[1953]p. 268.
[1954]p. 412.
[1955]p. 293.
[1956]p. 431.
[1957]pp. 472, 517, 564.
[1958]pp. 170, 187, 522 (St Saëns); 201, 326, 401, 512 (St Amand); 298, 348, 455 (Bondeville); 73, 220, 305 (St Sauveur); 117, 146 (Bival); 199, 296 (St Désir de Lisieux); 295-6, 592 (St Léger de Préaux); 402 (Villarceaux); 412 (St Aubin).
[1959]SeeRule of St Benedict, tr. Gasquet, pp. 95-6: “When receiving new clothes the monks shall always give back the old ones at the same time, to be put away in the clothes room for the poor. For it is sufficient that a monk have two cowls, as well for night wear as for the convenience of washing. Anything else is superfluous and must be cut off.”
[1960]pp. 384, 517, 564 (Montivilliers); 295 (St Léger de Préaux); 62 (St Désir de Lisieux); 220, 305 (St Sauveur).
[1961]p. 512.
[1962]p. 305.
[1963]pp. 44-5.
[1964]“Abbatissa dat cuilibet moniali per annum xii solidos pro vestibus tantummodo, et singule earum provident sibi de residuo.” p. 339; cf. p. 299. Cf. also Almenèches in 1250, p. 82.
[1965]p. 384.
[1966]p. 207.
[1967]p. 82.
[1968]p. 550.
[1969]p. 587.
[1970]p. 615.
[1971]pp. 62, 199, 296.
[1972]p. 100.
[1973]pp. 115, 273, 285. Cf. injunctions to Villarceaux in 1249, quoted above.
[1974]p. 82.
[1975]Cf. the case of Johanna Martel at St Saëns, p, 338, quoted below, p.668.
[1976]p. 235
[1977]p. 374.
[1978]pp. 384, 431, 472, 517, 564. In 1260 the injunction was: “Item quod omnes sane insimul comederent; item inhibuimus ne in refectorio per conventicula et colligationes comederent sed sederent in mensis indifferenter et escis communibus vescerentur” (p. 384).
[1979]pp. 170, 380, 522.
[1980]pp. 60, 197, 295.
[1981]p. 146.
[1982]p. 572.
[1983]p. 220.
[1984]pp. 111, 217, 571. The oven room of St Amand was looked after by a lay brother, p. 588.
[1985]p. 73.
[1986]p. 82.
[1987]p. 111. “Quod moniales non vendant nec distrahant filum etlor fusees.”
[1988]pp. 202, 283, 326, 401, 456, 486, 512, 588 (St Amand); 73, 624 (St Sauveur); 518 (Montivilliers); 451 (St Saëns); 534 (Villarceaux).
[1989]Ancren Riwle, tr. Gasquet, p. 318.
[1990]The custom of depositing valuables in a monastery for safety was very general. Caesarius of Heisterbach has an entertaining anecdote on the point: “A certain usurer committed a large sum of his money to a certain cellarer of our order to be kept for him. The monk sealed it up and put it in a safe place together with the money belonging to the monastery. Afterwards the usurer came to ask for his deposit, but when the cellarer opened the chest, he found neither that nor his own money. And when he beheld that the locks of the chest were intact and the seals of the bags unbroken and that there was no suspicion of theft, he understood that the money of the usurer had eaten up the money of the monastery.” Caes. of Heist.,Dial. Mirac.ed. Strange (1851),I, p. 108. For another example of goods being deposited for safety in a nunnery seeV.C.H. Herts.IV, p. 431 (note 40). A certain Joan Sturmyn entrusted goods to the value of £50 to the keeping of Alice Wafer, Prioress of St Mary de Pré (near St Albans), which afterwards gave rise to a case in chancery, 1480-5.
[1991]Coulton,Monastic Schools in the Middle Ages(Medieval Studies, No. 10) quoting from Martène,Thesaurus,IV, col. 175, §IV.
[1992]See references to convent schools by Gerson and by Erasmus quoted in Coulton,op. cit.pp. 22-3, note 17.
[1993]Or grandnieces (nepotulas).
[1994]p. 217.
[1995]p. 298.
[1996]p. 410.
[1997]p. 571.
[1998]p. 615.
[1999]Coulton,op. cit.p. 5.
[2000]p. 282.
[2001]p. 324.
[2002]p. 572.
[2003]p. 602.
[2004]p. 380.
[2005]p. 419.
[2006]p. 412: “Item ne pueros admitterent ad nutriendum.”
[2007]p. 146.
[2008]p. 486.
[2009]p. 60.
[2010]p. 220.
[2011]p. 305.
[2012]pp. 610, 636.
[2013]pp. 43, 44.
[2014]pp. 115, 207, 255, 283, 319.
[2015]p. 361.
[2016]pp. 412, 471, 550, 587.
[2017]p. 310.
[2018]p. 338.
[2019]p. 380.
[2020]p. 419.
[2021]pp. 451, 491.
[2022]pp. 201, 285.
[2023]p. 486.
[2024]p. 512.
[2025]p. 588.
[2026]p. 281.
[2027]p. 323.
[2028]p. 571.
[2029]pp. 44, 572.
[2030]p. 207.
[2031]p. 564.
[2032]pp. 43, 82, 146, 348.
[2033]pp. 348, 410.
[2034]p. 117.
[2035]p. 146.
[2036]pp. 146, 207, 220, 235, 255, 283, 305, 319, 348, 419, 624, 636.
[2037]pp. 43, 207, 255, 283, 305.
[2038]pp. 43, 326.
[2039]p. 117.
[2040]p. 348.
[2041]p. 220.
[2042]pp. 43, 117, 220, 235, 268, 486, 491, 534, 550.
[2043]p. 587.
[2044]p. 44.
[2045]p. 285.
[2046]pp. 43, 197, 296, 338, 348, 374, 380, 419, 451, 455, 486, 491, 534, 591, 624.
[2047]p. 187 (1254); in 1259 it is again complained that the nuns stay for a long time when they have licence to go outside and on three other occasions it is noted that the nuns go out alone; in 1262 a penance was enjoined on the Prioress for allowing one nun to do so. See pp. 338, 380, 419, 451, 491.
[2048]p. 197.
[2049]p. 295.
[2050]p. 591.
[2051]p. 298; cf. p. 455.
[2052]p. 281; cf. pp. 146, 486, 588.
[2053]pp. 293, 517.
[2054]p. 587.
[2055]p. 412.
[2056]p. 471.
[2057]See above, pp.542ff.
[2058]p. 44.
[2059]p. 166.
[2060]p. 197.
[2061]p. 261.
[2062]p. 384.
[2063]pp. 431, 517.
[2064]p. 486.
[2065]See above p.311and E. K. Chambers,The Medieval Stage,I, ch.XV,passim.
[2066]p. 73.
[2067]pp. 305, 624.
[2068]p. 295.
[2069]p. 95.
[2070]p. 201.
[2071]p. 602; compare a similar case at Legbourne, above, p.412.
[2072]p. 43.
[2073]pp. 518, 564.
[2074]p. 16.
[2075]pp. 73, 207, 220, 305, 624.
[2076]Montaiglon,Recueil de Poésies Françoises des XVIeet XVIIesiècles, t.VIII, pp. 171, 173.
[2077]pp. 43-4.
[2078]But a better example of his wit is shown in his repartee to another’s pun, quoted in Coulton,A Medieval Garner, p. 289. “A clerical buffoon once ventured to ask him across the table, ‘What is the difference, my lord, betwixtRigaudandRibaud[rascal]?’ ‘Only this board’s breadth,’ replied the Archbishop.” The jest is however widespread,mutatis mutandis, in the east as well as in the west. It is told of one John Scot, ‘What difference is there between sot and scot?’ ‘Just the breadth of the table.’Calendar of Jests, Epigrams, Epitaphs etc.(Edinburgh 1753); it also occurs in Gladwin’sPersian Moonsheeand in several Indian collections offacetiae. W. A. Clouston,Popular Tales and Fictions(1887)I, p. 51.
[2079]p. 207.
[2080]p. 146.
[2081]p. 207.
[2082]p. 338.
[2083]p. 522.
[2084]p. 82.
[2085]p. 326.
[2086]p. 456.
[2087]p. 638.
[2088]See pp.645-6, above.
[2089]Reg.p. 348.
[2090]p. 199.
[2091]p. 575. Cf. the case of the Priory of Couz, when it was visited in 1283 by Simon of Beaulieu, Archbishop of Bourges. Baluze,Miscellanea,I, 281.
[2092]pp. 43-4. Notice the disjointed character of the report and the repetition of charges, e.g. against Johanna ofAlto Villari(who is probably the same as Johanna ofAululari) the cellaress and the Prioress. This probably indicates that it is a verbatim report of evidence taken down from the lips of the nuns, as they came before the Archbishop.
[2093]pp. 44-5.
[2094]p. 117.
[2095]p. 82.
[2096]p. 6.
[2097]p. 207.
[2098]p. 268.
[2099]p. 207.
[2100]A similar charge was made at the convent of St Saëns in 1264 where scandal imputed to Nicholaa, a notoriously immoral nun, “quod ipsa nondum erat mensis elapsus fecerat abortivum”; but the Archbishop apparently disbelieved the charge. p. 491. See p.669, below.
[2101]p. 255.
[2102]p. 283.
[2103]p. 412.
[2104]p. 471.
[2105]p. 500.
[2106]It is noticeable how often in these visitations the nuns are reported to have been led astray by priests; but when one considers the character borne by many of the parochial and other clergy of the diocese, as it is recorded in the Register, this is hardly surprising.
[2107]pp. 550, 587.
[2108]p. 587.
[2109]p. 619.
[2110]p. 187.
[2111]p. 338.
[2112]See above, p.667, note 6.
[2113]p. 491.
[2114]p. 522.
[2115]p. 566.
[2116]p. 598.
[2117]Or rather on loose sheets, which were not intended for official preservation and have survived only by accident.
[2118]I.e. abbot. These German Augustinians never used the termabbas, but usedpraepositusinstead.
[2119]Des Augustinerpropstes Iohannes Busch Chronicon Windeshemense und Liber de Reformatione Monasteriorum... bearbeitet v. Dr Karl Grube (Hist. Com. der Provinz. Sachsen.Halle, 1886).
[2120]The nunneries dealt with by Busch are the following (A. = Austin, B. = Benedictine, C. = Cistercian, M.M. = penitentiary order of St Mary Magdalen, following the Cistercian rule): (1) Wennigsen (S. of Hanover, dioc. Minden, A.); (2) Mariensee (N. of Hanover, dioc. Minden, C.); (3) Barsinghausen (S. of Hanover, dioc. Minden, A.); (4) Marienwerder (N. of Hanover, dioc. Minden, A.); (5) St George, or Marienkammer (in Glaucha, a suburb of Halle, dioc. Magdeburg, C.); (6) Magdalenenkloster, Hildesheim (dioc. Hildesheim, M.M.); (7) Derneburg (W. of Hildesheim, dioc. Hildesheim, A.); (8) Escherde (S.W. of Hildesheim, B.); (9) Heiningen (in Hanover, between Wolfenbüttel and Goslar, dioc. Hildesheim, A.); (10) Stederburg (near Brunswick, dioc. Hildesheim, A.); (11) Frankenburg (in Goslar, dioc. Hildesheim, M.M.); (12) Kloster zum hl. Kreuze (Holy Cross) or Neuwerk, Erfurt (dioc. Mainz, A.); (13) St Cyriac’s in Erfurt (dioc. Mainz, B.); (14) Weissfrauenkloster (White Ladies) in Erfurt (dioc. Mainz, M.M.); (15) St Martin’s in Erfurt (dioc. Mainz, C.); (16) Marienberg (near Helmstedt, dioc. Halberstadt, A.); (17) Marienborn (near Helmstedt, dioc. Halberstadt, A.); (18) Weinhausen (near Lüneburg, dioc. Hildesheim, C.); (19) Weissfrauenkloster (White Ladies) in Magdeburg (dioc. Magdeburg, M.M.); (20) Wülfinghausen (near Wittenberg, dioc. Hildesheim, A.); (21) Fischbeck (near Rinteln on the Weser, in Hessen-Nassau, dioc. Minden, A.); (22) Dorstadt (near Wolfenbüttel, dioc. Hildesheim, A.); (23) Stendal (in the mark of Brandenburg, A.). Also (24) Bewerwijk in N. Holland (Franciscan tertiaries), and (25) Segeberchhus in Lübeck, both houses of lay sisters.
[2121]But seeLiber, pp. 600, 637, 640.
[2122]Liber, p. 580.
[2123]Liber, p. 591.
[2124]Ib.p. 610. For interesting lists of money and goods put into common stock by Busch see also pp. 614, 616, 617, 633.
[2125]Ib.pp. 633-4.
[2126]Ib.p. 633.
[2127]Ib.pp. 571-2.
[2128]Seeib.pp. 572, 591.
[2129]Liber, pp. 573-4. Compare the exertions of Berthold, Prior of Sülte, to provide the poor nuns of Heiningen with sufficient stores of food and to pay off their debts,ib.pp. 601-2; see also, p. 599.
[2130]Ib.p. 614.
[2131]Ib.p. 582.
[2132]Ib.p. 643.
[2133]Ib.p. 614.
[2134]Ib.p. 567.
[2135]Liber, pp. 582-3; compare pp. 603, 638.
[2136]Ib.p. 639.
[2137]Ib.p. 633.
[2138]Liber, p. 587.
[2139]Ib.p. 599.
[2140]Ib.p. 617. Compare Marienwerder,ib.pp. 567-8.
[2141]Ib.pp. 630-2.
[2142]Ib.p. 642.
[2143]Liber, p. 581.
[2144]Ib.pp. 615, 652-3. But thepraepositusof Erfurt, when he saw the result of the reforms, was delighted and thanked Busch.
[2145]Liber, pp. 555-62.
[2146]Liber, pp. 562-5.
[2147]Seeib.pp. 591-7.
[2148]Liber, pp. 575-6.
[2149]Ib.p. 589.
[2150]Liber, pp. 597-8.
[2151]Ib.pp. 580, 607, 612, 619, 628, 631, 635, 642, 649, 651.
[2152]Ib.pp. 618-22.
[2153]Liber, pp. 622-7.
[2154]Liber, pp. 624-5.
[2155]Ib.p. 625. For the learning of reformed nuns, see pp. 576, 607, 642.
[2156]See e.g.ib.pp. 585-6, 636, 640.
[2157]Ib.p. 596.
[2158]In course of publication, edited by Mr A. Hamilton Thompson. The printed portion is cited in the text asLinc. Visit.II, and the unprinted portion asAlnwick’s Visit. MS.
[2159]Bishop Lowth says: “This MS. belonged to Wykeham himself, for the injunctions are the original drafts corrected. It came afterwards into the hands of Robert Shirborn, Master of St Cross Hospital, afterwards Bishop of Chichester.” It contains a long series of documents relating to a controversy between the Bishop and the masters of St Cross Hospital and injunctions sent to the Cathedral Church of Winchester, the monasteries of Hyde, Merton, Romsey and Wherwell, and the Hospital of St Thomas the Martyr, Southwark, covering the years 1386 and 1387. It is of the highest interest and should certainly be published. My thanks are due to Dr Moyle, Bursar of New College, for permission to transcribe the injunctions sent to the two nunneries.
[2160]Foreign books mentioned only in ch.XIIIare not included here.