonable to assume that they provided a model for other episcopal chapters which were in the process of defining their respective rights.89 The momentum generated in the twelfth century was thrust forward into the thirteenth, so that by the time of the fourth Lateran council in 1215 it was recognized in canon law that the chapter did indeed have the exclusive right to elect a new bishop.90 But this confirmation was compromised almost at once, and in the short term vitiated, by the intervention of the pope himself, as well as the king and the archbishop.91 At Canterbury, for instance, as an illustration of the way in which theory was forced to bow to practice, Richard Grant was appointed by the king in 1229, Edmund Rich by the pope in 1233, and Boniface of Savoy by the king with papal approval in 1241. At Winchester, Aymer, the king's half-brother, was a royal choice in 1250, Nicholas of Ely was appointed by the pope in 1268, Robert Burnell, the bishop of Bath, although allegedly elected by the chapter in 1280, was rejected by papal authority, as was Richard de la More in 1282. In the archbishopric of York, Sewal was elected by the chapter in 1255, and Walter Giffard was appointed by the king in 1266. Closely tied to the privilege of episcopal election, and thus to the formation of a communal identity, was the freedom claimed by the chapter to elect the dean and by the convent to elect the prior without interference. Although as early as 1165 the canons at Salisbury asserted their right to choose John of Oxford, rather than have him thrust upon them by the combined efforts of bishop and king, for most of the century the bishops seem to have retained this prerogative for themselves.92 An illustration of this principle can be found during the troubles after the death of prior Wibert at Canterbury in September 1167 when Ranulf de Broc took over 89

90

92

S. Kuttner, " Cardinalis: the history of a canonical concept," Traditio, 3 (1945), 176-177. Lateran IV, c. 23—24, COD, p. 246. There appears to be some question, however, whether Innocent III was absolutely clear in his o w n mind about the capitular privilege. Cf. R. Foreville, " Representation et taxation du clerge au IV e concile du Latran (1215)," Etudes presentees' a la commission internationale pour Vhistoire des assemblies d'etats, 31 (1966), 65-74; E- W. Kemp, Counsel and Consent. Aspects of Government of the Church as Exemplified in the History of the English Provincial Synods, SPCK (London 1961), pp. 91 43—45. Gibbs and Lang, Bishops and Reform, pp. 55—69. JSL11, p. xxxi, note 4. For several reasons, including his "usurpation" of the Salisbury deanery, John was excommunicated by Becket. Ibid., no. 168, p. 113.

383

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England the conventual estates. To strenghten their defense against the sequestration of their property, the monks asked the king for permission to elect a new prior. Becket immediately objected to this request on the grounds that it encroached upon his own archiepiscopal authority. The monks, moreover, were scolded by John of Salisbury who accused them of having abandoned the rule and the spirit of St. Benedict.93 Thus, on one side was the argument that the bishop functioned in loco abbatis in cathedral monasteries and he, therefore, justly claimed the right to appoint the prior. The other argument, which, as we have seen, was gaining force, was that the freedom to elect the prior was a prescriptive right of the cathedral convent expressed in a decision of its representative faction. In 1186, Urban III, against traditional practice, allowed the convent at Coventry to nominate the prior. 94 A little earlier, in 1174, Alexander III had confirmed the right of the monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, to elect the prior when the see was vacant.95 But the contested privilege provoked deep and enduring hostility which was to develop into a long struggle for ultimate control in both the secular and the monastic cathedrals. Not until the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century was the right to elect settled unequivocally on the chapter.96 At the end of the twelfth century most of the English cathedral chapters had had a long period of experience in collective action. They possessed, moreover, separate revenues from those of the bishop, a separate administration with their own officials, often a seal, and buildings of their own. Both canons and monks, on occasion, even thought of themselves as members of a community 93 96

94 95 Ibid., p. 485. PUE 11, no. 343. Ibid., 11, no. 131. For the secular cathedrals see H. M. Chew, English Secular Cathedrals, pp. 122—123, and for the monastic, Knowles, Religious Orders, vol. 1, p. 255, and Wood, English Monasteries and their Patrons, pp. 50-51. Worcester, Ely, Bath, Norwich, and Rochester obtained the right to elect the prior in the course of the thirteenth century, but it was not immediately an uncontested right. One of the charges brought against Archbishop Simon Mepham by the Rochester monks was that he held the election of the prior in secret and had the votes of the convent counted by his own men, Registrum Hamonis He the, pp. 425—428. John gave the right to the Durham chapter, but it was not confirmed until the drawing up of he Convenit in 1231, Feodarium, p. 93. There was still a disputed claim at Winchester at the end of the thirteenth century. Registrum Johannis de Pontissara, vol. 11, pp. 613—614. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the prior assumed an even more independent position with the assumption of the pontificalia of ring, robes, and miter, and a separate dwelling with hall and chapel. Knowles, Religious

Orders, vol. 1, p. 259; A. M. Reich, The Parliamentary Abbots to 1470, University of

California Publications in History, 17 (Berkeley 1942, repr. New York 1974), p. 289.

384

The chapter as community

which could not die. " We shall remain after the bishop has gone," said the dean of Chichester, mimicking the declaration of the abbot of Battle in regard to his own church.97 It was a notion widespread among religious foundations. "Do not fear the cost of a law suit," said the monks of Evesham, "because we can mortgage our manors under the chapter seal to borrow the cash. The convent is immortal and will repay the debt. The bishop [of Worcester] on the other hand, is mortal and cannot so easily find creditors, because when he dies his obligation to repay dies with him. " 98 But in spite of these significant characteristics, it would be rash to say that by that time the chapter had developed from the unified community of the early cathedral church into a fully constituted corporation. The material distinctions were familiar enough, but the legal separation was not altogether clear, even in the minds of contemporaries. While the tendency among some later historians, writing under the influence of modern legal theory, has been to see the chapter, like the medieval town or gild, as an example of a late twelfth-century corporate body, a close look at its structure and the status of its members will show this not to have been the case.99 Although the chapter in the twelfth century was not simply a fortuitous association of canons or monks, its position with regard to the bishop based on its own prerogatives was still inexactly determined and arbitrarily defined. For the expression of collective action, it owed more to the success or failure of an ad hoc response to royal or episcopal oppression than it did to a developed body of law. The chapter was more concerned with its own protection, 97 98

99

The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, p. 172. See above p. 268. "...quia conventus quasi immortalis est," Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, RS-29, p. 113.

So, for example, Erskine, "... by the early thirteenth century the cathedral body can be seen to have emerged as an organized corporate e n t i t y . . . " ( " B i s h o p Briwere," p. 163), or A. Hamilton Thompson, " Deans and chapters became republics with a considerable amount of independence in their churches and territories, jealous o f the authority o f the bishop and anxious to limit his power in his church " (The Cathedral Churches of England, SPCK [London 1928] p. 22), or A . Desprairies, "moins d'un siecle apres la mort de Gregoire VII il ne restait plus rien de l'ancien principe electif; le choix de l'eveque etait devenu le privilege exclusif d'une aristocratie d'eglise: le chapitre cathedral. D e bonne heure, les chanoines avaient acquis vis-a-vis des autres membres de la communaute une situation preponderante. Constitues en corporation, habiles a posseder, ils formaient une des communaute's les plus riches et les plus solides au m o y e n age," VElection des eveques, pp. 7—8. For a discussion o f the alleged urban corporation see S. Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe: goo—1300 pp. 59ff.

385

(Oxford 1984, repr. 1986),

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England which was assured by the occasional definition of its rights, than it was with constructing a rational theory of corporate authority. In the time of Alexander III, for instance, a papal privilege of protection accorded an individual cleric in respect to his possessions could be written in almost exactly the same form and style as one which embraced a whole cathedral convent or chapter.100 Rather than the conception of the group of monks or canons as a corporate person, the lack of differentiation with regard to the recipients suggests that it was not necessary to define the community in that way.101 From the modern point of view the mensa capitularis, as the property of the chapter, implies a legal entity which possesses those assets, a persona jicta. But in fact there was none, and more often than not the process was reversed so that the chapter held, and by itself administered, estates which over the long term then led to the notion and the formation of a separate association. There is often a danger in seeing the institution appear before it has, in fact, been developed. The collective responsibility imposed for the murdrumfineafter the Conquest, for example, did not transform the local community into a corporate body, nor did the personification of the shire in Domesday Book as" an organism which could speak by the mouth of its jury" reflect a real existence.102 The theoretical principles elaborated later by the canonists to describe the ecclesiastical corporation had little importance in the formative years of the twelfth century. The notion of juristic personality in Roman law, which formed the basis of the doctrine in church law, had never been adequately defined, although the collective entities such as collegia, municipia, templa, and sodalitates were entitled to buy and sell property, to make contracts, and to sue and be sued.103 In the early medieval period there was as yet no reason.to distinguish the community from its members. The rights and privileges of both were usually the same, and this view, in the absence of any obvious need to alter 100

102

103

Compare the papal privilege to the tnagister at York with that in favor of the prior and monks of Worcester. Decretales Ineditae Saeculi XII, ed. S. Chodorow and C. Duggan, Monumenta Iuris Canonici, B iv (Citta del Vaticano 1982), no. 77, and PUE 11, no. 101 109. Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, p. 60. See W . L. Warren, The Governance of Norman and Angevin England: 1086-1072 (London 1987), p p . 6 0 - 6 2 , a n d British Borough Charters: 1042—1216, ed. A . Ballard ( C a m b r i d g e 1913), p p . xcv—xcvi. A list o f theoretical questions t o illustrate twelfth-century legal issues is printed in H . J. Berman, Law and Revolution. The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge, Mass. 1983), p. 218, based on the suggestions by Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, p. 97.

386

The chapter as community it, persisted well into the thirteenth century. The twelfth-century canonists, indeed, appear not to have had in mind a legal distinction between a corporation as a legal person and an association of individuals. The problems which the chapter had to face, moreover, were fundamentally practical ones which did not depend on a formal abstract juridical construct. 104 Innocent III, when he dealt with cathedral chapters, was still inclined to focus on the canons themselves, rather than on the body to which they belonged. 105 In the thirteenth century Bracton compared the cathedral chapter to a flock of sheep: in colleges and chapters the body always remains the same though all die successively and others take their places, as may be said offlocksof sheep where theflockalways remains the same though all the sheep or heads die successively, nor does one succeed the other by right of succession so that the right descends hereditarily from one to another, for the right always belongs to the church [quia semper ius pertinet ad ecclesiam] and remains with the church [et cum ecclesia remanet], as may be seen in the charters of enfeoffment of men of religion, where it may clearly be seen that the gift is made first and principally to god and such a church, and secondarily to the monks or canons there serving god.106 Thus, the chapter was perpetual because, like a flock, it was selfgenerating. At the same time, it was not a persona jicta because the sheep die. 107 Grants to god and the church, moreover, were not 104

The artificial distinction made by Otto von Gierke in Das deutsche Genossenschqftsrecht (Berlin 1868—1913), vol. in, pp. 2476°., between the idea of the Germanic corporation (Genossenschaft), which owed its unifying principle not to a superior power but to the voluntary association of individual members, and the canonists' idea of an ecclesiastical institution (Anstalt) upon which unity has been imposed from above, has been substantially commented on and adjusted to show that there was far less difference between the two types than the great historian once thought. See, for instance, P. W. Duff, Personality in Roman Private Law (Cambridge 1938), pp. 206-225; Maurice de Wulf, Philosophy and Civilization in the Middle Ages (Princeton 1922, repr. N e w York

1953), chap. 10; Ewart Lewis, "Organic tendencies in medieval-political thought," American Political Science Review 32 (1938), 849—876; M. J. Rodriguez, "Innocent IV and the element of fiction in juristic personalities," The Jurist, 22 (1962), 287-318; R. Feenstra, "L'Histoire des fondations a propos de quelques etudes recentes," Tijdschrifi voor Rechtsgeschiedenis24 (1956), 381-448; W. Ullmann, "The delictal responsibility of medieval corporations," Law Quarterly Review, 64 (1948), 82-84; H.J. Berman, Law 106 106

107

and Revolution. The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge, Mass. 1983), pp. 215—221; Tierney, Foundation of the Conciliar Theory, pp. 98—105. Letters of Pope Innocent HI, nos. 331, 699, 853. B r a c t o n , On the Laws and Customs of England, ed. S. E. T h o r n e ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass. 1968-1977), vols. iv, p . 175, a n d n , p . 229. W . S. H o l d s w o r t h , A History of English Law ( L o n d o n 1922-1938, 4 t h e d n . L o n d o n 1936), v o l . in, p . 470.

387

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England the same as grants.to a legal corporation. The thinking of the donors and the beneficiaries was still in rather general terms. After Becket's murder, for instance, when Henry II wished to compensate the monks of Christ Church, he promised to restore the possessions of the church of Canterbury, not those of the convent.108 Not until the time of Innocent IV in the midthirteenth century was there a positive statement in regard to the ecclesiastical community as a nomen iuris. Even then, the argument was designed to prove not that an association had a legal personality, but that because it was a legal fiction, and not a person, it could not be excommunicated.109 It had never been baptized. The practical reason, however, was that those individuals who were not guilty, but who composed the chapter, would therefore suffer without cause. If a sense of collective responsibility was a sign of corporate status, then this view argues against such a historical conception even in Innocent's time. On the other hand, the idea of representative government whereby individuals were empowered to act with plena potestas such that their decisions would bind their constituencies at home tended indirectly to work in favor of a corporate theory. In 1206 individual monks from Christ Church, Canterbury, each of whom was named, were ordered to appear before the pope with authority from the convent to elect an archbishop; and in 1215 the canons of the York chapter were to do the same.110 Thus, the conception of the cathedral community as a single entity was strengthened in order to enable one (or several) of its members to bind himself by oath on behalf of his fellows.111 Furthermore, although in Bracton it was argued that a bishop could not give away property without the assent of his chapter, it was also recognized that a chapter of 108 109

110

111

JSL II, no. 309. "Universitas a u t e m n o n potest e x c o m m u n i c a r i quia impossible est q u o d universitas delinquat, quia universitas, sicut est capitulum, populus, gens et huiusmodi, n o m i n a juris sunt et n o n p e r s o n a r u m et ideo n o n cadit in earn e x c o m m u n i c a t i o , " Feenstra, " L ' H i s t o i r e des fondations," p . 418. For an imaginative a t t e m p t to resolve the patent contradiction in Innocent IV's thinking w h e n he says o n the o n e hand that a corporation could n o t c o m m i t a w r o n g , and o n the other hand that it could be punished b y a fine for w r o n g d o i n g , see U l l m a n n , " T h e delictal responsibility o f medieval corporations," p p . 82-87. " . . . a l i q u o s ex vobis c u m c o m m u n i o m n i u m p o t e s t a t e . . . , " Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III Concerning England (11Q8—1216), ed. C. R. Cheney and W. H. Semple,

Nelson Medieval Texts (London 1953), no. 81; The Letters ofPope Innocent III, nos. 699, 1017. For this point see the persuasive-remarks by Rodriguez, "Innocent IV," pp. 311-312.

388

The chapter as community canons could not sue without the consent of the dean, nor a convent without the assent of the prior, nor a dean and chapter without the consent of the bishop.112 Canonist theory at the time was similarly inconclusive on the legal validity of a grant which was made by the bishop but protested by members of the convent.113 Where, in law, did the ownership of church property lie ? Since the division of the mensa tended also to emphasize a separation in authority and jurisdiction between bishop and chapter, it led, ironically, to the realization on the part of the canons that in matters which were primarily episcopal, but which in some way also touched their concerns, they were likely to be excluded. The theory was advanced, therefore, that on certain issues, such as the alienation of property which affected the whole church, the consent of the chapter had to be obtained. In the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries the canonist texts insisted that the authority in the cathedral church resided in both the head, who was the bishop, and in the members, who composed the chapter.114 The bishop, said Alexander III, needed the counsel and consent of the chapter in order to act in the interests of the whole church.115 But up to the time of Innocent IV (1243-1254), the meaning of consilium and consensus was not well defined, the words were used interchangeably, and mere "counsel" might well be considered the equivalent of "consent" by some bishops.116 Although Honorius III about 1217 recognized that the chapter should be consulted in regard to affairs which concerned it, and its consent made known by the maior et sanior pars, there was still a question as to whether the latter was composed of a majority or a seniority.117 A tendency among the canon lawyers was ideally to consider the bishop and the chapter as a single body, so that neither one or the other might act independently to the injury of the church.118 But in a practical 112 113 114 115 118

117

118

Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England, vol. n, 52, 63; vol. iv, 33off. Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, pp. 119—121. Tierney, ibid., p. i n ; G. le Bras, Institutions ecclesiastiques, vol. 1, p. 386. M. G. Cheney, Roger, Bishop of Worcester, p. 364, no. 9id. Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, pp. 108—109. Cf. E. W. Kemp, Counsel and Consent, pp. 73-74. G. Post, Studies in Medieval Legal Thought. Public Law and the State, 1100—1322 (Princeton 1964), pp. 234—235, and p. 212, note 180. In 1229 Gregory IX allowed the dean of St. Paul's, London, to act with the wishes of the maior et sanior pars, notwithstanding a minority objection. Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, no. 226. Hostiensis: " . . . quia episcopus et canonici unum corpus constituunt," cited by Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, p. i n , note 2.

389

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England way they were forced to recognize that each side had developed along different lines so that the solution which came to be offered was to allow the bishop to act in affairs which concerned himself and his rights and property, to allow the chapter to act in affairs concerning its rights, but to require the action, and presumably the consent, of both parties regarding assets or rights which they held in common or which affected them both. 119 Yet, it was still characteristic of canonist thinking, by Innocent IV and by Hostiensis, to take two examples, to maintain that the bishop had a broad mandate to act on matters concerning the church even without the chapter's consent. In the end, of course, he would be held accountable, but in the interests of promoting the authority of the diocesan the lawyers reverted to the paternal view of the bishop in the early church. Compared to their views on the formation of secular communities and civil societies, which were astonishingly liberal, the rules handed down by the papal theorists on ecclesiastical bodies were generally quite conservative and precluded an association without the approval and sanction of a superior power.120 Moreover, the question of how far a bishop could go in representing the chapter as procurator, or agent, was also a problem which was tossed back and forth by the early thirteenth-century ecclesiastical writers. As in the case of the chapter representatives noted earlier, the implications of this theory were far-reaching. The status of the bishop, however, was a different matter. Were his decisions binding on the constituency which he represented ? In a similar way the theory raises a question about the legality of agency, and, therefore, about the legal status of the body for which the agent acts. The answer, however, seems 119

120

See the rather complicated proposal by Bernardus Parmensis (d. 1266) whereby the bishop should appoint an arbiter with the consent o f the chapter for his business, and the chapter should appoint one with the consent o f the bishop for their business, ibid., p. i n . For capitular rights over bishops, see Decretales, vol. in, 10-11 (CIC 11, pp. 501—509). Cf. C. R. Cheney, "Bishop and chapter were legally distinct persons by the middle of the thirteenth century, but the distinction was not, in most cases, ancient and was not fundamental. Insistence upon the bishop's and chapter's mensae obscures three indisputable facts: acts which affected the permanent position o f one party had to be ratified by the other; the chapter commonly retained a direct interest in the bishop's maintenance o f diocesan jurisdiction because it claimed that jurisdiction sede vacante; the bishop habitually used members of his cathedral chapter as chancellor, officials and chaplains" (English Bishops1 Chanceries: 1100—1230 [Manchester 1950], pp. 138—139). Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, pp. 122—124; A. Black, Guilds and Civil Society in European Political Thought from the Twelfth Century to the Present (London 1984), pp. 19-21; Rodriguez, "Innocent IV," pp. 305-308; Ullmann, Principles of Government and Politics, p. 313, note 289.

390

The chapter as community

to have depended more on practical circumstances than on an adherence to a canonical analysis. The lengthy dispute over the problem as it affected the relations of chapters to their bishops illustrates once again how difficult it was to reach a general agreement on how the different parts and powers of the cathedral church were to be defined. In an effort to reach a conclusion as to whether, in fact, the cathedral chapter in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was transformed into a corporation, it is tempting to formulate a definition into which the medieval structure can be fitted. The only way to do this, however, is to commit an anachronistic sin for which the historian will sooner or later have to pay. The reason is that a corporation, as the term is generally used today, is the product of a modern legal and social system which did not exist in the medieval period. A current authority describes a corporation as an artificial person or legal entity created by the laws of a state.121 This is of no use when one is talking about twelfth-century communities whose members did not define themselves in such a way. While it may have been the case that on occasion the group could be held responsible, by itself it could not act as a person, nor did it depend on a superior authority for its existence. In wholly practical terms, if for a body to be recognized as a corporation it must be a person distinct from its members, its property must be distinct from that of its members, and the property of individual members may not be used to discharge the debt of the corporation, or vice versa, if this is the standard which we must use, then it is safe to say that the cathedral chapter at the end of the twelfth century and well into the thirteenth, was not a legal corporation, although it may have had many of the attributes of one.122 The first principle, according to Holdsworth, was not widely accepted in England even in the time of Edward III, the second not until the time of Edward II, and the third not until the mid-fifteenth century.123 Thus it is late in the medieval period 121 122

123

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edn. (1979), p . 307. T h e principles of recognition and the discussion of the definition are taken from W . S. H o l d s w o r t h , A History of English Law (London 1922-193 8; 4th edn. L o n d o n 1936), vol. in, p . 482. A satisfactory definition is a widespread p r o b l e m . T h e difficulties show u p , for instance, in the early pages of the masterly analysis of the Speyer chapter b y Lawrence D u g g a n w h e n he feels obliged to fit it into a corporate m o l d , and m a k e of it a " closed c o r p o r a t i o n " w i t h " a legal personality," the corporate signs of w h i c h are, " t h e possession and administration of c o m m o n p r o p e r t y , " " c e r t a i n p o w e r s of self-

391

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England when the chapter can begin to be seen in what would be recognized as acceptable modern terms. In this sense, as Maitland saw it, the corporation did not grow; it was made, by definition handed down in some official act.124 Nor do the allegedly corporate views of the medieval canonists provide a clearer picture. Not only was there always a hiatus between theory and practice but, as is obvious from the foregoing discussion, the lawyers more often than not disagreed among themselves. Presumably other definitions than Holdsworth's could be contrived which would more nearly suit the developing institutions of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. But there is little to be gained by doing so. Whatever we call the cathedral chapter, of course, in no way changes its practical structure or the way in which it was viewed at the time. But if we abandon the term "corporation" with its modern connotation, if we resist the urge to define and therefore to simplify every association from monastic foundations to the mendicant orders, from the London companies to the universities, from chivalric brotherhoods to church councils, and from the community of barons to the community of the realm as a corporate one, we will at least have helped to discourage the proliferation of a false and confusing construct in historical writing. The cathedral chapter remained an association of individuals for whom the schedule of development and the pattern of internal organization often varied from one see to another. Common to all of the groups of canons or monks, however, was the desire to define their capacities and privileges so as to be largely, but never wholly, independent of episcopal jurisdiction. In this endeavor the chapter was undoubtedly influenced and encouraged by the widespread enthusiasm for definition which was so characteristic of the period from the late eleventh century onwards. One thinks of Glanvil on writs and Gratian on the canons, of John of Salisbury on the theory of government and of the Constitutions of Clarendon or Magna Carta on the practice, of St. Anselm on existence and Abelard on intent, of Andrew on the meaning of worldly love and St. Bernard on the meaning of spiritual love. It

124

governance and discipline," "legal immunity of its grounds and members," autonomy from the bishop, a chapter seal, a hierarchy of officers, and the use of the term universitas (L. G. Duggan, Bishop and Chapter, pp. 12—16). None of these elements individually is sufficient to define a corporation in the twelfth century, nor do they constitute the significant aspects of a modern legal definition. Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law, vol. 1, section 12, especially p. 490.

392

The chapter as community

was also influenced by the current success of the multi-varied organizations of communitates, confratriae, coniurationes, collegia, societates, universitates, artes, civitates, collegia, to list a few names in

popular use, which had taken western European society by storm in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It must be remembered, however, that in some cases immunity from episcopal authority might have been less a critical issue for the chapter than exemption from the jurisdiction of the prior, or the archdeacon. It was also true that in the secular cathedral churches the prebendal arrangement, which emphasized private property, individual privileges and family considerations, tended to work against the formation of such a thing as a group mentality or corporate outlook, whereas in the monastic churches the convent was rooted in a long history of precedents based on communal thinking and collective action. In the case of the chapters of canons, the development of communal strength was due more to their need to respond to hostile threats from the outside than to the growth of an internal spirit of unity among their members. The emergence of the chapter as a community, therefore, was the result not of an attempt to conform to abstract theory but the result of practical solutions to practical problems of the day. The means employed in this endeavor which then shaped the character and custom of the group were ultimately written up as opinions with the force of law. The history of the division of the mensa in the twelfth century embraced both a proprietary and a jurisdictional aspect, a separation of assets and a definition of rights. The allocation of property between bishop and chapter had to be worked out administratively according to the way it was to be managed and the income paid, and legally according to the title to it. It was, as we have seen, not something which was accomplished all at one time, but rather a lengthy process for which the timetable varied considerably from one diocese to another. In this regard, there was little difference between the secular and the monastic cathedrals, although the presence of a strong-minded bishop-abbot tended to retard the development of capitular independence. This was certainly true at Canterbury. At Bath the history was similar, while among the canons at Wells it was slightly earlier. Carlisle seems to have been able to achieve a measure of capitular identity in the absence of the bishop during the latter part of the twelfth century, but the convent at Durham experienced an important loss 393

Bishop and chapter in twelfth-century England of authority which was not regained until the first third of the thirteenth century. At Ely, the difficulties were revealed by the group of forged charters which proved to be of little help in restraining intervention by the king, and the integrity of a separate mensa was not confirmed until after John's reign. The serious problems over lands and privileges which shaped the history at Coventry illustrate the essential immaturity of the institutional development in the twelfth century. The Norwich monks, on the other hand, managed to form a rather elaborate internal structure at a relatively early date which made it difficult for the bishop to treat them as his dependents or to intrude on their resources. Although the pre-Conquest division of property at Winchester remained unstable for some time, by the late 1160s the convent was clearly in a position to act on its own. At Worcester, the competition between bishops and monks in the twelfth century gradually increased the distance between them and led to the important series of legal accommodations in the thirteenth. The history in the secular cathedrals reveals many of the same characteristics. At Chichester the pace was slow, although by the 1150s there had emerged the sentiment which identified the chapter with the church. The Exeter canons were exercising their own privileges by the mid-twelfth century although the effect of the communal principle of organization probably slowed the development of a separate capitular hierarchy. At London, the early division of wealth marked a precocious growth in the autonomy of the chapter, while at Hereford, which did not benefit from such an arrangement, the progress was far more restrained. Lincoln, on the other hand, was marked by a competent and permanent capitular organization in the twelfth century. But at Salisbury the tenacity of episcopal privilege in the face of strong demands by the chapter raised greater problems which then had to be solved. Likewise at York, it was not until the early thirteenth century that the difficulties which prevented the canons from establishing themselves on a solid footing were overcome. By the mid-twelfth century, therefore, the elements which were necessary to a strong and largely independent capitular organization were mostly in place, and by the mid-thirteenth century the various groups of monks and canons had been successful in forming their own distinct communities. It is clear from this study that the chapter was not a monolithic structure, but rather an association composed of factions which were 394

The chapter as community

concerned from one time to another with the appointment and jurisdiction of the dean, or prior, and the other officers, with the question of residency, the allocation of prebends, the distribution of the common fund, hereditary livings and the support of friends and relatives. In some cases, individual canons who were appointed by king or magnates and who remained members of the chapter for a relatively short term may have developed no serious commitment to the welfare of the group as a whole. The intricacy of the multi-layered community, the fact that the assets of the cathedral church often furnished income to both bishop and chapter, and the constant intervention of king, pope, and archbishop made the development of the mensa an extremely complex affair. Over the long run its history reflected many important aspects of ecclesiastical life in England. To an extent that varied more or less with different cathedral churches, the mensal question was part of the larger, ongoing, legal problem of defining the political and economic relations between regnum and sacerdotium, as well as part of the growing constitutional problem of determining the structure and authority of independent associations. It contributed to the development of improved administrative organization, to the more effective use of capitular assets, and it bore directly on decisions made to take charge of the see sede vacante. The arguments it produced enhanced the importance of the dean and the prior in the bishop's church, and finally they made it impossible ever to return to the concept, or the practice, of an ordered paternalistic cathedral hierarchy through which power was diffused downward from the prelate to his clergy ex dei constitutione.125 But fundamental to all of the changes which occurred in the capitular constitution was the control of wealth which, when translated into political terms, meant power. The control of wealth, in turn, was based upon and made possible by the historical fact of the divided mensa. 125

The phrase is from Walter Ullmann, Principles of Government and Politics, p. 119, where it is used to illustrate certain characteristics of " theocratic kingship," but which are similar, in many ways, to episcopal lordship.

395

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. M A N U S C R I P T S O U R C E S Bath: London, BL. Egerton 3316 Coventry: London, BL. Add. 32100 Durham: London, BL. Cotton Domit. A. vii Ely: London, BL. Cotton Nero C. iii; Cotton Tib. B. ii; Cotton Tib. A. vi;Cotton Claud. C. xi; Oxford, Bodleian, Laud, Miscl. 647 Hereford: Oxford, Bodleian, Rawlinson B. 329 Lichfield: London, BL. Harley 3868 Lincoln: London, BL. Cotton. Vesp. E. xvi Rochester: London, BL. Cotton Nero A. viii; Cotton Domit. A. x; Cotton Vesp. A. xxii; Royal 5 A. iv Salisbury: Salisbury D and C, Liber Evidentiarum C Winchester: London, BL. Add. 15350; Add. 29436 Worcester: London, BL. Cotton Tib. A. xiii York: London, BL. Cotton Claud. B. iii

II. P R I N T E D S O U R C E S Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St. Denis, ed. Erwin Panofsky (Princeton 1946) The Ada of the Bishops of Chichester: 1075—1207, ed. H. Mayr-Harting, Canterbury and York Society 130 (1964) Acta Stephani Langton Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, ed. K. Major, Canterbury and York Society 1 (1950) Adami de Domerham Historia de Rebus Gestis Glastoniensibus, ed. T. Hearne, 2 vols. (Oxford 1727) Ancient Charters of the Dean and Chapter of Chichester: 689—1674, Diocesan Record Office, Lists and Indexes 4 (Chichester 1972) Ancient Charters Royal and Private Prior to A. D. 1200, ed. J. H. Round, PRS 10 (London 1888) Anglia Sacra sive Collectio Historiarum de Archiepiscopis et Episcopis Angliae ad annum 1540, ed. Henry Wharton, 2 vols. (London 1691) Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. Agnes J. Robertson, Cambridge Studies in English Legal History (Cambridge 1939) Anglo-Saxon Charters. An Annotated List and Bibliography, ed. P. H. Sawyer, RHS (London 1968)

396

Bibliography The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Charles Plummer and John Earle (Oxford 1892) Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. Dorothy Whitelock (Cambridge 1930) Anglo-Saxon Writs, ed. F. E. Harmer (Manchester 1952) Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard, RS-36, 5 vols. (1864-1869) Annals ofDunstable, see Annales Monastici, vol. m Annals of Durham, ed. F. Barlow, Surtees Society 155 (1945) Annals of Winchester, see Annales Monastici, vol. 11 Bartholomaei de Cotton Monachi Norwicensis Historia Anglicana, ed. H. R. Luard, RS-16 (1859) Bede, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. B. Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford 1969) Bishop Hatjield's Survey. A Record of the Possessions of the See of Durham, ed. William Green well, Surtees Society 32 (1857) Boarstall Cartulary, ed. H. E. Salter, Oxford Historical Society 88 (1930) Boldon Buke, ed. William Greenwell, Surtees Society, 25 (1852) The Book of John de Schalby, Canon of Lincoln (1299—1333) concerning the Bishops of Lincoln and their Acts, ed. J. H. Srawley, Lincoln Minster Pamphlets 2 (Lincoln 1949) Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England, ed. Samuel E. Thorne, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass. 1968-1977) British Borough Charters: 1042—1216, ed. Adolphus Ballard (Cambridge 1913) Brut y Tywysogyon, or the Chronicles of the Princes. Red Book ofHergest Version, ed. T.Jones, University of Wales History and Law Series 16 (Cardiff 1955) Calendar of Charter Rolls, H.M.S.O., 6 vols. (London 1903-1927) Calendar of Close Rolls, H.M.S.O. (London 1892-1954) Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers, Papal Letters ed. W. H. Bliss and J. A. Tremlow, 14 vols. (London 1893—1960) Calendar of Fine Rolls, H.M.S.O. (London 1911-1962) Calendar of Patent Rolls, H.M.S.O., 6 vols. (London 1891-1916) Cartae Antiquae Rolls 1—10, ed. L. Landon, PRS 18 (London 1939) Cartulaire de Notre Dame de Paris, ed. B. E. C. Guerard, 4 vols., Collection des documents inedits (Paris 1850) Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia, ed. W. H. Hart and P. A. Lyons, 3 vols., RS79 (1884-1893) Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Walter de Gray Birch, 3 vols. (London 1883-1893) Cartulary ofOseney Abbey, ed. H. E. Salter, 6 vols., Oxford Historical Society 89 (1929), 90 (1930), 97 (1934), 98 (1935), 101 (1936) The Cartulary of the Treasurer of York Minster and Related Documents, ed. Janet E. Burton, Borthwick Texts and Calendars 5 (York 1978) Cartulary ofWhiteby, ed. J. Atkinson, 2 vols. Surtees Society 1 (1879—1881) The Cartulary of Worcester Cathedral Priory, ed. R. R. Darlington, PRS n.s. 38 (London 1968) Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, ed. Walter de Gray Birch, 6 vols. (London 1887-1900) The Chancellor's Roll for the Eighth Year of the Reign of King Richard the First, Michaelmas 1196, ed. Doris M. Stenton, PRS (London 1930) Charters and Documents Illustrating the History of the Cathedral, City and Diocese of

397

Bibliography Salisbury in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. W. Rich Jones and W. Dunn Macray, RS-97 (1891) Charters and Records of Hereford Cathedral, ed. William W. Capes, Cantilupe Society 1 (Hereford 1908) Charters of the Earldom of Hereford: logs—1201, e d. David Walker, Camden Society, 4th ser. 1 (1964) Charters of Endowment, Inventories and Account Rolls of the Priory ofFinchale, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Society 6 (1837) The Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory, ed. Barbara Dodwell, PRS 78, 84 (1974-1985) Charters of Rochester, ed. A. Campbell, Anglo-Saxon Charters 1 (London 1973) The Chartulary of the High Church of Chichester, ed. W. D. Peckham, Sussex Record Society 46 (1946) Chartulary of Winchester Cathedral, ed. A. W. Goodman (Winchester 1927) The Chartulary or Register of the Abbey of St. Werburgh, Chester, ed. James Tait, Chetham Society 79 and 82 (1920-1923) Chronica Johannis de Oxenedes, ed. Henry Ellis, -RS-13 (1859) The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, ed. Eleanor Searle, Oxford Medieval Texts, (Oxford 1980) The Chronicle of Bury St. Edmunds. 1212—1301, ed. Antonia Gransden, Nelson Medieval Texts (London 1964) The Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. J. P. Carley (Woodbridge 1985) The Chronicle of John of Worcester, ed. J. R. H. Weaver, Anecdota Oxoniensia 13 (Oxford 1908) The Chronicle of the Election of Hugh, Abbot of Bury St. Edmunds and later Bishop of Ely, ed. R. M. Thomson, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford 1974) Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, RS-82, 4 vols. (1884-1889). Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, ed. W. D. Macray, RS-29 (London 1863) Chronicon ex Chronicis (Florence of Worcester), ed. Benjamin Thorpe, English Historical Society, 2 vols. (London 1848—1849) Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. J. Stevenson, 2 vols., RS-2 (1858) Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, ed. J. Alberigo, J. Dossetti, P. Joannou, C. Leonardi, and P. Prodi, 3rd ed. (Bologna 1973) Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1879-1881) Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien (Vienna 1866- ) Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, ed. A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs, 3 vols. (London 1869-1873) Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, vol. 1. ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett, and C. N. L. Brooke (Oxford 1981); vol. 11: ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney (Oxford 1964) Coventry City Charters, ed. A. A. Dibben, The Coventry Papers, no. 2 (Coventry 1969) The Crawford Collection ofEarly Charters and Documents now in the Bodleian Library, ed. A. S. Napier and W. H. Stevenson (Oxford 1895)

398

Bibliography The Crisis of Church and State: 1050—1300, ed. Brian Tierney (Englewood Cliffs,

NJ. 1964)

The Customary of the Benedictine Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk, ed. A. Gransden, Henry Bradshaw Society 99 (1973) Decretales Ineditae Saeculi XII, ed. Stanley Chodorow and Charles Duggan, Monumenta Iuris Canonici, B. IV (Citta del Vaticano 1982) Decretum, see Corpus Iuris Canonici Dialogi Laurentii Dunelmensis Monachi ac Prioris, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Society 70 (1880) Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. Charles Johnson, Nelson Medieval Classics (London 1950) Diplomatarium Anglicum Aevi Saxonici, ed. B. Thorpe (London 1865) Documents of the Baronial Movement of Reform and Rebellion: 1258—1267, ed. R. E. Treharne and I. J. Sanders (Oxford 1973) Documents Illustrating the History of St. Paul's Cathedral, ed. W. Sparrow Simpson, Camden Society, n.s. 26 (1880) Documents Illustrating the Rule of Walter de Wenlock, Abbot of Westminster, 1283-1307, ed. Barbara Harvey, Camden Society, 4th ser. 2 (1965) Documents Illustrative ofthe Social and Economic History ofthe Danelaw, ed. Frank M. Stenton, British Academy Records of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales 5 (London 1920) Domesday Book, Phillimore edition (Chichester 1975— ) Domesday Book seu Liber Censualis Willelmi Primi Regis Angliae, ed. A. Farley and H. Ellis, 2 vols. (London 1783 and 1816) The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury, ed. D. Douglas (London 1944) The Domesday of St. PauVs of the Year 1222, ed. W. H. Hale, Camden Society, o.s. 69 (1858) The Domesday Survey of Cheshire, ed. James Tait, Chetham Society, n.s. 75 (1916) Durham Annals and Documents of the Thirteenth Century, ed. Frank Barlow, Surtees Society 155 (1945) Durham Episcopal Charters, 1071—1152, ed. H. S. Offler, Surtees Society 179 (I968)L Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule, RS-81 (1884) Earldom of Gloucester Charters, ed. Robert B. Patterson (Oxford 1973) Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London, ed. Marion Gibbs, Camden Society, 3rd ser. 58 (1939) Early Charters of Eastern England, ed. C. R. Hart (Leicester 1966) The Early Charters of Essex, ed. C. R. Hart (Leicester 1957) The Early Charters of Wessex, ed. H. P. R. Finberg, Studies in Early English History 3 (Leicester 1964) Early Statutes of the Cathedral Church of the Holy Trinity, Chichester, ed. M. E. C. Walcott, Archaeologia 45 (1880), 143—234 Early Yorkshire Charters, ed. William Farrer, 3 vols.; ed. C. T. Clay, 10 vols., Yorkshire Archaeological Society (1914—1965) Ecclesiastical Documents, ed. Joseph Hunter, Camden Society, o.s. 8 (1840) Ely Chapter Ordinances and Visitation Records: 1241—1515, ed. Seiriol A. J. Evans, Camden Society, 3rd ser. 64 (1940)

399

Bibliography English Episcopal Acta, i. Lincoln: 1067—1183, ed. D. Smith (London 1980); 11. Canterbury: 1162—ago, ed. C. R. Cheney and B. E. A.Jones (London 1986); in. Canterbury: 1193-120$, C. R. Cheney and Eric John (London 1986); iv. Lincoln: 1186-1206, ed. D. Smith (London 1986); v. York: 1070-1154, ed. J. E. Burton (London 1988); vi. Norwich: 1070—1214, ed. C. Harper-Bill (London 1990) English Historical Documents, ed. D. Douglas (London 1953- ) Episcopal Acts and Cognate Documents Relating to Welsh Dioceses: 1066-1272, ed. J. Con way Davies, 2 vols. (Cardiff 1946-1948) Epistolae Cantuarienses, ed. W. Stubbs, RS-3& 11 (1865) Epistolae Herberti de Losinga, Primi Episcopi Norwicensis, Osberti de Clara et Elmeri, Prioris Cantuariensis, ed. Robert Anstruther, Caxton Society (London 1846) Eynsham Cartulary, ed. H. E. Salter, Oxford Historical Society 49 (1909), 51 (1908)

Facsimiles of Early Cheshire Charters, ed. Geoffrey Barraclough (Oxford 1957) Feodarium Prioratus Dunelmensis, ed. William Green well, Surtees Society 58 (1872) Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds, ed. David C. Douglas, British Academy Records of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales 8 (London 1932) Gerald of Wales. Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer, J. F. Dimock, and G. F. Warner, 8 vols., RS-21 (1861-1891) Giraldus Cambrensis, Speculum Duorum, or A Mirror of Two Men, ed. Yves Lefevre and R. B. C. Huygens, University of Wales History and Law Series no. 27 (Cardiff 1974) Gervase of Canterbury, Historical Works, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., RS-73 (1879-1880) Gesta Abbatum Monasterii Sancti Albani, ed. H. T. Riley, RS-2S (1867-1879) Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., .RS-49 (1867) Gesta Stephani, ed. K. R. Potter, Nelson Medieval Texts (London 1955) Goscelin de St. Bertin, Liber Confortatorius, ed. C. H. Talbot, Studia Anselmiana 37. Analecta monastica, 3rd. ser. (Rome 1955), 1-117 Great Chartulary of Glastonbury, ed. A. Watkin, 3 vols., Somerset Record Society 59 (1947), 63 (1952), 64 (1956) Hemingi chartularium ecclesiae Wigorniensis, ed. Thomas Hearne, 2 vols (Oxford 1723) Henry of Huntingdon. Henrici Archidiaconi Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, ed. T. Arnold, RS-74. (1879) Henry of Huntingdon. Epistola ad Walterum, ed. T. Arnold, -RS-74 (London 1879), 297-320 Herefordshire Domesday, ed. V. H. Galbraith and James Tait, PRS, n.s. 25 (London 1947-1948) Historia et Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae, ed. W. H. Hart, .RS-33, 3 vols. (1863-1867) Historia Continuatio Symeonis, ed. Hodgson Hinde, Surtees Society 51 (1868) The Historia Minor and the Historia Major from the Wells Liber Albus II, ed. J. Armitage Robinson, Somerset Record Society 39, Collectanea 1 (1924)

400

Bibliography Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores X, ed. Roger Twysden (London 1652) Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Society 9 (1839) The Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, ed. J. Raine, RS-71, 3 vols. (1879-1894) Historiola de Primordiis Episcopatus Somersetensis, ed. Joseph Hunter, Camden Society 8 (1840) Hugh the Chantor. The History of the Church of York, ed. Charles Johnson, Nelson Medieval Classics (London 1961) Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, subjicitur Inquisitio Eliensis, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton (London 1876) Inquisitio Eliensis, see prior entry Inquisitions and Assessments Relating to Feudal Aids, 6 vols. (London 1899—1920) Jocelin of Brakelond. Cronica Jocelini de Brakelonda de Rebus Gestis Samsonis, ed. H. E. Butler, Nelson Medieval Classics (London 1949) John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, ed. Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford 1956) The Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds, ed. R. H. C. Davis, Camden Society, 3rd ser. 84 (1954) Latran I, II, III et Latran IV, ed. Raymonde Foreville, Histoire des Conciles CEcumeniques 6 (Paris 1965) The Leofric Missal as Used in the Cathedral of Exeter During the Episcopate of its First Bishop, A. D. 1050-1072, ed. F. E. Warren (Oxford 1883) The Letters of Arnulf of Lisieux, ed. Frank Barlow, Camden Society, 3rd ser. 61 (1939) The Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot, ed. Adrian Morey and C. N. L. Brooke (Cambridge 1967) The Letters of John of Salisbury, ed. W. J. Millor, H. E. Butler, and C. N. L. Brooke, 2 vols. (London 1955—1979) The Letters ofLanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. Helen Clover and Margaret Gibson (Oxford 1979) The Letters ofOsbert of Clare, Prior of Westminster, ed. E. W. Williamson, and J. Armitage Robinson (London 1929) The Letters of Pope Innocent HI {1198—1216) Concerning England and Wales, ed. C. R. Cheney and M. G. Cheney (Oxford 1967) Liber Eliensis, ed. E. O. Blake, Camden Society, 3rd ser. 92 (London 1962) Liber Exoniensis: Domesday Book seu Liber Censualis Wilhelmi Primi, vol. IV, additamenta, ed. Henry Ellis (London 1816) Liber Monasterii de Hyda, ed. E. Edwards, RS-\s (1866) Liber Vitae ecclesiae Dunelmensis necnon obituaria duo ejusdem ecclesiae, ed. William Stevenson, Surtees Society, 13 (1841) The Life ofGundulf Bishop of Rochester, ed. R. M. Thomson, Toronto Medieval Latin Texts 7 (Toronto 1977) The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich by Thomas of Monmouth, ed. Augustus Jessopp and Montague Rhodes James (Cambridge 1896) Life, Letters and Sermons of Bishop Herbert de Losinga, ed. E. M. Goulburn and H. Symonds (Oxford 1878) The Life of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, by Eadmer, ed. R. W. Southern (London 1962) 401

Bibliography The Life of St. Cuthbert in English Verse, c. A.D. 1450, ed. J. T. Fowler, Surtees Society 87 (1891) The Life of the Venerable Man, Gundulf Bishop ofRochester. Translated into English by the Nuns of Mailing abbey. (West Mailing 1968; 2nd. edn. 1983) Lincoln Record Society. The Lincolnshire Domesday and the Lindsey Survey, ed. C. W. Foster, Lincoln Record Society 19 (1924) The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln, (Hereford 1931-) Lindsey Survey, see Lincoln Record Society. The Lincolnshire Domesday and the Lindsey Survey Literae Cantuarienses, ed. J. B. Sheppard, RS-$s, 3 vols. (1887-1889) Magna Vita Sancti Hugonis, ed. D. L. Douie and H. Farmer, Oxford Medieval Texts, 2 vols. (London 1961—1962) Mansi, Concilia. Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, ed. J. D. Mansi, 31 vols. (Florence 1759-1798, rev. edn. Paris 1901—) Manuscripts from St. Albaris Abbey, 1066-1233, ed. R. M. Thomson, 2 vols. (London 1982) Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed J. C. Robertson and J. B. Sheppard, RS-67, 7 vols. (1875-1885) Matthew Paris. Matthaei Parisiensis Monachi Sancti Albani Chronica Majora, ed. H. R. Luard, RS-SJ, 7 vols. (1872-1883) Memorials of St. Anselm, ed. R. W. Southern and F. S. Schmitt, Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 1 (London 1969) The Metrical Life of Saint Hugh of Lincoln, ed. Charles Garton (Lincoln 1986) Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. William Dugdale, and J. Caley, H. Ellis, B. Bandinel, 6 vols. in 8 (London 1817—1850) Monasticon Diocesis Exoniensis, ed. G. Oliver (Exeter 1846), Suppl. (Exeter 1854) The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang with the Latin Original, ed. Arthur S. Napier, EETS, o.s. 150 (London 1916) Orderic Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. M. Chibnall, Oxford Medieval Texts, 6 vols. (Oxford 1969-1980) Ordinale Exon., ed. J. N . Dalton and G. H. Doble, Henry Bradshaw Society, 4 vols. (1909-1940) Original Charters Relating to the City of- Worcester, ed. J. Harvey Bloom, Worcestershire Historical Society (1909) Otto of Freising. Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, in Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. Imperatoris, ed. G. Waitz, M. G. H. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 46 (Hanover 1912) Papal Decretals Relating to the Diocese of Lincoln in the Twelfth Century, ed. W. Holtzmann and E. W. Kemp, Lincoln Record Society 47 (1954) Papsturkunden in England, ed. Walther Holtzmann, Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, n.F., 25, 1 (1930); 3 e F., 14 (1935); Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 3 e F., 33 (1952), 3 vols. (Gottingen 1930-1952) Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne, 221 vols. (Paris 1844-1864) The Peterborough Chronicle, ed. Cecily Clark (Oxford 1958)

402

Bibliography The Pipe Roll of the Bishopric of Winchester: 1208—1209, ed. Hubert Hall (London 1903) Primum Registrum Conventus Norwicensis Ecclesie. The First Register of Norwich Cathedral Priory, ed. H. W. Saunders, Norfolk Record Society 11 (Norwich 1939) Ralph de Diceto. Radulfi de Diceto Decani Lundoniensis Opera Historica, ed. W. Stubbs, £S-68, 2 vols. (1876) Reading Abbey Cartularies, vol. 1 ed. B. R. Kemp, Camden Society, 4th ser. 31 (London 1986) Records of Anthony Bek, Bishop and Patriarch: 1283-1311, ed. C. M. Fraser, Surtees Society 162 (1953) The Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hubert Hall, JRS-99, 3 vols. (1896) The Red Book of Worcester, ed. M. Hollings, Worcestershire Historical Society, 4 parts (1934-1950) Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: 1066-1154, ed. H. W. C. Davis, C.Johnson, H. A. Cronne, and R. H. C. Davis, 4 vols. (Oxford 1913-1969) Reginaldi monachi Dunelmensis libellus, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Society 1 (1835) Register of the Diocese of Worcester During the Vacancy of the See, ed. J. W. WillisBund, Worcestershire Historical Society (1897) The Register of Godstow Nunnery, ed. Andrew Clark, EETS 129, 130, 142 (1905-1911) The Register of the Priory of Wetheral, ed. John E. Prescott, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1897) The Register of St. Augustine* s Abbey, Canterbury, ed. G. J. Turner and H. E. Salter, 2 vols. (London 1915-1924) Registrum album. The Great Register of Lichfield Cathedral known as Magnum registrum album, ed. H. E. Savage, William Salt Archaeological Society (1926) Registrum epistolarum fratris Johannis Peckham Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, ed. C. T. Martin, RS-77, 3 vols. (1882-1885) Registrum Hamonis Hethe Diocesis Roffensis, ed. C.Johnson, Canterbury and York Society 48—49, 2 vols. (1948) Registrum Johannis de Pontissara, Episcopi Wyntoniensis, ed. Cecil Deedes, Canterbury and York Society 19, 30, 2 vols. (1915-1924) Registrum Prioratus Wigorniensis. Registrum sive Liber Irrotularius et Consuetudinarius Prioratus Beatae Mariae Wigorniensis, ed. William H. Hale, Camden Society 91 (1865) Registrum Ricardi de Swinfield Episcbpi Herefordensis, ed. W. W. Capes, Canterbury and York Society 6 (1909) Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, A.D. 1294—1313, ed. Rose Graham, Canterbury and York Society 51-52, 2 vols. (1952—1956) Registrum Roffense, ed. John Thorpe (London 1769) Registrum statutorum et consuetudinum ecclesiae cathedralis sancti Pauli: 1294—1855, ed. W. Sparrow Simpson (London 1873) Regula sancti Benedicti. The Rule of Saint Benedict, ed. Justin McCann (London 1952)

403

Bibliography Richard of Devizes. The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes, ed. J. T. Appleby, Oxford Medieval Texts (London 1963) Robert de Torigni, Chronicle, see Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, vol. iv Roberti Grosseteste Episcopi quondam Lincolniensis Epistolae, ed. H. R. Luard, RS-2$ (London 1861) Roger of Howden. Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Hovedone, ed. W. Stubbs, RS-$i, 4 vols. (1868-1871) Roger of Wendover. Rogeri de Wendover Liber qui dicitur Flores Historiarum, ed. H. G. Hewlett, RS-84, 3 vols. (1886-1889) Rolls Series. Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores (London 1858—1896) Rotuli curiae regis, ed. F. Palgrave, 2 vols. (London 1835) Rotuli de Dominabus et Pueris et Puellis de XII Comitatibus, ed. J. H. Round, PRS 35 (1913) Sammlung schweizerischer Rechtsquellen, XIX. Les Sources du droit du Canton de Vaud, Xe—XVI e siecle. B. Droits seigneuriaux et franchises municipales. 1. Lausanne et les terres episcopates, ed. D. Anex-Cabanis and J.-F. Poudret (Aarau 1977) Sancti Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia, ed. F. S. Schmitt, 6 vols. (London 1940-1961) Sancti Bernardi Opera, 8 vols. in 9 (Rome 1957-1977) Select Charters, ed. William Stubbs, 9th ed. (Oxford 1913) Select Documents of the English Lands of the Abbey of Bee, ed. M. Chibnall, Camden Society, 3rd ser. 73 (London 1951) Selected Letters of Pope Innocent HI Concerning England (ng8—i2i6), ed. C. R. Cheney and W. H. Semple, Nelson Medieval Texts (London 1953) Simeon of Durham. Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, ed. T. Arnold, RS-7$, 2 vols. (1882-1885) Sir Christopher Hattons Book of Seals, ed. Lewis C. Loyd and Doris M. Stenton (Oxford 1950) Statuta et Consuetudines Ecclesiae Cathedralis Beatae Mariae Virginis Sarisbiriensis, ed. C. Wordsworth and D. Macleane (London 1915) Statuta et Consuetudines Ecclesiae Cathedralis Sarisberiensis, ed. E. A. Dayman and W. H.R.Jones (Bath 1883) Statutes and Constitutions of the Cathedral Church of Chichester, ed. F. G. Bennett, R. H. Codrington, and C. Deedes (Chichester 1904) The Statutes of the Cathedral Church of Durham, ed. A. H. Thompson, Surtees Society 143 (1929) Statutes of the Cathedral Church of York, ed. James Raine (London 1879, 2nd edn. Leeds 1900) Statutes of Lincoln Cathedral, ed. Henry Bradshaw and Christopher Wordsworth, 3 vols. (Cambridge 1892-1897) Taxatio Ecclesiastica Angliae et Walliae auctoritate P. Nicholai IV circa A.D. i2gi, ed. T. Astle, S. Ayscough, and J. Caley (London 1802) Textus Roffensis, ed. T. Hearne (Oxford 1720) Textus Roffensis, ed. Peter Sawyer, Early English Manuscripts in Facsmile, vn (Copenhagen 1957), xi (Copenhagen 1962)

404

Bibliography Thirteen Custumals of the Sussex Manors of the Bishop of Chichester and other Documents, ed. W. D. Peckham, Sussex Record Society 31 (1925) A Transcript of the Red Book of the Bishopric of Hereford, ed. A. T. Bannister, Camden Society 41 (1929) Two Chartularies of the Priory of St. Peter at Bath, ed. William Hunt, Somerset Record Society 7 (1893) The Use of Exeter Cathedral According to John de Grandison, Bishop of the See, 1327—1367, ed. H. E. Reynolds (London 1891) The Use of Sarum. The Original Texts edited from the Mss. with an Introduction and Index, ed. Walter H. Frere, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1898) Valor Ecclesiasticus Temp. Hen. VIII Auctoritate Regia Institutus, ed. J. Caley and J. Hunter, 6 vols. (London 1810-1834) Vetus Registrum Sarisberiense alias dictum Registrum S. Osmund Episcopi, ed. W. H. Rich Jones, RS-78, 2 vols. (1883-1884) Visitations and Memorials of Southwell Minster, ed. A. F. Leach, Camden Society, n.s. 48 (1891) The Vita Wulfstani of William of Malmesbury, ed. R. R. Darlington, Camden Society 40 (London 1928) Walter Map, De Nugis curialium, ed. M. R. James, revised by C. N. L. Brooke and R. A. B. Mynors, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford 1983) Waverley Annals, see Annales Monastici, vol. 11 William Fitz-Stephen, see Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, vol. in William of Malmesbury. Willelmi Malmesbiriensis Monachi de Gestis Pontificum Anglorum, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, RS-S2 (1870) Willelmi Malmesbiriensis Monachi de Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. W. Stubbs, RS-90, 2 vols. (1887-1889) Willelmi Malmesbiriensis Monachi Historia Novella, ed. K. R. Potter, Nelson Medieval Texts (London 1955) William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. Richard Howlett, .RS-82, 1 (1884) Winchester in the Early Middle Ages. An Edition and Discussion of the Winton Domesday, ed. Martin Biddle, Winchester Studies 1 (Oxford 1976) Worcester Cartulary, see The Cartulary of Worcester Cathedral Priory

III. S E C O N D A R Y W O R K S Alexander, J. W. "Herbert Losinga, bishop of Norwich, 1091-1119," SMRH 6 (1969) Appleby, John T. England without Richard, 1189-1199 (Ithaca 1965) Ash, Marinell. "The diocese of St. Andrews under its 'Norman' bishops," Scottish Historical Review 55 (1976), 105-126 Atkins, Ivor. "The church of Worcester from the eighth to the twelfth century," Antiquaries Journal, 17 (1937), 371-391; 20 (1940), 1—38 Avril, Joseph. Le Gouvernement des eveques et la vie religieuse dans le diocese a"Angers: 1148-1240 (Lille 1984) Bannister, A. T. The Cathedral Church of Hereford (London 1924)

405

Bibliography "A lost cartulary of Hereford Cathedral," Transactions of the Woolhope Club (1918), 268-277 "A transcript of'The Red Book,' a detailed account of the Hereford bishopric estates in the thirteenth century," Camden Society, 3rd. ser. 15 (London 1929), v-33 Barlow, Frank. "Domesday Book: a letter of Lanfranc," EHR 78 (1963), 284-289 Durham Jurisdictional Peculiars (Oxford 1950) Edward the Confessor (London 1970) The English Church I (1000—1066) (London 1963; 2nd edn., London 1979) The English Church II (1066—1134) (London 1979) The Feudal Kingdom of England, 1042—1216 (London 1955, 4th edn. London 1988) "Leofric and his times," in Leofric of Exeter. Essays in Commemoration of the Foundation of Exeter Cathedral Library in A. D. 1072 (Exeter 1972), pp. 1—16 "Roger of Howden," EHR 65 (1950), 352-360 Thomas Becket (Berkeley 1986) "A View of Archbishop Lanfranc," JEH 16 (1965), 163-177 William Rufus (London 1983) Barnes, Rosemary G. "Lambeth MS. 1212 and the White Book of Canterbury," BIHR 32 (1959), 57-62 Barrow, G. W. S. The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History (Oxford 1980) Kingship and Unity. Scotland: 1000—1306. New History of Scotland 2 (London 1981) Barrow, Julia. "The bishops of Hereford and their acta: 1163-1219." D.Phil. dissertation, University of Oxford (1983) "Cathedrals, provosts and prebends. A comparison of twelfth-century German and English practice," JEH 37 (1986), 536-564 "Hereford bishops and married clergy: c. 1130-1240," Historical Research 60 (1987), 1-8 Bassett, Steven, " Lincoln and the Anglo-Saxon see of Lindsey," Anglo-Saxon England 18 (1989), 1-32 Bates, David R. "The character and career of Odo, bishop of Bayeux (1049/50-1097)," Speculum 50 (1975), 1-20 "The land pleas of William I's reign: Penenden Heath revisited," BIHR 51 (1978), 1-19 Beardwood, Alice. "The trial of Walter Langton, bishop of Lichfield: 1307—1312," Camden Society, n.s. 54 (1964) Beauroy, J. "La Conquete clericale de l'Angleterre," Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale 37 (1984), 35~48 Benson, Edward W. The Cathedral. Its Necessary Place in the Life and Work of the Church (London 1878) Benson, Robert L. The Bishop-Elect. A Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office (Princton 1968) "Election by community and chapter. Reflections on co-responsibility in the historical church," The Jurist, 31 (1971), 54—80 " The obligations of bishops with regalia. Canonistic views from Gratian to the 406

Bibliography early thirteenth century." Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Monumenta Iuris Canonici, series c, Subsidia I (1965), 123-138 Bentham, James. The History and Antiquities of the Conventual and Cathedral Church of Ely, 2 vols. (Norwich 1812—1817) Berliere, Ursmer, "Le sceau conventuel," Revue Benedictine 20 (1927): 288—309 Berman, Harold J. Law and Revolution. The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge, Mass. 1983) Bethell, Denis L. "English black monks and episcopal elections in the 1120s," EHR 84 (1969), 673-698 "William of Corbeil and the Canterbury-York dispute," JEH 19 (1968), H5-I59 Biddle, Martin. "Felix urbs Winthonia. Winchester in the age of monastic reform," Tenth-Century Studies, ed. David Parsons (London 1975), pp.123-140 Biller, Peter. "Words and the medieval notion of * religion '," JEH 36 (1985), 351-369 Bishop, Edmund. Liturgica Historica. Papers on the Liturgy and Religious Life of the Western Church (Oxford 1918) Bishop, T. A. M. "The Norman settlement of Yorkshire," Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke (Oxford 1948), pp. 1—14 Scriptores Regis. Facsimiles to Identify and Illustrate the Hands of Royal Scribes in Original Charters of Henry I, Stephen, and Henry II (Oxford 1961) Black, Antony. Guilds and Civil Society in European Political Thought from the Twelfth Century to the Present (London 1984) Blair, C. H. H. "Catalogue of Durham seals from a manuscript of the Rev. W. Greenwell, collated and annotated...," Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd. ser. 15 (1918), 115—204 Blair, John. " Secular minster churches in Domesday Book," Domesday Book. A Reassessment, ed. P. Sawyer (London 1985), pp. 104-142 Blake, D . W. "Bishop William Warelwast," Transactions of the Devonshire Association 104 (1972), 15—33 "The church of Exeter in the Norman period." M. A. thesis, University of Exeter (1970) "The development of the chapter of the diocese of Exeter: 1050-1161," Journal of Medieval History 8 (1982), 1-11 Blake, E. O. " The Historia Eliensis as a source for twelfth-century history," BJRL 4i (1959), 304-327 Bligny, Bernard. VEglise et les ordres religieux dans le royaume de Bourgogne (Grenoble i960) " L'Eglise et le siecle de Tan mil au debut du XII e siecle," Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale 27 (1984), 5~33, 157Blomefield, Francis. An Essay towards a Typographical History of the County of Norfolk, 5 vols. (Fersfield 1739-1775, 2nd. edn. 11 vols. London 1805-1810) Boggis, R. J. E. A History of the Diocese of Exeter (Exeter 1922)

407

Bibliography Bohmer, Heinrich. Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XL und XII. Jahrhundert. Eine historische Studie (Leipzig 1899, repr. Aalen 1968) Bond, C.J. "Church and parish in Norman Worcestershire," in Minster and Parish Churches. The Local Church in Transition, 930—1200, ed. John Blair, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 17 (Oxford 1988), pp. 119-158 Bouch, C. M. Lowther. " The muniments of the diocese of Carlisle," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Art and Archaeological Society, n.s. 46 (1947), 174-190 Bouchard, Constance B. Spirituality and Administration. The Role of the Bishop in Twelfth-Century Auxerre (Cambridge, Mass. 1979) Bowker, Margaret. The Secular Clergy in the Diocese of Lincoln: 1493—1320 (Cambridge, 1968) Box, E.G. "Donations of manors to Christchurch, Canterbury and appropriation of churches," Archaeologia Cantiana 44 (1932), 103—119 Brentano, Robert. York Metropolitan Jurisdiction and Papal Judges Delegate 1279-1296 (Berkeley 1959) Brett, Martin. "A collection of Anglo-Norman councils," JEH 26 (1975), 301-308 The English Church under Henry I (Oxford 1975) Bridbury, A. R. "The farming out of manors," Economic History Review, 2nd. ser., 31 (1978), 503-525 Brooke, C. N . L. "Archbishop Lanfranc, English bishops and the council of London: 1075," Studia Gratiana 12 (1967), 36-60 "The canons of the English church councils in the early decretal collections," Traditio 13 (1957), 47i~479 "The composition of the chapter of St. Paul's," Cambridge Historical Journal 10 (1951), 111-132 "Continental influence on English cathedral chapters in the XI th and XII th centuries," XV Congres International des Sciences Historiques, Resumes des communications (i960), 120—121 "The Deans of St. Paul's," BIHR 29 (1956), 231-244 Medieval Church and Society. Collected Essays (New York 1971) "Monk and canon," Studies in Church History 22 (1985), 109-129 Brooke, C. N . L. and Gillian Keir, London 800—1216: The Shaping of a City (Berkeley 1975) Brooke, Z. N . and C. N . L. "Hereford cathedral dignitaries in the twelfth century," Cambridge Historical Journal 8, 1 (1944), 1—21; 8, 3 (1946), 179—185 Brooks, Nicholas. The Early History of the Church of Canterbury (Leicester 1984) Brown, Brendan F. " Canonical juristic personality," The Jurist 1 (1947), 66-73 Brown, Sandra. "A dispute between Archbishop Melton and the dean and chapter of York, c. 1336-1338," BIHR 54 (1981), 110-119 The Medieval Courts of the York Minster Peculiar. Borthwick Papers 66 (York 1984) Brown, W. "The institution of the prebendal church at Howden," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 22 (1913), 166—174

408

Bibliography Burton, Janet E. "Monasteries and parish churches in eleventh and twelfthcentury Yorkshire," Northern History 23 (1987), 39-50 Bussby, Frederick. Winchester Cathedral: iO7g-ig7g (Southampton 1979) Butcher, A. F. " Sandwich in the thirteenth century," Archaeologia Cantiana 93 (1977), 25-31 Caenegem, R. C. van. Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glanvil. Selden Society 77 (London 1959) Callahan, T. "The renaissance of monastic bishops in England: 1135-1154," Studia Monastica 16 (1974), 55-67 Cambridge Medieval History, 8 vols. (Cambridge 1911-1936) Campbell, James. "Norwich," in Historic Towns, ed. M. Lobel, vol. 11 (London 1975) " Observations on English government from the tenth to the twelfth century," TRHS 5th ser. 25 (1975), 39-54 Canning, J. P. "Introduction: politics, institutions, ideas," in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350—c. 1450. ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge 1988), pp. 341-366 "Law, sovereignty and corporation theory, 1300—1450," in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350—c. 1450, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge 1988), pp. 454-476 Carter, Alan. "The Anglo-Saxon origins of Norwich. The problems and approaches," Anglo-Saxon England 7 (1978), 175-204 Chaplais, Pierre. "The authenticity of the royal Anglo-Saxon diplomas of Exeter," BIHR 39 (1966), 1-34 "The original charters of Herbert and Gervase, abbots of Westminster (1121—1157)," in A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton, PRS n.s. 36 (London i960), pp. 89-110 Cheney, C. R. "Church-building in the Middle Ages," BJRL 34 (1951-1952), 20-36

"The earliest English diocesan statutes," EHR 75 (i960), 1-29 English Bishops' Chanceries: 1100—1250 (Manchester 1950) Episcopal Visitation of Monasteries in the Thirteenth Century (Manchester 1931) From Becket to Langton. English Church Government: 1170—1213 (Manchester 1956) Hubert Walter (London 1967) "King John and the papal interdict," BJRL 31 (1948), 295-317 "King John's reaction to the interdict on England," TRHS 4th ser. 31 (1949), 129-150

"Legislation of the medieval English church," EHR 50 (1935), 193-224, 385-417 "The medieval statutes of the diocese of Carlisle," EHR 62 (1947), 52-57 "Norwich cathedral priory in the fourteenth century," BJRL 20 (1936), 93-120

"On the acta of Theobald and Thomas," Journal of the Society of Archivists 6 (1978-1981), 467-481 Pope Innocent HI and England, Papst und Papsttum 9 (Stuttgart 1976)

409

Bibliography "Service-books and records. The case of the 'Domesday Monachorum'," BIHR 55 (1982), 7-15 Cheney, Mary G. "Pope Alexander III and Roger, bishop of Worcester: 1164—1179. The exchange of ideas," Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law. Monumenta Iuris Canonici, series c, Subsidia V (1976), 207—227 Roger, Bishop of Worcester: 1164—11 yg (Oxford 1980) Chew, Helena M. The English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief and Knight Service especially in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Oxford 1932) Chibnall, Marjorie. Anglo-Norman England, 1066-1166 (Oxford 1986) "The Empress Matilda and church reform," TRHS, 5th ser. 38 (1988), 107—130 "Mercenaries and thefamilia regis under Henry I," History 62 (1977), 15—23 "Monks and pastoral work. A problem in Anglo-Norman history," JEH 18 (1967), 165-172 The World of Orderic Vitalis (Oxford 1984) Chodorow, Stanley. Christian Political Theory and Church Politics in the MidTwelfth Century. The Ecclesiology ofGratian's Decretum (Berkeley 1972) Chroust, Anton-Hermann. "The corporate idea and the body politic in the middle ages," Review of Politics 9 (1947), 423—452 Church, C. M. Chapters in the Early History of the Church of Wells, A.D. 1136-1333 (London 1894) The Church and Wealth, ed. W. J. Sheils and Diana Wood, Studies in Church History 24 (Oxford 1987) Churchill, Irene J. Canterbury Administration, 2 vols. (London 1933) Classen, Peter. Gerhoh von Reichersberg (Wiesbaden i960) Clay, Charles Travis. "The early precentors and chancellors of York," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 36 (1940—1943), 116—138 "The early treasurers at York," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 35 (1940), 7—34 " Notes on the chronology of the early deans of York," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 34 (1939), 361-378 York Minster Fasti. Being Notes on the Dignitaries, Archdeacons and Prebendaries in the Church of York prior to the Year 1307, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, record series, 123-124, 2 vols. (York 1958-1959) Collinson, John. The History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset, 3 vols. (Bath 1791) Colvin, H. M. "Holme Lacy, an episcopal manor and its tenants in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries," Medieval Studies Presented to Rose Graham, ed. Veronica Ruffer and A. J. Taylor (London 1950), pp. 15—40 "A list of the archbishop of Canterbury's tenants by knight service in the reign of Henry II," Kent Records 18 (1964), 1—40 Constable, Giles. "The disputed election at Langres in 1138," Traditio 13 (1957), 119-152 "Monastic possession of churches and spiritualia in the age of reform," // Monacheismo e la riforma ecclesiastical 1040—1122. Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali 6 (Milano 1971), pp. 304-331 410

Bibliography Monastic Tithesfrom Their Origins to the Twelfth Century, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, n.s. 10 (Cambridge 1964) Conway, Agnes E. "The owners of Allington Castle, Maidstone: 1086—1279," Archaeologia Cantiana 29 (1911), 1—39 Conway, W. Martin. "Allington Castle," Archaeologia Cantiana 28 (1909), 337-362 Cooper, J. P. "The social distribution of land and men in England: 1436-1700," Economic History Review, 20 (1967), 419-440 Cooper, Janet M. The Last Four Anglo-Saxon Archbishops of York. Borthwick Papers no. 38 (York 1970) Coornaert, Emile. "Qu'est-ce qu'une corporation dans l'ancienne France?" Universite de Louvain, Recueil de travaux, 2nd ser. fasc. 50 (1939), 3—12 Coss, P. R. " Coventry before incorporation. A re-interpretation," Midland History, 2 (1974), I37~i5i Cowdrey, H. E. J. "Bishop Ermenfrid of Sion and the penitential ordinance following the battle of Hastings," JEH 20 (1969), 225-242 "Pope Gregory VII and the Anglo-Norman church and kingdom," Studi Gregoriani 9 (1972), 77—114 Craster, H. E. "A contemporary record of the pontificate of Ranulf Flambard," Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser. 7 (1930), 33—56 "The patrimony of St. Cuthbert," EHR 69 (1954), 177—199 "The Red Book of Durham," EHR 40 (1925), 504—532 Cronne, H. A. The Reign of Stephen, 1135—1154. Anarchy in England (London 1970) Crosby, Everett U. "The organization of the English episcopate under Henry I," SMRH 4 (1967), 1-88 Cussans, John E. History of Hertfordshire, 3 vols. (London 1870—1881) Dameron, George W. Episcopal Power and Florentine Society: 1000—1320 (Cambridge, Mass. 1991) Darlington, R. R. "Aethelwig, abbot of Evesham," EHR 48 (1933), 19-22 "Ecclesiastical reform in the Old English period," EHR 51 (1936), 385—428 Davey, C. R. "Early diocesan accounts at Carlisle," Journal of the Society of Archivists 3 (1968), 424—425 "Medieval grants to the priory of Carlisle," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, n.s. 71 (1971), 284—286 Davis, H. W. C. "Henry of Blois and Brian Fitz-Count," EHR 25 (1910), 297-303 "The liberties of Bury St. Edmunds," EHR 24 (1909), 417—431 "London lands and liberties of St. Paul's: 1066-1135," Essays in Medieval History presented to Thomas Frederick Tout (Manchester 1925), pp. 45—59 Davis, R. H. C. "The early history of Coventry," Dugdale Society Occasional Papers 24 (Oxford, 1976) King Stephen, 1135—1154 (London 1967) "An unknown Coventry charter," EHR 86 (1971), 533—545 Deanesly, Margaret. "The Familia at Christchurch, Canterbury: 597—832," Essays in Medieval History presented to Thomas Frederick Tout (Manchester 1925), 1-13 Delisle, Leopold. " Recueil de 109 chartes originales de Henri II roi d'Angleterre 411

Bibliography et due de Normandie rassemblees et photographiees par le rev. H. Salter," BEC 69 (1908), 541-580 Denton, Jeffrey H. English Royal Free Chapels, 1100—1300. A Constitutional History (Manchester 1970) Robert Winchelsey and the Crown: 1294—1313. A Study in the Defence of Ecclesiastical Liberty. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser. 14 (Cambridge 1980) Desprairies, Andre. VElection des eveques par les chapitres au xiiie siecle (theorie canonique) (Paris 1922) De Wulf, Maurice. Philosophy and Civilization in the Middle Ages (Princeton 1922, repr. N e w York 1953) Dickens, A. G. "The shire and the privileges of the archbishop in eleventhcentury York," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 38 (1952-1955), 131-147 Dickinson, John C. " I canonici regolari e la riforma ecclesiastica in Inghilterra nei secoli XI e XII," Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali, 3 (Milan 1962),

pp. 274-303 The Origins of the Austin Canons and Their Introduction into England (London 1950) "The origins of the cathedral of Carlisle," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, n.s. 45 (1945), 134-143 "Walter, the priest, and St. Mary's, Carlisle," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, n.s. 69 (1969),

102-114 Dictionnaire d'arche'ologie chretienne et de liturgie (Paris 1907—1953) Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographie ecclesiastiques (Paris 1912- ) Dobson, R. B. "Cathedral chapters and cathedral cities: York, Durham and Carlisle in the fifteenth century," Northern History 19 (1983), 15-44 Durham Priory: 1400—1430. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser. 6 (Cambridge 1973) "Recent prosopographical research in late medieval English history. University graduates, Durham monks and York canons," in Medieval Lives and the Historian. Studies in Medieval Prosopography, ed. N. Bulst and J.-P. Genet (Kalamazoo 1986), pp. 181—200 Dodds, Madeleine Hope. " The bishops' boroughs," Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd ser.

12 (1915), 81-185 Dodwell, Barbara. "The foundation of Norwich cathedral," TRHS, 5th ser. 7 (1957), 1-18 "The honour of Thetford/Norwich in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries," Norfolk Archaeology 33 (1965), 185-199 Douglas, David C. " Odo, Lanfranc and the Domesday survey," Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait (Manchester 1933), pp. 44—57 The Social Structure of Medieval East Anglia. Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History 9 (Oxford 1927, repr. N e w York 1974) William the Conqueror. The Norman Impact upon England (Berkeley 1964) Douie, Decima. Archbishop Geoffrey Plantagenet and the Chapter at York. Borthwick Papers no. 18 (York i960)

Archbishop Pecham (Oxford 1952) 412

Bibliography Draper, Peter. "Bishop North wold and the cult of saint Etheldreda," Medieval Art and Architecture at Ely Cathedral, B. A. A. Transactions (Leeds 1979), pp. 8-27 Drew, J. S. "Manorial accounts of St. Swithun's Priory, Winchester," EHR 62 (1947), 20-41 Du Boulay, F. R. H. "The Archbishop as territorial magnate," Medieval Records of the Archbishop of Canterbury (London 1962), pp. 50-70 The Lordship of Canterbury. An Essay on Medieval Society (London 1966) Du Cange, Charles du Fresne. Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, 7 vols. (Paris 1840-1850) Duff, P. W. Personality in Roman Private Law (Cambridge 1938) Dugdale, William. The Antiquities of Warwickshire, 3rd edn. (Coventry 1765) The History of St. PauVs Cathedral, 3rd edn. (London 1818) Duggan, Charles. "Richard of Ilchester, royal servant and bishop," TRHS 5th, ser. 16 (1966), 1-21 Twelfth-Century Decretal Collections and their Importance in English History, University of London Historical Series 12 (London 1963) Duggan, Lawrence G. Bishop and Chapter. The Governance of the Bishopric of Speyer to 1552 (New Brunswick 1978) Dumas, A. " La Notion de la propriete ecclesiastique du IX e au XI e siecle," Revue d'histoire de Veglise de France 26 (1940), 14—34 Duncan, A. A. M. Scotland, The Making of the Kingdom. Edinburgh History of Scotland 1 (Edinburgh 1975) Duncumb, John and W. H. Cooke. Collections towards the History and Antiquities of the County of Hereford, 3 vols. (Hereford 1804-1892) Dyer, Christopher. Lords and Peasants in a Changing Society. The Estates of the Bishopric of Worcester: 680—1340 (Cambridge 1980) Dyson, A. G. "The career, family and influence of Alexander le Poer, bishop of Lincoln: 1123-1148." B.Litt. thesis, University of Oxford (1971) "The monastic patronage of bishop Alexander of Lincoln," JEH 26 (1975), 1-24 Edwards, Kathleen. The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages. A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century (Manchester 1949, rev. 2nd edn. Manchester 1967) The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages. ed. C. H. Lawrence, (New York 1965) Erskine, Audrey M. " Bishop Briwere and the reorganization of the chapter of Exeter cathedral," Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science 108 (1976), 159-171 "The medieval financial records of the cathedral church of Exeter, "Journal of the Society of Archivists 2 (i960—1964), 254-266 Essays in British and Irish History in Honour of James Eadie Todd, ed. H. A. Cronne, T. W. Moody, and D. B. Quinn (London 1949) European Towns. Their Archaeology and Early History, ed. M. W. Barley (London 1977) Eyton, Robert W. The Antiquities of Shopshire, 12 vols. (London 1853-1860) Farmer, David H. Saint Hugh of Lincoln (London 1985)

413

Bibliography Farmer, D. L. " Some price fluctuations in Angevin England," Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 9 (1956-1957), 24-43 Farrer, William. "An outline itinerary of King Henry the first," EHR 34 (1919), 303-382, 505-579 Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae: 1066-1300, ed. John Le Neve, Monastic Cathedrals ed. Diana E. Greenway (London 1971), Lincoln, vol. 111 (London 1977) Feenstra, R. "L'Histoire des fondations a propos de quelques etudes recentes," Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 24 (1956), 381—448 Feine, Hans E. A. Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte. Die Katholische Kirche (Weimar 1950, 4th edn. Cologne 1964) Finberg, H. P. R. The Early Charters of Wessex (Leicester 1964) The Early Charters of the West Midlands (Leicester 1961)

" Sherborne, Glastonbury and the expansion of Wessex," TRHS 5th ser. 3 (1953), 101-124 "Some Early Tavistock charters," EHR 62 (1947), 352-377 West Country Historical Studies (Newton Abbot 1969) Finn, R. Welldon. "The Inquisitio Eliensis reconsidered," EHR 75 (i960), 385-409 An Introduction to Domesday Book (London 1965) The Liber Exoniensis (London 1964) The Norman Conquest and its Effects on the Economy: 1066-86 (London 1971) Foreville, Raymonde. VEglise et la royaute en Angleterre sous Henri II Plantagenet (Paris 1943) "Representation et taxation du clerge au IV e concile du Latran (1215)," Etudes presentees a la commission internationale pour Vhistoire des assemblers d'etats 31

(1966), 57-74 Fox, Levi. "The early history of Coventry," History, n.s. 30 (1945), 21-37 Fraser, C. M. A History of Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham: 1283—1311 (Oxford 1957) Freeman, Edward A. History of the Cathedral Church of Wells as illustrating the History of the Cathedral Churches of the Old Foundation (London 1870) The History of the Norman Conquest of England, its Causes and its Results, 6 vols.

(Oxford 1867-1879, 3rd edn. vols. 1-11, 1877) The Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry I 2 vols. (Oxford 1882)

Frohlich, Walter. " Anselm and the bishops of the province of Canterbury," in Les Mutations socio-culturelles au tournant des xie—xii e siecles, Etudes Anselmiennes 4, CNRS (Paris 1984), pp. 125—145 "Die bischoflichen Kollegen Erzbischof Anselms von Canterbury." Ph.D. dissertation Ludwig-Maximilians Universitat zu Munchen, (1971) Fryde, Edmund. "The tenants of the bishops of Coventry and Lichfield and of Worcester after the plague of 1348—9," Medieval Legal Records, ed. R. F. Hunnisett and J. B. Post (London 1978), 228—229 Galbraith, V. H. Domesday Book. Its Place in Administrative History (Oxford 1974) "The East Anglian see and the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds," EHR 11 (1925),

222-228 "An episcopal land grant of 1085," EHR 44 (1929), 353-372 "Girard, the chancellor," EHR 46 (1931), 77—79

414

Bibliography "Monastic foundation charters of the eleventh and twelfth centuries," Cambridge Historical Journal 4 (1934), 205-222, 296-298 "Notes on the career of Samson, bishop of Worcester: 1096—1112," EHR 82 (1967), 86-101 "Royal charters to Winchester," EHR 25 (1920), 382-400 Ganzer, Klaus. "Zur Beschrankung der Bischofswahl auf die Domkapitel in Theorie und Praxis des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts," Zeitschrift der SavignyStiftungfur Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 57 (1971), 22—82; 58 (1972), 166-197 Gaudemet, Jean. La Collation par le roi de France des benefices vacants en regale des origines a la fin du XIVe siecle, Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des hautes etudes, sciences religieuses 51 (Paris 1935) Les Elections dans Veglise latine des origines au XVIe siecle (Paris 1979) Gem, R. D. H. "The Anglo-Saxon cathedral church at Canterbury, a further consideration," Archaeological Journal 127 (1970), 196—201 "Lincoln minster: ecclesia pulchra, ecclesia fortis," in Medieval Art and Architecture at Lincoln Cathedral, B. A. A. Transactions (Leeds 1986), pp. 9-28 "The romanesque cathedral of Winchester. Patron and design in the eleventh century," in Medieval Art and Architecture at Winchester Cathedral, B. A. A. Transactions 6 (Leeds 1983), pp. 1—12 Gibbons, A. Ely Episcopal Records. A Calendar and Concise View of the Episcopal Records Preserved in the Muniment Room of the Palace at Ely (Lincoln 1891) Gibbs, Marion and Jane Lang. Bishops and Reform: 1215—1272, with special reference to the Lateran Council of 1215 (Oxford 1934, repr. Oxford 1962) Gibson, Margaret. Lanfranc of Bee (Oxford 1978) Gierke, Otto von. Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht, 4 vols. (Berlin 1868— 1913) Gilbert, Edward. "The first Norman cathedral at Canterbury," Archaeologia Cantiana 88 (1973), 23-50 Gilchrist, John T. The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages (London 1969) Gillet, Pierre. La Personalite juridique en droit ecclesiastique specialement chez les decretistes et les decretalistes et dans le code de droit canonique. Universitas catholica Lovaniensis, dissertationes, series 2, t. 18 (Malines 1927) Gillingham, John. " The introduction of knight service into England," Proceedings of the Battle Conference 4 (1981), 53-64 Given-Wilson, Chris and Alice Curteis. The Royal Bastards of Medieval England (London 1984) Godfrey, John. The Church in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge 1962) Gooder, Arthur and Eileen. "Coventry before 1355. Unity or division? The importance of the earl's half," Midland History 6 (1981), 1-38 Gottfried, Robert S. Bury St. Edmunds and the Urban Crisis: I2go—i$^g (Princeton 1982) Graham, Rose. "The administration of the diocese of Ely during the vacancies of the see: 1298-1299 and 1302-1303," TRHS, 4th ser. 12 (1929), 49-74 English Ecclesiastical Studies (New York 1929)

415

Bibliography Gransden, Antonia. "Childhood and youth in medieval England," Nottingham Medieval Studies 16 (1972), 3—19 "Cultural transition at Worcester in the Anglo-Norman period," in Medieval Art and Architecture at Worcester Cathedral, B. A. A. Transactions 1 (Leeds 1978), pp. 1-14 "A democratic movement in the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries," JEH 26 (1975), 25-39 "The growth of the Glastonbury traditions and legends in the twelfth century, "JEH 27 (1976), 337~358 Historical Writing in England c. 530 to c. 1307 (London 1974) Historical Writing in England II c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century (London 1982) "The History of Wells Cathedral: c. 1090-1547," Wells Cathedral, a History, ed. L. S. Colchester (Shepton Mallet 1982), pp. 24—51 Green, Judith A. "Anglo-Scottish relations: 1066-1174," England and her Neighbours: 1066—1433. Essays in Honour of Pierre Chaplais, ed. Michael Jones and Malcolm Vale (London 1989), pp. 53—72 "Aristocratic loyalties on the northern frontier of England c. 1100-1174," England in the Twelfth Century. Proceedings of the Harlaxton Symposium 1988 (Woodbridge 1990), pp. 83-100 English Sheriffs to 1154. HMSO. PRO Handbooks no. 24 (London 1990) The Government of England under Henry I. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser. 3 (Cambridge 1986) "'Praeclarum et magnificum antiquitatis monumentum'; The earliest surviving Pipe Roll," BIHR 4 (1982), 1-17 "William Rufus, Henry I and the royal demesne," History 64 (1979), 337—352 Green, J. R. "Earl Harold and Bishop Giso," Transactions of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (1863-1864), 148-157 Greenway, Diana. "Ecclesiastical chronology:fasti 1066-1300," Studies in Church History 2 (i975)> 53~6o "The false Institutio of St. Osmund," in Tradition and Change, Essays in honour of Marjorie Chibnall, ed. Diana Greenway, Christopher Holdsworth, and Jane Sayers (Cambridge 1985), pp. 77—102 Guyotjeannin, Olivier. Episcopus et Comes. Affirmation et declin de la seigneurie episcopale au nord du royaume de France (Beauvais-Noyon xe-debut xiiie siecle), Memoires et documents de la Societe de TEcole des Chartes 30 (Geneva 1987) Haines, R. M. The Administration of the Diocese of Worcester in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century (London 1965) "The administration of Worcester sede vacante," JEH 13 (1962), 156-171 Halcrow, E. M. "The decline of demesne farming on the estates of Durham cathedral priory," Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 7 (1954-1955), 345—356 Hall, H. and F. J. Nicholas. "Manorial accounts of the priory of Canterbury: 1260-1420," BIHR 8 (1931), 136-155 Hallam, Elizabeth M. Domesday Book through Nine Centuries (London 1986) Hamshere, John D. "Domesday Book. Estate structures in the West Midlands," Domesday Studies, ed. J. C. Holt (Woodbridge 1987), pp. 155—182

416

Bibliography "The structure and exploitation of the Domesday Book estate of the church of Worcester," Landscape History 7 (1985), 41-52 Harper-Bill, Christopher. "Bishop William Turbe and the diocese of Norwich, 1146-1174," Anglo-Norman Studies 7 (1985), 142-160 Harvey, Barbara F. Westminster Abbey and its Estates in the Middle Ages (Oxford 1977) Harvey, John. "The Building of Wells Cathedral, I: 1175-1307," Wells Cathedral, a History, ed. L. S. Colchester (Shepton Mallet 1982), pp. 52-75 Harvey, P. D. A. "The English inflation of 1180-1220," Past and Present 61 (1973), 3-30 Harvey, Sally. "Domesday Book and Anglo-Norman governance," TRHS, 5th ser. 25 (1975), 175-193 "Domesday Book and its predecessors," EHR 86 (1971), 753-773 "The knight and the knight's fee in England," Past and Present 49 (1970), 3—43 Hase, P. H. "The mother churches of Hampshire," in Minster and Parish Churches. The Local Church in Transition, 950—1200. ed. John Blair, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 17 (Oxford 1988), pp. 45-66 Haselgrove, Dennis. "The Domesday record of Sussex," The South Saxons, ed. Peter Brandon (London 1978), pp. 190-220 Haslam, Jeremy. "Wells and Ramsbury. A further look at urban origins," Current Archaeology 7 (1981), 188 Hasted, Edward. The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, 12 vols. (Canterbury 1797-1801) The Heads of Religious Houses. England and Wales, 940—1216, ed. D. Knowles, C. N. L. Brooke, and V. London (Cambridge 1972) Heal, Felicity. Of Prelates and Princes. A Study of the Economic and Social Position of the Tudor Episcopate (Cambridge 1980) Herlihy, David. "Church property on the European continent: 701—1200," Speculum 36 (1961), 81-105 Heslop, T. A. "The conventual seals of Canterbury cathedral, 1066-1232," in Medieval Art and Architecture at Canterbury before 1220, B. A. A. Transactions 5 (Leeds 1982), pp. 94-100 " The romanesque seal of Worcester cathedral," in Medieval Art and Architecture at Worcester Cathedral, B. A. A. Transactions 1 (Leeds 1978), pp. 71-79 Hey, David. Yorkshire from A.D. 1000 (London 1986) Hill, David. An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England (Toronto 1981) Hill, Francis. Medieval Lincoln (Cambridge 1965) Hill, Geoffrey. English Dioceses. A History of their Limits from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (London 1900) Hilton, R. H. A Medieval Society (London 1966) Hinschius, Paul. Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten in Deutschland. Bd. II. System des Katholischen Kirchenrechts mit besonderer Rucksicht auf Deutschland (Berlin 1879, repr. Graz 1959) Historic Towns. Maps and Plans of Towns and Cities in the British Isles, ed. M. D. Lobel (London 1969)

417

Bibliography A History of the English Church, ed. William R. W. Stephens and William Hunt, 8 vols. in 9 (London 1899-1910) A History of St. Paul's Cathedral and the Men Associated with it. ed. W. R. Matthews and W. M. Atkins (London 1957) A History of York Minster, ed. G. E. Aylmer and Reginald Cant (Oxford 1977) Hofmeister, Philipp. Bischof und Domkapitel nach altem und nach neuem Recht (Wiirttemberg 1931) Holdsworth, Christopher. "The Church at Domesday," in Domesday Essays, ed. C. Holdsworth, Exeter Studies in History 14 (Exeter 1986), pp. 51-64 Holdsworth, William S. A History of English Law, 12 vols. (London 1922-193 8, 4th edn. London 1936) Hollister, C. Warren. "Henry I and Robert Malet," Viator 4 (1973), 115-122 The Military Organization of Norman England (Oxford 1965) Holt, J. C. "Feudal society and the family in early medieval England. I. The revolution of 1066," TRHS, 5th ser. 32 (1982), 193-212 "The introduction of knight service in England," Anglo-Norman Studies 6 (1984), 89-106 Holtby, R. T. "Carlisle cathedral library and records," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, n.s. 66 (1966), 201-219 Hope, W. H. St. John. "The architectural history of the cathedral church and monastery of St. Andrew at Rochester." Archaeologia Cantiana 23 (1898), 194-328 Howell, Margaret. "Abbatial vacancies and the divided mensa in medieval England," JEH 33 (1982), 173-192 Regaliati Right in Medieval England (London 1962) Hoyt, Robert S. "A pre-Domesday Kentish assessment list," in A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton, PRS, n.s. 36 (London 1962), pp. 189-202 The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History, 1066-1272 (Ithaca 1950) Hudson, W. "The Norwich taxation of 1254," Norfolk Archaeology 18 (1908), 46-157 Hiirten, Heinz. "Gregor der Grosse und der mittelalterliche Episkopat," Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 73 (1962), 16-41 Husain, B. M. C. Cheshire Under the Norman Earls: 1066-1237. A History of Cheshire 4 (Chester 1973) Hutchins, John. The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset, 4 vols. (London 1861-1870, repr. East Ardsley 1973) Hyams, Paul. Kings, Lords and Peasants (Oxford 1980) Imbart de la Tour, P. Les Elections episcopates dans Veglise de France du ixe au xiie siecle. Etude sur la decadence du principe electif 814—1150 (Paris 1890) Jacob, E. F. "The archbishop's testamentary jurisdiction," The Medieval Records of the Archbishops of Canterbury (London 1962), pp. 35—49 Jacqueline, Bernard. Episcopat et papaute chez saint Bernard de Clairvaux (Saint-L6 1975) Jenkins, R. C. Canterbury. S.P.C.K. Diocesan Histories (London 1880) John, Eric. "An alleged Worcester charter of the reign of Edgar," BJRL 41 (1958-1959), 54-80

418

Bibliography "The church of Winchester and the tenth-century reformation," BJRL 47 (1965), 404-429 "The division of the mensa in early English monasteries," JEH 6 (1955), H3-I55 Land Tenure in Early England (Leicester i960) Orbis Britanniae and other Studies (Leicester 1966) "Some Latin charters of the tenth-century reformation," Revue Benedictine 70 (i960), 333-359 JollifFe, J. E. A. Angevin Kingship (London 1963) Jones, B . C . "The topography of medieval Carlisle," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Architectural Society, n.s. 76 (1976), 77^96 Jones, Brigett E. A. "The Acta of Archbishops Richard and Baldwin: 1174—1190," Ph.D. dissertation, University of London (1964) Jones, E. D. "Some economic dealings of Prior John, the almoner, of Spalding: 1253—1274," Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 12 (1977), 41—47 Jones, J. "On the constitution, discipline and usages of Exeter cathedral." Archaeologia, 18 (1817), 385-416 Jones, Marjorie. "The estates of the cathedral church of Hereford: 1066-1317." B.Litt. thesis, University of Oxford (1958) Kantorowicz, Ernst H. The King's Two Bodies. A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton 1957) "Mysteries of state. An absolutist concept and its late mediaeval origins," Harvard Theological Review 48 (1955), 65-91 Kealey, Edward J. Roger of Salisbury, Viceroy of England (Berkeley 1972) Keefe, Thomas K. Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and his Sons (Berkeley 1983) Kemp, Brian R. "Hereditary benefices in the medieval English Church, a Herefordshire example," BIHR 43 (1970), 1-15 "Monastic possession of parish churches in England in the twelfth century," JEH 31 (1980) 133-160 Kemp, Eric W. Counsel and Consent. Aspects of the Government of the Church as Exemplified in the History of the English Provincial Synods, S.P.C.K. (London 1961) Ker, N. R. " Heming's cartulary. A description of two Worcester cartularies in Cotton Tiberius A. xiii," Studies in Medieval History presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke (Oxford 1948), pp. 49-^75 King, Edmund. Peterborough Abbey: 1086-1310. A Study in the Land Market (Cambridge 1973) "The Peterborough 'descriptio militum' (Henry I)," EHR 84 (1969), 84—101 King, H. P. "The life and acta of Robert de Chesney, bishop of Lincoln: 1148-1166," M.A. thesis, University of London (1955) Kirby, D. P. "The Church in Saxon Sussex." The South Saxons, ed. Peter Brandon (London 1978), pp. 160-173 Kissan, B. W. "An Early list of London properties." Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, n.s. 8 (1938), 57-69

419

Bibliography "Lanfranc's alleged division of lands between archbishop and community," EHR 54 (1939), 285-293 Knowles, David. "The Canterbury election of 1205-1205," EHR 53 (1938), 211—220

"The English bishops: 1070-1532," Medieval Studies presented to Aubrey Gwynn (Dublin, 1961), pp. 283-296 The Episcopal Colleagues of Archbishop Thomas Becket (Cambridge 1951) "Essays in monastic history, IV. The growth of exemption." The Downside Review 50 (1932), 201—231, 396—436 "Essays in monastic history, V. The Cathedral monasteries. " Downside Review 5i (1933), 73-96 The Historian and Character (Cambridge 1963) The Monastic Order in England (Cambridge 1950) The Religious Orders in England, vol. 1 (Cambridge i960) "Some developments in English monastic life," TRHS 4th ser. 26 (1944), 37-53 Kuttner, Stephan. "Cardinalis: the history of a canonical concept." Traditio 3 (1945), 129-214 Kuttner, Stephan and Eleanor Rathbone. "Anglo-Norman canonists of the twelfth-century." Traditio 7 (1951), 279-358 Lagarde, Georges de. "Individualisme et corporatisme au moyen age." Universite de Louvain, Recueil de travaux, 2nd ser. fasc. 44 (1937), 1-60 Lambrick, Gabrielle. " Abingdon abbey administration, "JEH17 (1966), 159-183 Lancaster, Joan C. "Coventry," in Historic Towns 11, ed. M. Lobel (London 1975) "The Coventry forged charters. A reconsideration," BIHR 27 (1954), 113-139 Lander, J. R. Government and Community. England 1450—1509 (London 1980) Landon, L. "The early archdeacons of Norwich diocese." Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History 20 (1930), 11-35 "Everard, bishop of Norwich. " Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute ofArchaeology and Natural History 20 (1930), 186—198 Lapsley, G. T. The County Palatine of Durham (Cambridge, Mass. 1900) Lawrence, C. H. Medieval Monasticism. Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages (London 1984, 2nd edn. London 1989) Saint Edmund of Abingdon. A Study in Hagiography and History (Oxford i960) Le Bras, Gabriel. Institutions ecclesiastiques de la chretiente medievale, Histoire de l'eglise 12, 2 vols. (Paris 1959-1964) Lega-Weekes, Ethel. Some Studies in the Typography of the Cathedral Close, Exeter (Exeter 1915) Lehmberg, Stanford E. The Reformation of Cathedrals. Cathedrals in English Society, 1485—1603 (Princeton 1988) Le Neve, Fasti, see Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae Lennard, Reginald. "A neglected Domesday satellite," EHR 58 (1943), 32-41 Rural England: 1066-1135. A Study of Social and Agrarian Conditions (Oxford 1959) Le Patourel, John H. "The date of the trial at Penenden Heath," EHR 61 (1946), 378-388 420

Bibliography "Geoffrey of Montbray, bishop of Coutances: 1049-1093," EHR, 59 (1944), 129-161

"The Norman conquest of Yorkshire," Northern History 6 (1971), 1-21 "The reports of the trial on Penenden Heath," Studies in Medieval History presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke (Oxford 1948), 15—26 Lesne, Emile. " Eveche et abbaye. Les Origines du benefice ecclesiastique," Revue d'histoire de Veglise de France 5 (1914), 15-50 Histoire de la propriete ecclesiastique en France, 6 vols. (Paris 1910-1943) VOrigine des menses dans le temporel des eglises et des monasieres de France au ixe siecle (Paris 1910) Levison, W. "A report of the Penenden trial," EHR 27 (1912), 717-720 Lewis, Ewart. "Organic tendencies in medieval political thought," American Political Science Review 32 (1938), 849-876 Leyser, KarlJ. "The Angevin kings and the Holy Man," in St. Hugh of Lincoln, ed. Henry Mayr-Harting (Oxford 1987), pp. 49-74 Lobel, M. D. "Ecclesiastical banleuca in England." Oxford Essays in Medieval History presented to Herbert Edward Salter (Oxford 1934), pp. 122-140 "Hereford," in Historic Towns, vol. 1, ed. M. Lobel (London 1969) Lohrmann, Dietrich. Kirchengut im nordlichen Frankreich. Besitz, Verfassung und Wirtschaft im Spiegel der Papstprivilegien des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts. Pariser historische Studien, Bd. 20 (Bonn 1983) Lomas, R. A. "The Priory of Durham and its demesnes in the 14th and 15th centuries," Economic History Review 31 (1978), 339—353 Lormeau, E. Des Menses episcopates en France. Etude historique etjuridique (Alencon 1905) Lot, Ferdinand and Robert Fawtier. Histoire des institutions francaises au Moyen Age. vol. in: Institutions ecclesiastiques (Paris 1962) Lousse, E. "Les caracteres essentiels de l'etat corporatif medieval," Bulletin of the International Committee of Historical Sciences 9, fasc. 4 (1937), 452-467 Lovatt, Marie B. "The Career and Administration of Archbishop Geoffrey of York: 1151?—1212." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge (1974) Loyn, H. R. "William's bishops. Some further thoughts," Anglo-Norman Studies 10 (1988), 223—235 Lunt, William E. Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 (Cambridge, Mass. 1939) The Valuation of Norwich (Oxford 1926) Luscombe, David E. and G. R. Evans. "The Twelfth-century renaissance," in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350—c. 1450, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge 1988), pp. 306-338 McDonnell, Kevin G. T. Medieval London Suburbs (London 1978) Mclntyre, E. A. "Early twelfth-century Worcester cathedral priory with special reference to the manuscripts written there," D.Phil, dissertation, University of Oxford (1978) Maitland, Frederic W. Domesday Book and Beyond. Three Essays in the Early History of England (Cambridge 1897; repr. London i960) Major, Kathleen. " Episcopal acta in medieval capitular archives," BIHR 9 (1932), H5-I53 421

Bibliography "The Familia of Archbishop Stephen Langton," EHR 48 (1933), 529-553 "The finances of the dean and chapter of Lincoln from the twelfth century to the fourteenth. A preliminary survey," JEH 5 (1954), 149-167 "Houses in Minster Yard, Lincoln. Documentary sources," in Medieval Art and Architecture at Lincoln Cathedral, B. A. A. Transactions 8 (Leeds 1986), pp. 146-147 Minster Yard, Lincoln Minster Pamphlets, 2nd ser. no. 7, (Lincoln 1974) The Making of King's Lynn, ed. Dorothy M. Owen, Records of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales, n.s. 9 (London 1984) Makower, Felix. The Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England (London 1895) Maleczek, Werner. Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216. Die Kardindle unter Coelestin III und Innocenz III. Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1 Abt., 6. Bd. (Vienna 1984) Mason, Emma. St. Wulfstan of Worcester, c. 1008—1093 (Oxford 1990) "William Rufus," Journal of Medieval History 3 (1977), 1—20 Mate, Mavis. "The indebtedness of Canterbury cathedral priory: 1215-1295," Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 26 (1973), 183-197 Mayr-Harting, Henry. The Bishops of Chichester, 1075—1207. Biographical Notes and Problems, Chichester Papers no. 40 (Chichester 1963) "Hilary, bishop of Chichester (1147-1169) and Henry II," EHR 78 (1963), 209-224

Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain. A Short Catalogue, ed. G. R. C. Davis (London 1958) Medieval Religious Houses. England and Wales, ed. D. Knowles and R. Neville Hadcock (London 1953) Meehan, Bernard. "Outsiders, insiders and property in Durham around 1100," Studies in Church History, 13 (1975), 45—58 "The Siege of Durham, the battle of Carham and the cession of Lothian," Scottish Historical Review, 55 (1976), 1—19 Megaw, Isabel. "The ecclesiastical policy of Stephen: 1136-1139, a reinterpretation," Essays in British and Irish History in honour ofJames Eadie Todd (London 1949) Michaud-Quantin, P. Universitas. Expressions du mouvement communautaire dans le moyen age latin (Paris 1970) Miller, Edward. The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, n.s. 1 (Cambridge 1951) "The Ely land pleas in the reign of William I," EHR 62 (1947), 438—456 "England in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. An economic contrast?" Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 24 (1971), 1—14 Miller, Edward and John Hatcher. Medieval England. Rural Society and Economic Change, 1086-1348 (London 1978) Millet, Helene. "Les partitions des prebendes au chapitre de Laon. Fonctionnement d'un systeme egalitaire, xiii e -xv e siecles," BEC 140 (1982), 163-188 Milsom, S. F. C. Historical Foundations of the Common Law (London 1969) Moorman, John R. H. Church Life in England in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge 1945)

422

Bibliography Morant, Philip. The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex, 2 vols. (London 1763-1768) Morey, Adrian. Bartholomew of Exeter, Bishop and Canonist. A Study in the Twelfth Century (Cambridge 1937) Morey, Adrian and C. N. L. Brooke. "The Cerne letters of Gilbert Foliot and the legation of Imar of Tusculum," EHR 63 (1948), 523—527 Gilbert Foliot and his Letters. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, n.s. 11 (Cambridge 1965) Morgan, Marjorie. "Early Canterbury jurisdiction," EHR 60 (1945), 392-399 Morris, Colin. The Papal Monarchy. The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford 1989) "William I and the church courts," EHR 82 (1967), 453—463 Mortimer, William W. The History of the Hundred of Wirral with a Sketch of the City and County of Chester compiledfrom the Earliest Authentic Records (Chester 1847) Nash, T. R. Collectionsfor the History of Worcestershire, 2 vols. (London 1781—1782, 2nd edn. London 1799) Nicholl, Donald. Thurstan, Archbishop of York, 1114—1140 (York 1964) Oakley, Anne M. "The cathedral priory of St. Andrew, Rochester." Archaeologia Cantiana 91 (1975), 47-60 Offler, H. S. "The early archdeacons in the diocese of Durham," Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland 11 (1962), 189-207 Medieval Historians of Durham (Durham 1958) "A note on the early history of the priory of Carlisle," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, n.s. 65 (1965), 176-181 "Ranulph Flambard as bishop of Durham," Durham University Journal 64 (1971), 14-25 "The Tractate De Iniusta Vexacione Willelmi Episcopi Primi," EHR 66 (1951), 321-341 Oliger, Paul R. Les Eveques reguliers. Recherche sur leur condition juridique depuis les origines du monachisme jusqu*a la Jin du moyen age (Paris 1958) Oliver, George. Lives of the Bishops of Exeter and a History of the Cathedral (Exeter 1861-1887) Olsen, Glenn. "The idea of the ecclesia primitiva in the writings of the twelfthcentury canonists," Traditio 25 (1969), 61—86 Orme, Nicholas. Exeter Cathedral as it was, 1050—1350 (Exeter 1986) "The medieval clergy of Exeter cathedral, I. The vicars and annuellars, II. The secondaries and choristers," Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement

of Science 113 (1981), 7 9 - 1 0 2 ; 115 (1983), 7 9 - 1 0 0

Ormerod, George. The History of the County Palatine and the City of Chester, 3 vols. (London 1819, 2nd edn. London 1875—1882) Owen, Dorothy. "Bishop's Lynn, the first century of a new town?" AngloNorman Studies 2 (1979), 141-153 Church and Society in Medieval Lincolnshire. History of Lincolnshire 5 (Lincoln 1971) 423

Bibliography "The muniments of Ely cathedral priory," in Church and Government in the Middle Ages. Essays presented to C. R. Cheney, ed. C. N. L. Brooke, D. E. Luscombe, G. H. Martin, and D. Owen (Cambridge 1976), pp. 157-176 "The Norman cathedral at Lincoln," Anglo-Norman Studies 6 (1983), 188-199 Pacaut, Marcel. Alexandre III. Etude sur la conception du pouvoir pontifical dans sa pensee et dans son oeuvre. L'Eglise et l'Etat au Moyen Age 11 (Paris 1956) Page, R. I. "Anglo-Saxon episcopal lists," Nottingham Medieval Studies 9 (1965),

71-95; 10 (1966), 2-24 Painter, Sidney. The Reign of King John (Baltimore 1949) Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony, The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series 61, no. 3 (Baltimore 1943) Palmer, Robert C. "The origins of property in England," Law and History Review 3 (1985), 1-50 Parker, James. "The church in Domesday with especial reference to episcopal endowments," Domesday Studies, ed. P. E. Dove (London 1886), pp. 399-432 Parkin, E. W. "Wingham, a medieval town," Archaeologia Cantiana 93 (1977), 61-80

Parkinson, B.J. "The life of Robert of Bethune by William of Wycombe," B.Litt. thesis, University of Oxford (1950) Partner, Nancy F. Serious Entertainments. The Writing of History in TwelfthCentury England (Chicago 1977)

Pennington, Kenneth. " Law, legislative authority and theories of government, 1150-1300," in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350-c. 1450. ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge 1988), pp. 424-453 Pope and Bishops. The Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Philadelphia 1984) Phillips, Derek. The Cathedral of Archbishop Thomas ofBayeux. Excavations at York Minster, Volume II (London 1985) Phillips, G. J. Das Regalienrecht in Frankreich. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Verhdltnisses zwischen Staat und Kirche (Halle 1873) Piper, A. J. "The first generations of Durham monks and the cult of St. Cuthbert," in St. Cuthbert, his Cult and his Community to AD 1200, ed. Gerald

Bonner, D. W. Rollason, and Clare Stancliffe (Woodbridge 1989), pp. 437-446 Platt, Colin. The Abbeys and Priories of Medieval England (New York 1984) Pollock, Frederick and F. W. Maitland. The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1968) Polwhele, Richard. The History of Devonshire, 3 vols. (London 1793—1806) Pontal, Odette, "Les Eveques dans le monde plantagenet," Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale 29 (1986), 129—137 Poole, Austin Lane. From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087—1216. The Oxford History of England (Oxford 1951) Poole, H. "The Domesday Book churches of Sussex," Sussex Archaeological Collections 87 (1948), 28-76 Poschl, Arnold. Bischofsgut und Mensa episcopalis. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Kirchlichen Vermogensrechtes, 2 vols. (Bonn 1908-1909)

424

Bibliography Post, Gaines. Studies in Medieval Legal Thought. Public Law and the State, 1100—1322 (Princeton 1964) Postan, M. M. Essays in Medieval Agriculture and General Problems of the Medieval Economy (Cambridge 1973) Powell, W. R. "English administrative families in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries." B.Litt. thesis, University of Oxford (1952) Powicke, F. M. Stephen Langton (Oxford 1928) Powicke, Michael. Military Obligation in Medieval England (Oxford 1962) Quillet, Jeannine. "Community, counsel and representation" in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350—c. 1450. ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge 1988), pp. 521-572 Raftis, J. Ambrose. The Estates of Ramsey Abbey. A Study in Economic Growth and Organization, Studies and Texts 3 (Toronto 1957) Rawlinson, Richard. The History and Antiquities of the City and Cathedral Church of Hereford (London 1717) Reich, A. M. The Parliamentary Abbots to 1470. University of California Publications in History 17 (Berkeley 1942, repr. N e w York 1974) Reichel, Oswald J. "'Fees of the Bishop of Exeter' in 'Testa de Nevil,' p. 187." Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science 34 (1902), 566-574 "The manor and hundred of Crediton," Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science 54 (1923), 146-181 Reynolds, Susan. Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe: goo-1300 (Oxford 1984, repr. 1986) "Law and communities in western Christendom, c. 900-1140." American Journal of Legal History 25 (1981), 205—224 Richardson, H. G. "Gervase of Tilbury," History 46 (1961), 102-114 Richardson, H. G. and George O. Sayles. The Governance of Medieval England from the Conquest to Magna Carta (Edinburgh 1963) Ridyard, Susan J. The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge 1988) Ritchie, R. L. Graeme. The Normans in Scotland (Edinburgh 1954) Robin, Gerard. "Le Probleme de la vie commune au chapitre de la cathedrale de Saint-Maurice d'Angers du IX e au XH e siecle," Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale 13, 4 (1970), 305-322 Robinson, I. S. Authority and Resistance in the Investiture Contest. The Polemical Literature of the Late Eleventh Century (Manchester 1978) Robinson, J. Armitage. "The early community at Christ Church Canterbury." Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1926), 225-240 Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster. A Study of the Abbey under Norman Rule (Cambridge 1911) The Saxon Bishops of Wells. British Academy Supplementary Papers 4 (London 1918) Somerset Historical Essays (London 1921) Rodriguez, M. J. "Innocent IV and the element of fiction in juristic personalities," The Jurist 22 (1962), 287-318 Rogers, K. H. " Salisbury," in Historic Towns, ed. M. Lobel, vol. 1 (London 1969)

425

Bibliography Rollason, D. W. "Relic-cults as an instrument of royal policy c. 900-c. 1050," Anglo-Saxon England 15 (1986), 91—103 Rose-Troup, Frances. The Consecration of the Norman Minster at Exeter (Exeter 1933) "The establishment of the office of dean in Exeter cathedral," Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries (1934), 16-20 Exeter Vignettes (Manchester 1942) "Newton St. Cyres and Norton," Transactions of the Devon Association 68

(1936), 221-231 Round, J. H. Feudal England. Historical Studies of the nth and 12th Centuries (London 1895, repr. London 1964) Geoffrey de Mandeville. A Study of the Anarchy (London 1892) "Hilary, bishop of Chichester," Athenaeum, 23 January 1897 "Nigel, bishop of Ely," EHR 8 (1893), 515-519 "Notes on the Sussex Domesday," Sussex Archaeological Collections, 44 (1901),

140-143

" Sussex in the Pipe Rolls under Henry II," Sussex Archaeological Collections 71

(1930), 97-105 Rumble, Alexander R. "The structure and reliability of the Codex Wintoniensis (BM. Add. MS. 15350)," D.Phil, dissertation, University of London (1979) Russell, J. C. "The clerical population in medieval England," Traditio 2 (1944), 177-212 Salter, H. E. "Charters of Henry II at Lincoln cathedral," EHR 24 (1909),

303-313 "A dated charter of Henry I," EHR 26 (1911), 487—491 "The death of Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester," EHR 37 (1922), 79-80 Saltman, Avrom. "John II, bishop of Rochester," EHR 66 (1951), 71-75 Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury. University of London Historical Studies 2 (London 1956) Saunders, P. C. "Royal ecclesiastical patronage in England, 1199—1351." D.Phil. dissertation, University of Oxford (1978) Savage, H. E. Lichfield Cathedral The Chapter in the Twelfth Century (Lichfield

1917) Sawyer, P. H. "Charters of the reform movement. The Worcester archive," in Tenth-Century Studies, ed. David Parsons (London 1975), pp. 84—93 "Evesham A, a Domesday Text." Worcester Historical Society, Miscellany I

(i960), 3-36 "The 'original' returns and Domesday Book," EHR 70 (1955), 177—197 "The wealth of England in the eleventh century," TRHS, 5th ser. 15 (1965),

145-164 Sayers, Jane E. " The medieval care and custody of the archbishop of Canterbury's archives," BIHR 39 (1966), 95-107 "Monastic Archdeacons," in Church and Government in the Middle Ages. Essays presented to C. R. Cheney, ed. C. N. L. Brooke, D. E. Luscombe, G. H. Martin, and Dorothy Owen (Cambridge 1976), pp. 177-203 "A record of the archbishop of Canterbury's feudal rights," Journal of the Society of Archivists 3 (1967), 213-221 426

Bibliography Scammell, G. V. Hugh du Puiset, Bishop of Durham (Cambridge 1956) Scammell, Jean. "The origin and limitations of the liberty of Durham," EHR 81 (1966), 449-473 Scarfe, Norman. Suffolk in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge 1986) Schieffer, Rudolf. Die Entstehung von Domkapiteln in Deutschland. Bonner historische Studien, Bd. 43 (Bonn 1976) Schneider, Philipp. Die bischoflichen Domkapitel, ihre Entwicklung und rechtliche Stellung im Organismus der Kirche (Mainz 1885) Schreiber, Georg. Kurie und Kloster im 12. Jahrhundert, 2 vols. (Stuttgart 1910) Searle, Eleanor. Lordship and Community. Battle Abbey and its Banlieu: 1066-1538 (Toronto 1974) "Women and the legitimization of the succession at the Norman Conquest," Proceedings of the Battle Conference 3 (1980), 159-170 Servatius, Carlo. Paschalis II (iogg-1118). Studien zu seiner Person und seiner Politik, Papst und Papsttum 14 (Stuttgart 1979) Sharpe, J. A. Early Modern England. A Social History (London 1986) Sheehan, Michael M. The Will in Medieval England from the Conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to the End of the Thirteenth Century, Studies and Texts 6 (Toronto 1963) Simpson, A. W. B. A History of the Land Law (Oxford 1961, 2nd edn. Oxford 1986) Smalley, Beryl. The Becket Conflict and the Schools. A Study of Intellectuals in Politics (Oxford 1973) "Ecclesiastical attitudes to novelty c. 1100-c. 1250," Studies in Church History, 12 (Oxford 1975), 113—131 "Gilbertus Universalis, bishop of London (1128—1134) and the problem of the glossa ordinaria," Recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale, 7 (1935), 235-262; 8 (1936), 24—60 Smith, David M. "Hugh's administration of the diocese of Lincoln," in St. Hugh of Lincoln, ed. Henry Mayr-Harting (Oxford 1987), pp. 19—47 Smith, R. A. L. Canterbury Cathedral Priory. A Study in Monastic Administration (Cambridge 1943) "The central financial system of Christ Church, Canterbury, 1186-1512," EHR 55 (1940), 353-369 Collected Papers (London 1947) "The early community of St. Andrew at Rochester: 604-c. 1080," EHR 60 (1945), 289-299 "The financial system of Rochester cathedral priory," EHR 56 (1941), 586-595 "John of Tours, bishop of Bath," Downside Review 70 (1942), 132-141 "The place of Gundulf in the Anglo-Norman church," EHR 58 (1943); 257-272 Snape, M. G. "Documentary evidence for the building of Durham cathedral and its monastic buildings," in Medieval Art and Architecture at Durham Cathedral, B. A. A. Transactions (Leeds 1980), pp. 20-36 Snape, R. H. English Monastic Finances in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge 1926, repr. N e w York 1968)

427

Bibliography Somerville, Robert. The Councils of Urban II (Amsterdam 1972) Somner, William. The Antiquities of Canterbury, 2nd edn. (Canterbury 1703) Southern, Richard W. "The Canterbury forgeries," EHR 73 (1958), 193-226 " Ranulf Flambard," in Medieval Humanism (New York 1970), pp. 183-205 "Ranulf Flambard and early Anglo-Norman administration," TRHS 4th ser. 16 (1933), 95-128 Robert Grosseteste. The Growth of an English Mind in Medieval Europe (Oxford 1986) Saint Anselm and his Biographer. A Study of Monastic Life and Thought, 1059-c. 11 jo (Cambridge 1963) Spear, D. E. "The Norman empire and the secular clergy," Journal of British Studies 21 (1981-1982), 1-10 Srawley, J. H. " Grosseteste's administration of the diocese of Lincoln." Robert Grosseteste, Scholar and Bishop, ed. D . A. Callus (Oxford 1955), pp. 146-177 Stenger, R. P. "The episcopacy as an ordo according to the medieval canonists," Medieval Studies 29 (1967), 67—112 Stenton, Doris M. English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter, 1066-121$ (Philadelphia 1964) Stenton, Frank M. "Acta episcoporum," Cambridge Historical Journal 3 (1929), 1-14 Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford 1943; 3rd edn. Oxford 1971) The First Century of English Feudalism: 1066-1166 (Oxford 1932, 2nd edn., Oxford 1950) The Latin Charters of the Anglo-Saxon Period (Oxford 1955) "York in the eleventh century," York Minster Historical Tracts, ed. A. H. Thompson (London 1927) Stevenson, Francis S. Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln. A Contribution to the Religious, Political and Intellectual History of the Thirteenth Century (London 1899) Stevenson, W. H. "A contemporary description of the Domesday survey," EHR 22 (1907), 72-84 Stone, Eric. "The estates of Norwich cathedral priory: 1100-1300," D.Phil. dissertation, University of Oxford (1956) "Profit and loss accountancy at Norwich cathedral priory," TRHS, 5th ser. 12 (1962), 25-48 Storey, R. L. Thomas Langley and the Bishopric of Durham: 1406-1437 (London 1961) Stubbs, William. The Constitutional History of England, 3 vols. (Oxford 1874-1891) Surtees, Robert. The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, 4 vols. (London 1816-1840) Sutcliffe, D. "The financial condition of the see of Canterbury: 1279—1292," Speculum 10 (1935), 53-68 Swainson, Charles A. The History and Constitution of a Cathedral of the Old Foundation Illustrated from Documents in the Registry and Manuscripts Room of the Cathedral of Chichester (London 1880)

428

Bibliography Sweet, Alfred H. "The Control of English episcopal elections in the thirteenth century," Catholic Historical Review 6 (1927), 573-582 Sylvester, Dorothy. A History of Cheshire (London 1971, 2nd edn. London 1980) Tait, James. "An alleged charter of William the Conqueror," in Essays in History presented to Reginald Lane Poole, ed. H. W. C. Davis (Oxford 1927), pp. 151-167 Tanner, Norman P. The Church in Late Medieval Norwich: 1370—1532, Studies and Texts 66 (Toronto 1984) Taylor, P. J. "The bishop of London's city soke," BIHR 53 (1980), 174-182 "The estates of the bishopric of London from the seventh century to the early sixteenth century," Ph.D. dissertation, University of London (1976) Tenth-Century Studies. Essays in Commemoration of the Millennium of the Council of Winchester and Regularis Concordia, ed. David Parsons (London 1975) Thacker, A. T. "Chester and Gloucester. Early ecclesiastical organization in two Mercian burhs," Northern History 18 (1982), 199—211 Thomassin, Louis. Ancienne et nouvelle discipline de Veglise, vol. vi (rev. edn. Barle-Duc 1866) Thompson, A. Hamilton. The Cathedral Churches of England, S.P.C.K. (London 1928) "The Chapel of St. Mary and the Holy Angels at York," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 36 (1944-1947), 63-77, 214-248 The English Clergy and their Organization in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford 1947) Tierney, Brian. Foundations of the Conciliar Theory. The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism (Cambridge 1955, repr. Cambridge 1968) Medieval Poor Law. A Sketch of Canonical Theory and its Application to England (Berkeley 1959) Toubert, P. "La Vie commune des clercs aux XI e -XH e siecles. Un questionnaire," Revue Historique 231 (1964), 11-26 Trenholme, Norman M. The English Monastic Boroughs. A Study in Medieval History. University of Missouri Studies 2 (July 1927), 1-119 Trummer, Josef. "Mystisches im alten Kirchenrecht. Die geistige Ehe zwischen Bischof und Diozese," Osterreichisches Archivfiir Kirchenrecht 2 (1951), 62-75 Tudor, Victoria. "The cult of St. Cuthbert in the twelfth century. The evidence of Reginald of Durham," in St. Cuthbert. His Cult and his Community in A.D. 1200, ed. Gerald Bonner, D. W. Rollason, and Clare Stancliffe (Woodbridge 1989), pp. 447-467 "The misogyny of Saint Cuthbert," Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., 12 (1984), 157-167 Turner, Barbara C. A History of Hampshire (London 1963) Ullmann, Walter. The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship (London 1969) "The delictal responsibility of medieval corporations," Law Quarterly Review, 64 (1948), 77-96 The Individual and Society in the Middle Ages (Baltimore 1966) "A note on inalienability in Gregory VII," Studi Gregoriani 9 (1972), 115-140 Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn. (London 1966)

429

Bibliography Urry, William. Canterbury under the Angevin Kings, 2 vols. (London 1967) "St. Anselm and his cult at Canterbury," Spicilegium Beccense 1 (1959), 571-593 Victoria History of the Counties of England, ed. H. A. Doubleday, William Page (London 1900-) Villacorta Rodriguez, Tomas, El Cabildo catedral de Leon. Estudio historico-jurtdico, siglo xii-xi (Leon 1974) Vincent, J. A. C. The first bishop of Bath and Wells (Exeter 1899) Voss, Lena. Heinrich von Blois, Bischof von Winchester: 112Q-1171. Historische Studien, Heft 210 (Berlin 1932) Walcott, M. E. C. "The early statutes of the cathedral church of the Holy Trinty, Chichester," Archaeologia 45 (1880), 143—234 Walker, David. "Crown and episcopacy under the Normans and Angevins," Anglo-Norman Studies 5 (1982), 220-233 "The Norman settlement in Wales," Anglo-Norman Studies 1 (1978), 131—143 Ward, Benedicta. Miracles and the Medieval Mind (Philadelphia 1987) Ward, Jennifer C. "The Lowy of Tonbridge and the lands of the Clare family in Kent: 1066-1217," Archaeologia Cantiana 96 (1980), 119—131 Warren, W. L. The Governance of Norman and Angevin England: 1086-1272 (London 1987) Henry II (London 1973) "The myth of Norman administrative efficiency," TRHS, 5th ser. 34 (1984), 113-132 Watkin, Aelred. Dean Cosyn and Wells Cathedral, Somerset Record Society, Miscellanea 55 (1941) "The precentors, chancellors and treasurers in Wells cathedral," Somerset Record Office, Collectanea 3 (1942), 51—103 Watson, E. W. "The development of ecclesiastical organisation and its financial basis," CMH vol. vi, chapter xvi, pp. 528-558 Wells Cathedral. Its Foundation, Constitutional History, and Statutes, ed. Herbert E. Reynolds, n.p. 1881 Wells Cathedral. A History, ed. L. S. Colchester (Shepton Mallet 1982) White, Graeme. " Were the midlands ' wasted' during Stephen's reign ? " Midland History 10 (1985), 26-46 Whitelock, Dorothy. Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London (London 1975) Wightman, W. E. The Lacy Family in England and Normandy (Oxford 1966) Willis, Robert. The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral (London 1845) Wilson, J. "The constitutional growth of Carlisle cathedral," Scottish Historical Review 17 (1920), 199-218 Winchester, Angus J. L. Landscape and Society in Medieval Cumbria (Edinburgh 1987) WolfFe, B. P. The Royal Demesne in English History. The Crown Estate in the Governance of the Realm from the Conquest to i$og (London 1971) Wood, Susan. English Monasteries and their Patrons in the Thirteenth-Century. Oxford Historical Series (Oxford 1955) Woodman, Francis. The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral (London 1981)

430

Bibliography Woolley, R. M. "Constitutions of the diocese of London: c. 1215—1222," EHR 30 (1915), 285-302 Wright, J. Robert. The Church and the English Crown: 1305—1334 (Toronto 1980) York Minster Historical Tracts, ed. A. H. Thompson (London 1927) Young, Alan. William Cumin. Border Politics and the Bishopric of Durham: 1141—1144. Borthwick Papers no. 54 (York 1978) Zema, Demetrius B. "Reform legislation in the eleventh century and its economic impact," Catholic Historical Review 27 (1942), 16-38

431

INDEX

Aaron, the Jew, 304, 305 Abberton (Essex), 322 Abbotstone (Hants.), 218 Abelard, Peter, 392 Abingdon, abbey, 43; chronicle, 283; mensa division, 376, 380 Abington Pigotts (Cambs.), 222 Absalon, prior of Durham, 144 Acomb (Yorks.), 347 Ada Lanfranci, 71

Adbalston (Staffs.), church, 124 Adderbury (Oxon.), 222 Adelard of Bath, 53 Adele, wife of Henry I, 248 Adelm, dean of Lincoln, 300 Adelulf, bishop of Carlisle, 107 Adisham (Kent), 72 Aeldulvesnasa, the Nase (Essex), 322, 329 Aelfgar, earl of East Anglia and Mercia, 175 Aelfric, archbishop of York, 346; bishop of Worcester, 346 Aelfsige, abbot of Bath, 52 Aelfstan, prior of Worcester, 235 Aelfwin, bishop of Winchester, 216 Aelfwold, bishop of Crediton, 270; bishop of Sherborne, 333, 335 Aethelgar, bishop of Selsey, 257 Aethelhelm, abbot of Abingdon, 283 Aethelmar, bishop of Elmham, 114, 175, 178 Aethelric, bishop of Durham, 132 Aethelric II, bishop of Selsey, 114, 257-258, 260, 279 Aethelwin, bishop of Durham, 114, 132 Agnes de Bellofago, 182 Ailred, abbot of Rievaulx, 145 Aimar, prior of Lewes, 206 Alan, count of Brittany, lord of Richmond, 188, 290, 291 Alan of Flaald, 182 Alberic of Ostia, papal legate, 108

Aldborough (Yorks.), church, 349 Aldbury (Herts.), 330, 331 Aldeby (Norf), 182 Aldingbourne (Sussex), 264 Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, 169, 205, 297, 298, 299, 301, 308, 309 Alexander, king of the Scots, n o Alexander II, pope, 114, 118, 257, 333 Alexander III, pope, 14, 15, 44, 60, 90, 94, 147, 172, 191-192, 215, 227, 228, 249, 250, 260, 265, 266, 296, 300, 304, 306, 343, 382, 383, 384, 386, 389 Alexander de Alnoio, 61 Alexander, James W., 5 Alexander, prior of Ely, 170 Alexander Stavensby, bishop of Coventry, 116 Alfnoth, priest of St. Helen's, 236 Alfred, bishop of Worcester, 249, 252 Alfred of Marlborough, 281 Alfward, tenant in Somerset, 336 Algar, prior of Durham, 143, 146 Alice, widow of William, son of Osbert, 77 All Hallows church, London, 323 Almsland/Aelmesland (Kent), 73 Alresford (Hants.), 218 Alric, archdeacon of Worcester, 239, 247 Alton Pancras (Dorset), 334, 337 Alton Priors (Wilts.), 224 Alvechurch (Worcs.), 24m, 247, 248 Alverstoke (Hants.), 219, 233 Alveston (Glos.), 52 Alveston (War.), 234, 243, 244 Amberden (Essex), 157 Amberley (Sussex), 264 Ameringhall, Arminghall (Norf), 179 Anastasius IV, pope, 169, 357 Andrew the Chaplain, 392 Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle, 279—280

Anschetil, sheriff of York, 349 Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, 40,

432

Index 75, 76, 82-83, 206, 208, 350-351, 367, 392; struggle with Henry I, 37, 276; relation with Rochester, 201, 203 Anselm of Santa Saba, abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, 324 Ansfrid, clerk, 205 Ansfrid, sheriff of Kent, 76 Ansgod, 73 Anthony Bek, bishop of Durham, 150 Appledore (Kent), 73 archdeacons, at Lincoln, 305, 308 Argyll, bishopric, 106 Arlesey (Beds.), 137 Arlington (Sussex), 264 Arnold, the falconer, 339 Arnold of Brescia, 16 Arnost, bishop of Rochester, 196, 214 Amwood (Hants.), 54 Ascelin, bishop of Rochester, 203, 204, 205, 206, 215

Ascott (Oxon.), 379 Asgarby (Lines.), 303 Ashton (Somerset), 52 Ashwick (Somerset), 52 Aston (Glos.), 201 Aston (Oxon.), 273 Athelstan, king of the West Saxons, 270, 272

Aubrey de Coci, 336 Aubrey de Vere, 166 Aust (Glos.), 241 Avelina, daughter of William of Allington, 77 Avington (Hants.), 219 Avril, Joseph, 4 Axminster (Devon), 348n Aycliffe (Durham), 136, 143, 144 Aylesbury (Bucks.), church, 202, 291 Aylsham (Norf.), 188 Aymer de Lusignan, bishop of Winchester, 230, 383 Azo, dean of Salisbury, 342 Baldric de Sigillo, royal clerk, 298 Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, 25, 46, 47, 78, 80, 86, 100, 211; as bishop of Worcester, 96, 381; church at Hackington, 95; his character, 96; election, 104; abbot of Ford, 381 Bampton (Oxon.), 273, 275 Bangor, 158; bishop, see Hervey Banham (Norf.), 156, 275 Banwell (Somerset), 48, 49, 57 Barham (SufF.), 162 Barling (Essex), 316, 325

Barlow, Frank, 5, 7, 12, 137, 15m Barrow-on-Trent, 112 Bartholomew, bishop of Exeter, 250 Bartholomew of Cotton, 19m Bassingbourne (Cambs.), 222 Bath, abbey of St. Peter, 52, 56 Bath, town, 53 Bathampton (Somerset), 52 Batheaston (Somerset), 52, 54, 61 Bathford (Somerset), 52 Battle Abbey, forged charters, 97; Chichester claims, 268 Bawdsey (SufF.), 161, 171 Bayston (Salop.), 284 Beaminster (Dorset), 335, 337 Beauchamp, Belchamp (Essex), 316, 325 Beckham (Norf.), 179, 182 Bedford, church, 291 Beighton (Norf.), 176 Benedict de Sausetun, bishop of Rochester, 213 Bengeworth (Worcs.), 244 Bensted (Essex), 153, 156 Bentham, James, 5, 160 Bentley (Hants.), 218 Beornwulf, king of Mercia, 24 Bernard, archbishop of Ragusa and bishop of Carlisle, n o Bernardus Parmensis, 39on Berner, 156 Bertram, prior of Durham, 148 Bettisfield (Cheshire), 115 Beverley (Yorks.), 350 Berwick (Kent), 69 Bexhill (Sussex), 260 Bibury (Glos.), 241, 242; church, 250 Biddesham, prebend (Wells), 57 Billingham (Durham), 136 bishoprics, relative wealth, 366-372 bishops, as abbots, 34, 82, 183; as barons, 39-41, 47; election of, 64-65, 380-383; grievances of 1257, 374-375; obligations of, 3; position in chapter, 14; churches as brides of, 365 Bishopstone (Heref.)', 281 Bishopstone (Sussex), 263, 265 Blackwell (Worcs.), 239, 240 Blake, E. O., 154 Bleadon (Somerset), 221 Blickling (Norf.), 176, 187 Blize, tenant in Seasalter, 74 Blockley (Worcs.), 237, 240, 247 Blofield (Norf.), 175 Bluntisham (Hunts.), 157 Blyth priory, 349

433

Index Blakeston (Durham), 139, 143, 144 Blyborough (Lines.), 134, 137 Boarhunt (Hants.), 218, 2J9 Bockleton (Worcs.), 284 Bohmer, Heinrich, 137 Boniface VIII, pope, 151 Boniface of Savoy, archbishop of Canterbury, 84, 103, 255, 383 Bonnington (Notts.), 137 Borstal (Kent), 196 Bosham (Sussex), church, 260, 275, 276; manor, 275 Boso, papal agent, 168 Boswick (Staffs.), 122 Boughton, Malherbe (Kent), 69 Bo wood (Dorset), 335 Boxley (Kent), 213; church, 204

Caddington (Herts.), 328 Caistor (Lines.), 291, 296; church, 295 Calbourne (Hants.), 219 Calixtus II, pope, 142 Calne (Wilts.), church, 339; family, 185, 339n Calveley (Norf), 156 Cameley (Somerset), 61 Candover (Hants.), 218 Cannings, Bishops (Wilts.), 336, 340, 341 Canterbury, cathedral lands, 21, 104; Christ Church monks, 25, 384, 388; chapter, 47; church rebuilt, 93n; diocese, 31 Caples (Heref), 281 Carlisle, cathedral church, 35; castle, 112; establishment of priory, 105; establishment of bishopric, 106; see,

Bracton, De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliae, 387-388

Brakenholm (Yorks.), 136 Bransbury (Hants.), 219 Branscombe (Devon), 273 Brasted (Kent), 69, 70 Bredon (Worcs.), 239, 247 Brett, Martin, 5, 367—368 Brewood (Staffs.), 122, 124 Bridge (Heref), 281 Brightston (Devon), 273 Brightwell (Berks.), 221 Brightwell (Suff.), 171 Brixsworth (Northants.), 339 Broadfield (Herts.), 117 Brockhampton (Hants.), 219 Bromley (Kent), 196 Brompton (Yorks.), 136 Brook (Kent), 73 Brooke, Christopher N. L., 5, 321, 322-323^ 327n Brownwich (Hants.), 219 Buckham (Dorset), 335 Buckingham (Bucks.), church, 291 Buckland, West (Devon), 60, 69 Burdon (Durham), 143 Burghclere, Burclere (Hants.), 227 Burton (Cheshire), 122 Burwardston (Cheshire), 115 Bury St. Edmunds, 87; abbey administration, 34; cartae baronum, 296; claim against, 176, 178; dispute over mensa, 26; encroachment on lands, 33; mensa division, I94n, 375—376; privileges, 235 Buxton (Norf.), 182 Bygrave (Herts.), 117

213

Carlton (Durham), 143, 347 cartae baronum (1166), 260, 296 Catton (Norf.), 179 Cave (Yorks.), 347 Cawston (Norf.), 176, 187 Cecilia, wife of Roger Fitz-Miles, 286 Celestine II, pope, 205 Celestine HI, pope, 126, 129, 147, 148, 192, 359 cellarer, at Canterbury, 92; at Winchester, 229 Cerne (Dorset), 334, 335 Chadshunt (War.), 122 chamberlain, at Canterbury, 92 Chaplais, Pierre, 270 chapter, as corporation, 391; election of dean, 383-384 Chard (Somerset), 60 Chardstock (Dorset), 335 Charlcombe (Somerset), 52 Charminster (Dorset), 334, 337 Charnage (Wilts.), 336 Chart, Little (Kent), 73 Chatham (Kent), 201 Chatteris abbey, 160 Checomb (Devon), manor, 274 Chelcote (Somerset), 57 Cheney, Christopher R., 5, 39on Cheney, Mary, 5 Chester, bishopric, 113 Chester, earl of, 120; see Leofric, Ranulf, Hugh d'Avranches Chew Magna (Somerset), 49, 60 Chich (Essex), 316 Chichester, bishopric, 32, 307; bishop, 97;

434

Index dean, 385; episcopal holdings (table 3), 262

Chilbolton (Hants.), 219 Chilcomb (Hants.), 217, 218, 227 Chilcompton (Somerset), 336 Chimney (Oxon.), 273 Chingford (Essex), 316 Chippenham (Wilts.), 275 Chiselhurst (Kent), church, 202 Chrodegang, Decretulum, 10; at Exeter, 271, 277 Cirencester, abbey, 246, 340 Clacton-on-Sea (Essex), 322 Clampton (Cambs.), 222 Clare family, 157, 224 Clarembald, prior of Bermondsey, 206 Claverton (Somerset), 52, 54 Cleeve, Bishops (Glos.), 241, 242, 248, 253 Cleeve Prior (Worcs.), 247 Clement III, pope, 60, 97 Clement V, pope, 151 Clerkenwell, prioress of, 77 Clifford family, 281 Clovesho, see councils Clyst (Devon), 273 Cluny, 226 Cnut, king of England, 48, 280, 313 Coggeshall, Little (Essex), 76 Colchester (Essex), archdeaconry, 326 Coldingham (Berwicks.), church, 148 Colesbourne (Glos.), 241, 242 Colkirk (Norf), 182 Collectio canonum, 16

Colne (Hunts.), 157 Combe, Monkton Combe (Somerset), 51, 52, 57, 60, 64 common fund, at Lichfield, 123, 124; at Lincoln, 306; at York, 347 Compton (Glos.), 241, 242 Compton (Somerset), 57, 60 Condicote (Glos.), 241, 242 Congresbury (Somerset), 48, 49 Constantine, tenant in Itchington, 242 Constitutions of Clarendon, 39, 191, 372, 392 Consuetudinarium at Salisbury, 344

Cooden (Sussex), 264 Corbett, William J., 26on, 366-367 Corbridge (Northumb.), church, 106, 112, 113

Cornford, Margaret E., 137 corpus jidelium, 13

Corringham (Lines.), 296, 298

Corston (Somerset), 52 Cottered (Herts.), 222 councils, Clovesho (803), 114; Lateran I (1123), 44n; Lateran II (1139), 381; Lateran IV (1215), 47, 193, 253, 383; London (1075), 53, 258, 292, 333; London (1102), 158; London (1107), 276; London (1145), 204; London (1151), 88; London (1189), 126; Lyon (1245), 312; Northampton (1164), 39, 94; Reims (1148), 288; Winchester (1076), 258; Winchester (1139), 225; Windsor (1070), 257; Woodstock (1163), 94; Worcester (1224), 254 Coveney (Cambs.), 170 Coventry, abbey, 115; abbot, 280; bishopric, 32; monks, 384 Cox, T. C , 233n Crawley (Hants.), 218 Crediton, bishopric, 32, 269; manor, 272, 274 Cressingham (Norf.), 187 Cricklade (Wilts.), 336 Crondall (Hants.), 218 Cropthorne (Worcs.), 237, 247 Crowle (Worcs.), 244 Croxton (Norf), 153 Cruche (Somerset), manor, 336 Crundale (Kent), 18 Culmstock (Devon), 273 Cumberland, 106 Cuthbert, abbot of Guisborough, 145 Cutsdean (Worcs.), 239 Cuxton (Kent), 196, 212 Cynesige, archbishop of York, 346 Daleston (Cumber.), 112 Dalton (Yorks.), 144 Dameron, George, 4 Dartford (Kent), 212; church, 201, 202 David, archdeacon of Buckingham, 298 David, king of the Scots, 106, 107, 108, 109, 145 David, prior of Worcester, 251 Davis, R. H. C , views on the Coventry charters, 119 Dawlish (Devon), 273 Daylesford (Worcs.), 240 De Auco family, 46 De compotis diversorum vicecomitum, 88 Deereta Lanfranci, 256 Decretum, see Gratian

Denton (Kent), 196, 202 Deopham (Norf), 77, 182

435

Index Dernford (Cambs.), 162 Desprairies, Andre, 38sn Deusdedit, cardinal, 16 Devizes, castle, 166 De Waley family, 76 Dialogue of the Exchequer, 39 dioceses, geography of, 3 iff. Ditchford (Worcs.), 240 Dobson, R. B., iO7n Dodderhill, Droitwitch (Worcs.), church, 245 Dogmersfield (Hants.), 54, 60-61 Dolfin, son of Uhtred, 143 Domesday Book, church lands, 12, 13, 39, 50; tenures, 24—25; Canterbury, 67, 69; Chester, 115; Chichester, 259; Durham, 136; Ely, 156; Exeter, 27ifF.; Lincoln, 293, 294; London, 3146*".; Norwich, 1746°.; Rochester, 200; Winchester, 217—218, 220, 222—223 Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury, 67, 68, 69, 73, 74, 75 donum of 1159, 169 Dorchester, bishopric, 32, 280; lands, 294 Dover, St. Martin's church, 72 Downton (Wilts.), 217, 221 Drayton (Lines.), 291 Drewton (Yorks.), 138 Drimeld (Yorks.), church, 349 Droitwich (Worcs.), 240 Droxford (Hants.), 218, 233 Du Boulay, F. R. H., 5 Dudley (Worcs.), 281 Dudoc, bishop of Wells, 48, 49 Dugdale, Sir William, 129, 208 Duggan, Lawrence, 391—392n Dultingcote (Wilts.), 57 Dunmow (Essex), 316 Dunn, tenant in Newton (Devon), 274 Dunnington (Yorks.), 347 Dunsden (Oxon.), 336 Dunwich (Suff.), 162 Durand, archdeacon of York, 347 Durand, canon of St. Paul's, London, 317 Durham, bishop, 112, 1326*".; castle, 134; diocese, 32, 106; knights of bishopric, 244n; monks, 382 Eadbert, abbot of Selsey, 257 Eadmer, 20, 81, 158, 246n, 351 Eadwulf, bishop of Crediton, 270 Ealdred, archbishop of York, 114, 280, 290, 345-346, 351; bishop of Hereford, 279; bishop of Worcester, 234, 278

436

Ealdwulf, archbishop of York, 346 Eardiston (Worcs.), 24m, 247 Eartham (Sussex), 264-265 Easter (Essex), 157 Eastry (Kent), 79; church, 99 Eaton (Norf.), 182 Ecchinswell (Hants.), 219 Eccles (Norf), 182 Eccleshall (Staffs.), 122, 124 Edgar, king of England, 23, 217, 231, 236, 237 Edith, queen of Edward the Confessor, 49, 50, 335 Edmund Rich, archbishop of Canterbury, 216,255,383 Edward, abbot of Reading, 206 Edward the Confessor, king of England, 48-49, 50, 118, 154, 158, 235, 274, 275, 278, 280, 293, 349 Edward I, king of England, 75, 173, 355 Edward II, king of England, 376, 391 Edward III, king of England, 391 Edward the Elder, king of Wessex, 332 Egbert, king of Wessex, 23 Elias, dapifer at Rochester, 212 Elias Escolland, 144 Ellerker (Yorks.), 138 Elmham, 182; bishopric, 175—177; diocese, 32 Elsted (Sussex), 275 Elvet (Durham), 137, 143, 149 Ely, abbey, 280; bishopric, 15iff; cathedral lands, 20; church, 3 5; fair, 160; St. Botulph's church, 152; St. Mary's church, 162; sede vacante, 375 Ely chapter ordinances, 160 Emma of Normandy, queen, 169 Englebrith, canon of St. Paul's, London, 317 Enham (Hants.), 222 episcopate, definition, 38 Ernulf, bishop of Rochester, 204, 214 Erskine, Audrey M., 23 3n Esch hundred (Worcester), 239 Ethelred II, king of England, 270 Ethelwold, bishop of Winchester, 217, 218 Eudo, dapifer, 154, 156-157 Eugenius III, pope, 17, 44, 119, 121, 122, 139, 167, 169, 187, 263, 266, 277, 287, 288, 299, 302, 306, 337, 341, 357, 382 Eustace, bishop of Ely, 343 Eustace, son of King Stephen, 341 Evans, Seiriol, 160 Evenlode (Worcs.), 240

Index Everard, bishop of Norwich, 17, 46, 180, 185, 205, 378 Evercreech (Somerset), 60 Eversy (Somerset), 52 Evesham abbey, 34, 98, 237; monks, 385; sede vacante, 376

Evreux, 108 Ewyas Harold, castellaria, 281 exennium, 79, 96, 97, 202, 212 Exeter, diocese, 31; see, 271; town, 272 Exton (Hants.), 219 Eycot (Glos.), 242 Eynsford (Kent), 69, 70; church, 99 Eynsham abbey, 307; cartulary, 313 Falaise, 108 Fareham (Hants.), 218 Farleigh, East (Kent), 72, 73 Farndon (Cheshire), 122 Farnham (Surrey), 222; castle, 225 Farningham (Kent), 69, 73 Farrer, William, 349n Farringdon (Hants.), 275, 276 Fawkham (Kent), 196 Fawley (Hants.), 218, 219 Fecamp, abbey, 177, 290 Fernet (Kent), church, 202 Ferring (Sussex), 263, 264 Fifhide (Wilts.), 221 Finberg, H. P. R., 270 Finchale, hermitage, 140 Fingelsham (Kent), 69 Fladbury (Worcs.), 247, 248 Flecknoe (War.), 243 Florence, Italy, 4 Fonthill (Wilts.), 217, 221 Freeman, Edward A., 49 Foliot family, 46 Fontenay abbey, 187 Foreville, Raymonde, 5 Forncett (Norf.), 275 Fotesthorp (Suff.), 162 Fowler, R. C , 66n Freckenham (SufF.), 203 Friesthorpe (Lines.), manor, 307 Fring (Norf.), 190 Frinsbury (Kent), 196, 202, 212 Fritheric, chaplain at Worcester, 245 Frome (Heref.), 284, 287 Fulham (Mddx.), 316, 326 Galloway, bishopric, 106 Garboldisham (Norf.), 153 Gateshead (Durham), 140 Gaywood (Norf.), 179

Geoffrey, abbot of St. Albans, 206 Geoffrey, chaplain to Henry I, 205 Geoffrey, clericus, tenant in Bexhill (Sussex), 261 Geoffrey Baynard, sheriff of Yorkshire, 136 Geoffrey de Baiolo, 261 Geoffrey de Clive, bishop of Hereford, 285 Geoffrey de Mandeville, 120, 187, 316 Geoffrey Muschamp, bishop of Coventry, 123, 125, 131

Geoffrey Plantagenet, archbishop of York, 46, 211, 358-359, 372, 382; bishop-elect of Lincoln, 304 Geoffrey Ridel, archdeacon of Canterbury, and bishop of Ely, 170, 352 Geoffrey Rufus, bishop of Durham, 143, 145; chancellor, 224n Gerald of Wales, 96, 228, 292n, 294, 298, 303-305, 3O7n, 308 Gerard, bishop of Hereford, 284; archbishop of York, 284—285, 348-349, 350, 352 Gerard Pucelle, bishop of Coventry, 125, 38i Gerhoh of Reichersberg, 16 German, prior of Tinmouth, 145 gersuma garsuna, 73

Gervase, abbot of Westminster, 205 Gervase of Canterbury, 14, 87, 92, 99, 127, 128 Gesta Stephani, 14, 121, 285

Gierke, Otto von, 387n Gilbert, abbot of Westminster, 379n Gilbert, dean of Chichester, 258 Gilbert, son of Nigel, provost at York, 353n Gilbert, son of Turold, 240, 242 Gilbert Foliot, abbot of Glastonbury, 286, 288; bishop of Hereford, 287; bishop of London, 95, 96, 104, 169, 251-252, 327, 342, 382; relation to the Belmeis family, 321; administration of London see, 325 Gilbert Glanvil, bishop of Rochester, 209, 210, 211—212

Gilbert the Universal, bishop of London, 322, 323, 324, 366 Giso, bishop of Wells, 48, 52, 280 Glanvil, Tractatus, 392 Glastonbury, abbey, 34, 226 Gloucester, abbey of St. Peter, 48, 280; Christmas court 1093, 158; town, 275, 285

437

Index Gnatington (Norf.), 180 Goda (Godgifu), King Aethelred's daughter, 201 Godalming (Surrey), church, 339 Godfrey, bishop of Bath, 56 Godfrey, bishop of Chichester, 258 Godfrey, bishop of St. Asaph, 330 Godfrey, canon of London, 330, 331 Godfrey, monk at Ely, 154 Godfrey, the steward, 70 Godfrey de Lucy, bishop of Winchester, 230, 277, 380, 381 Godfrey Giffard, bishop of Worcester, 255 Godfrey of Cambrai, 290 Godfrey of Mailing, 76 Godmeresham (Kent), 24 Godric, the steward, 182 Godwin, earl of Wessex, 275, 333 Godwin, the deacon, 188 Godwin, the priest, 275, 276 Gotham (Notts.), 137 Gotso of Dinan, 286 Grafton (Yorks.), 347 Grantham (Lines.), church, 337 Gratian, Decretum, 13, 41, 365n, 373, 381, 392 Graveley (Cambs.), 25 Graveney (Kent), 69, 73 Great Faringdon (Berks.), 336 Green, Judith A., iO7n Greenhoe hundred (Norf.), 188 Green way, Diane, 338 Greenwell, William, 133, 140, 141-142 Gregory I, pope, 10 Gregory VII, pope, 146, 148 Gregory VIII, pope, 97 Gregory IX, pope, 93, 117, 129, 130, 132, 216, 247, 338, 389n Grimley (Worcs.), 237 Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, king of Gwynedd and Powys, 279 Guala of St. Martins, papal legate, 111 Guerard, B. E. C , 11 Gueri, canon of St. Paul's, London, 317 Gundulf, bishop of Rochester, 21, 23, 196, 199-200, 201, 204, 206, 208, 2O9n, 334 Guthmund, brother of Wulfric, abbot of Ely, 153 Guy, tenant in Ascott, 379 Gwynedd, Normans in, 158 Hacheston (Suff.), 264 Hackington (Kent), church, 97

Haddenham (Bucks.), 201, 202, 206, 212, 213 Hadham (Herts.), 156, 159, 162 Hadrian IV, pope, 55, 59, 61, 145, 168, 210 Hadstock (Essex), 160, 167 Hago, 180 Haimo, dapifer, sheriff of Kent, 70, 202 Hale, W. H., 3i8n Hall, Hubert, 233n Hailing (Kent), 196 Hallow (Worcs.), 237 Hamo, treasurer at York, 360 Hampton (Heref.), 284 Hampton (Herf.), 284 Hampton (War.), 243 Hamshere, John, 24on Hanningfield (Essex), 156 Hannington (Hants.), 219, 223 Hardwick (Cambs.), 162, 171 Hardwick (War.), 120, 123 Harmer, Florence E., 49, 154, 180 Harold, king of England, 49, 176, 188, 282, 284; earl of Wessex, 278 Hartest (Suff), 168 Hartlebury (Worcs.), 24m, 245, 247 Harvey, John, 64 Harvington (Worcs.), 237 Harwell (Berks.), 221 Hasted, Edward, 66n, 208 Hatfield (Herts.), 156, 162 Hatton Conyers (Yorks.), 137 Hauxton (Cambs.), 162 Havant (Hants.), 218, 219, 233 Hayling Island (Hants.), 219 Hay wood (Staffs.), 122 Hazelhurst (Sussex), 260 Heal, Felicity, 369 Hemingborough (Yorks.), 136, 139 Hemming, monk of Worcester, 14, 236, 241, 243 Hemsby (Norf.), 175, 179 Henbury Red wick (Glos.), 241 Henry, bishop of Bayeux, as dean of Salisbury, 343 Henry I, king of England, 5, 37, 43n, 61, 64, 72, 82, 83, 113, 118, 138, 139, 140, 146, 151, 154, 179, 182, 197, 203, 210, 224, 238, 243, 248, 276, 285, 293, 295, 296, 297, 320, 323, 339, 340, 34i, 349, 35O, 354, 363, 364, 380; charters to Carlisle, 105; charters to Ely, 157, 158, 160, 165; charters to York, 351; rex dei gratia, 320 Henry II, king of England, 14, 18, 60,

438

Index 109,122,126,128,168,326,337,339, 358, 363, 380, 388; charters to Carlisle, 109; charters to Lincoln, 302; charters to Rochester, 203; charters to Worcester, 249; and Constitutions of Clarendon, 39; regalian right, 365; scutage tax, 172 Henry III, king of England, 1, 63, 112, 230, 344, 355 Henry, son of David, king of the Scots, 109 Henry, son of William, archdeacon of Cambridge, 169 Henry de Tilli, 61 Henry Murdac, archbishop of York, 357 Henry of Bishopston, canon at Salisbury, 344 Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester, 20, 38, 56, 64, 85, 91, 145, 167, 225-226, 227, 234, 323, 340, 342, 357, 380 Henry of Cornhill, dean of London, 332 Henry of Eastry, prior of Christ Church, 8,78 Henry of Essex, king's constable, 75 Henry of Huntingdon, 190, 29on, 297, 324 Henry of London, canon of St. Paul's, 326 Henry Sandford, bishop of Rochester, 213 Herbert, archdeacon of Canterbury, 380 Herbert de Ros, 182 Herbert Losinga, bishop of Norwich, 40, I76ff., i8off., 186, 318, 319, 334; his surname, I77n Herbert Poore, bishop of Salisbury, 381 Hereford, diocese, 31; town, 283; Little Hereford, 285 Herefordshire Domesday, 281 Hereman, bishop of Ramsbury and Sherborne, 333, 335, 346 Hereward, 153 Herfast, bishop of Elmham, 175, 178, 188 Hermerus, miles, 380 Hervey, bishop of Bangor and Ely, 158, 159, i6ofF., 168, 169 Hexham, prior of, 111 Hewick (Yorks.), 142 Heworth (Yorks.), 143; forest, 140 Heytesbury (Wilts.), church, 339 Highclere (Hants.), 218 Hilary, bishop of Chichester, 258, 259, 262-263, 264, 266, 269, 330 Hildebert, steward at Wells, 52, 58 Hilgay (Norf.), 179 Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, 11

Hindolveston (Norf.), 179 Hindringham (Norf.), 179, 275 Hinton (Hants.), 219 Historiola, 48—49, 64

Hockering (Norf.), 182 Hoddington (Hants.), 219 Holborn (London), 325 Holdsworth, Sir Willam, 392 Holcombe (Devon), 273 Holcultram, abbot of, 111 Holme (Yorks.), 347 Holme Lacy (Heref.), 72, 281-282 Holmes, T. Scott, 55n Homersfield (SufF.), 175, 184 Honington (War.), 120 Honorius II, pope, 299 Honorius III, pope, i n , 123, 129, 13m, 132, 255, 373, 389 Hoo (SufF.), 161 Horncastle (Lines.), 112 Home (Northants), 137 Hostiensis, 373, 374, 390 Hoton, prior of Durham, 151 Houghton (Hants.), 223 Howden (Yorks.), 137, 138 Ho well, Margaret, 6, 370 Howgrave (Yorks.), 137 Hoxne (SufF.), 175 Hoxton (Mddx.), 318 Hubert de Ria, 182 Hubert Walter, bishop of Salisbury and archbishop of Canterbury, 14, 46, 75, 79, 84, 85, 98, 100, 101, 131, 211, 253, 358 Hugh I, abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, 27 Hugh, abbot of St. Augustine, 215 Hugh, archbishop of Lyon, 81 Hugh, dean of York, 345-346^ 349 Hugh, sheriff of Dorset, 335 Hugh d'Avranches, earl of Chester, 117, 335 Hugh de Bernieres, 317 Hugh de Mareni, dean of London, 325 Hugh de Montfort, 75, 153, 156 Hugh de Nonant, bishop of Coventry, 116, 124, 126, 129, 131, 211 Hugh d'Orival, bishop of London, 320 Hugh de Port, 153 Hugh de Puiset, bishop of Durham, 39, 43, 140, 141, 143, 379; as treasurer at York, 357 Hugh Fitz-Ralph, 275 Hugh Mortimer, 287 Hugh of Avalon, bishop of Lincoln, 42-43, 45, 97, 301, 306, 307, 309, 38o

439

Index Hugh of Beaulieu, bishop of Carlisle, 111 Hugh of Trottiscliffe, abbot of St. Augustine's, 215 Hugh of Wells, bishop of Lincoln, 254 Hugh the bearded, 53 Hugh the Chantor, 323, 345 Huguccio, 38 Huish (Somerset), 57 Hundon (Lines.), 295 Hunsley (Yorks.), 138 Huntingdon, 73; earldom, 109 Hunton (Kent), 72 Hurtsbourne (Hants.), 218 Hyde abbey, Winchester, 178, 226, 227 Ickham (Kent), 73 Icomb, church (Worcs.), 239, 240 Ide (Devon), 272 Iklesham (Sussex), 261 Imar, papal legate, 204 infirmerer, at Winchester, 229 Ingulf, prior of Norwich, 185 Inkberrow (Worcs.), 284 Innocent II, pope, 116, 119, 120, 167, 171, 215, 299, 323 Innocent III, pope, 35, 45, 99, n o , 129, 148, 192, 229, 253, 365n, 373n, 383^ 387 Innocent IV, pope, 35, 65, 113, 214, 289, 312, 388, 389, 390 ira episcopi, ira regis, 147

Isleham (Cambs.), 203 Islington (Mddx.), 318 Itchenor (Sussex), 275 Itchington (Glos.), 241 Itchington Bishop (War.), 122 Ivinghoe (Bucks.), 221 Ivo, dean of Wells, 58

John, count of Eu, 260, 26m John, nephew of Robert de Bethune, 287 John, son of Ansfrid, 76, 77 John, the steward, 180 John, Eric, 6 John de Grey, bishop of Norwich, 180, 181, 188, 192, 193

John de Villula, bishop of Wells, 18, 52, 56, 61, 64 John Langton, bishop of Chichester, 265 John of Avranches, archbishop of Rouen, 338n John of Droxford, bishop of Bath and Wells, 62 John of Greenford, bishop of Chichester, 259, 264, 265, 268; as dean, 258 John of Hexham, 108, 357 John of Oxford, bishop of Norwich, 190, 343; as dean of Salisbury, 342-343, 383 John of Pagham, bishop of Worcester, 249, 250

John of Pontoise, bishop of Winchester, 230

John of Salisbury, 80, 86, 191, 343, 384, 392; executor of Theobald's will, 92; letters to the monks of Canterbury, 35, 95; treasurer at Exeter, 277 John Pecham, archbishop of Canterbury, 93, 102, 104, 2o8n, 210, 213

John Schalby, 303, 305, 307 Johnson, Charles, 175 Judith, countess of Northumbria, 290 Jumieges, abbey, 2i9n Justinian, Codex, 12 Kealey, Edward, 5 Keefe, Thomas K., 368n Kelshall (Herts.), 156 Kensworth (Beds.), 328 Kentford inquest (1081), 154 Kilham (Yorks.), church, 349 Kilsby (Lines.), 296 King, Edmund, 6 Kingsbury, Episcopi (Somerset), 60 Kingston (Notts.), 137 Kingston (Suff.), 161, 171 Kirton (Lines.), 291; church, 295, 296 Knayton (Yorks.), 136 Knighton (Worcs.), 24m, 247 Knowles, David, 5, 21, 22, 85, 137 Kulmeton, estate, 51 Kyre (Worcs.), 282

Jarrow (Durham), 133, 134, 136 Jenkins, R. C , 66n Jews, in Canterbury, 97; in London, 120; in Norwich, 190; in Rochester, 211 Joan, daughter of Henry II, 191 Jocelin, steward at Lincoln, 298 Jocelin de Bohun, bishop of Salisbury, 341, 342, 343 Jocelin of Wells, bishop of Bath, 62, 65,' 254, 382 John, king of England, 27, 65, n o , 129, 149, 193, 253, 289, 359, 372, 375 John I, bishop of Rochester, 204, 206, 207 John II, bishop of Rochester, 215 John, archdeacon of Wells, 52, 57 John, bishop of Glasgow, 106

Lacy fee, 286 Lakenham (Norf.), 179

440

Index Lakenheath (Suff.), 162 Lambeth, 79, 98, 204, 206; St. Mary's church, 201 Lambrick, Gabrielle, 5 Lancaster, Joan, 119 landgable, 228

Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, 20, 39, 80, 84, 114, 115, 333, 364, 366, 379; consecration, 257; at trial of the bishop of Durham, 41, 68; at Rochester, 196, 214 Langham (Norf), church, 179 Langport (Somerset), 69 La Trappe, 130 Laughton (Yorks.), 347; church, 349 Lausanne, cathedral, 4 Lavington (Sussex), 275, 276 Lavington (Wilts.), 341 Lawrence, abbot of Westminster, 330 Lawrence, prior of Coventry, 121, 122 Lawrence, prior of Durham, 147 Lawrence of St. Martin, bishop of Rochester, 213 Leach, Arthur, 351 Leaveland, Court (Kent), 69 Le Convenit (Durham), 150 Lees, Beatrice, 175 Leighton Bromswold (Hunts.), 291, 293 Leighton Buzzard (Beds.), church, 291 Lench (Worcs.), 247 Lenham, East (Kent), 69, 70 Lennard, Reginald, 223n Leofgar, bishop of Hereford, 279 Leofric, bishop of Crediton and Exeter, 271, 273, 274 Leofric, earl of Chester, 118 Leofric missal, 271

Leofsig, abbot of Ely, 153 Leofwine, abbot of Coventry and bishop of Lichfield, 114 Leon, cathedral, 4 Lesne, Emile, 3 Lewis de Beaumont, bishop of Durham, 151

Leycester, Sir Peter, n 6 n Libellus de iniusta vexacione, 134, 135

Liber albus of Southwell Minster, 352, 355 Liber Eliensis, 155, 157, 163, 165 Liber Exoniensis, 273, 274

Lichfield, canons, 120; diocese, 32 Lincoln, 108; bishop, 207; canons, 374, 380; cathedral as castle, 334n Lincombe, Lyncombe (Somerset), 52 Lindsey (Lines.), 294; Survey, 299 Lisieux, bishopric, 159

441

Litley (Heref), 287 Litlington (Sussex), 262—263 Littlebury (Essex), church, 162 Littleport (Cambs.), 162 Litton (Somerset), 49, 50, 56, 57, 60 Livermere (SufF.), 153 Llanthony priory, 287, 289 Lohrmann, Dietrich, 4 London, cathedral lands, 21; diocese, 32; episcopalfamilia, 2i2n; survey of 1181, 329 Longdon (Worcs.), 240 Longfield (Kent), 196 Lotharingian episcopal circle, 48n, 133, 271, 333, 346 Loxley (Warw.), 243 Lucius II, pope, 121, 167, 171, 342 Lucius III, pope, 97, 147, 228, 289, 373 Luke, treasurer at Chichester, 265 Lydbury (Salop.), 284 Lyde (Heref), 281 Lydeard, Bishops (Somerset), 60 Lyfing, bishop of Crediton, 270 Lyme Regis (Dorset), 334 Lynn (Norf), 188; church, 179 Lyon-la-Foret, 108 Lyppard (Worcs.), 244 Magna Carta, 372, 392 Maidstone (Kent), 70 Maitland, Frederic W., 392 Mailing (Kent), 196; abbey, 201 Malmesbury, abbey, 33, 333 Marham (Norf.), 153, 168 Mark (Somerset), 49, 56, 57, 60 Markshall (Norf), 182 Marshall, near Ide (Devon), 273 Marston (War.), 120 Martham (Norf.), 176, 179, 187 Marton (Yorks.), 347 Matilda, empress, 87, 145, 166, 225, 324, 340 Matilda, queen of Henry I, 349 Matilda of St. Saens, 76. Matthew Paris, 35 Mauger, bishop of Worcester, 253 Maurice, bishop of London, 318 Maurice of Windsor, 186 Melbourne (Cambs.), 162 Melbourne (Derby.), 112 Meldreth (Cambs.), 162 Melton (SufF.), 161 mensa, archiepiscopal, 14; definition, 1, 17—19; division, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 44, 61, 62, 65, 101, 369, 373, 376, 389,

Index 393-395; episcopal, 17, 25, 40, 54; Canterbury, 43, 66, 73, 81, 94, 95, 98, 100, 101, 105; Carlisle, 109, i n , 113; Chichester, 263; Coventry, 120, 131; Durham, 136, 137; Ely, 171, 172; Exeter, 270, 278; Hereford, 278; Lincoln, 300, 311; London, 331; Norwich, 177, I79n, 182, 186, 189, I95n; Peterborough, 7; Rochester, 198—200, 208, 210; Salisbury, 338, 341, 344; Wells, 50; Winchester, 2i8ff., 222-223n, 230-231, 233-234; Worcester, 234, 239, 249, 251, 256; York, 278n, 348, 353n Meon (Hants.), 223, 230 Meopham (Kent), 79; church, 99 Merdon (Hants.), castle, 226 Merrington (Durham), 137 Mersham (Kent), 69, 70, 73 Mertok/Martock (Somerset), 61 Methwold (Norf.), 153 Mezzabarba, Pietro, bishop of Florence, 4 Micheldever (Hants.), 218 Miles of Gloucester, earl of Hereford, 286 military service, see servitium debitum Millbrook (Hants.), 219 Millow (Beds.), 137 Milverton (Somerset), 49, 50 Mimms (Herts.), 117 mines, lead and silver, 107 Minding (Norf), 180 Mitton (Worcs.), 239 Modsley (Somerset), 50, 56, 57 monks, criticism of, 90n, 102 Monkton (Kent), 79; church, 99 Montfort (Salop.), 284 Morcar, earl of Northumbria, 295 Morden (Cambs.), 222 Moreton (Heref), 281 murdrum, 386 Nacton (SufF.), 153 Nassington (Northants.), church, 297 Navestock (Essex), 316 Netherbury (Dorset), 335, 337 Nettleham (Lines.), 302 Newark (Notts.), 298 Newbald (Yorks.), 347 Newburn (Northumb.), church, 106 Newcastle-on-Tyne (Northumb.), church, 106 Newenden (Kent), 69 Newington, Stoke (Mddx.), 318 Newton (Cambs.), 162 Newton (Norf), 179, 192

Newton St. Cyres (Devon), 274 Nichol, Donald, 5 Nicholas II, pope, 48, 290 Nicholas IV, pope, 255 Nicholas de Morewich, n o Nicholas of Ely, bishop of Winchester, 230, 383 Nigel, bishop of Ely, 153, i65ff., I7off., 379 Nigel, tenant in Ascott, 379 Nigel of Calne, 339 Norham (Northumb.), 143 Norman conquest, 31 Normandy, 107—108 Normanton (Notts.), 137 Northallerton (Yorks.), church, 136, 138, H7 Norton (Kent), 213 Northwick (Worcs.), 247 Norton (Devon), 273 Norwich, 32, 108, 176, 177; castle, 160, 177; fair, 179; St. Leonard's church, 179; St. Paul's hospital, 186-187 Nostell priory (Yorks.), 107 Notre Dame de Paris, 11 nouvel disseisin, writ, 128 Nova Constitutio at Salisbury, 344 Nursling (Hants.), 219 Oakley (Hants.), 218 Occold (Suff.), 153 Odo, bishop of Bayeux, 68, 71, 74, 195, 201, 320 Odo, prior of Canterbury, 97 Offa, king of Mercia, 114, 207 Offchurch (War.), 120 Offler, H. S., 137, 140 Old Sarum, 35, 149, 333 Onibury (Salop.), 282 Orderic Vitalis, 363 Orkney, bishopric, 106 Orpington (Kent), 69 Osbern, archdeacon of Norwich, 179 Osbern, tenant in Bexhill (Sussex), 260 Osbern Fitz-Osbern, bishop of Exeter, 273, 274, 276, 347 Osbern Fitz-Richard, 245 Osbern Giffard, tenant in Stoke (Glos.), 242 Osbert, sheriff of Lincoln, 297 Osbert, sheriff of York, 349, 352 Qsbert de Longchamp, 77 Osbert Fitz-Hugh, 245 Osmund, bishop of Salibury, 334, 335, 338; Institutio, 58, 337-338; foundation charter, 336-337

442

Index Polslo (Devon), 276 pontificalia, 384n pope, intrusion into English affairs, 100 Poppleton, Upper (Yorks.), 347 population, growth in, 30 Portchester, castle, 230 Portsmouth, royal court, 118 Poschl, Arnold, 3

Osney abbey, 250 Ossulstone hundred (Mddx.), 317 Oswald, bishop of Worcester, 378 Oswaldslaw hundred (Worcs.), 237-238, 247 Otto, papal legate, 35 Overbury (Worcs.), 237 Overton (Hants.), 218, 223 Oxford, 108 Oxwick (Herts.), 156

potestas ordinis, 373

Potterne (Wilts.), 336, 341 prebend, definition, 294 Prees (Salop.), 117 Prestbury (Glos.), 284, 287 Preston (Kent), 70 Preston (Sussex), 259, 263, 275 Preston-on-Wye (Heref.), 281 Priston (Somerset), 52 Pyon, Canon (Heref.), 281 Pyrleston (Billingford) (Norf), 156

Pampisford (Cambs.), 160, 168, 169 Pandulf Masca, bishop of Norwich, 194; papal legate, 111 Paschal II, pope, 16, 82, 83 Paschal III, pope, 191 Patching (Sussex), 76 Paulinus of Leeds, 109 Peake, E., 157 Pelham (Herts.), 330; church, 331 Pendock (Worcs.), 237, 240 Penenden heath, trial at, 68fF., 196, 258 Pershore, St. Mary's church, 239 persona ficta, 327, 386—387

Peter, abbot of Sherborne, 205 Peter, bishop of Lichfield, 114, 118 Peter d'Aigueblanche, bishop of Hereford, 289 Peter des Roches, 229n Peter Gilford, 125 Peter Lombard, 38 Peter of Blois, 97, 99-100, 101 Peter of Bloxham, magister at Chichester, 267 Peter of Valognes, 316, 352 Petham (Kent), 69, 82 Pevensey (Sussex), 260 Phepson (Worcs.), 247, 248 Philip, chancellor at Canterbury, 92 Philip of Poitou, bishop of Durham, 148 Pickering (Yorks.), church, 349 Pickenthorn (Salop.), 188 Piddle (Dorset), 335 Pillius, Canterbury advocate, 101 pipe roll, account for London, 326; 31 Henry I, 106, iO7n; 5 Henry II, i69n; 7 Richard I, I29n Pitminster (Somerset), 221 Pittington (Durham), 137 plena potestas, 251, 388

Plumpton (Sussex), 275 Plumstead (Norf.), 176, 179, 182 Pocklington (Yorks.), church, 349 Pockthorpe (Norf.), 180 Polhampton (Hants.), 218

443

Rainald, bishop of Hereford, 284 Rainald, son of Ivo, 156 Rainald of Jumieges, abbot of Abingdon, 380 Rainton (Yorks.), 137 Ralph, bishop of Rochester, 83 Ralph, canon of Lincoln, 303 Ralph, canon of St. Paul's, London, 321 Ralph, clerk at Canterbury, 79 Ralph, dean of Hereford, 288 Ralph, earl of Hereford, 175 Ralph, prior of Worcester and abbot of Evesham, 253 Ralph, steward at Ely, 170 Ralph Baldock, bishop of London, 332n Ralph Basset, 166, 352 Ralph de Chesney, 275 Ralph de Diceto, 18, 99, 321; dean of London, 327 Ralph d'Escures, bishop of Rochester and archbishop of Canterbury, 202, 209, 214 Ralph de Marci, 328n Ralph de Ros, prior of Rochester, 212 Ralph de Tosny, 188 Ralph Ireton, prior of Gisbourne and bishop of Carlisle, 113 Ralph Luffa, bishop of Chichester, 42, 258, 261 Ralph of Bedford, prior of Worcester, 252 Ralph of Caen, prior of Rochester and abbot of Battle, 202 Ralph of Langford, dean of London, 325 Ralph of Lisieux, 92

Index Ralph Pagnell, sheriff of Yorkshire, 135 Ramsbury (Wilts.), diocese, 31; bishop of, 33; see, 333, 336, 341 Ramsey abbey, 23, 291; abbot, 187 Ranulf, earl of Chester, 109, 119 Ranulf de Broc, 95, 383 Ranulf Flambard, bishop of Durham, 40, 134, 136, 137", 138, 139, HO, H2, 143, 144, 147, 152, 317, 319, 334, 339, 366 Ranulf de Meschin, 352 Ranulf of Salisbury, 166 Ranulf of Wareham, bishop of Chichester, 381; prior of Norwich, 381 Ranulf Peverel, 156, 322 Raynerius, father of Robert, bishop of Chester, 117 records, written, i86n Red Book of Worcester, 248

Redcliff (Chester), 115 Redmarley (Worcs.), 240 reform movement, papal, 30—31 regalian right, 362ff. Reginald, precentor at Wells, 57 Reginald Fitz-Jocelin, bishop of Bath, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 Reginald of Durham, I35n Reims, diocese, 4 Reinhelm, bishop of Hereford, see Rainald relevamen, 244n

Remigius, bishop of Lincoln, 290, 291, 292, 334 Rescemere (Suff.), 161 Rettendon (Essex), 156, 162, 168 Riccall (Yorks.), 347 Richard, abbot of Ely, 151, 157—158, 159, 167 Richard, archdeacon of Middlesex, 321 Richard, bishop of Bayeux, 350 Richard, canon of St. Paul's, London, 321 Richard, chaplain at Chichester, 264—265; dean of Chichester, 258 Richard, dean of Lincoln, 309 Richard I, king of England, 75, 77, 98, n o , 116, 249, 308, 358 Richard, nephew of Ranulf Flambard, 139 Richard, priest of Bromley, 216 Richard, prior of Hexham, 145 Richard, the constable, 73 Richard de Belmeis I, bishop of London, 321

Richard de Belmeis II, bishop of London, 17, 321, 322, 324, 329, 330

Richard de Berking, abbot of Westminster, 28

Richard de Capella, bishop of Hereford, 378 Richard de la More, bishop-elect of Winchester, 383 Richard d'Orval, chaplain to Henry I, 106 Richard Fitz-Nigel, 168, 380; bishop of London, 381 Richard Grant, archbishop of Canterbury, 383 Richard Gravesend, bishop of Lincoln, 306 Richard Kellaw, bishop of Durham, 151 Richard Marsh, bishop of Durham, 138, 148 Richard of Devizes, 127 Richard of Dover, archbishop of Canterbury, 79, 90, 97, 125, 215 Richard of Ilchester, bishop of Winchester, 227, 228, 381 Richard of Whitstable, 90 Richard Peche, bishop of Coventry, 116, 119, 124, 125

Richard Poore, bishop of Durham, 140, 152, 149; bishop of Chichester, 149; bishop of Salisbury, 149, 337, 340, 344; dean of Salisbury, 149 Richard Rufus, archdeacon of Essex, 325 Richard Swinfield, bishop of Hereford, 289 Richmond, archdeaconry, iO7n Rimpton (Somerset), 221 Ripon (Yorks.), 347, 350 Ripple (Worcs.), 247 Robert, abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, I57n Robert, abbot of Newminster, 145 Robert II, bishop of Exeter, 44, 380; as dean of Salisbury, 343 ; see also Robert Warelwast Robert, bishop of London, 17, 205 Robert, brother of Hilary, bishop of Chichester, 265 Robert, count of Eu, 260 Robert, count of Mortain, 260, 275 Robert, dispensator, 241, 247, 248 Robert II, duke of Normandy, 82n Robert, earl of Leicester, 264 Robert, earl of Northumberland, 136 Robert, nephew of the abbot of Abingdon, 380 Robert, prior of Winchester, 227 Robert Bloet, bishop of Lincoln, 40, 290, 294, 295, 298, 302, 307, 308, 379 Robert Burnell, bishop of Bath, bishopelect of Winchester, 383

444

Index Robert Champart of Jumieges, bishop of London, archbishop of Canterbury, 313 Robert de Bethune, bishop of Hereford, 285, 286 Robert de Chesney, bishop of Lincoln, 291, 300, 301-302, 304, 305, 308, 309, 325, 330 Robert d'Estouteville, 138 Robert de Grainville, canon of Lincoln, 303 Robert de Losinga, bishop of Hereford, 72, 282, 284, 378 Robert de Montfort, 75 Robert de Romney, 73 Robert de Sigillo, bishop of London, 322, 324, 327, 330 Robert de Turneham, 261 Robert Fafiton, 317 Robert Fitz-Rozelin, 317 Robert Fitz-Wazo, 73 Robert Gernon, 316 Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, 31, 310-312 Robert Limesey, bishop of Coventry, 115, 117, 118, 122 Robert Malet, 139 Robert Marmion, 121 Robert de Torigni, 116 Robert of Lewes, bishop of Bath, 55, 56, 59, 63, 64 Robert of Mowbray, earl of Northumberland, rebellion of, 53 Robert Pullen, archdeacon of Rochester, 204, 206 Robert Warelwast, bishop of Exeter, 277 Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury, 105, 210 Robinson, James Armitage, 5 Rochester, castle, 197; diocese, 31; episcopal relations with Canterbury, 372n, 377—378n; royal court, 81; suffragan see, 197; St. Andrew's priory, 77 Roding (Essex), 157 Roger, abbot of St. Albans, 376 Roger, bishop of Hereford, 285 Roger, bishop of Salisbury, 56, 183, 246, 338, 339-341; his arrest, 166, 340; his family, 46 Roger, bishop of Worcester, 20, 245, 249, 250, 323 Roger, chaplain at Chichester, 264 Roger, clericus, tenant in Bexhill (Sussex), 261 Roger, prior of Durham, 145

Roger, son of Corbet, 284 Roger de Brun, 326 Roger de Clinton, bishop of Coventry, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 128, 246 Roger de Lacy, 241, 244, 282, 284 Roger de Martival, bishop of Salisbury, 344 Roger de Pont l'Eveque, archbishop of York, 357 Roger d'lvry, 221 Roger Fitz-Miles, 286 Roger Norreys, prior of Christ Church, 97,98 Roger of Howden, 14, 359 Roger of Montgomery, earl of Arundel and earl of Shrewsbury, 275—276 Roger of Poitou, 296 Roger of Salisbury, bishop of Bath & Wells, 62 Roger of Warwick, 23 5n Rothbury (Northumb.), church, 106 Rotherfield (Sussex), 201, 202 Rouen, 108; archbishop of, 100; diocese of, 4 Round, John Horace, 174, 247n, 288-289n, 315 Ruckinge (Kent), 72 Rufinus, 373 Rugmere (Mddx.), 318 Run well (Essex), 325

445

sacrist, at Canterbury, 92; at Winchester, 229 Sacrosancta romana ecclesia, papal bull, 146

Saddlescomb (Sussex), 275 St. Albans abbey, 117, 187, 304; abbot, 207; sede vacante, 376

St. Augustine's abbey (Bristol), 342 St. Benedict, Rule, 10, 35, 85—86, 91, 100, 142, 227, 384 St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 2O9n, 356—357, 392 St. Bertin (Normandy), 333 St. Catherine's priory, Lincoln, 304 St. Chad, bishopric, 114; church, 117 St. Cuthbert, I35n, 136 St. Frideswide priory (Oxford), 246, 304, 340 St. Germans, bishopric, 270, 333; church, 274, 275; priory, ioin St. Giles fair (Winchester), 227 St. Mary Church (Devon), 273 St. Mary-le-Strand (London), 248 St. Oswald, collegiate church, 49 St. Pancras (Mddx.), 318

Index St. Wilfrid, 257 St. William of Norwich, 190 Salcombe (Devon), 273 Salisbury, 336; canons, 301, 383; dean and chapter, 58, 340; royal court in 1088, 134; see Old Sarum Saltman, Avrom, 5, 14 Salton (Yorks.), 347 Saltwood (Kent), 69, 75 Samson, abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, 26, 129, 130 Samson, bishop of Worcester, 238, 242, 243, 245, 246, 350 Sandford (Devon), 270 Sandwich (Kent), 69, 70, 74 Savaric Fitz-Geldewin, bishop of Bath, 64, 211

Scammell, G. V., 140 Sceppeia (SufF.), 162 Schieffer, Rudolf, 4 Sclive (Hants.), 219 Seaborough (Somerset), 336 Seaham (Durham). 144 Seasalter (Kent), 73, 74 Seaton (Durham), 144 sede yacante administration, 8, 42, 45, 63, 362-376; at Canterbury, 103 ; at Ely, 371; at Hereford, 278 Sedgeberrow (Worcs.), 237 Seffrid I, bishop of Chichester, 205, 258, 261, 266 Seffrid II, bishop of Chichester, 265, 266, 267 Selsey, bishopric, 31, 257, 263 Sens, diocese, 4 servitium debitum, 20, 155, 376—380; at Ely, 159; at Hereford, 283-284; at Salisbury, 335 Sessay (Yorks.), 136 Sevenhampton (Glos.), 284 Sewal de Bovill, archbishop of York, 383 Sharpe, J. A., 1 Shelford (Cambs.), 162, 171 Shellow (Essex), 157 Sheppey (Kent), 69 Sherborne, abbey, 335, 340; diocese, 31; see, 269, 334, 335 Shincliffe (Durham), 137 Shipston (War.), 237, 24m, 339 Sidbury (Devon), 273 Sidwell (Devon), 273 Sigston, Kirby (Yorks.), church, 136, 144; estate, 143, 144 Sigweard, 70

446

Silvester de Everdon, bishop of Carlisle, 113

Simeon, abbot of Ely, 151, 153, 155, 158, 159 Simeon of Durham, 120, 132, 134 Simkins, Maud E., 157 Simon, abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, 376 Simon, bishop of Worcester, 238, 242, 243, 245, 248, 251 Simon, dean of Lincoln, 298 Simon, dean of York, 360 Simon, prior of Worcester, 253 Simon Fitz-Robert, bishop of Chichester, 79 Simon Mepham, archbishop of Canterbury, 214, 384n Simon of Wells, bishop of Chichester, 267 simony, 40 Sired, canon of St. Paul's, London, 317 Siward, bishop of Rochester, 195 Skipden (Norf.), 176 Sleaford (Lines.), 291 Smith, R. A. L., 5, 55n, 208 Snailwell (Cambs.), 153 Snodland (Kent), 196 Sokens, the (Essex), 325 Somersham (Hunts.), 157 Somery family, 117; Miles, 117 Somner, William, 66n Sonning (Berks.), 336, 341 Southam (War.), 120, 122 Southern, R. W., 5, 8in, 137 Southfleet (Kent), 212 Southminster (Essex), 330, 331 Southwark, 224 Southwell (Notts.), 350 Southwick (Northants.), church, 297 Southwood (Devon), 273 Sparhafoc, abbot of Abingdon, appointed to see of London, 314 Sparkwell (Devon), 273 Spelsbury (War.), 243 Speyer cathedral chapter, 391—392n spiritualia, 37iff. Sporle (Norf), 188 Sprowsten (Norf), 187 Staindrop (Durham), 137, 143 Stane (Heref), 281 Stanton Prior (Somerset), 52 Stapleford (Cambs.), 167, 171 Staverton (Devon), 273 Stenton, Sir Frank Merry, 293 Stephen, king of England, 42, 58, 64, 85, 91, 108, 122, 124, 145, 165, 166, 187, 225, 237, 248, 260, 286, 296, 298, 322,

Index 324,340,342,355,356,365,371,380; at Salisbury, 3411 Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, 131, 254, 372 Stepney (Mddx.), 316, 326 Stetchworth (Cambs.), 167, 169—170, 171 Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, 35, 49, 114, 117, 153-154, 175; bishop of Winchester, 216, 221 Stigand, bishop of Selsey and Chichester, 257, 258 Stisted (Essex), 76, 77 Stoke (Kent), 196, 202 Stoke (Suff.), 161 Stoke Bishop (Glos.), 241 Stoke Canon (Devon), 273 Stoke, North (Somerset), 61 Stoke Prior (Worcs.), 247, 248 Stoneham (Hants.), 219 Stortford, Bishop (Herts.), 315 Stourmouth (Kent), church, 202 Stratford (War.), 243 Stretham (Cambs.), 162, 171 Strood (Kent), 211 Stubbs, William, 66n, 321 Stuntney (Cambs.), 162 Sudbourne (Suff.), 161 Suger, abbot of St. Denis, 15 Surling, Swarling (Kent), 73 Sutton (Cambs.), 162 Sutton (Kent), church, 202 Sutton (Mddx.), 328 Swaffham (Cambs.), 162 Swainston (Hants.), 233 Swanton (Norf.), 182 Swinbrook (Oxon.), 339 Sylvester of Evesham, prior of Worcester, 253; bishop of Worcester, 253, 381 Symeon, prior of Winchester, 220 Tachbrook, Bishop (War.), 117 Tansor (Northants.), church, 297 Tappenhall (Worcs.), 235 Tarvin (Cheshire), 122 Tasburgh (Surrey), 275 Taunton (Somerset), 217; castle, 224 Taverham (Norf.), 192 Tavistock abbey, 273, 280 Taxatio ecclesiastica (c.1291), 74, i82n

Teddington (Worcs.), 237 temporalia, 37iff., at Canterbury, 74 tensare, i89n Textus Roffensis, 197

Teynham (Kent), 103 Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, 18,

25, 37, 76, 77, 91, 103, 104, 121, 146, 168, 203, 205, 249, 251, 261, 288, 326, 330, 340, 357, 380; his death, 93; his will, 43, 83-84, 85fF., 89; relations with Stephen, 91 Theodred, bishop of London, 316 Theodwin of Jumieges, abbot of Ely, 154 Thetford, bishopric, 32; bishop of, 33, 378; diocese, 184 Thetford, Little (Cambs.), 160, 169 Theulf, bishop of Worcester, 238, 243, 246 Thomas I of Bayeux, archbishop of York, 245, 290, 345, 348, 350 Thomas II, archbishop of York, 245, 246, 345, 348, 350-351 Thomas, prior of Durham, 147 Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, 14, 78, 79, 80, 83, 94, 172, 342-343, 357, 383n, 384, 388; as chancellor, 325, 326; election, 104; relics, 99 Thomas Blundeville, bishop of Norwich, 194 Thomas Chesterfield, 121 Thompson, A. Hamilton, 385n Thornham (Norf.), church, 180 Thorpe (Norf.), 179, 181 Thorpe, John, 208 Throcking (Herts.), 315 Througham (Hants.), 219 Thurstan, abbot of Ely, 153, 154 Thurstan, archbishop of York, 106, 107, 349, 351, 355-356 Thurstan, son of Rolf, tenant in Aust (Glos.), 242 Thurstan, the deacon, 180 Tidenham (Glos.), 52 Tillingham (Essex), 316 Tilmanstone (Kent), 69 Tilston (Cheshire), 115 Tinchebrai, battle of, 139 Tiring (Surrey), 275 Topsham (Devon), 273 Tottenham Court (Mddx.), 318 Tredington (Worcs.), 239, 240 Treyford (Sussex), 260, 261 Trottiscliffe (Kent), 196 Tuddenham (Suff.), 156 Turbutsey (Cambs.), 162 Turgot, prior of Durham, I45n Turner, Barbara C , 233n Twyford (Mddx.), 317 Ufton (War.), 122; mill, 120

447

Index Ulcombe (Kent), 69, 70 Ulfus, tenant in Twyford (Mddx.), 317 Ullingswick (Heref.), 281, 285 Ullmann, Walter, 373n, 388n, 395n Undley (Surf.), 162 Urban II, pope, 81 Urban III, pope, 25, 79, 96, 97, 126, 384 Urse d'Abitot, sheriff of Worcester, 240, 241, 244, 247, 248 Valor ecclesiasticus, i6sn, 368

Victor II, pope, 155, 158 Villacorta Rodriguez, Tomas, 4 viri religiosi, 381 Vita Gundulfi, 197, 201, 214

Walcher, bishop of Durham, 133, 334 Waleran, bishop of Rochester, 209, 210, 214, 215

Waleran, count of Meulan and earl of Worcester, 287 Walford (Heref), 281 Walkelin, bishop of Winchester, 216, 218, 220, 221, 223, 224, 227, 234, 284, 366

Walkington (Yorks.), 138, 347 Wallingford (Berks.), 221 Waltheof, earl of Huntingdon, 291, 293 Walter, abbot of Ramsey, 206 Walter, bishop of Hereford, 280, 282, 284, 346 Walter, bishop of Rochester, 92, 209, 210, 215

Walter, camerarius at Chichester, 264 Walter, hosatus, 53n Walter, prior of Canterbury, 88 Walter, son of Roger, tenant in Colesbourne (Glos.), 242 Walter, the priest, 106 Walter Bronescombe, bishop of Exeter, 278 Walter Cantilupe, bishop of Worcester, 255 Walter de Beauchamp, 247, 248 Walter de Clifford, 285 Walter de Grey, royal chancellor, 131; bishop of Worcester, 253; archbishop of York, 253, 360 Walter de Lacy, 282, 286 Walter de Ponther, 241 Walter Durdent, bishop of Coventry, 116, 121, 122, 125

Walter Walter Walter Walter

GifFard, archbishop of York, 383 Langton, royal treasurer, 173 Mauclerc, 112 of Amundeville, 298

Walter of Coutances, bishop of Lincoln, 304, 305, 381; archbishop of Rouen, 381 Walter of Gloucester, 285 Walter of Pampisford, 168 Walter Reynolds, bishop of Worcester, 62 Walter Tirel, 336 Waltham (Essex), 137 Waltham, Bishops (Hants.), 218, 226 Waltheof, earl of Northumberland, 133 Wandlebury inquest, 166, 168 Wanstraw (Somerset), 51, 57, 60 Wantage (Berks.), 336 Wareham (Dorset), 166 Warin, tenant in Itchenor (Sussex), 276 Warkworth (Northumb.), church, 106, 112

Warley, Warleigh (Somerset), 53, 54 Warmfield (Yorks.), 347 Warminster, Warmeston (Wilts.), 51, 57 Washbourne (Worcs.), 240 Wasperton (War.), 120 Watson, E. W., 5 Waverley abbey, 224 Wazo, archdeacon of Durham, 145 Wearmouth, 133, 134, 136 Wedmore (Somerset), 49, 50, 56, 57, 60, 63 Wellingore (Lines.), 291 Wellington (Somerset), 60 Wells, 51, 56, 60; canons of, 50, 58; cathedral, 31; statuta antiqua, 58—59 Welton (Lines.), 291, 293, 294 Welton (Yorks.), 137, 138, 139 Wentworth (Cambs.), 162 Westbourne (Sussex), 260 Westbury (Glos.), 241, 242, 245 Westbury (Somerset), 60 Westmancote (Worcs.), 240 Westminster, 108; abbey, 96, 323; forgeries, 119; St. Peter's, 239 Westmorland, 106 Weston (Somerset), 52, 54, 60 West Wratting (Cambs.), 167, 171 West Wycombe (Bucks.), 221 Wetheral (Cumberland), 106 Whitchurch (Dorset), 57 Whitchurch (Hants.), 218 Whittingham (Northumb.), church, 106 Whittlesea (Cambs.), 162 Wibert, prior of Canterbury, 86, 90, 91, 95, 343, 383 Wick (Worcs.), 247, 248 Wickham (Essex), 315, 316, 328 Wickham (Sussex), 261

448

Index Widow (SufF.), 162 Wighton (Norf.), church, 194 WiUesden(Mddx.), 317 William, archdeacon of Cambridge, 160, 168, 169 William, archdeacon of London, 321 William, archdeacon of Northampton, 298 William, archdeacon of Rochester, 212 William, bishop of Chichester, 258 William, bishop of London, 313, 314, 315 William, earl of Gloucester, 61 William I, king of England, 37, 49, 75, 114, 118, 151, 218, 224, 235, 290, 291, 292, 378 William II, king 136, 158, 177, 244, 276, 293,

154, 155, 159, 160, 195, 237, 246, 275, 281, 284, 295, 319, 345, 349, 363, of England, 5, 20, 56, 81, 201, 206, 224, 234, 235, 295, 296, 303, 311-312,

319, 335. 349, 363, 364, 366n; at trial of the bishop of Durham, 40-41; foundation at Carlisle, 105 William, son of Osbert, 77 William, son of Hermenfrid, 73 William Baynard, 379n William Briwere, bishop of Exeter, 278 William Burdet, 263 William Cumin, archdeacon of Worcester, 145 William de Bellofago, bishop of Thetford, 176, 177, 178, 188 William de Corbeil, archbishop of Canterbury, 42, 77, 80, 83, 85, 215, 367 William d'Ecoris, 156 William de Mareni, dean of St. Paul's, London, 321 William de Mere, 285 William de Noyers, 153 William de Roumare, earl of Lincoln, 303 William de Sainte-Mere Eglise, bishop of London, 328 William de Vere, 317 William Escudet, 224, 227 William Fitz-Herbert, archbishop of York, 356 William Fitz-Stephen, 87, 94 William Giffard, bishop of Winchester, 220, 224, 227, 234

William Haltein, 180 William Longchamp, bishop of Ely, 39, 129; chancellor, 77 William Melton, archbishop of York, 353n,361 William of Allington, 76

William of Bitton I, bishop of Bath and Wells, 61 William of Blois, bishop of Lincoln, 301, 306 William of Blois, bishop of Worcester, 253 William of Cornhill, bishop of Coventry, 123, 129, 132

William of Eynsford, 70, 72 William of Fecamp, 219 William of Louth, bishop of Ely, 173 William of Malmesbury, 42, 53, 54, 55, 271, 272, 333-334, 348; on character of Wulfstan, 235-236 William of Newburgh, 127, 357, 365 William of St. Calais, bishop of Durham, 39, 40-41, 132, 133, 136, 140, 148 William of Warenne, 275 William of Wycombe, 287-288 William of Ypres, 87-88 William Roger, n o William St. Barbe, dean of York and bishop of Durham, 145 William Turbe, bishop of Norwich, 190-191 William Warelwast, bishop of Exeter, 276 Willingham (Cambs.), 162, 171 Wilmington (Kent), church, 202 Wilmington (Somerset), 52 Winchcombe abbey, 280 Winchester, castle, 230; cathedral lands, 20; city, 107, 24on; convent, 101, 380; diocese, 31; St. Peter's abbey, 218 Windsor, royal court, 81 Winsham (Somerset), 51, 57, 60 Winston (SufF.), 162, 171 Winterbourne (Berks.), 336 Win wick (Cheshire), 120 Wirthlington (Dorset), 337 Witcham (Cambs.), 162 Witchford (Cambs.), 162 Witham (Essex), 156; abbey, 308 Withington (Glos.), 241, 242 Withyham (Sussex), 264 Wittering (Sussex), 263 Wiveliscombe (Somerset), 60 Woking (Surrey), 275 Wolverhampton (Staffs.), 245, 246 Wolverley (Worcs.), 24m, 247 Wolvesey (Hants.), episcopal palace, 226, 230

Wolvisten (Durham), 143, 144 Wonston (Hants.), 219 Wooburn (Bucks.), 291, 293 Wood Ditton (Cambs.), 153

449

Index Woodhorn (Sussex), 264 Wood Newton (Northants.), church, 297 Woodwick (Somerset), 52 Wookey (Somerset), 56, 60 Woolstone (Berks.), 221 Woolwich (Kent), church, 202 Wooton-St. Lawrence (Hants.), 218, 219 Worcester, cathedral lands, 20; cathedral priory, 340; diocese, 31—32; monks, 382 Worthy (Hants.), 219 Wotton (Somerset), 57 Wouldham (Kent), 196, 202, 212 Writtle (Essex), 284 Wulfgyth, 76 Wulfred, archbishop of Canterbury, 24 Wulfric, abbot of Ely, 153, 154

Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester, 234fF., 242, 243, 378; archbishop of York, 3.46 Wulfwig, bishop of Dorchester, 290, 291 Wulfwine, 75 Wybunbury (Cheshire), 122 Wyck (Surrey), 275 Yarmouth, St. Nicholas' church, 179 Yate (Glos.), 241 Yatton (Somerset), 57, 60 Yaxham (Norf.), 156 Yaxley (Norf), 186 Yetminster (Dorset), 334, 337 Yokefleet (Yorks.), 138 York, 108, 109; diocese, 32; St. Leonard's hospital, 109; town, 347

450

Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought Fourth series Titles in series 1 The Beaumont Twins: The Roots and Branches of Power in the Twelfth Century D. B. CROUCH

2 The Thought of Gregory the Great* G. R. EVANS

3 The Government of England under Henry I* JUDITH A. G R E E N

4 Charity and Community in Medieval Cambridge MIRI RUBIN

5 Autonomy and Community: The Royal Manor of Havering, 1200-1500 MARJORIE KENISTON MCINTOSH

6 The Political Thought of Baldus de Ubaldis JOSEPH CANNING

7 Land and Power in Late Medieval Ferrara: The Rule of the Este, 13 50-1450 TREVOR DEAN

8 William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East* PETER W. EDBURY AND JOHN GORDON ROWE

9 The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England: A Study of West Saxon and East Anglian Cults SUSAN J. RIDYARD

10 John of Wales: A Study of the Works and Ideas of a Thirteenth-Century Friar JENNY SWANSON

11 Richard III: A Study of Service* ROSEMARY HORROX

12 A Marginal Economy? East Anglian Breckland in the Later Middle Ages MARK BAILEY

13 Clement VI: The Pontificate and Ideas of an Avignon Pope DIANA W O O D

14 Hagiography and the Cult of Saints: The Diocese of Orleans, 800-1200 THOMAS HEAD

15 Kings and Lords in Conquest England ROBIN FLEMING

16 Council and Hierarchy: The Political Thought of William Durant the Younger CONSTANTTN FASOLT

17 Warfare in the Latin East, 1192-1291 CHRISTOPHER MARSHALL

18 Province and Empire: Brittany and the Carolingians JULIA M. H. S M I T H

*Also published as a paperback

19 A Gentry Community: Leicestershire in the Fifteenth Century, c. 1422— c. 1485 ERIC ACHESON

20 Baptism and Change in the Early Middle Ages, c. 200—1150 PETER CRAMER

21 Itinerant Kingship and Royal Monasteries in Early Medieval Germany, c. 936-1075 JOHN W. BERNHARDT

22 Caesarius of Aries: The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul WILLIAM E. KLINGSHIRN

23 Bishop and Chapter in Twelfth-Century England: A Study of the Mensa Episcopalis EVERETT U. CROSBY