L E P E R S O F W E S T S O M E R T O N 1 03

sides: the lepers were clearly somewhat violent and difficult to control, while the priors may have been tempted to exploit Somerton for purposes not intended by the founder, thus leaving themselves open to the malice of local enemies. It would hardly be surprising if, faced with such vexatious litigation, the priors felt that the hospital was not worth the trouble of maintaining.

R I C H A R D M O R T I M E R

Cistercian Visitation in the Late Middle Ages: the Case OfHades Abbey

I T H A S LON G been recognized that the historian of late medieval monasticism in England is hampered by the dearth of evidence from the Cistercian houses, and ‘the deplorable lack of any intimate or personal records of the lives and fortunes of the white monks” has only been partially remedied by the publication of the valuable correspondence between the English abbots and Citeaux.2 Visitation documents in particular, moderately prolific for the non-exempt houses in bishops’ registers and long ago collected for the Premonstratensians, are sparse, and it is difficult to reach a fair appreciation of the state of the Cistercian abbeys, since reports to the general chapter were often distorted by internal animosities. In these circumstances it is surprising that more attention has not been paid to the register of Hades abbey, in Gloucestershire.s It has no doubt been neglected because it is conventionally described as a formulary. It is, in fact, more akin to a register or a letter book: the great majority of documents contained in it are authentic, and they provide material not only for the internal history of the house over a period of 150 years, but also for the conduct of the Cistercian visitatorial system in the later middle ages.

The volume is clearly divided into two parts. The first, compiled in the early fourteenth century, is a formulary, consisting almost entirely of letters appointing proctors to appear in various cases in the courts of Rome, Canterbury and Worcester, and before the archdeacon of Glo~cester .~ The second, larger portion was written towards the end of the fifteenth century. The latest document has the date 1478. Although this later section contains miscellaneous documents relating to the foundation of the Cistercian studium at Oxford, the appropriated churches of the abbey and the appointment of proctors, the bulk of the material is concerned with the internal discipline of the abbey and with visitation procedure. Interspersed with the documentary records of various visitations are tracts dealing with the position of the religious in canon law and with the correct methods of judicial procedure. I t seems likely that this material was accumulated as a series of precedents by Abbot John Crombroke,

‘ D. Knowles, The Religrous Orders in England (3 vols., Cambridge, 1948-59). iii. 28. I am grateful to the Central Research Fund o f the University o f London for financial assistance to the project from which this article stems.

2Letter~frwn the English Abbots to the Chapter al Citeawc, 1442--1521, ed. C . H. Talbot (Camden 4th ser., iv, 1967).

’British Library, Royal MS. 1z.E. xiv (hereafter Reg.). The author of the article on Hailes in the Victoria Histov of Gloucester~hire, i i . 96-9 made some use of this source, but did not, inevitably within the space allowed, exploit its full potential. The present study examines all the visitation documents included in the register, which contains much information not to be found in the statutes o f the order.

Reg. fos. 4-16v.

104 C I S T E R C I A N V I S I T A T I O N I N T H E L A T E M I D D L E A G E S :

who in 1480 wrote to the abbot of Citeaux suggesting that he should act as his commissary in England, and in the same year was appointed as one of the visitors and reformers of the Welsh house^.^

The judicial tracts interspersed throughout the collection include summaries of the procedure for conducting an enquiry,6 and for administering the oath of compurgation to one accused and pleading innocence.’ The reasons for invalidating an election were set forth according to the law of the universal church, and in view of the series of disputed elections in English Cistercian houses in the fifteenth century, this was certainly essential knowledge for any visitor.8 Also bound up in the volume is a longer treatise ‘De statu monachorum et canonicorum regular i~rn’ :~ this is in fact a compendium of canon law applicable to the religious orders, with references to the Corpus Iuris Canonici and the standard glosses. I t contains a full list of questions concerning the internal life and discipline of the monastery and the relationship of regulars as individuals and as a body with ecclesiastical authority and the society in which they lived. Can monks be excommunicated by a bishop, or ordered to do anything by episcopal authority? May they receive churches or tithes from laymen without episcopal authority, or institute priests to churches without the bishop’s mandate, or have dealings with known excommunicates? Can a monk act as a ,judge or an advocate or undertake any such legal duties? Can a secular be elected to an abbacy, and can a monastery be converted into a secular church? Can a monk be removed from the rule of a priory without legal judgment against him? Should secular clerks be received into monasteries without letters from their bishops? Are monks permitted to use linen, and how long should their habits be? The treatise provided in a convenient form the basic answer to most problems which might confront the visitor.

Most interesting, perhaps, is the list of articles of enquiry to be put by a reformer of the Cistercian order in his visitation.I0 He was to investigate whether anything was done by the brethren of the house to the offence of the Christian faith, and specifically whether any of them engaged in sorcery or other frivolous and superstitious arts. He should search for any suspicion of simony in their entr-y into religion, ordination to the priesthood or promotion to any office within the abbey, and should enquire whether any were guilty of conspiracy against their abbot or other superiors, or were backbiters who disturbed the peace and tranquillity of the cloister, and indeed if there were any guilty or suspect of any vice or crime, especially of the unspeakable vice of sodomy. He should ensure that divine office was celebrated by day and night in the conventual church and in the infirmary, and that religious observance was maintained in matters of diet, silence and the exclusion of women from the

k t t e r r from the English Abbots, pp. 75-6 ; Statuta Capitulorum Generalium Ordznis Cisterciensis ab anno 1 1 1 6 ad annum 1786, ed. J . M . Canivez 18 vols.. Louvain. 1933-41), v. 407: 1480, cap. 30. Crombroke was recommended to the abbot of Citeaux as a potential reformer of the order bu Lionel Woodville, c hanrellor o t Oxford University, and subsequently received the support of 20 superiors against the attacks of the abbot ofWoburn il*lfers/rom tht English Abbofr, pp. 71-2 , 84-6).

6 Rrg. foj i6v-ig: the tract is headed ‘De officio iudicis circa inquisiriones et forma procedendi’, and begins: ‘Videamus qualiter et quando debel iustus iudex procedere’. It is part of a longer judicial rrcatise found in z other Cistercian compilations, Brit. Libr., Royal MSS. 8.A.xviii fos. 82-144, i i . A . x i v f o c . 1-61. ’ Reg. fos. .tov-4n.

Reg. 10. 62v. For Cistercian election disputes, see especially E. F . Jacob, ‘One of Swan’s cases: the disputed election at Fountains abbey. 1410-16’. in €>says tn Later Medieval History (Manchester, 19681, 1’1’. 79-97

Reg. iOs. 48-60. The tract begins: ‘An monachus ab episcopo possit excommunicari vel ab eo dliquid preripi‘.

“Reg. ~ O S . 43-4.

105

cloister. He should ask whether all the brethren were punished equally according to the scale of their faults, and whether sufficient provision was made to them of food and clothing, according to the customs of the house, and whether favouritism or persecution influenced this distribution. He should establish how many monks there were in the abbey and whether the number had fallen below the norm, how the revenues were administered and expended, whether there had been any alienation of monastic possessions, whether the officials concealed from their abbot the goods of the house that had been committed to them or had been newly acquired by their own efforts and converted them to their own use, whether the monastery was in debt, and if so, by how much and for what reasons. Was the necessary provision made for infirm monks and were the remains of the conventual meals and the other accustomed portions distributed in alms to the poor? Were the monks embroiled with merchants or involved in other secular business, did they indulge in hunting or keep hawks or falcons in the cloister, and did they abuse the privileges of the order? Finally, he should ensure that the statutes of the general chapter and the constitutions of Pope Benedict XI1 for the order were observed in their entirety, and especially that monks were sent to and maintained at the studium, and should investigate whether there were arrears owing in the annual contributions payable to the abbot of Citeaux for the general welfare of the order.

The implementation of these enquiries is illustrated by the visitation injunctions and analogous documents transcribed in the register. The earliest proceedings relate to the visitation in 13 18 of Abbey Dore by John of Gloucester, abbot of Hailes, acting as commissary of the abbot of Morimond, the father abbot." He noted that large numbers came to venerate the cross in the conventual church, but decreed that women who came to the abbey out of reverence should not be accommodated even in the granges: when courtesy or charity dictated it, lavish provision should be made for them at the monastery gate, but they must not be allowed to stay the night. As far as was possible, no monk or conucrsus should go out alone, especially to any remote place, and if he declined to have a religious as a companion, an honest servant should be sent with him. Anyone who was caught in suspicious circumstances with a woman of bad repute should be kept within the cloister until the next visitation, when the matter would be investigated and if found guilty he would be punished for incontinence. The young monks should not be allowed to work at carting or other jobs outside the abbey, or to hold conversations with outsiders, unless a senior was there to supervise them. Nobody in future should sow flax in the fields of the abbey or the granges, as this led to the admittance of women to pick, wash and prepare it; only seeds should be sown with the harvesting and disposal of which men could reasonably deal. The visitor must have discovered that some of the community sought to evade their religious obligations, for he decreed that those monks allocated by the precentor on a weekly rota to any office in the church might not be excused from it without a legitimate reason which had been discussed and approved in chapter, and that any monk who declined to give a sermon on the day appointed for him should be relegated to the last place in choir and chapter and should fast on bread and water for one day a week until the next visitation, where he should seek forgiveness and at the discretion of the visitor be more severely punished. He ordered that the convent's books should be kept in a common bookcase and that no monk should keep one out at night without the permission of the precentor or succentor, on pain of bread and water the next day. All books belonging to the community, the abbot or any of the

T H E C A S E O F H A I L E S A B B E Y

' I Reg. fos. z p - z g .

106 C I S T E R C I A N V I S I T A T I O N I N T H E L A T E M I D D L E A G E S :

monks were to be entered on a common list, and if anyone was found to have a book which he had not presented for cataloguing, he should be treated as a thief. Moreover, to avoid the sin of pmprieta, no horses should be kept except in the communal stables, and if anyone contravened this the horse should be sold and the offender should be beaten in chapter. None of the obedientiaries, or any others, were to seek a personal drink allowance, but were to be content with the common portion.

N o injunctions survive from the visitation of Gracedieu by Richard, abbot of Dore, the father abbot, and the abbot of Llantarnam in July 1351, but the visitors had to deal with the problem of a tired and disillusioned superior.I2 Abbot Hugh de Chepstow complained bitterly of the various oppressions visited upon his house by a malicious world and ruthless neighbours, and begged to be released from the governance of the abbey. The abbot of Dore accepted his resignation, and with the consent of the convent made provision for him for the duration of his life. He was to have a private chamber, with one or more servants who were acceptable to him, and an annual pension of twenty pounds for his upkeep. When the abbot was resident he might, if he wished, eat at his table, and when he was absent he should be provided with enough food for him and his servants, prepared or uncooked as he preferred. With the licence of the president of the chapter he might have one monk to sleep in his chamber, on a weekly rota. He was to be exempt from all claustral observances, might talk anywhere without seeking licence in the regular manner, and might stand and sit beside the abbot.

The position of the abbot was also the main preoccupation when in January 1422 William, abbot of Hailes and thc master of Long Bennington were deputed to visit Buckfast, in D e v ~ n . ’ ~ Dissension had erupted between the superior and community over the administration of temporalities and spiritualities, and in full chapter, in the presence of a notary public, the visitors announced their decisions as arbitrators. As Abbot William Beagle was aged and frequently ill, and could not fulfil the duties laid upon him by the statutes of the order, it was ordered that he should not henceforth interfere in any aspect of the administration of the house unless he was requested so to do by the prior and convent. He should not obtain any privilege or exemption from the court of Rome to the derogation of the privileges of the Cistercian order, and if he had any such indults they should be null and void. As long as he remained abbot, he was to receive an annual pension of ten pounds from the prior and convent, to provide for his clothing and other necessities. If he was to be invited out of the house, and his journey was for the benefit of the house or honour demanded that he attend, as at the installation of a bishop of Exeter or the funerals of neighbouring magnates or gentry, he should travel at the expense of the community; if he travelled for his own pleasure or convenience, he should take a decent retinue but should pay for i t himself. The abbot was ordered, according to long established usage, to receive guests and strangers well and cheerfully, instructing his servants and those of the convent to attend upon them in hall and chamber. He might accept any donations or gifts made to him, and if they were for his own use he might make remuneration to the donors as he chose; if they were for the common use, any payment should be made from the conventual treasury. Both the abbot and the prior swore on the gospels to observe all these provisions.

Further documents illustrate the subsequent judicial activity of Abbot William Henley. In 1433 he was ordered by the abbot of Citeaux to ensure that the abbot of Combe made efforts for the speedy recapture of Thomas Ashby, an apostate,

Reg. fo. 23. ” Reg. fos. 64-65’.

’07

but to see that he was not imprisoned unless he was convicted of theft or other grave crimes. Abbot William was granted faculty to absolve him and impose a suitable penance, and was instructed to attempt to persuade the abbot of Combe to give him licence to leave, and to establish him in another Cistercian house. He conducted an enquiry and decided that Ashby could not remain at Combe because of the malice of his rivals, and gave him licence to go to the abbot of Waverley, to whom he granted faculty to receive him.” Twelve years later Henley, on the authority of the general chapter, visited Coggeshall, where there appeared before him Brother John Bray, who complained that he had been unjustly accused of various crimes, especially of lixe-mujesti by the forgery of the king’s coinage. After consultation with the abbot of Coggeshall, Henley declared him to be totally innocent of these crimes, pronounced him eligible for promotion to any office, and forbade all future ~1ander . l~ His confidence was perhaps misplaced, for in 1452 Bray apostatized.16 On another occasion the abbot was called in to deal with some trouble at St. Mary Graces, a house constantly plagued by dissension in the early fifteenth century. By the authority committed to him by the general chapter, he dispensed three monks from all charges of apostasy, conspiracy, perjury, disobedience, theft, propriety, publi- cation of the secrets of the order, sorcery, incontinence, usury and any other crime.”

The bulk of the visitation documents concern Hailes abbey itself. The earliest recorded injunctions are those of Denis, abbot of Beaulieu, the mother house, issued in 1261.’~ He dealt first with the celebration of the Office. The brethren should genuflect more deeply when crossing before the high altar, with their cowls drawn back; during the last verse of any psalm they should rise from their stalls and bow. The Host should be treated with the greatest reverence by all those assisting at any service. The sacristan should at least once a year conduct a careful inspection of all the vessels of every altar, to ensure that they had not become stained or damaged by daily use. Silence should be more strictly observed, since thereby spiritual devotion is fostered. Young monks should not be permitted to exercise any forinsec office in the monastery, and the cellarer and his associate should be more diligent in the management of the external business of the community, since the abbot had been overburdened with such matters, and they should consult the prior and the seniors in any matter of difficulty; if they proved negligent in their duties, they should be beaten in chapter and fast on bread and water every Friday until the next visitation. N o new novices should be accepted into the community until its debts had been reduced. Since such faults brought infamy upon the whole order, any monk or conversus who entered the house of a woman in dubious circumstances should be sent away to the most remote house of the order, without any letter of indulgence from the abbot of Citeaux, and should never be allowed to return. Monks should be appointed to guard the brother who was currently in prison, and if he escaped due to their negligence they should themselves be incarcerated. No member of the community should malign or persecute Brother N.B., to whose good repute the visitor now testified. Finally, it was strictly forbidden for any monk to give or sell his cowl to any secular without the abbot’s licence, since the reputation of the whole order might be greatly damaged by such action.

T H E C A S E OF H A l L E S A B B E Y

” Reg. fos. ngv-25. l 5 Reg. fo. 35. j 6 Public Record Office, Chancery Warrants, C 8 1 / i 788/17. I ’ Reg. fo. 34.

Reg. fos. 73-5.

108 C I S T E R C I A N V I S I T A T I O N I N T H E L A T E M I D D L E A G E S :

The injunctions of the abbot of Beaulieu in 1270 are also transcribed in the register.lg He was still not satisfied with the conduct of services: the celebrant and those assisting should ensure that the Office was not rushed, with the words slurred together. N o monk should absent himself from church on Sundays or feast days, except with dispensation from the abbot, nor should they leave in the middle of the service; if any did so without a reasonable excuse, he should receive the discipline in chapter. Notwithstanding the penalties prescribed by the general chapter for the breaking of silence, there were some monks who did not hesitate to do so: the president of the chapter was ordered to inflict the stipulated penance on such offenders, and if he failed to do so he should fast on bread and water for chree days. If any transgressor murmured against the penance judicially imposed upon him, or was abusive or reproachful to those correcting him, he should undergo the penalty for a light fault for three days. If dissension arose between two of the brethren, the junior should immediately seek the pardon of the senior, as is laid down by the Rule. Once again the visitor deplored the recriminations against Brother N., who had been completely acquitted of the charge of incontinence which had been brought against him but not proved, and enjoined that nobody should in future reproach him with this, in public or in private.

Immediately following these decrees are those of an undated visitation by an unspecified prelate.*O The singing of the monks was criticized: the psalms should be sung more slowly, and at Prime the hymn ‘Luce matutina oriente’ should be sung at a higher pitch, so that it seemed to those listening to be a song of jubilation rather than a dirge of lament. Young monks who did not yet take part in the full round of daily service should recite part of the Office every day to masters appointed to supervise them, and if they failed to do so they should be beaten in chapter and deprived of the conventual pittance. As at Dore in 1318, the visitor deplored the fact that some monks who were proficient in learning attempted to evade the task of preaching in chapter: every year the prior, in consultation with the abbot, should draw up a list of those fitted to deliver sermons, and any who did not comply were to be deprived of the solace of recreation in the conventual hall or the abbot’s chamber. All should be punished in proportion to their excesses: those who were not solemn and devout in choir should be beaten, and also those who showed themselves impatient or rebellious, while if they persevered in their contumacy from the sin of pride they should be punished for a grave fault, and ultimately, if this behaviour was sustained or recurrent, should be expelled, lest they infect the whole community. The prior, subprior and other officials should not henceforth choose their own associates, since this made it easier for them to slip into slothful habits so that they did not serve, as they should, as a mirror of true observance. The president of the chapter should at least once a day visit all the sick monks and ensure that delicacies were provided for them to build up their health, and an infirmarer should be appointed to tend them. N o professed monk was to keep hunting dogs in the abbey or the granges, under the penalties for proprieta, unless he had licence from the abbot. The alms customarily given at the great gate should not be diminished, but should be distributed at suitable times according to the means of the house.

Over a century intervenes before the next recorded visitation in 1394 by Herman, abbot of Stratford, appointed visitor of Cistercian houses in the

l 9 Reg. fos. 75v-76v. These injunctions are described as issued by John, abbot of Beaulieu, but

2o Reg. fos. 76v-78~. Abbot Denis lived to 1280 (F. Hockey, Bcaulcm: KingJohn’s Abbty (Beaulieu, 1976). p. 105).

109

province of Canterbury by the general chapter established to regulate the affairs of the English monasteries during the Great Schism.*’ He first made an urgent appeal for charity, which appeared to him to have perished at Hailes, and begged the brethren to abandon the malice which fermented among them, forbidding them to revile each other, especially in the presence of laymen, or to make public anything which might bring discredit to the order. Any monk who maliciously disparaged one of his brethren, or reproached him for some fault for which he had made amendment, should be beaten in chapter on three days, and for a month should be last in all things. Those things which had to be corrected in chapter should be corrected charitably, but any monk who was contemptuous towards the president should be cast into prison. Any monk on whom a penance was imposed should not engage in any secular business on that day, but should remain in the cloister and attend all the hours, unless dispensed by the president. The performance of the Office drew forth some of the criticisms made a century earlier: the singing in church should be more decorous and less hasty, to the greater glory of God and such that the devotion of those of the laity attending might be increased. The daily mass of the Blessed Virgin was not being sung every day, as it should be, and the precentor was ordered to appoint a monk in priest’s orders to celebrate this mass on a weekly rota. At the conclusion of every service the monks should come from both sides of the choir to genuflect before the high altar. The prior and subprior should set an example by frequent attendance in church, and they should not leave until the service was over; moreover, unless absolutely imperative, they should not both be away from the convent at the same time, lest discipline suffer. All should rise together for the night office, both because of the merits of the exercise and to avoid accusations of favouritism, unless any were sick or overcome by particularly heavy labour the previous day. The prior and the subprior were ordered to have the cloister cleared of nettles and other weeds, so that what at present looked shameful might become a thing of beauty.

During the time set aside for reading, all should remain in the cloister: those who had little understanding of them should study the usages of the order, so that they might comprehend the observances to which they were bound, while those of more mature intellect should read other books. Any who left the cloister by the door during this time should be beaten in chapter, any who left by any other way should be treated as those taken in carnal sin. Silence was not being strictly observed, and those infringing this statute must be punished. Those who for recreation dined in the abbot’s chamber or the conventual hall were not to absent themselves on this pretext from collation and compline, and were enjoined to avoid useless gossiping, excessive drinking and other inanities, on pain of deprivation of all recreation for a month. None should eat or drink anywhere in the monastery except in those places sanctioned by the uses of the order. None should sit down to eat dressed except in their habit, unless they were ill, and immediately after their meal they should say grace, unless this had to be postponed out of reverence for distinguished guests. There had been complaints that food and clothing were not provided in the proper quantities, and the abbot was ordered to make provision to his monks according to the faculties of the house, giving to each fair measure so that he could fulfil the observances of the order without murmuring.

It was ordered that all the monks should sleep together in the dormitory rather than in private chambers, but that no secular should be admitted there,

Reg. fos. 81v-84. For the circumstances of his appointment, see R. Graham, ‘The Great Schism and the English monasteries ofthe Cistercian order’, Eng. Hist. Rev . , xliv (igzg), 373-87.

T H E C A S E O F H A I L E S A B B E Y

1 1 0 C I S T E R C I A N V I S I T A T I O N I N T H E LATE M I D D L E A G E S :

lest the simplicity of the bedding be held to ridicule. Neither should any secular be invited to dine regularly in the convent, unless some very great advantage to the cornlnunity would come from this, and then provided that he was a man of good repute, in case anything happened at table which could detract from the honour of the order. The cellarer was commanded not to allow any capricious women horn his workforce to reside in the gatehouse, and if they had to enter the monastery, they should leave again as swiftly as possible. Finally, the visitor noted a custom contrary to the Rule and to good monastic observance, whereby a sick monk after his convalescence remained for a further eight or ten days in the infirmar).: he ordered the prior to ensure that in future such a monk should be compelled to rejoin the convent as soon as he was fit, and if he stubbornly refused to obey he should not be given bread, beer or any other food until he complied, when h t should be punished for his disobedience.

Four \rc'ars later, in 1398, the abbot of Beaulieu still needed to emphasize the rieed tor better attendance in the conventual church, and stipulated that n o other husiness than the service of God should be transacted there.22 The injunctions relating to silence and the reading period were reiterated. The visitor ordered that a keeper o f the vestry should be appointed by the abbot, with the advice of the seniors, and that as previously decreed he should have all the revenues of the parish churches of Rodbourne and North Leigh with which to provide clothing tor the monks tvhen i t was needed. It' in 1394 the visitor had criticized excessive use of t h r infirmary, now it appears to have ceased functioning, for the father abbot decreed that more adequate provision should be made for the sick, and that within a fortnight the abbot should appoint a God-fearing and mature monk a j infirrnarer. As soon as i t became evident that a monk was so ill that he could n o t live the communal life, the infirmarer should put all else aside and dttend to him, providing a quiet chamber in the infirmary and making every other provision. The abbot and cellarer should ensure that nutritious and tempting food was provided, and the infirmarer might eat with the patient, \ \ . ho rn h r should assist in the recital of the Office.

BefoIc his departure for Rome, probably in 1437, Abbot William Henley on 1 7 Septrmber in full chapter laid down ordinances for the government of the house dur-ing hi5 The prio], John Alcester, was to have full control of the ifd11liIlistr-ation, and two monks were appointed as his associates, together u.ith one layinan, probably the seneschal of the abbey. The keys of the treasury ;irid of'the great chest within i t were distributed among the prior and three senior ino11ks. i'arious ordinances were made for the conduct of church, refectory and tloi~unitoi-\, which was to be locked immediately after compline. The abbot was par-ticulai-I)- conscious of tire hazards: the subprior was ordered to keep watch uiitil thr eighth hour to see that all lights were under conti-ol. and thereafter no iiioiili was to have a lighted candle beside his bed. Perhaps realizing that his Iiotrsc. opcu i o ci-iticisni, Henley \\as particularly insistent o n the exclusion of \ \ ' ( J l l l t ~ l l : fir o d e r e d that those women now in their minorityz4 should be 1(mio\( , [ l t r . o i i i t h r abbey I)! Mi(-haelmas, and that neither they nor any other i \ ~ ) i ~ i c i i thr-ough \+.horn scandal might arise were henceforth to be admitted; ttiosr who r-ccei\.ed dole from the conventual kitchen were henceforth not to be ; t l l o t + d inside, but should congregate at the door of the abbot's kitchen, where

l 2 Rcp t ( i \ ~ C J - C J I \

23 R r g t o $ . 79-81. Ttw o i -d i~~a~ ices arc not dafed. but Henley was prohably in Rome in 1438. when , , I I ~u Auy. Pope Eugcriius I \ . granted an indulsenc-e to all those visiting thr abbry at spec-ified times

!' 'vidcli<.(,i m n o i n 5 rtati\'-a strange phrarc which suggests that girls had been taken in as ( . ' u i r r i d t i r o / ~ ~ p a l L e l l r r i 1 4 9 1 - 4 7 . p. 381.

l>oardr i \.

T H E C A S E O F H A I L E S A B B E Y 1 1 1

distribution would be made; no woman should be allowed to stay the night, except the monks’ mothers and sisters if they had travelled a long distance. Any monk who introduced or consented to the introduction of a woman in suspicious circumstances was ips0 facto excommunicate, and if any genuinely desired conversation with some woman, he should introduce her into the conventual hall and talk with her in the presence of the prior or one deputed by him.

The fullest record of any visitation in the register is that of 1442, conducted by the abbot of Beaulieu is conjunction with John, abbot of Waverley, reformer of the order. After Abbot Henley’s return from Rome, grave dissension had arisen between him and the prior, who was supported by a group of senior monks. The visitors arrived on 15 July and began to interview the brethren ind iv id~a l ly :~~ the testimony against the abbot was reduced to a series of articles, which he denied. The charges were then read out, and it was asked if anyone was willing to substantiate them. There were twenty-three articles of accusation, but only three monks came forward and stated that they would prove nine of these. When the appointed hour came, they had no witnesses and were not able to prosecute their case; they requested an adjournment, but the abbot objected and said that he would prove that they were both ungovernable and slanderers, and also stated that he would prove the accusations he had already made against the prior, subprior and cellarer. When the hearing began, both sides offered what they considered to be proof, which for the most part was nothing of the sort in law, and the visitors exhorted them to come to a mutual reconciliation, and to demonstrate that they were intent on prosecuting vices rather than persons. They swiftly composed their differences, gave each other the kiss of peace and submitted to correction, but each side pleaded that the visitors would not enforce the full rigour of the law upon their erstwhile opponents. They acceded to these entreaties, on condition that if the abbot transgressed the visitors’ ordinances or was found to be culpable or recidivist in those matters with which he had been charged, the brethren who had complained against him were to be free to reinitiate their action, and on receipt of charges in writing, the visitors would return; if any of the brethren infringed the ordinances, they were to be deemed guilty of ungovernable behaviour and of conspiracy.

On the final day of the visitation, 20 July, the abbot of Waverley, by the authority granted to him to dispense in cases reserved to the general chapter, granted dispensation ad cautelam, at his petition, to Prior John Alcester.*‘j In view of his good fame throughout the order, the abbot ordered that nobody should accuse him of any crime committed before this date from which dispensation pertained to the general chapter, but should accept that he was eligible for promotion even to abbatial office. The visitors then proceeded to issue their injunctions, which were to be read every month in chapter until the next vi~itation.~’ Many of the previous monitions relating to the observance and discipline of the house were once more repeated. In addition, it was decreed that every monk should confess at least once a week, and if he was a priest should celebrate mass at least three times a week; those ministering at the altar should, except during a requiem mass, take communion. Neither the abbot nor the monks should frequent taverns, unless perhaps they were obliged to go with a guest. Good food and clothing should be provided, and especial attention should be paid to food for the sick and that to be consumed on fast days. Twice

25 Reg. fos. 30v-3~. 26 Reg. fos. 35v-46. 2 7 Reg. fos. 8 IV-84.

1 1 2 C I S T E R C I A N V I S I T A T I O N I N T H E L A T E MIDDLE A G E S :

o r three times a week, if the abbot granted permission, the prior or one deputed by him might lead the convent out into the fields, where the monks might take recreation in a manner seemly for religious, but nobody should separate himself from the main body, and especially they should not enter taverns or the town.

Further injunctions were primarily directed against the abbot. He should, in recognition of his age, seniority, sanctity and record of public service allow the prior to si t beside him at meals (as was the custom in the most notable religious houses of England) except when the deference due to guests prevented this. He was prohibited. on pain of excommunication, from punishing or harassing any of. the brethren for anything that had happened during the visitation, and under the same penalty was admonished riot to fall into error in respect of any of the charges which had been laid against him. He should not have any suspicious relationship with women or bring them into private places within the monastery, nor should he go drinking and gossiping in taverns; especially he should not reproach and revile the monks for their faults in the audience of seculars. He should immediately remove his senant Thomas Apperley and his wife, and if possible he should also remove Robert Butler, the warden of the hospice outside thr abbey gates. By Michaelmas he should present his accounts for the previous year to the seniors, and he should immediately appoint two bursars who were to account for the monastic revenues, giving up to them one of the keys of the treasury, after a check to ensure that none of the valuables was missing and the compilation of an inventory. He was to attend to all necessary repairs, both within and outside the monastery. under threat of the usual penalties for dilapidation. All the monks, however, were ordered to show due reverence to the abbot, and not contumaciously to oppose him. The attempts of the visitors to restore amity bvithin the abbey were not whoIly successful, since five years later, in 1447, Brother William Elmeley, one of Henley's accusers, complained to the pope that aftel- having lived in the community in a laudable fashion for many years. he had been imprisoned by the abbot and convent without reasonable Cause as an evildoer, until a year ago he had been rescued by his friends: papal niandatur-ies werr ordered to investigate and if feasible to order the abbot to rest ore h im . 28

Interspersed with the visitation material in the register is a small group of (iocunients concerned with dispensations and their regulation, a matter of constant concern to Cistercian abhots and visitors. Two papal bulls were transcribed, one of Clement IV inyalidating any privileges obtained contrary to the statutes of' the order,2g the other of Gregory XI subjecting those religious who had obtained papal chaplaincies to the correction of their superiors.s0 The forms o f dispensations granted by various authorities were enregistered. Brother John of Cloucester, in consideration of his past good services and because he was now old and infirm, was granted a private chamber for the duration of his life, ancl his abbot's grant was confirmed by the v i ~ i t o r . ~ ' In 1461 Humbert, abbot of Citeaux, granted David Wynchconibe. monk of Hailes, out of consideration for his ailments, dispensation to wear linen, with faculty to transmit the same pri\ilegc> to three others, at his d i s c r e t i o ~ i . ~ ~ The case of Brother John de Oxford, apostate monk of Bruern, illustrates the application of Benedict XII's bull Pastor honuj:33 t he abbot of Hailes was ordered by the abbot of Waverley, papal

Cui Papal Leffprj 144:-55, pp. 307-8. '' Reg. f < J . b y \ . "' Reg. to. h i \ .

Reg. fo. y Y . Reg. to. 4 j v .

'' Rrg. to. 33.

T H E C A S E O F H A I L E S A B B E Y 1 13

commissary, to ensure that the fugitive was restored to his former status in his community, or else to obtain letters commendatory from his abbot so that he might migrate to another Cistercian house. In 1461 the abbot of Fountains, as reformer, delegated to the abbot of Hailes the faculty to dispense and rehabilitate twelve members of the order in cases reserved to the general ~hapter .~‘ Of particular significance in 1480 was the memorandum of a papal indult to a Cistercian monk to hold a benefice with cure of souls, for in that year the new abbot was complaining to the abbot of Citeaux and to the general chapter against John Bristol, prior of Hades, who also held a rectory. He was never in the cloister, relied on the influence of his kinsmen to oppose the abbot and claimed to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the order.35

It is indeed rare to obtain a sustained view of the internal life of an English Cistercian monastery in the late middle ages, and these documents are comparable in significance to the splendid series of Lincoln visitations of non- exempt houses, if narrower in scope.s6 Hades may, perhaps, be taken as a typical Cistercian abbey. If there are constant references to financial difficultiess7 and to relaxations of the Rule, and indications of tensions within the community, there was no great crisis which attracted the attention of the general chapter or the English Crown, as at Fountains, Meaux and St. Mary Graces in the early fifteenth century, Quarr in the fourteen-seventies or Thame in the fifteen-twentie~.~~ If judged by the standards of Citeaux, Clairvaux or Rievaulx in the twelfth century, the quality of religious observance which is suggested by the injunctions was lamentable. Liturgical observance had become for many a chore, laxity was common in the exercise of many offices, the presence of the laity, even of women, in the vicinity of the convent was taken for granted. The ideal of the desert had little meaning, and the best that could be done was to regulate the ill-effects caused by these extraneous elements. Yet there is no evidence of flagrant immorality, and the injunctions reveal a serious concern to eliminate any suspicion of such

The prevailing impression must be one of the conscientious efforts of the visitors, both father abbots and those appointed by the general chapter, to search out faults in every aspect of the religious life and to apply practical remedies. If their main concern was for the performance of the liturgy and for major disciplinary matters, nothing was too trivial for their consideration-the type of crop to be grown, the regulation of library loans, the weeding of the cloister. They were constantly anxious to preserve the reputation of the order as a whole, by maintaining the level of almsgiving in an impoverished house as much as by excluding laymen from the refectory and dormitory. The decrees of 1394 and 1398 relating to the infirmary illustrate an admirable balance between zeal for sound discipline and charitable concern for the sick.

Many of the injunctions, however, would have been unnecessary in a well- regulated community, and the efforts of the visitors could not compensate for deficiencies in the superior and in the seniors. Decisive action was taken at Buckfast in 1 4 2 2 to rescue the convent from the foibles of an apparently senile abbot, and at Hailes in 1442 the visitors not only obtained a superficial

” Reg. fo. 46v. 95 Reg. fo. 67; Leftersfromthe English Abbofs, pp. 77-8;Stduta,v. 404: 1480, cap. 37. 36 Vzsitattons o/Relzgzous Houses in the Diocese ofltnroln, 1410-49 [Canterbury and York Soc.. xvii, xxiv,

xxuiii, 1g15-z71, and Visifations in the Diocese ofLincoln, 1517-31 (Lincoln Record Soc.. xxxiii. xxxv, xxwvii, 1940-7). both ed. A. H. Thompson.

’’ V.C.H. Glos., ii. 96-9. Jacob; S. F. Hockey, Quarr Abbey andits Lands, 11j3-16j1 (Leicester. 1970). pp. 153-5; G . C.

Perry. ‘The visitation of the monastery ofTharne, 1526’ , Eng. Hist. Rev., i i i (18881, 704-22 .

114 CISTERCIAN V I S I T A T I O N I N T H E LATE M I D D L E A G E S

reconciliation. but established the mechanism for their immediate recall if the situation again deteriorated. Yet perhaps the dissension in 1442 was the result of the tendency in late medieval monasticism for the superior to become divorced horn thc community, and of Abbot Henley’s resistance to this trend. His employnient on judicial commissions in houses not affiliated to Hailes suggests that he was respected in the English province. In 1366 the papal penitentiary had authorized the claustral prior of Hailes, after hearing their confessions, to absolve the monks and impose salutary penance, except in major matters such as carrying arms. shedding blood, conspiracy and all other matters reserved to the apostolic see.sq This concession was symptomatic of governmental reality in many houses, and it is notable that Henley quarrelled primarily with those to whoni the adniinistration was normally delegated. Very many of the visitatorial injunctions were directed to the prior and subprior, who it was expected would enforce them, rattier than to the abbot, who increasingly appears almost as an external authority, to whom is granted faculty to dispense from the visitors’ decrees. An abbot, however, who had allowed the situation to develop where such injunctions were necessary was perhaps not suited to have such discretion- ary powers, which in the hands of a weak ruler could render ineffective any annual attempt at reform.

C H R I S T O P H E R H A R P E R - B I L L

Henry VII and Edward, Duke ofBuckingham: the Repression oj-an ‘Over-mighty Subject’

R E C E S T R E S E A R C H has done much to illustrate the ways in which Henry VII succeeded in binding almost all the great magnates and many other important public figures by heavy recognizances for debt. Not only did this system permit the Crown to extort disproportionate sums from those who infringed established teudal principles; it could also be used to place influential offenders financially and legally in the king’s power. Edward Stafford, 3rd duke of Buckingham, one of’ the richest and potentially the most dangerous of Henry’s subjects, was a particular victim of’this policy. So great were his losses that in 1515 he submitted a petition for redress to the king’s executors, itemizing in some detail the ways in which Henry VII had demanded money from him. This document, which has hitherto been largely ignored by historians of the early Tudor period, shows how systematic Henry VII could be in the exploitation of his rights, and merits further consideration.’

Despite the presence of Edmund Dudley and Robert Empson on his council, Buckingham found it impossible to escape the attention of their royal master, whose motives were as much politicai as financial. The duke’s father had been executed in 1483 after an unsuccessful rebellion which, although ostensibly mounted in favour of the young Henry Tudor, served to prejudice the Staffords’ subsequent relations with the Crown. That the ond duke had secretly intended to

l9 Reg. lor. 26v-27. Although cited in The Marrhtr Lordrhpr o / S a ~ t h Waft$. 1419-1536, comp. T. B. Pugh (Cardiff,

1963). pp. 242-3. Buckingham’s petition is not considered by either J. Lander in ‘Bonds, coercion and fear: Henq VII and the peerage’, Flarelrpnr H u t d : EJSCZYS p e m t e d to W&t K. Fmguson, ed. J . G. Row and W. H . Stockdale (Toronto, 1971). pp. $77-67, or S. 8 . Chimes in Hnnp VfI (1~7s). pp. P I 2-13. where Henq Vll’s policy towards the nobility is treated in some derail.